Q&A: If They Were Brought Up, They Are Not Taken Down
If They Were Brought Up, They Are Not Taken Down
Question
Hello Rabbi. The Talmud in Zevachim 68 says that melikah performed with the left hand does not render impure in the place of swallowing, because (“if they were brought up, they are not taken down,” since) we find a Temple service that is done with the left hand: on Yom Kippur the priest takes the pan in his left hand. We see from here that it is enough that there exists some service done with the left hand, even if it is completely different from melikah, for the bird that was slaughtered by melikah to have the rule that if it was brought up, it is not taken down, and that it should not render impure in the place of swallowing. But on 69, Hezekiah says that a non-priest’s handful-taking of a meal-offering, if it was brought up, should be taken down, even though at a private altar a non-priest would indeed do the handful-taking, because there is no sanctification in service vessels at a private altar, and therefore the handful-taking at a private altar is not similar to the handful-taking in the Temple. So what is required: that there be a similar service done in that manner, or is it enough that there exists some service, even a dissimilar one, done that way? (I thought to say that a meal-offering that was not sanctified in service vessels is not a Temple service at all, and therefore nothing can be learned from it. But it is still difficult, because regarding melikah done by a non-priest, Hezekiah says that it is not taken down, since a non-priest can do melikah at a private altar. So we should learn from there that a non-priest’s handful-taking should not be taken down, because we found a place where his service is valid.)
Thank you
Answer
Offhand it seems to me that there is a major difference. As is known, handful-taking is like slaughtering in meal-offerings, and the Talmud says that the reason slaughtering is valid when done by a non-priest is that it is not considered a Temple service. If so, handful-taking probably is also not a Temple service (and that is why it is valid when done by a non-priest). Therefore, if it was brought up, it should be taken down, since no Temple service took place here (so this is not really a case of “it was brought up” at all; only a Temple service brings things up). In contrast, a service done with the left hand is still a Temple service, even if not fully valid, and therefore it counts as “it was brought up,” and once it was brought up, it is not taken down.
Discussion on Answer
Maybe that itself is the assumption. If it had been in the Temple as it is at a private altar, then it would have been a Temple service.
A) If I understood correctly, the Rabbi is saying that handful-taking is not a Temple service, and the fact that it is valid only through a priest is a scriptural decree, similar to the slaughtering of the red heifer and the inspection of leprous marks, and therefore one cannot prove from another service to handful-taking, since it is not a Temple service. But we see from the Talmud that if the handful-taking in the Temple had been exactly like the handful-taking at a private altar, then they would indeed have learned that if it was brought up, it is not taken down. But if handful-taking is not a Temple service, then what is the basis of the derivation? There is a scriptural decree that in the Temple specifically a priest is required, while at a private altar even a non-priest can do it.
B) Tosafot on Zevachim 14, s.v. “Addition: slaughtering is not a Temple service,” brings several explanations as to why slaughtering is not a Temple service. One explanation is because non-priests were deemed fit for it. According to this, handful-taking is indeed a Temple service. A second explanation is because slaughtering is the same for ordinary animals and for consecrated offerings, and if so, the Omnipresent did not command slaughtering as a Temple service. According to this too, handful-taking is indeed a Temple service. A third explanation is from the fact that the Merciful One validates a person standing outside who extends his hand inside and slaughters; from this it follows that slaughtering is not a Temple service. Also, if one hung himself up and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid, even though that is not the normal manner of service. I do not know the law regarding handful-taking, so according to those reasons maybe it does work out that handful-taking is indeed a Temple service.