You write: "However, how can we burn even Taluy Terumah with Tamei? Perhaps Eliyahu will come and tell us that it was Tahor!" Why do we concern ourselves about such a remote improbability, we never concern ourselves in other areas of Halacha when the probability is remote?
Avrohom Meyer Kohn, Los Angeles USA
Baruch she'Kivanta! This is an excellent question and is asked by the Mefarshim.
1. Rav Elchanan Wasserman Hy'd asked (Kovetz Shiurim #71) that this should be permitted because of a Sfek Sfeika: (a) possibly the Mashi'ach will not come today, and (b) even if he does come, he might not say that the Terumah is Tahor.
I want to try to answer this question, and I would be grateful if would tell me what you think of my attempt.
2. A hint at the answer is already given by Rashi (DH Shema) who writes that it is possible that Eliyahu will come later on and say that the Terumah is Tahor. Rashi implies that even if the Mashi'ach does not come today, but instead comes a long time later, there still will be a problem. I would like to suggest that even if the Mashi'ach would come many years later, if we later on find out that the Terumah is Tahor, then this means that it has been mistakenly burned, because it turned out that it was Tahor all along.
3. According to this, one can say that it does not really depend on Eliyahu coming. Rather, what it means is that when Eliyahu comes, all the doubts will be resolved. So when the Gemara says that Eliyahu will come, this is another way of saying that the situation at the moment might be that the Terumah is Tahor; and even though we are not capable of knowing this, nevertheless in Shamayim it is known that it is Tahor. In the same way that Eliyahu is capable of knowing true things which ordinary people are not capable of knowing, so too it may transpire that really the Terumah was Tahor all along, in which case the Terumah was wrongly burned. (See Birkas Avraham (14a, #7), who writes along these lines.)
4. I would like to say a different answer based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin (22b) which states that according to the Rabanan, nowadays Kohanim are not allowed to drink wine. This is because the Beis ha'Mikdash will be built speedily in our days and we will require a Kohen who is capable of doing the Avodah there, and a Kohen who has consumed wine may not perform the Avodah. One learns from this that according to this opinion it is not considered a far off possibility that the Mashi'ach will come any day. This must be because one of the 13 basic tenets of faith is that the Mash'iach may come any day. We learned a similar idea not so long ago in Dafyomi on Eruvin 43a-b, that if someone says that he will be a Nazir on the day that Mashi'ach comes, he becomes prohibited from drinking wine on all weekdays. This teaches that it is not considered a remote improbability that the Mashi'ach will come any day, but rather this is one of the foundations of the Torah that the Mashi'ach could come any day.
As we enter the Nine Days of Aveilus for the Beis ha'Mikdash, may we merit that the Mashi'ach should arrive today!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Many thanks, I relate better to Rav Elchonon's approach which acknowledges that in halacha, we do not concern ourselves with remote improbabilities. Otherwise, maybe we should never bite into an apple, as there may be a worm inside, we should never eat meat unless the entire cow was checked from head to toe. So the Gemora remains difficult to Rev Elchonon, and to me, and I am comforted that he too found it difficult. As a Kohen, I have never understood the Gemora you quote regarding drinking wine because even if the Bais Hamikdosh came down from the sky, as per Rashi (the Rambam disagrees), it would take time for the bigdai kehuna to be sewn and for the Kohanim to learn how to do the avoda and for the keilim to be made etc by which time the effects of the wine will be long gone.
Kol tuv,
AMK
1. Let me elaborate a little more. The Birkas Avraham (Pesachim 14a, #7) writes that when the Gemara refers to Eliyahu coming, this is merely a "Melitzah" -- an "expression." What the Gemara really means to say is that it is possible that the Terumah is in fact Tahor, and Eliyahu is simply an example of a person who is capable of knowing that it is Tahor. If in reality it is Tahor (and this is not a far-off possibility at all), then clearly it is forbidden to make it Tamei.
2. In contrast, the chances of there being a worm in an apple are much smaller than the chances that the Terumah is in reality Tahor. If, however, the species of fruit is one which frequently develops worms when it is attached to the ground, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 84:8) states that one may not eat them without checking them first.
3. Similarly, the reason one does not have to check a cow from head to toe is that the Gemara in Chulin (11b) says that most animals are not Tereifos, and therefore one follows the rule of the Torah that one goes after Rov, the majority ("Acharei Rabim l'Hatos"). In contrast, in our Gemara there is an equal chance that the Terumah is Tahor as it is Tamei.
4. Concerning the Bigdei Kehunah and the Kelim being ready so quickly for the Beis ha'Mikdash, since Rashi in Sukah (41a, DH Iy) that you cited says that the Beis ha'Mikdash will come down from Shamayim, why can the Begadim and the Kelim not come down together with the building? And since Eliyahu is a Kohen, maybe he will teach the other Kohanim how to do the Avodah!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I posed your question to a Gadol who replied that the possibility that Eliyahu might declare that the Terumah is Tahor is not a far-off eventuality at all, because Tum'ah and Taharah are equivalent.
This answer should be understood on the basis of what we we wrote above -- that the mention of Eliyahu is not to be taken literally, but rather it means that it may later transpire that the food we thought was Tamei is in reality Tahor. This is a mistake that could easily be made, because on there is no visual difference between an item that is Tamei and an item that is Tahor.
Dovid Bloom