Menachos 102 - DO WE CONSIDER IT AS IF
1) DO WE CONSIDER IT AS IF "ZERIKAH" WAS DONE?
(a) Question: It is a Mitzvah to do Zerikah with proper intent, yet the Beraisa teaches that Pigul of Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim is Tahor;
1. Suggestion: This is (even) if Pigul intent was only during Zerikah (a Kosher Zerikah could (and should) have been done!
(b) Answer #1: No, the case is, Pigul was during slaughter (there was never a chance to do a Kosher Zerikah.)
(c) Question: This implies that if Pigul intent was only during Zerikah, it is Tamei;
1. If so, the Beraisa should have distinguished between more similar cases!
2. Instead of teaching that Pigul of a Minchah is Tamei, it should say, Pigul of Zevachim is Tahor only if the bad intent was during slaughter, but if it was during Zerikah, it is Tamei!
(d) Answer: It must teach that Pigul of a Minchah is Tamei - even if he was Mefagel in Kemitzah, which is the analog of slaughter, it is Tamei, for it had She'as ha'Kosher before it was Hukdash.
(e) Answer #2 (to Question (c) and Question 3:g on 101B - Rav Nachman): Here, even if Pigul intent was only during Zerikah, and (regarding Lan) even if time remained in the day for Zerikah, it is Tahor;
1. R. Shimon considers something ready to be redeemed as if it was redeemed, he does not consider blood ready for (proper) Zerikah as if (proper) Zerikah was done (since a necessary *action* was not done; redemption is not considered an action.)
(f) Question (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Me'ilah does not apply to things that had She'as ha'Kosher (were once permitted) to Kohanim, it applies to anything that did not have She'as ha'Kosher to Kohanim.
1. Question: What are cases of something that had She'as ha'Kosher?
2. Answer: It was Lan, Yotzei (left its permitted place to be eaten), or became Tamei.
3. Question: What are things that did not have She'as ha'Kosher?
4. Answer: It was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, Pesulim did Kabalah or Zerikah.
5. Summation of question - suggestion: The Beraisa says that if it was Lan, Yotzei or became Tamei - Lan refers to proper Linah (Zerikah was not done);
i. There is no Me'ilah because we consider it as if Zerikah was done!
(g) Version #1 - Answer #1: No, it means, (Me'ilah does not apply) if it was Lan at a time when it was fitting to be Nifsal (only) on account of Yotzei or Tum'ah (i.e. after Zerikah).
(h) Version #2 - Answer #1: No, it means, if it was fitting to be Nifsal on account of Linah, Yotzei or Tum'ah (i.e. after Zerikah). (End of Version #2)
(i) Objection: This implies that if there was proper Linah (i.e. Zerikah was not done), Me'ilah applies;
1. If so, it should not say that Me'ilah does not (or does) apply to things that (potentially) had (or did not have) She'as ha'Kosher, rather, things that (truly) *have* (or do not have) She'as ha'Kosher!
(j) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Me'ilah is different than Tum'as Ochlim, Me'ilah depends on Kedushah - once the Kedushah vanished (because Zerikah may be done, permitting it), it does not return;
1. Tum'as Ochlim depends on whether or not it is a food - as long as Zerikah was not done, it is not considered food.
(k) Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): (One who is unsure whether or not he transgressed a Lav of Kares brings an Asham Taluy.) If Ploni brought an Asham Taluy and then found out that he did not transgress:
1. If he found out before slaughter, the animal is returned to the herd (it is Chulin);
2. Chachamim say, it is Ro'eh (grazes) until it gets a Mum, then it is redeemed, the money goes to Nedavah (Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach);
3. R. Eliezer says, it is offered - even though he did not sin in this matter, perhaps he sinned in another matter.
4. If he found out after slaughter (it is Pasul), the blood is spilled, the meat is burned (in Beis ha'Sereifah); if the Zerikah was done, the meat may be eaten;
5. R. Yosi says, even if the blood is still in the Kli, Zerikah is done, the meat is eaten.
6. (Rava): R. Yosi holds like R. Shimon, who considers blood ready for Zerikah as if it was thrown.
7. Question: Is that really R. Yosi's reason?!
8. Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): R. Yosi holds that Klei Shares are Mekadesh Pesulim to be offered l'Chatchilah.
(l) Question (Rav Ashi): Since R. Shimon considers blood ready for Zerikah as if it was thrown, he should also consider something that must be burned as if it was burned - why do Nosar and Parah Adumah have Tum'as Ochlim, they are like dust!?
(m) Answer (Rav Kahana): Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir them to Mekabel Tum'ah.
(n) Question (Ravina): (Saying that Nosar and Parah Adumah have Tum'as Ochlim implies that they can become Teme'im like a Rishon (l'Tum'ah) to Metamei others (make them a Sheni). Why do they become Rishonim -) granted, Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir to become Pasul (if touched by Tum'ah) - does it Machshir to be a Rishon?!
1. If so, this should resolve Reish Lakish's question!
2. Question (Reish Lakish): (Tzerid of a Minchah (a part that was not mixed with oil, it was not Huchshar) can become Tamei, on account of Chibas ha'Kodesh.) Does Tzerid only become Pasul, or is it like a Rishon, to Metamei other foods, making them a Sheni?
(o) Answer: They become a Rishon, at least mid'Rabanan; Reish Lakish asks whether or not this is mid'Oraisa
2) A VOW TO BRING A SPECIFIC "KORBAN"
(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven vowed to bring (Minchas) Marcheshes and he brought Machavas or vice-versa, it is Kosher, he did not fulfill his vow.
(b) If he said 'Alai to bring (a Minchah of) two Esronim in one Kli' and he brought them in two Kelim, or vice-versa, it is Kosher, he did not fulfill his obligation.
(c) If he said 'Alai to bring *these* two Esronim of flour in one Kli' and he brought them in two Kelim, or vice-versa, it is Pasul (we cannot say that it is a Nedavah, nor is it Kosher for his vow, for each Kli is lacking; and only one Kometz will be separated, whereas his vow requires two - Rashi. Shitah Mekubetzes - he vowed to bring two Lugim of oil with the flour, but only one Log accompanies the Minchah, for it is in one Kli - this is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.)
(d) If he said 'Alai to bring two Esronim in one Kli' and he brought them in two Kelim, and people told him 'You vowed to bring in one Kli':
1. If he then brought them in two Kelim, it is Pasul (if he brings it for Nedavah, he would have told them - rather, it is for his vow), if he brought them in one Kli, it is Kosher.
(e) If he said 'Alai to bring two Esronim in two Kelim' and he brought them in one Kli, and people told him 'You vowed to bring in two Kelim':
1. If he then brought them in two Kelim, it is Kosher; if he brought them in one Kli, it is like two Menachos that became mixed together (they are Kesherim if and only if he can take a Kometz from each of them by itself. The Mishnah did not make this distinction above, it simply said 'Pasul' - the case was, it was impossible to take a Kometz from each by itself.)
(f) (Gemara): We must teach all these cases:
1. If we only taught the first case, one might have thought that he was not Yotzei (did not fulfill his obligation) because he brought it in a different kind of Kli, but when he brought it in the same kind (but wrong number) of Kelim that he vowed, he was Yotzei
2. If we only taught the second case, one might have thought that he was not Yotzei because he divided the Minchah (into smaller amounts), but when he does not divide it (rather, combines Menachos together) he was Yotzei (even if he cannot take a Kometz from each by itself) - the Seifa teaches, this is not so.
(g) (Beraisa): What he brought is Kosher, he was not Yotzei;
(h) R. Shimon says, (in all of these cases) he was Yotzei. (His 'promise' to bring it in a certain kind or number of Kelim does not take effect.)
(i) (Mishnah): If he vowed 'I will bring *this* in a Machavas' ...
(j) Contradiction (Beraisa): The Kli (that he brings it in) does not Mekadesh it. (If so, why is it Pasul - he can put in the proper Kli!)
(k) Answer (Abaye): The Kli does not Mekadesh it to be Kosher, it is Mekadesh it to be Pasul.
(l) (Abaye and R. Acha bar Chanina): The laws of our Mishnah are only when he specified the Kelim at the time of his vow;
1. If he did not specify at the time of his vow, only at the time he was Makdish, it has no effect - "Ka'asher Nadarta", not like you separated.