THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) BURNING WOOD OF HEKDESH
QUESTION: The Gemara says that it is possible for a person to transgress
five Lavim (and get five sets of Malkus) by (1) burning the wood of Hekdesh
to (2) cook a Gid ha'Nasheh on Yom Tov, (3) with milk, and (4, 5) eating it.
However, if one is using the wood of Hekdesh, he should be liable for a
sixth Lav as well -- benefiting from Hekdesh (Me'ilah)! Why does the Gemara
not ask this question?
2) HAVING "CHALAH" AND "HEKDESH" WHICH IS CHAMETZ IN ONE'S POSSESSION DURING
TOSFOS (Makos 22a) and TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ here answer that it is possible
to derive benefit from the wood of Hekdesh without being Chayav for Me'ilah
-- by using less than a Shaveh Perutah's worth of Hekdesh. The Isur of
burning Hekdesh, though, applies to even less than a Shaveh Perutah.
QUESTION: RASHI (DH Aval Hacha) cites the explanation of his teachers, who
explained that the principle of "Ho'il" can be applied to forbid owning
Chalah which is Chametz on Pesach. Although the Chalah does not legally
belong to him once he has separated it from the dough, since he can be
"Sho'el" on it and remove its status of Chalah and thus become the true
owner of the Chametz, it is considered his even now. Rashi disagrees and
says that according to that explanation, one should be Chayav for Bal
Yera'eh even for having Chametz of *Hekdesh* is one's possession, since
("Ho'il") if he wants, he can redeem it and make the Chametz his. The Gemara
(5b), though, clearly states that one does not transgress Bal Yera'eh for
having Chametz of Hekdesh in his possession!
Why does Rashi ask, according to his teachers, that the logic of "Ho'il"
should also apply to Hekdesh because one can *redeem* it? He should have
simply asked that "She'eilah" applies to Hekdesh just like it applies to
Chalah -- one can be Sho'el on Hekdesh and make it his again! (TOSFOS YOM
(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV answers that we find in Maseches Nazir (9a) that
Rebbi Eliezer -- who is the Tana in our Mishnah -- is of the opinion that
"Ein She'eilah l'Hekdesh" -- the status of Hekdesh of an item cannot be
revoked. Therefore, Rashi had no choice but to discuss *redeeming* Hekdesh.
(b) The RASHASH answers that She'eilah will only work for Hekdesh before the
Gizbar (the treasurer of the Beis ha'Mikdash funds) receives the item. After
the Gizbar receives it, though, one cannot be Sho'el on it, but only redeem
it (see Tosfos 46b, DH Ho'il (#2)). Rashi says that if he wants to he may
redeem it, because by redeeming it one can revoke the status of Hekdesh in
*any* situation, even if it has already reached the Gizbar.
(c) TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ points out that She'eilah will put the object in
his possession (through the mechanism of Ho'il) only for the person who was
Makdish the item to begin with. If someone else was Makdish the Chametz it
will not be considered his -- unless we say the "Ho'il" that Rashi suggests
here, that he has the ability to redeem the object from Hekdesh. Rashi is
asking that *all* Hekdesh should be forbidden to have in one's home during
Pesach, even for the person who was not Makdish it.
With this in mind, Rabeinu Peretz suggests an answer to Rashi's questions on
his teachers' explanation. Perhaps "Ho'il" only applies if one could be
Sho'el on the Hekdesh; "Ho'il" does *not* make one Chayav for Chametz that
can be *redeemed*. The reason for this, suggests Rabeinu Peretz, is because
Pidyon (redeeming Hekdesh) requires that money be given to the Beis
ha'Mikdash in return for the Hekdesh. This puts the Hekdesh further away
from becoming one's possession and the logic of "Ho'il" will not be able to
make it his. (Tosfos 46b suggests other ways of justifying the explanation
of Rashi's teachers.)
The TOSFOS HA'ROSH also differentiates between redeeming and being Sho'el on
Hekdesh, but with a more poignant logic. When one redeems Hekdesh which is
Chametz, only at that *point* does it become the property of the person who
redeems it, and at that point he will have to worry about the Isur of
Chametz. Before he redeems it, though, he is doing nothing wrong by having
Chametz of Hekdesh in his possession. In such a situation Ho'il cannot make
it his; what one might do *later* does not affect the status of the Hekdesh
*now*. This is not so when it comes to She'eilah. When one is Sho'el on an
item, She'eilah works *retroactively*. When one is Sho'el on the Chalah, the
dough is considered to be his property *back from the time that it was
separated* as Chalah. Therefore, when one baked the Chalah into Chametz, he
was actually baking his own Chametz, and thus it is forbidden have Chalah in
one's possession on Pesach. Only in such a case will Ho'il cause the Chametz
to become his, even before he is Sho'el on it.