1) LIMITING THE EATING OF TERUMAH TEMPORARILY
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (3:2) which states that it is prohibited to buy food of Terumah with money of Ma'aser Sheni (money on which produce of Ma'aser Sheni was redeemed), 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 also 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. Although the Isur to eat the Esrog is only temporary, 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. Although the state of Aninus lasts for only one day, Tosfos considers this form of limiting the eating of Terumah prohibited. (See CHACHAM TZVI #151.)
The MAHARSHAM in DA'AS TORAH (OC 665) questions the view of Tosfos from the Gemara in Sukah (35b) which gives two reasons for why one may not use an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, but it does not mention the reason of limiting the eating of Terumah.
ANSWERS:
(a) The PEIROS TE'ENAH answers that since the problem of limiting the eating of Terumah does not always prohibit the use of an Esrog of Terumah, 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 does not cause 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 other 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 one may answer as follows. When one wants to use the Terumah in its present state for a purpose that will limit its eating temporarily, one is not always considered as though he is causing it to become Pasul. The prohibition of "Mevi Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul" applies only when the consumption of the Korban (or Terumah) is limited because of a restricting factor in the Korban itself. For example, if one were to bring a Korban Todah on Erev Pesach, there would be a restricting factor that the Chalos Todah may be eaten only until midday (since Chametz is prohibited on Erev Pesach after midday). This is a problem in the Korban itself. Similarly, by giving Terumah the additional sanctity of Ma'aser Sheni, one would cause it to have the new restrictions of the additional sanctity. In contrast, if one places an external restricting factor on a Korban which is not a problem in the Korban itself (for example, he makes a vow that he will not eat the meat of a Korban), he does not transgress the Isur of causing Kodshim to become Pasul. (It is as though he caused himself to have a stomach ache and was unable to eat the Kodshim, or he closed the Kodshim in a temporarily locked box.) The actual Korban itself has not changed in any way, and thus the Isur does not apply.
According to this approach, it is clear why the use of an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah during Sukos is not prohibited, even though designating it for the Mitzvah makes it prohibited to be eaten. When one decides to use an Esrog for the Mitzvah, the Esrog becomes prohibited to be eaten on that day due to its designation for the Mitzvah. Nothing has happened to the physical state of the Esrog itself. It is comparable to one who makes a Neder to prohibit the meat of Kodshim. Although in practice he has limited the time of eating the Korban, he has caused no inherent change to the Korban itself, like Chametz upon the arrival of Pesach. It is an external factor that prohibits the item from being eaten in these cases of Korban, Chametz, and Esrog. Creating such a limitation by designating the Esrog for the Mitzvah is not considered causing Kodshim or Terumah to become Pasul. Hence, the Gemara in Sukah seeks other reasons to prohibit the use of an Esrog of Terumah on Sukos. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
76b----------------------------------------76b
2) WEARING THE "BIGDEI KEHUNAH" FOR A "SAFEK AVODAH"
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 questions how the Log Shemen can be sprinkled out of doubt towards the Heichal; if the person is not a Metzora and the Log Shemen is a Nedavah, no Avodah may be done 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 about 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 fuel for the fire on the Mizbe'ach.
RASHI explains that the Gemara means that when the Kohen sprinkles the oil for the Matan Sheva, he stipulates, "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 it is as if I am spraying water into the air." (See TOSFOS who explains the Gemara differently.)
The Acharonim point out that the Gemara seems to contradict the view of the RAMBAM, who rules (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:11) that a Kohen is permitted to wear the Avnet only while he performs the Avodah. Since the Avnet contains Kil'ayim, the Kohen may wear it only while he performs the Mitzvah of Avodah, which overrides the prohibition against wearing Kil'ayim. In the Gemara's case of Avodah performed for a Safek Metzora, how can the Kohen wear the Avnet while he performs the Avodah of sprinkling the oil? If the person is not a Metzora and the act the Kohen does is not an Avodah, the Kohen transgresses the prohibition against wearing Kil'ayim, since he is wearing the Avnet when he is not performing an Avodah. On the other hand, he cannot leave the Avnet off, because perhaps the person is a Metzora, and a Kohen is not allowed to perform the Avodah without all of the Bigdei Kehunah. (See MIZBE'ACH MIKDASH.)
ANSWERS:
(a) The SHO'EL U'MESHIV (2:3:9) addresses this question. He answers it based on a Halachah recorded by the REMA (OC 204:8). The Rema rules that if one is forced against his will to eat or drink, he does not recite a blessing over the food. The MAGEN AVRAHAM and TAZ question this ruling from the Halachah that one who is forced to eat on Yom Kippur because of illness does recite a blessing. There should be no difference between being forced to eat by illness (a condition brought about by Hash-m) and being forced to eat by another person. The Sho'el u'Meshiv answers that when the Torah requires that an ill person eat on Yom Kippur, the act of eating becomes a Mitzvah, and thus the person derives pleasure from the food. Consequently, he must recite a blessing. In contrast, when a person is forced by another person to eat, there is no Mitzvah involved and he derives no pleasure from the food, and therefore he does not recite a blessing.
This logic may 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. In such a case, no pleasure is derived from the clothing (just as one who is forced to eat derivces no pleasure from the food). One does not transgress the Isur of Kil'ayim when he does not derive any pleasure from the Kil'ayim.
(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 the Kohen to wear the Bigdei Kehunah as long as he is involved in the Avodah and intends to perform the Avodah. He may continue wearing the Bigdei Kehunah after he performs one Avodah if he intends to perform another Avodah.
Accordingly, in the case of the Avodah done for the Safek Metzora, 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 answer of the Sho'el u'Meshiv, the Kohen may don the Bigdei Kehunah to perform only a Safek Avodah.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)