QUESTIONS: The Mishnah teaches that if the baby of a Kohenes and the baby of her maidservant become mixed up, each son has the status of a Safek Kohen and Safek Eved. When they reach adulthood, they are to grant emancipation to each other, and then each one remains a Safek Kohen and Safek Yisrael. Consequently, they do not receive gifts of Kodshim which ordinary Kohanim are entitled to receive. However, ordinary Kohanim are not entitled to take away the Kodshim of those sons, because each son may claim that he is a Kohen. Similarly, if they have an animal that is a Bechor, they are not required to give it to a Kohen. Rather, they may let it graze until it develops a blemish and then they may eat it themselves.

RASHI offers two explanations for the Mishnah's statement that "we do not give them Kodshim, but we may not take Kodshim away from them." According to Rashi's first explanation, the "Kodshim" to which the Mishnah refers is the meat of Korbanos.

The two Safek Kohanim certainly may not offer Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach themselves because of the doubt about which one is a Zar. On the other hand, when they have an obligation to offer a Korban, Beis Din cannot take it away from them and force them to give it to the Kohanim who serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash at that moment, thereby entitling those Kohanim to the parts of the animal which are given to the Kohanim who offer it (the hide and parts of the meat). Rather, since each son is a Safek Kohen, he may claim that he has the right to offer the Korban himself and to keep the hide and meat. Although he may not actually offer the Korban himself, he has three options from which to choose:

1. He may give it to the Kohanim of the Mishmar which is serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash at the moment and stipulate that those Kohanim must return to him the hide and meat.

2. He may designate any Kohen as a Shali'ach to bring the Korban on his behalf, even a Kohen whose Mishmar is not presently serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash. (A Kohen does not have to wait until his Mishmar to bring his own Korban. Therefore, the Safek Kohen may appoint as his Shali'ach any definite Kohen, who will bring the Korban on his behalf even though his Mishmar is not presently serving.)

3. He may wait until the arrival of the turn of Mishmar to which he wants to give his Korban, and give his Korban to the benefit of that Mishmar.

This is Rashi's first explanation of the Mishnah.

According to Rashi's second explanation, the "Kodshim" to which the Mishnah refers is not Korbanos, but Bechor and Chermei Kohanim. A Bechor and Chermei Kohanim are not given to the Safek Kohanim because of their doubtful status as Kohanim. If, however, they are in possession of their own Bechor or Chermei Kohanim, other Kohanim may not take it away from them. Rather, out of doubt they may keep the Charamim, and they may let the Bechor graze until it develops a blemish. They are advised not to bring the Bechor as a Korban, because if they do the Kohen who offers it will keep it for himself and not give it to them.

Rashi explains why he does not accept the first explanation. He writes that it does not seem logical that the Safek Kohen should be able to appoint a Shali'ach to bring his Korban for him. Since he cannot bring the Korban himself, he does not have the authority to appoint a Shali'ach to do so. Consequently, there is no way for him to retain the hide or meat by having the Kohen of his choice bring it for him.

There are a number of difficulties with Rashi's explanation (as the ARUCH LA'NER points out).

(a) According to Rashi's second explanation, if the Safek Kohen gives his Bechor to a Kohen, the Kohen will keep it for himself, and therefore he is advised to let the animal graze and develop a blemish. Rashi's words imply that the Safek Kohen is permitted to eat the Bechor before it develops a blemish, but he may not do so because the Kohen to whom he would give it (if he would be a Vadai Yisrael) would not consent to let him eat it. However, in his next comment (DH u'Vechoro), Rashi writes that an unblemished Bechor may be eaten only by a definite Kohen and not by a Safek Kohen!

(b) Rashi earlier mentions that the Safek Kohen has three options with regard to offering his Korban. One of those options is to appoint a Shali'ach, while another option is to give it to the present Mishmar of Kohanim and stipulate that they return to him the hide and meat. A third option is to give it to whichever Mishmar he desires when that Mishmar's turn arrives. Why does Rashi reject the first explanation on the grounds that a Safek Kohen is unable to appoint a Shali'ach to bring a Korban for him, when the other two options are still valid?

Indeed, in the following comment of Rashi (DH u'Vechoro), Rashi discusses why one may not give an unblemished Bechor to a Kohen with the stipulation that he return the hide and meat to the owner. It seems that Rashi does accept the first option as valid. Why, then, does Rashi reject the first explanation on the grounds that stipulating that the Kohen return the hide and meat to the owner is not a valid option?

(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros (32b) records a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about whether a non-Kohen is permitted to eat the meat of a Bechor. Beis Hillel maintains that not only may a Zar eat it, but even a Nochri may eat it. Beis Shamai maintains that only a Kohen may eat it. Rashi's statement here that a Bechor may be eaten only by Kohanim clearly follows the opinion of Beis Shamai.

Why, though, does Rashi explain the Mishnah only according to Beis Shamai and not according to Beis Hillel? The answer is that according to the first explanation of Rashi, the Mishnah can be understood only according to the view of Beis Shamai, because only Beis Shamai requires that the Safek Kohen wait for the Bechor to develop a blemish. According to Beis Hillel, the Safek Kohen may eat the Bechor himself before it has a blemish; he could give it to a Kohen with the stipulation that the Kohen give him back the meat. The Mishnah must be following Beis Shamai's opinion that only a Kohen may eat the Bechor, and thus the only way for the Safek Kohen to eat the meat is by waiting for the Bechor to develop a blemish.

When Rashi, in his second explanation, advises that the Safek Kohen should not give the Bechor to a Kohen because the Kohen will keep it for himself and not let the Safek Kohen eat it, he means that according to the second explanation the Mishnah may follow the view of Beis Hillel who permits a non-Kohen to eat the Bechor. In his next comment (DH u'Vechoro), Rashi returns to his first explanation. Since the first explanation follows the view of Beis Shamai, Rashi writes that a non-Kohen may not eat the Bechor.

Further evidence that Rashi (DH u'Vechoro) returns to his first explanation is his repetition of his comment that the Safek Kohen may stipulate that the hide and meat of the Korban be returned to him, an option which the second explanation does not accept.

(b) From Rashi's words (in DH u'Vechoro) it is evident that he follows the first explanation, and that is why he mentions the possibility of stipulating with the Kohen that the hide and meat be returned (as mentioned in (a) above). The second explanation does not permit such a stipulation, because a Safek Kohen may not appoint a Kohen as a Shali'ach to bring his Korban. Why, though, can he not give it to one of the Kohanim in the present Mishmar with a stipulation that the Kohen return to him the hide and meat?

The answer seems to be that if the Safek Kohen gives the animal to a Kohen to offer on his behalf, that Kohen (unless appointed as a Shali'ach) is entitled to assert his claim to the animal and keep it for himself (by invoking the principle of "ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah"). Consequently, if the Kohen in the present Mishmar is not the Safek Kohen's Shali'ach, once he receives the Korban he does not have to return anything to the Safek Kohen, because he may claim that the person is a Zar and not a Kohen. This is Rashi's intention when he says that "the Kohen who offers the Bechor will keep the meat for himself."

For the same reason, the Safek Kohen does not have the option to wait for, and give his Korban to, the Mishmar of his choice. After all, this option does not seem to be unique to a Safek Kohen. Any Zar should be able to wait for the arrival of a specific Mishmar to which to give his Korban, as long as he is careful not to delay the giving of the Korban for too long and transgress the prohibition of Bal Te'acher. What is unique about the Safek Kohen in this regard? (RASHASH)

Apparently, a Zar may not wait to give his Korban to the Mishmar of his choice. Once the Korban has already been designated, the Gizbar (treasurer) of the Beis ha'Mikdash has the authority to requisition it from the owner and bring it to the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered. In contrast, the Safek Kohen may object to the Gizbar, in which case the Gizbar is not entitled to take the Korban from him. The Safek Kohen may claim that he is a Kohen and that he has appointed a Kohen from another Mishmar to serve as his Shali'ach to bring the Korban. Hence, the Gizbar is not empowered to take possession of the Korban for the present Mishmar.

If, however, the Safek Kohen may not appoint a Shali'ach to bring his Korban, the Kohanim of a later Mishmar have no more of a right to bring his Korban than the Kohanim of the present Mishmar. Hence, the Gizbar may requisition the Korban for the Beis ha'Mikdash immediately. The Safek Kohen can prevent the Gizbar from taking his Korban only if he is able to appoint a Kohen as his Shali'ach. This is why Rashi's second explanation rejects the assertion that the Safek Kohen may defer giving the Korban to the Gizbar until the arrival of the Mishmar of his choice. (M. Kornfeld)