172 —קושיות על חמץ על המזבח וסוכה בעזרת המקדש

B"H, Thursday, 28 Tishrei, 5705.

Honored Haraha"g vavac"h chov"b iy"a verav pa'alim etc. Mahars"a HaLevi sheyichyeh

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Your letter reached me, and due to the holiday my response was delayed; please accept my apologies. I will address your points one by one.

A. You raised what was brought in the third issue of "Lubavitch" (p. 39), the well-known question on what is written in Zohar II (183b) that on Shavuot they offer chametz on the altar, while for most of the year chametz is not allowed on the altar. You write that in Sefer Lachmei Todah this question is answered by referencing what is said in Torah about "the first offering you shall bring...", that even though it is eaten by kohanim, it is considered as if it was offered from G-d's table, equating eating by kohanim with burning on the altar. You add that this is a preferred answer and bring proof from Menachos (6a) and Chullin (120a) where our sages say that neveilah is not considered permitted just because kohanim eat a bird sin-offering that was pinched—because they partake from G-d's table.

I have not seen Sefer Lachmei Todah nor found it among my acquaintances here; perhaps there is further explanation there. But as quoted in your letter, it remains difficult to understand, and Torah requires study: a) The proof from Vayikra 2:12 about "the first offering..." ends explicitly with "they shall not go up on the altar," which actually strengthens the question. If your intent is to prove that these are called korban (offering), then even the wagons of the princes (Bamidbar 7:3) and golden vessels from Midian (31:50) are called korban even though they were neither burned nor eaten.

b) The answer that kohanim partake from G-d's table seems unrelated to this question; this law applies to ownership of the korban, but both Zohar's statement and its question concern how or whether it is eaten or burned—i.e., whether by a kohen or on the altar. In Menachos and Chullin cited above, "from G-d's table" means only that this meat belongs to G-d rather than an ordinary person, hence neveilah was permitted for this meat.

c) The answer equating eating by kohanim with burning on the altar apparently refers to our sages' teaching on "if it shall be eaten...", meaning it's as if it was burned on the altar. However, burning on the altar does not always mean literal burning; even pouring out leftovers is called "eating by the altar" (Zevachim 13b). Perhaps your wording isn't precise and you meant Kiddushin (52b): "and this shall be for you from holy of holies from fire... just as fire...", but aside from being a dispute there, it's difficult to interpret Zohar's phrase "burned in fire of the altar" as referring to eating by kohanim equated with burning—especially since Mikdash Melech comments "on the altar means through illumination of malchus called 'altar'," which doesn't fit eating by kohanim. See also Likkutei Torah Parshas Tzav s.v. Ve'achaltem p.62; Sefer HaMitzvos tzt"z mitzvah of eating kodshim; s.v. Ki Hu Yevarech—to my father-in-law Admor shlita—written in year Shat.

It also remains unclear according to both reasons above: superficially, Zohar implies there's something novel about Shavuot—that then chametz is burned on the altar; but according to these explanations, this occurs all year with chametz in todah offerings eaten by kohanim who partake from G-d's table—and even owners' eating is considered so (Beitzah 21a etc.).

The conclusion: I did not merit understanding Lachmei Todah's words nor do I grasp your view that his answer is preferred.

B. You also write: There are those who argue that since it's forbidden to make a sukkah in the Temple courtyard due to "do not plant any tree," how did kohanim eat leftover meal-offerings during Sukkos? The answer given: since they eat from G-d's table it's considered eating for G-d and exempt from sukkah.

I have several comments here; I'll be brief:

a) The prohibition applies only under two conditions: a wooden structure and permanence (Rambam Avodah Zarah end ch.5; see sources noted there). According to Kesef Mishneh (Rambam Beis HaBechirah ch.1 halacha 9), a third condition applies: fixed into building. Thus one could make a sukkah without these conditions; also, s'chach can be straw or leaves—not wood (see Shabbos 66a; see Ohr Sameach there).

b) Even though adding buildings in Beis HaMikdash is generally forbidden because everything must be per Divine instruction—except for fences or mitzvah purposes—it is permitted (Sukkah 51b), especially since perhaps even sukkahs were included in Divine instruction.

c) According to above, Nechemiah 8:16—“they made themselves sukkahs…in courtyards of G-d’s house”—can be understood literally as referring to inside the courtyard without forcing interpretation as Har HaBayis. Note Arachin (3b), Tosafos “u’vnei” there; see Tamid (27a): all twenty-four places were outside Israel’s courtyard.

d) Even if we interpret Nechemiah’s verse as Har HaBayis, we must say per notes above according to Sifrei Shoftim—as cited by Kesef Mishneh—that building even there violates prohibition.

e) What Yalkut Shimoni Shoftim says—“do not plant any tree—even a house—even a sukkah”—on simple reading does not refer at all to mitzvah-sukkahs but rather ordinary huts—as opposed to houses—as in Bereishis 33:17 “he built himself a house and made shelters for his livestock,” etc.

f) In Sifrei end Re’eh: “Chag HaSukkos you shall make…for laymen—from where do we know for sacred use? Scripture says…” In Sifra end Emor: “Could festival-offering and sukkah apply for sacred use? Scripture says… How so? Festival-offering for sacred use; sukkah for laymen.” Even after commentators resolve contradictions between these two statements, questions remain.

g) Eating leftover meal-offerings in courtyard clearly exempts from sukkah because “dwell” means like regular dwelling all year (Sukkah 27a); just as all year kohanim ate leftovers only in courtyard—not at home—they should do so during Sukkos too. If you ask why make sukkahs at all if sacred food exempts them—and what about non-sacred food? See lengthy discussion Meleches Shlomo Hilchos Shechitah ch.2 halacha 3 etc.—why did they make sukkahs in courtyards if interpreted as inside courtyard? It’s no difficulty—the mitzvah of sukkah applies not only when eating bread but throughout one’s activities; it’s permitted to stay in Israel’s courtyard or enter without need for service—as stated Keilim ch.1 mishnah 8: Israel’s courtyard…priests’ courtyard holier—Israelites enter only when needed.

Summary

The Rebbe carefully analyzes complex halachic issues regarding offerings containing chametz and eating sacred foods during Sukkos within Temple precincts, highlighting textual difficulties and clarifying practical implications based on classical sources.