More Discussions for this daf
1. "Mekudashin" or "Mekulkalin"? 2. Question on the Rambam

Aharon Gal asks:

Shalom Rav,

There are two cases in the Mishna where the Behema is not sacrified on the altar but instead go to the pasture until she will be blemished. In the first case the mishna says "Mekulkalim", and in the second "Kedoshin". How come the Gemara uses two oposite words where the destination of the behema is the same?

Aharon Gal, New Jersey , USA

The Kollel replies:

Aharon, this is an excellent question. Below are two explanations mentioned by Rashi.


a. The first Peshat in Rashi states that if the first two animals exited simultaneously but he counted them only as one, then the one that he subsequently counted as "number 2" is really number 3, and so forth. It follows that the one he counted as "number 9" is really number 10, and what he called "number 10" is really number 11. Rashi writes about the above scenario that both animals are ready for "Kalkala" (i.e. are "Mekulkalin"). This is because he erringly thinks that what he called "number 9" is Chulin and "number 10" is Ma'aser.

b. Rashi writes: "If he did so and did not consult Beit Din...." The Chafetz Chaim, in Likutei Halachos to Maseches Bechoros, writes that when Rashi writes, "If he did so...," this means that he went ahead and slaughtered what he called "number 9" on the assumption that it is Chulin, and what he called "number 10" on the assumption that it is Ma'aser (and not with intention of Shelamim, which is the intention he really should have had for what he called "number 10").

c. The continuation of the Mishnah, that he called (a) what is really number 10 by the name "number 9," and (b) what is really number 11 by the name "number 10," is referring to what would have happened had he consulted with Beis Din. They would have told him that in case (a), the animal has the status of Ma'aser since it is in reality the tenth animal, and in case (b) it has the status of Shelamim since he gave it the wrong name. This is what the Din would have been had he consulted with Beis Din,and afterwards slaughtered the animals with the intention for the Korbanos that Beis Din instructed him about. If he would have done so, the animals would have been "Mekudashin" -- they would have possessed the Kedushah that Beis Din instructed him about. Since, however, he slaughtered them without asking Beis Din, both were slaughtered with the wrong intention, and therefore both are Mekulkalin and Pasul.

2. Here is another way of explaining the difference in the Mishnah between "Mekulkalin" and "Mekudashin." This is based on the second Peshat in Rashi, which Rashi refers to as "Perush Acher."

a. Rashi writes that if the first two exited simultaneously, and he mistakenly called "number 2" what is really number 3, and then he continued with his mistake until he called "number 9" what is really number 10, this means that neither what he called -- 9 or 10 -- possesses Kedushah that would enable it to be brought as a Korban.

b. Rashi explains that the difference between the case above and the subsequent case in the Mishnah (where he called "number 9" what is really number 10, and "number 10" what is really number 11, in which case both animals possess Kedushah, namely the real number 10 is Ma'aser and the real number 11 is Shelamim) is that in the subsequent case he made a mistake only from number 9 onwards. In contrast, in the first case of the Mishnah he erred even before he got to number 9. Due to this big mistake that he made, these animals do not possess Kedushah at all.

c. If one makes a mistake by being only one off mark, the Korbanos may be offered. In contrast, if one makes a mistake before he reaches number 9, this means that he is more than one off mark. Consequently, the animals do not possess Kedushah and are therefore called "Mekulkalin" because they can never be offered.

d. However, the second part of the Mishnah includes the case where he called "number 10" what is really number 9, and therefore the real number 9 can be eaten only when it develops a blemish. This would appear to be exactly the same as what we called "Mekulkalin" in (a) above, so why does the Mishnah also give the title "Mekudashin" to the real number 9? The answer to this is that since three animals are mentioned in the second part of the Mishnah, and two of these three may be offered as Korbanos, the real number 9 is also called "Mekudashin" similar to the other two. (In addition, this animal could never have been Kadosh, because in reality it is number 9, and it is not similar to the two animals in the first case (a), both of which could have been Korbanos and become ruined -- "Mekulkal" -- because of the mistake made with them.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom