6) click for question
(a) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yeratzeh" (in Kedoshim) from "Yeratzeh" (in Emor) - that, just as by a Kasher Korban, the Zerikas ha'Dam only 'atones' if all the Avodos were performed correctly, so too, does the Zerikas Dam following a Machsheves Pigul, only effect Pigul, if all the other Avodos were performed correctly.
(b) In the Beraisa that we just quoted 'Pigal bein ba'Rishonah, bein bi'Sheniyah u'bein bi'Shelishis, Ein bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir',. The problem with Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Pigul, ve'Chayavin alav Kareis' is - that since the subsequent Matanos were also performed with a Machsheves Pigul, how can the Pigul be effective?
(c) Rabah therefore establishes the Beraisa by four bulls and four goats - where after each Machsheves Pigul, the pertinent Matanos were completed, before the blood spilt and they had to take a second, third and fourth Par ve'Sa'ir (for P'nim, Heichal, Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and K'ranos).
(d) This solves the problem - inasmuch as each set of Matanos was completed correctly, thereby enabling the Pigul to take effect.
7) click for question
(a) Rava re-establishes the Beraisa by one bull and one goat. He maintains - that, since the subsequent Pesulim also constitute Pigul (and not another P'sul), the Zerikas ha'Dam is able to effect Pigul.
(b) To reconcile ...
1. ... the Beraisa which refers to forty-three Matanos (with regard to the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom-Kipur), and the Beraisa which refers to forty-seven - we establish the former according to those who hold that the blood of the Par and Sa'ir are mixed for the Matanos of the K'ranos, and the latter, according to those who hold that they are placed independently.
2. ... the latter Beraisa with the Beraisa which refers to forty-eight - by establishing the former Beraisa like those who hold that pouring the Shirayim on to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not crucial, and the latter, like those who hold that it is.
8) click for question
(a) We ask what the Din will be in the case of 'Pigal be'Holachah de'Kometz' - whether it is considered a Chatzi Avodah, since the Levonah too, requires Holachah (and it is therefore compared to 'Pigal be'Haktarah', which is also a Chatzi Avodah), over which the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir argue, or whether it is considered a full-fledged Avodah, in which case even the Rabbanan will agree that it is Pigul.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Holachah ki'Kemitzah', and it is a full-fledged Avodah, whereas Resh Lakish holds - 'Holachah ke'Haktarah', in which case it is not.
(c) At first glance, Resh Lakish's S'vara seems more sound than that of Rebbi Yochanan - because one cannot deny that the Levonah too, requires Holachah.
(d) Rava therefore explains that, according to Rebbi Yochanan - any Avodah that is not Matir (because it is dispensable [such as Holachah] see Shitah Mekubetzes 4), can be Mefagel on its own (i.e. it does not fall under the category of Chatzi Avodah).
9) click for question
(a) Abaye queries Rava from our Mishnah 'Shachat Echad min ha'Kevasim Le'echol Sh'tei Chalos le'Machar; Hiktir Echad min ha'Bazichin ... ' - which is also a case of Chatzi Matir (of an Avodah she'Einah Materes), yet the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Meir, and hold 'Ein bo Kareis.
(b) To which Rava replied that it is the Shechitas Kevasim that sanctifies the Lechem (and not placing the loaves in the oven) - and whatever sanctifies, is considered a complete Matir.
(c) And he gives the same answer to Rav Shimi bar Ashi's Kashya from the Beraisa (in connection with the Shechitas Pesachim), where Acherim (Rebbi Meir) learns 'Hikdim Mulim la'Areilim, Kasher; Areilim le'Mulim, Pasul' - meaning that if someone Shechted the first Si'man of the Korban Pesach for Mulim, and the second Si'man for Areilim, it is Kasher, but vice-versa, is Pasul.
(d) The Rabbanan say - either way, it is Kasher ...
(e) ... based on their ruling 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir, whilst Rebbi Meir holds 'Mefaglin ... '.
10) click for question
(a) There too, Rava concludes that it is the actual Shechitah which is Mekadesh (which is considered like being Matir). When Abaye asked the Kashya, he assumed that the blood on the neck of the Korban is Kadosh automatically.
(b) Abaye then queries Rava from the Beraisa that we cited on the previous Amud 'Bameh-Devarim Amurim, bi'Kemitzah, be'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch'. This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish, in that - according to him, the Rabbanan consider Hiluch de'Haktarah a Chatzi Matir which is not Mefagel, yet here the Rabbanan agree that it is Pigul?
(c) So Resh Lakish ...
1. ... interprets 'Holachah' as - Hiluch de'Matan K'li, which is a complete Avodah (seeing as, unlike Hiluch de'Haktarah), does not pertain to the Levonah (which is not subject to Kemitzah), and is therefore an Avodah Sheleimah.
2. ... amends the Lashon of the Beraisa, switching the order from ' ... u've'Matan K'li u've'Hiluch' to 'u've'Hiluch u've'Matan K'li'.
3. ... explains that when the Beraisa continues 'Aval Ba lo Lehaktarah ... ' (when according to his text, the next Avodah in line is the Holachah that precedes the Haktarah, and the Tana ought to have said 'Ba lo leholachah') - the Tana actually refers to Holachah as Haktarah, because that is the purpose of the Holachah.
(d) And as for the Beraisa continuing 'Nasan es ha'Kometz bi'Shetikah', and not 'Holich es ha'Kometz ... ' - he has no answer.
11) click for question
(a) When we speak about 'Hiktir Shumshum Le'echol le'Machar ad she'Kalah Kometz Kulo', we mean - that the Kohen burned the volume of a Shumshum at a time, intending to eat a K'dei Shumshum of the Shirayim at a time the next day.
(b) The three opinions expressed by Rav Chisda, Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheishes are - Pigul, Pasul and Kasher.
(c) When we try to establish the one who says ...
1. ... Pigul, like Rebbi Meir, we are referring to Rebbi Meir who holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.
2. ... Pasul, like the Rabbanan, we are referring to the Rabbanan who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatz Matir', though it is Pasul.
3. ... Kasher, like Rebbi - who learned earlier that the halves do not combine, and that the Korban is Kasher.
(d) We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds that ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir might well concede here that it is not Pigul - because unlike in his case, the Kohen did not have in mind a Shi'ur of Pigul in one go.
2. ... the Rabbanan concede that it is - because here, he intended to burn the entire Matir.
3. ... Rebbi concede that it is Pasul - because, unlike in his case, where he had in mind to burn half the Matir and to eat half the Shiur Achilah, here, he supplemented the full Shiur on both counts.
12) click for question
(a) So we conclude that each opinion goes according to all the Tana'im, and the basic reason of the one who holds ...
1. ... Pigul is - because the Tana'im all consider both eating and burning in this way (bit by bit) a regular way of eating and burning.
2. ... Pasul - because although on the one hand, they consider it a regular way of eating, it is not a regular way of burning.
3. ... Kasher - because they consider it neither the one nor the other.
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Menachos
Homepage for Maseches Menachos