More Discussions for this daf
1. A Kohen Patzu'a Dakah losing his Kedushah 2. A question on Rebbi Shimon's Kal v'Chomer 3. R. Shimon
4. Moavi v'Lo Moaviah 5. Mo'avi v'Lo Mo'aviyah 6. מצרית
7. תוד"ה מנימין 8. נשים המסוללות זו בזו

Doron asked:

The Kollel wrote in Insights to the Daf-

>> (a) The CHELKAS MECHOKEK (EH 5:1) suggests that eating Terumah requires less Kedushah than any other aspect of Kehunah, for we see that even servants may eat Terumah.<<

Regarding Chelkas Mechokek's differention between the "lesser" Kedusha of Terumah

for which reason the Mishna allows a Petzua Daka to eat Terumah. See Vayikra

21, 20 "Meroach Ashech" , Rashi: "One whose testicles are crushed". This

is followed by Pasuk 22 which states that he may eat even from Kadshai

Kadashim. How would the Chelkas Mechokek explain ?

The Kollel replies:

You are asking an excellent question on the Chelkas Mechokek. We see that the Torah permits a Patzu'a Dakah to eat Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshei Kalim, just like he may eat Terumah. The Chelkas Mechokek proved that Terumah depends on a lesser form of Kedushah from the fact that a Kohen may feed Terumah to his non-Kohen wife, and to his servants. However, we know that a Kohen's wife may not eat other Kodshei Kodshim or Kodshei Kalim, and nor may his servants! If so, how can the Chelkas Mechokek say that eating these items, like Terumah, depends on a lesser Kedushah, as we see from the fact that we may feed it to his servants?

We must say that the Chelkas Mechokek will answer that the Gemara here in Yevamos is going according to the opinion in Bechoros (44b) that "Mero'ach Ashech" does not refer to a Patzu'a Dakah, but refers to one who has an irregular dark skin coloration (the Pasuk, according to that opinion, is read "Mero'av Choshech"). According to this opinion, the verse is not saying at all that a Patzu'a Dakah may eat the other types of Kodshim. Rather, he may only eat Terumah, as per the Chelkas Mechokek's explanation.

M. Kornfeld