# dafyomi

lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) POURING WINE ON THE FIRE OF THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes two Beraisos which seem to contradict each other. One Beraisa states that when a person donates an offering of oil (in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Tarfon that an oil-offering may be donated), the oil is poured onto the fire on the Mizbe'ach. A second Beraisa states that when a person donates an offering of wine, the wine may not be poured onto the fire of the Mizbe'ach because (according the Girsa of the <b>TZON KODASHIM</b>) of the prohibition of 'Lo Sichbeh' -- 'the fire on the Mizbe'ach shall not be extinguished' (Vayikra 6:5), which prohibits extinguishing the fire and coals of the Mizbe'ach. One Beraisa seems to maintain that one may pour a liquid onto the Mizbe'ach, even though it will cause the fire to become extinguished (in whole or in part), while the other Beraisa seems to maintain that this is permitted.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the two Beraisos are indeed arguing, and they are expressing the opinions of two different Tana'im. The first Beraisa is expressing the view of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' is permitted. A Davar she'Eino Miskaven is an act that is done for a certain permitted purpose, but which <i>may</i> result in an inadvertent act of transgression. Since the purpose of pouring the wine on the Mizbe'ach is in order to offer the wine as a Korban, and one does not have intention to extinguish the fire, one does not transgress the prohibition of 'Lo Sichbeh.' The second Beraisa is expressing the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that a Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden. Even though the purpose of pouring the wine is to offer a Korban, if the act results -- even inadvertently -- in a forbidden consequence (the fire is extinguished), then it is forbidden.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ha Rebbi Shimon) has difficulty with this Gemara. Even Rebbi Shimon agrees that when an act is a 'Pesik Reishei' -- an act that will certainly result in a forbidden Melachah being unintentionally performed on Shabbos -- it is forbidden (see Shabbos 103a). Pouring wine on the fire of the Mizbe'ach certainly will extinguish part of the fire. Why, then, does the Gemara say that this act is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> answers that this act is not called a 'Pesik Reishei.' Since it is possible for the Kohen to pour the liquid on the Mizbe'ach in small drops in such a way that it will not affect the fire at all, it is not a 'Pesik Reishei.' Since it is considered a Davar she'Eino Miskaven which is not a 'Pesik Reishei he may pour the liquid on the fire even in large drops. The <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 1:1) writes that Rashi indeed understands that even when one performs a permitted act which definitely will result in a forbidden act being done, if his intent is not for the forbidden act <i>and</i> he is able to avoid the forbidden consequence by doing this same act in a different manner, the act is permitted even in a way that will have a forbidden consequence. For example, according to the Mirkeves ha'Mishneh's understanding of Rashi, in a case in which a person wants to open a door on Shabbos which has a light which goes on when the door is opened at a normal speed but not when it is opened at a slow speed, one may open the door at the normal speed, since he could have opened it at the slow speed (assuming that the person's purpose is to enter the room and not to turn on the light). A similar concept is proposed by the <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> in Shabbos (page 38 of the pages of the Rif, #3), which, the Mirkeves ha'Mishneh says, is consistent with the approach of Rashi. (See <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos, for a different understanding of Rashi.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BARTENURA</b> explains that the reason why the act of pouring wine on the Mizbe'ach is not a 'Pesik Reishei' is that the fire on the Mizbe'ach is strong enough that it might withstand this amount of wine without being extinguished at all.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kesuvos (6a, DH Hai) writes that this Gemara is the primary proof of the <b>ARUCH</b> for his opinion that an act of 'Pesik Reishei' is prohibited only when the person doing the act benefits from the act. If the person does not benefit from the Melachah that inevitably occurs (that is, it is a 'Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei'), then it is considered only a Davar she'Eino Miskaven and is not prohibited. The reason why the Kohen is permitted to pour the liquid on the fire of the Mizbe'ach is that he does not desire the consequence of extinguishing the fire.
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> disagrees with the Aruch and maintains that a 'Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei' is forbidden. How does he understand the Gemara here? Tosfos suggests that when the act of the 'Pesik Reishei' is done for the sake of a Mitzvah, it is permitted, even though it results in a forbidden act being done.
</p><p>
(e) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (103a, DH Lo) suggests other explanations for the Gemara. It is possible that the Gemara is discussing a case in which the Kohen pours the liquid on the Mizbe'ach in small drops, which normally would not extinguish the fire. Similarly, Tosfos suggests that the Kohen poured the liquid on top of the limbs of Korbanos which were on the Mizbe'ach, and there was no fire on top of them at that moment. This act normally would not result in extinguishing the fire, and thus the act is a Davar she'Eino Miskaven if the fire happens to be extinguished. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) TRAPPING A SNAKE ON SHABBOS</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara establishes that the opinion of Shmuel is that of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' is permitted. A Davar she'Eino Miskaven is an act that is done for a certain permitted purpose, but which <i>may</i> result in an inadvertent act of transgression. The Gemara asks that this assertion is not consistent with the position of Shmuel in the case of a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah,' a Melachah that one performs on Shabbos but not for the purpose for which the Melachah is normally done. (For the various definitions of 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah,' see Insights to Shabbos 93:3 and Chagigah 10:2.) Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is Asur mid'Oraisa, and not like Rebbi Shimon, who says that it is Asur mid'Rabanan. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Aval, who asks why the Gemara assumes that the two concepts are interdependent.) The Gemara answers that Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon in the case of a Davar she'Eino Miskaven and like Rebbi Yehudah in the case of a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Melachah) quotes the <b>BEHAG</b> who asks that in Shabbos (3a), Shmuel says that whenever the word 'Patur' ('exempt') is used with regard to the laws of Shabbos it means 'Patur Aval Asur,' one is exempt from punishment, but the act is still prohibited -- except in three cases. The first exception is in the Mishnah in Shabbos (106b) which states that a person is 'Patur' when he sits directly behind another person whose body blocks the doorway of a house in which a deer is confined, and then the first person leaves. Not only is he exempt from punishment, but he is permitted to stay in his position even l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
The second and third exceptions are in the Mishnah in Eduyos (2:5) which states that a person who traps a snake on Shabbos so that it not bite him is 'Patur,' and one who opens a blister on Shabbos in order to let out the puss is 'Patur.' Not only is he exempt from punishment in those cases, but he is permitted to trap the snake and open the blister even l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
The Behag explains that in the last two cases, the reason why the person is exempt is that the Melachah is not done in order to achieve the normal result of the Melachah. (For example, the person who traps the snake is not interested in having the snake itself, but rather his objective is to prevent the snake from harming him.) Since his intention renders his act of trapping into an Isur d'Rabanan according to Rebbi Shimon, it is permitted l'Chatchilah in a situation where the snake might cause serious harm to the person. Similarly, releasing puss from a blister is permitted l'Chatchilah because it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, which is permitted when it prevents or takes away serious pain.
</p><p>
However, this logic is not applicable according to the Gemara here, which says that Shmuel maintains that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is a Torah prohibition, and not only an Isur d'Rabanan. How can Shmuel maintain that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is Asur mid'Oraisa, and at the same time maintain that one is permitted to trap a snake and to release puss from a blister?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that Shmuel indeed maintains that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is a Torah prohibition. When Shmuel in Shabbos says that one is permitted to trap a snake and to open a blister, he does not mean that <i>he</i> permits doing so. Rather, he simply is explaining the intention of the author of the Mishnah in these three cases. According to Tosfos, Shmuel himself rules that one may not trap a snake even to ensure that it does not bite him (unless, of course it is a matter of Piku'ach Nefesh), and one may not open a painful growth of puss.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> mentions that the Behag gives a forced answer. He explains that Shmuel <i>does</i> agree that these three acts are permitted l'Chatchilah. Even though in most cases he rules like Rebbi Yehudah that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is a Torah prohibition, he maintains that when serious pain or the welfare of the public is involved, even a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is permitted. When there is no threat to public welfare, Shmuel rules that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is forbidden mid'Oraisa. Shmuel permits one to extinguish a burning piece of metal, because a burning piece of metal is not easily discernible as being hot, and thus it poses a significant threat to the public welfare. In contrast, he does not permit one to extinguish a burning piece of wood, because people easily avoid such a public hazard. Similarly, Shmuel permits one to trap a snake to prevent it from biting, and to open a painful blister to alleviate the pain. However, without the extenuating factors of danger and pain, he would rule that such acts are forbidden mid'Oraisa because they are a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.
</p><p>
Tosfos does not accept the answer of the Behag, apparently because there is no source to suspend a Torah law, in the laws of Shabbos, for the sole reason of avoiding possible pain, when there is no question of Piku'ach Nefesh.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 10:25) rules like Rebbi Yehudah, that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is forbidden mid'Oraisa. However, he also rules that one is permitted to trap a snake if his intention is to prevent it from biting him. The Rambam's rulings seem contradictory. Many commentators (see <b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> OC 316:19) explain that the Rambam maintains that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that one is permitted to trap a snake to prevent it from causing harm, and the act is not in the category of a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. In order for an act to be classified as a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, the nature of the act must be the same as when it is done l'Gufah, but it is merely being done for a different purpose. In the case of trapping, the nature of the Melachah is to perform an act to confine the animal in order to use it. That is, intrinsic to the act of the Melachah of trapping is the purpose of acquiring the animal for use. Accordingly, an act of trapping which one does because he does <i>not</i> want to keep the animal, but rather he wants the animal to go away, certainly is not included in the Melachah of trapping. Although the method used for getting the snake away from oneself is an act of trapping, since it is done for the opposite purpose of the Melachah it is not considered an act of trapping at all, and it permitted even mid'Rabanan. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WATERING GRASS WITHOUT INTENT <span class='indexentry'>[Davar she'Eino Miskaven: watering]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	91b (Shmuel):</span> A voluntary Korban of wine is sprinkled on the fire (on the Mizbe'ach).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The wine will (partially) extinguish the fire (where it lands). This is forbidden!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Shmuel holds like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven (something he does not intend for).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 75a (Beraisa):</span> If one hunts a Chilazon (a fish whose blood is used to make Techeiles) and bruises (or presses) it with his hands to extract its blood, he is liable only once.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> He should be liable also for killing!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</span> The case is, he bruises it after it died.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rava):</span> We can even say that he bruises it while it was alive. He is Mis'asek regarding killing it (he is engaged in something else).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei (an inevitable result, for it is as if he intended)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Here is different. He prefers that it stay alive, for then the blood makes a clearer dye.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	81b (Rav Huna):</span> On Shabbos, one may not eliminate (move his bowels) in a plowed field (that is ready to be planted).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	We are concerned lest he take (rocks to clean himself) from a high place and return it to a depression. Rabah taught that one is liable for this!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	103a (Beraisa):</span> If one pruned (moist, edible) reeds for people to eat, he is liable for the volume of a fig. If he did so to improve (the ground), he is liable for any amount.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> In any case, he improves the ground!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</span> The Reisha discusses a swamp (there is no benefit from the improvement).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Abaye):</span> It discusses even a field. The case is, he does not intend to improve it (therefore, he is exempt for improving).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei (an inevitable consequence, for it is as if he intended)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> It discusses another's field (the one who pruned does not benefit).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 8:2):</span> Watering vegetation and trees on Shabbos is a Toldah of seeding. One is liable for any amount.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (2):</span> In Mo'ed Katan 2b, we say that one is liable for watering (on Shabbos) both for seeding and for plowing. Therefore, one must be careful not to cast water on vegetation on Shabbos. Even though we hold like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven, R. Shimon admits that a Pesik Reishei is forbidden. Here, it is impossible that they will not grow. Re'em forbids also urinating on them. The Aruch permits a Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei (he does not want the result). If so, one may eat in another's garden, for he does not benefit from the growth. Shabbos 103a supports this. Sefer ha'Terumah says that this is not a proof. Even though he is exempt, it is forbidden! One can distinguish our case (watering) from pruning. I bring a proof for the Aruch from 75a. Here, it (it seems that the Beis Yosef's text said 'wine' - PF) is permitted even in his own garden for it does not help the vegetation grow. Rather, it burns it! Sefer ha'Terumah permitted also urinating, unlike Re'em.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (3, citing Re'em):</span> One must be careful not to cast seeds in a yard in a place where rain falls, for they will ultimately sprout. If he casts to chickens, he must be careful to cast only an amount that they will eat in one or two days. If people walk there, they will not sprout, so it is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tif'eres Yisrael (Kalkalas Shabbos (before Seder Mo'ed), Melachah 1 (Zore'a)):</span> Therefore, one should be careful not to eat Peros or drink in a garden, for it is very hard to beware not to cast seeds or spill drinks there.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (103a DH Lo):</span> The Aruch permits l'Chatchilah to cut Tzara'as along with the foreskin during Bris Milah, for he has no Hana'ah from this. There is no Isur even mid'Rabanan. If a barrel of wine was corked with flax, Rebbi permitted to remove the cork to take wine. Even though it is a Pesik Reishei that he will squeeze the flax, since the wine falls to the ground and he does not benefit from this, it is permitted. I disagree. Bursting a scab to remove the pus would have been forbidden if not to alleviate pain, even though he does not benefit at all from the opening in the scab, and he does not intend for an opening at all. He just wants to puncture it! The Rashba similarly brought that we permit using a needle to remove a thorn (splinter) according to R. Shimon, who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, due to pain. Even though he does not benefit from the wound, it would be forbidden if not for pain. Our Gemara answered that in his Chaver's land he is not Chayav Chatas. It is forbidden. In Zevachim, we say that R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven, permits throwing wine on the Mizbe'ach. He permits in a way that is not a Pesik Reishei, e.g. he throws small drops or on limbs, so it is possible that he will not extinguish. In Sukah (33b), Tana'im argue about whether one may remove berries on myrtle (to make it Kosher). We said that R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon permits when he takes them to eat; Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted. We ask that even R. Shimon forbids a Pesik Reishei, and answer that he has (enough Kosher) myrtle. This connotes like the Aruch, who permits when he does not benefit. Do not say that since he has extra myrtle, he does not fix at all. If so, why did we say that R. Elazar holds like his father R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven?! However, we can say that it is a small Tikun which is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim did not decree when he does not benefit.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (103a DH b'Ar'a):</span> In another's land it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 336:3):</span> Those who eat in gardens may not wash their hands over vegetation, for this waters them. Even though they do not intend for this, it is a Pesik Reishei.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Aval ha'Ochlim):</span> Semag, Semak, the Mordechai and Hagahos Maimoniyos say so. Sefer ha'Terumah (235) says that one should avoid eating on Shabbos in a place of vegetation, for it is very hard to be careful that water not fall while drinking or during Netilas Yadayim. According to the Aruch, it is permitted in another's garden, but surely those who argue with the Aruch forbid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (6):</span> Sefer ha'Zichronos says that the lenient opinion permits only in a Nochri's garden. Then, he is not pleased with the growth. The Gemara connotes unlike this; it says his '*Chaver's* (friend's) garden. See what I wrote in 307:7. (In one answer, the Ran says that we are more stringent about extinguishing, for if it is Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufah, one is liable for it.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (27):</span> Some permit a Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei l'Chatchilah, so it is permitted in a garden that does not belong to him and not to someone he likes. Many forbid Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei l'Chatchilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (26):</span> Mateh Yehudah (or Mateh Yosef) says that the Shulchan Aruch holds like those who forbid a Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei. However, Sefer ha'Zichronos forbids mid'Oraisa in the garden of another Yisrael, and mid'Rabanan in a Nochri's garden. The Magen Avraham says that the Gemara connotes unlike this. Eliyahu Rabah says that the Gemara discusses when we know that it is Lo Nicha Lei, and Stam, we say that even in the garden of another (Yisrael) it is Nicha Lei.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (27):</span> It seems that it is a Pesik Reishei only if the grass is visible. If not, even if the soil grows vegetation, we forbid only if he intends to help it grow. If he knows that there are seeds under the ground, e.g. he plowed over them, even though they did not sprout yet he may not wash over them, for surely they will sprout. We also forbid washing in a place of trees. Even though they would grow even without this water, it helps them to grow branches and fruits.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (28):</span> A case occurred in which one did not notice grass between rocks near the well, and washed there. The grass is useless. Lev Chayim said that he did not sin and needs no atonement, for several reasons.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (29):</span> If before Shabbos a tree or vegetation was watered all it needs, or a Nochri watered it on Shabbos, and a Yisrael watered on Shabbos with intent for the vegetation, he is exempt, for extra water only harms.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> They may urinate there or spill other liquids that do not make things grow.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Aval Mutar):</span> Sefer ha'Terumah, the Mordechai and Hagahos Maimoniyos permit wine and urinating, for these hinder growth. Re'em forbids.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Birkei Yosef (Shirei Berachah 3):</span> Sefer ha'Zichronos asked that one may not urinate on the ground, for he makes a hole! We can say that he urinates against a wall, and the urine flows to the vegetation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tif'eres Yisrael (ibid.):</span> Agriculturists say that urine is a good fertilizer. We must say that nature changed. One who fertilizes is liable for plowing.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Oh):</span> Hagahos Maimoniyos brought that one who waters is liable for plowing (it softens the soil). If so, why do we permit wine and other liquids that do not help vegetation grow? Perhaps it is considered plowing only when it helps also the vegetation. When it harms the vegetation, it does not improve the land. Ma'amar Mordechai says like this, but this is difficult. This requires investigation. Tif'eres Yisrael forbids urinating; people are not careful about this at all. Shabbos 81b refutes him. One who eliminates will surely urinate; the Gemara did not forbid for this reason.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> One who urinated one minute ago can eliminate without urinating. However, if urinating was a problem, surely we would decree against eliminating, since normally one urinates at the time. However, Tif'eres Yisrael said that nature changed. If so, the Gemara does not refute him!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (31):</span> Pesach ha'Dvir says that this explains why the Re'em forbids urinating on grass. In practice, he leans to forbid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (29):</span> Wine does not make things grow, for it is strong and burns the vegetation. The same applies to similar liquids. The Magen Avraham (27) says that one should be careful even for other liquids; Eliyahu Rabah says that wine is strong, so one need not be careful about it at all. The Pri Megadim says that mead and beer have water; surely, they make things grow.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (32):</span> Eliyahu Rabah permits strong wine, and all the more so whiskey.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> It is good to be careful not to eat in gardens if he uses water, for it is hard to be careful that water not fall.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (30):</span> The Taz says that a garden more than (5000 square Amos, i.e. each side is a bit more than) 70 Amos is a Karmelis (a place where mid'Rabanan, one may not carry on Shabbos). No enclosure can permit it. In any case one must be careful not to carry four Amos. This applies even in another's Chatzer.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) BLOOD THAT SPLASHED FROM ONE GARMENT ONTO ANOTHER</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah (92a) teaches that if the blood of a Chatas Behemah splashes onto a garment, it must be washed. The Gemara quotes Levi who asks whether this requirement also applies when the blood splashes onto one article of clothing and continues from there onto a second article of clothing. Does the second garment need to be washed? Rebbi answers that the second garment certainly needs to be washed. His reasoning is that if the law is that blood that spills may be gathered up and used for Zerikah, then this blood, when it splashes onto the second garment, is still valid for Zerikah, and thus it is subject to the requirement of washing. Even if the law is that blood that spills is disqualified from Zerikah, the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva who says that blood that, at one point, was valid for Zerikah and then became Pasul still necessitates washing a garment upon which it splashes. This is the only opinion the Gemara offers on this subject.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:9) rules that in such a case, the second garment does <i>not</i> require cleaning. What is the source for the Rambam's ruling?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> explains that the Rambam maintains that the Halachah does not follow the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Rather, the Rambam rules that blood that is Pasul does not necessitate the washing of a garment, even if the blood at one time was valid. Indeed, this is the position of many Amora'im in the Gemara later (93a). Even though the Gemara here mentions the possibility that perhaps the blood that spills remains valid for Zerikah and, therefore, the blood that splashes from one garment to another should require the second garment to be cleaned even according to the opinion that argues with Rebbi Akiva, the Rambam must maintain that any blood which is splashed onto a garment from a Kli Shares may not be used for Zerikah. The reasoning for this ruling is that since the blood now needs to be cleaned from the garment, it no longer retains its status of blood fit to be spilled onto the Mizbe'ach to attain atonement. Accordingly, once it reaches the first garment, it no longer can make another garment require cleaning, since it has become Pasul blood. Even though Levi was uncertain about this, once the Halachah does not follow the view of Rebbi Akiva, and there is a doubt about whether the blood is still valid once it reaches the first garment, we must be stringent and rule that the blood is Pasul. Although this ruling (that the blood that spills onto the first garment becomes Pasul) results in the Korban having less valid blood for Zerikah, it also results in the Rambam's leniency that the second garment does not need to be washed. (See also <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) Similarly, the <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> answers that the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi Akiva because the Gemara's next statement implies that the Halachah does not follow his view. However, the Kesef Mishneh still is bothered by the fact that if there is a doubt about whether or not the blood is valid for Zerikah when it spills on the garment, then why does the Rambam not rule stringently and require that the garment be washed? He answers that the verse states that the garment must be washed 'b'Makom Kadosh' -- 'in a holy place' (Vayikra 7:20, see 93b). Washing clothes is something which is not normally done in a holy place, and thus it is degrading to that place for one to wash clothes which might not need to be washed in such a holy place.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (#37) also mentions that the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi Akiva, but he is bothered by the fact that the blood still might be valid, requiring that the garment be cleaned even according to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Akiva. He thus gives a different answer for this question.
</p><p>
He bases his explanation on the Gemara earlier (34b), which quotes the Mishnah in which Rebbi Yehudah says that on Erev Pesach, a Kohen fills a cup with blood from the spilled blood of all of the Korbenos Pesachim that were offered, and he performs one Zerikah. The Gemara explains that this shows that even though the blood was spilled on the floor and should be disqualified from being used for Zerikah, since the Kohen is able to pick up the blood and do Zerikah with it, the blood does not become disqualified from being used for the Zerikah ('Kol sheb'Yado, Lo Havei Dichuy'). <b>TOSFOS</b> (34b, DH Kol) has difficulty with the Gemara there. The Torah requires that the blood of slaughtered birds and undomesticated animals be slaughtered; this is the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam. The Gemara (Chulin 87a, Avodah Zarah 47a) says that if the wind blew sand on top of the blood, one is not required to cover the blood more; the Mitzvah is considered to have been pushed off and it no longer can be done. Why in the case is the Mitzvah considered to have been pushed off? Since the person can uncover the blood, the Mitzvah has not really been pushed off! Tosfos answers that only when another Mitzvah dictates that the object of the first Mitzvah be made fit for the Mitzvah, is the first Mitzvah considered <i>not</i> to have been pushed off. In the case of the blood of the Korban Pesach, the fact that the blood of someone's Korban Pesach might have spilled and was not placed on the Mizbe'ach dictates that there is a Mitzvah to gather up the blood, and thus the blood is not considered to have been pushed off from the Mitzvah. There is no Mitzvah, however, that requires one to pick up the dirt which has fallen onto the blood in the case of Kisuy ha'Dam, and, therefore, the Mitzvah is considered pushed off.
</p><p>
The Kehilos Yakov explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on the reasoning of Tosfos there. If blood that falls on a garment would <i>not</i> be considered pushed off from the Mitzvah of Zerikah, it would be due to the same reasoning that says that blood that falls on the floor is not pushed off from its Mitzvah (i.e., there is a Mitzvah mandating that the blood be picked up). However, in the case of blood that falls on a garment, there is a Mitzvah that mandates the <i>opposite</i>: the Mitzvah mandates that the blood not be gathered up and placed on the Mizbe'ach, but that it be washed out of the garment. Hence, the blood definitely is considered pushed off from being valid for the Mitzvah of Zerikah. Levi, who asks the question, apparently does not agree with the Gemara in Chulin that says that when the wind blows dirt on top of the blood, Kisuy ha'Dam no longer can be done. However, the Rambam rules like the Gemara in Chulin, and thus he also rules that the blood that spills on a garment is Pasul and no longer can be used for Zerikah. (See Kehilos Yakov there, where he proposes that there is a possible alternative understanding of Tosfos.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) BLOOD THAT SPILLS ON A GARMENT THAT IS 'TAMEI'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: Rami bar Chama asks what the Halachah is in a case in which the blood of a Chatas spills on a garment that is Tamei. Does the Torah require the garment to be cleaned? From his question, it is evident that Rami bar Chama maintains that the only reason why the garment might require cleaning is that the blood becomes Tamei at the same moment that it reaches the garment. If the blood would have been Pasul for any reason before it reached the garment, then the garment would not require cleaning (unlike Rebbi Akiva's opinion on 92b).
</p><p>
The <b>CHELKAS YOAV</b> (in Kava d'Kushyasa #65) writes that he does not understand the Gemara's question. The Gemara later (98b) quotes Rava who asks about a case in which the blood of an Olah (which does not requires cleaning) falls onto a garment, and then the blood of a Chatas falls onto the same place where the Olah-blood fell. Does the garment need to be cleaned because the Chatas-blood <i>touched</i> it, or does the garment <i>not</i> need to be cleaned because the Chatas-blood did not become <i>absorbed</i> in it (because the garment is already saturated with the blood of the Olah)? Rava answers that the garment does not need to be cleaned. Rava clearly maintains that cleaning is necessary only when the blood of a Chatas becomes <i>absorbed</i> into a garment.
</p><p>
The Chelkas Yoav says that according to Rava's view, Rami bar Chama's question is based on an incorrect premise. Rami bar Chama asks that because the blood becomes Pasul at the same moment that it touches the Tamei garment, perhaps the garment does not need to be cleaned. This implies that if the garment was not Tamei, the blood would require it to be cleaned at the moment that it <i>touches</i> the garment (and not when it becomes absorbed into the garment). According to Rava, blood that falls on a Tamei garment never requires the garment to be cleaned, because the blood becomes Tamei at the moment that it touches the garment, long before it becomes absorbed into the garment. Accordingly, there should be no difference between the case of blood that fell on a Tamei garment, and blood that was Pasul before it fell on a Tahor garment. Why does the Gemara not address this logic at all?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> answers in the name of the <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> that Rami bar Chama and Rava clearly disagree about what necessitates cleaning a garment onto which blood of a Chatas spilled. Rami bar Chama maintains that as soon as the blood <i>touches</i> the garment, the obligation to clean the garment takes effect. Rava maintains that the obligation to clean the garment does not take effect until the blood becomes <i>absorbed</i> into the garment.
</p><p>
This answer explains the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:9). The Rambam rules, unlike the conclusion of the Gemara, that the garment does <i>not</i> require cleaning. The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> is perplexed about why the Rambam rules contrary to the conclusion of the Gemara. The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> concludes that either there is a mistake in the text of the Rambam, or the Rambam himself had a different (and mistaken) text of the Gemara. However, based on the Mirkeves ha'Mishneh's assertion that Rami bar Chama and Rava disagree about what obligates the garment to be cleaned, the Rambam is ruling like Rava's opinion later (98b) that only blood absorbed into a garment requires cleaning, as opposed to the opinion of Rami bar Chama. (See also the Chok Nasan's difficulties with the answer given by the <b>CHAZON NACHUM</b>.) This answer is also given by the <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b>.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Zevachim 20:4) has great difficulty with this explanation. The Gemara never mentions any challenge to the logic of Rami bar Chama's question, neither in the beginning nor in the end of its discussion. Why would the Gemara pursue an entire discussion without bringing up a relevant objection to this logic?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> answers that Rava's position later is not relevant to the discussion of the Gemara here. Rava maintains that the moment at which blood reaches a clean garment, it is considered absorbed into the garment. This is because when blood falls onto a garment, it always makes the garment dirty, and this is called 'being absorbed.' Rava's case in the Gemara later deals with the blood of an Olah which acts as a barrier, preventing the garment from absorbing any of the blood of the Chatas in even the slightest manner. When one washes off such a stain, he washes off only the blood of the Olah from the garment; the blood of the Chatas is not washed from the garment, because it never became absorbed in the garment. This is why Rava concludes that there is no Mitzvah to wash the garment in such a case. (See also <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b>, who gives this explanation.) Accordingly, Rava would agree with Rami bar Chama.
</p><p>
However, this answer leaves the ruling of the Rambam problematic. Why does the Rambam rule contrary to the conclusion of the Gemara, if no one disagrees with Rami bar Chama?
</p><p>
Based on the Chazon Ish's approach, the <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Pesachim #11, Zevachim #38) answers a different question on the ruling of the Rambam. The <b>AMUDEI <b><b>OR</b></b></b> (#70) asks that the Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 1:6) rules that blood of Kodshim cannot become Tamei <i>at all</i>. This ruling seems to contradict the Rambam's ruling here (in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos) that a Tamei garment onto which blood of a Chatas falls does not need to be cleaned. The reason for this, as the Gemara here explains, is that Tamei blood does not cause a garment to require cleaning. If the Rambam rules that blood of Kodshim never becomes Tamei, then the blood certainly should require that the garment be cleaned!
</p><p>
The Kehilos Yakov explains that the Rambam understands that the blood which falls on the Tamei garment is not considered Tamei as a result of touching the Tamei garment. Rather, the Rambam follows the explanation of Rava, who says that only when blood is considered absorbed in a garment is it considered Tamei as a result of the Tamei garment. This is because of the rule that something which is attached to a Tamei item is considered Tamei like it as long as it remains attached (see Kelim 18:7-8, 19:5), as the Rambam himself writes (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlin 2:20). Based on the logic of the Chazon Ish that when blood rests on a clean garment it is considered absorbed into the garment, the blood acquires the status of the garment and thus is considered Tamei. This is why the Rambam rules that the blood does not necessitate that the Tamei garment be cleaned. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MUST ONE KASHER A NOCHRI'S KELI BEFORE IMMERSING IT? <span class='indexentry'>[Tevilas Kelim: Kashering]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Elazar):</span> Mei Chatas that became Tamei is Metaher. We learn from a Nidah. The water is Metaher her (from Tum'as Mes), even though she is Metamei it when it touches her.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 75b (Mishnah):</span> If one bought a Nochri's knife, he does Shifah (rubs it on a sharpening stone), and it is Tahor.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> If a Yisrael buys a used Keli from a Nochri, if it was used with cold food, such as cups and flasks, he rinses and immerses it;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	If it was used with hot liquids, such as pots and kettles, he does Hag'alah and immerses it;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	If it is used to cook over a fire without liquid, such as spits and grills, he does Libun (makes it glowing hot) and immerses it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> 'Kol Davar Asher Yavo ba'Esh Ta'aviru ba'Esh *v'Taher*' obligates an additional Taharah after Kashering.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	76b (Mishnah):</span> One does Shifah to a knife, and it is Tahor.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Ukva bar Chama):</span> Also, he inserts it 10 times in the ground.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	Shevor Malka (a Nochri) inserted his knife 10 times in the ground, cut a piece of Esrog and gave it to Mar Yehudah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 17:5):</span> It says 'Ta'aviru ba'Esh v'Taher.' Fire only purges absorptions; Chachamim said that v'Taher adds another Taharah after passing it through fire to Kasher it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Avodah Zarah 5:36):</span> The Rashbam says that he must do Hag'alah or Libun first.  If he immersed it and then did Hag'alah, this is like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz. This is wrong. Tevilah is not due to Tum'ah. Rather, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. One may immerse it and use it for cold food, and if later he wants to use it for hot food, he will Kasher it. Hechsher works half at a time. Haza'ah on a Nidah is Metaher (her from Tum'as Mes, even though she still needs to be Metaher from Nidah). Similarly, Tevilah works before Kashering. The Gemara mentioned Kashering first because it is the primary Hechsher, to purge the (absorbed) Isur. Also, for Kelim used for cold food we must teach washing before Tevilah, due to Chatzitzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Yoma 8:24):</span> Rav Yitzchak taught that one must be Metaher himself on the Regel, i.e. from all Tum'ah, including Tum'as Mes. Nowadays the entire year a Ba'al Keri (one who had an emission) does not immerse, so there is no obligation to immerse for the Regel. The custom is to become Tahor from Keri for Tefilas Yom Kipur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Torah Lishmah (512):</span> Now we are Tamei Mes. How does Tevilah help for Keri? This is like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz! The Rosh does not mean that since one is Tamei Mes, Tevilah will not help for Keri. Rather, since he remains Tamei Mes, he does not fulfill R. Yitzchak's teaching. Some say that Tevilah of a Nochri's Keli before Hag'alah does not help. There is different, for it is possible to Kasher it first. All agree that Tum'as Keri takes effect on Tum'as Mes, and that Tevilah helps for it. Bechoros 27a says that one immerses to eat Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz (even though he is Tamei Mes).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avnei Nezer (YD 112:5):</span> The Torah explicitly says that the first time a Metzora immerses, his Tum'ah decreases, but he is still Tamei like a Sheretz for seven days until immersing a second time.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Avodah Zarah 39b DH Tanu):</span> The Yerushalmi says that one must immerse them because they left Tum'as Nochri and entered Kedushas Yisrael. Therefore, one must Kasher it first. If he immersed it first, this is like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz. However, the Ra'avad says that this is only l'Chatchilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ritva (Yevamos 47b DH Shehuyei):</span> Tevilah of a convert does not help before he is circumcised, even b'Di'eved. It is like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz. Regarding Kelim of a Nochri, b'Di'eved Tevilah works before Kashering. Here is different, for the foreskin is real Tum'ah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevet ka'Levi (4:92:3):</span> In both cases, something blocks entering Kedushas Yisrael. Absorbed Isur is less of an impediment than foreskin, therefore, it is not Me'akev b'Di'eved.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Avodah Zarah 40a DH Lo):</span> An absorption in a Keli that is not Ben Yomo is proper for a Ger (Toshav). If does not forbid a mixture, because it does not improve the taste. Rather, it harms the taste. Absorbed Nosar is still called Nosar, therefore, the Torah requires Bi'ur (eradication), just like we burn (intact) Nosar. For Kelim that absorbed Nosar, the Torah commanded to break a Keli Cheres or do Hag'alah for a metal Keli.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (76b DH v'No'atzah):</span> After Shifah, it must be inserted 10 times in the ground. Some say that Shifah is rubbing it with coarse wool to remove the grease.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ramban 75b DH Masnisin):</span> The Tana of the Mishnah should have taught everything necessary! The Tana would not omit only one matter. What else did he omit? Also, the case involving Shevor Malka is difficult (it implies that it suffices to insert it in the ground). Therefore, others say that inserting in the ground is an alternative method of Hechsher. One may do Shifah or insert it in the ground for cold usage.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 121:2):</span> If one bought a metal Keli from a Nochri that was used with hot liquids, whether it is of metal, wood or stone, he does Hag'alah. Afterwards he immerses it, and it is permitted. If he immersed it and then did Hag'alah, it is permitted. Some say that he must immerse it again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Rashba):</span> The Rashba says that he must do Hag'alah and afterwards immerse it. Semag says that the Rashbam says that one must do it in this order, like the Beraisa says.  If he immersed it and then did Hag'alah, this is like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz. The Ri disagrees. Even new Kelim must be immersed. It is not due to Tum'ah. Rather, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. The Rosh concluded like the Ri. Tosfos wrote Stam like the Ri.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (1):</span> Tevilah does not require Hag'alah. Tevilah is only to go from Tum'ah to Taharah. The latter opinion holds that if he immerses it first, it looks like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (4):</span> The Levush says that if now he wants to use it only for cold food, he can immerse it and use it for cold food. If later he wants to use it for hot food, the first Tevilah will still be valid, even according to the opinion that requires a second Tevilah. Here is different, for unlikely he intended to use it only for cold, and Tevilah sufficed. Since he immersed properly, he need not immerse it again. It seems that if he immersed it with intent to eat hot food, since he must immerse it again according to the latter opinion, he may not use it even for cold without a (Kosher) Tevilah. It seems that the Rosh and Tur agree.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (4):</span> Tif'eres l'Moshe disagrees. He holds that the latter opinion holds that even if he intends to use it only for cold, Tevilah does not help before Hag'alah if the Nochri used it for hot.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (5):</span> One should immerse it again without a Berachah. See Siman 120. (In every case of Safek, we immerse without a Berachah.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (5):</span> The first opinion learns from Nidah that one may immerse it first. The end of Avodah Zarah shows that Shifah helps for a knife (for cold food), even though it still requires Hag'alah (for hot food). Toras ha'Bayis says that it is l'Chatchilah to do Hag'alah first, like the verse 'Ta'aviru ba'Esh v'Taher.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevet ka'Levi (6:115:3):</span> The Ro'oh says that even according to the opinion that Ta'am k'Ikar (if an Isur can be tasted in a mixture, the mixture is forbidden) is not mid'Oraisa, we cannot immerse the Keli before Kashering. It is not due to Isur. Those who reject the proof from Nidah hold that Tum'as Mes is totally different than Nidah, therefore, one is not Me'akev the other. The Rambam and Bartenura connote that sharpening a knife suffices, and one need not immerse it. However, the Tosfos Yom Tov questioned this. Why should a knife be different than all other Kelim used for food?!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Dagul me'Revavah:</span> I say that if it is not a Ben Yomo, all permit to immerse it first. This is unlike Tevilah while holding a Sheretz. Since not a Ben Yomo, there is no Sheretz. Mid'Oraisa it is totally permitted. Even mid'Rabanan there is no Sheretz, just they decreed not to use it lest one use a Ben Yomo.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (2:110):</span> Even though when a Ben Yomo is used for something sharp, it gives a beneficial taste, right now the absorbed taste is detrimental and it is permitted, so this is unlike Tevilah while holding a Sheretz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl3'>	Hagahos Yad Sha'ul:</span> Not all agree to this. The Rashba holds that even a Ben Yomo is proper for a Ger (Toshav) to eat. It is a Neveilah (i.e. the Isur is intact), just it does not improve the taste of what is cooked in it. The Isur is Batel in the majority. It is still a Sheretz, therefore, he must do Hag'alah first.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> Kovetz Hilchos Pesach of Rav Blumenkrantz (5769 p.66) brings opinions that one should Kasher new aluminum or steel Kelim, lest it was rubbed with Asur oil (which gets absorbed) to give a shiny appearance. If a pot was used (for hot food without Kashering), one need not Kasher it (and the food is permitted). Madrich ha'Kashrus (of Badatz Edah Charedis, Pesach 5770, p.160-161) says that one should Kasher a new aluminum or steel Keli before immersing. However, on p.25-26 it says 'the *custom* is to be *stringent* to Kasher it. If one immersed it first, there are reasons to be lenient, and one should ask a Chacham.' (Most permit Tevilah before Kashering if the Keli is not Ben Yomo. Also, R. Moshe Feinstein Ztz'l said that the decree to Kasher an Eino Ben Yomo lest one use a Ben Yomo does not apply here, for one will never use a Keli within 24 hours of when the oil was absorbed. Perhaps Hagahos Yad Sha'ul would be stringent to Kasher even new Kelim before Tevilah, but this is based on the Ran, and the Halachah does not follow the Ran - PF, with thanks to R. Y. Spitz Shlita for helping me to clarify this Halachah.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (5):</span> Yeri'os ha'Ohel 51 proved that the latter opinion is primary. He holds that one immerses it again with a Berachah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (120:17):</span> L'Chatchilah, he must Kasher before Tevilah. If he did Tevilah first, it is valid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (121:9):</span> The first opinion is primary. The Tevilah is not due to Tum'ah. It is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (37:4):</span> If one must Kasher through Hag'alah or Libun, he must do so before Tevilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xvi.</span><span class='desl3'>	Chachmas Shlomo:</span> The Pesikta, brought in Yalkut Reuveni (Matos, on the verse 'va'Yomer Elazar...') supports the latter opinion. It says that the Parshah was said through Elazar because the Kelim needed Haza'ah with Mei Chatas, and R. Elazar did the Parah Adumah. This is astounding. Moshe told the people about Haza'ah, and Elazar added Hag'alas Kelim! Rather, we must say that Tevilah and Haza'ah do not help without Kashering first. Since Elazar was involved with the Haza'ah, and it is impossible without Hag'alah first, therefore (also) he was involved also with the Hag'alah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xvii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> Reuven swore to his first wife that he will not marry another wife within 30 days. Can the second wife immerse within the 30 days? This is like immersing a Keli before Kashering it. According to the latter opinion in Shulchan Aruch, even b'Di'eved the Tevilah was invalid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xviii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Pe'alim 1 YD 31):</span> These are different. The reason to immerse the Keli again is because the first time, it still had Isur absorbed, so it is like Tevilah while holding a Sheretz. Even though Isur and Tum'ah are separate matters, since there is Isur inside, the Tum'ah does not leave through Tevilah. Here, the woman is permitted to have Bi'ah at the time of Tevilah, just the oath is an external matter forbidding her to her husband.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WIPING OFF THE LEFTOVER BLOOD OF THE 'PARAH ADUMAH' FROM THE FINGER</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara says that one may not perform the sprinkling of the blood of a Parah Adumah with the leftover blood (from the preceding Haza'ah) on one's fingers. Rather, one must obtain new blood from the container for each Haza'ah. Abaye quotes a Beraisa which teaches (according to the Gemara's conclusion) that when the Kohen completes all of the Haza'os, he must wipe the blood which remains on his hand onto the body of the Parah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mekane'ach) explains that this is because all of the blood of the Parah Adumah must be burned, and thus the leftover blood is wiped on the body of the Parah which will be burned. However, this is not the way that the Kohen is to wipe the leftover blood from his finger between each Haza'ah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH ba'Meh) explains that if he would wipe his finger on the Parah between the Haza'os, then hairs from the Parah would become stuck to his fingers and cause a separation between his finger and the blood that needs to be sprinkled. Abaye says, therefore, that the Kohen must wipe his finger on the edge of the Mizrak, the container that holds the blood.
</p><p>
This Gemara poses a difficulty on the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Parah Adumah 3:2). The Rambam relates that the leftover blood on the Kohen's finger cannot be used for the next Haza'ah 'and, therefore, after every Haza'ah he wipes his finger <i>on the body of the Parah</i>.' Why does the Rambam ignore the Gemara which clearly rejects this practice and says that the Kohen must wipe his finger on the edge of the Mizrak?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> explains that the words of the Rambam here may be understood based on his ruling elsewhere. The Rambam (Hilchos Parah Adumah 4:4) rules like the Sifri that says that the Mitzvah is to receive the blood of the Parah Adumah using one's hand, and there is no Mitzvah to use a Kli (see also <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> to Menachos 7b, #15, who presents various texts in the Gemara there which support the Rambam's opinion). Indeed, the Rambam rules that if the blood is receive in a Kli, the Parah Adumah becomes Pasul. The Sifri clearly argues with the Gemara here which maintains that the blood of the Parah Adumah is received in a Mizrak. Since the Rambam maintains that a Mizrak is not used, the Rambam rules that one should wipe his finger on the Parah itself (since there is nothing else to wipe it on). (See also <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:8.)
</p><p>
However, the <b>MA'ASEH ROKE'ACH</b> (Hilchos Parah Adumah 3:2) quotes the <b>ETZ CHAYIM</b> who asks a basic question that refutes the Kesef Mishneh's answer. Even if one must receive the blood in his hand and not in a Mizrak, why can the Kohen not simply bring a Mizrak on which to wipe his finger?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MA'ASEH ROKE'ACH</b> explains that another Sifri states in the name of Rav Nachman that one should wipe his hands on the body of the Parah. Even though the Sifri mentions the wiping of the 'hands,' which the Gemara here agrees is done after all of the Haza'os have been performed, the Sifri refers to all of the blood, even the blood which is leftover on the finger between each Haza'ah. He says that this is also how <b>HA'RAV GEDALYAH</b> understands the Sifri. The Rambam here apparently follows the explanation of the Sifri (as mentioned above in the name of the Kesef Mishneh), which seems to say that not only the hand, but the finger as well, should be wiped on the Parah after each Haza'ah.
</p><p>
How, though, does the Rambam understand the Gemara here, which says that the finger should be wiped on the Mizrak? Apparently, the Rambam understands that the Gemara is giving only one possible suggestion for how to clean off the blood, but there are other ways, such as by wiping it on the Parah itself.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> agrees with the Rambam that one <i>may</i> use his hand to receive the blood of the Parah Adumah. However, he argues that there is no source that says that the Parah Adumah is Pasul if one uses a Kli to receive the blood. He quotes the Gemara here as proof that the use of a Kli to receive the blood does not disqualify the Parah Adumah. Since the Gemara says that the finger is wiped on the Mizrak, it must be that the Mizrak is present because it was used to receive the blood.
</p><p>
The Ra'avad continues and says that not only is the use of the Mizrak permitted for receiving the blood, but the Mizrak serves another important function. As mentioned above, all of the blood of the Parah is supposed to be burned. Fulfillment of this requirement would be very difficult if the blood is received by hand, since some of the blood inevitably spills on the ground. Accordingly, even if the Mizrak is not necessarily used to receive the blood for the Zerikah, it is used to collect all of the blood to be burned later with the Parah Adumah. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) A CLOTH THAT IS NOT FIT TO BE 'MEKABEL TUM'AH' BUT IS FIT TO BECOME FIT TO BE 'MEKABEL TUM'AH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTIONS: The Gemara (end of 93b) quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yehudah argue about whether Dam Chatas, the blood of a Korban Chatas, must be washed from a garment only when the garment is presently able to be Mekabel Tum'ah, or even when the garment is <i>fit</i> to become able to be Mekabel Tum'ah (but is not able to be Mekabel Tum'ah at present), such as through the owner's intention to use it in a certain way which makes it fit for use in its present state. One situation in which they argue is the one mentioned in the Mishnah, in which a hide was removed from an animal but has not yet been processed. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Dam Chatas that becomes absorbed in such a skin must be cleaned out, because even though the skin is not fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah now, it is able to become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah if the owner decides to use it in its present state. Rebbi Elazar maintains that as long as the owner has not made such a conscious decision, the hide does not become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah and the Dam Chatas does not have to be washed from it.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that the wording of the Beraisa implies that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar argue not only with regard to hide, but also with regard to a cloth material. What is a case of a cloth that cannot be Mekabel Tum'ah at present, but could become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah through a conscious decision of the owner? (This is the way <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mai) explains the Gemara.)
</p><p>
The Gemara gives three cases as answers to this question. The first case is that of a scrap of cloth three by three Etzba'os in size. Such a cloth is not fit for use in its present state and thus cannot be Mekabel Tum'ah, but if the owner decides to use it as a patch for fixing a garment, then it becomes fit for use and can be Mekabel Tum'ah. The second case is that of a cloth which a person decided to embroider and make into a decorative cloth. Since he decided to embroider it, it is not fit for use in its present state, until it is embroidered. The third case is a cloth rug that a person intends to trim. It is not considered usable in its present state until it is trimmed.
</p><p>
There seems to be a difficulty with each one of the Gemara's answers.
</p><p>
(a) The first answer, that if one decides to use a cloth of less than three by three Etzba'os as a patch, it will become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah, is problematic for the following reason. <b>RASHI</b> later (95a, DH Ein Bahem) writes that the reason why a scrap of cloth which is three by three Etzba'os is Mekabel Tum'ah is that it probably will be saved to be used as a patch. Rashi's source seems to be the Gemara in Bava Basra (20a; see Rashi there, DH Chazi). The <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> (Taharos 53:1) asks why this should be considered a cloth that is fit to be used in its present state. If a rug that a person merely intends to trim is not Mekabel Tum'ah, then certainly a patch which a person intends to sew onto a garment, but which is not yet sewn on, should not be Mekabel Tum'ah in its present state, since it is unusable in its present state. Why should a patch be considered more complete than an entire rug that simply needs trimming, or a cloth that simply lacks embroidering?
</p><p>
(b) The second two answers are also problematic. The Gemara says that a garment is not Mekabel Tum'ah if its owner intends to embroider it or trim it. This seems to contradict Rashi's statement (in DH d'Iy Ba'i) that once the Kli is Tamei, a Machshavah cannot make it Tahor. It can become Tahor only by an actual, physical change. Why should a person's intention be able to make a cloth Tahor when he has in mind that it is not yet finished (because he wants to embroider or trim it)? It should be Mekabel Tum'ah until he performs an action to change the garment in a way that shows that he wants to embroider it or trim it! (<b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b>, citing <b>GILYON TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) Perhaps a patch can be considered a finished Kli even though it is not sewn onto the garment, because the common practice is to save scraps to use them as patches by matching a patch to a fitting garment. Since the person saves the patch in the form of a patch until he finds a garment for which he wants to use it, a patch can be considered a Kli in its present form, even before it is sewn onto a garment. Anything which is saved in its present form without being altered for extended periods is considered a Kli even if, only later, one will sew it onto a garment.
</p><p>
Furthermore, even after it is sewn onto a garment the patch retains its individual identity, and it is occasionally transferred from one garment to another; it is not annulled entirely to the garment. Therefore, the patch itself is considered a Kli even when it has not been sewn onto the garment.
</p><p>
Another answer to this question may be deduced from the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:5) writes that if the Dam Chatas spills on a hide that was just removed from an animal, the hide must be washed. The Rambam's reasoning is as follows. Even though the hide is not Mekabel Tum'ah in its present state, since it will become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah after it is processed the blood must be washed from it even in its present, unprocessed state. The Rambam's words imply that even when a person decides to use the hide in its present state, it is not Mekabel Tum'ah until it is processed.
</p><p>
The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> points out that this answers the question of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Minayin) who proves from the Gemara in Shabbos that a hide cannot become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah through Machshavah, through merely planning to use it. However, the Lechem Mishneh asks that the Rambam's words seem to contradict the rest of the Gemara. As Rashi and Tosfos explain, the Gemara seems to take the approach that only an object that is fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah through Machshavah requires cleaning when Dam Chatas spills on it. If an action is necessary to make it fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah, then everyone agrees that the blood does not have to be washed out from it in its present state. This is implied by the Gemara when it says that a rag (Matlis) less than three by three must have Dam Chatas washed from it 'because, if one wants, he can decide to use it.' Similarly, the Gemara says that if a person designates a cloth to embroider into a decorative cloth, or if he decides to trim a rug, Dam Chatas must be washed from it only because it is within the person's ability to annul his Machshavah and use the cloth in its present state. This implies that if it would become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah only after an action of embroidery is completed, then all of the Tana'im would agree that it is not necessary to wash out Dam Chatas from the cloth in its present state. This implies that if a hide requires an action to make it fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah, then all of the Tana'im agree that Dam Chatas does not need to be washed from it.
</p><p>
The <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> explains that the Rambam has a different understanding of the Gemara's case of a 'cloth that was designated for Tzurah.' The Mishnah in Kelim (24:13) states that when a person designates a cloth for drawing pictures on it, it is not considered a Kli, since a picture or decoration is not considered a Kli; it is merely looked at and is not used. The Even ha'Azel points out that the <b>ARUCH</b> cited by the <b>RASH</b> in Kelim apparently understands that the Gemara here refers to such a cloth, a cloth used as a picture, and not a cloth that one intends to embroider. This is also the understanding of the <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (end of Hilchos Kelim 2:1). According to this interpretation, a cloth that one intends to use 'for Tzurah' does not refer to a cloth that is not yet finished and that requires an action (i.e. embroidering) to change it so that it will be Mekabel Tum'ah. Rather, it refers to a cloth that will never be Mekabel Tum'ah, and that is why Dam Chatas does not need to be washed from it. However, an item which will be altered so that it will eventually be fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah must have Dam Chatas washed from it even if it has not yet been altered, such as a hide which has not yet been processed.
</p><p>
In the case of the rug which has not yet been trimmed, the Gemara does not actually say that the Dam Chatas must be washed out because it might be used in its present state. Rather, the Gemara says that it must be washed because the rug 'is fit' to be Mekabel Tum'ah. The Gemara means that the rug eventually will become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah -- after it is trimmed and completed.
</p><p>
With regard to the patch which is three by three (the Girsa of our text is three by three <i>Etzba'os</i>, but the Girsa of the Rambam (in Hilchos Kelim 22:21) is three by three <i>Tefachim</i>; see <b>KEREN ORAH</b>), the Gemara states that it is fit because the person can <i>plan</i> to use it (as a patch). How does the Rambam understand this statement? In light of what the Even ha'Azel explains, it seems that the Gemara does not mean that if the person plans to use it as a patch, then the cloth will be fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah. Rather, the Gemara means that if he plans to use it <i>and</i> he alters it to make it fit for use, then it will be fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah, and, therefore, even before he alters the cloth he is required to wash out the Dam Chatas from it. This is evident from the words of the Rambam there, who writes that the cloth that is three by three is Mekabel Tum'ah only 'if he thought to use it, and he prepared it.'
</p><p>
This also answers the question of the Mikdash David. Indeed, a cloth which is designated for use as a patch will not be Mekabel Tum'ah unless some action is done to it to make it fit for use in its present state. However, with regard to washing Dam Chatas, even before the person prepares the cloth the Dam Chatas must be washed from it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (end of Hilchos Kelim 2:1) and the <b>GILYON TOSFOS</b> answer that the Gemara does not mean that a cloth becomes Tahor when a person has in mind to embroider or trim it, if it had previously become Tamei. Rather, the Gemara means that the person planned to embroider or trim the cloth from the time that he began to make it, and it was never Mekabel Tum'ah. It will not be fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah until he finishes embroidering or trimming it.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) IS LEATHER WASHABLE?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara cites contradictory Mishnayos regarding whether or not leather is considered a washable material. The Mishnah here (93b) implies that leather is washable. The Mishnah states that when blood of a Korban Chatas falls onto leather, one is required to wash it out. If leather would not be washable, then it would not be necessary to wash it, just as wood does not have to be washed when Dam Chatas falls onto it. On the other hand, the Mishnah in Shabbos (142b) teaches that if one pours water on leather to clean it, his act is not considered an act of washing and it is permitted on Shabbos. It is prohibited only to vigorously scrub leather.
</p><p>
Abaye answers that the Mishnayos indeed disagree, and they represent the views of two different Tana'im regarding whether or not leather is considered washable. The Tana of the Mishnah here maintains that leather is washable, while the Tana of the Mishnah in Shabbos maintains that leather is not washable and one may pour water on it on Shabbos. (Abaye agrees that one is permitted to rub leather briskly on Shabbos, as Rashi writes in DH Haisah.)
</p><p>
According to Abaye, why does the Mishnah in Shabbos prohibit rubbing leather vigorously with water? If leather is non-washable, then regardless of how vigorously one rubs it, it should be permitted to wash! On the other hand, if vigorously rubbing leather with water is prohibited on Shabbos because such an act <i>does</i> wash leather, then leather on which Dam Chatas falls should need to be washed in that way! Why does Abaye say that the Mishnah in Shabbos disagrees with the Mishnah here and maintains that leather is not washable? (<b>PANIM ME'IROS</b>)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> answers that perhaps rubbing leather <i>briskly</i>, and not vigorously, with water is prohibited mid'Rabanan, not because of the Melachah of Kibus (washing) but because of the Melachah of Sechitah -- one might squeeze out the water. (See, however, <b>TOSFOS</b> to Kesuvos 6a, DH Hai, who writes that Sechitah itself is prohibited only because of the Melachah of washing.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KODSHEI DAVID</b> suggests that rubbing leather briskly is prohibited (at least according to Abaye) because of the Melachah of Memachek, which prohibits rubbing hide to make it smooth.
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps another approach to the Sugya may be suggested. Abaye is differentiating between the laws of Shabbos and the laws of washing out the blood of a Korban Chatas. Abaye agrees that when one scrubs leather it removes the stain, and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbos because of Kibus, because Kibus prohibits any manner of removing a stain with water. However, with regard to the blood of a Chatas, only something which is easily washable with water, similar to the 'Beged' mentioned in the verse (Vayikra 6:20), requires that the blood be washed from it. However, if vigorous rubbing is required to remove the blood from the material, then it is not considered washable enough to require that the blood of the Chatas be washed from it. According to this approach, the Tana of the Mishnah here, who maintains that Dam Chatas must be washed from leather, must maintain that a stain can be removed from leather even by merely pouring water on it, and even without rubbing it. That is why the Tana of the Mishnah here cannot agree with the Tana of the Mishnah in Shabbos. The Tana there maintains that pouring water on leather is not considered Kibus unless one rubs the leather vigorously. However, with regard to Dam Chatas, one is not required to rub the blood out, since any garment that is not washable through merely pouring water on it is not subject to the requirement that Dam Chatas be washed out.
</p><p>
Rava, who disagrees with Abaye, equates the Halachah of Dam Chatas with the Halachos of Shabbos and says that even if vigorous rubbing is necessary to remove a stain from leather, it is considered washable with regard to Dam Chatas, and the blood must be rubbed out of the leather. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> TO WHAT DOES LAUNDERING APPLY? <span class='indexentry'>[laundering: materials]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> The law of laundering is the same for cloth, Sak (goat's hair)...(or leather...)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Laundering applies to leather.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Mishnah #1):</span> (On Shabbos) if there was filth on a cloth, it may be wiped off with a rag. If there was filth on a leather pillow, one pours water over it until it gets clean. (If laundering applied, this would be forbidden!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Abaye):</span> Our Mishnah is like Chachamim, who say that laundering does not apply to leather. Mishnah #1 is like Acherim, who says that it does;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> If Dam Chatas splashed on Beged (fabric) or Sak, it is laundered. If it splashed on a Keli (that is not laundered) or leather, it is scraped off;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	Acherim say, if it splashed on Beged, Sak or leather, it is laundered. If it splashed on a Keli, it is scraped off.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	R. Chiya bar Ashi said 'many times (on Shabbos) I shook Rav's shoes (in his presence) in water.' This is like Chachamim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection (Rava):</span> Surely, all agree that laundering applies to leather - 'veha'Beged... Oh Chol Keli ha'Or Asher Techaves'!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rava):</span> Rather, the verse and our Mishnah discuss soft leather. The Tana'im argue about whether laundering applies to hard leather.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	R. Chiya (bar Ashi) often shook Rav's shoes in water. We must say that they were hard shoes, and he held like Chachamim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Retraction (Rava):</span> I was wrong. The verse did not specify. Surely it applies even to hard, cooked leather!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Correction (Rava):</span> The verse discusses all leather. Even if it was originally hard, since Tzara'as comes from the garment itself, this softens the garment.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rava - Mishnah):</span> If there was filth on a leather pillow, one pours water over it until it gets clean. (Pillows are soft!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #3 (Rava):</span> Laundering without rubbing (one side of the garment on the other) is not considered laundering.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	R. Chiya shook Rav's shoes in water, but he did not rub them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span>	If the shoes were soft, all Tana'im agree (that one may not rub them). If they were hard, this was like Acherim. (Chachamim would permit even rubbing.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If it is not considered laundering without rubbing, the Mishnah should permit shaking a Beged in water!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> For Beged, soaking in water is laundering.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> If one threw a turban into water (on Shabbos), he is liable.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> One may launder shoes on Shabbos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Papa):</span> R. Chiya *shook* Rav's shoes in water. He did not rub them!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span>	Rava publicly retracted. 'I erred. Shaking in water is permitted, but not rubbing.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 141a (Rav Kahana):</span> If there is mud on one's garment, one may rub it from the inside, but not from the outside.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	142b (Mishnah):</span> If there is filth on a pillow, one may clean it with a rag. If it is of leather, he may pour water on it until it is clean.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Shabbos 58b and 20:14):</span> If there is mud on one's garment, one may rub it from the inside, but not from the outside. One may scrape it with his fingernail (Rosh - or a knife). Rava retracted to say that one may shake (a shoe) in water, but he may not rub.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 22:18):</span>  If there is mud or excrement on a shoe or sandal, one may be Meshachshech (shake) it in water, but he may not launder it. He may not scrape it, but he may anoint it or clean old shoes. If there is excrement or filth on a pillow or blanket, he may clean it lightly with a cloth. If it was of leather, he pours water on it until it is clean.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (80):</span> If a nursing baby dirtied his mother's garment (with urine), R. Tam permitted her to wash her hands and clean (dry) them in the place of the filth (to nullify the urine), to permit her to pray. This (is not like laundering, rather,) it is like dirtying. It does not remove only the urine. Also the water goes away with them. Chachamim were lenient for the sake of Mitzvos in many places. E.g. one may walk through a river to greet his Rebbi on Yom Kipur (Yoma 77b), and a Nidah may scheme and immerse in her clothes (on Shabbos, to be Metaher them along with herself - Beitzah 18a).  The Ri disagreed, for she intends to clean the filth! If urine splashed on one's garment, the Riva permits putting water on to nullify it, for he intends to be Metaher, but not to launder and polish. We learn from a Nidah, who may scheme.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (90, citing Re'em):</span> I heard from Ri that we forbid only when there is filth, like the Beraisa discusses. I disagree. Rava obligates one who threw a turban into water. It does not mention filth! The Mishnah merely discussed a typical case (normally, one cleans only if there is filth). Bahag forbids without filth. He says that if one's hands are very wet, he should not clean them on wool or linen. I do not know what is considered 'much'. Therefore, on Shabbos it is good to shake the water off one's hands vigorously before drying them on a cloth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (90):</span> Maharam shakes his hands vigorously on Shabbos before drying them. Soaking is laundering only regarding water. Wine or beer dirties the cloth.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Yoma 8:4):</span> Why may one walk through a river to greet his Rebbi on Yom Kipur? In Zevachim, we say that soaking is laundering! That is only if there is blood or filth on the garment. If it darkened due to wearing or using it, and all the more so if it is white and he wants to whiten it more, soaking is not laundering. R. Tam says that we do not say soaking is laundering regarding something made to get dirty, e.g. drying on a towel or cleaning hands on a cloth. If a nursing baby dirtied his mother's garment, R. Tam permitted her to wash her hands and clean them in the place of the filth, to permit her to pray.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 302:9):</span> One may put water on a shoe in order to Leshachshecho. One may not launder it, i.e. rub one side on the other.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (40):</span> Shichshuch is putting water on until the filth goes away.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (39):</span> The Av Melachah of Melaben (whitening or bleaching) applies to wool, linen and all materials that whiten. Laundering and squeezing are Toldos (derivatives) of Melaben. Laundering applies to soft leather. Some say that it applies even to hard leather. However, regarding leather only full laundering is laundering. For Beged, soaking in water is laundering. One is liable for soaking even colored Begadim. Some say that soaking is laundering only if there is filth, but not if it merely darkened from wearing it. Then, one is liable only for proper laundering or squeezing. Even so, mid'Rabanan one may not soak it, lest he squeeze. Some say that soaking is laundering even if there is no filth, unless it is Derech Lichluch (the way of dirtying), e.g. drying his hands. Some are stringent to say that soaking is laundering even Derech Lichluch if there is much water, therefore, one shakes almost all the water off his hands before drying them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (63):</span> This applies to all leather Kelim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> If there is filth on a Beged, even Leshachshecho is forbidden, for this is its laundering. Rather, one cleans it lightly with a cloth, but without pressing, lest he squeeze.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH she'Yesh):</span> The Shulchan Aruch adopted the text of the Mishnah 'if there is filth.' It is forbidden even if there is not filth, like the Beis Yosef says. These words apply to the Seifa, i.e. the Heter to clean it lightly with a cloth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Mutar):</span> Rashi explains that laundering is rubbing one side on the other. The Mishnah permits cleaning filth on a pillow only with a rag, but not with water, for a Stam pillow is of Beged, and putting water is laundering. If it is of leather, he may pour water on it; for laundering does not apply to leather. One may not truly launder it, for Stam pillows and blankets are soft, so laundering applies. However, we do not say that soaking is laundering.  Tosfos (Shabbos 111b DH Hai) says that we say that soaking is laundering only if there is blood or filth on the garment. The Ri did not accept R. Tam's Heter to clean one's hands to nullify urine; the Rosh did not bring the Ri, so also the Tur brought only R. Tam. How does cleaning the hands help? A Revi'is is needed to nullify urine!  Perhaps R. Tam permitted washing the hands over the dirty part of the Beged. The Ri agreed, for it is not normal to launder with waste (i.e. used) water. However, the Poskim did not mention washing over the Beged. It seems that normally only a few drops of urine leak from the baby's clothing to the mother's Beged, so it suffices to clean her hands on it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (41):</span> The Shulchan Aruch connotes that only rubbing (like launderers) is forbidden regarding shoes. However, many Poskim forbid plain laundering, and permit only Shichshuch. However, all agree that there is no concern for laundering regarding wooden Kelim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (42):</span> This opinion holds that laundering applies to leather, and one is liable for it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (43):</span> Even spit is considered filth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (66):</span> The Magen Avraham (18) forbids putting any water. Likewise, one is liable for any amount of any liquid that whitens. One may not put even liquids that do not whiten in order to remove the filth. Eshel Avraham and R. Zalman obligate even for colored wool, unlike Maharam me'Rotenburg.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (67):</span> It is better to pass one's hand or foot over the filth to clean it than to use a cloth, especially if the Beged is hard and there is no concern for squeezing.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (68):</span> There is an Isur mid'Rabanan to squeeze out filth absorbed in a garment.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> One may put a small amount of water on a Beged without filth, but not much water, lest he squeeze.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (19):</span> One may put much water if he is not concerned if there is water in the garment, like it says in Siman 301:46.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (46):</span> One may not put even a little water if he intends to launder.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (69):</span> Olas Shabbos says that if there is filth, it is forbidden even Derech Lichluch. If there is no filth, it is permitted only Derech Lichluch, e.g. to pass through water to go to a Mitzvah or drying with a towel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (71):</span> Libun does not apply, since there is no filth, but we are concerned for squeezing if there is much water.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (ibid.):</span> Some forbid in every case.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (47):</span> One should be concerned for this opinion, for this is a Torah Isur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (72):</span> This opinion holds that even if there is no filth, Libun applies, even with a little water. However, Derech Lichluch is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (73):</span> The Gra says that the first opinion is primary. Eliyahu Rabah brings many Rishonim who hold like it. However, Rishonim including the Tur hold like the latter opinion, so one should be concerned for a Torah Isur. The Acharonim hold like this.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) WASHING LEATHER ON SHABBOS</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara cites the opinion of Rava, who says that only vigorous rubbing can clean leather, and even that form of washing cleans only soft leather, according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa. According to the opinion of Acherim in the Beraisa, vigorous rubbing can clean blood out of even hard leather. The Gemara then relates that Rava publicly taught that one is permitted to wash ('l'Chabed') a shoe on Shabbos. Rav Papa objected that Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi said that he often saw that Rav permitted only lightly brushing shoes to remove dirt, but not Kibus. Rava then publicly announced that his previous ruling was a mistake, and that one is permitted only to lightly rub shoes with water on Shabbos, but not to do Kibus. (Although a marginal note suggests that the Girsa might be that Rava prohibited 'Kiskus,' from the Rishonim it is clear that the word in the Gemara indeed is 'Kibus.')
</p><p>
What type of cleansing constitutes 'Kibus?' If Kibus refers to Kiskus, vigorous rubbing, then why did Rava originally think that it was permitted on Shabbos? He himself taught (at the beginning of the Amud) that Kiskus of leather objects is prohibited! If Kibus refers to a type of washing that is less vigorous than Kiskus, then why indeed is it prohibited? Rava said (at the beginning of the Amud) that Kibus that does not include vigorous rubbing is not considered Kibus with regard to leather on Shabbos! (<b>CHOK NASAN</b>)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> and the <b>CHOK NASAN</b> explain that Kibus entails vigorous rubbing. Rava originally thought that one is permitted to rub shoes made of hard leather, because he ruled like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa. He retracted his ruling because he heard that Rav did not permit rubbing even hard leather shoes, implying that Rav ruled like Acherim, who say that even hard leather is considered washable and may not be rubbed vigorously on Shabbos. The <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> points out that this might be why the <b>SHE'ILTOS</b> rules, like Acherim, that one is prohibited to wash hard leather on Shabbos.
</p><p>
However, this answer does not suffice to explain the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:2) rules that Dam Chatas must be washed only from soft leather but not from hard leather, like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa. However, in Hilchos Shabbos (22:18), the Rambam records the ruling of Rava, who says that one is permitted only to lightly rub a shoe with water, but not to do Kibus. If Rava originally permitted one to wash only hard leather, then the Rambam seems to rule that one is prohibited even from washing hard leather. Indeed, he does not distinguish between soft leather and hard leather, implying that Kibus with both types of leather is prohibited. How is this ruling to be reconciled with the Rambam's other ruling that blood does not need to be washed out of hard leather garments, which implies that hard leather is not washable? (<b>KEREN ORAH</b>, <b>CHOK NASAN</b>, <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> (OC 302:9) explains that the Rambam understands the Gemara as explained above (that Rava is discussing hard leather). However, he learns that when Rava was informed about Rav's practice, he retracted his earlier statement (at the beginning of the Amud) that anything less than Kiskus is not considered washing on Shabbos. Instead, he ruled that although, mid'Oraisa, anything less than Kiskus is not considered washing, it still is prohibited mid'Rabanan. The Rambam understands that Kibus is a less vigorous form of washing than Kiskus, and Rava prohibited it mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Rava's prohibition extends even to hard leather, which is not washable at all mid'Oraisa, and he prohibited Kibus for both soft and hard leather in order to prevent people from performing Kiskus on soft leather.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> suggests further that perhaps Rava retracted his ruling in order to prohibit not only Kibus mid'Rabanan, but also to prohibit Kibus of soft leather mid'Oraisa. Now it is clear why he prohibits Kibus of hard leather mid'Rabanan; since there is a form of Kibus of leather that is prohibited mid'Oraisa, there are grounds to prohibit Kibus of hard leather mid'Rabanan.</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) TEARING THE 'ME'IL' IN ORDER TO PERFORM A MITZVAH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah earlier (93b) states that the cleaning of a garment onto which Dam Chatas spilled must be done in the Beis ha'Mikdash ('b'Makom Kadosh'). The Mishnah here (94b) teaches that if a garment absorbed Dam Chatas and was taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash, it must be brought back into the Beis ha'Mikdash in order to wash out the Dam Chatas. If the garment becomes Tamei while outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, then it must be torn so that it loses its Tum'ah by becoming unfit for use.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks, what is done in a case in which the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol absorbs Dam Chatas, is taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and becomes Tamei? One is not permitted to tear the Me'il, as the Torah says, 'Lo Yikare'a' -- 'it shall not be torn' (Shemos 28:32). The Gemara answers that one holds the Me'il just outside of the Azarah, and he inserts a small portion (less than three by three Etzba'os) of the Me'il into the Azarah and washes that small portion there, and then he repeats the process with the rest of the Me'il, inserting and cleaning only a small portion of the Me'il at a time.
</p><p>
From the fact that the Gemara mentions only the Me'il in its question, it appears that the prohibition against tearing applies only to the Me'il and not to the other Bigdei Kehunah. This, however, contradicts the Gemara in Yoma (72a), which says that the prohibition of 'Lo Yikare'a' applies not only to the Me'il but to all of the Bigdei Kehunah. Why does the Gemara here specifically ask only about the Me'il, implying that the question regarding the prohibition of tearing applies only to the Me'il?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:3, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:20) and the <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (101:1) cite the <b>SEFER KORBAN CHAGIGAH</b> (of the <b>MAHARASH ALGAZI</b>) who infers from the <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash) that the prohibition against tearing Bigdei Kehunah other than the Me'il applies only to tearing the garment in a destructive manner (b'Derech Hashchasah). The Me'il, in contrast, may not be torn even in a constructive manner. Since one would be tearing the Me'il in this case in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of washing out the Dam Chatas, it is considered tearing for a constructive purpose. This type of tearing is permitted for the other Bigdei Kehunah, but not for the Me'il. Therefore, the Gemara's question concerns only the Me'il.
</p><p>
The Mishneh l'Melech (in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash) concludes, however, that the logic of this distinction is flawed. Although he does not explain why the logic is flawed, apparently he is bothered by the fact that the Sefer Korban Chagigah seems to derive two completely different prohibitions from a single verse. If the verse says 'Lo Yikare'a,' and that Isur applies to all Bigdei Kehunah, then why should one differentiate between the Me'il and the other Bigdei Kehunah?
</p><p>
The Minchas Chinuch defends the approach of the Sefer Korban Chagigah. He says that perhaps the Gemara here maintains that the verse applies only to the Me'il. The Isur of 'Lo Yikare'a' prohibits tearing only the Me'il. That is why the Rambam rules that only the Me'il may not be torn for a constructive purpose. Nevertheless, the Rambam rules that tearing any of the Bigdei Kehunah in a destructive manner is prohibited because of a different verse. The verse says, 'Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Hashem Elokeichem' (Devarim 12:4), which prohibits destroying any object of Kedushah (see Insights to Makos 22:1).
</p><p>
(The Minchas Chinuch writes that according to this approach, the Gemara here argues with the Gemara in Yoma, and the Rambam is ruling in accordance with the Gemara here.)
</p><p>
(b) However, the Minchas Chinuch argues that in the case of the Gemara here, when the garment is torn in order to bring it into the Azarah to wash it, it cannot be considered to have been torn for a constructive purpose. It is true that the Mitzvah can be fulfilled only by tearing the garment. Nevertheless, the tearing is performed for the purpose of <i>destroying</i> the garment, so that it becomes unfit for use and is no longer Tamei! The immediate act of tearing is a destructive act, and thus it should be prohibited for all of the Bigdei Kehunah.
</p><p>
The Minchas Chinuch adds that even if it is true that the Rambam means that it is prohibited to tear the Me'il even in a constructive manner (in contrast to the other Bigdei Kehunah), the Rambam (in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash) notes such a prohibition only with regard to the <i>mouth</i> (collar) of the Me'il. Accordingly, one should be permitted to tear the Me'il in a different place in order to make it Tahor, if such tearing is considered done for a constructive purpose (and tearing for a constructive purpose is permitted).
</p><p>
Finally, other Rishonim clearly disagree with the Rambam. The <b>RITVA</b> in Yoma (72a) writes that tearing any of the Bigdei Kehunah is prohibited.
</p><p>
The Minchas Chinuch therefore suggests that it is likely that the Gemara mentions only the Me'il simply because that is the garment for which the Torah explicitly expresses the prohibition against tearing. (This is also the conclusion of the Mishneh l'Melech in Hilchos Kil'ayim 9:11, the <b>RADVAZ</b> in Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:20, and the <b>KEREN ORAH</b> here.)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> IRUY KELI RISHON <span class='indexentry'>[Bishul: Iruy Keli Rishon]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'Asher Tevushal Bo' teaches about a pot in which Chatas was cooked (it must be broken if it is earthenware, or Merikah u'Shtifah (scouring and rinsing, to Kasher it) if it is of metal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> What is the source for a pot into which boiling Chatas was poured?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We learn from 'Asher... *Bo Yishaver*' - if it absorbed Chatas (in any way).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> The latter law shows that Kashering is required for absorptions without cooking.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rami bar Chama):</span> If Kodesh meat was suspended in an oven and roasted, what is the law? Is Merikah u'Shtifah required only when Kodshim were cooked inside and the Keli absorbed, but not here, for the meat did not touch the oven, so there were no absorptions?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Or, perhaps it is required whenever Kodshim were cooked inside, even without absorptions!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 42a 	(Beraisa - Beis Hillel):</span> One may pour hot water into cold water, or vice-versa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	This refers to a cup. However, in a bath, one may put only hot into cold.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	R. Shimon ben Menasiyah forbids.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> On Shabbos, if one removed a frying pan or pot from the fire, one may not put spices into it. One may put spices into a bowl (a Keli Sheni).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	R. Yehudah says, one may put into any (food), except for one with vinegar or brine.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> One may put into any simmering pot or pan, except for one with vinegar or brine.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span>	This shows that R. Yehudah discusses the Reisha (putting spices in a Keli Rishon off the fire. (Compared to the first Tana,) he is lenient.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 111b (Rav Kahana, brother of Rav Yehudah):</span> One may not put hot food in a basin in which meat was salted. A radish cut with a knife (used for meat) may be eaten with milk.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Abaye):</span> The basin is forbidden, for it absorbed forbidden taste. The radish is permitted, for it absorbed permitted taste.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 74b (Rava):</span> We use boiling water to Kasher a Gas (in which a Nochri stomped grapes).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 8b and 2:7):</span> Kelim used for Chametz in a Keli Sheni, e.g. bowls, it suffices to pour boiling water on them in a Keli Sheni and wait until the Isur is purged. We learn from pots of Nochrim. Everything is Kashered the way it is used.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 5:24):</span> If Kelim of metal, stone or wood were used with Chametz in a Keli Sheni, e.g. cups and bowls, he puts them in a big Keli and pours boiling water over them and leaves them there until they emit (all absorbed taste). Then he rinses them, and he may use them for Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Shabbos 3:16):</span> The Rashbam learns from our Gemara (42b) that Iruy Keli Rishon is like a Keli Sheni. If it were like a Keli Rishon, why did the Mishnah distinguish between putting in a pot and a bowl? It should have permitted putting in a bowl, and forbidden pouring over it (from a Keli Rishon)! Also, we hold like Shmuel, who says that Tata'ah Gavar (the bottom food overpowers. I.e. when one food is put on another, the tastes mix only if the bottom is hot). If Iruy Keli Rishon cooks, this shows that the top food overpowers! The Rashbam permitted Meligah (pouring boiling water over a chicken to cook it). R. Tam said that one may infer oppositely from the Seifa. The Mishnah permits putting in a bowl, but not to pour over it! Also, if the Rashbam's inference were valid, this is difficult for Rav, who says that Ila'ah (the top food) Gavar! Rather, the Mishnah discusses a pot and bowl for parallel structure to the Reisha, which discusses putting water in a kettle or cup. R. Tam learns from Zevachim that Iruy Keli Rishon is like a Keli Rishon. Even though the Gemara said that pouring into a pot shows that absorptions without cooking forbid, it means absorptions without cooking from the heat of this pot, rather, from the heat of another pot. Also the Yerushalmi says that Iruy Keli Rishon is like a Keli Rishon. Even though we hold like Shmuel, that Tata'ah Gavar, he agrees that Iruy cooks Kedei Klipah (the thickness of a layer that can be peeled off). We challenged Shmuel from a Beraisa, and answered that Kedei Klipah must be removed. Also, in Pesachim (37b) we say that if flour put in boiling water is exempt from Chalah because it was kneaded in boiling water (because Tata'ah Gavar), also boiling water poured over flour is exempt. I.e. it cooks Kedei Klipah of the flour, and there does not remain a Shi'ur of uncooked flour to obligate Chalah. In Avodah Zarah (74b) Rava taught that boiling water is needed to Kasher a Gas in which a Nochri stomped grapes. One cannot fit the Gas in a Keli. Rather, boiling water was poured over it. Based on this, R. Tam permitted to Kasher a Keli used in a Keli Rishon through Iruy Keli Rishon. This is no proof. Yayin Nesech is different, for it is used cold, therefore we are more lenient than for other Isurim (which are heated in Kelim). If a Keli totally absorbed Isur, not all will come out through Iruy, which cooks only Kedei Klipah and purges (makes a Keli emit) only Kedei Klipah. Therefore, one who wants to cook an (unsalted) chicken through Meligah must do so in a Keli Sheni. If he does Iruy, this cooks Kedei Klipah (and the blood will not come out), so he must peel off the skin and the meat is permitted.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 68:13):</span> Some say not to do Meligah even in a Keli Sheni. If he did, it is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (33):</span> R. Yerucham says that if one poured from a meat pot into a copper dairy pot, it need not be Kashered, for copper absorbs only if it is on the fire. The Poskim agree, and the Beis Yosef (Sof Siman 93) and Rema (Toras Chatas 33:3) rule like them. That is different. It is clear from the Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Poskim that a copper Keli absorbs through Iruy!  In Zevachim we obligate Merikah u'Shtifah for a pot into which boiling Chatas was poured. This must refer to a copper Keli, for a Keli Cheres must be broken! It is difficult to say that the Gemara discusses a wooden Keli, for Stam Kelim in the Mikdash are of metal (Terumas ha'Deshen Sof 132. Also, the Gemara was discussing Kashering copper Kelim.) The Gemara was explaining the verse, which discusses cpper Kelim. The Sifra says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (32):</span> Zevachim 95b connotes that only Iruy Keli Rishon causes absorptions (but not a Keli Sheni).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Prishah (8):</span> It is clear from the Rosh that R. Tam considers Iruy totally like a Keli Rishon. He brought several proofs, and concluded that a Keli used like a Keli Rishon may be Kashered through Iruy. The Rosh said that there is no proof from Avodah Zarah, since Yayin Nesech is used cold, and it cooks only Kedei Klipah. This shows that he understand that R. Tam holds that Iruy is like a full Keli Rishon (and cooks totally).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (91:4):</span> If boiling milk fell on meat, one peels the meat, and the rest of the meat is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (7):</span> Even if the flow was not interrupted, Kedei Klipah suffices. Even if the flow was interrupted, Kedei Klipah is needed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (105:2):</span> The heat of a Keli Rishon that is Yad Soledes Bo cooks and totally forbids. The heat of a Keli Sheni does not cook. Some say that also, it does not emit (what is absorbed in the Keli), and it does not absorb (from its contents).  Some say that it emits and absorbs, and forbids Kedei Klipah. It is proper to be concerned for this l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved it is permitted without a Klipah. It suffices to rinse.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tur (citing the Rashba):</span> Some say that only heat of a Keli Rishon, which cooks, emits. A Keli Sheni, and Iruy (pouring from a Keli Rishon), which is like a Keli Sheni, does not emit. This is wrong. The heat of Beis ha'Shechitah (the neck at the time of Shechitah) and of Chelev of the flanks, emits, and this is less than a Keli Sheni. Rather, every heat through fire emits, even if it is not Yad Soledes Bo.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kosav ha'Rashba):</span> How can the Tur say that the Rashba means that when hot falls into hot, it forbids only Kedei Klipah? Later in this Siman, he infers from the Rashba that the heat of salting (which is less) forbids everything! Also, in Pesachim (76a) we say that when hot falls into hot, it forbids; when hot falls into cold, one must remove Kedei Klipah. We cannot say that also hot into hot forbids only Kedei Klipah!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (5):</span> R. Tam holds that Iruy cooks Kedei Klipah, like a Keli Rishon. The Rashbam agrees that Iruy (of an Isur, or milk over meat) is absorbed in Kedei Klipah, just it does not emit and absorb at the same time. Therefore, one may do Iruy over a chicken (if it causes blood to be emitted, it will not be reabsorbed). He holds that a Keli Sheni does not absorb at all. R. Tam holds that Iruy is absorbed only Kedei Klipah. This is unlike Maharshal (Teshuvah 62), who say that it is totally absorbed. The Prishah says that R. Tam holds that it cooks totally. This is astounding. R. Tam and all who hold like him, including Semag, hold that a Keli Sheni does not cause absorptions Kedei Klipah. The Bach is stringent to say that a Keli Sheni emits and absorbs at once, and totally forbids. This is astounding. We are stringent to say that Iruy Keli Rishon forbids Kedei Klipah! Therefore, regarding Shabbos and meat and milk it is forbidden. Even if the flow was interrupted, Kedei Klipah is forbidden (Pesachim 76a). Even though the Rema (76:10) does not require Kedei Klipah for Iruy Keli Rishon over a chicken, that is because it does not emit and absorb at the same time. However, it absorbs. Tosfos in Zevachim, the Mordechai, Hagahos Ashri and the Ran say so. Kedei Klipah suffices. This is clear from the Poskim, Tur and Shulchan Aruch (91:4).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (13):</span> In the Yerushalmi, R. Yonah forbids Iruy like a Keli Rishon. R. Yosi rejects this; a Keli Cheres, even a Keli Sheni, absorbs, but the spices do not get cooked. Regarding Shabbos, we are concerned only for cooking. It says that Iruy cooks regarding Shabbos and regarding meat and milk.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (14):</span> Chulin 111b proved that absorption occurs even without cooking. The Ramban learn from Kodshim. We require Merikah u'Shtifah. Hag'alah in a Keli Sheni is not enough, even for a copper Kelim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 451:1):</span> One cannot Kasher for Pesach any Keli Cheres used for hot Chametz through heating it, even if it was not on the fire, only hot Chametz was poured into it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some forbid even in a Keli Sheni.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (3):</span> The stringent opinion forbids even a Keli that was put into a Keli Sheni.  I say that even the Rambam forbids only through Iruy. Regarding metal Kelim, he says 'if they were used for a Keli Sheni, e.g. bowls and cups, he pours boiling water over them.' One does Iruy into bowls. Also, he allows Kashering through Iruy, so we must say that they were used for Chametz through Iruy. He calls it a Keli Sheni because after pouring into it, it is a Keli Sheni. The Rif says similarly. The Rambam (Halachah 25) said the same about Keli Cheres. The Beis Yosef agrees, for he omitted the law of Keli Cheres.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (5):</span> If one did Iruy over Kelim from a Keli Rishon, he Kashers them through Iruy Keli Rishon. It is not enough to Kasher them in a Keli Sheni.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Ela):</span> Something used in a Keli Rishon cannot be Kashered through Iruy, which emits and absorbs only Kedei Klipah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (41):</span> When Kashering through Iruy, he must ensure that they flow from the Keli Rishon not be interrupted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (6):</span> The law of Kelim depends on the primary usage. Even if bowls are sometimes used on the fire, since they are used mostly through Iruy, they are Kashered in this way.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some are stringent to do Hag'alah in a Keli Rishon. This is the custom. The same applies to anything for which there is concern lest it was used in a Keli Rishon, e.g. spoons.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) BREAKING AN EARTHENWARE VESSEL IN WHICH 'KODSHIM' WERE COOKED</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah (93b) teaches that when the blood of a Korban Chatas becomes absorbed in a garment, it must be washed out. This applies only to the blood of a Chatas and not to the blood of other Korbanos. The Mishnah here (95b) teaches that when any Korban is cooked in a metal pot, the pot requires Merikah u'Shetifah before it may be used again. This Halachah is not limited to a Korban Chatas, even though it is written in the Torah immediately after the laws of washing Dam Chatas. Apparently, this requirement is inferred from the words in the verse 'Kodesh Kodashim Hi' (Vayikra 6:22), which imply that the requirement of Merikah u'Shetifah applies to all Kodshei Kodashim according to Rebbi Shimon, and even to Kodshim Kalim according to the Tana Kama.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah with regard to the third Halachah mentioned in the Mishnah, the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres? When a Korban is cooked in an earthenware vessel (Kli Cheres), the vessel must be shattered. The Mishnah mentions only that Merikah u'Shetifah apply to all Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim. Does this imply that breaking a Kli Cheres applies only to the Korban Chatas, or does it apply to other Kodshim as well?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (93b, DH Zeh Chomer) explains that when the Mishnah says, 'This is what is more stringent about a Chatas than other Kodshei Kodashim,' it refers only to Kibus, washing out Dam Chatas from a garment. According to Rashi, the Mishnah implies that this stringency does <i>not</i> apply to Sheviras Kli Cheres; rather, the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to other Korbanos as well. Rashi on the verse in Vayikra (6:21) writes clearly that a Kli Cheres that absorbs Kodshim must be broken because the taste of the Korban that was absorbed becomes Nosar, and Rashi adds that this applies to all Kodshim. Therefore, when the Mishnah writes that Merikah u'Shetifah apply to other Kodshim, it also means that Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to other Kodshim.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah not mention explicitly that Sheviras Kli Cheres also applies to other Kodshim? Similarly, the Beraisa later (96b) says that Merikah u'Shetifah are more stringent than cleaning Dam Chatas that was absorbed, since Merikah u'Shetifah apply to all Kodshim, while the cleaning of a garment applies only to the blood of a Korban Chatas. Why does the Beraisa not mention the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres?
</p><p>
The answer perhaps lies in what Rashi teaches here (DH Balu'a). Rashi writes that if the taste of a Korban becomes absorbed in a Kli Cheres even without being cooked (Bishul) in the vessel (but rather by Iruy, pouring boiling water over the vessel), it is obvious that the Kli must be broken, since the absorbed taste of the Korban will never be able to be removed from the walls of the Kli, and when the taste becomes Nosar it will prohibit anything subsequently cooked in the Kli. That is why a Kli Cheres that absorbed the taste of a Korban must be broken. According to Rashi's words, it is clear why the Gemara does not need to discuss Sheviras Kli Cheres. The Kli Cheres must be broken when any Korban becomes absorbed in it, in order to prevent the Isur of Nosar from entering food that is subsequently cooked in the Kli. (Even Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah here would agree that if Kodshim Kalim are cooked in a Kli Cheres, then the Kli must be broken.)
</p><p>
If this is true, however, then the obligation of Merikah u'Shetifah also should apply to all Kodshim due to the same logic? After all, Merikah u'Shetifah are necessary in order remove the Isur of Nosar that became absorbed in a metal Kli so that it not enter food that is subsequently cooked in the Kli. Apparently, Rashi addresses this question in the Mishnah. Rashi explains that Merikah u'Shetifah involve more than simply cleaning and purging the Isur from the Kli. Rashi's source is the Gemara later (96b) which teaches that there are three ways in which Merikah u'Shetifah involve more than simply purging the Isur from the Kli. Abaye says that boiling water must be poured over the entire Kli and not merely over the part of the Kli which was heated and absorbed the Isur. Purging, in contrast, requires that boiling hot water be poured only on the part of the Kli which was heated and absorbed the Isur. Rava explains that Merikah u'Shetifah must be done with water, and not with wine or diluted wine. Rabah bar Ula explains that Merikah u'Shetifah include an extra rinse in cold water, besides the boiling water which purges the Isur. These added requirements of Merikah u'Shetifah apply only to Kodshei Kodashim according to Rebbi Shimon, or to all Kodshim according to the Tana Kama (based on their respective ways of understanding the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv). However, none of these three differences between Merikah u'Shetifah and purging apply to a Kli Cheres. No cold water is used for a Kli Cheres, and not even hot water is used for a Kli Cheres, since a Kli Cheres is simply broken, since it is impossible to remove the absorbed Isur from the Kli in any manner. Moreover, even if only part of the Kli absorbed the Isur, that part of the Kli must be removed in order to prevent the Isur from entering foods that are cooked in the Kli, and the removal of part of the Kli accomplishes Sheviras Kli Cheres, since it effectively destroys the Kli and renders it unusable.
</p><p>
However, a question remains on Rashi's explanation. Sheviras Kli Cheres seems to entail more than simply breaking the Kli so that the Isur will not be cooked into another food. The Mishnah earlier (94b) teaches that the Kli must be broken in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why does the Mishnah not say that Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to all Kodshim in order to teach that the Shevirah must be done 'b'Makom Kadosh,' in the Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
The answer seems to be that changing the place in which the Kli is broken does not change the <i>way</i> in which the Kli is broken. Since the Kli is broken in the same manner regardless of where the breaking takes place, the Mishnah does not discuss whether Sheviras Kli Cheres applies to Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim. The Shevirah certainly applies to both. The Mishnah discusses only whether Shevirah is done with Kodshim Kalim.
</p><p>
Another question on Rashi's explanation is that if the Kli Cheres must be broken in either case in order to prevent the Isur of Nosar from entering other foods, then why does the Torah need to teach the law of Sheviras Kli Cheres altogether? It is obvious that a Kli Cheres must be broken! (The Torah should discuss only where the Shevirah must be done.)
</p><p>
The answer to this question is expressed in the words of Rashi in Pesachim (30b, DH d'Midyasi), who writes that this is the verse in the Torah which provides the source that a Beli'ah cannot be removed from a Kli Cheres, and the Kli Cheres must be broken. (In Rashi here, DH Balu'a, the correct Girsa is 'ha'Torah' and not 'veha'Torah,' since this is the actual verse that is the source that Beli'ah cannot be removed from a Kli Cheres.)
</p><p>
(b) However, Rashi later on the Amud (DH Mateches) seems to say otherwise. The Gemara later says that the ovens in which the Korbanos were cooked were made out of metal, since if they were made out of Cheres they would have to be broken even though the Korbanos were not cooked directly on the Cheres and no part of the Korban was absorbed into the Cheres. Rashi explains that the Gemara assumes that the oven would have to be broken since a spit that holds a Korban Chatas was lowered into it and the Korban Chatas was cooked there. Why does Rashi mention 'Korban Chatas'? Rashi implies that the Halachah that a Kli Cheres must be broken if a Korban is cooked in it applies only to a Korban Chatas! How can this be reconciled with the words of Rashi on the Mishnah (93b), that the requirement of Sheviras Kli Cheres is not a stringency of a Korban Chatas?
</p><p>
The answer to this question may be as follows. Rashi writes that this Halachah applies to a Korban Chatas only according to the suggestion of the Gemara there that a Kli Cheres must be broken if a Korban was cooked in it, even if it did not absorb any taste of the Korban. Rashi suggests that, according to this stage of the Gemara, perhaps this Halachah applies only to a Korban Chatas, since the stringency has nothing to do with the Nosar that is absorbed in the Kli, and, therefore, it is more logical to compare it to the Halachah of Dam Chatas than to compare it to the Halachah of Merikah u'Shetifah, which involve removing a Beli'ah from a Kli. However, Rashi later (96a, DH Ela) writes that the Gemara's conclusion is that it is necessary to break a Kli only when it absorbed the taste of a Korban. If the Halachah of Shevirah applies only when taste is absorbed, then it is obvious that this applies to all Korbanos, as Rashi writes (DH Balu'a).
</p><p>
Accordingly, when Rashi writes that the Halachah of Shevirah applies only to a Chatas, he is explaining only the Gemara's initial assumption. This is not the Gemara's view in its conclusion.
</p><p>
However, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:14) writes clearly that the Halachah of Sheviras Kli Cheres applies only to a Korban Chatas that was absorbed in the Kli. Furthermore, he writes that if another Korban was absorbed in a Kli Cheres, then Merikah u'Shetifah are required.
</p><p>
This is perplexing. What is absorbed in a Kli Cheres cannot be removed at all. What will be accomplished by performing Merikah u'Shetifah to a Kli Cheres?
</p><p>
The <b>RADVAZ</b> explains (8:18) that the Rambam learns that Merikah u'Shetifah are done not in order to remove what is absorbed in the Kli, but rather in order to remove the fatty substances attached to the surface of the Kli. Accordingly, the Merikah u'Shetifah which the Rambam requires might be for the sake of permitting food that is held in the pot without being cooked (or heated) in the pot. (The Radvaz writes that what is absorbed in the pot is Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam and therefore it is permitted in the Beis ha'Mikdash, l'Chatchilah, in any case.)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Rambam might mean that when the taste of a Korban is absorbed in a pot, the pot must be broken immediately after the food is eaten, as the Rambam writes elsewhere (8:14). A Kli Cheres which had another Korban cooked in it may not be used for other Korbanos; however, it is not necessary to break it immediately. It is necessary only to perform Merikah u'Shetifah and to remove the fats from the external surfaces immediately after its use.</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) REMOVING THE ABSORBED 'ISUR' FROM EARTHENWARE VESSELS</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that there is a way to permit earthenware vessels (Klei Cheres) which absorbed forbidden food items. The Isur absorbed in the walls of the vessel is removed by heating the entire vessel, such as in a furnace. The Gemara asks that if an Isur absorbed in the walls of Kli Cheres can be removed by heating the entire vessel, then why does Rav rule that during Pesach there is no way to permit the use of earthenware vessels that absorbed Chametz? One should simply heat the vessels until their insides became as hot as the furnace. The Gemara answers that Rav does not permit this method for kashering vessels during Pesach because of the concern that the owner will fail to heat the inside of the vessel sufficiently, since he is fearful that such heat might cause his vessels to break.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and asks that if an Isur absorbed in the walls of Kli Cheres can be removed by heating the entire vessel, then why were the earthenware vessels that were used in the Beis ha'Mikdash broken? They should have been heated in a furnace to remove the Beli'ah that was absorbed in them.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara is not bothered by the verse which tells the Jewish people in the Midbar to shatter earthenware vessels that were used to cook Korbanos, since, while they traveled in the Midbar, the Jewish people had no furnaces, and therefore they had no choice but to break them. In the Beis ha'Mikdash, however, when they were settled and had furnaces, why did they not heat the vessels in the furnaces in order to remove the Isur?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that in the Beis ha'Mikdash they also did not have the option to heat the vessels in furnaces, since furnaces are not allowed to be built in Yerushalayim because of the smoke they produce. (The vessels could not be taken out of Yerushalayim and heated there, because a vessel with a Beli'ah of Kodshim may not be removed from Yerushalayim, and the Beli'ah must be removed while the vessel is in the Beis ha'Mikdash (or in Yerushalayim).)
</p><p>
There are a number of difficulties with this Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara suggest that the Klei Cheres in the Beis ha'Mikdash should become permitted by being heated in furnaces to remove their Beli'ah? The Gemara says that a person is not trusted to heat his vessels enough to remove the absorbed Isur, since he is fearful that such heat might cause his vessels to break. The same should apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash; heating the vessels should not be permitted, less one heat them insufficiently out of fear that they might break from heat. (<b>ROSH</b> to Pesachim 2:7)
</p><p>
(b) To remove the absorbed Isur, there should be no need to place the Kli Cheres into a furnace. The Gemara makes it clear that as long as the inside is heated such that it becomes as hot as the furnace, the Isur will be removed. The Gemara in Pesachim (30b) states explicitly that when a Kli Cheres is filled with burning coals, the Isur is removed because the coals make the Kli as hot as a furnace. How, then, does the Gemara answer its question about the Kelim in the Beis ha'Mikdash? While it is true that the Kli cannot be put in a furnace since there are no furnaces in Yerushalayim, the Isur still can be removed by filling the Kli with coals! (<b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b>, Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 8:25)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) There are a number of approaches to the first question.
</p><p>
1. The <b>ROSH</b> in the name of '<b>AVI HA'EZRI</b>' proves from here that the Gemara does not prohibit placing a Kli Cheres into a furnace; it prohibits only filling a Kli Cheres with coals or heating it in another way that might heat one part of the vessel without heating the other. In such cases, there is a concern that the person will take measures to prevent the inside from overheating so that it not break. However, if he places the Kli Cheres into a furnace, the furnace will obviously heat the entire Kli Cheres to a sufficient degree, and there is no concern that the person will attempt to keep his Kli Cheres cool. This is why the Gemara asks that the Kelim in the Beis ha'Mikdash should be permitted by placing them in a <i>furnace</i> (and it does not suggest any other form of heating them), which is permitted l'Chatchilah to remove the Beli'ah from Kli Cheres.
</p><p>
This might also be the intention of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Avodah Zarah (34a, DH she'Eino).
</p><p>
2. However, not all Rishonim agree with this approach. The Rosh cites the <b>RA'AVAN</b> who writes that an Isur may not be removed from a Kli Cheres even by placing the Kli into a furnace, since the person might try to prevent the Kli from breaking. The <b>RAN</b> in Pesachim (30b) similarly writes that placing a Kli Cheres into a furnace is not an option for removing an Isur, except in the Beis ha'Mikdash. According to these Rishonim, why does the Gemara suggest that removing the Isur in such a manner should be permitted in the Beis ha'Mikdash, if it is not permitted elsewhere because of the concern that the person will attempt to protect his vessel from breaking?
</p><p>
The <b>PRI CHADASH</b> (OC 451) answers that in the Beis ha'Mikdash, there is no concern that the person will not heat the Kli sufficiently, either because 'Kohanim Zerizim Hem' -- Kohanim are very careful to carry out the Mitzvos properly, or because the Kohanim are not the owners of the Kelim and they have nothing to lose if the Kelim break, and therefore they will not try to protect the Kelim from breaking.
</p><p>
The <b>TESHUVAH ME'AHAVAH</b> (1:77) suggests that the reason why there is no concern that the person will not heat the Kli properly in the Beis ha'Mikdash is that 'Ein Shevus ba'Mikdash' -- Gezeiros d'Rabanan normally do not apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash in general. Hence, the Gemara asks that in the Beis ha'Mikdash one should place the Kli Cheres in a furnace l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
(b) The answer to the second question depends on the two opinions mentioned above.
</p><p>
1. According to the Rosh, the Gemara does not suggest that a Kli Cheres should be permitted in the Mikdash by being filled with coals, because of the concern that one will not heat the inside of the vessel sufficiently out of fear that it might break. As the Rosh explains, the Gemara asks only that the Kli should be permitted by being placed into a furnace, since in a furnace there is no concern that the person will not heat the Kli to the proper degree.
</p><p>
This approach does not answer the question entirely, however. One may still ask, why does the Torah require that one break a Kli Cheres that absorbed Isur in the Mishkan (in the Midbar)? Although it is true that in the Mishkan no furnaces were available (as Rashi explains), nevertheless they certainly could have filled the Kli with coals. One cannot answer that the Torah was concerned that the person might not heat the Kli properly, because it is clear from the Gemara that this concern is only mid'Rabanan; mid'Oraisa, there is no such preventative measure. Why, then, does the Torah require that the Kli Cheres be broken? (<b>TESHUVAH ME'AHAVAH</b>)
</p><p>
However, as the <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> points out, this question is answered by the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> (end of DH Ela). Tosfos disagrees with Rashi and says that the reason why the Torah does not say that in the Midbar a Kli Cheres should be placed in a furnace to remove the Isur absorbed in it, is not that there were no furnaces available. Rather, the Torah is teaching that it is not <i>necessary</i> to place the Kli in a furnace, but it suffices merely to break the Kli. One might have thought that it does not suffice to break the Kli since the taste of the Isur remains in the broken pieces of the Kli. The Torah therefore teaches that breaking the Kli suffices, and there is no need to remove the Isur from the pieces of the Kli. It certainly suffices, therefore, to place coals in the Kli, which serves to <i>remove</i> the absorbed Isur. (See <b>MA'ASEH CHOSHEV</b> in his notes to the Sha'ar ha'Melech, who discusses this answer of Tosfos at length.)
</p><p>
2. According to the other Rishonim, however, the question remains. Even if there are no furnaces in Yerushalayim, the earthenware vessels should be permitted by being filled with coals. Since Kohanim are Zerizim, there is no concern that they will not heat the vessels sufficiently.
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> answers that apparently there is a much greater concern that a Kli Cheres will not heat sufficiently when it is filled with coals than when the Kli Cheres is placed in a furnace, as is evident from the view of the Rosh. Therefore, even the Ra'avan and others who maintain that in the Beis ha'Mikdash there is no concern that the Kli Cheres will not be heated properly in the furnace (since Kohanim are Zerizim, or because they are not the owners of the Kli), there remains a concern that the vessel will not be heated sufficiently when filled with coals, since it is much more difficult to heat the vessel in such a manner without causing it to break.
</p><p>
The <b>BNEI CHAYI</b>, cited by the <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> and <b>YAD DAVID</b>, suggests a different approach. Perhaps filling the Kli with coals will not serve as a substitute for breaking the Kli because of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that teaches that even if what was absorbed is removed from the Kli, the Kli still must be broken. (This was the subject of the Gemara's question on 95b.) Therefore, even after the Beli'ah is removed by way of the coals, the Kli must be broken. Why, then, does the Gemara suggest that the Kli should be returned to the furnace instead of being broken? Even if the furnace removes the Beli'ah, the Kli still must be broken! The answer to this question is found in Tosfos here, who explains that returning a Kli to the furnace not only removes the Beli'ah, but it essentially re-makes the Kli in its entirety so that it is no longer the same Kli that it used to be, but rather it is considered a new Kli ('Panim Chadashos'). This takes the place of Shevirah. However, it is clear from the Rosh (Pesachim 2:7) that filling a Kli with coals does <i>not</i> transform the Kli into a new Kli. Therefore, filling a Kli with coals is not a proper substitute for Shevirah. This is why the Gemara does not ask that the Kelim of Kodshim should be filled with coals. (See Sha'ar ha'Melech and Yad David, who discuss this answer at length.)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> RINSING KELIM AFTER HAG'ALAH <span class='indexentry'>[Kashering: rinsing]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> 'Chatas' teaches that Chatas requires Merikah u'Shtifah (scouring and rinsing). 'Kodesh Kodoshim Hi' includes all Kodshim. 'Osah' excludes Terumah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Is it really true that Merikah u'Shtifah does not apply to Terumah?!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> One may not cook Chulin in a pot in which Terumah was cooked. If Chulin was cooked in it, if it absorbed the taste of Terumah, only a Kohen may eat it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Abaye):</span> If Kodshim was cooked in part of a Keli, the entire Keli requires Merikah u'Shtifah. Regarding Terumah, only that part requires Merikah u'Shtifah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rava):</span> Regarding Kodshim, water must be used for Merikah u'Shtifah. Regarding Terumah, even wine or mixed wine may be used.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #3 (Rabah bar Ula):</span> Regarding Kodshim, we require Merikah u'Shtifah in cold water in addition to Hag'alah (Kashering in boiling water). Regarding Terumah, Hag'alah is sufficient.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> This is like the opinion that Merikah u'Shtifah is in cold water. According to the opinion that Merikah is in hot water, and Shtifah is in cold water, how can we answer?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Kodshim requires an extra Shtifah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 5:23):</span> If Kelim of metal or stone were used with hot Chametz in a Keli Rishon, e.g. pots and pans, he puts them in a big Keli and fills it with water and boils water inside it until they emit (all absorbed taste). Then we rinse them in cold water and use them for Matzah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (2):</span> Rav Nehilai Gaon wrote that when we remove the Kashered Keli from the water, we pour cold water on it immediately. Sefer ha'Terumah explains in the name of Ri that we learn this from Zevachim. Merikah is in hot water and Shtifah is in cold water.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> Some say that he rinses due to the Gemara in Zevachim. Some say that it is to remove the Chametz. The Ge'onim and Acharonim require Shtifah, like the Rambam says.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ramach:</span> Why do we rinse it? Regarding Chametz, there is no extra verse! If it is like some Meforshim say, because after the water ceases boiling, it emits (its absorptions back into the Keli), the Rambam did not explain this well.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Avodah Zarah 5:36):</span> People are accustomed to pour cold water on a Keli after Kashering it. How does this help? If it is to rinse off the water that absorbed what the Keli emitted, lest it be reabsorbed, this does not help. The moment it leaves the boiling water, it reabsorbs. It is impossible to pour cold water on it the moment it leaves the boiling water. Further, even while it is in the boiling water it reabsorbs what it emitted! This is why we require 60 times as much water (as the volume of the Isur that could be inside). A support for the custom is Zevachim 96b, in which we say that Kodshim requires an extra Shtifah. This implies that Terumah requires one Shtifah, and Kodshim requires two. Shtifah is in cold water.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 36a DH mi'Kan):</span> The custom is to put the Keli in cold water after Hag'alah. What is the reason? It is not because in Zevachim we say that Merikah is in hot water, and Shtifah is in cold water. That is only for Kodshim, but not for Terumah (and all the more so, not for Chulin)! Some say that it is because we say that Kodshim requires an extra Shtifah. 'Extra' connotes that Terumah requires one Shtifah, and Kodshim requires two. However, Rashi explained that Kodshim requires one, and Terumah does not require at all. Therefore, we must find a reason for the custom.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sefer ha'Orah (1:81):</span> Rav Hai Gaon says that one must cast the water out of the Keli while it is boiling, lest it cool off in the Keli and be absorbed. He rinses it immediately in cold water. Even small Kelim must be rinsed when they are boiling.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (96b DH Lo):</span> For Terumah, after Hag'alah one need not rinse in cold water. The same applies to Kelim Kashered from Isur. Even so, the custom is to rinse them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Me'iri (Pesachim 30b DH Kol):</span> Any Keli Kashered through Hag'alah must be rinsed afterwards to remove the filth of the emissions. This is not required for a Keli that requires Libun (making it glowing hot).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 452:7):</span> The custom is to rinse a Keli in cold water immediately after Hag'alah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Tur:</span> Rashi said in a Teshuvas (259) that immediately after Kashering, while the water is still boiling, one must rinse off the hot water, lest it be reabsorbed. Rav Hai Gaon said similarly, and this is the custom, but not lest the water be reabsorbed. This is not a concern, like I explained above. Rather, it is the custom.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tur (YD 121):</span> After Hag'alah, we rinse the Keli the way we rinse a cup. The Ri says that even if it was not rinsed immediately, it is not forbidden, for it does not absorb again. In any case the custom is to rinse it immediately, and it is proper to do so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (YD 121 DH u'Mah):</span> Tosfos and the Rosh said that there is no use to rinsing, so if it was not done the Keli is not forbidden.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Drishah (YD 121:4):</span> We can say that the Ri means that it does not absorb Isur again, for there is 60 times as much as the Isur, or the Isur is not a Ben Yomo, so it is Pagum.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Prishah (3 DH Ela):</span> There is no need to rinse immediately. The custom is to rinse it immediately, and it is proper to do so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (YD 121:7):</span> It seems that we must rinse it lest moisture of the water used to Kasher remain on it; the water is forbidden. One must rinse it immediately, lest he forget if he does not do so at the time of Kashering.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (34):</span> We rinse off the hot water, which has absorptions of Chametz, lest the Keli absorb it. In any case, b'Di'eved if he did not rinse at all there is no concern, for we Kasher before Chametz is forbidden, or it is not a Ben Yomo, or there is 60 times as much as water as absorptions.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Darchei Teshuvah (121:45):</span> Mishkan Betzalel (40:68, 211) says that one who does Hag'alah from Isur must be concerned for the opinion of the Ge'onim and rinse the Keli in cold water afterwards. This is Me'akev even b'Di'eved. If he merely Kashers from dairy to meaty or vice-versa, one may be rely on the lenient opinion that it need not be rinsed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Shevet ha'Levi 6:115:5):</span> He should not have cited this opinion. Surely it is not Me'akev if he Kashered properly. We do not reckon with an individual's opinion against the accepted majority.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yabia Omer (4 OC 41:11):</span> Ashkenazim Kasher glass Kelim. We rinse a Keli in cold water after Hag'alah. Regarding pyrex, if one does so it is prone to shatter. According to those who say that the source is from Zevachim, one need not rinse immediately. Since one cannot rinse pyrex right after Hag'alah, he should wait until it cools off and then rinse it. However, according to Rashi's reason that we are concerned lest the Keli absorb, one must rinse it immediately. However, almost all the Poskim say that this is not the reason, just it is the custom (like Kodshim). If so, one may be lenient about pyrex. The Acharonim agree that it is not Me'akev b'Di'eved at all; regarding these glass Kelim, it is like b'Di'eved. It is better if they are put in boiling water three times. If one can rinse it (immediately - PF) in lukewarm water, it is good to do so.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'MERIKAH' AND 'SHETIFAH'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa (97a) which records a Machlokes Tana'im regarding whether Merikah is done with hot water and Shetifah with cold water, or whether both are done with cold water. The Mishnah teaches that both Merikah and Shetifah are done with cold water (this is the opinion of Rebbi in the Beraisa on 97a). The Mishnah adds that Merikah is like 'Merikas ha'Kos' -- it is done in a way similar to the way that Merikah is performed with a cup, and Shetifah is like 'Shetifas ha'Kos.'
</p><p>
What is the difference between Merikah and Shetifah? It cannot merely be that Merikah is done with hot water, since Rebbi says that Merikah is done with cold water.
</p><p>
The Mishnah apparently addresses this issue when it says that Merikah is like the Merikah of a cup, and Shetifah is like the Shetifah of a cup. However, it does not explain what the Merikah or Shetifah of a cup is, or what cup it is discussing.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the cup to which the Mishnah refers is a 'Kos Shel Berachah,' the cup one holds as he recites Birkas ha'Mazon, Kidush, and other blessings. 'Merikah' in this context refers to the act of Hadachah, washing the inside of the Kos Shel Berachah. Shetifah refers to washing the outside of the Kos Shel Berachah, as the Gemara in Berachos (51a) requires.
</p><p>
In the Beraisa (97a), Rebbi derives from the fact that the Torah uses two different words, 'u'Morak v'Shutaf' (Vayikra 6:21), that Merikah is like the Merikah of a cup and Shetifah is like the Shetifah of a cup. However, the Rabanan in the Beraisa derive from the two different words that Merikah is done with hot water and Shetifah is done with cold water. It appears that the difference between Merikah and Shetifah is the subject of the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabanan. The Rabanan say that the difference between the two is that Merikah is done with hot water while Shetifah is done with cold water. Rebbi says that the difference between the two is that one is performed on the inside of the vessel and the other is performed on the outside of the vessel. (See <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b>, <b>CHOK NASAN</b>, and <b>KEREN ORAH</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that the difference between Merikah and Shetifah is that Merikah is a vigorous washing which is intended to scrape off any remaining fats from the surface of the vessel. Shetifah refers to a brisk washing and light rubbing. (See <b>RADVAZ</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:12, who expounds on the words of the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos.) According to the Rambam, this seems to be the opinion of both Rebbi and the Rabanan, except that the Rabanan require hot water for Merikah, the vigorous rubbing, while Rebbi maintains that cold water suffices.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, what does the Mishnah mean when it says that Merikah is like the Merikah of a cup, and Shetifah is like the Shetifah of a cup? When are such actions performed on a cup? The Rambam (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that the Mishnah means that it is not necessary to rub the vessel so vigorously that all external traces of the item that was absorbed are entirely removed. Rather, it suffices to clean the vessel like one normally cleans a cup. The Rambam apparently understands that the 'Kos' mentioned in the Mishnah is any cup used for drinking which is washed after use. The Rambam learns that when the Gemara says that this Halachah is derived from the change of terminology in the Torah, which calls one washing 'Merikah' and the other washing 'Shetifah,' the Gemara means that had the verse said 'u'Morak u'Morak,' one would have thought that it means that one must rub the vessel so vigorously that no trace of the Isur is left. Now that it says 'u'Morak v'Shutaf,' the Torah teaches that one may wash it as one normally washes a cup.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> in Pesachim (30b, DH Madichan) and Avodah Zarah (76a, DH Tanu Rabanan) cites the <b>RA'AVAD</b> who explains that when the Mishnah says that Merikah and Shetifah are like the washing done with a cup, it refers to a cup that became Asur. This refers to a cup that held a cold, forbidden liquid. The Beraisa in Avodah Zarah (75b) teaches that when one purchases such cups from a Nochri, one must wash them ('Madichan') before immersing them in a Mikvah. Merikah and Shetifah refer to this kind of washing, a washing done to remove the Isur. When the Beraisa says 'Madichan,' it means not only that one is supposed to vigorously rub them, but that afterwards one should pour water over them. The former action is what the Mishnah refers to as Merikah, and the latter is what the Mishnah refers to as Shetifah.
</p><p>
The Ra'avad writes that the difference between the two actions is that Merikah is a more vigorous scrubbing, and Shetifah is simply washing off the cup (similar to the difference according to the Rambam).
</p><p>
It seems that even according to the Ra'avad, Rebbi and the Rabanan agree with the statement of the Mishnah that Merikah and Shetifah of Kelim used for Korbanos are performed in the same manner as the Merikah and Shetifah of a cup. Their argument is about whether the Merikah is done in a manner similar to the Merikah of a cup that was used for cold liquids of Isur (for which the Merikah is done with cold water), or whether it is similar to the Merikah of a cup that was used for hot liquids of Isur (for which the Merikah is done with hot water). According to this explanation, after hot water is poured over a cup in order to remove the Isur that was absorbed in it, the cup is rinsed with cold water to complete the cleansing process.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Avodah Zarah (76a, DH mi'Kan) mentions that this indeed was the common practice. After Hag'alah, boiling the Isur out of a Kli that was used with hot water, the practice was to dip the Kli in cold water immediately afterwards.
</p><p>
Tosfos here and in Avodah Zarah questions this opinion from the Gemara here which states that a Kli in which Terumah was cooked does not require Merikah u'Shetifah, but it does require Hag'alah. The Gemara asks, what is the difference between Merikah u'Shetifah and Hag'alah, if Merikah is done with hot water? The Gemara answers that the difference is the extra Shetifah in cold water which is performed with Merikah u'Shetifah, but not with Hag'alah. The Gemara implies that Hag'alah does <i>not</i> have a Shetifah associated with it.
</p><p>
Tosfos in Avodah Zarah answers that those opinions which require washing a Kli in cold water after Hag'alah learn the Gemara differently. They learn that the Gemara is saying that Terumah requires Hag'alah with only a single washing afterwards. Merikah u'Shetifah, in contrast, involve a Hag'alah with <i>two</i> washings in cold water afterwards -- one washing is done with the Merikah as part of the normal Hag'alah process, and an additional Shetifah is done afterwards because the vessel is Kodesh. The <b>ROSH</b> in Avodah Zarah adds that this explanation is more consistent with the words of the Gemara than the simple understanding of the Gemara (that Chulin does not require Shetifah at all), since the Gemara writes that what distinguishes Kodshim from Chulin is 'the extra Shetifah,' and not merely 'the Shetifah.'</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) COOKING IN A POT USED FOR KORBANOS</b></font>
<br>QUESTIONS: The Mishnah records an argument between Rebbi Tarfon and the Chachamim with regard to performing Merikah u'Shetifah during the Regel. Rebbi Tarfon maintains that when one cooks a Korban in a pot at the beginning of the Regel, he may continue using the pot throughout the entire Regel without performing Merikah u'Shetifah. Only after the Regel passes must he perform Merikah u'Shetifah. The Chachamim argue and maintain that one may use the pot without Merikah u'Shetifah only until 'Zeman Achilah,' until the time during which the Korban may be eaten.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the logic of Rebbi Tarfon is that on each day of the Regel, when a different Korban is cooked in the pot, the Beli'ah (the taste absorbed in the walls of the pot) from the previous Korban is purged from the walls of the pot and the Beli'ah from the new Korban takes its place ('Na'aseh Gi'ul la'Chaveiro'). Since the Beli'ah in the pot is never Nosar but always the Beli'ah of a new Korban, Merikah u'Shetifah are not required.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that Rebbi Tarfon refers to the cooking of a Korban Shelamim in the pot after all of the other Korbanos have been cooked in the pot during the day. A Korban Shelamim may be eaten for two days, and thus the Beli'ah left in the pot at the end of the day (after the Korban Shelamim has been cooked) is always a Beli'ah which has another full day before it becomes Nosar.
</p><p>
The Chachamim who disagree with Rebbi Tarfon apparently do not accept this argument and do not consider this a valid way to exempt the pot from the requirement of Merikah u'Shetifah.
</p><p>
There are a number of points in this Gemara which require further elucidation.
</p><p>
1. Why do the Chachamim not accept Rebbi Tarfon's argument? It certainly is true that as long as there is no Beli'ah of Nosar in the pot, there is no requirement to perform Merikah u'Shetifah with metal cookware, or to perform Shevirah with earthenware. Even the Chachamim agree with this, as is evident from the Gemara earlier (beginning of 96a) which suggests that earthenware pots should be placed in a furnace to remove the Beli'ah, in order to circumvent the requirement of Shevirah. Rashi there (DH Ela) explains that Shevirah is not required unless the Korban which was cooked in the pot left behind a Beli'ah (see <b>TOSFOS</b> there). The same should apply to Merikah u'Shetifah. Why, then, do the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Tarfon in the Mishnah? (<b>RA'AVAD</b> in Toras Kohanim, Parshas Tzav 7:2)
</p><p>
2. The converse may also be asked. Although Rashi (on 96a) explains that the Halachah is that an earthenware vessel in which food was cooked (Bishul) does not require Shevirah unless there was a Beli'ah, the Gemara (95b) entertains the possibility that a vessel with Bishul requires Shevirah even when there is no Beli'ah. The Gemara attempts to resolve this question with various proofs from the Mishnah, but it refutes all of the proofs. Presumably, the same question applies to Merikah u'Shetifah when there is no Beli'ah, since they are compared to Shevirah. Why, then, does the Gemara not prove from the Mishnah here that Bishul without Beli'ah does not require Shevirah, or Merikah u'Shetifah? Rebbi Tarfon states that one may cook in a pot throughout the Regel as long as one cooks a Shelamim in the pot at the end of each day to remove the previous day's Beli'ah. If Bishul alone, with no Beli'ah, requires Merikah u'Shetifah, then even Rebbi Tarfon should require Merikah u'Shetifah in such a case! (<b>MIKDASH DAVID</b>, Kodshim 31:3)
</p><p>
3. The Mikdash David asks further, how can Rebbi Tarfon rule that one may cook without Merikah u'Shetifah throughout the Regel, when the Regel lasts for seven (or eight) days? One of those days must be a Shabbos, and on Shabbos a Korban Shelamim may not be offered, and cooking in a pot is prohibited! Consequently, the Korbanos of Erev Shabbos will become Nosar when Shabbos ends. Why should Rebbi Tarfon not require Merikah u'Shetifah after the Shabbos of the Regel?
</p><p>
4. Why is Rebbi Tarfon's ruling limited to the Regel? On any ordinary day of the year one should be permitted to delay the Merikah u'Shetifah by cooking Shelamim in the pot after it was used for other Korbanos. Why does Rebbi Tarfon's ruling apply only to the Regel? (<b>RA'AVAD</b>, Toras Kohanim, ibid.)
</p><p>
5. Why is it necessary to cook a Korban Shelamim in the pot to remove the Isur? Why can one not cook <i>Chulin</i> in the pot to remove the Isur? Once Chulin has been cooked in the pot, it cannot become Nosar and it will not be necessary to cook anything else in the pot the next day to prevent it from becoming Nosar!
</p><p>
6. Why is one permitted to cook Shelamim that was slaughtered today inside of a pot in which Shelamim from yesterday, or a Korban Chatas from today, was cooked? The Gemara earlier (75b) discusses the principle of 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul' -- we may not cause an item of Kodshim to become Pasul before its allotted time, and we may not limit its consumption in any way, such as by restricting the population that may eat it. If one cooks the Korban Shelamim of today inside of a pot which contains a Beli'ah of a Korban Shelamim from yesterday, then the taste of yesterday's Shelamim that enters today's Shelamim will cause it to become forbidden to be eaten after one day, instead of after two days. The Shelamim that is cooked now in the pot absorbs the taste of the Korban that must be eaten by tonight. Furthermore, if it is cooked in a pot in which a Chatas was cooked, then the population of people who may eat the Shelamim becomes limited to male Kohanim! (<b>TOSFOS</b> to 96a, DH v'Im, and <b>RITVA</b> to Avodah Zarah 76a)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) According to the way <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> explain the Gemara, the answers to these questions are as follows.
</p><p>
1. With regard to the first question (why do the Chachamim prohibit using the pot until the end of the Regel), the <b>RA'AVAD</b> in Toras Kohanim (ibid.) suggests that perhaps the Chachamim did not want to permit cooking a Shelamim in the pot to remove the taste of the Chatas, either because they were concerned that the Shelamim would not fill the pot as much as the Chatas and some of the taste of the Chatas would remain, or because they were concerned that people might begin to be negligent with the practice of Merikah u'Shetifah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (96a, DH v'Im) appears to take a different approach. Tosfos asks that if a Chatas was cooked in the pot, one should not be permitted to cook a Shelamim in the pot, since doing so reduces the number of people who may eat the Shelamim (as mentioned in the sixth question). Tosfos answers that it is true that, normally, a Beli'ah of Isur in a pot prohibits the food that is subsequently cooked in the pot, even if the food of Heter that is cooked in the pot is the same type of food as the Isur that is absorbed in the pot. (This is known as 'Nosen Ta'am Bar Nasan Ta'am d'Isura,' the taste absorbed in the pot becomes re-absorbed by another item; since the taste is Asur, it is able to prohibit the item that absorbs it.) However, if the Heter and the Isur are the same type of food, then the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan, since, mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino is Batel b'Rov. Perhaps Rebbi Tarfon permits cooking the Shelamim in a pot in which Chatas was cooked during the Regel, because he maintains that the Rabanan were lenient due to the great demand for pots during the Regel.
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, it is evident that Rebbi Tarfon permits an Isur d'Rabanan due to external considerations. Perhaps the Chachamim who disagree with Rebbi Tarfon do not permit cooking Shelamim in a pot used for a Chatas for the very reason that Tosfos suggests; they do not agree that the Rabanan were lenient merely because of the demand for pots during the Regel.
</p><p>
2. Why does the Gemara not prove from Rebbi Tarfon's ruling that Bishul does not require Merikah u'Shetifah when it leaves no Beli'ah in the pot? The answer is that perhaps the Gemara indeed could have proved this from Rebbi Tarfon's ruling. However, the Halachah follows the opinion of the Chachamim. The Gemara is in doubt about whether the Chachamim prohibit leaving the pot throughout the Regel without Merikah u'Shetifah because of the reasons mentioned above in the answer to the first question, or whether they prohibit it because Bishul requires Merikah u'Shetifah even when there is no Beli'ah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
3. To answer the question of the Mikdash David regarding the Shabbos that occurs during the Regel, one may suggest that there is a case in which a pot may be left without Merikah u'Shetifah until the end of the Regel without facing the problem of Shabbos. That case is when the last day of the Regel is Shabbos, when there is no Shabbos in the middle of the Regel. When, however, Shabbos occurs during the middle of the Regel, even Rebbi Tarfon will require Merikah u'Shetifah during the Regel, right after Shabbos.
</p><p>
4. Why does Rebbi Tarfon permit this method only during the Regel, and not during the rest of the year? According to Tosfos (cited above in the answer to the first question), it is clear that during the rest of the year there is an Isur d'Rabanan to cook Shelamim in a pot in which Chatas was cooked, because the Shelamim absorbs the Beli'ah of the Chatas, which thereby limits the consumption of the Korban to Kohanim.
</p><p>
However, other Rishonim do not accept the answer of Tosfos (as will be discussed below, in the answer to the sixth question). The Ra'avad answers that, indeed, during the rest of the year Rebbi Tarfon permits using the pot in such a manner. However, the Kohen may not be able to find a Shelamim every day to cook inside of his Chatas pot. Only during the Regel, when many Shelamim are brought to the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered, will he certainly find a Shelamim to cook in his Chatas pot every day. This may be the intention of Rashi (DH Na'aseh) as well.
</p><p>
5. Although one is permitted to bring Chulin into the Azarah to be eaten (see Tosfos to Menachos 80b, DH v'Chi), one is not permitted to cook Chulin in a pot of Hekdesh. This is prohibited by the Isur of Me'ilah, using a sanctified pot for a non-sanctified purpose.
</p><p>
6. Tosfos (see above, in the answer to the first question) answers the sixth question. Tosfos maintains that the prohibition of 'Nosen Ta'am bar Nosen Ta'am d'Isura' is only mid'Rabanan when the Isur and Heter are the same type of food. The Rabanan suspended this Isur during the Regel.
</p><p>
The Ra'avad in Toras Kohanim explains that the taste left in the pot is not enough to leave a taste in the Shelamim, and therefore it does not cause it to become prohibited. The Ra'avad might mean that the Kohanim were careful to put a large amount of Shelamim in a pot in which a small amount of Chatas was cooked. The <b>RITVA</b> in Avodah Zarah (76a) cites the <b>RAMBAN</b> who gives a similar explanation. He writes that the Kohanim first perform Hag'alah with the pot and thereby remove most of the absorbed Isur so that only a minute amount remains, and that minute amount is not able to prohibit the Shelamim. However, if Shelamim is <i>not</i> cooked in the pot afterwards, the minute amount of Chatas that remains absorbed in the pot becomes Nosar; once it becomes Nosar and is prohibited, even a minute amount can prohibit what is cooked subsequently in the pot. (This is because of the rule, 'Ein Mevatlin Isur l'Chatchilah' -- we may not annul something that has already become prohibited.)
</p><p>
These are the answers to the questions according to the way Rashi, Tosfos, and most Rishonim understand the Sugya.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos and in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:14) has an entirely different approach to the Sugya. The Rambam understands that the Gemara's final interpretation of Rebbi Tarfon's ruling is not that the Beli'ah is removed by cooking a new Shelamim in the pot after it was used for other Korbanos. Rather, he learns that according to the Gemara's conclusion, Rebbi Tarfon <i>does not permit</i> leaving the pot until the end of the Regel to perform Merikah u'Shetifah. Rebbi Tarfon in the Mishnah means that during the Regel, one is permitted to leave the pot <i>until the end of that day</i> of the Regel. Before the day ends, however, the Merikah u'Shetifah must be performed. The Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Tarfon maintain that one must perform Merikah u'Shetifah <i>immediately after</i> cooking with that pot, and one may not wait until the end of the day if he has finished cooking with the pot for now. Their view is based on the verse that the Gemara cites.
</p><p>
It is evident that the Rambam has a different Girsa than the one in our text. In the Gemara's final explanation of Rebbi Tarfon, the Rambam's Girsa reads, 'Na'aseh Gi'ul' without the word 'la'Chaveiro.' The Rambam understands that this means that every day one must perform Merikah u'Shetifah, and when Rebbi Tarfon says that one may use the pot 'throughout all of the Regel,' he means that one may use the pot throughout every day of the Regel, performing Merikah u'Shetifah only at the end of the day.
</p><p>
This answers all of the questions posed above.
</p><p>
1. The first question was why the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Tarfon. From the Rambam's words it seems that the requirement to perform Merikah u'Shetifah immediately after cooking is mid'Rabanan, based on an Asmachta. Mid'Oraisa, though, as long as the Kohanim can eat the Korban, it is permitted to perform Merikah u'Shetifah. That is, Merikah u'Shetifah may be performed until the end of the day. Rebbi Tarfon maintains that the Rabanan were lenient and permitted the Kohanim to wait until the end of the day, due to their involvement with the festivities of the Regel.
</p><p>
2. Since Rebbi Tarfon's ruling is unrelated to removing the Beli'ah to circumvent Merikah u'Shetifah, the Mishnah has no bearing on the discussion of whether Bishul without Beli'ah requires Merikah u'Shetifah.
</p><p>
3. A Shabbos that occurs during the Regel is the same as any other day of the Regel, according to both Rebbi Tarfon and the Chachamim. According to Rebbi Tarfon, one may perform the Merikah u'Shetifah until daybreak after Shabbos. According to the Chachamim, the Merikah u'Shetifah is performed immediately after Bishul (after Shabbos), as usual.
</p><p>
4. The reason why Rebbi Tarfon's ruling applies only during the Regel is that he agrees with the Chachamim that during the rest of the year, when the Kohanim are not as busy, Merikah u'Shetifah must be performed immediately after cooking with the pot. (This is similar to the point that Tosfos makes.)
</p><p>
5. According to the Rambam, Rebbi Tarfon does not permit the usage of the pot by removing the Beli'ah by cooking a new Korban in it (perhaps because of the sixth question).
</p><p>
6. According to the Rambam, Rebbi Tarfon does not permit one to cook a Shelamim in a Chatas pot, and thus no Isur becomes absorbed in the Shelamim.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A 'DAVAR KAL' COOKED WITH A 'DAVAR CHAMUR'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that when one cooks Kodshim and Chulin, or Kodshei Kodashim and Kodshim Kalim, together, if the more stringent item ('Davar Chamur') gives taste ('Nosen Ta'am') to the less stringent item ('Davar Kal'), then the Davar Kal must be eaten in accordance with all of the stringent laws of the Davar Chamur.
</p><p>
The Mishnah continues and says, 'And they do not require Merikah u'Shetifah and they do not disqualify through contact.' The Gemara points out that this is self-contradictory; if the Davar Chamur is Nosen Ta'am, then the pot should require Merikah u'Shetifah and it should be Posel whatever it touches. The Gemara answers that there are words missing from the Mishnah. The Mishnah means that when the Davar Chamur is Nosen Ta'am, then indeed the pot requires Merikah u'Shetifah and the mixture is Posel through contact. When the Mishnah then says that it does not require Merikah u'Shetifah and is not Posel through contact, it refers to a case in which the Davar Chamur is not Nosen Ta'am.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Mishnah itself omit all of these words and present the Halachah in such a misleading manner?
</p><p>
Moreover, why does the Mishnah mention only one Halachah with regard to a case in which the Davar Chamur is Nosen Ta'am, and two different Halachos with regard to a case in which it is not Nosen Ta'am? The Mishnah should mention all three Halachos for both cases.
</p><p>
ANSWER: To understand the intent of the Mishnah, it is necessary to address a different question. What is the difference between saying that the more lenient food must be eaten like the more Chamur, and saying that it is Posel through contact? The words 'Posel b'Maga' mean simply that the more lenient food acquires the stringent status of the more Chamur food, and thus it is the same as saying that the more lenient food must be eaten with the stringencies of the more Chamur food!
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (in the Mishnah, DH v'Ein Poslin) explains that 'Posel b'Maga' does not mean that the Davar Kal becomes like the Davar Chamur. Rather, it means that whatever the Davar Kal touches becomes Pasul.
</p><p>
This explanation presents a number of difficulties. Why does the Mishnah say that the Davar Kal makes what it touches Pasul? The Mishnah still should say that the Davar Kal makes what it touches to be like the Davar Chamur. Why does it say that it is 'Posel' what it touches?
</p><p>
Rashi (in the Gemara, DH v'Ein Poslin) answers this question by saying that this part of the Mishnah is discussing Kodshei Kodashim that were <i>Pasul</i> that touched Kodshim Kalim.
</p><p>
However, the difficulty remains. If the Korban was Pasul, then it makes no difference whether it was Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim! Moreover, in the end of the Mishnah, the Mishnah says that if the Davar Chamur is not Nosen Ta'am to the Davar Kal, then the Davar Kal is not Posel what it touches. Why does the Mishnah say that the Davar Kal does not Posel what it touches? It should say that the Davar Kal <i>itself</i> does not become Pasul! Rashi in the Gemara answers this question by saying that since the Reisha of the Mishnah says that the Davar Kal is Posel what it touches, the Seifa of the Mishnah uses a similar wording and says that the Davar Kal is not Posel what it touches. The Mishnah means, however, that the Davar Kal itself does not become Pasul.
</p><p>
Perhaps another interpretation of the Mishnah may be suggested, which will answer this question differently.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Beitzah (7b) teaches that there are occasions in which the Mishnah uses the letter 'Shin' ('because' or 'when') with the meaning of the letter 'Vav' ('and'). The Acharonim point out a number of places in the Mishnah where the opposite transposition applies: the Mishnah uses a 'Vav' which is meant to be interpreted as a 'Shin.' Accordingly, one may suggest that when the Mishnah says 'v'Einan Poslin b'Maga,' it means, '<i>she'Einan</i> Poslin b'Maga' -- <i>when</i> they are not Poslin b'Maga. The Mishnah is saying that if the Davar Chamur is Nosen Ta'am, then the Davar Kal is eaten like the Chamur. The Mishnah then concludes, 'And they do not require Merikah u'Shetifah <i>and</i> they do not disqualify through contact,' which should be read, 'And they do not require Merikah u'Shetifah, <i>when</i> they do not disqualify through contact'; that is, <i>because</i> the Davar Chamur does not invalidate the Davar Kal through contact, the pot does not require Merikah u'Shetifah.
</p><p>
The Mishnah is teaching that when the Davar Chamur is Nosen Ta'am, the Davar Kal has all of the laws of the Davar Chamur, including the requirement of Merikah u'Shetifah. However, when the Davar Chamur is <i>not</i> Nosen Ta'am, one might have thought that although the Davar Kal does not have to be eaten by the time that the Davar Chamur must be eaten, it still requires Merikah u'Shetifah at the time that the Davar Chamur becomes prohibited. This is because Merikah u'Shetifah might not be directly connected to a Beli'ah; rather, perhaps even a Beli'ah which cannot be tasted requires Merikah u'Shetifah, since the requirement of Merikah u'Shetifah is not due to the Isur that the Beli'ah creates but is due to the fact that the Korban is present. The Mishnah then says that when the Davar Chamur is not Nosen Ta'am ('she'Einan Poslin b'Maga' -- when they do not disqualify through contact) -- and, therefore, the Davar Kal does not become prohibited at the time limit of the Davar Chamur -- there is no obligation of Merikah u'Shetifah at all for the Davar Kal, because it is only the Isur of Nosar that creates the obligation of Merikah u'Shetifah. This is what the Mishnah means when it says that the Davar Kal does not require Merikah u'Shetifah <i>because</i> the Davar Chamur does not make the Davar Kal become Nosar through contact, when there is no Nosen Ta'am.
</p><p>
According to this approach, the Mishnah may be read without adding any words. (Rather, the 'Vav' of the word 'v'Einan' must be read as a 'Shin,' or perhaps as a 'Kaf' and 'Shin' -- 'k'she'Einan.') The Mishnah indeed notes in the Seifa that the latter part of its statement is referring to a case in which there is no Nosan Ta'am, and thus the Davar Kal does not acquire the status of the Davar Chamur.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHAT METHOD OF KASHERING IS REQUIRED? <span class='indexentry'>[Kashering: method]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	97a (Mishnah):</span> A roasting spit or grill is Kashered in hot water.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 76a - Contradiction (Rav Amram - Mishnah):</span> A spit or grill (of a Nochri) is Kashered through Libun (heating it until it glows).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</span> Kodshim Kelim are more lenient because they absorbed permitted taste. Nochri Kelim absorbed forbidden taste.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection (and Answer #2 - Rabah):</span> What difference does it make? In both cases, they emit forbidden taste! (After a day or two, Kodshim are Asur due to Nosar.) Rather, the Mishnah requires Hag'alah for Kodshim Kelim, i.e. Shetifah u'Merikah (rinsing and scouring. However, Kashering is only through Libun.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection (Abaye):</span> Shetifah u'Merikah is with cold water. The Mishnah specifies Hag'alah in hot water!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</span> Nochrim do not constantly cook in their Kelim, so the absorptions become hard, and Libun is required. Kodshim Kelim are used constantly, so the absorptions never become hard, so Hag'alah (Kashering in boiling water) suffices.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Defense of Answer #1 (Rav Ashi):</span> Kodshim Kelim are more lenient because they absorbed Heter. Even though the absorption becomes forbidden, genuine Isur never touched the Keli.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Mani):</span> For Libun, one must heat the Keli until the surface peels off.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Huna):</span> For Hag'alah, one puts a small pot in a bigger pot.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	75b (Beraisa):</span> If a Yisrael buys a Keli from a Nochri, if it was used with cold food, such as cups and flasks, he rinses it. If it was used with hot liquids, such as pots and kettles, he does Hag'alah. If it was used to cook over a fire without liquid, such as spits and grills, he does Libun.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 8b (Rav):</span> If one slaughtered with a Nochri's knife, he must peel off a layer from the areas cut;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rabah bar bar Chanah):</span> It suffices to rinse them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> They argue about whether Beis ha'Shechitah (the place of slaughter) is Rose'ach (hot enough to cause absorbed taste in a knife to enter the meat).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection #1:</span> All agree that it is Rose'ach. Rabah says that it suffices to rinse. Since the Simanim are busy exuding blood, they are unable to absorb tastes exuding from the knife.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection #2:</span> No. All agree that it is not Rose'ach. Rav obligates peeling off a layer. The sharpness of the knife causes its absorbed tastes to enter the meat.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 30b - Rav Ashi:</span> I make my knives like new for Pesach. I cover the (wooden) handles in mud (so they will not burn during Koshering) and put the blade in fire, then I put the handles (without the mud) in boiling water.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span>	The Halachah is, it suffices to put the blade and handle in boiling water in a Keli Rishon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</span> A wooden mixing spoon may be Kashered in boiling water in a Keli Rishon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span>	He holds that k'Bol'o Kach Polto (just like it absorbs, it emits).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ameimar):</span> The outer walls of Klei Cheres plated with lead give off moisture. this shows that they absorb, hence they are forbidden.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span>	They cannot be Kashered, for the Torah teaches that absorptions never leave the walls of Klei Cheres ('u'Chli Cheres Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver').</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 8b and 2:7):</span> For Pesach, one puts knives with their handles in boiling water in a Keli Rishon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> Beforehand one must rub and clean them well. If not, the Isur will not be purged. The Sifri expounds that one must remove the rust. Therefore, if a knife has depressions and one cannot clean inside them, Hag'alah does not help, and Libun is required.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (ibid.):</span> Metal Kelim used for Chametz in a Keli Rishon require Hag'alah in a Keli Rishon. For Kelim used for Chametz in a Keli Sheni, e.g. bowls, it suffices to pour boiling water on them in a Keli Sheni and wait until the Isur is purged. We learn from pots of Nochrim. Everything is Kashered the way it is used.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 5:24):</span> If Kelim of metal, stone or wood were used with Chametz in a Keli Sheni, e.g. cups and bowls, he puts them in a big Keli and pours boiling water over them and leaves them there until they emit (all absorbed taste). Then he rinses them, and he may use them for Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (25):</span> Any Klei Cheres used for hot Chametz, whether in a Keli Rishon, e.g. pots, or in a Keli Sheni, e.g. bowls, cannot be used for Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> If an earthenware Keli is returned to the kiln (in which new earthenware Kelim are made, at tremendous temperatures), this Kashers it. Our ovens do not suffice. Perhaps he will remove it before it gets hot enough. When doing Hag'alah, he must ensure that the water not cease boiling.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 451:1):</span> One cannot Kasher for Pesach any Keli Cheres used for hot Chametz through heating it, even if it was not on the fire, only hot Chametz was poured into it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some forbid even in a Keli Sheni.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</span> The Tur is stringent even for Kelim not used on the fire, rather, hot food was poured into them. I.e. even if it was used like a Keli Sheni, heating the Keli will not Kasher it. Also the Rambam equates a Keli Sheni to a Keli Rishon regarding Keli Cheres used for Chametz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Darchei Moshe (1):</span> The Magid Mishneh says that heating a Keli Cheres does not help, even if it was used only like a Keli Sheni. The Beis Yosef says that the Tur agrees. This is wrong. The Tur holds that absorptions occur only in a Keli Rishon or through Iruy, which is like a Keli Rishon.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (3):</span> The custom is to do Hag'alah on everything. B'Di'eved, if one used a Keli that was never used for a Keli Rishon, this requires investigation. The Rashba is always stringent about a Keli Sheni, and requires Klipah. If so, we should do so on Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (19):</span> This opinion holds that a Keli Sheni absorbs somewhat. This is why they need some Kashering, i.e. in a Keli Sheni (Shulchan Aruch Sa'if 5).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 5):</span> If Kelim were used for Chametz in a Keli Sheni, one Kashers them in a Keli Sheni. If one did Iruy over them from a Keli Rishon, he Kashers them through Iruy Keli Rishon. It is not enough to Kasher them in a Keli Sheni.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (6):</span> The law of Kelim depends on the primary usage. Even if bowls are sometimes used on the fire, since they are used mostly through Iruy, they are Kashered in this way.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Lachen):</span> Avi ha'Ezri says that one must Kasher all bowls in a Keli Rishon, for sometimes one puts them in a Keli Rishon. He is concerned for the minority usage. The Rif and Rambam follow the majority usage, like the Ran and Rashba.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (13):</span> Even though cups are sometimes used for hot, since they are used mostly for cold, it suffices to rinse them. This shows that we follow the majority usage.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (46):</span> Even if it is used mostly through Iruy or in a Keli Sheni, if it is known that it was used for Chametz in a Keli Rishon in the last 24 hours, all agree that it needs Hag'alah in a Keli Rishon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some are stringent to do Hag'alah in a Keli Rishon. This is the custom. The same applies to anything for which there is concern lest it was used in a Keli Rishon, e.g. spoons.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (11):</span> The stringency is due to ignoramuses who do not know to distinguish between a Keli used mostly in a Keli Rishon and sometimes. The Rema says that we are stringent about anything for which there is concern, e.g. spoons. I say that spoons are more stringent, for they are often put in pots on the fire.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (30):</span> Tosfos is stringent. We exempt from Hag'alah only when we know that the Keli was used only for cold.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (47):</span> B'Di'eved, we rely on the first opinion.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesav Sofer (YD 8):</span> According to the opinion that Beis ha'Shechitah is Rose'ach, Libun should be required for knives used to slaughter Kodshim. Why does the Mishnah require this only for spits and grills, but not for knives? The questioner answered that this opinion holds that Hag'alah is Merikah u'Shtifah, and the Torah decreed that this is needed only for what absorbed through fire, but not through the heat of Beis ha'Shechitah. The one who requires Hag'alah *in addition to* Merikah u'Shtifah holds that Beis ha'Shechitah is cold. This is difficult, for the Gemara rejected the opinion that Hag'alah is Merikah u'Shtifah in cold water. Also, the Rashba says that the knife absorbs even according to the opinion that Beis ha'Shechitah is cold, so Hag'alah should be required! Rather, the knife requires Hag'alah. The Mishnah taught a spit and grill for the Chidush that Libun is not required. There was no Hava Amina to require Libun for a Shechitah knife, which absorbs only through the heat of Beis ha'Shechitah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 121:4):</span> If one fried in a pan, even though for Pesach Hag'alah suffices, for other Isurim Libun is required.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (8):</span>  Hag'alah suffices for Pesach, since it absorbed Heter. This applies even if it was used for meat or milk However, Rama mi'Pi'ano (96) says that a Nochri usually uses it without water, rather, with other liquids such as oil, unlike a pan used for Chametz. If so, also a pan used for meat or milk requires Libun, for it absorbed without any intermediary.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishbetzos Zahav (16):</span> Does a Nochri's pan require Libun because the oil is forbidden, so it does not give the leniency of something used with liquid, so that Hag'alah should suffice? No. Rather, it is because the oil burns and dries up, and he fries without liquid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (R. Akiva Eiger on Shach):</span>  The Rama mi'Pi'ano explicitly says that since the forbidden liquid is cooked on the pan and absorbed without any intermediary, this is called cooking through fire without liquid. Also the Shach's conclusion is not necessarily true. Perhaps for Chametz we needed to say that the liquid was permitted because the absorption is called Isur, but regarding meat or milk the absorption was Heter, so Hag'alah suffices. This is why Hag'alah suffices for Klei Kodshim, for the absorption was Heter and only later became Nosar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Chodosh (93:4):</span> The Ran distinguished between Nosar and Chametz. Chametz is called absorption of Isur. Likewise, meat or milk is called absorption of Isur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (R. Akiva Eiger, ibid.):</span> The Rashba says that Nat bar Nat (a taste absorbed from an absorbed taste, e.g. water absorbed taste from a solid cooking in it, and a pot absorbed from the water) is not called absorption of Heter, for it is still called Chametz. This does not apply to meat or milk. The Shulchan Aruch (509:5) explicitly says that Hag'alah suffices for a pan used for meat or milk.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl3'>	Har Tzvi:</span> If a knife absorbed from Beis ha'Shechitah of a Tereifah, according to R. Akiva Eiger this is not called absorption through liquid (blood), for the blood is Isur.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) BREAKING THE BONE OF THE KORBAN PESACH IN ORDER TO EAT THE MARROW</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Torah prohibits one from breaking a bone of the Korban Pesach. A Beraisa teaches that this prohibition applies not only to a bone that contains no marrow, but also to a bone that contains marrow. (Perhaps the Beraisa derives this from the letter 'Vav' of the word 'v'Etzem' in the verse.)
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that there is a Mitzvas Aseh to eat all of the meat of the Korban Pesach, and the marrow inside of the bone is considered part of the meat, since it is edible. Why, then, does the Mitzvas Aseh to eat the marrow not override the Lo Sa'aseh against breaking the bone (which is necessary to do in order to get the marrow), in accordance with the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'? (If the Torah is teaching that a Mitzvas Aseh does not override the Lo Sa'aseh in this case, then this should be a source to teach that a Mitzvas Aseh never overrides a Lo Sa'aseh!)
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that it must be that a Mitzvas Aseh does not override a Lo Sa'aseh <i>in the Beis ha'Mikdash</i>. The principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' applies only to an ordinary Lo Sa'aseh that is observed outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assume that the rule of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' should apply to the marrow of the bone of the Korban Pesach? The Gemara in Shabbos (133b) teaches that the rule of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' applies only when one transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh at the same time that he fulfills the Mitzvas Aseh. It does not apply when he transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh before he fulfills the Mitzvas Aseh. In the case of eating the marrow of the Korban, one must break the bone (and transgress the Lo Sa'aseh) <i>before</i> he obtains the marrow, and thus the Mitzvas Aseh should not override the Lo Sa'aseh in such a case. (<b>TOSFOS</b>, end of DH v'Echad; see also Insights to Pesachim 85:1.)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) Although <b>TOSFOS</b>, as printed in our texts, provides no answer to this question, the <b>PISKEI TOSFOS</b> (#69), a summary of the Halachic conclusions of Tosfos, provides an answer to this question in the name of Tosfos.
</p><p>
He explains that when it is <i>impossible</i> to fulfill the Aseh without transgressing the Lo Sa'aseh, the Torah permits one to transgress the Lo Sa'aseh even before he actually fulfills the Aseh.
</p><p>
The logic of this answer is difficult to understand. One of the conditions of the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' is that the Aseh is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh only when it is impossible to fulfill the Aseh in any manner other than by violating the Lo Sa'aseh (see Yevamos 20b). Accordingly, the second condition -- that an Aseh does not override a Lo Sa'aseh when it is necessary to violate the Lo Sa'aseh first -- must apply to a situation in which it is impossible to fulfill the Aseh without violating the Lo Sa'aseh, and nevertheless one may not violate the Lo Sa'aseh before he fulfills the Aseh. How can the Piskei Tosfos suggest otherwise?
</p><p>
The Acharonim explain the intention of the Piskei Tosfos as follows. Normally, the situation in which an Aseh overrides a Lo Sa'aseh is a specific, limited occasion of the fulfillment of the Aseh. For example, there is a Mitzvas Aseh to place Tzitzis on a four cornered garment. This Mitzvah can be fulfilled with garments other than linen without violating any Lo Sa'aseh. However, when a four cornered garment is made of linen, placing wool Tzitzis on the garment will violate the Lo Sa'aseh of Sha'atnez. In such a case, the law is that the Aseh is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh, since it is impossible to fulfill the Aseh for this particular garment without violating the Lo Sa'aseh. Nevertheless, the Torah permits violating the Lo Sa'aseh only at the time one fulfills the Aseh of Tzitzis, since the Mitzvah of Tzitzis itself <i>does</i> apply in other occasions in which it is not necessary to wear Sha'atnez and violate a Lo Sa'aseh.
</p><p>
However, the case of the Gemara here is different. It is impossible to fulfill the Mitzvah of eating all of the meat of the Korban Pesach, including the marrow, without breaking a bone, since there always remains some marrow inside the bone. The Piskei Tosfos proposes that in such a situation one should be permitted to violate the Lo Sa'aseh even before he fulfills the Mitzvas Aseh.
</p><p>
The Acharonim suggest two different ways to understand the logic for such a distinction (see <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b>, Beitzah #6).
</p><p>
The simple understanding is that not only a Mitzvas Aseh overrides a Lo Sa'aseh, but even preparatory acts for the fulfillment of a Mitzvas Aseh override a Lo Sa'aseh. However, the only time a preparatory act is given the power of an Aseh to override a Lo Sa'aseh is when the Torah reveals this by giving a Mitzvas Aseh which can be fulfilled only through the prior violation of a Lo Sa'aseh. (See <b>CHOK NASAN</b>, <b>CHEMDAS DANIEL</b>.)
</p><p>
However, most Acharonim (see <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, <b>TUREI EVEN</b> to Chagigah 2b) have a different understanding of the Piskei Tosfos. The Piskei Tosfos does not mean that one may violate the Lo Sa'aseh first when it is impossible to fulfill the Aseh without <i>violating</i> the Lo Sa'aseh. Rather, he means that one may violate the Lo Sa'aseh first when it is impossible to fulfill the Aseh without <i>performing this action</i> (whether it is permitted or prohibited). Any action that is inherently necessary in order to fulfill the Aseh is not considered merely a preparatory act, but it becomes a part of the Mitzvas Aseh itself. It is part of the act that the Torah mandates as a Mitzvas Aseh. Since it is not possible to eat the marrow without breaking the bone, the act of breaking the bone is part of the Mitzvas Aseh of eating the Korban Pesach. As such, it overrides the Lo Sa'aseh against breaking the bone, since the Aseh (of breaking the bone to get the marrow) is done at the same time as the Lo Sa'aseh (not to break the bone).
</p><p>
(b) Another approach may be suggested to answer the question of Tosfos and to explain why the Aseh of eating the Korban indeed is fulfilled at the same time that the bone is broken. Perhaps the Mitzvah to eat the Korban is not the act of swallowing the food, but rather it is the entire process of chewing and consuming the Korban. If a person chews on the bone and chews right through to the marrow and eats the marrow in such a manner, at the moment that he starts to chew on the bone he is in the process of chewing the marrow in the bone as well, since the bone and the marrow are chewed together. Accordingly, the Mitzvah to eat the Korban indeed is fulfilled at the time that the bone is broken. Even though the Mitzvah is not completed until later when the person swallows the marrow, nevertheless the entire process of the Mitzvah overrides the Lo Sa'aseh.
</p><p>
This concept is expressed elsewhere. The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> in Bava Metzia (33a) points out that the Gemara in Shabbos (132b) says that the Mitzvah of Bris Milah overrides the Lo Sa'aseh of removing Tzara'as from one's body when there is a Nega of Tzara'as on the Orlah. The Nimukei Yosef asks that the Milah is not completed until the Peri'ah is done, and thus the Lo Sa'aseh is being violated before the completion of the Mitzvah of Milah! The Nimukei Yosef proves from here that every part of the fulfillment of a Mitzvas Aseh is able to override the Lo Sa'aseh.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Gemara here is asking that the entire process of chewing and swallowing should be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh. (Even before the person's teeth touch the marrow, he is chewing the marrow that is being pressed within the bone between his teeth.)
</p><p>
However, this explanation needs further clarification. Why should the chewing be part of the Mitzvah? The Gemara in Chulin (103b) teaches that one transgresses an Isur when he eats a prohibited food either when the food enters his throat or when he swallows it, but not before that time. Presumably, the same should apply to a <i>Mitzvah</i> of eating, such as the Mitzvah to eat Matzah or the Korban Pesach. The Mitzvah should be fulfilled only at the time that the food enters his throat or when he swallows it!
</p><p>
The answer to this question depends on an analysis of the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim, which is derived from the verse, 'v'Achlu Osam' (Shemos 29:33). What is the nature of the Mitzvah to eat a Korban? Is it the same as the Mitzvah to eat Matzah, or is it a different type of Mitzvah of eating altogether?
</p><p>
This topic is discussed by many Acharonim at length.
</p><p>
1. The <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (Mitzvah 102:2, and the beginning of Mitzvah 134) assumes that the Mitzvah to eat a Korban is identical to the Mitzvah to eat Matzah. Based on this assumption, he asks why the Gemara later (109a) states that a Katan, a minor, is permitted to eat a Korban. Why is a minor permitted to eat a Korban if he is not included in the Mitzvah? His eating prevents those who are obligated to perform the Mitzvah from eating (and fulfilling the Mitzvah with) the meat which he eats! Why should he be permitted to prevent the Mitzvah from being fulfilled?
</p><p>
The Minchas Chinuch answers that the Mitzvah to eat Kodshim is similar to the Mitzvah to eat Matzah; the Mitzvah is fulfilled when one eats only a k'Zayis. If there is enough meat to provide a k'Zayis to every Kohen, then the remaining meat may be fed to Ketanim.
</p><p>
Based on this understanding of the Mitzvah to eat Kodshim, the Minchas Chinuch writes that it is possible that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah to eat Kodshim when he eats it in an unusual manner ('she'Lo k'Derech Achilah'), or if he wraps a piece of lettuce around it so that it does not touch his throat, or if he eats less than a k'Zayis, just one does not fulfill the Mitzvah to eat Matzah if he consumes the Matzah in any of these ways. (The Acharonim discuss each of these methods of eating with regard to the Mitzvah of Matzah.)
</p><p>
According to the Minchas Chinuch, it is clear that the Mitzvah is <i>not</i> fulfilled at the time of the chewing, but only when the marrow enters the person's mouth and he swallows it. The Minchas Chinuch finds support for this view in the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> in Yoma (39a). The Gemara there teaches that after the times of Shimon ha'Tzadik, when a Kohen would receive his portion of the Lechem ha'Panim, it would be only a small amount (the size of a bean), and the modest Kohanim ('Tzenu'im') would withdraw their hands and not take any, while the gluttonous Kohanim would grab whatever they could. The Tosfos Yeshanim comments that the Tzenu'im refused to take the Lechem ha'Panim because it was less than a k'Zayis; it was not enough to fulfill the Mitzvah to eat the Lechem ha'Panim, since there was less than a k'Zayis and it did not satiate them. This shows that the Mitzvah is to eat a k'Zayis of Kodshim. The Minchas Chinuch suggests that if there is not enough bread for each Kohen to receive a full k'Zayis, since the bread must be divided among all of the Kohanim, there is no Mitzvah for any Kohen to eat the Lechem ha'Panim. Only when there is enough to give a k'Zayis to each Kohen is there a Mitzvah to eat it.
</p><p>
2. Many Acharonim, however, find this view difficult. The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> (#96) questions this view from the Sugya here. The Gemara says that the Mitzvas Aseh to eat the Korban Pesach should override the Lo Sa'aseh against breaking a bone. If the Mitzvah is to eat only a k'Zayis of a Korban, then why should the Mitzvah to eat the Korban Pesach permit one to break the bone of the Korban? Even if marrow remains inside the bones, there is no Mitzvas Aseh to eat it once each person has eaten a k'Zayis of meat. Since one can eat the other meat of the Korban and fulfill the Mitzvah, there is no basis for the Aseh to be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh. (There still will be a Lo Sa'aseh not to leave over the marrow in the bones, but a Lo Sa'aseh is not Docheh another Lo Sa'aseh.)
</p><p>
The Minchas Chinuch suggests that the Gemara means that one is prohibited to break the bones even when there is not a k'Zayis of meat for each person.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara does not provide proof that one indeed is prohibited to break the bones in such a case. The Beraisa teaches only that one is prohibited to break bones with marrow when there is no Mitzvah to do so. Perhaps when there is a Mitzvah to do so, the Mitzvas Aseh will be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh against breaking the bones, since a Mitzvas Aseh is always Docheh a Lo Sa'aseh!
</p><p>
A second difficulty on the Minchas Chinuch's approach is expressed by the Minchas Chinuch himself. The Gemara in Yoma (ibid.) says that during the times of Shimon ha'Tzadik, many blessings were witnessed in the Avodos of the Beis ha'Mikdash. One of those blessings was that each Kohen received a full k'Zayis from the Lechem ha'Panim, and some of the Kohanim found the single k'Zayis so filling that they even left some of it over. How is that considered a blessing, if leaving over some of the k'Zayis means that they did not fulfill the Mitzvah properly?
</p><p>
A third difficulty is posed by the <b>RASHASH</b> in Menachos (100a), who points out that Tosfos there implies that the Mitzvah to eat Kodshim is nothing more than a Mitzvah to prevent it from becoming Nosar. There is no Mitzvah per se to eat a k'Zayis of Kodshim. Tosfos discusses the Gemara which teaches that when Motza'i Yom Kippur occurred on Shabbos, and it was not possible to cook the meat of the Chatas of Musaf of Yom Kippur the night after Yom Kippur, certain Kohanim would eat it raw. Others would make fun of those Kohanim and call them, 'Bavliyim,' because of their unusual manner of eating. Why were they called gluttons if they were performing a Mitzvah by preventing the Chatas from becoming Nosar? Tosfos answers that their friends called them gluttons because they became accustomed to eating Korbanos raw even in years when Motza'i Yom Kippur did not occur on Shabbos.
</p><p>
Why does Tosfos not say that they were fulfilling the Mitzvah to eat a k'Zayis of Kodshim, and they were not merely preventing the Korban from becoming Nosar? Although the Rashash suggests that perhaps they did not fulfill the Mitzvah of eating since they ate in an unusual manner ('she'Lo k'Derech Achilah'), he points out that this contradicts the conclusion of Tosfos, that the gluttons would eat the Korban raw during the years when Motza'i Yom Kippur was not on Shabbos. Tosfos implies that the Kohanim who ate in such a manner were poor-mannered, but not that they were violating a Mitzvas Aseh of Achilas Kodshim by eating in such a manner.
</p><p>
A fourth question on the Minchas Chinuch is raised by the <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> (1:2:7). The Beis ha'Levi points out that the Rambam counts as two separate Mitzvos the Mitzvah to offer a Korban Pesach and the Mitzvah to eat a Korban Pesach. However, for other Korbanos, he does not count a separate Mitzvah to eat each Korban. Rather, he counts only a general Mitzvah of eating Kodshim. This implies that there is a difference between the Achilah of Korban Pesach and the Achilah of all other Kodshim. For a Korban Pesach, there is a Mitzvas Aseh to eat a k'Zayis. For other Kodshim, there is no specific Mitzvah on each Kohen to eat a k'Zayis of the Korban.
</p><p>
Therefore, the Beis ha'Levi and <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (OC 140) conclude that the Mitzvas Aseh to eat Kodshim is simply a 'Lav ha'Ba Michlal Aseh,' a negative prohibition that is expressed as a Mitzvas Aseh, which enforces the Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh of 'Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker' (Shemos 12:10), leaving over the meat after its time limit, which also prohibits giving the meat to a person who is not fit to eat it (such as giving Kodshei Kodashim to a Zar, or Kodshei Kalim to an animal). Hence, eating a k'Zayis is not a fulfillment of a Mitzvas Aseh. The Mitzvah is merely to ensure that nothing is left over.
</p><p>
According to this understanding of the Mitzvah, there is both a leniency and a stringency when compared to the Minchas Chinuch's understanding of the Mitzvah. According to the Beis ha'Levi, there is no need to eat a k'Zayis (in contrast to the Minchas Chinuch's understanding). The Mitzvah may be fulfilled by eating less than a k'Zayis if that is the size of the portion that one receives. Moreover, one does not need to eat it himself; if he gives it to another person to eat it and he sees to it that it is eaten, then the Mitzvah has been fulfilled. Therefore, eating it in an unusual manner or swallowing it while wrapped in lettuce also constitutes fulfillment of the Mitzvah. However, if the person's portion is more than a k'Zayis and he does not eat the entire amount or does not give it to someone else to eat, he violates the Mitzvah. In this sense, the understanding of the Beis ha'Levi has a more stringent consequence than the understanding of the Minchas Chinuch.
</p><p>
This approach answers all of the questions posed above. The Gemara here means that there is a Mitzvah to finish the entire Korban so that none of it becomes Nosar. Therefore, even if a k'Zayis remains for every person, there still is a Mitzvah to finish all of the meat of the Korban, even the marrow. This is also the understanding of the <b>BRISKER RAV</b> here, who writes that when Rashi says that the 'Mitzvas Aseh is the Mitzvah of 'v'Achlu Osam,'' he means that in addition to the Mitzvas Aseh for each person to eat a k'Zayis of the Korban Pesach, there is a general Mitzvah for the Korban Pesach to be consumed completely so that none of it becomes Nosar.
</p><p>
This also explains the Gemara in Yoma that says that during the years of Shimon ha'Tzadik, the Kohanim would eat a k'Zayis of the Lechem ha'Panim and they would be so full from it that they would leave some over. Even though they left some over, they still fulfilled the Mitzvah as long as they saw to it that what remained would be eaten eventually.
</p><p>
This answers the Rashash's question from Tosfos in Menachos (100a). The Mitzvas Aseh of eating Kodshim is only to prevent it from being left over.
</p><p>
This also answers the question of the Beis ha'Levi. The Mitzvah of Korban Pesach indeed differs from the Mitzvas Achilah of other Korbanos, because, for other Korbanos, the Mitzvah is merely to see to it that it does not become Nosar. This is not a Mitzvah that applies to each person, but rather it is a detail in the offering of the Korban, which is included in the Mitzvah of sacrificing the Korban. It is only in the case of a Korban Pesach that there is a Mitzvah for each person to eat a k'Zayis.
</p><p>
The Tosfos Yeshanim cited by the Minchas Chinuch does not necessarily support the Minchas Chinuch's view. The Tosfos Yeshanim does not write that there is no Mitzvah to eat less than a k'Zayis, but rather that eating less is not a complete Mitzvah. He means that it is a Mitzvah to eat Kodshim in a manner becoming of royalty, as the Gemara earlier in Zevachim (91a) mentions. One who eats the Korban in an unbecoming manner does not fulfill the Mitzvah in its entirety. This is evident from the conclusion of the Tosfos Yeshanim, where he writes clearly that one <i>does</i> fulfill a Mitzvah by eating less than a k'Zayis, but eating a k'Zayis certainly is better. He explains that this is why the Gemara in Pesachim (3b) says that on the occasions when there was not enough Lechem ha'Panim to distribute one k'Zayis to every Kohen, each Kohen took less than a k'Zayis of the Lechem ha'Panim, in the times when it had a blessing and was filling. (See also <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> in Bo'az, Menachos 11:3. The Tiferes Yisrael rejects this explanation based on his understanding of Tosfos in Zevachim 75b, DH Bechor. However, the intention of Tosfos there seems differ from the Tiferes Yisrael's understanding of his intention.)
</p><p>
According to the way these Acharonim understand the Mitzvah to eat Kodshim, it may be that the entire process of chewing the Korban is considered a fulfillment of the Mitzvas Aseh of preventing it from becoming Nosar. Therefore, the person indeed fulfills the Mitzvas Aseh at the same time that he transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh of breaking a bone, and therefore the Mitzvas Aseh overrides the Lo Sa'aseh. (M. Kornfeld)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BONES OF A KORBAN</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara records a Hekesh which teaches that just as the bones of a Korban Asham are permitted, the bones of all Korbanos are permitted. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mah Asham) explains that the Gemara means that the bones of Korbanos may be used to make Kelim (vessels). How is this derived from the Korban Asham?
</p><p>
(a) Rashi writes that he heard (from his teachers) that the Gemara derives that bones of Korbanos are permitted from the fact that an Asham is eaten, and its bones do not have the status of Nosar since they are not food. Therefore, they may be made into Kelim. A Hekesh teaches that this Halachah applies not only to a Korban Asham but to all Korbanos, even a Korban Olah.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH Af Kol) has difficulty with the approach of his teachers. If the basis of the Hekesh is that an Asham is allowed to be eaten, and its bones which do not have a status of Nosar must be permitted for long term use, then the same Hekesh may be made from a Korban Chatas! Why does the Gemara imply that the source of this law is specifically the Hekesh from a Korban Asham? <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah Asham) similarly asks that this Hekesh may be learn from any Korban which is eaten, such as a Shelamim. (It is probable that Rashi agrees with Tosfos' statement that this Hekesh may be learned from any Korban which is eaten. Perhaps the reason why Rashi gives the specific example of a Chatas is so that there will be a Kal va'Chomer as well. If the bones of a Chatas are permitted, then certainly the bones of all other, less-stringent Korbanos are permitted.)
</p><p>
(b) Rashi gives a different explanation and says that the source of the Hekesh is an extra verse written in the Parshah of the Korban Asham, 'Lo Yiheyeh' -- 'to him it will be' (Vayikra 7:7). This teaches that the bones of an Asham may be used to make Kelim. The Hekesh extends this teaching to all other Korbanos. Without the Hekesh, one would have assumed that all of the bones of Korbanos are <i>not</i> permitted to be used.
</p><p>
Tosfos apparently agrees with Rashi, because he expresses this idea as an additional question on the teachers of Rashi. The Gemara earlier (86a) records a Gezeirah Shavah between Asham and Olah based on the words 'Lo Yiheyeh.' This Gezeirah Shavah teaches that just as the bones of an Asham are permitted, the bones of an Olah are permitted. According to the teachers of Rashi, why is a Gezeirah Shavah necessary? The Hekesh should suffice to teach that this law applies to all Korbanos, even to an Olah.
</p><p>
Tosfos answers both questions on the teachers of Rashi. They understand that this law is derived from the Korban Asham because there already exists a similar type of teaching from every other Korban. For example, the law of Pigul for all other Korbanos is derived from the Korban Shelamim. The teachers of Rashi understand that only <i>one</i> such teaching may be learned from each Korban. The only Korban left to teach that the bones of a Korban Olah are permitted is an Asham. Why does the Gemara earlier seem to derive this law from a Gezeirah Shavah? The Gemara earlier follows the opinion that the bones of Korbanos would be forbidden if not for the verse of 'Lo Yiheyeh,' which teaches that the bones of an Asham and Olah are permitted. According to that opinion, the Hekesh of the Gemara here is necessary to teach that the bones of all Korbanos are permitted. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CHATZITZOS FOR NETILAS YADAYIM <span class='indexentry'>[Netilas Yadayim: Chatzitzah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	35a (Beraisa):</span> The following are a Chatzizah (separation) if they are dry, but not if they are wet - blood, ink, honey, and milk.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	98b (Rava):</span> Blood on a garment is a Chatzizah (and disqualifies immersion), unless the owner is a butcher. Revav (a fat or wax stain) on a garment is a Chatzizah, unless the owner sells Revav;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rava):</span> If blood and Revav are both on a garment, what is the law?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> Whether the owner is a butcher (and objects to Revav) or sells Revav (and objects to blood), one of these is a Chatzizah!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Answer:</span> The question is when the owner is a butcher *and* sells Revav. He does not object to one stain, but he objects to two. Or, perhaps he does not object even to two stains!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	This question is not resolved.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 106b (Beraisa):</span> Any Chatzitzah that disqualifies Tevilah (immersion) also disqualifies Netilas Yadayim (washing the hands) for Chulin or washing the hands and feet in the Mikdash.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Eruvin 4b (R. Yitzchak):</span> Mid'Oraisa, a Chatzitzah on the majority that he is Makpid (adamant) about is Chotzetz (invalidates the Tevilah);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	Chachamim decreed to disqualify a (Chatzitzah on the) majority when he is not Makpid, due to when he is Makpid, and a minority he is Makpid about due to a majority he is Makpid about.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why didn't they decree about a minority when he is not Makpid, due to a minority when he is Makpid, or due to a majority when he is not Makpid?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Both of these are Chotzetz only mid'Rabanan. We do not decree due to a decree!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevamos 78a (Rava):</span> If a (pregnant) Nochris converted, her child need not immerse.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> Her Tevilah helps for the fetus due to R. Yitzchak's law. (Even though the mother covers most of the fetus, the fetus is not Makpid.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> Rav Kahana taught that if the entire body is covered, the Tevilah is invalid!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> A fetus is different. Since he grows in his mother, she is not a Chatzitzah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Berachos 41b):</span> Any Chatzitzah that disqualifies Tevilah also disqualifies Netilas Yadayim for Chulin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 6:4):</span> Any Chatzitzah that disqualifies Tevilah also disqualifies Netilas Yadayim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Mikva'os 1:12):</span> There may not be a Chatzitzah between the person or Keli immersing and the water. If dough or mud was stuck to one's skin or a Keli, the Tevilah did not help. He or it is still Tamei. This is mid'Oraisa if the Chatzitzah covered most of the person or Keli and he is Makpid about it and wants to remove it. If he is not Makpid about it and does not care if it goes away or not, it is not a Chatzitzah, even if it covers the majority. Similarly, if it covers the minority it is not a Chatzitzah even if he is Makpid about it. Mid'Rabanan, if there was any Chatzitzah that he is Makpid about, even on the minority, the Tevilah was invalid. This is a decree lest there be a Chatzitzah on the majority that he is Makpid about. It turns out that if there was on his skin or the Keli a Chatzitzah such as dough, pitch or similar things, even a drop like a mustard seed, if he is Makpid about it, the Tevilah was invalid. If he is not Makpid about it, the Tevilah was valid, unless the Chatzitzah was on the majority.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Chulin 8:15):</span> Any Chatzitzah that disqualifies Tevilah also disqualifies Netilas Yadayim, e.g. a bandage on his skin, Greek mud and potters' mud. We are not concerned for a Chatzitzah on the minority (of the hand) that he is not Makpid about (Eruvin 4b): Even though Rashi says that this is only regarding hair, but not regarding skin, one cannot say so, like R. Tam proved from the case of a pregnant woman who converted (Yevamos 78a) and Zevachim 98b.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Ashri (Berachos 2:11):</span> Or Zaru'a says that one must be careful about scab in a wound or a boil that healed and there is a scab over it.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 161:1):</span> Any Chatzitzah for Tevilah is a Chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim, e.g. a bandage on the hand.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav Od):</span> Sefer ha'Terumah cites a Tosefta that whatever is a Chatzitzah for Kelim is a Chatzitzah for Nidah, but not for Chulin. That refers to Netilas Yadayim in order to touch Chulin Al Taharas Terumah or Kodshim. Chulin 106b says that it is a Chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim for a meal. Some explain oppositely, so they are lenient nowadays about Netilas Yadayim. This is difficult, for the entire Sugya in Chulin discusses plain Chulin. Tosfos, the Rosh and Rambam say that whatever is a Chatzitzah for Tevilah is a Chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim,  and it seems that the Rif agrees.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (3):</span> In Siman 162, the Tur brings from the Rosh that it suffices to wash the rest of the hand. What is under the bandage is as if it were cut off. The bandage is not a Chatzitzah, for he need not wash there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (2):</span> A bandage on his skin is a Chatzitzah if he has no wound, just it hurts, so he might take it off during the meal. If if he has a wound and he cannot take it off, he need not wash at all where the bandage is (162:10). Alternatively, also here we discuss when he has a wound, but he is not careful that the water on the bandage not return to the hand. Therefore, he wrote that if he is not Makpid, it is not a Chatzitzah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishbetzos Zahav:</span> If he is not Makpid about it, it is Batel to his hand, and it is like a normal Netilas Yadayim. If he is Makpid about it, it is not Batel, and the second pouring of water is not Metaher Tamei water on the bandage.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (6):</span> The Bach's opinion is primary.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (7):</span> Hilchos Ketanos says that if the bandage fell during the meal, he need not wash again, for it was not a Chatzitzah. It is as if he washed there (according to the Taz). The Birkei Yosef says (like the Bach) that it is not as if he washed there. Netilas Yadayim must be all at once, so he must wash the entire hand again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (4):</span> The bandage has an ointment on it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (2):</span> Anything that one is not Makpid about is not a Chatzitzah. If some are normally Makpid about something and others are not, it is a Chatzitzah only for those who are normally Makpid. If a dyer's hands were dyed, the dye is not a Chatzitzah, even if it has substance. If he is not a dyer, if his hands were dyed, and the dye has substance, dry dye is a Chatzitzah, but wet dye is not.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav Od):</span> The Rashba says that dry dye is a Chatzitzah for one who is Makpid about it, but not wet dye. If people like him are not Makpid, but he is, we follow his intent, and is a Chatzitzah. Anything that one is Makpid about is the ultimate Chatzitzah. However, perhaps we say that his opinion is Batel to that of normal people. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (4 DH Aval):</span> The Mishnah (Mikva'os 9:3) distinguishes between men and women, and between married and single women. Zevachim 98b distinguishes based on professions. A Tosefta says that strings (that tie threads) on an Oni's garment are a Chatzitzah if he is Makpid, and those of a Ba'al ha'Bayis are not. R. Shimshon (Mikva'os 10:4) explains Stam, an Oni is not Makpid, and Stam, a Ba'al ha'Bayis is Makpid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (18):</span> Pnei Yitzchak says that we follow the norm even to be lenient, but the Rema, Maharshal and Lechem Chamudos are stringent. One must be stringent.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (19):</span> If almost everyone is Makpid, but he is not, we follow the norm to be stringent (YD 198:1)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (20):</span> If in most places places are Makpid, we follow them even in places where people are not Makpid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (24):</span> People of a profession are not Batel to the majority of others.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (7):</span> Regarding a Safek, we are stringent for Tevilas Nidah, and lenient about Netilas Yadayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (8):</span> Ink is not a Chatzitzah for one who writes constantly.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl3'>	Gra:</span> Just like ink is a Chatzitzah only if it has substance, the same applies to dye, which was taught with it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (14):</span> Wet ink it is not a Chatzitzah because it dissolves in water and the water reaches his body. The same applies to dyes with substance. Chatzitzah does not apply to a mere discoloration, even if it is black.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> If a woman normally dyes her hands for beauty, the dye is not a Chatzitzah. A scab on his hands is not a Chatzitzah if he is not Makpid about it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Source:</span> Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav Od, citing the Rashba.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (12):</span> Women who dye their hands for beauty want the dye, so it is like their body and it is not a Chatzitzah even if the entire hand is covered.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Semak):</span> Semak says that a dry boil or scab that he is not pained if it is removed, whether it is on the hand or under the fingernail, is a Chatzitzah. Sefer ha'Terumah says that a dry scab that he is not Makpid about or a scab that is painful (to remove it) is not a Chatzitzah. Even though we normally remove them when immersing the entire body, that is a stringency.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (16):</span> This refers to a dry scab that he is not Makpid to remove, because it is painful to do so.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) MUST A 'MECHUSAR KIPURIM' WAIT UNTIL NIGHTFALL TO EAT 'KODSHIM'?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Tevul Yom (one who immersed in a Mikvah but must wait until nightfall to be considered fully Tahor) and a Mechusar Kipurim (one who must bring a Korban as part of his purification process in order to be considered fully Tahor) may not take part in the allotment of the meat of Korbanos during the day in order to eat the meat at night. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Tevul Yom) points out that the Mishnah, which states that both a Tevul Yom and a Mechusar Kipurim must wait until nightfall, implies that a Mechusar Kipurim not only must bring his required Korban before he is considered fully Tahor, but he also must wait until nightfall until he may eat Kodshim. This is also implied by the Gemara in Eruvin (32a), which says that after a woman (who became Tamei as a Yoledes or a Zavah) places money in the collection box in the Beis ha'Mikdash designated for the purchase of bird-offerings, she immerses in a Mikvah and may eat Kodshim at night.
</p><p>
However, the Mishnah in Chagigah (21a) states that an Onen and a Mechusar Kipurim need Tevilah in order to eat Kodshim, and it does not mention that they also must wait until nightfall. Tosfos cites many other places where the Gemara implies that a Mechusar Kipurim needs only to bring his Korban and immerse in a Mikvah, and he does not need to wait until nightfall, in order to eat Kodshim. How are these opposing sources to be reconciled?
</p><p>
ANSWER: <b>TOSFOS</b> concludes that a Mechusar Kipurim does <i>not</i> need to wait until nightfall in order to eat Kodshim. Why, then, does the Mishnah say that he must wait until nightfall? When the Mishnah says that he must wait until nightfall, it refers only to a Tevul Yom. The Gemara in Eruvin (32a), which discusses the purification process of a Yoledes and Zavah, gives a different reason for why she must wait until nightfall. Since the woman merely placed money in the box for her Korbanos and did not actually see the Korban being offered, she cannot know for certain that the Korban was offered -- until nightfall. Once nightfall arrives, she may assume that the Korban was brought during the day, since the Kohanim diligently ensure that no money of Korbanos is left over on any day. Moreover, although most Korbanos are not offered after the afternoon Tamid, and thus one might think that the woman may eat immediately after the beginning of the Avodah of the afternoon Tamid (since she may assume that her Korban was offered already), the Korban of a Yoledes or Zavah is different and <i>may</i> be offered after the afternoon Tamid. This is why the woman must wait until nightfall. If she actually saw that her Korban was offered, she indeed may eat Kodshim immediately after her Tevilah.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ein Cholkin) seems to have a different understanding. In his comments on the Mishnah's statement that a Tevul Yom and Mechusar Kipurim must wait until nightfall to eat Kodshim, Rashi says 'when <i>they</i> will become Tahor' ('l'ch'she'Yitaharu'). Rashi's usage of the plural 'they' implies that he understands that the Mishnah means that a Mechusar Kipurim also must wait until nightfall to become Tahor.
</p><p>
However, the <b>SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b> explains that Rashi means merely that each one may eat when he becomes Tahor -- a Tevul Yom at nightfall, and a Mechusar Kipurim after he brings his Korban. This clearly is the intention of Rashi in light what Rashi writes later (99b, DH u'Reminhu). Rashi writes explicitly that a Mechusar Kipurim does not need to wait until nightfall.
</p><p>
It is also possible that Rashi applies the logic which Tosfos uses to explain the Gemara in Eruvin (32a), that if one places money in one of the boxes for his Korban, only at the arrival of nightfall may he assume that the Kohanim offered his Korban. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) WHEN MAY AN 'ONEN' NOT TOUCH 'KODSHIM'?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that an Onen may touch Kodshim but he may not offer them. The Gemara asks that this contradicts a Beraisa which states that an Onen may not touch Kodshim until he immerses in a Mikvah. Rebbi Ami in the name of Rebbi Yochanan answers that the Mishnah refers to an Onen after Tevilah (in which case he may touch Kodshim), and the Beraisa refers to an Onen before Tevilah (in which case he may not touch Kodshim).
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges this answer. If he is still an Onen, his Tevilah is ineffective. Rabah bar Rav Huna teaches that an Onen who is Tovel does not remove his status of an Onen as long as he still has not buried his relative.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers 'this (the Beraisa) refers to when he removed his attention, and this (the Mishnah) refers to when he did not remove his attention.'
</p><p>
The Rishonim disagree about the intent of the Gemara's answer. Their disagreement depends on whether the Girsa of the Gemara includes the word 'Ela' ('rather') or not.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ela Lo Kashya) says that the proper Girsa of the Gemara's answer is 'Ela Lo Kashya' -- 'Rather, this is not a difficulty.' The word 'Ela' usually denotes a retraction of the Gemara's original answer. Accordingly, the Gemara here discards the answer of Rebbi Ami in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (who said that the difference between the Mishnah and Beraisa is whether the Onen immersed in a Mikvah). Rather, the Mishnah refers to an Onen who says that he was careful not to become Tamei the entire time he was an Onen, even though he was not permitted to eat Kodshim. The Beraisa, which states that an Onen needs Tevilah before he may touch Kodshim, refers to an Onen who was not careful to avoid Tum'ah when he was an Onen, and thus he may not touch Kodshim until he immerses in a Mikvah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ha d'Asach) does not have the word 'Ela' in his text of the Gemara. Accordingly, the Gemara is not retracting the answer of Rebbi Ami in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, and it still maintains that there is a difference between an Onen who immersed and an Onen who did not immerse. The Gemara answers its question from the teaching of Rabah bar Rav Huna (that Tevilah does not remove the Onen's status as long as he has not buried his relative) by saying that as long as he immersed <i>and</i> he was careful to avoid Tum'ah throughout the entire time that he was an Onen, he may touch Kodshim.
</p><p>
(c) There are two different texts of the <b>RAMBAM</b> in Perush ha'Mishnayos. In the common text, the Rambam apparently learns like Tosfos, because he states that an Onen may not touch Kodesh after Tevilah unless he immerses with intent to guard himself from any Tum'ah. However, the text of the Rambam in a manuscript of Perush ha'Mishnayos from Eretz Yisrael quoted by the <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> is entirely different, and implies that the Rambam learns like Rashi. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHAT IS FORBIDDEN ON THE 10TH OF AV? <span class='indexentry'>[Tish'ah b'Av: Motza'ei: Isurim]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Asi):</span> If Ploni's relative died and was buried on the 14th of Nisan, Ploni may eat Pesach but not other Kodshim that night. (Aninus of the night after the death is mid'Rabanan. Chachamim did not decree regarding Pesach);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	If the death was on the 13th and the burial was on the 14th, he may eat any Kodshim that night. (Chachamim did not decree Aninus on the night following burial.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ta'anis 29a (Beraisa):</span> On the ninth of Av, close to dark, the enemy lit the fire, and the Beis ha'Mikdash burned the entire day (of the 10th).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> Had I been there, I would have fixed the fast on the 10th, for the Heichal burned mostly on the 10th.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	Rabanan fixed the fast on the ninth. They hold that the beginning of the punishment is primary.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Eruvin 41a (Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Ribi Tzadok):</span> Once, Tishah b'Av fell on Shabbos, and the fast was Nidcheh (postponed) to the 10th. My family did not complete the fast, for we descend from Sin'av ben Binyamin (a family that used to bring wood for the Mizbe'ach on the 10th of Av). It is Yom Tov for us.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tur (OC 559, Mordechai Ta'anis 630, Hagahos Maimoniyos Hilchos Ta'anis 5:8 citing Maharam):</span> A case occurred in which Rabbeinu Ya'avetz was a Ba'al Bris on Tish'ah b'Av postponed until Sunday. Based on Eruvin 41a, he prayed Minchah early in the afternoon, bathed and did not finish the fast, for it was his Yom Tov.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (559 DH u'Ba'al):</span> It seems that 'he was a Ba'al Bris' means that he was the father of the baby. However, the Mordechai (Ta'anis 635) discusses *Ba'alei* Bris. Perhaps this includes the Mohel (one who circumcises) and Sandek (who holds the baby). Tashbatz cites a case in which a Bris was on Tish'ah b'Av Nidcheh to Sunday. R. Yakov ben R. Yitzchak (Ya'avetz) was the father. He commanded to pray Minchah Gedolah (shortly after noon). He and his Ba'al Bris then bathed, did the Bris, and ate their fill, and did not finish the fast with the Tzibur. We permit (Kohanim serving in the Mikdash to cut hair and launder) on Thursday due to Kevod Shabbos (Ta'anis 15b), so all the more so for a Ba'al Bris. This implies that Ba'al Bris is the Mohel or Sandek. It is their Yom Tov, just like for the father. Hagahos Ashri (Mo'ed Katan 3:37) connotes that it is only the Sandek. It seems that the Mohel is no worse than the Sandek.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharil (125):</span> If one's custom is not to eat meat or drink wine on the day after Tish'ah b'Av, or to fast the ninth and 10th (based on Ta'anis 29a), and Tish'ah b'Av was Nidcheh to Sunday, so the second day is the 11th, must they abstain from meat and wine or fast on Monday? The Yerushalmi brings that R. Avin used to fast the ninth and 10th, but he would not fast two days when Tish'ah b'Av was Nidcheh to Sunday, for the 10th is an excessive stringency. Even on the 10th itself we are lenient, like the case of Rabbeinu Ya'avetz, who bathed and did not finish the fast when he was a Ba'al Bris (Or Zaru'a 2, Aveilus 440). If so, there is no source to be stringent on the 11th. The Mordechai (Pesachim Sof 543) says that Rashi was stringent when Erev Pesach was on Friday to burn Chametz before six hours. He decreed lest one delay after six hours in other years. That was due to concern for a Torah Isur, lest one not do Bitul in time. Here it is only a custom. One who refrains from meat and wine for the entire three weeks refrains also on Motza'ei Tish'ah b'Av. This is even if the fast was Nidcheh. In many fasts for Teshuvah, we do not eat meat or wine the following night.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 558:1):</span> On the ninth of Av, towards evening, they set fire to the Heichal, and it burned until Shki'ah of the 10th. Therefore, it is a proper custom not to eat meat or drink wine on the night and day of the 10th.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Isa):</span> The Avudaraham says that the Rosh would not eat meat on the night of the 10th. Hagahos Maimoniyos says that some refrain from meat and wine until midday of the 10th.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas Maharshal (92):</span> We refrain from meat on the 10th, like the Tur says. Also bathing is forbidden. Minhagim (of Mahara Tirana) praises refraining from meat and wine at night and during the day of the 10th, but one may cut hair and launder immediately after the fast; the Gemara concludes like this. Do not heed this. Our custom is not to to eat meat or drink wine on the 10th, so also these (cutting hair and laundering) are included. How can we oppose the Gemara, which rules like R. Meir, that Aveilus is only until the fast? The custom of most of Yisrael in Galus is to refrain from meat and wine from Rosh Chodesh. All Yisrael accepted this, so it became obligatory, like the Rashba says. The Gemara permits meat and wine on Erev Tish'ah b'Av before the last Seudah before the fast, but one who eats meat in any place where the custom is to forbid breaches a fence; 'one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.' The 10th is the neighbor of the ninth, and the Mikdash burned primarily on the 10th. It is no less than the days from Rosh Chodesh until the ninth. The custom is to refrain from meat and wine during these days, even before the week of Tish'ah b'Av. The Gemara decreed only what the Tzibur can fulfill. Nowadays that people are accustomed and accepted an Isur of meat, wine and bathing (from Rosh Chodesh), for mere pain to remember the Churban and sadden the heart, all the more so this applies to the 10th. Early Chachamim were stringent to fast on the 10th, due to R. Yochanan's opinion. However, when Tish'ah b'Av is Nidcheh to Sunday, everything is permitted after the fast, for the 10th already passed. I explicitly saw so regarding meat and wine. However, the Beis Yosef forbids one who is accustomed not to eat meat or drink wine after the fast. He says that this is not due to R. Yochanan, rather, due to the stringency of the fast and Aveilus of the day. It is part of Bein ha'Metzarim. This is not a proper reason. However, I agree (with the law), for Sefer Chasidim says that it is proper not to eat meat or drink wine before or after a fast. If so, all the more so regarding Tish'ah b'Av, for which it was fitting to stop during the day before the fast, we should refrain from meat and wine on the night after the fast.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (1):</span> Also my Rebbeyim decreed on the Tzibur to forbid meat and wine at night even when Tish'ah b'Av was Nidcheh, but then meat and wine are permitted on Monday, and all the more so haircuts, laundering and bathing. Maharshal (on the Tur) forbids haircuts, laundering and bathing on the 10th, unlike Minhagim. Since meat and wine are forbidden at night, one may not slaughter until after the Ta'anis, unlike Teshuvas ha'Rashba (306). One may permit Shechitah (from midday on Tish'ah b'Av) when the fast is on Thursday, for the needs of Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (1):</span> For 40 years, the custom is not to eat meat or drink wine the night after the fast. Before this, they ate meat.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Mipnei):</span> Letter of the law, all is permitted immediately after the fast. A Tosefta says so. The Yerushalmi says that they would announce that people may cut hair.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Birkei Yosef (2):</span> Sefer ha'Kavanos says that R. Chaim Vital would eat (meat) the night after the fast when it was Nidcheh. Pri Chodosh says that there is no reason to forbid after the fast.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ha'aros on Birkei Yosef (1):</span> The Birkei Yosef did not give his own opinion, for he did not want to decide the issue. Why would R. Chaim Vital eat meat?! We must say that it is because it is also a time of consolation, for Moshi'ach is born on Motza'ei Tish'ah b'Av. He ate meat due to this Simchah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> Anyone invited to a Seudas Mitzvah may eat meat on Motza'ei Tish'ah b'Av, even if he is not a relative. The night is more lenient than Rosh Chodesh Av. According to the Gemara, there is a little Aveilus from Rosh Chodesh; we diminish Simchah and business. Letter of the law, all is permitted after the fast. Keneses ha'Gedolah says that it is good not to have relations on the night of the 10th, unless it is Leil Tevilah (the night she immerses), or if he will be going away or returned home.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (7):</span> Doctors say that one should not have relations after a fast, for he became weak. However, if it is Leil Tevilah, relations is a Mitzvah, so 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m' (Hash-m guards those who do not know to guard themselves).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (8):</span> Those who refrain from blessing Shehecheyanu during the three weeks should refrain also on the 10th.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (2):</span> The Bach derives from the Tur that one should eat only what is needed to revive himself. The Taz permits other foods, for there is no Simchah without meat.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (4):</span> One may eat a food cooked with meat, and bless Birkas ha'Mazon over wine if he does so the entire year.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (6):</span> The Isur is to bathe in a bathhouse, but other washing, which is forbidden on Tish'ah b'Av, is permitted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some are stringent only until midday.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (3):</span> Likewise, one may not bathe in a bathhouse, cut hair, or launder until midday. If the 10th is Erev Shabbos, all this is permitted for Kevod Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</span> The Bach says that it is proper for a Chacham or pious person to be stringent the entire day. Also Eliyahu Rabah, Machazik Berachah and Sha'arei Teshuvah bring this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> If Tish'ah b'Av is Nidcheh to Sunday, one may eat meat or drink wine on Monday, but Sunday night is forbidden due to the Aveilus of the day.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (4):</span> We forbid only meat and wine, but all permit cutting hair.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (5):</span> We are stringent on the following night only due to the Aveilus of Tish'ah b'Av. It is like Bein ha'Metzarim. One should not be stringent about this for other fasts.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (11):</span> If a woman gave birth more than seven days ago, even though she fasts, she need not be stringent about meat and wine the following night, especially if Tish'ah b'Av was Nidcheh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (334:26):</span> One who was Mechalel Shabbos must fast 40 days on Monday and Thursday, and not eat meat or drink wine.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (20):</span> He may not eat meat or drink wine after the fast, like we find on the night after Tish'ah b'Av. The Rema said that this is due to Aveilus of the day.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishbetzos Zahav:</span> Eliyahu Rabah says that this is because the fast is in place of a Korban, and regarding Korbanos the night follows the day.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Igros Moshe (OC 3:88):</span> The Magen Avraham says that the Rema's stringency on the night after a fast that was Nidcheh is due to the fast. Really, it is due to the Aveilus of the day. Even though an Avel may eat meat or drink wine, the Rema means that Tish'ah b'Av is like Aninus. The night after death, an Onen may not eat Kodshim, even after the burial. Even though an Avel is forbidden only if burial was the day of death, regarding Aninus of the Rabim (Tish'ah b'Av), Chachamim were stringent to forbid meat and wine the following night. After the Churban, Perushim wanted to abstain from meat, for it used to be offered in the Mikdash (Bava Basra 60b). R. Yehoshua refuted them. If so, we would need to refrain also from bread and water! R. Yishmael ben Elisha said that we should have decreed not to eat meat and wine, but we do not make decrees that the Tzibur cannot endure. What did he add? He taught that we should have decreed due to Aninus, for it is as if our Mes is in front of us, but the Tzibur cannot fulfill this. Toras ha'Shelamim (YD 185:10), Eliyahu Rabah and Mishbetzos Zahav say that the fast is in place of a Korban, and regarding Korbanos the night follows the day. This is wrong. We do not find any fast in which the night follows the day. Perhaps Mishbetzos Zahav refers only to a fast that is solely for the sake of Teshuvah.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AN ONEN'S EXCLUSION FROM BRINGING A DONATION OF WOOD TO THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which teaches that a Kohen who is an Onen may offer no type of Korban. The Beraisa says that an Onen may not donate even wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash. <b>RASHI</b> (DH veha'Etzim) explains that anyone who donates wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash also brings a Korban. Rashi apparently understands that this is the intent of the Beraisa from the fact that it calls Etzim a 'Korban' and excludes Etzim from being brought by an Onen based on the verse, 'Shelamim Korbano' -- 'a Shelamim is his Korban' (Vayikra 3:1). This verse implies that one must be 'Shalem,' 'whole,' when he brings a Korban, and an Onen is not 'Shalem.' If the Beraisa refers merely to bringing wood, why is Onen excluded from the verse which mentions 'Korban'? It must be that one who donates wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash also must bring a Korban, and thus an Onen may not donate wood.
</p><p>
Many Acharonim have difficulty with Rashi's explanation. The <b>RASHASH</b> asks that the Gemara in Menachos (20b) explicitly states that a donation of wood is called a Korban. Why does Rashi not explain the Beraisa here in accordance with the Gemara there?
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> asks more questions. If a donation of Etzim is not a Korban, then why does the Beraisa even mention Etzim? Since one must bring an actual Korban when he donates wood, and the Beraisa already teaches that Onen does not bring a Korban, there is no need to mention Etzim at all. If an Onen may not bring a Korban, what obligates the Korban to be brought should make no difference. Moreover, what is the source for Rashi's assertion that one who donates wood must offer a Korban as well?
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b> answers that Rashi understands that the Beraisa does not follow the opinion of Rebbi in Menachos, who says that a donation of Etzim is called a Korban. Rebbi maintains that a Korban Etzim even needs Kemitzah, like a Minchah offering. If the Beraisa would follow the opinion of Rebbi, it would not need to mention Etzim, since Etzim is included already in the category of Minchah which the Beraisa mentions. Rashi therefore understands that the Beraisa follows the opinion of the Rabanan in Menachos, who maintain that if one offers a Korban of Etzim outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, he is not liable for offering a Korban ba'Chutz. The Rabanan evidently maintain that a donation of Etzim is not called a Korban.
</p><p>
The Olas Shlomo addresses another question of the Sefas Emes. Why would one think that a Korban brought with a donation of Etzim does not have the same law as an ordinary Korban brought alone, which the Beraisa already states may not be brought by an Onen? The Olas Shlomo gives a simple explanation. Since the Etzim themselves may be brought by an Onen, one might think that if a Korban is brought as an accompaniment to the Etzim, it should not be more important than the Etzim themselves, and an Onen should be permitted to offer such a Korban. The Beraisa therefore teaches that even such a Korban may not be offered by an Onen.
</p><p>
However, the Olas Shlomo gives no other source for Rashi's assertion that one who donates wood must also bring a Korban. Perhaps the Gemara here is the source for this requirement. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PROOF THAT AN ORDINARY PERSON MAY NOT BECOME 'TAMEI' FOR A RELATIVE WHEN HE MUST BRING THE KORBAN PESACH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the circumstances under which the offering of the Korban Pesach overrides Tum'as Mes. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that a Kohen Gadol who is also a Nazir and who must bring his Korban Pesach may not become Tamei for a close relative who dies. He may become Tamei only for a Mes Mitzvah. This implies that an ordinary person also should not become Tamei for a relative in order to bring his Korban Pesach, just as a Kohen Gadol who is a Nazir, who normally is permitted to become Tamei for a relative, may not become Tamei for a relative when he must bring his Korban Pesach.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Harei) has a difficulty with the Gemara's proof. It is possible that a Kohen Gadol who is a Nazir may not become Tamei for a relative when he must bring the Korban Pesach because <i>three</i> factors prevent him from becoming Tamei: he is a Kohen Gadol, he is a Nazir, and the obligation to bring the Korban Pesach. In contrast, only one factor -- the obligation to bring the Korban Pesach -- prevents an ordinary person from becoming Tamei. Perhaps he <i>should</i> become Tamei rather than bring the Korban Pesach. What is the basis of the Gemara's proof from a Kohen Gadol who is a Nazir that an ordinary person may not become Tamei when he must bring the Korban Pesach?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> writes that because of this question, some Rishonim emend the text of the Beraisa so that the Beraisa is not discussing a Kohen Gadol who is a Nazir, but an ordinary person on his way to slaughter the Korban Pesach (the case which the Gemara seeks to prove). However, Tosfos rejects this approach. Since the rest of the Beraisa discusses a Kohen Gadol and Nazir, it is unreasonable to suggest that the Beraisa interrupts its discussion with a Halachah about an ordinary person.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos answers that although the Beraisa teaches many cases in which a Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei, in this case the Beraisa changes its wording and implies that even an ordinary person may not become Tamei. When the Beraisa presents the case, it says, 'Perhaps he should become Tamei? <i>It says</i>: 'He may not become Tamei' (Bamidbar 6:7).' This is in contrast to all of the other verses cited by the Beraisa, which the Beraisa introduces with the words, 'Talmud Lomar' -- 'This [verse] is to teach.' Tosfos explains that the change of wording to 'it is said' implies that the Beraisa understands that the verse is not teaching a unique law of Nazir, but rather a general law which applies to everyone. The verse is teaching that even an ordinary person who is on his way to bring his Korban Pesach should not become Tamei for a relative.
</p><p>
Tosfos in Berachos (19b, DH Amart) also gives this answer, but he asks the obvious question on it. Why does the Beraisa assume that the verse, 'Lo Yitama,' in the Parshah of Nazir means that even an ordinary person who is on his way to bring his Korban Pesach should not become Tamei for a relative? Tosfos answers that a strong logical argument convinces the Beraisa that this must be true. Since the requirement to become Tamei for a relative is, at most, a Mitzvas Aseh and does not bear the punishment of Kares, it is logical that the Torah requires that one ensure that he can perform a Mitzvas Aseh that <i>does</i> bear the punishment of Kares (i.e., Pesach and Milah). This type of Mitzvas Aseh overrides an ordinary Mitzvas Aseh.
</p><p>
(c) Alternatively, Tosfos in Berachos answers that in this case, the Beraisa does not introduce the person as being a Kohen Gadol, Kohen Hedyot, or Nazir. This omission implies that even an ordinary person, who is neither a Kohen nor a Nazir, may not become Tamei for a relative when he is supposed to bring the Korban Pesach. (The second answer of Tosfos here, and the second answer of Tosfos in Berachos, are explained differently by various Acharonim. See the <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> and <b>CHOK NASAN</b> on Tosfos here, who explain these answers and discuss whether Tosfos in these two places are saying the same answer.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> ONE WHO HEARD LATER THAT A RELATIVE DIED <span class='indexentry'>[Aveilus :Shemu'ah Kerovah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> Yom Shemu'ah (the day that one hears that he lost a relative) is like Yom Kevurah (the day of burial) regarding Aveilus. From this day, we count Shiv'ah (seven days of severe Aveilus) and Sheloshim (30 days of lighter Aveilus).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mo'ed Katan 20a (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</span> For a Shemu'ah Kerovah one observes Shiv'ah and Sheloshim. For a Shemu'ah Rechokah he observes only one day. Kerovah is when he heard within 30 days. Rechokah is when he heard after 30 days;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	Chachamim say, in either case, he observes Shiv'ah and Sheloshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rabah bar bar Chanah):</span> Whenever an individual is lenient and the Rabim are stringent, the Halachah follows the Rabim, except for here, for the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Aveilus.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	Rav Chanina heard a Shemu'ah Rechokah that his father died. Rav Chisda ruled that he observes only one day of Aveilus. Rava ruled similarly for Rav Noson bar Ami.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Noson - Beraisa):</span> This applies to the other five relatives (a sibling, child or spouse), but for a parent, he observes Shiv'ah and Sheloshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rava):</span> That is an individual's opinion. We do not hold like it;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> R. Tzadok heard that his father died only three years afterwards. Elisha ben Avuyah and Chachamim with him said that he observes Shiv'ah and Sheloshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	When R. Chiya heard that his parents died, he removed his shoe and went to bathe;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	We learn from this that an Avel may not wear shoes, that a Shemu'ah Rechokah applies only one day, and that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo (part of the day is like the entire day).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Ada - Beraisa):</span> If one heard a Shemu'ah Kerovah on Shabbos, and on Motzei Shabbos it is Rechokah, he observes only one day.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Mani):</span> He does not tear.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Chanina):</span> He tears.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechoros 49a (Rav Ashi):</span> All agree that regarding Aveilus, day 30 is like the day Lefanav;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Shmuel):</span> The Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Aveilus.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Mo'ed Katan 12a):</span> Bahag says that if one heard a Shemu'ah on day 30, he observes seven days of Aveilus and Sheloshim, as if he heard on day 29. Some say that it is as if he heard on day 31, and he observes only one day. They learn from Bechoros 49a, which says that regarding Aveilus, day 30 is like the day Lefanav, for Shmuel taught that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Aveilus. They hold that 'the day Lefanav' is the *coming* day, i.e. day 31. They learn from this to the day of Shemu'ah. This is a great mistake. Bechoros discusses a Nefel (miscarriage) that died on day 30. It is as if it died on day 29, like Bahag said; one does not mourn over it. Similarly, a Shemu'ah on day 30 is like a Shemu'ah on day 29.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Aveilus 7:1):</span> One who heard that a relative died, if it was within 30 days, even on the 30th day, this is a Shemu'ah Kerovah, and he must observe seven days of Aveilus from the day he heard. He tears and counts 30 days regarding cutting hair and the other matters. The general rule is, the day of a Shemu'ah Kerovah is like the day of burial. If he heard after 30 days, this is a Shemu'ah Rechokah. He observes only one day of Aveilus and does not tear. It is as if the day he hears is the seventh day and the 30th day, and Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (3:29):</span> Havra'ah (others provide a mourner's first meal after the burial) and all laws of Aveilus apply to a Shemu'ah Kerovah. We learn from Rav Chisda that one observes only one day of Aveilus for a Shemu'ah Rechokah, even for a parent. The Ramban says that one who lost a parent may not cut his hair until his friends rebuke him, and may not iron until the festival comes and his friends rebuke him. The Isurim of going to the drinking house and She'elas (greeting with) Shalom apply for 12 months from the day of death, not from the day he heard. If he heard a Shemu'ah about his father after 12 months, he observes only one day. The Ramban asked what was the Chidush that an Avel may not wear shoes? If such Isurim do not apply to a Shemu'ah Rechokah, in what way does he fulfill one day of Aveilus?! He answered that the only law of Sheloshim that applies to a Shemu'ah Rechokah is not wearing shoes. He need not go home and invert the beds and wrap his head. R. Chiya only removed his shoes and went to bathe. If he is not wearing shoes, he must invert the beds or wrap his head. We require a blatant act of Aveilus. If he was working, bathing, anointing or learning Torah, and he heard a Shemu'ah Rechokah, he interrupts Sha'ah Achas (a short time) for the sake of Aveilus, and then resumes. In any case he was not Yotzei through the interruption until he does a recognizable act of Aveilus. Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 402:1):</span> If one heard that a relative died, if he heard within 30 days, even on the 30th day, this is a Shemu'ah Kerovah, and he must observe seven days of Aveilus from the day he heard. He tears and counts 30 days (Rema - from the day he heard) regarding cutting hair and other matters. The general rule is, the day of a Shemu'ah Kerovah is like the day of burial. If one heard after 30 days, he observes Aveilus only Sha'ah Achas. Likewise, if he heard at night and observes Aveilus Sha'ah Achas at night, he was Yotzei through this. This is even if he heard about his father and mother. This refers to Shiv'ah. Regarding Sheloshim, for a parent he refrains from cutting hair until his friends rebuke him, and from ironing until the festival comes and his friends rebuke him. The same applies to She'elas Shalom and going to the drinking house. We count from the day of death, and not from the day he heard. Therefore, if he heard about his father or mother after 12 months, he observes only one day even for Sheloshim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Yom):</span> The Rif refuted those who say that a Shemu'ah on day 30 is Rechokah. Also the Rambam and Ramban say that it is Kerovah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (2):</span> 'Sheloshim' refers to matters that are forbidden for 30 days for other relatives, i.e. ironing and cutting hair. For a father, they are until his friends rebuke him. He counts from the day of death regarding things forbidden for 12 months.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Akiva Eiger:</span> Poskim argue about whether rebuke within 30 days helps.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (DH ha'Olam):</span> The custom is that the Avel sits on the floor and removes his shoes after Havdalah. What is the reason? If one heard a Shemu'ah Kerovah on Shabbos that will become Rechokah after Shabbos, he must do an action of Aveilus (after Shabbos), like the Ramban says. He was not Yotzei with Aveilus of private matters on Shabbos. The same applies when Shabbos was the seventh day of Aveilus.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (4):</span> 'One day' really means Sha'ah Achas. The Maharshal says that if one heard a Shemu'ah on day 29 on Shabbos, after Shabbos he observes Shiv'ah and Sheloshim. (If he heard on day 30 on Shabbos), after Shabbos he observes only one day. Even though he began on Shabbos, since it is not full Aveilus, for on Shabbos only private matters (e.g. relations) apply, therefore there is no decree of Aveilus after it. The Beis Yosef says so in the name of the Rashba. The Ramban holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo does not apply to Aveilus of private matters on Shabbos, since he must observe some Aveilus after Shabbos. He cannot cease Aveilus and resume!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (5):</span> The Maharshal says that regarding Shemu'ah Kerovah, we count 30 days from the day of death.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Retraction (Nekudas ha'Kesef):</span> The Maharshal learned from R. Yerucham. R. Yerucham says oppositely!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Even ha'Ozer:</span> The Bach and Drishah rule like Maharshal. The Shach and Taz simply cite this to be the Halachah. This is astounding. The Rosh (3:56) and Mordechai (Mo'ed Katan 899) say that we measure Shemu'ah Rechokah from the day of burial, for the Chiyuv Aveilus was from the time of burial. Even though he did not know, he was an Avel. If he hears within 30 days, full Aveilus applies. If one drowned or was eaten by a Chayah, as long as they hope to bury him, it is as if the Mes is in front of him, and Aveilus does not begin. If they despair, this is like the day of burial. It starts Aveilus, also for one who heard that day, even if it is more than 30 days from the day of death. The Rosh discussed if day 29 was on Shabbos. If we count from the day of burial, this implies that the burial was on Shabbos! Rather, we must say that on Shabbos they despaired of burying him. The Yerushalmi says that this is considered the day of burial regarding Sheloshim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl3'>	Dagul me'Revavah:</span> It seems that the Rosh holds that we count from the day of death. It is difficult to say that they despaired of burying him on Shabbos, and this is how day 29 was on Shabbos. However, also Mahari Veil says simply that we count from the day of burial.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (1):</span> We learn from Mo'ed Katan 20b. We must say that the Shemu'ah that becomes Rechokah on Motzei Shabbos was day 30 on Shabbos. If it were day 29, surely he must observe Aveilus on Motzei Shabbos. It is difficult to say that the Gemara discusses only if he heard on Shabbos night. The Gemara connotes that he heard at any time on Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (2):</span> We must say that he tears, for the Gemara asked about tearing only for a Shemu'ah that becomes Rechokah on Motzei Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (3):</span> 'He counts' connotes from the day of the Shemu'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (2):</span> One who hears a Shemu'ah Rechokah need not fulfill all laws of Aveilus. It suffices to remove his shoes. He need not invert the beds or wrap his head. He may work, bathe, anoint, have relations and learn Torah. If he is not wearing shoes, he must invert his bed or wrap his head. He must do a blatant act of Aveilus. If he was learning Torah, working, bathing or anointing, and he heard a Shemu'ah Rechokah, he interrupts Sha'ah Achas for the sake of Aveilus, and then resumes. If he was wearing Tefilin, he need not remove them. He was not Yotzei through the interruption until he does a recognizable act of Aveilus such as removing shoes, inverting the bed or wrapping his head. One of these suffices.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chen, citing the Ramban):</span> One who hears a Shemu'ah Rechokah must do a Mitzvas Aseh of Aveilus. Presumably, R. Chiya was wearing Tefilin when he heard the Shemu'ah Rechokah. He would not normally go around without Tefilin. Even so, he did not remove them, for even an Avel wears Tefilin, except for the first day. A Shemu'ah Rechokah is no more severe than the second day of Aveilus. Therefore, it suffices to wrap his head or remove his shoes.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE STATUS OF AN 'ONEN' ON THE DAY OF THE DEATH OF HIS RELATIVE</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Beraisa records an argument between Rebbi and the Tana Kama with regard to how long an Onen must refrain from eating Kodshim. The Tana Kama says that an Onen must refrain from eating Kodshim the entire day, while Rebbi says that he must refrain only until his relative is buried.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that the Beraisa must not be referring to the day on which the relative died. One of the Gemara's proofs for this assertion is that Rebbi says that an Onen may eat Kodshim after his relative is buried. If the case refers to the day of death, how can Rebbi say that an Onen may eat Kodshim on that day, after the burial? The verse explicitly states, 'v'Acharisah k'Yom Mar' -- 'And its end [will be] like a bitter day' (Amos 8:10), which implies that the status of Aninus, on the day of a relative's passing, lasts for an entire day.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> in <b>LIKUTEI HALACHOS</b> (in <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>) writes that there are many proofs that a person is an Onen mid'Oraisa during the entire day on which his relative died, regardless of whether his relative has been buried. One of these proofs is Aharon's response to Moshe Rabeinu, 'v'Achalti Chatas ha'Yom' -- 'And if I would have eaten a Chatas today, would it have been good in the eyes of Hash-m?' (Vayikra 10:19). Aharon's questioning remark to Moshe Rabeinu clearly implies that he definitely would not have eaten a Chatas at any time on that <i>day</i>, despite the fact that Nadav and Avihu (his sons) had been buried already. Accordingly, the Likutei Halachos does not understand why Rashi defines the duration of Onen differently. Earlier in Zevachim (15b, DH Kol ha'Zevachim), Rashi defines the duration of Aninus as 'the entire time that the Mes is not yet buried.' This implies that once the Mes has been buried, even during the first day, Aninus no longer applies.
</p><p>
What is the intent of Rashi here, and how will he respond to the proofs cited by the Likutei Halachos?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>LIKUTEI HALACHOS</b> suggests that Rashi means that even if the deceased is not buried for some time, even for many days, mid'Rabanan the relatives still have the status of Aninus. This indeed is the opinion of the <b>ME'IRI</b> in Pesachim (91b).
</p><p>
The Likutei Halachos has difficulty with this answer. Even in this case, after the deceased is buried, his relative remains an Onen mid'Rabanan for the duration of that day. Accordingly, Rashi's definition of the duration of Aninus (i.e., that it lasts only until the deceased is buried) seems inaccurate both mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b> (15b) answers that Rashi maintains that a person whose relative has not been buried for more than one day remains an Onen <i>mid'Oraisa</i> until the relative is buried. Any Avodah which he performs during that time is Pasul. This is unlike the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 2:10) who states that such a person, as mentioned by the Zevach Todah, is an Onen only mid'Rabanan, and his Avodah therefore is valid. (See Meromei Sadeh, and <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> to Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 2:9 at length.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ADMISSION OF MOSHE RABEINU</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses Aharon's answer to Moshe Rabeinu's question about why Aharon did not eat the Korban of Rosh Chodesh when he was explicitly told that he should eat the Korbanos of the Milu'im even though he was an Onen. Aharon explained that perhaps Hash-m had told Moshe Rabeinu that Aharon was permitted to eat Kodshei Sha'ah (Korbanos brought specially for the Milu'im). Aharon did not think that this leniency applied to Kodshei Doros (Korbanos brought in all generations), since the Halachah is that even a Kohen Gadol who is an Onen is not allowed to eat such Korbanos.
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes the verse which relates Moshe Rabeinu's response: 'va'Yishma Moshe va'Yitav b'Einav' -- 'and Moshe heard and it was good in his eyes' (Vayikra 10:20). The Gemara explains that Moshe admitted to his error and was not embarrassed to say, 'That is what I heard, and I forgot,' when he could have said, 'That is not what I heard.'
</p><p>
What exactly does the Gemara seek to teach about the character of Moshe Rabeinu? It is obvious that Moshe Rabeinu would not lie and say that he did not hear something from Hash-m, especially since such a statement would affect the Halachah.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERRS</b>:
<br>(a) The <b>MIZRACHI</b> and the <b>MAHARAL</b> in <b>GUR ARYEH</b> explain that if Moshe Rabeinu sought to avoid personal shame, he could have said merely that he did not hear what the correct Halachah was in the case of Kodshei Sha'ah, despite the fact that Hash-m had told him that it was forbidden. He could then tell Aharon later that in fact Aharon was right. However, immediately upon realizing that he had forgotten the Halachah, Moshe Rabeinu did not cover up for himself by saying that he 'did not hear' (implying that he would find out later what the Halachah was), but rather he admitted that he had heard the correct Halachah and had forgotten it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> reads the Gemara differently. He understands that Moshe Rabeinu heard from Hash-m only that Kodshei Sha'ah is permitted, but not that Kodshei Doros is forbidden. Moshe Rabeinu deduced on his own, incorrectly, that it must be that the same Halachah applies to Kodshei Doros. Aharon, however, showed Moshe Rabeinu that this is not the correct conclusion, since Kodshei Sha'ah may be subject more stringent laws. The Chasam Sofer reads the Gemara as saying that Moshe Rabeinu was not embarrassed to the point that he would say that he 'heard and forgot,' but rather he admitted that he '*had not heard the Halachah*' which he had quoted directly from Hash-m, but rather he came to that conclusion on his own. This was far more embarrassing to Moshe Rabeinu than to admit that he had heard the Halachah and forgot it. Since Moshe Rabeinu was the one who transmitted Torah to the Jewish people and he had made a wrong deduction, people might think that they no longer can rely on his transmission of the Halachah. On the other hand, if Moshe Rabeinu merely had forgotten the Halachah, his reliability would not have been at stake, since it is the normal human tendency to forget. People still would believe firmly that any Halachic deduction that Moshe Rabeinu made was correct. Moshe Rabeinu overcame the temptation to say that he forgot, and instead he admitted he had made a mistake. (See also the <b>BE'ER BA'SADEH</b> on Rashi.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> DOES AVEILUS OVERRIDE YOM TOV SHENI? <span class='indexentry'>[Aveilus: Yom Tov Sheni]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	99b (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> Aninus (one who lost a relative may not eat Kodshim) at night is mid'Oraisa;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	R. Shimon says, it is only mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Shimon:</span> Surely I am right. Chachamim taught that an Onen immerses and eats Pesach at night, but not other Kodshim!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Mari):</span> If the death and burial of the relative were on the 14th, the Onen does not bring Pesach. for Aninus applies mid'Oraisa to the night following death;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	If the death was on the 13th and burial was on the 14th, he brings Pesach. for Aninus applies only mid'Rabanan to the night following burial.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	100b (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> 'Hen ha'Yom Hikrivu' - the Kodshim of the Milu'im (to inaugurate the Mishkan) were forbidden (to Onenim) during the day and permitted the next night. After this (i.e. for all generations), Kodshim are forbidden (to Onenim) during the day and the next night;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	Rebbi says, Aninus at night is only mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	101a:</span> Aharon answered Moshe '...v'Achalti Chatas ha'Yom ha'Yitav b'Einei Hash-m' - perhaps Hash-m commanded only to eat Kodshei Sha'ah in Aninus.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mo'ed Katan 14b:</span> Aveilus does not apply during the Mo'ed because it says 'v'Samachta b'Chagecha'. If one was an Avel before the Regel, the Aseh (of the Regel) of the Rabim overrides the Aseh of an individual. If he became an Avel during the Regel, the Aseh of an individual does not override the Aseh of the Rabim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesuvos 3b (Beraisa):</span> If the bread was baked, the animals were slaughtered, or the wine was mixed, and then the Chasan's father or bride's mother died:</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	We put the deceased in a room until after the Chupah... They have Bi'as Mitzvah, and separate. They celebrate the seven days of Mishteh (nuptial festivities), followed by seven days of Aveilus.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 16b (Mishnah):</span> R. Gamliel bathed on the night after his wife died.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span>	R. Gamliel holds that Aveilus on the night after death is only mid'Rabanan - 'va'Acharisah *k'Yom* Mar' (mid'Oraisa, it is only during the day). Chachamim did not decree to forbid an Istenis (one who is pained if he cannot bathe).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechoros 49a (Shmuel):</span> In Aveilus, the Halachah always follows the lenient opinion.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Berachos 9b):</span> Some say that the seven days of Avelus are mid'Oraisa. They learn from 'va'Ya'as l'Aviv Evel Shiv'as Yomim'. This is wrong. The Gemara in Zevachim say that it is only mid'Rabanan. Only R. Yehudah holds that Aveilus of the first night is mid'Oraisa. The Halachah follows the other Tana'im. The Asmachta for seven days of Avelus is 'v'Hafachti Chageichem l'Evel'. Just like the Chag is seven days, also Aveilus.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The Gemara in Mo'ed Katan calls Aveilus an Aseh (mid'Oraisa) of an individual, even after the first day!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rif):</span> The Gemara says that even according to the opinion that Aveilus of the first night is mid'Oraisa, it does not override the Regel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ra'avad, brought in Rosh Mo'ed Katan 3:3):</span> It is unreasonable that the Stam Gemara is unlike the Halachah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Ra'avad):</span> The Aveilus of Sheloshim (30 days), which forbids laundering and haircuts, is mid'Oraisa. We learn about haircuts from a Hekesh to Nazir (19b), and laundering is equated to haircuts.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Rabeinu Meir, brought in Rosh Mo'ed Katan 3:3):</span> One who transgresses these matters of Aveilus is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shomayim) (Mo'ed Katan 19b). If this were mid'Oraisa, it should have been listed with all the Chayavei Misos in Sanhedrin 83a! It is difficult to say that the Tana omitted some, for it says 'Elu'!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #3 (Rabbeinu Meir):</span> Rather, it is only mid'Rabanan. The Misah is for (transgressing a mid'Rabanan -) 'u'Foretz Gader Yishcenu Nachash.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	Rif (Mo'ed Katan 11b) If a Mes died and was buried on Yom Tov Sheni of Chutz la'Aretz at the end of the Regel or Shavu'os, since Yom Tov Sheni is mid'Rabanan and the first day of Aveilus is mid'Oraisa, an individual's Aseh mid'Oraisa overrides the Aseh mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> BaHaG says similarly. He calls Yom Tov Sheni a Safek mid'Rabanan. The Gemara (Mo'ed Katan 14b) says *Stam* that Aveilus is mid'Rabanan, i.e. always, even on the day of burial. Rashi says that the Isur Melachah is mid'Rabanan. 'V'Hafachti Chageichem l'Evel' is an Asmachta. However, what we learn from Yechezkeil ('He'anek Dom...') is mid'Oraisa. It exempts an Avel even from Tefilin, which is mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Rosh):</span> This is not a proof. If we learned from Yechezkeil, we would exempt from Tefilin all seven days, like everything else learned from Yechezkeil. An Avel is exempt from Tefilin only on the first day, because it is called 'Pe'er'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Evel 1:1):</span> Aveilus is mid'Oraisa only on the first day when it is the day of burial. The rest of Shivah (the seven days of Aveilus) is only mid'Rabanan. Moshe enacted that Yisrael observe seven days of Aveilus and seven days of Mishteh (for a Chasan).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (2:1):</span> The Torah obligates Aveilus over a parent, child, and paternal sibling. Mi'Divrei Sofrim one mourns over his full (Nesu'ah) wife or husband, and maternal sibling.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (10:9):</span> In places where two days of Yom Tov are observed, we count Shiv'ah from Yom Tov Sheni ha'Acharon (at the end of the festival). Even though he does not conduct Aveilus that day, since it is mid'Rabanan it counts towards Shiv'ah. He counts only six days after it. He counts Sheloshim from the day of burial.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (10):</span> If one buried his Mes on Yom Tov Sheni ha'Acharon, or on Yom Tov Sheni of Shavu'os, since Yom Tov Sheni is mid'Rabanan, and the first day of Aveilus is mid'Oraisa, the Torah Aseh (Aveilus) overrides the Aseh mid'Rabanan (Yom Tov Sheni). However, if he buried on Yom Tov Sheni of Rosh Hashanah, he does not conduct Aveilus, for both days are considered like a long day.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Kesuvos 1:5):</span> The Ramah says that the first day of Mishteh is mid'Oraisa; we learn from 'b'Yom Chasunaso uv'Yom Simchas Libo'. Therefore it overrides Aveilus. Some say that BaHaG did not mean that Aveilus of the first day is mid'Oraisa. Rather, since it has an Asmachta ('va'Acharisah k'Yom Mar'), and Yom Tov Sheni is a mere custom, Aveilus overrides.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Mo'ed Katan 3:27):</span> If one buried his Mes during the festival, Aveilus applies only after the festival. He counts Shiv'ah from Yom Tov ha'Acharon. Even though he does not conduct Aveilus that day, it counts towards Shiv'ah. He counts only six days after it. If a Mes died on Yom Tov Sheni ha'Acharon, or on Yom Tov Sheni of Shavu'os, he conducts Aveilus, for it is the day of death and burial. Rabanan agreed that the first day of Aveilus is mid'Oraisa - 'v'Achalti Chatas ha'Yom', 'va'Acharisah k'Yom Mar.' An individual's Torah Aseh overrides the Aseh mid'Rabanan of the Rabim. If so, we must distinguish and say that if a maternal brother or married sister died on Yom Tov Sheni, he does not mourn that day, for an Aseh mid'Rabanan of an individual does not override an Aseh of the Rabim. These are the words of early Chachamim. Acharonim decided that there is no Aveilus mid'Oraisa, even the first day. Only Aninus is mid'Oraisa. Their proofs are clear; do not veer from them.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 548:3):</span> If a Mes died and was buried on Yom Tov Sheni of Chutz la'Aretz at the end of the Regel, since Yom Tov Sheni is mid'Rabanan and the first day of Aveilus is mid'Oraisa, Aveilus overrides Yom Tov Sheni.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Rosh):</span> In YD 399, the Tur said that all the Ge'onim hold like Bahag. The Ramban adds that the Ge'onim discuss only the seven relatives explicit in the Torah. We do not mourn on Yom Tov Sheni over those that Chachamim added. Some say that we do not mourn at all on Yom Tov Sheni of Rosh Hashanah, for it is one Kedushah. Even though he does not conduct Aveilus, it counts (towards Shiv'ah). The Ramban holds like the Ge'onim, that since it is mid'Rabanan, Aveilus mid'Oraisa overrides it. The Rashba says that the Ge'onim discuss only when Yom Tov ha'Acharon is the day of death and burial, but not if death was on Yom Tov Rishon and burial was on Yom Tov Sheni. Bahag and the Rif connote like this. He brought a proof from Kesuvos 3b, in which we say that if the food was ready, and the Chasan's father or bride's mother died, we put the deceased in a room, (they have Bi'as Mitzvah,) and it is not buried until the next day (and they celebrate the seven days of Mishteh, followed by seven days of Aveilus). If Aveilus of the day of death alone (not the day of burial) were mid'Oraisa, how could we permit Bi'as Mitzvah?! If Aveilus of the day of burial alone were mid'Oraisa, how could we permit seven days of Mishteh including the day of burial? The days of Mishteh are no stronger than Yom Tov Sheni! We explicitly say in Zevachim that if death and burial were both on the 14th, Aninus is mid'Oraisa. If the death was on the 13th and burial was on the 14th, the day of burial is only mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some disagree and hold that there is no Aveilus on any Yom Tov Sheni. This is the custom; one should not deviate.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav):</span> R. Tam says that even if he died on Yom Tov Sheni, there is no Aveilus that day. The Rosh agreed with this, and the Tur ruled like this in YD (399), but he did not protest against those who conducted like the Ge'onim. R. Yerucham says that Bahag is primary, and this is proper, for the Rif and Rambam agree.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Aveilus):</span> The Rif holds that the first day of Aveilus is mid'Oraisa, but even the first night (afterwards) is mid'Rabanan. R. Gamliel says so in Berachos, and R. Shimon and Rebbi say is in Zevachim. R. Yehudah holds that it is mid'Oraisa, but only when it is the day of death and burial.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Yesh):</span> The latter opinion holds that only Aninus is mid'Oraisa, regarding eating Kodshim. In Berachos we say that since the night is mid'Rabanan regarding Kodshim, we are lenient also about Aveilus. In Aveilus, the Halachah always follows the lenient opinion. If it were mid'Oraisa, we would be stringent! The leniencies of Aveilus are because it is mid'Rabanan. We say 'an Aseh... overrides...', i.e. an Aseh mid'Rabanan, just like we say (Pesachim 84a) 'Shabaton is an Aseh...', even though it is only Shevus (mid'Rabanan), and that a Tevul Yom who enters Machaneh Levi transgresses an Aseh, even though it is only mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (11):</span> Yom Tov Sheni ha'Rishon is no less than Chol ha'Mo'ed (so Aveilus does not override it).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (13):</span> The Torah commanded even Kohanim to become Tamei for their relatives, and all the more so Yisre'elim, lest they refrain from mourning over them. This shows that Aveilus of the first day is mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (14, citing the Bach):</span> If one comes to conduct like the Ge'onim, we protest due to 'Lo Sisgodedu (do not make factions)', for we already accepted to conduct like R. Tam and the Rosh.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHY PINCHAS DID NOT RECEIVE THE KEHUNAH WITH THE OTHER KOHANIM</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: Rebbi Chanina and Rav Ashi disagree about when Pinchas became a Kohen. Rebbi Chanina says that Pinchas became a Kohen after he killed Zimri. Rav Ashi says that he became a Kohen only after he made peace between the Shevatim in the times of Yehoshua. <b>RASHI</b> in Chumash (Bamidbar 25:13) writes that when the Kohanim were anointed, only Aharon, his sons, and the sons which would be born from them in the future were anointed, but not the grandsons of Aharon who were already living, which included Pinchas. This Halachah, however, apparently applied only to Pinchas, since there is no mention of any other grandsons of Aharon who were not Kohanim.
</p><p>
Why did Hash-m not have Pinchas anointed at that time, together with all of the other Kohanim?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAL</b> (in <b>GUR ARYEH</b>) explains that Pinchas was a Katan, minor, at the time of the anointment of the Kohanim, and a Katan does not receive anointment for Kehunah.
</p><p>
(b) In his second answer, the Maharal writes that only the Kohanim who were needed for the Avodah at the time of the anointment were actually anointed. Since there were enough Kohanim to do the Avodah without Pinchas, it was preferable that, thereafter, only those born with Kedushas Kehunah should be Kohanim. Pinchas therefore would not have been a Kohen at all (if not for the special award he earned for his actions).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MIZRACHI</b> explains that the reason why Hash-m did not have Pinchas anointed was so that he should earn the Kehunah with his actions against Zimri and Kozbi.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>LIKUTEI HE'OROS</b> on the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> HA'CHAIM</b> suggests that had Pinchas been anointed, he would not have been able to kill Zimri, because that act would have rendered him Tamei Mes. Hash-m therefore prevented him from being anointed when the other Kohanim were anointed in order that he would be able to save the Jewish people from destruction. (See <b>KLI CHEMDAH</b>, beginning of Parshas Pinchas, for more about Pinchas becoming Tamei to Zimri.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) MOSHE RABEINU AS KING</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Elisheva, the wife of Aharon, had five reasons to celebrate on the inaugural day of the Mishkan. Her brother-in-law, Moshe Rabeinu, was the king, her husband became the Kohen Gadol, her son, Elazar, was the assistant Kohen Gadol, her grandson, Pinchas, was the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah, and her brother, Nachshon ben Aminadav, was the Nasi of Shevet Yehudah. The Gemara quotes the Beraisa to prove that Moshe Rabeinu was the king, in contrast to the Gemara earlier that he had the status of a Kohen Gadol. However, the Gemara answers that Moshe Rabeinu was both the king and had the status of a Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
Many commentaries have difficulty with the assertion that Moshe Rabeinu had the Halachic status of a king. The Mechilta and Targum Yonasan (cited by <b>RASHI</b> to Shemos 18:12, DH va'Yavo Aharon) states that when Yisro came to the Jewish people, Moshe Rabeinu waited on the people who partook in the festive meal (regarding the nature of the meal, see <b>SEFORNO</b> there). A king, however, is not permitted to forgo his honor (Kesuvos 17a). If Moshe Rabeinu had the status of a king, why was he permitted to serve others at a meal?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>GERESH CARMEL</b> answers that since the verse states that their meal was 'Lifnei ha'Elokim' -- 'in front of Hash-m' (ibid.), it was as if Moshe Rabeinu was waiting on Hash-m, tantamount to performing Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. For such Avodah, a king is allowed to forgo his honor.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BIKUREI DAVID</b> (in a note on the <b>PARDES YOSEF</b> to Shemos 18:12) gives an answer based on the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Sanhedrin (19a, DH Yanai). Tosfos writes that the Mitzvas Aseh of Kavod ha'Torah is stronger than the Mitzvas Aseh of Kavod ha'Melech. The Bikurei David suggests, therefore, that an ordinary king would not have been permitted to forgo his honor in the situation of Moshe Rabeinu. However, since Moshe Rabeinu was also a Talmid Chacham, and in that situation he was permitted to forgo his honor as a Talmid Chacham, the Mitzvah of Kavod ha'Melech also was suspended since it became secondary to his Mitzvah of Kavod ha'Torah.
</p><p>
The Bikurei David adds that his approach is similar to the statement of the Gemara in Sukah (7a) with regard to Halachic walls. Although a certain type of wall is normally not considered a wall for the laws of Shabbos, when that type of wall is considered a wall for the laws of Sukos, it is also considered a wall for the laws of Shabbos on the day of Sukos that falls on Shabbos. This is the concept of, 'Migo d'Havi Dofen l'Inyan Sukah, Havi Dofen l'Inyan Shabbos' -- 'since it is a wall for Sukah, it is a wall for Shabbos.'
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> answers that since this incident occurred before Matan Torah, Moshe Rabeinu did not yet have the status of a king. The Meshech Chochmah infers this from the Midrash which comments on the verse (Devarim 33:5), 'va'Yehi vi'Yeshurun Melech' that 'Zeh Moshe' -- this refers to Moshe. The following words in the verse, 'b'His'asef Roshei Am' -- 'when the heads of the nation gathered,' refer to Matan Torah. Accordingly, the Meshech Chochmah deduces that this means that Moshe Rabeinu became king only at Matan Torah. Consequently, he was permitted to wait on others before Matan Torah.
</p><p>
The Bikurei David also gives this explanation in his second answer, but he infers it from a different source. Rashi (Shemos 18:13, DH va'Yehi mi'Macharas) writes that the day after Moshe Rabeinu came down from Har Sinai, he was sitting in judgment 'like a king.' This implies that Moshe's status of king began after Matan Torah. (According to the Bikurei David's source, Moshe Rabeinu became king only after the second Matan Torah, on Yom Kippur.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> ARE THOUGHTS OF DIVREI TORAH FORBIDDEN LIKE SPEECH? <span class='indexentry'>[Divrei Torah: Hirhur: Isur]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav):</span> In the bathroom, R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon composed a dialogue to prove that a Tevul Yom does not receive a share of Kodshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> R. Yochanan taught that one may think about Torah anywhere except for a bathhouse or privy!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Ohnes is different.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ta'anis 20b:</span> R. Zeira said that one of his merits for long life was that he never thought about Torah in filthy Mavo'os (alleyways).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 24b (Rav Huna citing R. Yochanan):</span> If one was walking in a filthy Mavoy (at the time of Keri'as Shma), he covers his mouth and says it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Rav Huna taught that a Chacham may not stand in a filthy place, for he cannot avoid thinking about Torah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> He may not *stand* in a filthy place, but he may walk through it while thinking about Torah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 150b (R. Yochanan):</span> R. Yehoshua ben Korchah expounds 'v'Daber Davar' - speech (about Melachah) is forbidden on Shabbos, but thoughts are permitted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Acha bar Rav Huna):</span> This implies that thoughts are not considered Dibur (speech). R. Yochanan forbids thoughts of Torah in a privy due to 'v'Hayah Machanecha Kodesh.' Here also it says 'v'Lo Yir'eh Vecha Ervas *Davar*' (he should forbid only speech)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> 'Ervas Davar' forbids reciting Shma facing a naked Nochri.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kidushin 33a:</span> Episodes occurred in the bathhouse in which R. Chiya and Bar Kapara did not stand for R. Shimon bar Rebbi. Rebbi suggested that perhaps they were thinking about what they learned from him, and did not notice him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span>	One must rise for his Rebbi in the outer rooms of a bathhouse, but not in the inner rooms.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support:</span> These cases must have been in the outer rooms, for one may not think about Torah in a privy or (inner rooms of) a bathhouse!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> Sometimes a Chacham cannot avoid thinking about Torah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Berachos 15b and 3:42):</span> A Chacham may not stand in a filthy place, for he cannot avoid thoughts of Torah. One may think about Torah anywhere except for a bathhouse or Beis ha'Kisei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Keri'as Shma 3:4):</span> Even Hirhur (thinking) about Divrei Kedushah is forbidden in a bathhouse or privy or in a place of filth, i.e. excrement or urine.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yonah (Berachos 8b DH Lo):</span> If one may not say a Berachah or Tefilah, e.g. if his hands or the place are not clean, e.g. a Choleh in a dirty bed, he should think the words in his heart. Even though he is not Yotzei, he receives reward for his intent.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (OC 85 DH Lo):</span> All the Poskim forbid even Hirhur in a place of filth. Perhaps R. Yonah does not refer to true filth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (62:2):</span> R. Yonah discusses places such as the middle room of a bathhouse. The Shlah says that R. Yonah means to think about his obligation and regret that he cannot bless. The words of R. Yonah connote otherwise.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chayei Adam (Nishmas Adam 3:2):</span> Since we hold that thought is not like speech, I am unsure whether the Isur to think about Torah in filthy places is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. The Gemara said 'Ohnes is different.' It did not say 'it was Ohnes'. This connotes that if the teaching is so fluent in his mouth (or mind) that it comes unintentionally, he need not force himself (to refrain). If it were an Isur mid'Oraisa, surely he would need to pain himself to avoid transgressing! It seems that it is mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim did not require him to pain himself. R. Yonah holds like this; Chachamim did not decree in a case of Ohnes.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (3:14):</span> R. Yonah learns from Shabbos 150a that Hirhur is not like speech.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Shabbos 150a DH v'Hayah):</span> The Machaneh must be Kodesh, for Yisre'elim constantly think about Divrei Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Terumas ha'Deshen (41):</span> One may pray only amidst Halachah that was clearly decided, lest he think about it during Tefilah. We do not say so before entering a bathhouse. We find that great Chachamim were thinking about teachings before entering the bathhouse (Kidushin 33a, Rashi).  If it were forbidden to think about them beforehand, we would not say that they were Anusim! If one must dispel thoughts of learning in order to pray, this is distracting. One knows that he may not think Torah in the bathhouse, so he will force himself not to. Also Torah and Tefilah are both Kodesh, so it is hard to avoid thoughts of Torah during Tefilah. It is disgraceful to think Torah in the bathhouse. We say that one who seeks Chametz to destroy it will not come to eat it (and similarly regarding one who tries to avoid thinking Torah in the bathhouse)! However, Rav Huna forbids a Chacham to stand in a filthy Mavoy, for he cannot avoid Hirhur. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (OC 62:4):</span> If one is in a place that is not totally clean (at the time for Keri'as Shma) and he cannot clean it, he should think Shma in his heart. If it is utterly filthy he may not think about Divrei Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (4):</span> The Isur to think Torah in filthy places is not because thought is like speech. Rather, it is due to v'Hayah Machanecha Kodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> If one is obligated to say Shma or a Berachah but may not, he should think about his obligation and feel bad that he cannot fulfill it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav (73:1):</span> If two were sleeping without clothes, covered by one cloth and their bodies touch, they may say Keri'as Shma only if the cloth separates them from the hips and below. If their bodies touch there, this arouses Hirhur, and it is forbidden due to v'Lo Yir'eh Vecha Ervas Davar. Even though the verse discusses exposed Ervah, mid'Rabanan, when 'Hash-m Elokecha Mis'halech b'Kerev Machanecha', i.e. when you say Shma, pray or learn Torah, anything that arouses Hirhur is called Ervah, e.g. an exposed Tefach on a woman. However, thinking is permitted even when his Ervah is exposed. Therefore, one may think Kodesh thoughts at the time of relations, for thought is not like speech for this matter, even though it is regarding thinking in filthy places.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav (75:10):</span> One may think Torah when he is naked, and all the more so facing Ervah, for it says Ervas Davar - only speech is forbidden. He should not be Yotzei a Berachah through hearing it, for we cannot say that hearing is like answering, for he may not answer.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (79:3):</span> The Pri Megadim says that the Rashba forbids speaking Divrei Torah if excrement is in front of him as far as he can see, but permits thinking Divrei Torah more than four Amos from where the smell ends. Perhaps the Rosh forbids mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (84:1):</span> In the middle room of a bathhouse where some people are dressed and some are naked, She'elas (greeting with) Shalom is permitted, but one may not recite Shma or pray.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> One may think Divrei Torah there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH u'Mutar):</span> The Shach (YD 244:4) says that Kidushin 33a permits in the middle room, for there we permit She'elas Shalom. It seems that the Rif, Rosh and other Poskim agree, for they brought this teaching. There is no Chidush in the outer room, for there one may put on Tefilin! The Rambam omitted it, for he holds that the Heter is in the outer room.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 85:2):</span> Even Hirhur about Divrei Torah is forbidden in a privy, bathhouse or in a place of filth, i.e. excrement or urine.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (2):</span> Hirhur is permitted while facing Ervah, but not in a privy, for it is a place of excessive filth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Machatzis ha'Shekel:</span> Granted, v'Hayah Machanecha Kodesh forbids Hirhur in a privy. The Magen Avraham needed to explain why it is forbidden in a bathhouse. Due to the heat, there is great filth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Rav):</span> R. Mano'ach says that the Yerushalmi permits Hirhur in a privy. The Ra'avad says that the Bavli agrees. It forbids only intentional Hirhur in Torah. If Torah is fluent in one's mouth and he thinks there b'Ohnes, it is permitted. We learn from R. Elazar. The teaching was fluent in his mouth, and he thought about it against his will (Rashi).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (8):</span> 'It is permitted' means that he is not liable, since it was b'Ohnes, but surely he must try to avoid Hirhur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (16):</span> If one starts thinking of a woman or any evil thought, he may divert his mind to Torah, for this is preventing sin.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (15):</span> This is when the place is not totally clean, or his hands, e.g. he touched a covered part of the body. If the place or his hands are filthy, even Hirhur is forbidden.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (554:3):</span> Some forbid learning through Hirhur on Tish'ah b'Av.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Agur (847, citing Maharil 201):</span> Most permit learning through Hirhur, for thought is not like speech. I say that here it is forbidden due to Simchah, which is primarily through Hirhur. One who does not understand has no Simchah!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (5):</span> Therefore, one may not learn even a Drashah or question and answer in sad parts of Torah, for this brings Simchah. One may not give a ruling, unless needed on the day for a sick person, or for parties in a case who need to go away tomorrow, for giving a ruling is like Hirhur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Gra:</span> We say 'speech is forbidden but Hirhur is permitted' only regarding Shabbos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (YD 246:26):</span> A Chacham may not stand in a filthy place lest he think about Torah, but he may enter a bathhouse amidst (any) learning, not only Halachah that was clearly decided. We are confident that he will be careful not to think inside the bathhouse,</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (282:19):</span> The Isur to think about Torah in filthy places is due to Kevod ha'Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (Sof Petichah Klalis, DH Machshavah):</span> Perhaps the Isur to think about Torah in such places is mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) ONE WHO CANNOT STOP HIMSELF FROM LEARNING TORAH IN THE BATHROOM</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara relates a remarkable incident which provides a glimpse into the greatness of the Tana'im and Amora'im. Rav quoted a lengthy and in-depth commentary in Torah learning that he had heard from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the bathroom. After presenting Rav's lengthy discourse, the Gemara asks that learning Torah in the bathroom is forbidden. The Gemara answers that 'l'Onso Sha'ani' -- 'if one is forced, it is different.' <b>RASHI</b> (DH l'Onso) explains that Rebbi Elazar was so involved in his learning that he could not stop learning in the bathroom. It was as if he was 'forced' to learn. (Similarly, the Yerushalmi in Berachos (3:4) quotes Rebbi Elazar as admitting that he solved many difficult logical problems regarding the subject of Tevul Yom in the bathroom. The Yerushalmi adds that Rebbi Zeira said that whenever he had a difficulty in learning and would go to the bathroom, he would gain understanding while thinking about it there. See <b>PNEI MOSHE</b> there.)
</p><p>
This answer explains the behavior of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon; a great person may lose himself in an in-depth Sugya and not be aware of the prohibition against learning in the bathroom. However, Rav related that he heard this discourse from Rebbi Elazar in the bathroom, and he proceeded to relate it from memory. If Rav was present, why did he not bring to Rebbi Elazar's attention that he was in the bathroom and that he should stop learning?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b> prefaces his remarks by saying that it must be that Rav himself was outside the bathroom, since it is unreasonable to assume that Rav and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon would walk into a bathroom together to discuss a Sugya, and both would forget the Halachah -- not only the Halachah of discussing Torah in the bathroom, but also the Halachah that two people are not supposed to go into the bathroom together and talk to each other there. It must be that Rav was outside of the bathroom listening to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon as he discussed his learning to himself. The fact that he did not go in and interrupt shows that one is not required to stop someone who cannot restrain himself from learning Torah in the bathroom.
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> infers from Rashi (DH l'Onso) that Rav never actually heard Rebbi Elazar learning in the bathroom. This is because Rebbi Elazar was not verbalizing his learning, but rather he was thinking in learning in the bathroom. This is why Rashi says 'u'Meharher Bah' -- 'and he was thinking in it.' Rav related the thoughts that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon told him afterwards, the thoughts which he had thought of while he was in the bathroom. According to this explanation, one <i>should</i> stop someone who is learning in the bathroom.
</p><p>
The <b>EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b> asks that the Tzon Kodashim seems to ignore the previous comment of Rashi (DH v'Heichi), in which Rashi interprets the Gemara's question on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon 'that <i>he said</i> this Halachah in the bathroom.' This implies that he not only thought words of Torah in the bathroom, but he also spoke them.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> gives a third explanation. He explains that <i>Rav</i> was in the bathroom when he heard a Torah discourse from Rebbi Elazar, who was outside of the bathroom. Rav could not help but listen to the discussion. However, this explanation is not consistent with the Yerushalmi in Berachos (cited earlier), which quotes Rebbi Elazar as saying that <i>he</i> resolved many difficulties regarding Tevul Yom in the bathroom. This presumably refers to the discussion mentioned in the Gemara here. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DISPURE BETWEEN REBBI ELIEZER AND REBBI YEHOSHUA</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in the case of a person who consecrated all of his possessions to Hekdesh, and among them were animals that were fit to be Korbanos. Rebbi Eliezer says that the male animals should be sold to people who need to bring Olos, and the female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim. The money obtained through the sale of the animals should be given -- with the rest of his property -- to Bedek ha'Bayis (Hekdesh). Rebbi Yehoshua argues that the male animals <i>themselves</i> should be brought as Olos, the female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim, and the money from the sale of the female animals should be used to bring Olos as well. Rebbi Yehoshua admits that these Olos are different in that the hides of these Olos are given to Bedek ha'Bayis (Hekdesh), while the hides of other Olos are given to the Kohanim.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah? The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:21) rules like Rebbi Yehoshua. He writes that the animals should be brought as Olos and the hides do not go to the Kohanim. However, in a different place (Hilchos Erchin 5:7) the Rambam rules like Rebbi Eliezer and writes that all of the animals should be sold. The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> points out that the Halachah indeed should follow Rebbi Eliezer, because Rebbi Akiva follows his view. How, though, is the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos to be reconciled with his ruling in Hilchos Erchin?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> answers that the Rambam has a different way of learning the Gemara here. The conventional way to learn the Gemara here is that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that one must sell the male animals to people who will use them as Korbenos Olah, and the money from the sale takes the place of the animal as Hekdesh. Accordingly, the Olah is offered in the normal manner, and its hide is given to the Kohanim. This is not how the Rambam understands the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. The Rambam understands that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the animal is still called an Olas Hekdesh, even after it is sold. When the Gemara says that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that the hide is not given to the Kohanim, it means that <i>even</i> Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that this is correct. The Zevach Todah explains that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue about whether 'Adam Cholek Hekdesho.' When a person consecrates his property, which includes animals fit to be Korbanos, does he 'split' his intention and designate some as Bedek ha'Bayis and some as Kodshei Mizbe'ach? The Gemara assumes that Rebbi Eliezer maintains 'Ein Adam Cholek Hekdesho.' Since the animal, in its entirety, was designated originally for Bedek ha'Bayis, its redemption is effective only with regard to the part of the Korban that can be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The hide certainly stays dedicated to Bedek ha'Bayis, since it still is considered an Olas Hekdesh. In contrast, Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that 'Adam Cholek Hekdesho,' and he rules that the male animals themselves were intended for Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and therefore they are brought as Korbanos themselves. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua understands that this split intention applies only to the meat which is supposed to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The person does not have in mind that the hide should go to the Kohanim, but rather that it should go to Bedek ha'Bayis.
</p><p>
The Zevach Todah explains that the ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos (5:21) is consistent with his ruling in Erchin (5:7). In both places, the Rambam rules like <i>Rebbi Eliezer</i>, even when he says that the hide does not go to the Kohanim. How does the Zevach Todah understand the Rambam's statement (in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos) that the animals should be brought as Olos? He explains that the Rambam means merely that the animals themselves have the status of Olos Hekdesh, which is why their hides cannot be given to the Kohanim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> answers that the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos discusses only male animals for a reason. According to one version of the Gemara in Temurah (31b), Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua that in the case of a person who has only male animals, the animals themselves are brought as Olos, and the hides are not given to the Kohanim. The Sefas Emes suggests that the Rambam rules like this version of the Gemara, and therefore he consistently rules like Rebbi Eliezer. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CAN ONE BRING A PROOF FROM WHAT WAS NOT SEEN? <span class='indexentry'>[Minhag: proof]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah - R. Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim):</span> I never saw a skin taken to Beis ha'Sereifah (to be burned due to a Pesul).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva:</span> From R. Chanina we learn that (even) if a Bechor was found to be Treifah after flaying, Kohanim receive the skin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chachamim:</span> Not seeing is not a proof! (Perhaps a Pesul never occurred.) The Halachah is, it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Eruvin 41a (Beraisa):</span> After R. Gamliel died, R. Yehoshua came to overturn his words (and say that if Tish'ah b'Av falls on Erev Shabbos, we complete the fast).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yochanan ben Nuri:</span> As long as R. Gamliel was alive, the Halachah followed him. We will not annul his words now. The Halachah was fixed like him!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	No one argued with R. Yochanan ben Nuri.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 100a (Beraisa):</span> Once, R. Shimon (ben Gamliel), R. Yehudah and R. Yosi were eating, and Shabbos came. R. Shimon suggested to R. Yosi that they should be concerned for R. Yehudah's opinion (and interrupt).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Yosi:</span> You always try to get R. Yehudah to agree with my opinion. Why now do you try to get me to agree to his opinion?!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Shimon:</span> If so, we will not interrupt, lest Talmidim see and the Halachah will be fixed like R. Yehudah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kidushin 50b (Rav Papa):</span> In an area where people are Mekadesh and later send Sivlonos (prenuptial gifts), we are concerned (lest he already was Mekadesh her). In an area where people are Mekadesh after Sivlonos, we are not concerned.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (103b DH Ein):</span> Perhaps a Tereifah never occurred after flaying in the days of R. Chanina, and even if it happened and it was burned, perhaps he did not see it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharik (171):</span> When do we say that not seeing is not a proof and not hearing is not a proof? If two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, i.e. one pair says that they saw Kidushin, and the other says that they did not see. However, when there is no contradiction, e.g. if no one testifies that the custom was to be stringent about Sivlonos, surely we rely on those who testify and say that they never saw or heard anyone (be stringent). In Eruvin, we did not say that everyone agreed with R. Yochanan ben Nuri, rather, that no one argued with him. We did not say that not seeing is not a proof!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shiltei ha'Giborim (Bava Metzia 52a):</span> We find that R. Shimon ben Gamliel wanted to interrupt, like R. Yehudah, but after R. Yosi protested, he retracted, lest Talmidim see and the Halachah will be established like R. Yehudah. Without a protest, Talmidim would not think that they interrupted because the Halachah requires this. Rather, it just occurred this way. Not seeing is not a proof, like it says in Zevachim. Rashi explains that perhaps R. Chanina never saw a skin taken to Beis ha'Sereifah, for a Pesul never occurred in his days. Or, perhaps a Pesul occurred, but he did not see it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Shach CM 37:38):</span> There is no proof from Pesachim. Surely the Halachah would not be fixed for generations based on one episode unless there was a protest. However, if it happened many times and there was a custom, surely they could learn from the fact that it never happened oppositely. Surely, a custom is a proof. There is no proof from Zevachim. Rashi says that perhaps a Tereifah never occurred after flaying in the days of R. Chanina, and even if it happened and it was burned, perhaps he did not see it. I.e. it is no proof because it is not common to be found Tereifah after flaying. Also, perhaps he did not see, but others did.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shiltei ha'Giborim (ibid.):</span> Maharik says that not seeing or hearing is a proof regarding Sivlonos, from the case in which they fixed the Halachah like R. Gamliel because no one protested. This is because they testified about a custom established like R. Gamliel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Shach ibid.):</span> Shiltei ha'Giborim says that not finishing the fast was a custom. If Maharik meant this, what was his proof from there to Sivlonos?! Regarding Sivlonos, we did not see a case, but regarding fasting, we did! Shiltei ha'Giborim said that perhaps there is no proof, for silence (not protesting) is like admission. He understood that the Halachah was already fixed like R. Gamliel, and no one protested. This is wrong. If so, why did R. Yochanan ben Nuri say that all the days that R. Gamliel was alive, we fixed the Halachah like him. Even if we did not fix it, he should have said concisely that the Halachah follows like him because the custom is to eat and not complete the fast. Rather, R. Yehoshua wanted to annul R. Gamliel's words, for R. Yehoshua thought that the Halachah is that we complete the fast, and there was not yet a custom. R. Yochanan said that all the days of R. Gamliel our custom was to rule like everything he said. We did not scrutinize (to see if we should accept his words). We do not heed you (R. Yehoshua) to annul his words, for the Halachah was fixed like him in everything, and no one protested. This is why Maharik said 'R. Yehoshua did not answer that not seeing is not a proof, for the testimony was only that he did not hear a protest, since he did not say that Chachamim agreed to him.' If so, the same applies to Sivlonos, and regarding the custom that women do not slaughter (see below).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shiltei ha'Giborim (ibid.):</span> Maharik means that when there was an argument, and afterwards there was a custom, the custom is like testimony that it is the custom. He does not mean that merely not seeing makes a custom. This is clear from his words and the episode he discusses. Further, if we will not say so, Zevachim 103b would refute his proof from Eruvin! Also, we can say that not seeing is a proof when they refrain at the time of the act (Sivlonos were given, and we did not say that she is Safek Mekudeshes). He brought a good proof from R. Gamliel, for Tish'ah b'Av occurred on Erev Shabbos and people did not finish the fast. This is like testimony that this is the custom. Really, his proof is not so solid. R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, and no one protested. This is unlike (merely) not seeing. Not protesting is silence, which is like admission, unless the Gemara explains the silence! Also, R. Yochanan testified that the Halachah was fixed like R. Gamliel, and this was followed in practice. Regarding taxes, the Mordechai says in the name of Maharam that the Halachah is fixed only after there is a custom. R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, for this is the custom. The Gemara supports this. It says that in the days of R. Gamliel, they followed R. Gamliel. Not seeing is a proof regarding who is considered a resident. There, if he was a resident, the others would know!</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 1:1):</span> Even women may slaughter.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some say that we do not let women slaughter, for their custom is not to slaughter. This is the custom, that women do not slaughter.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Agur (1062):</span> Even though the Poskim hold that women may slaughter l'Chatchilah, the custom in all of Chutz la'Aretz is that they do not.  I never saw a custom that they slaughter.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Beis Yosef DH u'Mah she'Chosav Nashim):</span> If they wanted to slaughter and people did not let them, this could be called a proof. Not seeing it not a proof!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (1):</span> The Agur holds like Maharik, that regarding a custom v'Chi Hai Gavna (or similar cases), if something was not seen, this is a proof.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Tumim 24):</span> Surely, when it is known that the custom in some places is a certain way, or Poskim argue, not seeing is a proof, e.g. Sivlonos. Some places are concerned for Kidushin, and some are not, like the Gemara and Poskim say. If they say that they never saw anyone concerned for Sivlonos here, this is a proof. Likewise, there was an argument whether or not to complete the fast. However, no one disapproved of women slaughtering. How can one say that because he did not see it, the custom is that they do not slaughter?! We cannot make a custom based on this, like the Beis Yosef said. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Sifsei Da'as:</span> Some say that the text of the Shach is Ki Hai Gavna (without a Vov, i.e. regarding such a custom), i.e. something common (the Shach does not add similar cases).In CM (brought below) he says that when there is no contradiction, not seeing is a proof! Rather, the text has a Vov. Not seeing is a proof when there is a common custom, or a similar case in which no one contradicts.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Machatzis ha'Shekel (DH veha'Beis):</span> The Mechaber argues with the Agur, so he did not bring his opinion. The Rema holds like the Agur here and in CM.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</span> Mekom Shmuel defends the Beis Yosef. I agree, for when a Posek says 'we did not see', he refers to his country and nearby lands. He does not discuss the entire world! However, sometimes a Posek connotes that he discusses the entire world.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (CM 37:22):</span> For anything that depends on the custom of the city, two witnesses are not like 100. Rather, we follow the majority, for we do not need real testimony. Similarly, in such a case we do not say that not seeing is not a proof. Rather, it is a proof.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Darchei Moshe (7:17):</span> Maharik says that for something that depends on the custom of the city, or does not require proper testimony, not seeing is a proof.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (38):</span> Someone challenged what I wrote in YD. He says that Maharik and the Rema discuss something that one wanted to do and refrained due to the custom. Shiltei ha'Giborim says that this is only when there is a custom, e.g. not to say certain Berachos or not to finish a fast. He erred. Maharik and the Rema hold like I say. We cannot say that Maharik says that not seeing is a proof only when one wanted to do and refrained due to the custom. He said 'we say that not seeing is not a proof only when two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, i.e. one pair saw Kidushin, and the other did not see. When there is no contradiction, e.g. if people testify and say that they never saw or heard anyone stringent about Sivlonos, surely we rely on them, like we find in Eruvin.' This implies that when there is no contradiction, not seeing is a proof, similar to witnesses who did not see Kidushin. They do not say that they saw people who refrained from Kidushin! Also, if not, 'not seeing is not a proof' would not apply. If a case occurred and they refrained, this is the ultimate proof! Rather, Maharik discusses when we do not know whether a case occurred, just we never heard that anyone was stringent. Therefore, since the custom is to give Sivlonos, and we never heard that anyone is stringent, not seeing is a proof, since no one contradicts it. The Rema (Darchei Moshe 7:7) wrote Stam in the name of Maharik that regarding customs, not seeing is a proof. He wrote so Stam in Siman 37, i.e. not only if a case occurred and people refrained. This is because when there is a custom, cases occur often, so if it were permitted (or forbidden), it is impossible that we would not have seen once that they were lenient (or stringent). Rather, surely the custom is specifically to forbid (or permit). Sivlonos are given all the time, and people always slaughter and we never heard of a woman slaughtering or learning Hilchos Shechitah in order to slaughter. In such common cases, when there is a custom, not seeing is a proof.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (32):</span> Eruvin 41a shows that in such a case not seeing is a proof.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE HIDES OF KORBANOS</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Beraisa discusses the source for the law that the Kohanim receive the hides of Korbanos. The Torah explicitly states that the Kohanim receive the hide of a Korban Olah, but it does not mention this law with regard to other Korbanos. Although the Tana'im derive the law for other Korbanos in different ways, they agree that the hides of other Korbanos of Kodshei Kodashim go to the Kohanim. Does this mean that those hides have the same status as the hide of the Korban Olah, or does it mean that the hides of other Kodshei Kodashim are simply considered secondary to the meat of their Korbanos, which is also given to the Kohanim?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> (17:9) maintains that the hide of the other Kodshei Kodashim simply has the same status as the meat of the Korban. For this reason, there is a special verse in the case of a Korban Olah. Since the meat of the Korban Olah is burned entirely and is not given to the Kohanim, a special verse is needed to teach that the hide <i>is</i> given to the Kohanim. Accordingly, the Kohanim do not have to skin the animal, as they must do for a Korban Olah. They may either skin it as they would an Olah, or eat their portion of meat with the skin. Only a Korban Olah must be skinned. The <b>EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b> cites supports for this view from the Mishnah in Perek Eizehu Mekoman which mention that the Olah must be skinned, and does not mention this requirement for any other Korban. If it is a requirement for all Korbanos, the Mishnah should have mentioned it. The Mishnah's omission of this requirement in the case of all other Korbanos implies that all other Korbanos do not have to be skinned.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:18) writes that <i>all of the Korbanos</i> are skinned. The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> and others question the Rambam's ruling from the Gemara here, which implies that the other Korbanos do <i>not</i> need to be skinned. The Mitzpeh Eisan answers that the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi, who maintains that the verse in the case of the Korban Olah is a novel Halachah. The Rambam rules like the other opinions in the Beraisa. He understands that they disagree with Rebbi and maintain that the hide of other Korbanos have the status of the hide of an Olah. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MANNER IN WHICH THE 'EIMURIN' ARE THROWN ON THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the Derashah of Rebbi Eliezer from the verse 'v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam' -- 'And you will make your Olos the meat and the blood' (Devarim 12:27). The words 'ha'Basar veha'Dam' clearly are extra. Rebbi Eliezer derives from these words that just as the blood of a Korban is delivered to the Mizbe'ach by way of Zerikah, throwing, the meat of a Korban is delivered to the Mizbe'ach by way of Zerikah.
</p><p>
How exactly does this Zerikah take place?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (62b, DH Amar Lo) explains that the Kohen stands on the ramp (Kevesh) and throws the meat over the airspace between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach, onto the Ma'arachah (pile of burning wood) on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 6:4) writes that the Kohen throws the meat from the 'top of the Mizbe'ach' onto the Ma'arachah. The Rambam clearly is not referring to the ramp when he writes 'the top of the Mizbe'ach.' He writes that the limbs are brought to the ramp where they are salted, 'and afterwards all of the limbs are brought to the top of the Mizbe'ach and the Gid ha'Nasheh is removed at the top of the Mizbe'ach, and he throws it on top of the Deshen in the middle of the Mizbe'ach.'
</p><p>
However, the Rambam's words here apparently contradict a different statement of the Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 2:13). The Rambam there describes the small space between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach which was there 'in order to place the limbs on the Mizbe'ach through Zerikah.' This statement clearly seems to express the opinion of Rashi. What is the opinion of the Rambam?
</p><p>
1. The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> explains that when the Rambam mentions 'the top of the Mizbe'ach,' he means the end of the ramp before the space between the ramp and Mizbe'ach. The Rambam relies on his comments in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah as clarification for the words, 'the top of the Mizbe'ach.'
</p><p>
However, the Mishneh l'Melech remains with a question on the Rambam here from a statement of the Rambam regarding the Korban of Rosh Chodesh. The Rambam (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 6:3) writes that when the Kohen brings the limbs of the Korban to the Mizbe'ach, he should place them on the Mizbe'ach 'between the two corners of the Mizbe'ach where the Kohanim walk.' The Rambam implies that the limbs are placed on the actual Mizbe'ach, and not merely on the ramp, before the Zerikah of the Eimurin. The Mishneh l'Melech does not know how to reconcile this Halachah with his understanding that the Rambam agrees with the opinion of Rashi, that the Zerikah is done over the space between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
2. The <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 6:4) does not accept the Mishneh l'Melech's defense of the Rambam that when the Rambam says 'the top of the Mizbe'ach' after he mentions 'Kevesh,' he means the top of the ramp. He explains instead that throwing the limbs on the Mizbe'ach involves two separate Mitzvos: one Mitzvah is to bring the limbs to the Mizbe'ach, and one Mitzvah is to throw them onto the fire. The Rambam in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah (2:13) refers to throwing the Eimurin onto the Mizbe'ach, while in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos (6:4) he refers to the Mitzvah to throw the limbs from the Mizbe'ach onto the fire. The Even ha'Azel bases this idea -- that there are two separate Mitzvos of throwing the limbs on the Mizbe'ach -- on his explanation of an earlier Gemara (62b; see Even ha'Azel at length). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN CAN ONE BRING A PROOF FROM WHAT WAS NOT SEEN? <span class='indexentry'>[Minhag: proof]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	103b (Mishnah - R. Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim):</span> I never saw a skin taken to Beis ha'Sereifah (to be burned due to a Pesul).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva:</span> From R. Chanina we learn that (even) if a Bechor was found to be Treifah after flaying, Kohanim receive the skin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chachamim:</span> Not seeing is not a proof! The Halachah is, it goes to Beis ha'Sereifah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	104a:</span> The Halachah follows Chachamim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesuvos 22b (Beraisa):</span> If two witnesses say that a woman became Mekudeshes and two say that she did not; she may not marry (someone else). If she married, she may remain married;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	If two say that she was divorced and two say that she was not, she may not remarry. If she remarried, she must leave him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why is the law different in the two cases?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Abaye):</span> Really, only one witness testified about the Kidushin or divorce, and one contradicts him. In the Reisha, both testify that she was single. Only one says that she became Mekudeshes. One is not believed against two. In the Seifa, both testify that she was married. Only one says that she was divorced. One is not believed against two.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</span> Really, there are two witnesses on each side, but we must switch the laws of the two cases. If two say that she accepted Kidushin and two say that they did not see it, she may not marry. If she married, she must leave;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Interjection:</span> This is obvious. Not seeing is not a proof!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Answer:</span> The case is, they live in the same courtyard. One might have thought that since Kidushin is publicized, they certainly would have known (and we consider the testimonies to be contradictory). The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. Some people are Mekadesh covertly.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	The Seifa says that if two say that she was divorced and two say that they did not see her divorced, she may not remarry. If she remarried, she may remain married.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The Reisha already teaches that even if they live in the same courtyard, (b'Di'eved if she remarried) we are not concerned for the witnesses who did not see!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> One might have thought that people are Mekadesh covertly, but divorce is publicized, so certainly they would have known. The Seifa teaches that also divorce can be done covertly.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sotah 47a (Mishnah):</span> If a murdered corpse was found, and one witness says that he saw the murderer, and one witness says 'you did not see', we bring Eglah Arufah (behead a calf for atonement).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Sanhedrin 725):</span> If witnesses say that they were there and being meticulous, and they did not see Kidushin or divorce, it is not clear whether we say that not seeing is not a proof. Presumably, it is not a proof only when we can say that one saw and another did not, e.g. they live in one Chatzer. This is not a contradiction. However, when they were together, and one says that he did not see, it is as if he says 'you did not see.' This is a contradiction. If one witness says that he saw the murderer, and one says 'I did not see' (our text in Sotah is '*you* did not see), this is called contradiction.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (CM 29 DH v'Chasav):</span> I say that this is (contradiction) when the witnesses say 'we did not leave him (even for a moment - Yevamos 88a).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Darchei Moshe CM 30:7):</span> As long as they were in one gathering, not seeing is a proof, like we say in EH 47 (brought below).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharik (171):</span> When do we say that not seeing is not a proof and not hearing is not a proof? If two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, i.e. one pair says that they saw Kidushin, and the other says that they did not see. However, when there is no contradiction, e.g. if no one testifies that the custom was to be stringent about Sivlonos (prenuptial gifts, to consider that she is Safek Mekudeshes), surely we rely on those who testify and say that they never saw or heard anyone (be stringent).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (EH 47:1):</span> If two witnesses saw Leah accept Kidushin, and two say that they did not see, she is Mekudeshes, even if all of them live in the Chatzer. Not seeing is not a proof, for perhaps she accepted Kidushin covertly.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Shenayim):</span> R. Yerucham (23:3 195b) says that if they were in one gathering, we could say that people are not Mekadesh so covertly, and this is contradiction.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shmuel (1):</span> However, if they all were together in one assembly, it is a Safek (Sa'if 2).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (2):</span> If two witnesses saw that she became Mekudeshes, and two say that she did not, whether Kidushin was thrown and they argue about whether it landed closer to her or to him, or whether the latter say that there was never Safek Kidushin, she may not remarry. If she remarried, she need not leave.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (CM 29:3):</span> Even though not seeing is not a proof, when they were together, and one says 'I did not see', it is as if he says to the other 'you did not see', and this is contradiction.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	SMA (12):</span> Here, the Mechaber himself rules Stam (without mentioning another opinion) like the Darchei Moshe (brought above).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (17):</span> We learn from Zevachim that not seeing is not a proof.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (19):</span> We learn from Sotah that when they were together, it is as if he says 'you did not see.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas R. Betzalel Ashkenazi (9):</span> We did not hear or see anyone conduct like people of Galil (who say that orphans can force the widow to accept her Kesuvah to exempt themselves of the obligation to feed her). All Rabanan say that when there is a custom, we follow it. Maharik says that not seeing is not a proof only when two pairs of witnesses contradict each other; one saw Kidushin, and the other did not. When there is no contradiction, e.g. no one testified that people used to be stringent about Sivlonos, surely we rely on those who testify that they did not see or hear.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharashdam (EH 90):</span> A case occurred in which a Shechiv Mera (a sick person who fears lest he die) authorized to write and give a Get on the day he died, and it was given shortly before death. Two witnesses say that he was Mevatel it before he died, and two witnesses said that they did not leave him the entire day, and they saw that he was not  Mevatel it. This requires great investigation of an expert Beis Din. It is very easy to be Mevatel a Get. Perhaps they did not hear! It is farfetched to say that they guarded (to hear everything that came out of) his mouth the entire day. If so, the latter testimony is invalid.  We find in Kesuvos that since people often are Mekadesh covertly, not seeing is not a proof. This is even for Kidushin, even though usually there is a Kol (publicity) to Kidushin! All the more so it applies here, for perhaps most people are Mevatel Gitin covertly, for they do not want to publicize this, especially a Shechiv Mera who is weak. He was Mevatel quietly in front of two, and the others did not hear.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharshach (1:28):</span> A witness testified that he went to a certain city during Chanukah of a certain year, and Leah was still not born. This is not testimony, for not seeing is not a proof, unless the witnesses say 'we did not leave her (mother).' Surely they were not with her the entire time! In Kesuvos, we say that some people have Kidushin covertly. Likewise, some people gave birth covertly!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'ar Efrayim (112):</span> In a situation where saying 'I did not see' is like saying '(also) you did not see', this is a contradiction. People do not err about whether an act was done. However, if one says that he heard something, and another says that he did not hear like this, this is not a contradiction, for people often err about what they heard. It is unlike seeing. However, Maharashdam, Maharshach and R. Betzalel Ashkenazi (7) equate hearing to seeing. Heaven forbid to go against great Poskim based on our own reasoning, even if it seems like a good distinction. However, the Ran (Teshuvah 34) says that Beis Din must try to explain the words of the witnesses so that there will be no contradiction, lest one of them be a Rasha. We learn from witnesses who differ about the day of the month. We say that one of them knew which day was Rosh Chodesh, and one erred. Likewise, if some witnesses heard Leah say that she did Mi'un (annulled her marriage mid'Rabanan), and some heard this only from Leah's mother, this is no contradiction. Perhaps Leah herself said so only after some of the witnesses had left.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE 'BIRAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the Parim ha'Nisrafin and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are normally burned in the Beis ha'Deshen. If they are not burned in the manner in which they are supposed to be burned (that is, they became Pasul before they were burned; see <b>RASHI</b> to 104a, DH she'Lo k'Mitzvasan), they are burned in the Beis ha'Birah.
</p><p>
What is the Beis ha'Birah? The Gemara records a dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Rebbi Yochanan says that there is a place on Har ha'Bayis called 'Birah' where the Korban is burned. Reish Lakish says that the entire Beis ha'Mikdash is the 'Birah.'
</p><p>
The <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> says that the straightforward reading of the Mishnah seems to support the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Mishnah states that when the Parim ha'Nisrafin are not offered in the correct manner, they are burned in the Beis ha'Birah. The Gemara cites two opinions for where exactly the Parim ha'Nisrafin are burned. One opinion is that of Levi, who maintains that Parim ha'Nisrafin which become Pasul are always burned in the Azarah, whether the Pesul occurred before Zerikah or after Zerikah. The other opinion is that of the Tana Kama, who says that when the Pesul occurred before Zerikah, the Korban is burned in the Azarah, and when the Pesul occurred after Zerikah, the Korban is burned on Har ha'Bayis. According to Reish Lakish, each opinion can read the Mishnah according to his own view, since the 'Birah' includes anywhere in the Beis ha'Mikdash area. The Mishnah is more consistent with the view of the Tana Kama, since it makes sense that the Tana would use the nonspecific term 'Birah' which covers both the Azarah and Har ha'Bayis. However, according to Rebbi Yochanan's explanation of the word 'Birah,' the Mishnah seems to contradict both the opinions of Levi and the Tana Kama. How does Rebbi Yochanan understand the Mishnah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> answers that it is possible that Rebbi Yochanan refers to the area of Har ha'Bayis which leads into the Azarah. Kodshim burned in the Azarah may also be burned in the area that opens into the Azarah (see 56a). Rebbi Yochanan understands that there is a place on Har ha'Bayis that fulfills both the requirement that the Kodshim be burned in the Azarah and the requirement that Kodshim be burned on Har ha'Bayis. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Mishnah says 'Birah' because the Birah is a place in which both Parim ha'Nisrafin that became Pasul before Zerikah, and Parim ha'Nisrafim that became Pasul after Zerikah, may be burned. Rebbi Yochanan agrees, however, that those which became Pasul after Zerikah may be burned elsewhere on Har ha'Bayis as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> explains that Rebbi Yochanan understands that the Mishnah cannot be discussing a case in which the Korban became Pasul before Zerikah. This is because the Mishnah also states that these Korbanos, which became Pasul, do not make the garments of the Kohanim who are involved with them become Tamei. The susceptibility of a Kohen's garments to become Tamei when he works with such a Korban applies only when the Korban leaves the Azarah. (See the <b>RAMBAN</b> to Vayikra 16:8, who explains that the reason for this Halachah is to show that blessing does not come from sources other than from within the Beis ha'Mikdash.) Accordingly, why would the Mishnah state that the Kohen's garments do not become Tamei if the Mishnah refers to a Korban which became Tamei <i>before</i> it left the Azarah? It must be that the Mishnah is not discussing this type of Korban. Rebbi Yochanan therefore understands that 'Birah' must refer to a place on Har ha'Bayis called 'Birah.' (However, the Zevach Todah is not entirely satisfied with his answer; see there at length.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'TUM'AH' CAUSED BY THE KORBANOS WHICH ARE TAKEN OUTSIDE OF THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the laws unique to those who perform the Avodah of the Parim ha'Nisrafin, Parah Adumah, and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. These are the three types of Korbanos which have some form of Avodah which must be done outside the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
In the Beraisa, Rebbi Meir says that the clothes of the one who sends the Korban, burns the Korban, and takes the Korban out of the Beis ha'Mikdash become Tamei. The Korbanos themselves do not make clothes which they touch Tamei, but they do make food and drink which they touch Tamei (Tum'as Ochlin). The Chachamim argue that the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not make food and drink Tamei, since a living animal does not make food and drink Tamei.
</p><p>
In light of this Beraisa, the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Parah Adumah 5:7) is difficult to understand. The Rambam rules that anyone or anything which comes into contact with the Parim ha'Nisrafin or the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach after they have been taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash is Tahor, since these Korbanos are Metamei only the people who are involved with their Avodah. The Rambam seems to follow neither the ruling of Rebbi nor the ruling of the Chachamim, since both agree that the Parim ha'Nisrafin are Metamei food and drink which they touch. What is the source of the Rambam's ruling?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> quotes the <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> who answers that the Rambam rules like Rebbi Shimon in the Tosefta in Maseches Parah. Rebbi Shimon states that the Parah Adumah is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. Even though it is not meant to be eaten, it technically could be redeemed and eaten. The Parim ha'Nisrafin are not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, because there is never any moment at which they could be eaten. Rebbi Shimon's statement is the source for the Rambam's ruling that the Parim ha'Nisrafin do not make anything Tamei.
</p><p>
Why does the Rambam rule like an opinion mentioned in the Tosefta and not the opinions recorded in the main discussion of the subject in the Gemara here? The Mahari Kurkus explains that since Rebbi Shimon's opinion is quoted throughout the Gemara, the Rambam concludes that the Halachah follows his ruling.
</p><p>
(b) The Kesef Mishneh himself gives a different explanation elsewhere. The Rambam in Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah (3:3) writes that the Parah Adumah and the Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin only when someone has in mind that he will eat them <i>and they then make contact</i> with something Tamei. The Kesef Mishneh there explains the ruling of the Rambam based on the Chachamim in the Gemara here. He explains that the Parah Adumah really has no Tum'ah inherently; only when one intends to treat it as food, and it comes into contact with Tum'ah, can it be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. The Kesef Mishneh adds that the ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Parah Adumah refers to a case in which no one thought of the Parim ha'Nisrafin as food and the Parah did not come into contact with anything Tamei. This approach clearly is not consistent with his earlier answer that the Rambam in Hilchos Parah Adumah rules like Rebbi Shimon. (See <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> at length.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN IS A LOAF CONSIDERED TO BE WHOLE? <span class='indexentry'>[Lechem Mishneh :whole]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> If foods (that are Avos ha'Tum'ah, e.g. Neveilos) are joined through liquids, they are considered joined (to complete the Shi'ur) to be Metamei food and drink, but not for severe Tum'ah (to be people and Kelim.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Eruvin 80b (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua):</span> An Eruv must be a full loaf.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	81a (R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul):</span> He requires a full loaf to avoid strife (those who give full loaves might resent those who give pieces).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul):</span> If one removed from a loaf the Shi'ur for Chalah, it may be used.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Beraisa):</span> If the Shi'ur for Chalah was removed, it may not be used.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> R. Yochanan permits a baker's Shi'ur of Chalah. The Beraisa forbids a regular person's Shi'ur:</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> The Shi'ur of Chalah (for a regular person) is one part in 24, whether it is for himself or his son's wedding feast. If a baker or woman makes bread to sell it, the Shi'ur is one part in 48.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Chisda):</span> If a loaf was Nifresah (sliced) and one connected the ends together using a chip, one may use it to make an Eruv.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Beraisa):</span> One may not be Me'arev with it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> One may be Me'arev with it if it is not evident that it was Nifresah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ohalos 2:7 (Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Nuri):</span> If a bone the size of a barley seed was split, it is Tahor.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ohalos 3:4 (Mishnah):</span> If two half k'Zeisim of flesh (of a Mes) were brought into a house, it is Tamei. If they were inserted through people, they are Tahor, for what is connected through man is not connected.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 4:9):</span> If there was half a k'Zayis of flesh on each of two bones, and the bones were partially entered into a house, it is Tamei. If a man stuck the flesh on the bones, the house is Tahor, for something connected through man is not considered connected.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> This is from a Tosefta (cited below by R. Shimshon).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Perush ha'Mishnayos (Ohalos 3:4):</span> A man stuck the two half k'Zeisim on a bone of the Mes. It is Tamei only if they were was naturally on the bone.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Shimshon (3:4):</span> A Tosefta (Ohalos 4:3/4) teaches that if Chelev of a Mes was disconnected, and Chitcho, it is Tahor, for connection through man is not a connection. 'Chitcho' is like Hitcho, i.e. he melted it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Perush ha'Rosh (Ohalos 2:7):</span> It is Tahor even if one joined them again, for something connected through man is not considered connected.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (105b DH Chiburei, DH v'Ein):</span> There are two half-k'Zeisim of Neveilah, and Mashkeh Tofe'ach (it is wet enough to wet something that touches it) in the middle joins them. I do not know why they are not connected for severe Tum'ah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (105b DH Chiburei):</span> Rashi explained similarly in Menachos 24a regarding connection through a Keli or water. (If two half-Isaronim (an Isaron is the volume of 43.2 eggs) did not touch, but they were in one Keli, or water connected them, and Tum'ah touched one half, both of them become Tamei.) It is astounding to say that liquids can connect food to become Tamei or be Metamei others. Even skin does not join meat (Chulin 117b)! Rashi said that Nitzuk (falling water) can connect. Nitzuk does not connect even water itself! However, Taharos 8:8 is like Rashi. A Tosefta (Ohalos 4:3/4) says that if an Esrog was split and one connected it through a needle or chip, it is not connected to be Yotzei the Mitzvah, for something connected through man is not considered connected. A dough kneaded with fruit juice is Tahor, for only the seven liquids join foods. This is astounding to say that kneading with fruit (juice) does not (Halachically) join the flour. Perhaps it does not truly refer to a kneaded dough. Rather, it is common that when one kneads with fruit juice, sometimes the fruit juice connects two half k'Zeisim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Eruvin 7:12):</span> If one removed from a loaf the Shi'ur for Chalah of a baker, it may be used for an Eruv. This is if it was removed to be Chalah. If not, there will be enmity. The Beraisa said 'if the *amount* for Chalah was removed, and not 'if Chalah was removed', to teach that even if only Chalah was removed, if it was more than the (minimal) Shi'ur, it may not to be used, due to enmity. Logically, it seems that since the concern is for enmity, it makes no difference whether or not it was removed for Chalah. The neighbors do not know why it was removed! Up to the amount for Chalah, they will assume that it was removed for Chalah, so there is no enmity.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Roke'ach (329 DH b'Perek):</span> If one has two half-loaves, and he does not have a whole loaf, he joins the halves on a piece of wood or something so it will not be evident (that it is not one loaf). One may do so even on Shabbos, like it says in Eruvin.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 168:2):</span> If one has two half-loaves, and he does not have a whole loaf, he joins the halves on a piece of wood or something so it will not be evident. One may do so even on Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (4):</span> Perhaps during the week there is no need to connect them. This is the custom. On Shabbos, one must be careful not to use a Muktzah piece of wood to connect them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (14):</span> One may use a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur (it is used for something forbidden on Shabbos), for one may move it if he needs the Keli itself or its place.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (7):</span> Eliyahu Rabah leans like the Shulchan Aruch, that one should do so even during the week.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (8):</span> If it is evident that it is not one loaf, it does not help, like we say in OC 366:6.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> On Shabbos, if one has a truly full loaf, he should not bless ha'Motzi on two half-loaves joined together.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (13):</span> This is because some say that it is considered whole only regarding Eruvin (R. Zalman, Eliyahu Rabah).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</span> If one removed from it at most the Shi'ur of Chalah, i.e. one part in 48, Minchas Yakov (12) says that it is as if it is whole, like regarding Eruv. Eliyahu Rabah (167:2) says that he proved in a Teshuvah that it is like a piece, even if just Chalah was removed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (366:6):</span> We use only whole loaves to make an Eruv. If one removed from it at most the Shi'ur of Chalah for a baker, i.e. one part in 48, one may use it, even if there was no Chiyuv to take Chalah from it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah):</span> The Ri permits only if Chalah needed to be removed. If not, there will be enmity. The Rosh and Tur permit even if there was no need to take Chalah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> If a slice was cut, and he inserted a chip in the loaf and the slice to reconnect them, if it is not evident that it was sliced, he may use it for an Eruv.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (40):</span> Even though it is not whole, since this is not evident, there will not be enmity.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 274:1):</span> On Shabbos, one blesses on two full loaves.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'arei Teshuvah (1):</span> Chacham Tzvi (62,63) says that if a loaf is missing less than one part in 48, the Rosh permits and the Ri disqualifies it for Lechem Mishneh. If it was not yet removed, but it was burnt and it is destined to be cut off, Sha'ar Efrayim (1) is Machshir. It is not it is as if it was already cut, even if it is more than a finger. It seems that Chacham Tzvi agrees. Mekom Shmuel agrees, for some people eat it even if it is charred, so it is not considered destined to be cut, for one can use it for Muryas (fish oil). I disagree. Since it is abnormal to eat charred bread, it is destined to be cut from this edible loaf! Minchas Yakov (b'Sof ha'Sefer 12) says that if one forgot to take Chalah until after the loaves were baked, or if due to Isur one needed to remove or peel off part of the loaf, since it is a small amount and it is due to necessity, and not because the Mitzvah is disgraced in his eyes, it may be used. He proved this from Eruvin. Others including Har ha'Karmel disputed this. Magen Avraham discusses saying ha'Motzi on cake when he fixes his meal on it, but it should not be used for Lechem Mishneh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> If one does not have whole loaves, it is not Me'akev. One may make Kidush even on a k'Zayis of bread.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (4):</span> Poskim argue about a loaf from which less than the Shi'ur for Chalah was removed. If one does not have a full loaf, it is better to used it than to use another loaf (missing more than this).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (5):</span> If mice nibbled on a loaf, surely it is invalid for Lechem Mishneh, for it is evident that it was not taken for Chalah, and it is despised. Even if one cut off more, so it is not evident that mice ate from it, this does not help, for it came from a Pasul loaf.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (5):</span> The loaves must be whole, for a deficient loaf is not honorable. Therefore, if mice bit it, it is not proper for Lechem Mishneh. If the Torah requires something complete, e.g. an Esrog, surely connection through man is not a connection. Lechem Mishneh is not explicit in the Torah. Also a slice is called Lechem. If something is missing, it is not whole. Some say that up to the Shi'ur of Chalah is not a problem, like regarding Eruv. Here is different. There, the concern is enmity. Here, it is not called whole. However, if one has nothing whole, he should take two slices. It is Lechem Mishneh, just it is not honorable.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) 'MI'CHUTZ LA'MACHANEH'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah earlier (104a) teaches that when the Avodah of the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin is done properly, they are burned in the Beis ha'Deshen which is outside all three Machanos of Bnei Yisrael. The Gemara seeks to explain the source of this Halachah, which is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. On the contrary, the verse says merely that the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are taken 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' -- 'outside of the camp' (Vayikra 16:27) to be burned, which implies outside of only one camp, namely the Machaneh Shechinah (the Beis ha'Mikdash).
</p><p>
There are several ways to understand the Gemara's explanation.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Hachi Garsinan) explains the Gemara as follows. The Beraisa notes that when the Torah discusses the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elem Davar, it also says that they are burned 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' (Vayikra 4:12 and 4:21). In that context, 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' cannot mean outside of just one Machaneh, because the verse says that the Par He'elem Davar is burned 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' <i>and</i> 'Ka'asher Saraf Es ha'Par ha'Rishon' -- 'like he burned the first Par' (Vayikra 4:21). Why does the verse add this extra phrase? It must be that the Torah wants to teach that this is more 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' than one might have thought. The Gemara quotes a similar teaching regarding the extra mention of the word 'Deshen' (Vayikra 4:12). These extra words ('Ka'asher Saraf' and 'Deshen') teach that the burning of these Korbanos is done outside all three Machanos (one Machaneh per extra phrase).
</p><p>
How does this explain the meaning of the phrase, 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh,' written with regard to the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin of Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:27)? Perhaps that phrase means simply outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, as the words imply. Rashi quotes two sources which teach that the Par of Yom Kippur is compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par He'elem Davar. One teaching is recorded by the Gemara earlier in Zevachim (83a). The Gemara teaches that all Chata'os are compared to each other. Accordingly, the laws of one Chatas may be derived from the laws of another. The burning of the Par of Yom Kippur may be derived from the burning of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par He'elem Davar. Just as the latter are burned outside the three Machanos, the Par of Yom Kippur is burned outside the three Machanos.
</p><p>
Another source is the Gemara earlier (39a) which teaches that the word 'la'Par' ('to the bull,' referring to the Par He'elem Davar, Vayikra 4:20) includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim and teaches that its status is similar to that of the Par He'elem Davar.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Torah say 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' in all of these cases instead of saying explicitly that the Korbanos must be taken out of three Machanos? Rashi (DH Im Ken) explains that the Torah says 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' in proximity to the verse that commands the people who deal with the Parah to wash their clothes (since they become Tamei) in order to teach that the ones who carry the Parah must wash their clothes even after they have exited from <i>one Machaneh</i> with the Parah. According to Rashi, this is stated explicitly in the text of his Gemara.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) essentially agrees with Rashi, but does not have the last teaching of 'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' in the Gemara. He therefore writes that the law that one must wash his clothes after taking the Parah out of the first Machaneh is a tradition not stated openly in any verse. The Chachamim taught that there is an Asmachta for this tradition based on the verse of 'El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' in the Parshah of Par He'elem Davar. The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> on the Mishnah apparently also had the text of the Rambam. (See <b>RASHASH</b>, who argues with the Tosfos Yom Tov that the correct text of the Rambam should read that there is an Asmachta from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and not from Par He'elem Davar.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) CAN A MAN WHO IS A 'TEREIFAH' LIVE FOR MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the source for the law that a Nochri is not allowed to bring a Korban that is missing a limb (Mechusar Ever). The Gemara cites the verse, 'umi'Kol ha'Chai' -- 'And from all living things' (Bereishis 6:19), in which Hash-m commands Noach that the animals that he will offer in the future as Korbanos to Hash-m must be fully alive -- that is, all of the limbs must be intact. The Gemara then asks that perhaps this verse excludes a Tereifah and not a Mechusar Ever. The Gemara concludes that the word, 'Itach' -- 'with you,' in the same verse teaches that the animals that Noach was to take with him into the Teivah, and that he would eventually offer as Korbanos, had to be like Noach, meaning that they could not be a Tereifah. The Gemara then asks for the source that Noach himself was not a Tereifah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Dilma) finds the Gemara's question difficult to understand. How can the Gemara even entertain the possibility that Noach was a Tereifah? The Torah explicitly relates that he lived an additional 300 years after the Mabul. A Tereifah, by definition, has a mortal defect which will cause the bearer's death within twelve months!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara is suggesting that it is possible that Noach indeed was very ill for all of those years after the Mabul. Tosfos explains that the question of the Gemara, therefore, follows the opinion cited in the Gemara that a Tereifah can live for more than twelve months.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who says that there is a difference between a man who is a Tereifah and an animal that is a Tereifah. A person's fate is, to some degree, subject to his unique Mazal. Rabeinu Tam apparently means that a person's Mazal may keep him alive for longer than twelve months even if he is a Tereifah.
</p><p>
Many Rishonim disagree with Rabeinu Tam's assertion. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 13:16) discusses a case in which a man fell into the sea, and a net was thrown in after him. The net came up with only a limb of the man, and it was a limb without which one cannot live. The Rambam rules that even though the rest of the body was not retrieved, and no one clearly saw the man die, his wife may remarry because it may be assumed that the man died. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> quotes the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> who rule that the man's wife may remarry only after twelve months pass after the limb was retrieved. The loss of the limb rendered the man a Tereifah, and a Tereifah cannot live more than twelve months. His wife, therefore, must wait twelve months in order to be certain that her husband has died, and only then may she remarry.
</p><p>
The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> asks that the Magid Mishneh's ruling is not correct, because a <i>person</i> who is a Tereifah <i>can</i> live more than twelve months. The Kesef Mishneh's source is apparently the opinion of Rabeinu Tam (which is also mentioned by Tosfos in Chulin 42b, DH v'Ha). (This answers the question of the <b>MAGIHAH D'AMSTERDAM</b>, who questions the source of the Kesef Mishneh's rejection of the Magid Mishneh.)
</p><p>
The <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> here says that Rabeinu Tam does not mean that a person who is a Tereifah always will live longer than twelve months because of his Mazal. Tosfos in Chulin quotes Rabeinu Tam, who says that a person lives longer because of his Mazal only in a limited context. Rabeinu Tam is discussing one particular case of a Tereifah in the area of the skull, and he says that an animal with this condition is a Tereifah while a person with the same condition is <i>not</i> considered a Tereifah, because of his Mazal. The Birkas ha'Zevach says that this is the explanation of Rabeinu Tam in the Gemara here as well. When the Gemara suggests that Noach was a Tereifah even though he lived for another 300 years, the Gemara means that perhaps he had the type of condition that renders an animal a Tereifah but not a person. Accordingly, the Gemara asks, we cannot learn from the verse of 'Itach' that a Nochri is not allowed to offer as a Korban an animal that is a Tereifah. Since Noach could have had the type of condition that would have been fatal for an animal (but not for a person, due to his Mazal), there is no proof that Noach was commanded not to bring an animal that is a Tereifah.
</p><p>
The Birkas ha'Zevach continues (in his second comment on Tosfos) and says that based on this understanding of the words Rabeinu Tam, the Kesef Mishneh's question on the Magid Mishneh is resolved. The Rashba and Ramban are discussing a type of Tereifah that is a Tereifah both in an animal <i>and</i> in a person. Rabeinu Tam differentiates only between certain types of Tereifos, as specified by Tosfos in Chulin. Even according to Rabeinu Tam, people die from most types of Tereifos, even though they have Mazal. (The Birkas ha'Zevach even suggests that it was a mistaken student who wrote this comment, as the Kesef Mishneh would never have suggested that a person who is a full-fledged Tereifah would live twelve months due to his Mazal.)
</p><p>
However, the <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> explains that the Kesef Mishneh was asking a different question on the Magid Mishneh. Once Rabeinu Tam expresses the view that it is possible that one type of Tereifah can be fatal for an animal but not for a person (because the person has Mazal), a doubt arises about other states of Tereifah; perhaps there are other states of Tereifah that also are not fatal for a person. Therefore, the Kesef Mishneh asks that it is not reasonable to make a general rule that the loss of a limb causes a person to die within twelve months, according to the opinion of Rabeinu Tam. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHAT MAKES A PERSON TEREIFAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Tereifah :people]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Zevachim 116a:</span> We know that Noach did not bring Treifos in the ark, because it says 'Itach (with you, i.e. like you)'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Perhaps No'ach himself was Treifah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> If so, Hash-m would not have asked him to bring animals (Treifos) like himself!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevamos 121a (Mishnah):</span> A case occurred in Asya in which a man was lowered into water. When they lifted him, only his leg came up. Chachamim ruled that his wife may remarry only if more than the knee came up.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	43a (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</span> If the gall bladder was punctured, it is Tereifah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chachamim:</span> Iyov said 'my gall bladder spills to the ground', yet he lived!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yosi:</span> We cannot learn from miraculous cases. Iyov's kidneys were stricken. According to nature, he could not survive. He was kept alive miraculously - 'just guard his soul (that he will not die).'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	57b (Beraisa):</span> If there is a long hole in the skull, or many small holes that add up to the area of a drill (it is Tereifah);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	R. Yosi ben ha'Meshulam says, a case occurred in which a man's skull was pierced. They covered over it with a gourd, and he lived.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Shimon ben Elazar:</span> This is not proof (that this is not a Tereifah). He was hurt in summer, and he died that winter!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gitin 56b:</span> A mosquito entered Titus' nose and bored into his brain for seven years.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'> Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 13:16):</span> if a man was cast into water, and they sent a trap after him, and came up a limb that he cannot live without it, we may testify that he died to permit his wife to remarry.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Ramban and Rashba say that they permitted the man only after 12 months. Also the Yerushalmi says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Kesef Mishneh):</span> In Chulin we say that a human Tereifah can live more than 12 months.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Zevachim 116a DH Dilma):</span> How could the Gemara suggest that No'ach was Treifah? He lived another 300 years after the flood! Perhaps the Gemara means that he did not have proper strength and health. Our Sugya is like the opinion that a Tereifah can live. R. Tam distinguishes Tereifos of people from that of animals. Man can live longer, for he has Mazel. This is difficult, for Chulin 43a learns man from animals!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Birkas ha'Zevach:</span> R. Tam will explain that Noach had a blemish such as a punctured membrane, which makes an animal Tereifah, but does not make a person Tereifah. Surely a human Tereifah cannot live more than 12 months, just like an animal Tereifah! The Kesef Mishneh says that a human Tereifah can live more than 12 months. Surely no one says so according to the opinion that a Tereifah cannot live. This is a printing mistake in the Kesef Mishneh. This is why he did not write anything like this in the Beis Yosef or Shulchan Aruch.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (YD 52):</span> In any case, we must say that there is a printing mistake in the Kesef Mishneh. If a human Tereifah can live more than 12 months, why does the Mishnah permit his wife? When did they permit her? In Yevamos, the Ramban, Rashba and Ritva say that not all Tereifos of animals are Tereifah in people. The Mishnah needed to say that Tereifos in animals are Tereifos in birds. If not for this, we would distinguish them, since their natures are different. All the more so, we may distinguish man from animals. What was the question from Iyov? In any case, what was the question? He was punished only for 12 months (Eduyos 2:10). Do not say that we asked from the fact that he lived for another 140 years after this, without thinking that miracles are different. In truth, his gall bladder did not spill to the ground, just he felt as if it were due to his afflictions. We asked how he could say so, for if it spilled, he could not live! Rather, man is weaker than animals. Anything that would kill an animal would surely kill a person, even in less than 12 months. However, man has Mazel, so for some Tereifos a cure can help, even though they do not help for animals. We asked, for no cure was done for Iyov, like (the coming) Tosfos said.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Chulin 43a DH Yiflach):</span> Rashi says that Iyov's kidneys were stricken in a way that makes them Tereifah. What was the source to assume so and ask how he lived? Rather, whenever the kidneys are stricken one cannot live without a cure, and we do not see that Iyov received a cure.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach 2:8):</span> Beis Din does not kill one who kills a Tereifah. Every person is Muchzak to be healthy unless we know that he is a Tereifah and doctors know no cure and his defect will kill him.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (CM 425:17):</span> Even if we know that he has a Tereifah injury, until the doctors despair, we assume that he is from the majority of healthy people. Likewise, if an animal has a lesion in the lung (and we are unsure if it is Tereifah), we follow the majority of animals, which are Kosher. The Rambam refutes those who say otherwise.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Minchas Chinuch 34 DH veha'Ram):</span> There is no source for the Rambam from the Gemara. He said so from reasoning. However, he connotes that if one killed a Tereifah before doctors examined whether there is a cure for him, he is liable. This is unreasonable. Since he is Tereifah, presumably there is no cure! He should be exempt unless doctors say that there is a cure. The majority of Stam people are not Tereifos, but if we know that he is a Tereifah, Stam there is no cure!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Achiezer (1:12:5):</span> A Tereifah has no Chazakah that it is still alive, e.g. if we see a hole in the membrane of the brain. Regarding an internal sickness that is not clear to doctors, it is like one who is dangerously sick, who has a Chazakah of being alive. The Rambam says that everyone has a Chazakah to be healthy, and one who kills him is killed, unless we surely know that he was a Tereifah and the doctors say that there is no cure. Surely, if doctors say about a Stam Choleh that there is no cure, he is not a Tereifah. He is a Goses, and one who kills him is killed. Rather, the Rambam discusses a Tereifah, and also requires that doctors say that there is no cure. If not, he is not considered a Tereifah. We cannot *add* to Tereifos what can be cured (Chulin 54a). However, when we have a tradition about a Tereifah, a cure does not change anything. However, there is no tradition for people; one is exempt for a Tereifah only if the doctors say that he cannot be cured. If an operation would help, he is not a Tereifah. Why does the Ramban say that a leg cut at Tzomes ha'Gidim is Tereifah? If one will cut above, it will live! A cure is in our hands! He must say that the tradition is that it is a Tereifah, even though if we will cut above it will become Kosher. This is only for animals, for which there is the tradition, but not for people.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Igros Moshe (CM 2:73:4):</span> Animals are permitted based on the Tereifos established the days of the Gemara. One is liable for murder only if contemporary doctors know no cure. Nowadays Beis Din does not kill people; it is proper to fine one for killing a Tereifah like for a healthy person.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'> Shulchan Aruch (EH 17:32):</span> If a rope was tied around a man's leg and he was lowered into water, and only the leg came up (and part is) above the thigh, his wife may remarry after 12 months, for a Tereifah cannot live 12 months.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (Sifsei Da'as YD 31:1):</span> According to the Yam Shel Shlomo, 12 months should not permit a widow to remarry, for there is a Chazakah of Eshes Ish, and a minority that live more than 12 months. Mid'Rabanan, this is like an even Safek! We must say that the Mishnah permitted because water worsens the wound, or because Chachamim knew that for this Tereifah, no one will ever live more than 12 months.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pleisi (YD 31:5):</span> A human Tereifah can live more than 12 months. The Yerushalmi said that they permitted the widow after 12 months, and derived that a Tereifah does not live. This is like the Yam Shel Shlomo, that *most* Tereifos do not live 12 months. We rely on the majority for Agunos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chazon Ish (EH 27:3):</span> The Rambam says that it is easier to cure man than animals. This explains why people have operations on the intestines and live long lives. Therefore, we cannot accept testimony about other Tereifos (to permit widows to remarry). Even if doctors do not know a cure, perhaps there is a cure, and some doctor will find it.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: MAKING A COVER FOR A SEFER TORAH OUT OF RECYCLED CLOTHES</b></font>
</p><p>
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Elazar ban Shamua who says that just as the Mizbe'ach may not be made from anything that was used by an ordinary person, the wood used on the Mizbe'ach as fuel may not have been used by an ordinary person.
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that items used for holy purposes may not come from items that were used for ordinary purposes. Accordingly, it seems that Tashmishei Kedushah, such as the cover of a Sefer Torah, may not be made from items that were used for ordinary purposes. Is this the Halachah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>REMA</b> (OC 147:1) quotes the opinion of the <b>AGUDAH</b> and others who rule that the cover of a Sefer Torah may not be made from old material which was used by an ordinary person. The Agudah (Menachos, ch. 3) quotes the Gemara here as the source for this Halachah. (See <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> who is perplexed by the fact that none of the commentators mentions that Rashi (DH d'Maska) and others understand that the Gemara means only that one may not make the holy Mizbe'ach out of an actual <i>Mizbe'ach</i> that was used for an ordinary person, and not that one may not turn an ordinary utensil into a Mizbe'ach.) The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> quotes an additional source for this Halachah. The Tosefta in Megilah (2:10) says that 'vessels made originally for the use of an ordinary person should not be used for a holy purpose. Stones and beams which were hewn and cut for a person should not be placed in the Har ha'Bayis.'
</p><p>
(b) However, the Magen Avraham notes that people are lenient and do make Tashmishei Kedushah out of old things. Why is this permitted? The Magen Avraham answers first that it is possible that these Halachos apply only to the Beis ha'Mikdash and things used for it, but not for regular Tashmishei Kedushah. In his second answer, the Magen Avraham writes that these sources prohibit using these things only without changing their shape and identity. There is no source in the Gemara or Tosefta that prohibits using old things for Tashmishei Kedushah when one changes them and makes them into a different entity.
</p><p>
The Magen Avraham proves that altering an old item permits its use for Tashmishei Kedushah. Moshe Rabeinu made the Kiyor from the mirrors which the women of Bnei Yisrael used to help beautify themselves (see Shemos 38:8). It is evident from there that changing the mirrors into a new entity permitted their use for a holy vessel.
</p><p>
This logic is also proposed by the <b>CHAVOS YA'IR</b> (#161). However, he argues that this is <i>not</i> the logic that permitted the mirrors to be used for the Kiyor. Rather, this logic was the reason why Moshe Rabeinu accepted the jewelry captured from the women of Midyan (see Bamidbar 31:50), including even the Kumaz (see <b>RASHI</b> there, DH Kumaz), and made them into Klei Shares. Since they were changed into new entities, it did not matter that they had been previously used for jewelry. However, the mirrors that were made into the Kiyor were not changed significantly from their previous form. This is why Moshe Rabeinu did not want to accept them until Hash-m told him explicitly that they were permitted (see Rashi to Shemos 31:50).
</p><p>
However, the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (OC 147:1) points out that both of these explanations conflict with the understanding of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (Shemos 31:50). The Ramban explicitly states that the reason why the Kumaz of the women of Midyan was accepted was that it was Batel b'Rov, since it was mixed with all of the other metals from which the Klei Shares were made. Moshe Rabeinu did not want to accept the mirrors for the Kiyor, since they were to be the sole item from which the Kiyor would be formed. Moreover, Rashi and the Ramban state explicitly that the reason why Moshe Rabeinu did not want to accept the mirrors was that they had been used for an activity that involved the Yetzer ha'Ra.
</p><p>
This explanation seems to contradict the Magen Avraham's understanding of why Moshe Rabeinu accepted the mirrors. However, the fact that the Rishonim do not explain that Moshe Rabeinu did not want to use these items because they had been used for an ordinary person indicates that they agree that, in general, these things may be used for Tashmishei Kedushah.
</p><p>

HALACHAH: The <b>MISHNEH BERURAH</b> (OC 147:13) quotes the ruling of the Magen Avraham and Chavos Ya'ir, that people change ordinary items into items that are used for Tashmishei Kedushah. He says that even though there are opinions that are stringent, the custom is to be lenient. (See also Mishnah Berurah OC 147:14.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) MAY A WOMAN OFFER A KORBAN ON A 'BAMAH'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the verse which teaches that a Zar (non-Kohen) is permitted to offer a Korban on a Bamas Yachid, a private Bamah (when Bamos are permitted). The verse says, 'And the Kohen will sprinkle the blood on the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m [at the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed]' (Vayikra 17:6), which implies that only a Korban offered on the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m at the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed requires a Kohen, as opposed to a Korban offered on a Bamah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Zar) adds that the Toras Kohanim explicitly states that even an Eved may offer a Korban on a Bamah. Does this also imply that a woman may offer a Korban on a Bamah?
</p><p>
(a) The Yerushalmi in Megilah (1:11) quotes a Beraisa that states that both men and women may offer Korbanos on a Bamah. This is also stated clearly by the Tosefta in Zevachim (13:8). The Tosefta says, 'A person may make a Bamah at the opening of his yard and at the opening of his garden, and he may offer upon it [Korbanos]; also his son, daughter, servant, and maidservant.' (See <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> there, who says that the Halachah in the Tosefta applies only when the Bamah is built in the person's yard or garden, as the Tosefta mentions. This also seems to be the intention of the Gemara earlier (117a) that says that a person builds a Bamah 'on the top of his roof.') The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Korban Pesach, end of 1:3) cites this opinion in the name of the <b>MAHARIMAT</b> based on <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (36a). The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Chagigah 1:1) mentions as a matter of fact that women may offer Korbanos on Bamos.
</p><p>
(b) However, the Yerushalmi quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that the Beraisa's text should read that only a man may offer a Korban on a Bamah. The <b>PNEI MOSHE</b> and <b>KORBAN HA'EDAH</b> explain that Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a woman may not offer a Korban on a Bamah. Rebbi Yochanan's source is the verse cited by the Gemara earlier, 'Each man, all that is correct in his eyes' (Devarim 12:8). This implies that the Torah admonishes men not to offer Korbanos on Bamos when doing so would be a forbidden practice. The Torah does not admonish <i>women</i> in such a manner, because they never were allowed to offer Korbanos on a Bamah at any time.
</p><p>
The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> (117a) argues that this is probably not Rebbi Yochanan's intention. Although he proposes that Rebbi Yochanan also might exclude women from the verse in Devarim, he does not understand why women should differ in this regard from Nochrim, who are permitted to offer Korbanos on a Bamah. Moreover, the Tosefta states unequivocally that woman may offer Korbanos on a Bamah. He suggests that Rebbi Yochanan in the Yerushalmi in Megilah is <i>more lenient</i> for women. The Beraisa states that both men and women may offer their Korbanos on a Bamah, meaning that they may bring only Korbanos of Nedarim and Nedavos on a Bamah, but not their obligatory Korbanos (Chovos). Rebbi Yochanan argues that the Beraisa does not apply this restriction with regard to women; women may offer even their Chovos on a Bamah. Rebbi Yochanan expounds the same type of Gezeiras ha'Kasuv from the verse in Devarim, but in reverse. The Gemara earlier (117b) derives from this verse that only 'Yesharos' (Nedarim and Nedavos) may be offered, as opposed to Chovos. Since this verse applies only to an 'Ish' (man), Rebbi Yochanan argues that the Beraisa is not limiting a woman to only Nedarim and Nedavos, since the Torah never said that she may not bring Chovos. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHAT IS CONSIDERED A SHINUY MAKOM? <span class='indexentry'>[Berachos: Shinuy Makom]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> Kodshei Kodoshim, (... Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni could be eaten any place from which Shilo could be seen).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	118b (Beraisa):</span> 'Any place from which Shilo could be seen' is any place from where all of it is visible, but not if there is an obstruction in between.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Papa):</span> All of Shilo need not be visible. It suffices if part of it can be seen.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Papa):</span> If Shilo is visible to one who stands, but not to one who sits, what is the law?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Yirmeyah):</span> If Shilo is visible to one who stands on the edge of the valley, but not to one standing in the valley, what is the law?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	These questions are not resolved.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 101b (Rav Chisda citing Rav Huna):</span> A change of place from one house to another mandates a new blessing, but within one house it does not.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Chisda):</span> A change of place mandates a new blessing only regarding foods that do not require a Berachah (Acharonah) in their place (where they were eaten). No new Berachah is required for foods that require a Berachah in their place.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	Since he must return (to where he ate), it is considered a continuation of his meal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Sheshes):</span> A new blessing is required in either case.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> If friends were reclining to drink and uprooted themselves to greet a groom or bride, they need not bless before leaving or when returning, i.e. if someone remained there. If not, they need a Berachah Acharonah on what they ate, and a new Berachah Rishonah when they return.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shitah Mekubetzes (118b:5):</span> The words 'all of these' must be deleted from the text (regarding seeing Shilo. We must say so, for if the Beraisa requires seeing all of it, we should have challenged Rav Papa from the Beraisa! - PF)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 4:5):</span> If people were reclining to drink or eat Peros, if one changed his place, this is a Hefsek. Therefore, he must bless on what he ate, and say a new blessing before eating more. One who goes from one corner in a house to another corner need not bless again. If he ate to the east of a tree, and he wants to eat to the west of the tree, he must bless again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ra'avad:</span> In the last case, he must bless again only if he did not intend for this from the beginning.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesef Mishneh and Beis Yosef (OC 178 DH Garsinan):</span> This is from the Yerushalmi. The Ra'avad explains that the Yerushalmi discusses one who intended to eat his entire meal in the east, and reconsidered to finish in the west. He did not reconsider to eat more (like Migdal Oz says). If he initially intended to finish in the west, this is not like from house to house. The Rambam cited the Yerushalmi, like he often does. Even though from corner to corner is not a Shinuy Makom, that is because the walls of the house encompass both places. Therefore, they are like one place. This does not apply to one who ate to the east of a tree, and came to the west. The tree is in a place without walls. This shows that in a place without walls, even a tiny Shinuy Makom is a Shinuy. The Yerushalmi mentioned a date tree; this was merely a typical case. However, perhaps in a place without walls, whenever one can see his initial place, this is not a Shinuy Makom. The date tree prevents him from seeing the east (his initial place) when he is in the west. This is more reasonable. The Ra'avad holds like Rabbeinu Nisim, which the Tur brought in Siman 273 regarding Kidush.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Pesachim 20a DH v'Afilu):</span> If Shmuel said Kidush on the ground floor, and went to the roof, he would repeat Kidush (101a). We cannot learn from here about from one corner to another. Some say that if one can see the place where he said Kidush, he need not repeat it. This is like two groups eating in one house (who see each other). They make one Zimun together.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (101b DH Ela):</span> Shinuy Makom is even in one house, from the roof to the ground floor, or from a room to a house, but not from corner to corner.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 178:1):</span> If one was eating in a house, and interrupted his meal and went to another house, or he was eating and his friend called him to speak with him, and he left to the doorway of his house and returned, since he changed his place, he must bless on what he ate, and bless ha'Motzi again, and then finish his meal.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav):</span> The Ran says that from one place to another is not a Hefsek. Even though regarding Kidush, which must be in the place of the meal, changing to another corner requires a new Kidush, that is because fixing a meal is only in the place of the actual meal. It is not normal to fix a meal in the entire house. One does not fix a place to drink wine. This connotes that for bread and Mezonos, for which one fixes a place, if he changed even from place to place, he must bless again. This is only according to the Rif and Rambam, who rule like Rav Sheshes. Those who rule like Rav Chisda do not require a new Berachah even if he changed from house to house, for foods that do not require a Berachah Acharonah in their initial place.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Zeh):</span> Orchos Chayim says that if one was in an orchard or garden and wants to eat from all the trees, it suffices to bless on one tree. This is like from corner to corner. From garden to garden surely he needs a new Berachah, even if they are near each other and he intended for this from the beginning. Even in one garden, if he initially intended to eat only from one tree, he must bless again. This is like the Rambam and Ra'avad.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Oh):</span> The Ran explains that Shinuy Makom is whether or not he returned to his initial place. We learn from the Beraisa of friends who went to greet a groom (it is even if they will return).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH l'Pesach):</span> He left *to* the doorway really means that he went out of the doorway. This is like going to another house.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (1):</span> We discuss one who was eating alone in the house. If not, he need not bless again, like it says in Sa'if 2.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> Even if he did not delay at all, rather, he immediately returned, this is called a Shinuy Makom, and all the more so if he wants to finish in the second place.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (3):</span> To another room is like to another house, unless he had intent from the beginning.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (4):</span> This teaches that even though he did not cease his meal at all, and merely left the doorway to speak, it is as if he went to another house.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (5):</span> If he spoke with him *in* the doorway, this is not a Shinuy Makom.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (7):</span> When one wants to leave, he must bless before leaving, like it says in Sa'if 2. B'Di'eved, if he did not, he must return to his initial place and bless there, for that is the Mitzvah. Afterwards, he blesses ha'Motzi and eats in the new place.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> If he spoke with him in the house, even if he went from one corner to another corner, he need not bless again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Aval):</span> This is like the text of the Rif, Rosh and Tosfos, that from corner to corner is not a Shinuy Makom (unlike the Ran's text).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> From corner to corner is in the same room, even if he cannot see his initial place because something interrupts in between, e.g. an oven.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> See Siman 273. If he intended to eat in the other place, this is not called changing his place, if both places are in one house. See Siman 184</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (2):</span> Seeing one's initial place helps like intent to eat in the latter place.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (4):</span> Even ha'Ozer says that from room to room, even if he sees his initial place, does not help, unless he had intent from the beginning. L'Chatchilah one should be concerned for this. B'Di'eved, one relies on the Magen Avraham, for Safek Berachos Lehakel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Ayen):</span> The laws of Shinuy Makom for Kidush and for a meal are the same.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (11):</span> From the beginning means at the time he blessed before eating.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (12):</span> In one house means under one roof, even from room to room or from the house to the Aliyah, even if he cannot see his initial place. the same applies if he sees his initial place through a window. Even seeing part of the place suffices, even if he did not intend from the beginning. This is within one house. From house to house, the Acharonim are unsure if one may be lenient through seeing tnp. Since we do not bless again due to a Shinuy Makom during a bread meal, this is relevant only if he was eating Peros.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chayei Adam (59:12):</span> If one gathered fruits to eat them here, and reconsidered to take it with him and eat it on the way, as long as he sees his initial place, he need not bless again. Where he cannot see his initial place, whether it is due to trees in between (in Zevachim we say that 'seeing' does not include when there is an obstruction in between. We must say that the same applies here), or because it is too far away, he must bless again. Hash-m if he blessed standing on the ground, and reconsidered to sit in a wagon, unless he intended from the beginning. Perhaps intent does not help for this, for it is like from house to house. This is only in a place not surrounded by walls, but since he cannot see his initial place, it is like from house to house. This requires investigation. One who fears Shamayim will be careful to have intent from the beginning when in a place not surrounded by walls.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (2):</span> One who changed his place from corner to corner in one house need not bless again. However, if one was eating to the east of a tree, and came to eat in the west, he must bless again.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some say that Shinuy Makom is only like Hesech ha'Da'as, so he need not bless on what he ate, only on what he intends to eat now. If he was eating with people and some remained, *or* if he ate things that require a Berachah where they were eaten, he need not bless again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (14):</span> Here, even we (who normally follow the Mechaber) follow the Rama, because we are lenient not to say Safek Berachos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (15):</span> If one leaves his place and continues to eat while he goes, this is not a Shinuy Makom.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See Also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


