Explaining the Tamei shochet to have tumas sheretz works in the vacuum of segmenting the first part of the mishnah onto itself. However, the next part of mishna says v'Chulan she'Kiblu, thus All previously described pesulim carry forward to this next case of Kabalah. Problem is that only tumas sheretz can work in that case, not tumas meis. How then can Rashi explain first case of shcitah tumas meis using a sharpened reed to shecht!? I fully understand how perfectly this resolves the schitah psul case. However, since that explanation cannot be applied to kabala, it shouldn't be allowed in the first case of shcitah on account of that.
Daniel Gray , Canada
Shalom R' Daniel,
I am not sure I understand the question. Why can Tum'as Mes apply to the case of Kabalah? In the case of Shechitah, the Tamei is touching the knife which becomes Tamei, which then makes the Korban Tamei. But what happens if the Tamei Mes is holding the Mizrak and receiving the blood? The Mizrak might be Tamei, but neither he nor the Mizrak ever touched the Korban, so the Korban stayed Tahor. Let me know if I am missing something.
Best Regards,
Aharon Steiner
Thanks
If the kabbalah case is But what happens if the Tamei Mes is holding the Mizrak and receiving the blood? The Mizrak might be Tamei, but neither he nor the Mizrak ever touched the Korban, so the Korban stayed Tahor, and the word "v'Chulan" [she'Kiblu] connects the kabbalah case to the Shechitah case so that the case facts (albeit not the resulting outcome with machshava and pigul) in both kabala and Shechitah must be identical/uniform, that would require the Shechitah case to include a similar case, which Rashi ruled out as impossible (Aval b'Sakin Lo she'Hu Metamei Es ha'Sakin v'ha'Sakin Metamei Es ha'Basar).
So, now to make the case facts in both kabala and Shechitah identical/uniform, one needs then to take the case that works in Shechitah (u'Kegon she'Badak Kromis Shel Kaneh v'Shachat Bah) to also be the case of kabala. But that poses a problem at kabala (Metamei Keli) that uniquely wasn't a problem with Shehitah as the nature of shechitah is that the tamei person can do so thru a reed that doesn't contract tumah but by kabalh, the tamei meis Kohen, would need to directly touch the klei, which Rasi said by scheitahe such contact would spoil things via contact with the bassar.
Then you'd be forced into a scrambly position of limiting the word v'Chulan to not really apply to ALL and that's very questionable.
The only mehalech I have is to distinguish between flesh and blood. That in the first case of Shechitah if a Tamei Mes is metameh the bassar, that s it the meat is pasul, there is no work-around. But, by kabbalah, let s say we fully grant above point and the Tamei Mes is holding the Mizrak and indeed that blood becomes tamei and disqualified, even if pigul matter can be worked around, there is other blood of the nefesh available for a second run that did not become tamei. So, it s the nature of distinction between blood and bassar that allows for this difference between shcitah and kabala cases.
Is that by any chance what you intended to convey or at least partially intended? You stressed but neither he nor the Mizrak ever touched the Korban, so the Korban stayed Tahor I stressed there is other blood available.
It comes down to Rashi's words in kabbalah (v'ha'Sakin Metamei Es ha'Basar) describing precisely (e.g., the meat, the korbon, introducing tumah) what the problem is that occurs via that tumah effected from the tamei meis at shecita, then describing what the parallel case would be at kabala, then describing how that reasoning wouldn't affect the stage of kabbalah (and whether or not, ignoring pigul, if it affected in hilchos tumah that very blood that Kohen held, in terms of whether or not the korbon itself could proceed from that point on if there wasn t pigul and whether to proceed, ignoring pigul, other nefesh blood need be introduced.).
Daniel Gray
PS I worked out a pshat why body hair is considered part of the kohen's body (body hair=body) to not create a chziztah between Kohen and his clothing (19b-20a) and why at first glance this seems ignored on (35b) regarding the tayash (goat) beard hair treatment for pigul. The distinguish-ment is NOT one between human to animal nor between beard hair to body hair (both would be difficult to accept). LMK if interested in hearing it.
Shalom again Daniel,
If I understand you correctly, it seems you understood me well.
The Mishnah is focused on a specific rule. The disqualification of Pigul depends on the person performing the Avodah being permitted to do that Avodah. Since Shechitah is valid even when done by a Tamei or a Zar, that person can also invalidate that same act with Pigul. By contrast, Kabalah, receiving the blood, is invalid when done by a Tamei or a Zar. Since the act itself is invalid, Pigul cannot take effect through an Avodah performed by someone whose service is invalid.
This raises a side point. How can a Tamei person do Shechitah or Kabalah without making the Korban Tamei, since the Mishnah seems to discuss only Pigul while the offering is not Tamei? For Shechitah, this would require the Tamei to remain outside the Azarah and slaughter with a very long knife. In addition, so that the knife does not convey Tum'ah to the meat, we can posit a case where the Tamei slaughtered with a sharpened reed or the like. All of this is only to isolate the Pigul question without introducing Tuma'ah into the offering.
For Kabalah, in any case you will need another Kabalah. The first Kabalah does not count at all, mainly because the person who received the blood was unfit for that Avodah, and for that same reason Pigul does not apply. Certainly you will need a new Kabalah, not only because perhaps the blood became Tamei if the receiver was Tamei Mes, but mainly because the person was unfit for the service and a valid collection is required regardless. Once a valid Kabalah is needed in any event, it is not really relevant whether the blood he handled became Tamei or not, since that blood cannot be used for Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach. As you noted, the blood would in any case be Tamei. Unlike the first case where we are trying to isolate the Pigul question from any other question regarding the Korban at stake, the status of the blood is not really important because in any case it is meaningless once the Kabalah is not acceptable, and as I wrote at first, the Korban, which is our main concern, stays Tahor since the Tamei had no access to it.
We would be happy to hear more from you, and if you have an interesting insight, please share it with the Kollel.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner