ME'ILAH 8 (25 Elul) ג€“ Dedicated in memory of Yechiel Avraham Avigdor ben Eliyahu Glaser z'l, by his brother Yisrael and family. May Avigdor's children merit to grow in Torah and Yiras Shamayim, and become sources of pride and Nachas to their father in Gan Eden.

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the Isur of Me'ilah takes effect on a Chatas ha'Of from the time it is consecrated. One who derives personal benefit from the bird after consecrating it as a Korban Chatas ha'Of transgresses the Isur of Me'ilah. RASHI (DH Chatas ha'Of) explains that an example of deriving benefit from the Chatas ha'Of while it is alive is selling the bird, an act which removes it from the domain of Hekdesh.
Rashi's words are difficult to understand. The Gemara in Kidushin (54b) clearly implies that when one sells an item of Hekdesh that is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf (such as an animal or bird designated to be a Korban), the sale is ineffective; the item of Hekdesh remains in the domain of Hekdesh. Why does Rashi say that selling the Chatas ha'Of effectively removes it from Hekdesh? (TAL TORAH, TAKANAS EZRA)
ANSWER: The CHAYEI ARYEH writes that from the words of the TOSFOS YOM TOV, it appears that there is a printing error in our text of Rashi. The Tosfos Yom Tov quotes Rashi as saying, "... for example, he sold it in order to make it Chulin," in contrast to the words that appear in our text of Rashi, "... for example, he sold it thereby making it Chulin." (In the text of the Tosfos Yom Tov in our edition of the Mishnayos, Rashi's words are the same as they appear in the text of our Gemara. However, in the IKAR TOSFOS YOM TOV, Rashi is quoted as the Chayei Aryeh cites from the Tosfos Yom Tov.)
According to this text of Rashi, there is no difficulty. Rashi is saying that although the bird indeed does not become Chulin when one attempts to sell it, he still transgresses the Isur of Me'ilah by attempting to sell it (since he receives money and benefits from the sale).
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when Melikah has been done to a Chatas ha'Of, the bird can become disqualified from being offered if it is touched by a Tevul Yom. RASHI (DH Huchsherah) explains that once Melikah has been done, "[more] Kedushah has been added to it."
Why does Rashi say that Melikah gives more Kedushah to the bird? Prior to Melikah, it could not become Pasul because it was alive, and a live animal cannot become Tamei by being touched by a Tevul Yom! (SEFAS EMES)
(a) The SEFAS EMES answers that perhaps Rashi is teaching that if the bird would be slaughtered with Shechitah (as opposed to Melikah) outside the Azarah, it would not become Pasul or Tamei if touched by a Tevul Yom, because a bird that is slaughtered with Shechitah lacks the Kedushah of Melikah. Even though the bird is Pasul for a different reason (it was slaughtered with Shechitah and not with Melikah), the Mishnah is teaching that it will not become Tamei even through contact with a Tevul Yom.
(b) Perhaps the Mishnah is teaching that even if the bird would have been able to become Tamei while alive, it still would not become Pasul through the touch of a Tevul Yom because it does not have the additional Kedushah of Melikah. Although this is only a theoretical matter with regard to a bird (since a live bird cannot actually become Tamei while alive), it is relevant in a practical way as well -- with regard to Menachos. Although wheat can always become Tamei, a Minchah offering attains the sanctity that enables it to become Tamei from a Tevul Yom only after it has been consecrated by being placed into a Kli Shares (9b), since, at that point, it becomes fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach.


QUESTION: The Mishnah (8a) says that once the blood of the Chatas ha'Of has been sprinkled, Me'ilah no longer applies. The Gemara infers from the Mishnah that only Me'ilah no longer applies, but the prohibition against using the flesh for one's personal benefit remains. The Gemara asks, why should the flesh be prohibited if it becomes the property of the Kohanim once the Haza'ah is done? The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the Chatas ha'Of was taken out of the Azarah before the Haza'ah, thereby becoming Pasul as "Yotzei." The Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva who says that Haza'ah is effective for a Korban that became Pasul as Yotzei. However, Haza'ah is able to remove only the Isur of Me'ilah; it cannot remove the Isur against benefiting from the flesh, since the flesh is Pasul due to Yotzei.
The Gemara is difficult to understand. The Haza'ah of a Chatas ha'Of is done directly from the neck of the bird, and not by receiving its blood in a vessel. Accordingly, when the bird is taken out of the Azarah before the Haza'ah is performed, its blood also becomes invalid for Haza'ah since it has left the Azarah. Even if only part of the bird (such as its leg) left the Azarah, all of the blood is considered to have left the Azarah because, as the Gemara in Zevachim (25a) teaches, the fluids in the leg mix with the blood in the bird's body. How, then, could the Haza'ah be done?
ANSWERS: TOSFOS (DH Amar Rebbi Chanina) offers several explanations.
(a) The Mishnah is discussing a case in which all of the blood accumulated in the neck of the bird before the leg protruded out of the Azarah. Under such circumstances, none of the fluids in the leg mix with the blood that will be used for Haza'ah, and thus the blood remains valid for Haza'ah.
(b) After the leg protruded from the Azarah, it became partially detached from the bird (the bird did not become a Ba'al Mum because the leg was still loosely attached). Since the flesh around that leg is severed, none of the fluids from the leg reach the blood area.
(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU RECHAVYAH who explains that even if the fluids from the limbs that exited the Azarah flow into the blood that will be used for Haza'ah, they do not render the blood invalid for Haza'ah. Although such blood should not be used for Haza'ah in the first place, if it was used b'Di'eved the Haza'ah is valid.
QUESTION: The Mishnah (8a) states that when the blood of a Chatas ha'Of is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach (Haza'ah), the Isurim of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei take effect, and the Isur of Me'ilah is removed.
In the Gemara, Rav Huna in the name of Rav says that a Chatas ha'Of is valid (b'Di'eved) even when Mitzuy is not performed (that is, "Mitzuy is not Me'akev"). He infers this from the Mishnah that says that once Haza'ah is performed, the Isurim of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei take effect, and Me'ilah is removed.
Rav Ada bar Ahavah in the name of Rav argues and maintains that Mitzuy of a Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev, and he learns that the text of the Mishnah is "Mitzah Damah" instead of "Huzah Damah." Accordingly, Haza'ah is not sufficient to make the laws of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei apply to the Chatas ha'Of, or to remove the Isur of Me'ilah, because the Korban is only valid once the Mitzuy has been performed.
The rulings of the RAMBAM in this Sugya seem contradictory. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 7:7) rules in accordance with Rav Ada bar Ahavah that the Chatas ha'Of is invalid without Mitzuy. However, the Rambam elsewhere (Hilchos Me'ilah 2:6) rules that the Isur of Me'ilah takes effect on a Chatas ha'Of from the moment that it is consecrated until Haza'ah, and once the blood has been sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ("Huzah Damah") there is no longer an Isur of Me'ilah.
How can the Rambam rule like both Rav Huna in the name of Rav (that the Chatas ha'Of is valid with only Haza'ah) and Rav Ada bar Ahavah (that the Chatas ha'Of is valid only once Mitzuy is done)?
(a) The LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 7:7) suggests that there is a distinction between the Isur of Me'ilah and the Isurim of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei. When the Gemara says that, according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, the Mishnah reads "Mitzah Damah," it does not mean that Mitzuy is necessary in order for Me'ilah to be removed, even though Mitzuy is Me'akev. Rather, Mitzuy is Me'akev only with regard to Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei; until Mitzuy has been done, these three Isurim do not apply. It was not necessary for the Rambam to write here that Mitzuy is necessary for these three Isurim to apply, because he writes elsewhere (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 18:16) that "this is the rule: one is not liable for Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei for any Korban which has parts that must be offered in order to permit the rest of the Korban, until the parts are offered properly." Since the Rambam there already rules that Mitzuy is Me'akev the Isurim of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei from taking effect, he does not write it here when he writes that Haza'ah removes the Isur of Me'ilah.
RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK (Chidushei ha'Shas, p. 223, DH ha'Misba'er) elaborates on the Lechem Mishneh's answer. Even though Mitzuy is Me'akev, as the Rambam writes, it is not the primary component of the atonement that the Korban achieves for its owner. The primary atonement is attained by the Haza'ah; Mitzuy is considered the "Avodas Shirayim," the Avodah performed with the leftover blood (as the verse implies, "And the remaining blood shall be pressed..." (Vayikra 5:9)). Nevertheless, the requirement of Mitzuy is a condition in the atonement provided by the Haza'ah; without Mitzuy, the Haza'ah cannot provide atonement. Accordingly, once the Haza'ah has been performed, the primary Avodah of the Korban is completed and it is no longer considered "Kodshei Hash-m." Consequently, Me'ilah no longer applies. In contrast, the Isurim of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei depend on whether the Korban is actually permitted to be eaten. Since Mitzuy is Me'akev, the Korban is not yet permitted to be eaten, and thus these Isurim do not yet apply.
Rav Chaim writes that even though Me'ilah is mentioned in the Mishnah (which is discussing Mitzuy, according to the Rambam), and Me'ilah depends not on Mitzuy but on Haza'ah, it could be that the Mishnah mentions Me'ilah only because it mentions the other three Isurim, and all of these Isurim are frequently mentioned together. (D. BLOOM)