QUESTION: Rav and Levi argue whether a Zar (non-Kohen) who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen is Chayav Misah, liable for death. Rav says that only four Avodos are punishable with death: Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin. Levi says that a Zar is punished with death even for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen.

Rav derives from the words, "Avodas Matanah" (Bamidbar 18:7), that a Zar is liable only when he performs an Avodah of "placing" ("Matanah") something on the Mizbe'ach or into a holy vessel, but he is not Chayav when he performs an Avodah of removing something from the Mizbe'ach (such as the Terumas ha'Deshen).

In addition, Rav derives from the word, "va'Avadetem" (ibid.), that a Zar is liable only when he performs an Avodah which is an "Avodah Tamah," an Avodah which is the "completion" of a set of Avodos and has no other Avodah after it. RASHI (DH Avodah Tamah) lists Shechitah, Kabalah, and Holachah as examples of an Avodah which is not an "Avodah Tamah" (and for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah).

Rashi's words imply that a Zar is forbidden to perform the Shechitah of a Korban, but he is exempt from punishment because of the verse that excludes such an Avodah from the punishment of death. However, Shechitah is not an Avodah which must be performed by a Kohen; a Zar is permitted to perform Shechitah (Zevachim 3:1)! Why does Rashi mention that the verse exempts a Zar from punishment for performing Shechitah, if a Zar is permitted to perform Shechitah in the first place? (Indeed, in the comments of RABEINU ELYAKIM here the word "Shechitah" is omitted.)

(a) The RASHASH cites the BEN ARYEH who answers that when Rashi mentions "Shechitah" here, he refers to the Shechitah of the Parah Adumah, which must be performed by a Kohen (as Rav himself maintains on 42a).

The Rashash, however, rejects this answer. Even without the Derashah of "Avodah Tamah" there would be no Chiyuv Misah for a Zar who performs the Shechitah of the Parah Adumah. The punishment of Misah applies only to a Zar who performs an Avodah in the Azarah. The Shechitah of the Parah Adumah, however, is performed outside of the Azarah.

(b) The MENACHEM MESHIV NEFESH cites the YAD DAVID who answers that Rashi mentions Shechitah because of the Shechitah of the "Par of Aharon" offered by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. According to one opinion (42a), the Shechitah of that Korban must be performed by the Kohen Gadol. A Zar (and even an ordinary Kohen) who performs the Shechitah of the Par of Aharon would be Chayav Misah if not for the Derashah of "Avodah Tamah" (as the Gemara in Yevamos 33b implies).

(See, however, Tosfos to 42a, DH Shechitah, who maintains that even without the Derashah a Zar is not liable for Malkus, and certainly not Misah, for slaughtering the Par of Aharon. In order to justify the answer of the Yad David, one must say that Rashi argues with Tosfos in that regard.)

QUESTION: Rav and Levi argue whether a Zar (non-Kohen) who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen is Chayav Misah, liable for death. Rav says that only four Avodos are punishable with death: Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin. Levi says that a Zar is punished with death even for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen.

The Gemara cites proof for Rav's view that a Zar is not Chayav Misah from a Beraisa which says that a Zar is Chayav for Zerikas Dam, Haza'ah of Chatas ha'Of, Mitzuy or Haktarah of Olas ha'Of, and Nisuch Yayin or Nisuch ha'Mayim. The Beraisa's omission of Terumas ha'Deshen from the list of Avodos for which a Zar is Chayav Misah supports the opinion of Rav.

However, the Beraisa omits other Avodos for which a Zar certainly is Chayav Misah, such as the Haktarah of all Korbanos other than the Olas ha'Of. Rav certainly agrees that a Zar who performs the Haktarah of any Korban is Chayav Misah. How, then, can the Beraisa's omission of Terumas ha'Deshen prove that a Zar is not Chayav Misah for that Avodah?

(a) TOSFOS (DH veha'Maktir) cites a Tosefta in which the order of the words is reversed. The word "ha'Maktir" appears after the words "Olas ha'Of." Accordingly, "ha'Maktir" refers to the Haktarah of any type of Korban.

(b) Tosfos adds that according to the Girsa of the Beraisa as quoted by the Gemara here, perhaps the Beraisa mentions only the Haktarah of an Olas ha'Of because it intends to teach a Chidush. It is obvious that a Zar is Chayav Misah when he performs the Haktarah of other Korbanos. The Beraisa's intent is to teach that a Zar is Chayav Misah even when he performs the Haktarah of an Olas ha'Of. Since other bird-offerings (such as a Chatas ha'Of) have no Haktarah, one might have thought that a Zar is not Chayav for the Haktarah of any type of bird-offering. Therefore, the Beraisa teaches that one indeed is Chayav.

(c) The CHAFETZ CHAIM in Likutei Halachos answers that "ha'Maktir" in the Beraisa refers to any type of Haktarah. The Beraisa mentions specifically Olas ha'Of because it wants to exclude the Haktarah of a Chatas ha'Of, so that one not mistakenly think that a Zar is Chayav Misah for doing the Haktarah of a Chatas ha'Of. A Zar certainly is not Chayav Misah for offering a Chatas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach, since it is a Korban that is supposed to be eaten and not offered on the Mizbe'ach.

QUESTION: Rav and Levi argue whether a Zar (non-Kohen) who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen is Chayav Misah, liable for death. Rav says that only four Avodos are punishable with death: Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin. Levi says that a Zar is punished with death even for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen.

Rav derives from the words, "Avodas Matanah" (Bamidbar 18:7), that a Zar is liable only when he performs an Avodah of "placing" ("Matanah") something on the Mizbe'ach or into a holy vessel, but he is not Chayav when he performs an Avodah of removing ("Siluk") something from the Mizbe'ach (such as the Terumas ha'Deshen).

The Gemara adds that both Rav and Levi agree that a Zar is not Chayav Misah for an "Avodas Siluk" that he performs in the Heichal.

What "Avodas Siluk" is performed in the Heichal? RASHI (DH Avodas Siluk b'Heichal) writes that there are two "Avodos Siluk" that are performed in the Heichal for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah: Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi (the removal of the ashes from the inner Mizbe'ach) and Dishun ha'Menorah (the removal of the ashes from the Menorah). Rashi adds that the Dishun ha'Menorah is an "Avodah Tamah," an Avodah which is not followed by any other Avodah with the same object, and therefore a Zar would have been Chayav Misah had the Dishun ha'Menorah not been an "Avodas Siluk."

Why is the Dishun ha'Menorah considered an "Avodah Tamah"? It is followed by another Avodah -- the lighting of the lamps of the Menorah. In fact, Rashi himself writes elsewhere that it is not an "Avodah Tamah" for this reason (Sanhedrin 83a, DH Lo Mishum Zarus).

Similarly, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:5) writes that cleaning out the Menorah and preparing the candles to be kindled is not an "Avodah Tamah." However, he writes (9:8) that a Zar is not Chayav Misah when he performs the Dishun ha'Menorah because it is an "Avodas Siluk." Why does the Rambam not explain simply that a Zar is exempt because the Dishun ha'Menorah is not an "Avodas Tamah," as he writes earlier?

ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV (beginning of Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin) answers that there are two different reasons for the Avodah of Dishun ha'Menorah. The first reason is the obligation to remove the ashes in order to place them next to the outer Mizbe'ach. This act of Dishun ha'Menorah indeed is an "Avodah Tamah" because nothing else is done with the ashes that are removed. The reason why a Zar is exempt when he performs this act of Dishun ha'Menorah must be because it is an "Avodas Siluk."

The second reason for the Avodah of Dishun ha'Menorah is the obligation to clean out the Menorah and prepare it to be lit anew. That obligation is not an "Avodas Siluk" because the point of cleaning out the Menorah is not in order to remove something but in order to be able to light the Menorah. A Zar is exempt because this act is not an "Avodah Tamah," since it is done in preparation for kindling the Menorah.

Since the Avodah of Dishun ha'Menorah is comprised of two obligations, both reasons for the exemption of a Zar are necessary.