THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) THE "SHTEI HA'LECHEM" BECOMING "KADOSH" WHEN THEY ARE BAKED
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that if four loaves were
prepared instead of two loaves for the Shtei ha'Lechem, two are taken in
order to do the Tenufah (waving the loaves together with the Kevasim, both
when the Kevasim are alive and after they are slaughtered), and two are
"redeemed" and eaten by the Kohanim. The Gemara says that the Beraisa can
even be according to the view of Rebbi, even though he maintains that the
Shtei ha'Lechem become Kadosh when the Kevasim are slaughtered.
The Gemara asks that the Beraisa does not seem to be following the view of
Rebbi. How can the extra loaves be redeemed after they have already become
Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf at the time of the Shechitah of the Kevasim? The
Beraisa cannot mean that they can be redeemed outside of the Beis
ha'Mikdash, because, since they are Kadosh, it is forbidden to bring them
outside! On the other hand, the Beraisa also cannot mean that they can be
redeemed inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, because they would then become Chulin
in the Azarah, and once is not allowed to bring Chulin into the Azarah. The
Gemara answers that according to Rebbi, there is no prohibition to redeem an
object of Kedushah that is already inside the Azarah and make it Chulin. The
prohibition is only to *bring* a Chulin item into the Azarah.
TOSFOS (DH l'Olam) points that the baking of the loaves in the oven does not
give the loaves the Kedushah of a Korban; only the Shechitah of the Kevasim
gives Kedushah to the loaves. This is because all four are not fit to be
brought as the Shtei ha'Lechem; only two loaves are fit. Normally, though,
when only two loaves are baked, they become Kadosh when they are baked (see
The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH (on the Rambam, published at the end of SEFER HAR
HA'MORIYAH) has difficulty with Tosfos' question. Why does Tosfos think that
the baking of the Shtei ha'Lechem should make them Kadosh any more than the
Shechitah of the Kivsei Atzeres makes them Kadosh? Rebbi holds that the
Shechitah makes them Kadosh, and that the Kedushah that they get at that
time is an even more specific Kedushah than the Kedushah they get when they
are baked, and yet he still holds that loaves may be redeemed! Why, then,
should we be concerned about the Kedushah they attain when they are baked?
(a) The CHOK NASAN explains that Tosfos is justified in suspecting that the
Kedushah given by the baking is more than the Kedushah of the Shechitah.
This is because the Kedushah given by the oven is due to the fact that the
loaves are baked *inside* of the oven which itself is Kadosh, and the Torah
says with regard to the Klei Shares, "Kol ha'Noge'a Bahem Yikdash" --
"whatever touches them becomes Kadosh" (Shemos 30:29). The Shechitah of the
Kevasim, in contrast, does not make the loaves Kadosh through "touching,"
leaving a doubt about whether we can prove from the fact that the Shechitah
(in the case of the Gemara) does not give Kedushah to the loaves that the
oven does not give Kedushah to the loaves.
This explanation is consistent with Tosfos' explanation of the Gemara in
Me'ilah (9a). The Mishnah there states that once the "face of the loaf
becomes baked" ("Karmu Paneha," the exact definition of which is subject to
discussion among the Rishonim), the loaves are able to become Pasul by being
touched by a person who is a Tevul Yom. If the loaves become Kadosh by being
inside the oven, then why does the Mishnah say that they reach this degree
of Kedushah when they become partially baked? Being placed in the oven
should suffice! Tosfos there (8a, DH Karmu) explains that the reason why the
oven is not Mekadesh the loaves right away is because a Kli Shares is only
Mekadesh what is placed into it when it performs the functions to the Korban
for which it is designated. Since the purpose of the oven is to bake the
loaves, the Kedushah does not occur until they are partially baked.
(b) The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH suggests that Tosfos is asking an entirely
different question. The Gemara's question is based on the fact that Rebbi
holds that the Shechitah of the Kivsei Atzeres is Mekadesh the Shtei
ha'Lechem. Tosfos does not understand why this question should be based on
Rebbi's opinion. According to everyone, the loaves become Kadosh when they
are in the oven! This alone should make them able to become Pasul if they
are taken outside to be redeemed, and it should create a problem of Chulin
in the Azarah if they are redeemed in the Azarah.
(c) The Birkas ha'Zevach suggests another possible explanation. Tosfos is
asking his question according to Rav Chisda, who says that the Beraisa could
be following the view of Rebbi. Since Rebbi himself says that the oven is
Mekadesh its contents (see 72b), why does a Beraisa -- that is following the
view of Rebbi -- make the Kedushah contingent on the Shechitah? It should
simply say that if all four loaves were *baked* for the Shtei ha'Lechem,
then two should be used for the Tenufah and two should be redeemed, because
they have Kedushah from the time they are partially baked (and not just from
when the Kevasim are slaughtered).
The Chok Nasan rejects both of these possibilities for one reason. He
explains that Tosfos himself says earlier (46a, DH v'Eizo) that the Kedushah
of the oven *does not* cause the loaves to become Pasul if they are
subsequently taken out of the Azarah. This negates the part of the question
which asks that they cannot be taken outside the Azarah since they will
become Pasul because of "Yotzei." Only the Shechitah can make the loaves
become Pasul because of "Yotzei." It is therefore illogical to say that
Tosfos is suggesting that the Beraisa should have expressed the Halachah
differently. (Y. Montrose)
2) "KIVSEI ATZERES" THAT ARE SLAUGHTERED "SHE'LO K'MITZVASAN"
OPINIONS: The Gemara cites Rav Yitzchak who says that Kivsei Atzeres that
are slaughtered "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan" are Pasul, and they should be left
overnight and then taken to be burned. What does Rav Yitzchak mean when he
says that they were slaughtered "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan"?
(a) RASHI (DH Ki Asa) in his first explanation explains that this means that
the Korbanos are slaughtered with intention that they are a different
TOSFOS (DH Kivsei Atzeres) has difficulty with this explanation. We know
that the Mishnah in Zevachim (2a) says that all Korbanos are valid even if
they are done with intention that they are a different Korban, with the
except of a Korban Pesach and a Chatas, which are Pasul if done with the
wrong intention. If Kivsei Atzeres are also Pasul when slaughtered with the
wrong intention, then why does the Mishnah at the beginning of Zevachim not
include them, together with Pesach and Chatas, in the list of exemptions?
1. Tosfos answers for Rashi that although the Tana of the Mishnah in
Zevachim agrees that the Kivsei Atzeres slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah are Pasul
like Pesach and Chatas, the Tana did not want to mention Kivsei Atzeres
because "it was not absolutely certain for him to exclude Shelamim." What
does Tosfos mean?
The TZON KODASHIM explains that Tosfos understands that the Tana omitted
Kivsei Atzeres out of a concern that one might mistakenly think that all
other Shelamim are also Pasul when slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah.
(b) Rashi quotes another explanation of "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan" in the name of
"HA'MOREH" and the GE'ONIM. They explained that this means that the Kevasim
that were slaughtered were two years old, instead of one year old.
The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH explains that Tosfos means that the Tana in Zevachim
lists only general Korbanos which are exceptions, and not specific Korbanos.
He mentions Pesach and Chatas, because those are general types of Korbanos
which include all types of Pesach and Chatas. He does not include Kivsei
Atzeres, because that is a specific form of Shelamim.
2. Alternatively, Tosfos suggests that the Tana in Zevachim is listing only
Korbanos that are important in their own right, and not Korbanos which are
brought only because of another Korban (such as the Kivsei Atzeres which are
brought only because of the Shtei ha'Lechem).
However, Tosfos rejects Rashi's explanation because of the Beraisa cited
earlier (48a). The Beraisa explicitly states that in a case in which the
Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered with intention that they are a different
Korban, the Zerikah should still be performed and the meat should be eaten.
Why does the Gemara not ask how Rav Yitzchak, an Amora, can say that the
Korban is Pasul, when the Beraisa earlier contradicts his statement?
Rashi says that this explanation is insufficient, because it does not fit
into the words of Rav Yitzchak. Rav Yitzchak says that the problem is that
the Kevasim were "slaughtered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan. If the problem is that
they were too old, then Rav Yitzchak should say that they were "offered"
she'Lo k'Mitzvasan, since the problem is related to their intrinsic state
and is not related to something that occurred during the Shechitah.
Tosfos answers Rashi's question and explains that Rav Yitzchak does not say
that the Kevasim were "offered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan because he wants to imply
not only a case of an animal that was too old, but also a case of an animal
that was too young (less than one year old).
Tosfos' answer is not clear. The fact that the animal is Pasul because it is
too young, or too old, still has nothing to do with the Shechitah of the
animal! How does this answer Rashi's question?
The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Tosfos is giving a reason why Rav Yitzchak
does not use the word "offered" instead of "slaughtered." Since an animal
that is too young *may* be offered as a Korban when it is older, we cannot
say that the animal is Pasul to be offered. This is why Rav Yitzchak chooses
to say "slaughtered" instead.
The Tzon Kodashim has difficulty with Tosfos for the same reason that Tosfos
has difficulty with Rashi. The Beraisa earlier (48a) discusses a case in
which the Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered before or after their time, and
the Beraisa said that they are valid b'Di'eved. How, then, can Rav Yitzchak
say that they are Pasul in such a case, without the Gemara questioning his
statement from the earlier Beraisa? (See KEREN ORAH.) (Y. Montrose)