1) THE PROOF THAT "HESECH HA'DA'AS" IS A "PESUL" OF "TUM'AH"
QUESTION: When a Kohen removes his attention from an item of Kodshim, that item becomes Pasul with the Pesul of "Hesech ha'Da'as."
There are two possible ways to understand the nature of this Pesul. The first way to understand the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as is that it is a Pesul of Tum'ah. Since the Kohen removed his attention from the item, we assume out of doubt that it became Tamei when he was not watching it.
The second way to understand the Pesul is that a Hesech ha'Da'as in and of itself is an independent Pesul, unrelated to Tum'ah; the very fact that the Kohen removed his attention from an item of Kodshim invalidates the item.
The Gemara attempts to prove from a Tosefta in Zevachim that the Pesul of "Hesech ha'Da'as" is a Pesul of Tum'ah. The Tosefta says that there was a small opening next to the ramp of the Mizbe'ach into which a Chatas ha'Of (bird offering), which had become Pasul, would be thrown. The Chatas ha'Of would remain there overnight so that it would become Pasul due to Linah, and only then could it be burned. The Gemara assumes that the Tosefta refers to a Chatas ha'Of that became Pasul with Hesech ha'Da'as. If Hesech ha'Da'as is a Pesul because of the possibility that the item of Kodshim became Tamei, then it is clear why the Chatas ha'Of cannot be burned until the next day (after it becomes Pasul with Linah). One may burn Kodshim only when they are certainly Pasul, but not when they are Pasul out of doubt. Since there is only a possibility that the Chatas ha'Of became Tamei, one may not burn it until it has a definite Pesul. If, however, Hesech ha'Da'as is an independent, unconditional Pesul, then it would be permitted to burn the Chatas ha'Of immediately without waiting until the next day, since the Chatas ha'Of would be definitely Pasul due to Hesech ha'Da'as.
RASHI (DH v'Te'ubar Tzurasah) asks, how does the Gemara know that the Pesul mentioned in the Tosefta is Hesech ha'Da'as and not any other Pesul? Rashi answers that the Gemara knows it through the process of elimination. Every other type of Pesul is a "Pesul ha'Guf," an inherent, independent Pesul in the Chatas ha'Of, which would allow the bird to be burned immediately without necessitating that it be left overnight to become Pasul with Linah. The fact that the Tosefta requires that the Chatas ha'Of be left overnight implies that the Pesul to which it refers is the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as.
Rashi's words seem unclear. The Gemara, in the very next line, mentions two types of Pesul which are not Pesulei ha'Guf and which do require that the Korban be left overnight before it may be burned! One Pesul is when the blood of the animal became Tamei and could not be cast on the Mizbe'ach, and a second Pesul is when the owner of the animal became disqualified from eating his Korban. (TOSFOS DH Lamah)
(a) Perhaps Rashi understands that the Tosefta cannot be referring to a Chatas ha'Of that is Pasul due to a Pesul in its owner (Pesul Ba'alim), because a Pesul in its owner would not render the bird entirely unfit to be offered as a Korban. Even if the owner became Tamei, someone else could eat his Chatas ha'Of, and thus the Korban could still be offered. The Pesul of Ba'alim applies only to a Korban Pesach (as Rashi mentions later, 34b, DH uv'Ba'alim), which may be eaten only by a person who is "Manuy" (appointed, before its slaughter, to eat from the Korban), and to a Korban set aside by a Nazir who then became Tamei (who, by becoming Tamei, must begin his Nezirus anew and cannot bring his Korban).
Why does Rashi reject the possibility that the bird's blood became Tamei (Pesul Dam), and that is why the bird must be left overnight before it can be burned? The answer may be as follows. Normally, the blood of a Korban is received in a vessel, and from the vessel it is sprinkled upon the Mizbe'ach. While the blood is in the vessel, it can become Pasul by being spilled, or by touching something that renders it Tamei. The blood of a Chatas ha'Of is different. The blood of a Chatas ha'Of is sprinkled directly onto the Mizbe'ach from the body of the animal, immediately after the bird is killed; it is not collected in a vessel first. Since the blood is sprinkled directly from the neck of the bird onto the Mizbe'ach, there is no opportunity for the blood to spill or to become Tamei. Therefore, it is not possible for a Chatas ha'Of to become Pasul as a result of a Pesul in its blood. (M. KORNFELD)
(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH cites the MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG who suggests a different reason for why a Chatas ha'Of cannot become Pasul as a result of its blood becoming Tamei. The blood of a Chatas ha'Of is sprinkled directly from the neck of the bird onto the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, the blood of the bird is considered to be part of its body. Accordingly, the blood of the bird is not considered merely a prerequisite to offering the Korban on the Mizbe'ach. Rather, it is comparable to the fats of an animal Korban that are offered on the Mizbe'ach, which are considered to be part of the Korban itself. Consequently, if the blood spills or becomes Tamei, the Pesul is considered to be a Pesul in the Korban itself and not just in the blood, and the bird may be burned right away.
(c) TOSFOS disagrees with Rashi's reason for why the Gemara assumes that the Tosefta is discussing a Chatas ha'Of that became Pasul with Hesech ha'Da'as. It is not because the Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as is the only Pesul which is not a Pesul ha'Guf. Rather, the Chatas ha'Of may have become Pasul with any of the other Pesulim which are not Pesulei ha'Guf, and thus it needed to be left overnight before it could be burned. However, once the Kohen threw it into the opening near the Mizbe'ach, he effectively removed his attention from it and thereby gave it an additional Pesul of Hesech ha'Da'as. Hence, regardless of what Pesul originally invalidated it, it is now Pasul as a result of Hesech ha'Da'as because the Kohen took his mind off of it.
2) THE THREE PROOFS THAT "EIN ZERI'AH L'TERUMAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara asserts that "Ein Zeri'ah l'Terumah," Zeri'ah (replanting a fruit of Terumah that became Tamei) does not make that fruit Tahor. This law is a "Ma'alah," a special Halachah which the Rabanan enacted for Terumah and for Kodshim due to their sanctity, even though mid'Oraisa the fruit would become Tahor through Zeri'ah. The Gemara cites three proofs for the Halachah that "Ein Zeri'ah l'Terumah."
1. The first proof is from the water used for the Mei Chatas. The Beraisa derives from a verse that the water must be "Chiyusan b'Kli." RASHI explains that the water must be filled from the wellspring with the same vessel in which it will be mixed with the ashes of the Parah Adumah. The Beraisa continues and points out that the verse also says, "v'Nasan," which implies that the water may be passed from one vessel to another, and the ashes do not have to be added to it in the same vessel in which it was collected from the wellspring. It must be that, mid'Oraisa, the water may be passed from one vessel to another, and that the Rabanan enacted a Ma'alah for Mei Chatas and decreed that the water must be taken from the wellspring by the vessel in which the ashes will be added. From here the Gemara proves that the Rabanan made a Ma'alah for Terumah and decreed that Zeri'ah does not make fruits of Terumah become Tahor.
What is the Gemara's proof? How is Mei Chatas related to the Zeri'ah of fruits of Terumah and Kodshim?
The other two proofs that the Gemara cites also seem unrelated to Zeri'ah:
2. The Gemara proves from the fact that a person who was Tamei, who immersed and waited for the sun to set, may eat Terumah, but he may not eat Kodshim until he brings his Korban the next day. Even though he is Tahor when the sun sets, he may not eat Kodshim until he brings his Korban the next day. This is a Ma'alah of Kodshim.
This law, too, seems to have nothing to do with the Ma'alah that Zeri'ah does not work for Terumah. What is the Gemara's proof?
3. The final proof is from the Beraisa which derives from a verse that even Etzim and Levonah (wood and incense used in the Beis ha'Mikdash) can become Tamei, even though they are not food items.
Again, what does this law have to do with the Ma'alah that Zeri'ah does not make Terumah or Kodshim fruits become Tahor?
(a) According to the way Rashi understands the Gemara, the following answers may be suggested.
1. The Gemara proves from the case of Mei Chatas that the Rabanan have the authority to institute a Ma'alah for an object that has only Kedushas Peh and not Kedushas Kli, a point which the Gemara previously discussed (Rashi DH Af Anan). (See following Insight for an explanation of how this applies to Mei Chatas.)
2. The Gemara's second proof is from the Mishnah which says that becoming Tahor and waiting for the sun to set are not enough to permit one to eat Kodshim, but one must wait until the next day when he brings his Korban. The Gemara proves from there that the Torah itself made a Ma'alah for Kodshim, as Rashi explains. This explains why the Rabanan have the license to make Ma'alos for Kodshim in the first place ("k'Ein d'Oraisa Takun").
3. The Gemara's third proof teaches a further Chidush. The Ma'alah that the Rabanan made for Terumah not only has no source in the Torah, but it seems counterintuitive. Something planted in the ground is considered attached to the ground, and anything attached to the ground cannot become Tamei. Why, then, did the Rabanan decree that when produce of Terumah that is Tamei is planted in the ground, it remains Tamei?
In response to this problem, the Gemara cites its third proof. In general, non-food items cannot become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin at all. However, we find that the Rabanan enacted that even Etzim and Levonah of Kodshim can become Tamei, due to Chibas ha'Kodesh. This demonstrates that the Rabanan may institute a Ma'alah that confers Tum'ah even to things which normally cannot become Tamei.
(b) RABEINU CHANANEL, TOSFOS (DH v'Nasan), and other Rishonim explain the proof from Mei Chatas in an entirely different way than Rashi. According to their explanation, the proofs of the Gemara are not problematic.
1. When the Beraisa mentions "Chiyusan b'Kli," it does not refer to water that is poured from one vessel to another, or to water that is removed from the wellspring with the same vessel into which the ashes will be added later. Rather, "Chiyusan b'Kli" means simply that one must fill the water with a vessel from the wellspring, and one may not take the water from the wellspring with an object that is not a vessel. The Beraisa's question is that one verse implies that one must place a vessel into the well in order to fill it, while the other verse ("v'Nasan") implies that one may pour the water into the vessel, and the vessel need not be in the well at the time it is filled. It must be that, mid'Oraisa, even water that is attached to the ground is considered detached with regard to certain laws. The Torah is teaching that for the Tum'ah of Terumah and Kodshim, water inside a vessel which is inside a well is not considered attached to the ground. In other words, "Hashakah" (the process whereby water of Kodshim inside a vessel is placed into a Mikvah in order to become Tahor through contact, "Hashakah," with the water of the Mikvah) and "Zeri'ah" do not remove the Tum'ah from Kodshim and Terumah.
According to Tosfos' explanation, the Gemara is citing a direct source in the Torah for the Ma'alah that Zeri'ah does not work for Kodshim, mid'Oraisa (and therefore it does not work for Terumah, mid'Rabanan). The Beraisa is a direct source for the Halachah that the Gemara has been discussing.
2. With regard to the other two proofs, Tosfos seems to understand that the Gemara merely cites other examples where the Torah made a Ma'alah for Kodshim. In the case of one who has not yet brought his Korban ("Mechusar Kaparah"), the Torah made a Ma'alah that one must wait additional time until he may eat Kodshim.
3. Similarly, with regard to Etzim and Levonah, which are items of Hekdesh, the Torah made a Ma'alah that they can become Tamei. (Tosfos here is consistent with his opinion earlier (19a, DH Alma) that Etzim and Levonah are Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa). Again, the Gemara shows that there are Ma'alos in the Torah for Kodshim. (M. KORNFELD)
3) THE PROOF FROM "MEI CHATAS" THAT THE RABANAN MADE A "MA'ALAH" FOR "KEDUSHAS PEH"
QUESTIONS: The Gemara proves from Mei Chatas that Zeri'ah, replanting produce in the ground, does not make Tamei produce of Kodshim and Terumah become Tahor (see previous Insight). RASHI (DH Af Anan) writes that the Gemara proves from Mei Chatas that the Rabanan made their Ma'alah for Kodshim "even [when the Kodshim are sanctified only] with Kedushas Peh."
How can the case of Mei Chatas prove anything about Kodshim of Kedushas Peh? Mei Chatas becomes sanctified by being placed in a Kli, and thus it has Kedushas Kli and not Kedushas Peh. (MAHARSHA)
Moreover, why does Rashi write that the Gemara "proves" that the Rabanan made a Ma'alah even for Kedushas Peh? The Gemara earlier concludes with a doubt whether Ma'alos were made for Kedushas Peh.
(a) The GINZEI YOSEF answers that Kedushas Kli exists only when the item is placed into a Kli Shares, a vessel sanctified for use in the Mikdash (as Rashi writes in DH Teme'os). The Mei Chatas is filled in a normal vessel and not in a Kli Shares.
(b) The Ginzei Yosef's answer to the first question answers the second question as well. The Gemara earlier said that since Terumah is never sanctified with Kedushas Kli but only with Kedushas Peh, its status of Kedushas Peh is as substantial as Kedushas Kli. This means that if something can never be sanctified with Kedushas Kli, then that object's Kedushas Peh is significant enough to give it a Ma'alah.
Accordingly, Rashi is correct when he says that the Gemara proves a point that was already said. The Gemara does not prove that Kedushas Peh is enough to give Kodshim a Ma'alah. Rather, the Gemara proves from Mei Chatas that Kedushas Peh is enough to give a Ma'alah to an object that never has Kedushas Kli, like Terumah. Mei Chatas is a perfect proof for this, because Mei Chatas is never placed in a Kli Shares and never has Kedushas Kli, but only Kedushas Peh. (M. KORNFELD)