1) CAN A “KORBAN TZIBUR” BE DIVIDED? (Cont.)

(a) (Rav Papa): They argue about whether or not the Tzitz is Meratzeh for food (that Zerikah should permit as if all the food was Tahor, but it does not permit Tamei food to be eaten):
1. Chachamim say that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for food, R. Yehudah says that it is not.
(b) Question #1 (Rav Huna brei d’Rav Noson): (All agree that) the Tzitz is Meratzeh for Olin (things offered on the Mizbe’ach), yet they argue about them!
1. (It is known that if a Korban Tzibur cannot be brought in Taharah, it may be brought in Tum’ah.)
2. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): If one of the Bazichim became Tamei, both may be offered in Tum’ah, for a Korban Tzibur is never divided;
3. Chachamim say, each is offered as it is (we may not allow the Tahor one to become Tamei.)
(c) Question #2 (Rav Ashi – Beraisa – R. Yehudah): Even if (the majority of) one Shevet is Tamei and the rest are Tehorim, all may bring Korban Pesach in Tum’ah, for a Korban Tzibur is never divided;
1. Korban Pesach does not depend on Ritzuy Tzitz (and the Tzitz never helps for Tum’as ha’Guf!)
(d) Question #3 (Ravina – Mishnah – R. Yehudah): If one loaf or Seder became Tamei, both (loaves or Sedarim) are burned in Beis ha’Sereifah, *for a Korban Tzibur is never divided*;
1. Chachamim say, the Tamei one is burned, the Tahor one is eaten.
2. If R. Yehudah argues because he holds that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh for food, this should be his reason!
(e) (R. Yochanan): Rather, R. Yehudah had a tradition that a Korban Tzibur is never divided.
2) THE “ZEVACH” IS “MEFAGEL” THE BREAD, NOT VICE-VERSA
(a) (Mishnah): Intent (Chutz li’Zmano) in a Todah is Mefagel the bread that accompanies it, intent for the bread is not Mefagel the Todah:
1. If one slaughtered a Todah with intent to eat it tomorrow, it and the bread are Pigul;
2. If one slaughtered it with intent to eat the bread tomorrow, the bread is Pigul, the Todah is not.
(b) Intent in the lambs (Shalmei Tzibur) is Mefagel the bread (Shtei ha’Lechem), intent for the bread is not Mefagel the lambs:
1. If one slaughtered the lambs with intent to eat them tomorrow, they and the bread are Pigul;
2. If one slaughtered it with intent to eat the bread tomorrow, the bread is Pigul, the lambs are not.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the reason?
(d) Answer #1: The reason is like Rav Kahana taught:
1. (Rav Kahana): Lachmei Todah are called Todah – “V’Hikriv Al Zevach *ha’Todah Chalos*” (it would have been more natural to say ‘V’Hikriv Chalos Al Zevach ha’Todah’ – the Torah switched the order in order to read “ha’Todah Chalos”.
2. Question: If so, also intent for the bread should Mefagel the Todah!
3. Answer: Lachmei Todah are called Todah, but Todah is not called bread.
(e) Objection: This does not explain why intent in the lambs is Mefagel its bread – Shtei ha’Lechem are not called lambs!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, Lachmei Todah are secondary to the Todah (and Shtei ha’Lechem are secondary to the lambs), not vice-versa.
(g) The Mishnah must teach both of these:
1. If it only taught Todah, one might have thought that intent in Lachmei Todah does not Mefagel Todah because they are not waved with it, but intent for Shtei ha’Lechem is Mefagel the lambs, for they are waved together!
2. (If it only taught the lambs, one might have thought that they are Mefagel Shtei ha’Lechem because they are waved together, but intent for Todah is not Mefagel Lachmei Todah, for they are not waved together.)
(h) Version #1 – Question (R. Elazar): If one slaughtered a Todah with intent to eat a k’Zayis of it and the bread tomorrow (half a k’Zayis of each), what is the law?
1. Clearly, it does not Mefagel the Todah – even intent for a full Shi’ur of bread does not Mefagel the Todah, all the more so a Shi’ur combined of two things!
2. The question is, does it Mefagel the bread – do the intents join?
(i) Answer (Rav): Also in your case, the bread is Pigul, the Todah is not.
(j) Question: A Kal va’Chomer teaches differently!
1. Version #1 (Rashi): Todah joins (with bread) to make (something else, i.e. the bread) Pigul, yet it does not become Pigul – bread does not (join Todah to) make (the Todah) Pigul, all the more so it does not become Pigul!
2. Version #2 (Ha’Sar mi’Kutzi, in Shitah (15B [4]): Bread does not join to make Pigul, yet it becomes Pigul – Todah joins to make Pigul, all the more so it becomes Pigul! (End of Version #2)
3. Question: We do not make such Kal va’Chomerim!
15b—————————————15b

i. (Beraisa): A case occurred, Reuven planted (his own) seeds (of other species) in Shimon’s vineyard; Chachamim forbade what grew from the seeds, and permitted the vines.
ii. We do not make a Kal va’Chomer (like above) to say that the vines forbid, yet they do not become forbidden – the seeds do not forbid, all the more so they do not become forbidden!
4. Answer: Indeed, we make such Kal va’Chomerim, but here, the vines were permitted mid’Oraisa:
5. Version #1 (Rashi): The Torah only forbids Kilai ha’Kerem with (grain or) hemp and Luf (certain legumes) (for the seeds do not degenerate; alternatively, they grow on clusters, like grapes; Rambam – they produce after three years, the same time that grapes become permitted, after three years of Orlah);
i. ((Mishnah): If hemp or Luf were planted in a field, other seeds may not be planted there for three years, for these plants produce after three years – some texts omit this.)
6. Version #2 (R. Chayim, in Shitah): Does Kilai ha’Kerem apply (mid’Oraisa) only with hemp and Luf, but all other species are mid’Rabanan?! (Surely, the Mishnah does not mean this, all are mid’Oraisa!)
7. Here, the vines are permitted (mid’Oraisa) because a person cannot forbid another’s property; (end of Version #2)
i. Chachamim fined to punish (only) Reuven, for he transgressed.
(k) Question (j) remains, a Kal va’Chomer opposes Rav!
(l) Version #2 – Question (R. Elazar): If one slaughtered the lambs with intent to eat a k’Zayis of them and the bread (Shtei ha’Lechem) tomorrow, what is the law?
1. Clearly, it does not Mefagel the lambs – even intent for a full Shi’ur of bread does not Mefagel the lambs, all the more so a Shi’ur combined of two things!
2. The question is, does it Mefagel the bread – do the intents join?
(m) Answer (Rav): Also in your case, the bread is Pigul, the lambs are not.
(n) Question: A Kal va’Chomer teaches differently!
1. The lambs (join to) make Pigul, yet they do not become Pigul – bread does not (join to) make Pigul, all the more so it does not become Pigul! (Rashi; Ha’Sar mi’Kutzi – the Kal va’Chomer teaches that the lambs become Pigul.)
2. Question: The Beraisa (of Kilai ha’Kerem) shows that we do not make such Kal va’Chomerim!
3. Answer: Indeed, we make such Kal va’Chomerim, but this case was different, it was only Kilayim mid’Rabanan (Rashi – the Torah only forbids hemp and Luf; R. Chayim – because a person cannot forbid another’s property);
i. Chachamim fined to punish (only) Reuven, for he transgressed.
(o) Question (n) remains, a Kal va’Chomer opposes Rav’s teaching!
(p) Version #1 surely agrees with Version #2 (that Rav would say that the lambs and Shtei ha’Lechem join to forbid the bread), but Version #2 (possibly) argues with Version #1:
1. Rav says that the lambs and bread join, for they must be waved together, but Todah does not join its bread, for they are not waved together!
(q) Version #3 – R. Aba Zuti – Question (R. Elazar): If one slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat a k’Zayis of Chaveiro (its colleague) tomorrow, what is the law?
1. Perhaps he refers to the other lamb, it does not become Pigul;
2. Or, perhaps he refers to the bread, it becomes Pigul!
(r) Answer (Rav – Mishnah): If one slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat it tomorrow, it is Pigul, the other lamb is Kosher;
1. If he slaughtered it with intent to eat a k’Zayis of Chaveiro tomorrow, both of them are Kesherim.
2. This implies that Chaveiro refers to the other lamb!
(s) Rejection: Perhaps the case is, he specified ‘to eat a k’Zayis of the other lamb’.
3) “PIGUL” OF “NESACHIM” AND “LOG METZORA”
(a) (Mishnah – R. Meir): (Intent Chutz li’Zmano in) a Zevach is Mefagel its Nesachim if the Nesachim were already Mekudash in a Kli Shares, the Nesachim are not Mefagel the Zevach:
1. If a Zevach was slaughtered with intent to eat from it tomorrow, it and its Nesachim are Pigul;
2. If it was slaughtered with intent to offer its Nesachim tomorrow, the Nesachim are Pigul, the Zevach is not Pigul.
(b) (Beraisa – R. Meir): Pigul applies to Niskei Behemah, because the blood permits them to be offered;
1. Chachamim: The Nesachim can be brought 10 days after the animal (you cannot say that the blood permits them)!
2. R. Meir: I only discuss when the Nesachim are brought on the same day.
3. Chachamim (our text, Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes – the Gemara asks this question): One can decide to bring the Nesachim for a different Zevach!
(c) Answer (Rava): R. Meir holds that slaughter is Kove’a (fixes) Nesachim to be brought with the Zevach (they cannot be brought for a different Zevach), just like it is Kove’a Lachmei Todah.
(d) (Beraisa – R. Meir): Pigul applies to the Lug of oil of a Metzora, because the blood of the Asham permits putting the oil on the (ear and) Behonos (thumb and toe).
1. Chachamim: The oil can be brought 10 days after the Asham (you cannot say that the blood permits it)!
2. R. Meir: I only discuss when it is brought with the Asham.
3. Chachamim (Shitah – the Gemara asks this): The oil can be brought for a different Asham Metzora!
(e) Answer (Rava): R. Meir holds that slaughter is Kove’a the oil to be brought with the Asham, just like it is Kove’a Lachmei Todah.