DAF DISCUSSIONS - ZEVACHIM 99

DANIEL asks:

(a) 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 (Kidushin 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 Ta'ama D'Kra.

(b) Also, see Tosfos in Kidushin, who says that the drasha brought down in Kidushin, 'Ish Cholek...", is actually the one that excludes a Katan from taking a portion and not the one that allows a Ba'al Mum to take a portion, as it says in our Sugya. But from Rashi there it would seem that it is also the Drasha that addresses Ba'al Mum - which seems to contradict our Sugya.

DANIEL, TORONTO

The Kollel replies:

This is a tricky question and I am going to try the following answer. The second question answers the first, as follows.

1) The Gemara Menachos 73a cites a similar Sugya to Kidushin 53a. Shitah Mekubetzes Menachos #2 writes something similar to Tosfos Kidushin 53a DH Ish, that you cited Daniel, but he makes a small addition. He writes that we do not really derive from the verse "Ish" that a Ba'al Mum takes a portion of the korban, because Zevachim 99a learns this from Kol Zachar. However Shitah adds that the chief purpose of the verse "Ish" is to exclude a minor but the way of the Talmud is to include 2 droshos from one verse, even though they are not both actually derived from that verse [he cites an example from Bava Metzia 30a].

2) In addition, Rashi Menachos 109a in the second Mishnah there DH Harei, writes that the Din that Ba'al Mum takes his portion is derived from "Ish". This, of course, does not conform with Zevachim 99a. I would suggest that Rashi can be explained with the help of the above Shittah. Since the way of the Talmud is also to cite "Ish" as a source for Ba'al Mum, Rashi 109a chose to cite this as the source since this verse is cited in the same Masechta in 73a, rather than referring us to a different Mashecta in Zevachim 99a.

3) Now to Rashi Kidushin 53a. Rashi is explaining why a Ba'al Mum is better than a minor, as stated in the Gemara. Since Tosfos tells us that we are not really learning from "Ish" but rather from Kol Zachar (and there is no reason to say that Rashi disagrees with Tosfos) 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. Therefore Rashi had to tell us, since we know that the real limud is from Kol Zachar, why does a minor not get: after all he is also a Zachar?!

4) This is why Rashi wrote that the Ba'al Mum takes a part in korbanos by removing the worms from the wood etc. This is a svora from where the Gemara Zevachim 99a knew to include Ba'al Mum from Kol Zachar and exclude the minor, because the minor does not have a role in bringing the korban.

Behatzlacah Rabah

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds:

I have been looking over what I wrote above and I am not happy with it so I am going, bs'd, to attempt a different answer.

1) I think that the key may be Rashi here 99a DH Koton. Rashi writes there, at the end, that the Halacha that a koton may eat korbonos 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 kodashim.

2) We can now understand why Rashi 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 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 between receiving the distribution, nevertheless the fact that a Ba'al Mum is cholek is only learnt from a "Ribuy" in Zevachim 99a, but this is not the simple meaning of the verse, which teaches that a minor eats kodashim. 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 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 Rashiagrees with it.

4) I hope I have now answered the question why Rashi Kidushin did not mention the Ribuy diKra. 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 Tvul Yom.

The Gemara Kidushin explains well why the minor does not receive chaluka; because 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 has a role in the korbanos, which the Tvul Yom does not have before sundown arrives.

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.

5) In short, Rashi Kidushin is telling us that the Ba'al Mum is fit for certain kinds of Avoda and therefore he is better than a Tvul Yom at the present moment, and this is why Zevachim 99a learns the Ribuy diKra on Ba'al Mum; and not on Tvul Yom.

Daniel, Yasher Koach Gadol for this very good question.

Dovid Bloom

Daniel Gray asks:

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

The Kollel replies:

Daniel, thanks for your additions.

I think it is worth adding that an important Halacha is learnt by one of the Achronim from Rashi Kidushin 53a. This starts from the Ketzos Hachoshen 243:4 who writes that the presents that the Cohanim receive are like a salary for their work in the Beis Hamikdash (there is of course a verse in Bamidbar 18:21 that the Levi'im receive Ma'aser in return for their work in the Ohel Moed; but the Ketzos makes Halachic ramifications from the fact that it is considered a salary).

Teshuvas Beis Yitzchak Orach Chaim #13, end of Ois 14, writes that there is a nice proof for the Ketzos from our Rashi in Kidushin 53a DH Ish that the Ba'al Mum receives Kodashim because he removes the worms from the wood, and strips and cuts up the animals and slaughters.

Yasher Koach Gadol

Dovid Bloom