TEMURAH 23 (10 Av) - Dedicated by Mrs. Gitti Kornfeld in memory of her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel, whose Yahrzeit is on 10 Av.

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that states that when a Korban has very little meat from which to eat, the Kohen may add Chulin and Terumah to it so that the Kodshim should be eaten while he is satiated. This is derived from the verse regarding the Sheyarei ha'Minchah (the remainder of the Minchah), which states, "And that which remains from it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons... in the courtyard of the Ohel Mo'ed it shall be eaten" (Vayikra 6:9). The repetition of the words "it shall be eaten" teaches that it should even be eaten with Chulin and Terumah if necessary, in order that it be eaten when satiated.
Many Korbanos (including Menachos) may be eaten only in the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since there is a prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah (Devarim 12:21; see Background to Menachos 80:15), how can the Kohen eat the Korban together with Chulin and Terumah?
(a) RASHI (DH Yochlu) answers that the Gemara does not say that the Chulin and Terumah should be eaten together in the same place with the Kodshim. Rather, the Gemara means that if there is not a large quantity of Kodshim to eat, the Kohen should first eat some Chulin or Terumah outside of the Azarah, and then he should enter the Azarah and finish his meal with whatever Kodshim he needs to eat.
(b) TOSFOS here (DH Ochlin) and in a number of other places (Pesachim 66b, DH Mevi'ah; Bava Basra 81b, DH v'Dilma, Chulin 130b, DH Iy) says that the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah applies only to objects with which some form of Avodah is being performed (such as Tenufah or Hagashah). Bringing an ordinary object of Chulin (such as an unsanctified animal) into the Azarah is not prohibited unless one does an Avodah with that object (such as Shechitah to the animal). Tosfos in Chulin proves this from the Gemara in Menachos (21b) that says that the Kohanim would bring spices and condiments into the Azarah with which to eat their Menachos with more appetite. Moreover, as Tosfos here points out, there is no prohibition against entering the Azarah while one is wearing clothes of Chulin (see Yoma 30a).
(c) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#20) quotes a similar answer to that of Tosfos. He says that the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah applies only if that item is sometimes used as a Korban. If it is never used as a Korban, then it is permitted.
The difference between this answer and the answer of Tosfos is whether one is permitted to bring an animal, such as a bull, of Chulin into the Azarah without any intention to offer it as a Korban. According to Tosfos, bringing such an animal into the Azarah is permitted, while according to the Shitah Mekubetzes it is forbidden.
Rashi, who apparently disagrees with Tosfos and the Shitah Mekubetzes, maintains that there is no exception to the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah. The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Shechitah 2:3, DH veha'Nir'eh Etzli Lomar) asks that the Gemara in Pesachim (66b) seems to contradict Rashi's view. The Gemara there states that Hillel declared that in order to avoid committing Me'ilah with Korbanos, one should always bring his Korban into the Azarah as Chulin, and only then consecrate the animal as Hekdesh and offer it as a Korban. According to Tosfos, bringing a Chulin animal into the Azarah is not prohibited because the person is not planning to do an Avodah with the Chulin item (rather, he is going to sanctify the animal and afterwards offer it). According to Rashi, however, how can Hillel permit a person to bring an animal of Chulin into the Azarah? (Although the Mishnah l'Melech discusses only the views of Rashi and Tosfos, his question seems to apply to the opinion of the Shitah Mekubetzes as well.)
The Mishneh l'Melech answers that bringing Chulin into the Azarah when it is for the sake of a Korban ("Tzorech Korban") is permitted, even according to Rashi.
The Mishneh l'Melech apparently understands that "Tzorech Korban" refers to anything that is done before offering the Korban in order to facilitate offering the Korban. After all, eating the Korban is also an important part of the Korban, and yet Rashi clearly maintains that bringing Chulin into the Azarah for the purpose of eating the Korban is not permitted. (Y. MONTROSE)
(See Insights to Chulin 130:4 for a discussion of the various opinions with regard to the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah.)


QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Shekalim (6:5) that discusses the thirteen collection boxes ("Shofaros") that were in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Six of them, the Mishnah states, were designated for the collection of money for Nedavah (free will) offerings.
Why were six such boxes necessary? The Gemara in Menachos (107b) and Shekalim (18b) records two opinions.
Chizkiyah explains that the six Shofaros were designated for the six Batei Avos of each Mishmar. Each Mishmar served for one week, and each Beis Av of the Mishmar served for one day of the week. All of the Batei Avos performed the Avodah together on Shabbos. If there would have been only one box for the Nedavos, then the Beis Av of the first day would have been able to bring as many Nedavos as they want (benefiting from the meats and hides of the Korbanos), and it would have been possible that nothing would be left for any of the other Batei Avos of that Mishmar. In order to avoid strife among the Batei Avos, six boxes were set aside so that each Beis Av could bring whatever was in their box.
Ze'iri explains that each box corresponds to a different type of animal brought as a Korban: a bull, calf, sheep, ram, kid, and goat. TOSFOS (DH v'Shishah) explains that if a person has money left over from a pledge that he made to bring a bull-offering, he puts that money into the "bull" box. In this way, his original intention will be fulfilled. Tosfos continues and says that although the Gemara in Shevuos (12b) records an opinion that the leftover monies are used to bring an Olas ha'Of, this is only b'Di'eved. L'Chatchilah, it is preferable to bring the type of animal that was originally specified.
The RASHASH has difficulty with Tosfos' explanation. The Gemara in Menachos is not discussing a person who had money left over from a pledge to bring a Korban. Rather, it is discussing a person who pledged to bring a bull, ram, or other specific type of animal. The person would place the money for his Korban into the appropriate box. The Gemara there compares the statement of Ze'iri to that of Rebbi, who says that if one pledges to bring a small type of animal as a Korban and instead brings a large type of animal, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This implies that if the correct animal was offered, then there is no need to ensure that any leftover money is used to bring the same type of animal. As long as the correct animal (that the person pledged to bring) was brought, it does not matter what animal is brought with the leftover money. Accordingly, the Gemara in Shevuos is not relevant, because it is discussing leftover money from pledges, while the Gemara in Menachos is discussing an obligation to bring a specific type of animal. The words of RASHI in Menachos (DH k'Neged) seem to support the assertion of the Rashash.
What is the intention of Tosfos here?
ANSWER: The OLAS SHLOMO in Menachos points out that the Mishnah in Shekalim quotes the teaching of Yehoyada ha'Kohen with regard to the Korbanos bought with the money of the six Shofaros. Yehoyada ha'Kohen's teaching, as quoted in the Gemara here as well, clearly refers to leftover money from a pledge to bring a Korban. Accordingly, the Olas Shlomo asserts that Tosfos understands that the Gemara in Menachos is discussing leftover money from a pledge to bring a specific Korban. Why, though, does Tosfos understand that the Gemara there refers to leftover money from a pledge to bring a Korban? The Gemara clearly compares Ze'iri's statement to the Halachah that one who brings a large type of animal instead of the small type that he pledged does not fulfill his obligation. In the case that Tosfos is discussing, the Korban has already been brought, and the owner has already fulfilled his obligation!
The Olas Shlomo explains that the Gemara means simply that the leftover money may not be used for anything besides the Korban originally pledged. Since Rebbi maintains that one cannot change the type of animal that he pledged (even from a small type to a large type) because he will not fulfill his pledge with such an animal, he also maintains that this applies to all types of money pledged. Just as the individual cannot change the nature of his pledge, the Tzibur does not have the right to change the leftover money to any other type of animal. (Y. MONTROSE)