לזכות ידיד נפשי ר' אריה בריקנר שליט"א וכל בני ביתו לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם!!
לזכות ידיד נפשי ר' ישראל דניאל וורניק שליט"א וכל בני ביתו לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם!!
Two Understandings of כתותי מכתת שיעוריה
Tosfos in Chullin [140a] inquires if one incorrectly was מקדיש and then מקריב an animal from an עיר הנדחת, is the korban valid, since it is designated for burning? What they mean [Chazon Ish in his comments to Chullin Yo"d 214 and see also the Maharsha there] is that its status of "on deck to be burned" - לשריפה קיימא, means that כתותי מיכתת שיעוריה - its shiur is "crushed".
What is the exact nature of the rule that things that are to be burned are כתותי מכתת שיעוריה? The gemara in Eiruvin says that the doorpost [לחי] of an אשירה [i.e. Avoda Zara] is kosher even though כתותי מכתת שיעוריה. Tosfos explains that we view the doorpost as if it was crushed and is no longer a solid. Since a kosher לחי doesn't have to be solid it is all cool.
According to this, schach from an עיר הנדחת would be kosher because schach doesn't have to be solid. [And as far as the איסור הנאה is concerned we have no problem because מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו - See נודע ביהודה תנינא או"ח קל"ג].
The Meiri [הובא בס' מעשה רוקח בתחילת ח"א ועי' מאירי עירובין י"ד] learns that כתותי מכתת means that it is like dust. If so, it is not so simple one would be able to use something that has the status of כתותי מכתת for schach because it might not be considered פסולת גורן ויקב which is required for schach to be kosher.
Nesachim from wine of Orlah
The gemara [Pesachim 48a] says that נסכים are only kosher with wine that is משקה ישראל - permitted for Jewish consumption. Therefore, wine of ערלה is פסול. The Rambam [Issurei Mizbeach 5-9] writes
"אין מביאין נסכים מערלה ואם הביא לא נתקדשו להיותן ראויין לקרבן אבל נתקדשו להפסל ויהיו כקדשים שנפסלו"
We may not bring נסכים from ערלה and if one brought it anyway it is not valid as a korban but has the status of kodshim that were disqualified.
WHYYY IS IT LIKE KODSHIM? We require a SHIUR of wine and if it is ערלה then we say כתותי מכתת שיעוריה? So "ois kodshim" - it shouldn't be kodshim?? The simple answer is that since נסכים don't require a solid form, we have no problem with כתותי מכתת. But this only works with the first understanding of כתותי מכתת. But according to the Meiri's understanding that it is halachically transformed into dust, the question remains: "Dust" is not wine, so why is it sanctified like kodshim?
Maybe the Meiri holds like those opinions who maintain that we don't apply the rule of כתותי מכתת to ערלה since it does not have to burned.
[ועיין בתשובות מנחת ברוך (סי' צ"ט) דאייתי לקמאי דסברי הכי. ודעת תוספות בסוכה (ל"ה א' ד"ה לפי) אינה כן. ועיין בריטב"א (שם ד"ה והנכון) דכתב דאע"ג דאין חיוב לשרוף הערלה, מכל מקום אמרינן כתותי מכתת שיעוריה.]
A Small Esrog
.
Tosfos in Succah [ל. ד"ה משום] asked why we say that an esrog of an אשירה is pasul because of כתותי מכתת שיעוריה meaning that it lacks a shiur [which is the status of many Yeshiva Buchrim pre-elul. We hope they find a GREAT SHIUR very soon:-)!] when the gemara says that an esrog requires a shiur of an אגוז or כביצה only so that we know that the fruit was ripe [נגמר הפרי]. But an esrog of an אשירה is נגמר הפרי?? So what is the problem? Since no shiur is required an esrog of an אשירה should be kosher?! Tosfos explains that we DO need a shiur because we require that it be recognizable - מינכר לקיחתה. If there is no shiur then it is not recognizable and thus if it has the status of כתותי מכתת it is [halachically] not recognizable. This works nicely if we understand כתותי מכתת שיעוריה the first way - that it "crushes" the object and it thereby loses its solidity and requisite shiur [if the object must be solid like an esrog must be]. But if we understand as the Meiri did - that כתותי מכתת changes the form of the object into dust, the question [since we require נגמר הפרי it should be kosher even if כתותי מכתת] doesn't begin for how can "dust" be kosher as an esrog??
So this analysis leads us to the inescapable conclusion that Tosfos doesn't learn like the Meiri.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!:-)
The animal of an עיר נדחת
Back to where we started. We can understand how an animal of an עיר הנדחת would be pasul according to the Meiri - you can't bring dust as a korban. Boom! But according to Tosfos - WHAT is the problem? An animal doesn't have a "required size", so just as they were inclined to permit an esrog that was כתותי מכתת שיעוריה [when we were still under the impression that it didn't really need a shiur per se - the size was just to ensure that נגמר הפרי], they should also permit an animal that is כתותי מכתת. So what is their problem with the animal of an עיר נדחת? Meaning, that כתותי מכתת שיעוריה is only a problem where there is a requisite shiur. Since a korban doesn't have a requisite shiur, כתותי מכתת shouldn't bother us!!
WHOA!!!
[מאוצרות הגר"א גנחובסקי זצ"ל]
#oceansmoretosay
#odchazonlamoed!
