Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 76

1) LIMITING THE EATING OF TERUMAH TEMPORARILY

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (3:2) which states that it is prohibited to buy food of Terumah with money of Ma'aser Sheni (i.e. money on which produce of Ma'aser Sheni was redeemed). It is prohibited because the Kedushah of Ma'aser Sheni would limit the Terumah to being eaten within the walls of Yerushalayim, and, as a result, the Terumah might not be eaten at all.

If it is prohibited to limit the eating of Terumah in such a manner, then it should be prohibited to use an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim. The Esrog, during Sukos, becomes "set aside for the Mitzvah" and may not be eaten. Even though the Isur to eat the Esrog is only temporary, we find that causing a temporary limitation to the time of eating Terumah is also prohibited. TOSFOS (DH Ein Lokchin) explains that one may not buy Terumah with money of Ma'aser Sheni, because Ma'aser Sheni may not be eaten by an Onen, while Terumah may be eaten by an Onen. Even though the state of Aninus lasts for only one day, Tosfos considers this to be a prohibited limitation of the eating of Terumah. (See CHACHAM TZVI #151.)

The DA'AS TORAH (#665) questions this from the Gemara in Sukah (35b) which gives two reasons why one may not use an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah, but it does not mention the reason of limiting the eating of Terumah!

ANSWERS:

(a) The PEROS TE'ENAH answers that the problem of limiting the eating of Terumah will not always prohibit the use of an Esrog of Terumah, and therefore the other two reasons in the Gemara in Sukah are necessary. For example, if another person already used the Esrog for the Mitzvah, a second person who uses it is not causing it to become prohibited to be eaten, since the first person already caused it to become prohibited.

This answer is problematic, because neither of the two reasons cited in Sukah apply all the time, as the Gemara and Tosfos there point out, and yet the Gemara still mentions them.

(b) Perhaps we may answer that when one wants to use the Terumah in its present state for a purpose that will temporarily limit its eating, it is not considered as though one is causing it to become Pasul. The Isur of "Mevi Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul" applies only when only when one mixes the Terumah with another item or changes the state of the Terumah in some way (see Tosfos 75b, DH Shevi'is) that will limit its eating. In such a case, we must leave the Terumah alone so that it may be eaten. Specifically making the Terumah temporarily prohibited to be eaten is not considered to be making it Pasul. (We may compare it to one who makes a Neder not to eat a piece of Terumah. We do not find that such a Neder is prohibited to make since it causes the Terumah to be limited in its eating. Rather, it is permitted to make such a Neder, since one is not mixing or changing the Terumah and thereby causing a delay in its eating.) (M. Dicker)

76b

QUESTION: The Gemara (76a-b) quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon discusses the procedure for offering the Korban Asham and the Log Shemen of a Safek Metzora. The Gemara asks how can the Log of oil be sprinkled, mi'Safek, towards the Heichal. If the person is not a Metzora and the Log Shemen is a Nedavah, one is not permitted to do an Avodah with it other than offering it on the Mizbe'ach! The Gemara answers that "he places it for the sake of firewood." This refers to Rebbi Eliezer's view that whenever there is a doubt whether a part of a Korban needs to be offered on the Mizbe'ach, one may place it there out of doubt and consider it merely like firewood, as fuel for the fire on the Mizbe'ach. RASHI explains the Gemara's answer to mean that when the Kohen sprinkles the oil for the Matan Sheva, he stipulates that "if the person is a Metzora, then let this sprinkling be his Matan Sheva. If the person is not a Metzora, and no other Avodah may be performed with this oil, then let this sprinkling not be considered an Avodah at all but rather as if I am spraying water into the air." (See TOSFOS who explains the Gemara differently.)

The Acharonim point out that this Gemara seems to contradict the view of the RAMBAM, who rules (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8) that a Kohen is permitted to wear the Avnet only while performing the Avodah. Since the Avnet contains Kil'ayim, it is permitted to be worn only while performing the Mitzvah of the Avodah, which overrides the Isur of wearing Kil'ayim. In the case of our Gemara, how can the Kohen wear the Avnet while performing the Avodah of sprinkling the oil? It might not be an Avodah, and he will be wearing Kil'ayim while not performing an Avodah! On the other hand, he cannot just leave the Avnet off, because he is not allowed to perform the Avodah without wearing all of the Bigdei Kehunah! (See MIZBE'ACH MIKDASH.)

ANSWERS:

(a) The SHO'EL U'MESHIV (2:3:9) addresses this question and answers based on a Halachah recorded in the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 204:8). The REMA rules that if one is forced against his will to eat or drink, he does not recite a Berachah over the food. The MAGEN AVRAHAM and TAZ question this ruling from the Halachah that one who is forced to eat on Yom Kipur because of illness *does* recite a Berachah. There should be no difference between being forced to eat by illness (a condition brought about by Hashem) and being forced to eat by another person! The Sho'el u'Meshiv answers that when the Torah requires an ill person to eat on Yom Kipur, that person derives pleasure from the food, because the act of eating becomes a Mitzvah, and therefore he must recite a Berachah. In contrast, when a person is forced by another person to eat, there is no Mitzvah and he derives no pleasure from eating, and therefore he does not recite a Berachah.

This logic can be applied to the case of a Kohen who must perform an Avodah out of doubt. If the act indeed is an Avodah and a Mitzvah, then the Kohen derives pleasure from wearing the Bigdei Kehunah and the Kil'ayim in the Avnet, but it is permitted because he is doing a Mitzvah. If, on the other hand, the act is not an Avodah, then it is considered as though the Kohen was forced against his will to wear the Bigdei Kehunah because of the possibility that it was an Avodah. Even though the Kohen benefits from wearing the garments of the Bigdei Kehunah, this benefit is against his will and thus he is not considered to be benefiting from Kil'ayim (since the Isur of Kil'ayim applies only when one derives benefit b'Derech Hana'ah, but in this case he is forced to derive benefit).

(b) The BEIS HA'LEVI (1:3) gives an answer based on the Gemara (Berachos 25b, Kidushin 54a) that says that "the Torah was not given to the Mal'achei ha'Shares." It is not possible for the Kohen to wear the Bigdei Kehunah *only* at the moment that he performs the Avodah. There will always be a small amount of time before the Avodah and after the Avodah during which he is wearing the Bigdei Kehunah. It must be that the Torah permits wearing the Bigdei Kehunah as long as one is involved in the Avodah and has intention to perform the Avodah. He may continue wearing the Bigdei Kehunah after performing one Avodah if he intends to perform another Avodah.

Accordingly, in the case of our Gemara, the Kohen dons the Bigdei Kehunah in order to perform another, definite Avodah. He may continue wearing the Bigdei Kehunah in order to perform the Safek Avodah. (According to this answer, the Kohen indeed may not don the Bigdei Kehunah to perform *only* a Safek Avodah. According to the Sho'el u'Meshiv, the Kohen *may* don the Bigdei Kehunah to perform only a Safek Avodah.) (M. Dicker)