OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the opinion of Rebbi Shimon regarding blood of
Korbanos which is ready to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Shimon
maintains that such blood is considered to have been sprinkled on the
Mizbe'ach already. Similarly, according to Rebbi Shimon, an object which the
Torah requires to be destroyed is considered to have been destroyed even
before it is physically burned. The Chachamim argue and maintain that it is
not considered destroyed until it is actually burned.
Which opinion does the Halachah follow?
(a) RASHI (102a, DH Me'ilah Mishum) writes that the Halachah follows the
opinion of Rebbi Shimon. The RAN (Gitin 10a, of the pages of the Rif) states
that even though a Get written on an object from which it is forbidden to
derive benefit is a valid Get, a Get written on an object that the Torah
requires to be destroyed (such as a loaf of Chametz on Pesach) is invalid
according to Rebbi Shimon, because Rebbi Shimon views the material on which
the Get was written as already destroyed and non-existent. The BEIS SHMUEL
(EH 124:2) explains that we consider the letters of the Get as floating in
the air.
The REMA (EH 124:1) rules like the Ran.
(b) The CHELKAS MECHOKEK (EH 124:1) writes that he does not understand why
the Rema cites the Ran, since the Ran's statement was said only according to
the view of Rebbi Shimon, while the Halachah follows the view of the
Chachamim. The Chelkas Mechokek asserts that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei
ha'Mukdashin 4:19) rules according to the Chachamim as well.
The SHA'AR HA'MELECH (Hilchos Gerushin 4:2) cites the PRI CHADASH (EH 124:1,
DH u'me'Atah) who cites further proof that the Rambam rules like the
Chachamim. The Gemara asks that according to Rebbi Shimon, how can a Parah
Adumah and Nosar become Tamei? Since the Torah requires that they be burned,
we should consider them to be burned already, and thus they should not be
able to become Tamei. The Gemara answers that because these objects are
holy, they are an exception to Rebbi Shimon's rule and they are able to
become Tamei even though they are supposed to be destroyed (see following
Insight). We may infer from the Gemara's words that objects that are not
holy, but which the Torah requires to be destroyed, do not become Tamei.
However, the Rambam (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlin 1:25) rules that fruit of Orlah
and other prohibited objects that must be burned *can* become Tamei. This
implies that the Rambam does not learn like Rebbi Shimon, but rather like
the Chachamim who say that objects which must be burned are not considered
to be destroyed until they are actually burned.
Therefore, the Pri Chadash rules that a Get written on an object that must
be destroyed is a valid Get. (D. Bloom)
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the opinion of Rebbi Shimon regarding blood of
Korbanos which is ready to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Shimon
maintains that such blood is considered to have been sprinkled on the
Mizbe'ach already. Similarly, according to Rebbi Shimon, an object which the
Torah requires to be destroyed is considered to have been destroyed even
before it is physically burned. Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana that according to
Rebbi Shimon, why are a Parah Adumah and Nosar subject to Tum'as Ochlin?
Since the Torah requires that they be burned, we should consider them to be
destroyed already and non-existent, and they should not be able to become
Tamei!
Rav Kahana answered that "Chibas ha'Kodesh" makes the Parah Adumah and Nosar
fit to become Tamei. Even though they are considered to be nothing more than
ashes according to Rebbi Shimon, nevertheless their special quality of being
Kadosh makes them fit to become Tamei.
The principle that "Chibas ha'Kodesh" makes the Parah Adumah fit to become
Tamei can be questioned from a Rebbi Shimon's statement earlier (101b),
where Rebbi Shimon states that a Parah Adumah can become Tamei with Tum'as
Ochlin, even though it is not proper food since it is forbidden to be eaten.
It becomes Tamei because it was considered proper food, and was permitted to
be eaten, before it was designated to be used as a Parah Adumah.
Why does the Gemara earlier say that the reason a Parah Adumah can become
Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin is because it is considered to be food, since it
was once permitted to be eaten, and the Gemara does not give the reason of
"Chibas ha'Kodesh" as the Gemara here says?
ANSWER: TOSFOS (Bava Kama 77a, DH Parah) answers in the name of the RI that
the principle of "Chibas ha'Kodesh" applies only to objects that are not
considered food. "Chibas ha'Kodesh" makes them fit to become Tamei even
though they are not food. However, "Chibas ha'kodesh" cannot make forbidden
food -- such as the Parah Adumah -- become permitted food and become fit to
become Tamei. An additional reason is necessary in order for Parah Adumah to
be able to become Tamei. Therefore, the Gemara earlier says that since it
was once permitted food, it is considered food now and can become Tamei.
(See also Tosfos 101a, end of DH Pigel, and SHITAH MEKUBETZES #7.)
This answer resolves another difficulty. The Gemara in Pesachim (17a) states
that liquids in the Beis ha'Mikdash can never become Tamei. Mid'Oraisa, *no*
liquids can become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin; the Torah teaches that although
they are edible food items, liquids do not become Tamei. The Chachamim
decreed that ordinary liquids can become Tamei, but they did not apply the
decree to liquids that are Kodesh. Why, though, does "Chibas ha'Kodesh" not
make the liquids be considered like food and become fit to be Mekabel
Tum'ah? (See SHITAH MEKUBETZES to Bava Kama 77a, DH Hiksheh, in the name of
RABEINU MOSHE.)
The answer is that "Chibas ha'Kodesh" can only add an element to an object
(such as by giving an inedible object the status of food). It cannot remove
something from an item. It cannot remove the prohibition against eating the
Parah Adumah. Similarly, it cannot remove the Torah's Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that
liquids do not become Tamei. (D. Bloom)