OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF
prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) DOES ME'ILAH APPLY TO PASUL KODSHIM? [Me'ilah: Kodshim Pesulim]
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered l'Shem Kodshim Kalim in the south, there is Me'ilah.
2. Me'ilah 2a (Mishnah): Me'ilah applies in the following cases: Kodshei Kodashim were slaughtered in the south, or Kabalah was in the south; Shechitah or Zerikah was at night; they were slaughtered with intent (to do subsequent Avodos or eat the meat) Chutz li'Zemano (after the permitted time) or Chutz li'Mekomo (outside the permitted place).
3. R. Yehoshua says, the rule is, Me'ilah applies only if it was never permitted to Kohanim.
4. Cases that had She'as Heter (a time at which it was permitted to Kohanim) are when the Korban (the Eimurim or meat) was Lan (left overnight), it became Tamei, or it was Yotzei (it left the Azarah);
5. Cases that never had She'as Heter are when it was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, or Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah.
6. Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south? Obviously, Shechitah in the south does not remove Me'ilah!
7. Answer: Ula taught that if Kodshim died (without Shechitah), Me'ilah does not apply to them mid'Oraisa. One might have thought that Shechitah in the south is like being choked to death. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Kodshim that died are not fit for anything, but Shechitah in the south, although it disqualifies Kodshei Kodashim, it is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim.
8. 2b (Rabah): Im Alu (if they were brought on the Mizbe'ach) Yerdu (they are taken down).
9. (Rav Yosef): Im Alu Lo Yerdu (they are not taken down).
10. They do not argue according to R. Yehudah (who says Im Alu Yerdu if the blood spilled, it was Lan, or was Yotzei). Here also, Yerdu. They argue according to R. Shimon (who says Lo Yerdu regarding anything brought on the Mizbe'ach).
11. Rav Yosef holds like (the simple understanding of) R. Shimon. Rabah says R. Shimon refers only to things like blood put on the wrong half (upper or lower) of the Mizbe'ach if they were slaughtered in right place, but Shechitah in the south is like choking the animal to death.
12. Question (Mishnah): Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south.
13. Answer: The Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan.
14. Question: What is the difference between Me'ilah mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan?
15. Answer: A Chomesh is added (and an Asham is brought) only for Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.
16. Question: Is there really Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?
17. Answer: Yes! Ula taught that if Kodshim died, Me'ilah does not apply to them mid'Oraisa.
i. Inference: Me'ilah does not apply mid'Oraisa, but it applies mid'Rabanan.
18. 15a (R. Yanai): One is liable for Me'ilah only for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
19. Question: Ula said in R. Yochanan's name that if Kodshim died, mid'Oraisa Me'ilah no longer applies to them!
i. Suggestion: He discusses Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
ii. Rejection: Surely, Me'ilah applies mid'Oraisa to a carcass of Bedek ha'Bayis, just like it applies to manure Hukdash for Bedek ha'Bayis! Rather, he discusses Kodshei Mizbe'ach.
20. Correction: R. Yanai means that the verse "Nefesh Ki Sim'ol..." teaches about Me'ilah only for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Another verse teaches about Kodshei Mizbe'ach.
1. Rambam (Hilchos Me'ilah 3:1): If Kodshei Mizbe'ach died, mid'Oraisa there is no Me'ilah. There is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.
i. Ri Korkus: If they died, they cannot be offered, and not redeemed, since we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs, so they are not called Kodshei Hash-m. The Rambam connotes that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are different. However, also those we do not redeem in order to feed them to dogs! Ula said Stam 'Kodshim that died.' Perhaps since initially there were not destined to be offered, even after they died they are still called Kodshei Hash-m. They keep their Kedushah, just we do not redeem them because we cannot fulfill "v'He'emid v'He'erich" (standing up the animal for assessment). Kodshei Mizbe'ach were initially destined to be offered, but now they cannot be. They are uprooted, and cease to be Kodshei Hash-m, and there is no Me'ilah. Alternatively, perhaps it is a bigger Chidush regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach (that there is no Me'ilah after they died). This requires investigation.
ii. Kesef Mishneh: Ula taught Stam about Kodshim that died. Why does the Rambam specify Kodshei Mizbe'ach? Perhaps he teaches about Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and all the more so Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (that there is no Me'ilah after they died). This requires investigation. Also, this Perek discusses Kodshei Mizbe'ach, therefore he began with them.
iii. Question (Birkas ha'Zevach Me'ilah 15a DH Ileima, R. Akiva Eiger, Gilyon ha'Rambam): It seems that the Kesef Mishneh (and Ri Korkus) overlooked Me'ilah 15a, which explicitly says that if Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis died, there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa!
2. Tosfos (Me'ilah 15a DH v'Afilu): R. Chaim Kohen asked why there is Me'ilah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that died, since Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah cannot be done! Perhaps he holds that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah does not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Alternatively, we discuss when there was Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah, and then the animal died before it was redeemed. Even so, Ula says that there is no Me'ilah. Seemingly, we already know this, for we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs! We can say that one may redeem them for other uses, e.g. to fuel a fire.
i. Keren Orah (on Tosfos): How can Tosfos answer that Ula holds that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah does not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis? If so, there was no question against R. Yanai. Since Ula holds that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, therefore he said that there is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa after death! Perhaps the Gemara holds that if so, there would be no Me'ilah even mid'Rabanan. Chachamim decreed to make Me'ilah mid'Rabanan only for Kodshei Mizbe'ach. The Kedushah of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is due to their value, and since after death they (cannot be redeemed and) are worthless, there is no Me'ilah at all. The Isur to redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs is mid'Rabanan. How can this uproot Me'ilah mid'Oraisa? Perhaps indeed this is Tosfos' answer to this question.
ii. Note - in some cases, an Isur Hana'ah mid'Rabanan (e.g. Chametz) can uproot what would have been Kidushin mid'Oraisa (Pesachim 7a)! However, not every Isur mid'Rabanan uproots the monetary value. See Sha'arei Yosher.
iii. Answer (to Birkas ha'Zevach's question - Keren Orah DH v'Ra'isi): The Rambam (Hilchos Erchin 5:14) rules that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, so if they died they must be buried. If so, surely there is no Me'ilah, like Tosfos said. We cannot answer like Tosfos that the animal died after Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah but before redemption, for the Rambam (ibid.) holds that the redemption must be while it is alive, like Tosfos (Chulin 135a DH v'Ha). We must say that the Rambam discusses Kodshei Mizbe'ach because there is no Me'ilah even mid'Rabanan regarding Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis according to the opinion that they require Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah.
iv. Aruch ha'Shulchan ha'Asid (Me'ilah 170:2): The Rambam refers only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Rashi explains that there is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa because they are not Kodshei Hash-m. They are Pasul for Avodah, and have no Kedushas Damim because we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs. We learn this from "Tizbach (slaughter)", but do shear (blemished Korbanos); "v'Achalta (you will eat)", but not for your dogs (Temurah 31a). This applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Bechoros 25a says that the Isur to shear or work with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, Me'ilah mid'Oraisa applies to dead Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
v. Note - Tosfos (Pesachim 29b DH Rav) says that the Isur to redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs is mid'Rabanan. The Ritva (29a DH v'Chi) says that the Tana'im (29a) argue about whether the Torah permits this, but all agree that mid'Rabanan it is forbidden.
3. Rambam (ibid.): Similarly, if a Pesul of Korbanos occurred, we already explained that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan. This is when there was never a Heter for Kohanim to eat them. If Kodshei Kodoshim were once permitted to Kohanim, and afterwards they were disqualified and forbidden to eat, there is no Me'ilah in something that was once permitted.
4. Rambam (ibid.): E.g. if Kodshei Kodoshim became Pasul before the blood reached the Mizbe'ach properly, e.g. they were slaughtered in the south or the blood was received in the south, or Shechitah or Zerikah was at night, or there was an intent to eat them Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, or Pesulim did Kabalah or Zerikah, or the blood and all the meat left before Zerikah, or the blood was Lan, in all of these cases there is always Me'ilah, for there was never a Heter.
i. Ri Korkus: The Gemara asked why the Mishnah needed to teach that Shechitah in the south does not remove Me'ilah. It answered that one might have thought it is as if the animal died (without Shechitah), and there is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa. Really, they are different. Kodshim that died are not proper for anything, but Shechitah in the south is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim. Why did the Rambam teach everything together and say that the Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan? It seems that this is not a textual error, for he says 'and similarly, if a Pesul of Korbanos occurred, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.' Perhaps the Rambam discusses Korbanos that are eaten, for this removed Me'ilah mid'Oraisa, and since they cannot be offered even if they came on the Mizbe'ach, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, but for Korbanos that are not eaten, there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa. Alternatively, the Rambam said that if a Pesul of Korbanos occurred, we already explained that there is Me'ilah, i.e. mid'Oraisa, which is clear from what he says below. (Note: it seems that this answer says that there is a textual error.) This requires investigation.
ii. Kesef Mishneh: According to Rabah, we establish the Mishnah to discuss Me'ilah mid'Rabanan. This implies that Rav Yosef holds that the Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa. Rabah was refuted, so the Halachah follows Rav Yosef. However, investigation proves that the Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan. We said that they argue about whether the Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. This was according to R. Shimon. According to R. Yehudah, we say that all agree that Im Alu Yerdu. Since the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon, if there was no time that they were permitted, the Me'ilah is only mid'Rabanan.
5. Rambam (ibid.): If the blood reached the Mizbe'ach properly and afterwards the meat or Eimurim was Lan or became Tamei or left, or some of the meat left before Zerikah, in all of these cases there is no Me'ilah in the rest of the meat, for it once had a Heter.
i. Or Some'ach: The text should say 'there is no Me'ilah, like in the rest of the meat...'