8) click for question
(a) With regard to the Chata'os Penimiyos, the Torah writes "Ve'taval ha'Kohen Etzba'o ... ". Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya commented that Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os Penimiyos - is subject to Pigul.
(b) When Ilfa repeated this Chidush in front of bar Pada, the latter queried it - inasmuch as we learn all cases of Pigul from Shelamim, and there is no such thing as Tevilas ha'Dam by Shelamim.
(c) The Mishnah rules in the second Perek that in a case where, after a Korban Chatas has been Shechted with thoughts of Pigul, the Kohen makes Kabalah or Holachah she'Lo li'Shemo, the person who eats it is not Chayav Chatas - because Pigul is only effective if the Kohen goes on to sacrifice the Korban as if it was Kasher, but not if he then performs an Avodah that would normally render the animal Pasul.
(d) Nevertheless, if the same occurs with a Shelamim, the Din of Pigul remains intact - because she'Lo li'Shemo does not invalidate a Shelamim.
9) click for question
(a)Despite the fact that, as we explained earlier, we learn Pigul by Chatas from Pigul by Shelamim, the difference between the Din of Chatas and that of Shelamim that we just cited is possible - because we do not learn Chatas from Shelamim directly, but from a Ribuy ("ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel") written by Shelamim ...
(b) ... thereby vindicating Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya - in that we can now learn the Dinim of Chatas independently, without having to come on to Shelamim.
(c) In a repeat of the Sugya, Resh Lakish (who holds like bar Pada) asks Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who holds like Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya) the same Kashya as bar Pada asked Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya. Only there, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina concludes that we do indeed learn Chatas from Shelamim - not from she'Lo li'Shemo, but from a Machshavah of Chutz li'Mekomo (which renders Shelamim, Pasul, even though a Machsheves she'Lo li'Shemo does not).
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah however, queries this Limud. We cannot learn the Din of she'Lo li'Shemo (by Chatas) from Chutz li'Mekomo (by Shelamim), he argues - because only Chutz li'Mekomo (which applies to all Kodshim), invalidates the Pigul by a Shelamim; but perhaps she'Lo li'Shemo (which does not), will not invalidate the Pigul by a Chatas.
10) click for question
(a) We therefore learn Chatas from Shelamim with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shelamim via a set of principles. We learn ...
1. ... that she'Lo li'Shemo by a Chatas negates the Pigul that preceded it - because, like Chutz li'Mekomo by a Shelamim, it renders Pasul a Chatas (so we learn something that renders Pasul from something that renders Pasul).
2. ... that Tevilas Etzba renders Pigul by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because, like the four Avodos by Shelamim, it is crucial to the Avodah of a Chatas Penimis (so we learn something that is crucial from something that is crucial).
(b) Rav Mari tries to prove this from a Mishnah in Menachos, where the Tana rules - that a Kohen performing the Kemitzah, placing the Minchah into a K'li Shareis, taking it to the Mizbe'ach and burning it on the Mizbe'ach - are all subject to Pigul, if he has in mind to either burn the Kometz or to eat the remainder of the Minchah, on the following day.
(c) These four Avodos correspond to the Shechitah (Kemitzah), Kabalas ha'Dam (placing the Minchah into a K'li Shareis), Holachas ha'Dam (taking it to the Mizbe'ach) and the Zerikah (burning it on the Mizbe'ach) of a Zevach.
(d) Although we can learn the other three from the corresponding Avodos by a Shelamim quite comfortably, the problem with learning Matan Kometz bi'Cheli from Kabalas ha'Dam is - that whereas the former requires an act, the latter occurs automatically.
11) click for question
(a) Rav Mari therefore learns from the Mishnah in Menachos that we can derive one indispensable Avodah by one Korban (such as Tevilas Etzba by Chata'os ha'Penimiyos) from an indispensable Avodah by another Korban (such as Holachah by a Shelamim), even though they are different.
(b) We refute Rav Mari's proof however, on the grounds - that, at the end of the day, placing the Kometz in the K'li is the exact equivalent of receiving the blood in the vessel, we can learn one from the other, irrespective of the fact that one requires an act whilst the other occurs automatically; whereas Tevilas Etzba and Holachah are two different Avodos, in which case we should not be able to learn one from the other.
(c) One Beraisa states 'Tevilas Etzba Mefageles be'Chatas', whilst another Beraisa states 'Lo Mefageles ve'Lo Mispageles'. Initially, we explain - that the first Beraisa considers Tevilas Etzba'o like Holachah (like the opinion of Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya, and those who hold like him), whereas the second Beraisa does not (like bar Pada, and those who hold like him).
(d) We counter that both Beraisos may well hold that Tevilas Etzba renders Pigul like Holachah, and the author of the Beraisa 'Lo Mefageles ... ' is Rebbi Shimon, who holds - that Holachah is not subject to Pigul (as we learned in the previous Mishnah).
12) click for question
(a) The problem with establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon is the fact that we are talking about Pigul in the Heichal, in which case - the Tana would not have had to confine the statement to Tevilas Etzba, seeing as in his opinion, there is no Pigul outside the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.
(b) So we establish both Beraisos like the Rabbanan. And we ascribe 'Lo Mefageles ... ' in the second Beraisa to the fact - that the Tana is talking about a Chatas Chitzonah (whose blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon).
(c) We ask on that 'P'shita' - because seeing as the Torah does not write 'Vetaval' by a Chatas Chitzonah, why would we even think that Tevilas Etzba is subject to Pigul?
13) click for question
(a) In fact, when the Torah writes (by Chatas Chitzonah) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o", it is referring to Kabalas ha'Dam, and not to Tevilas Etzba'o - in which case it should have written ''Vetaval ha'Kohen".
(b) We might nevertheless have thought that it does - seeing as when all's said and done, "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen ... " also implies that the Kohen has to take blood on his finger, and if a monkey would do it for him, he would be obligated to do it again himself. This suggests that Tevilas Etzba is an Avodah that is crucial to the Chatas, and which should therefore be subject to Pigul.
(c) Yet Tevilas Etzba'o is not subject to Pigul - because since the Torah does not specifically write "Ve'taval", even though it is crucial to the Chatas, it is not considered an Avodah (but a means of performing the Avodah, something like a Hechsher Mitzvah).
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Zevachim
Homepage for Maseches Zevachim