Igrot Kodesh · Letter 8563 — Tzedakah

(Kislev* 5723)

You ask me about the explanation of the Tosafos*, in tractate Chullin* 140a, which refers to the following question: if someone commits a transgression by consecrating an animal originating from an entire city convicted of idolatry (note 1: Although it is forbidden to derive the slightest benefit from all that originates from this city) and by sacrificing it, has he performed a valid sacrifice? It is clear that it concerns here an animal belonging to a righteous man, for if it were that of a wicked man, it would be disqualified in any case, since it is said (note 2: Mishlei* 15, 8) that: "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination," as tractate Sanhedrin* 112b explains. Nevertheless, one can think that the Tosafos* adopt the same position as the Ravad*, laws of idolatry, chapter 4, at paragraph 13, according to which such a prohibition does not apply. Furthermore, the animal was sacrificed and it was therefore in Yerushalayim*, from which one may remove the money of the righteous who do not reside there.

One can explain and this, it seems, justifies the superfluous turn of phrase employed by the Tosafos*, that it is indeed specified here: "commits a transgression (note 3: The Rebbe* underlines the two expressions: "commits a transgression") by consecrating an animal," which clearly means that this consecration was illicit in this place, when the verdict was pronounced (note 4: The city was proclaimed idolatrous), then that it was, subsequently, carried out in Yerushalayim*. Indeed, the men leaving the city convicted of idolatry are not saved thereby and the Sifri*, on the verse Re'eh* 13, 16, says regarding them: "You shall strike." A fortiori is this the case for its animals. Furthermore, one can underline that by sanctifying the animal, one commits a transgression, since it must be burned. Now, the sanctification does not apply to an animal that is destined to be burned. One can therefore ask whether, in this case, it is not a profane animal that was sacrificed on the esplanade of the Temple or even whether this animal cannot even be qualified as profane. But, perhaps the answer to this question is linked to the necessity of clarifying which transgression was committed, in this case: was a profane animal sacrificed on the esplanade of the Temple, according to the meaning of the expression in the verse: "yours" that is retained by tractate Kiddushin* 57b or an animal that was not sanctified? This point will not be developed here.

ח'תקסג

[כסלו תשכ"ג]

... להערת כת"ר בתוד"ה למעוטי (חולין קמ, א) דנסתפקו בבהמת עה"נ שעבר והקדישה והקריבה אם הוא קרבן כשר - דקשה דע"כ בבהמת צדיקים קאי

(דדרשעים - בלאה"כ פסולה מפני זר"ת - סנה' קיב, ב. אבל י"ל דס"ל לתוס' כהראב"ד הל' ע"ז פ"ד הי"ג דלא חל איסור) וכיון שהקריבה - היינו שהיא בירושלים הרי ממון צדיקים שמחוצה לה פלט.

וי"ל (ובזה מתורץ ג"כ היתור ל', לכאורה, בתוס') שכתב ודייק " שעבר " והקדישה, היינו שההקדש הי' בעבירה, לאחר גמ"ד כשהיא בתוכה, והקריבה אח"כ

בירושלים - שכיון שבנ"א שיצאו מעה"נ אין זה מצילם ונאמר עליהם הכה תכה (ספרי ראה יג, טז) עאכו"כ בהמה. עוי"ל דכיון שבעת שהקדיש עבר - לשריפה קיימא אז - אין הקדש חל על בהמה שרופה. ועפ"ז צ"ע אם יש בזה איסור הקרבת חולין בעזרה, או שגם חולין אינה. ואולי יש לקשר בהבירור מהו האיסור: להקריב חולין כמשמעות "שלך" (קדושין נז, ב) בעזרה, או - מה שאינו הקדש. ואכ"מ.

ח'תקסג
נדפסה בלקו"ש חי"ד ע' 258.

עה"נ: עיר הנדחת.

זר"ת: זבח רשעים תועבה.