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
MENACHOS 101-102 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs.
Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the
merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his
Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
1) REDEEMING AN UNBLEMISHED ANIMAL
QUESTION: Shmuel (100b) states that even Tahor offerings of Menachos and
Nesachim may be redeemed and made into Chulin as long as they have not yet
been placed into a Kli Shares (that is, they were designated as offerings,
but did not yet become Kadosh). Rav Papa says that Shmuel would have
retracted his statement had he been aware of the Beraisa that says that when
a person declares an unblemished animal to be Kadosh as Bedek ha'Bayis (as
opposed to Kedushas ha'Guf), he may not redeem the animal to make it Chulin.
The animal, after it is redeemed, must be offered as a Korban on the
Mizbe'ach, and the money of the redemption must be given to Bedek ha'Bayis.
The Gemara rejects Rav Papa's challenge to Shmuel. Shmuel indeed knew the
Beraisa, but he maintained that the reason the unblemished animal cannot
become Chulin is because unblemished animals that are valid as Korbanos are
rare, for even a cataract in the eye renders an animal unfit. TOSFOS
(Zevachim 59b) explains that this means that this Halachah is a penalty
mid'Rabanan, since one is not allowed, in the first place, to designate an
unblemished animal merely for Bedek ha'Bayis. The person who does so is
penalized, such that when he redeems the animal he must offer the animal as
a Korban and give the money to Bedek ha'Bayis.
However, the Gemara later cites Rebbi Elazar who says that no Minchah
offering that is Tahor may be redeemed, with the exception of a Minchas
Chotei. Rebbi Elazar derives this Halachah from a verse. It is clear that
Rebbi Elazar understands that the Torah itself prohibits redeeming a Minchah
(other than a Minchas Chotei) that is fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.
Why should redeeming a Minchah be prohibited mid'Oraisa, while redeeming an
animal that is unblemished is prohibited only mid'Rabanan?
ANSWER: The EVEN HA'AZEL (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 6:4), SHA'AR HA'MELECH
(Hilchos Erchin 5:7), and TAHARAS HA'KODESH answer that only Shmuel -- who
maintains that even Tahor Menachos and Nesachim may be redeemed --
understands that the Beraisa's Halachah is mid'Rabanan, because of the
scarcity of animals that are fit to be offered as Korbanos. The other
Amora'im, including Rebbi Elazar, maintain that the Beraisa's Halachah --
that anything that was fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach cannot be redeemed
and become Chulin -- is mid'Oraisa.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Erchin 5:7) seems to rule, like the other Amora'im, that
this Halachah is mid'Oraisa, because he cites a verse (Vayikra 27:9) as the
source that an animal fit to be a Korban cannot become Chulin. (D. Bloom)
2) WHEN DOES THE "EGLAH ARUFAH" BECOME "TAMEI"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, as expressed in
a Tosefta in Uktzin, who says that any object from which it is forbidden to
derive benefit does not become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin. One of the objects
mentioned is the Eglah Arufah. RASHI (DH v'Eglah) comments that this refers
to an Eglah Arufah that was slaughtered after it was taken down to the
untilled soil of Nachal Eisan. The act of taking the Eglah down to the
valley causes it to become Asur b'Hana'ah (see Zevachim 70b). TOSFOS (DH
Eglah) explains that the Tosefta clearly is not referring to a calf which
has been beheaded (as is required for the procedure of the Eglah Arufah) and
not slaughtered, because this would cause the calf to become a Neveilah
which certainly is Tamei. This also seems to be the intention of Rashi who
explains that the Tosefta is referring to the Eglah before it is beheaded.
The words of Tosfos seem to conflict with the Gemara in Zevachim (70b). The
Gemara there says that even after the Eglah Arufah is beheaded, it remains
Tahor, because the Torah refers to it as an "atonement" (Devarim 21:8); just
as a Korban -- which atones for a person's sins -- is Tahor, so, too, the
Eglah Arufah is Tahor. Tosfos himself cites the Gemara in Zevachim as a
second interpretation of the Tosefta. Tosfos explains that the Tosefta is
referring to an Eglah after it is beheaded, and, nevertheless, it does not
become Tamei as a Neveilah because the Gemara in Zevachim says that the
beheading of an Eglah Arufah makes it Tahor, just like the Shechitah of
Kodshim. Why does Tosfos ignore the Gemara in Zevachim in his first
interpretation of the Tosefta?
ANSWER: The OR GADOL (to Mishnayos Chulin 5:3) cites the TOSFOS in Yoma
(64b, DH Dechiyaso) who writes as follows. There is a dispute between Rebbi
Meir and Rebbi Shimon regarding whether a "Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah" -- a
Shechitah that was performed properly but that does not permit the animal to
be eaten -- has the title of "Shechitah" (for various Halachic purposes
other than for eating). Tosfos points out that if the beheading of an Eglah
Arufah makes it Tahor, it is because the beheading is considered to be the
"Shechitah" of the Eglah. Therefore, it is no better than Shechitah
she'Einah Re'uyah. Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that a Shechitah she'Einah
Re'uyah is not considered a proper Shechitah and does not prevent the animal
from becoming Tamei as a Neveilah, will maintain that the beheading of an
Eglah Arufah does not prevent it from becoming Tamei as a Neveilah.
The reason why Rashi, and Tosfos in his first explanation, refrain from
explaining that the Eglah Arufah does not have Tum'as Neveilah if it is
beheaded is because they are explaining Rebbi Shimon's opinion. Rebbi Shimon
maintains that when an Eglah Arufah is beheaded, it does become Tamei
because of Neveilah, since Rebbi Shimon maintains that Shechitah she'Einah
Re'uyah is not considered a proper Shechitah. The Gemara in Zevachim,
though, is referring to the opinions that disagree with Rebbi Shimon and
maintain that Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah *is* considered a proper Shechitah
and does prevent an animal from becoming a Neveilah. According to those
opinions, the beheading of an Eglah Arufah prevents the Eglah from become
Tamei as a Neveilah.
Tosfos, in his second explanation, apparently takes a different approach to
understanding the Gemara in Zevachim (70b) that teaches that the beheading
of an Eglah Arufah prevents it from becoming Tamei as a Neveilah. Tosfos
understands that the beheading prevents the animal from becoming Tamei not
because the beheading is equivalent to the Shechitah of Kodshim, but because
of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that teaches that even though the beheading is not a
valid Shechitah, nevertheless the laws of Tum'ah of Neveilah do not apply.
Accordingly, even though Rebbi Shimon maintains that the laws of Tum'as
Neveilah do apply to Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, nevertheless they do not
apply to an Eglah that was beheaded, because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that
teaches that despite the fact that there was no Shechitah, Tum'as Neveilah
does not apply.