Zvachim Daf 44 - sacrificed - Figol about who has Mtiarin
Sacrifices Med Page - Figol about who has Mtiarin
Mishnah on B EA we find a list of cases in which no Figol, since Sfigol is just about who has Mtiarin. Source of this theory is our page, AE meter page and we will pay.
Have a place went to see the essence of this. Is just something that has Mtiarin He can be Figol, and nothing that has Mtiarin has no Figol, or even something that has Mtiarin can be Figol, but something that allows others can not be Figol?
This question will have two Nfeca heresy - something that has Mtiarin, but also does not allow others, and nothing that has Mtiarin, and also allows others.
Add (from CA, DH frankincense) discuss the example of the latter. Frankincense is something that has Mtiarin because Mtiratah ring finger, but it also allows others, because it is allowing the remainder of the supervisor. Add justify two ways, are divided on the basic point we are discussing. The first excuse is that although frankincense is anything that has Mtiarin, the fact that it permits others means that there would be a Figol. The second excuse is because the ring finger next to the altar, but only action front, it is not considered permitting.
Our page, AE meter page, we encounter the first example of the kind - agree. According to Rabbi Meir, the victim's blood allows the agree, and therefore they have Figol. Words of the wise, we find two answers claims of Rabbi Meir. Our issue states that "Adam brings to the altar today Onsachen Where to ten days." Toe EA issue offerings, can be another answer. Scholars argue against the name of Rabbi Meir, that "the meaning of change to sacrifice another."
Ahgree"aza (Renewal sacrificed) explained, there is a fundamental difference between the two flavors. The first taste, brought to us, came to prove that the victim's blood is not permitted to agree. After all, if blood was corn, was the existence required on the injection site. Hence, there is no corn blood but in terms of the work order has to throw the blood before bringing agree. It is like the relationship between slaughter injection. no, we say that the slaughter, it permits the blood injection, but in terms of work order, an earlier work of slaughtering the work of the injection.
The second reason, however, saying that the victim agree to change the victim, came to resume a more radical understanding agree. Although the victim has a lawyer Shiokarbu people agree, we agree to it by themselves do not have any connection to the victim, perpetrator and victim exchanged. That is, not only does not allow the blood to agree, but which have no contact with him.
It seems that the two flavors are made smart method to deal with these two options is understanding the law Sfigol has Mtiarin. The purpose of the first point is to prove that the blood is not considered that permits us to agree, and therefore they can not Loatpgal. While this is useful only by first understanding that we suggested. According to the second understanding, any part of the victim Itpgal, unless he allows others. To reject this contention is dedicated to the second point - the body we agree generally not considered as part of the victim, and therefore it is not Matpgal with him.
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub