The gmara says a Baal Mum takes a portion of a korban and learns such from a ribui of kol zachur. Why then does Rashi in Kiddushin 53a explain that a Baal Mum takes a portion of a korban since even a baal mum does service - removing worms from wood and gate guard duty - so he's entitled in exchange for his service? Let's assume Rashi isn't providing Tama Dikra
What compelled Rashi to explain the baal mum earns his keep vs just the riboi dikra itself?
Tosfos there say the drasha to include baal mum is the one in Zevachim 99a and above is to exclude a kattan.
DANIEL, TORONTO
1) I think that the key may be Rashi here, 99a, DH Katan. Rashi writes there, at the end, that the Halachah that a Katan may eat Korbanos is derived from the verse "Kol Zachar." Rashi of course means that we learn from this verse that the minor is allowed to eat, not that he is entitled to receive his share in the distribution of the Kodshim.
2) We now can understand why Rashi in Kidushin could not write that we learn that a Ba'al Mum receives the distribution from "Kol Zachar." This is because we learn from "Kol Zachar" that a minor does eat, so if Rashi in Kidushin would have mentioned Kol Zachar we would have immediately had the question: if so, why does a minor not receive the distribution? Even though there is actually a big difference between eating Korbanos and receiving the distribution, nevertheless the fact that a Ba'al Mum is Cholek is only learned from a "Ribuy" in Zevachim 99a, but this is not the simple meaning of the verse, which teaches that a minor eats Kodshim. Rashi did not want to go into the question of the difference between the simple meaning of the verse and what we learn from the Ribuy, so he kept quiet and did not mention Kol "Zachar" at all.
3) Tosfos in Kidushin 53a, DH Ish, does not disagree with Rashi on this, but he merely points out that the real source that Ba'al Mum is Cholek is from the Ribuy of "Kol Zachar." It would not be Rashi's way to mention such a detail, but Rashi still agrees with it.
4) I hope I have now answered the question why Rashi in Kidushin did not mention the Ribuy d'Kra. However, I still have to explain what compelled Rashi to write that the Ba'al Mum earns his keep. I want to suggest that the reason Rashi wrote this was in order to stress the difference between a Ba'al Mum and a Tevul Yom. The Gemara in Kidushin explains well why the minor does not receive Chalukah; this is derived from "Ish." However, we still do not know why the Ba'al Mum is Cholek. And it cannot be that we learn it from "Ish" because we said that Rashi agrees with Tosfos that this is not the real source. This is why Rashi wrote that the Ba'al Mum does have a role in the Korbanos, which the Tevul Yom does not have before sundown arrives. This might be what the Gemara in Zevachim 99a means when it says about the Tevul Yom, "Hashta Miha Ha Lo Chazi." The Tevul Yom is not yet fit for service. Possibly this may be understood to mean that while the Tevul Yom is not yet fit for service, the Ba'al Mum is fit to a certain extent even now for a kind of service. One of the things that Rashi in Kidushin says that the Ba'al Mum may do is Shechitah. Now it is true that the Gemara in Zevachim 14b states that Shechitah is not an Avodah (although Abaye there had a Havah Amina that it is), but on the other hand the Gemara in Yoma 31a does call Shechitah an Avodah. The Tosfos Yeshanim there (DH Aval) writes that even though we find in several places that Shechitah is not called an Avodah, what this means is that it is not Avodah that requires a Kohen, but it is still an Avodah.
5) In short, Rashi in Kidushin is telling us that the Ba'al Mum is fit for certain kinds of Avodah and therefore he is better than a Tevul Yom at the present moment, and this is why the Gemara in Zevachim 99a learns the Ribuy d'Kra on Ba'al Mum and not on Tevul Yom.
Daniel, Yasher Koach Gadol for this very good question.
Dovid Bloom
Thanks.
Re: Since Tosfos tells us that we are not really learning from "Ish" but rather from Kol Zachar we now have to understand why the Ba'al Mum gets the portion and not the minor. This cannot be because of the word Ish because we just said that we are not really learning from there.
That's not a precise description of Tosfos. Tosfos explains that we are not learning Baal mum from Eish but from kol zachur BUT we are learning from Eish to exclude kattan (you're saying we're not even learning that, which isn't what Tosfos says).
So, the posed question remains.
Also note that on 99a when the gmara says kol zachor is an open drasha to include someone and the gmara weighs mechsar kippurim vs Baal mum, it doesn't present Rashis justification for Baal mum.
In my reply a few minutes ago I only saw the top half, not the bottom half of what you wrote. I too had contemplated your 'bottom' answer but ruled it out for various reasons I did not disclose as didn't want to bias you toward any specific answer in hopes your answer would jive with all of my concerns.
Anyway, a tidbit regarding what you wrote below is that I saw brought from the Rambam a description of 'avodos hakarbanos" and"avodos", so the baal mum is pasul from the former not the latter, but the services he performs are indeed 'avodos', not merely janitorial help. In fact, I have a whole vort explaining how baal mumim were given the job of removing wormy wood and it served as an endorsement to themselves that the pnimus not chitzonis is what matters (like the aish on the mizbeach being eikar to the wood), b/c otherwise it would be a gross insensitive slight to baal mumim to specifically ask them to sort out and discard the wood unfit due to blemishes.
This might be what Zevachim 99a means when it says about the Tvul Yom "Hashta Miha Ha Lo Chazi". The Tvul Yom is not yet fit for service. Possibly this can be understood to mean that whilst the Tvul Yom is not yet fit for service, the Ba'al Mum is fit to a certain extent even now for a kind of service. One of the things that Rashi Kidushin says that the Ba'al Mum can do is Shechita. Now it is true that Zevachim 14b states that Shechitah is not an Avoda (although Abaye there had a Hava Amina that it is), but on the other hand Yoma 31a does call Shechitah an Avoda. Tosfos Yeshanim there DH Aval writes that even though we find in several places that Shechitah is not called an Avoda, what this means is that it is not Avoda that requires a Cohen, but it is an Avoda.
Daniel Gray
Daniel, thanks for your additions.
I think it is worth adding that an important Halachah is derived by one of the Acharonim from Rashi in Kidushin 53a. The Ketzos ha'Choshen (243:4) writes that the presents which the Kohanim receive are like a salary for their work in the Beis ha'Mikdash (there is, of course, a verse in Bamidbar 18:21 that the Leviyim receive Ma'aser in return for their work in the Ohel Mo'ed, but the Ketzos ha'Choshen derives Halachic ramifications from the fact that it is considered a salary). The Teshuvas Beis Yitzchak (Orach Chayim #13, end of #14) writes that there is a nice proof for the Ketzos ha'Choshen from Rashi in Kidushin 53a, DH Ish, that the Ba'al Mum receives Kodshim because he removes the worms from the wood, and strips and cuts up the animals and slaughters.
Yasher Ko'ach Gadol!
Dovid Bloom