QUESTION: The Mishnah (99b) states that when Yom Kippur occurs on Erev Shabbos, the Se'ir of Musaf is eaten at night, on Shabbos, after Yom Kippur. However, since it could not be cooked, it was eaten raw by the Kohanim from Bavel, who were accustomed to eating raw meat. The Gemara says that these Kohanim were not actually from Bavel, but from Alexandria (Egypt). However, since the Chachamim in Eretz Yisrael held the Babylonian Jews in low esteem, they used the term "Babylonians" as a way of referring degradingly to the Kohanim who ate raw meat.

TOSFOS (DH she'Son'im) explains that it was permitted for the Chachamim in Eretz Yisrael to detest the Babylonian Jews, because they did not return to Eretz Yisrael in the times of Ezra. Tosfos explains that the Kohanim who ate the raw meat were referred to in a derogatory way -- even though they performed a Mitzvah by eating the meat of the Korban so that it should not become Nosar by being left over -- because they became accustomed to the gluttonous habit of eating raw meat after every Yom Kippur.

Why does Tosfos say that the Mitzvah the Kohanim performed by eating the raw meat was that it did not become Nosar? Tosfos should say that the very act of eating Kodshim is a Mitzvah, derived from the verse, "They shall eat the holy food" (Shemos 29:33).

ANSWER: The RASHASH answers that Tosfos maintains that when one performs a Mitzvah in an unusual manner, he does not fulfill the Mitzvah. Since eating raw meat is an unusual way of eating Kodshim, the Kohanim did not fulfill the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim when they ate the Korban raw. Therefore, Tosfos does not say that the Mitzvah they fulfilled was the Mitzvah to eat the meat of Kodshim, but that the Mitzvah they fulfilled was that they prevented the Korban from becoming Nosar.

Tosfos' words may be used to resolve the uncertainty of the MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:8), who asks whether the performance of a Mitzvah in an unusual manner qualifies as fulfillment of the Mitzvah. The law is that a person who eats a forbidden food in an abnormal manner ("she'Lo k'Darkah") is not punished with Malkus (see Pesachim 24b). Does the same apply to one who performs a Mitzvah in an unusual manner? Is he considered as though he fulfilled no Mitzvah? Tosfos maintains that he indeed does not fulfill the Mitzvah.

However, the DIVREI YECHEZKEL (15:14, footnote) rejects the proof of the Rashash from the words of Tosfos. He asserts that Tosfos does not necessarily maintain that one does not fulfill a Mitzvah when he performs it in an abnormal manner. The Mitzvah of eating Kodshim may be performed even by eating the Kodshim in an abnormal manner, such as by eating it raw. (This is also the opinion of the BEIS HA'LEVI, end of 3:51.) The Divrei Yechezkel infers from the concluding words of Tosfos, who says that the Kohanim became accustomed to the gluttonous habit of eating raw meat after every Yom Kippur, that the problem with their practice was the display of gluttony, but the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim indeed was fulfilled, even though it was done in an abnormal manner. Why, then, does Tosfos say that they fulfilled the Mitzvah of preventing it from becoming Nosar, and not that they fulfilled the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim? It must be that Tosfos is merely mentioning an additional Mitzvah that they fulfilled, besides the Mitzvah of eating Kodshim. (D. BLOOM)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that birds of Kodshim cannot be redeemed if they become Tamei, because Pidyon, the act of redemption, is mentioned by the Torah only with regard to animals and not birds.

Since birds do not become Kadosh by being placed into a Kli Shares, a sanctified vessel, why do they not have the same status as Menachos which have not yet been placed in a Kli Shares and which may be redeemed?

(a) The KEREN ORAH (DH she'Nitme'u) points out that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 6:14) writes that birds that are Tamei cannot be redeemed because the Torah says that an animal of Kodshim that is Tamei requires "Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah" in order to be redeemed. The animal must be "stood up" ("Ha'amadah") in front of the Kohen who evaluates its worth ("Ha'arachah") in order for it to be redeemed. A bird cannot be stood up in front of the Kohen, because it will fly away. Therefore, it cannot be redeemed.

(b) The RADBAZ writes that the requirement of "Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah" (standing up the animal in front of the Kohen and evaluating its worth) does not apply to birds at all, but only to other items of Kodshim which one wants to redeem (such as flour and wine). Since those items cannot be stood up and evaluated, they cannot be redeemed. The reason why birds cannot be redeemed is different. The verse says, "He shall make the animal stand before the Kohen" (Vayikra 27:11). This verse is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that only an animal can be redeemed, but not a bird. This explanation is consistent with the wording of the Mishnah here which says, "Pidyon is mentioned by the Torah only with regard to animals," implying that this is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv for which the reason is not known.

(c) The RASHASH explains that since a bird does not attain Kedushah through being placed in a Kli Shares, as soon as the bird becomes Hekdesh its body immediately becomes Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, and thus it cannot be redeemed (like any item that is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf). This reason is alluded to by RASHI (101a, DH Ofos) who says that the body of a bird acquires Kedushah because it is offered directly on the Mizbe'ach and does not require contact with a Kli Shares to make it Kadosh. In this way, birds differ from Menachos. Menachos become Kadosh by being placed in a Kli Shares, and therefore they can be redeemed when they become Tamei before they enter a Kli Shares. (D. BLOOM)