Intrinsic, Danger, or Dilution?
“From That Allowed to Jews”
(Menachos 5a)
In our sugya we become familiar with a basic rule in the halachos of sacrifices: The substance of the sacrifice must be such that it is permitted to a Jew; if it is forbidden for Jewish consumption, it is invalid as a sacrifice. This rule is derived from the verse “…and one sheep from the flock from the two hundred from the drink of Israel for the Mincha and the Olah and the Shelamim to atone for them” (Yechezkel 45:15). Accordingly, our Gemara states, “‘from the drink of Israel’ – from that which is allowed to Jews,” inferring that one may not offer sacrifices from food unfit for Jews. Therefore, a treifah animal is unfit to be sacrificed as it may not be eaten, and the same applies to any other forbidden foods.
We shall now investigate an essential and interesting inquiry about the criteria of this rule and a number of its implications.
As the rule of “from that which is allowed to Jews” is based on a comparison between the altar and the Jews, such that anything fit for Jews is fit for the altar and vice versa, the Acharonim (see Neos Yaakov 8 and Kehilos Yaakov on our sugya) wondered about the essence of this comparison and arrived at two possibilities. On the one hand, we can understand that it is improper for a person to sacrifice a food that he himself does not eat. On the other hand, we can explain that the reason the Torah forbade a certain food for Jews is the same reason why it should not be sacrificed. The profound difference between these two explanations – even though both arrive at the same result – can be seen from the halacha of terumah wine.
Terumah Wine
The Rishonim (Zevachim 88a) disagreed whether terumah wine, allowed only for kohanim, is considered a “drink of Jews” and may be offered on the altar. According to Rashi (s.v. menachos unesachim…), it should not be offered on the altar; in spite of the fact that it is allowed for Kohanim, it is not considered a “drink of Jews” as it is not allowed for all Jews. On the other hand, Tosafos (s.v. min hameduma) wonder why it is should ever be considered a “drink of Jews” just because it is allowed to Kohanim.
Sefer Minchas Avraham teaches that we can attribute the disagreement of Rashi and Tosafos to our inquiry. If “drink of Jews” means that a person must not sacrifice a food that he himself does not eat, we can understand Rashi’s opinion, that it is improper for a non-Kohen to offer terumah wine which he himself may not drink. On the other hand, if “drink of Jews” means that the very reason why that food is forbidden to a Jew is the same reason that it is forbidden for the altar, then in our case, where the terumah is forbidden to non-Kohanim but allowed to Kohanim, logic would not support that the reason that prevents a non-Kohen from eating the terumah should prevent its being offered on the altar.
After all, is the altar less holy than the kohanim who may partake of this offering? (See further, ibid., that he explains in the name of the Acharonim that the Amoraim disagreed on this point in Chullin 90b, discussing whether gid hanasheh is burnt on the altar.)
Libation with Exposed Water
Our Sages (Terumos 8:4,6; Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeiach Ushmiras Hanefesh 11:7) forbade drinking exposed water because of the danger that a snake had drank from it and left its venom therein. Indeed, our Sages rule (Chullin 10a) that “chamira sakanta m’isura” – danger is even greater than a prohibition. To decide if such water should be forbidden for libation, we find as follows: If the rule of “drink of Jews,” simply put, means that one must not offer food on the altar that a Jew does not eat, and such is an intrinsic rule related to the altar, then one must not offer exposed water. But if the rule of “drink of Jews” means that the reason why a food may be forbidden to Jews is for a reason unrelated to the altar but rather due to totally different considerations, then we cannot forbid exposed water for libation because the reason for forbidding it is the danger to humans, which has no relevance to the altar, i.e., to the Divine Presence.
The Mishna in Sukkah (48b) explains that one must not offer exposed water on the altar, and the Yerushalmi (ibid., 4:7) explains that this stems from the rule of the “drink of Jews” We thus see that the prohibition of “drink of Jews” is based on the fact that it is unfit for a person to offer something that he himself cannot eat. The Acharonim (see Responsa Ein Yitzchak, Orach Chayyim 24) note that Rashi and Tosafos (Sukkah, ibid.) mention another reason to forbid libation with exposed water – that perhaps the venom might dilute the water’s proper measure that is to be poured on the altar. Accordingly, in their opinion expressed in that sugya, the prohibition of “drink of Jews” alone seemingly would not suffice to disqualify exposed water for the altar.
The Sacrifices of Adam and His Sons
The Acharonim offer a view to the contrary, noting that Adam, Kayin, and Hevel offered sacrifices. Until Noach left the Ark, it was forbidden to eat meat (Sanhedrin 59b). Now, if the prohibition of “drink of Jews” is because a person must not sacrifice anything that he is forbidden to eat, how could they have offered sacrifices? We thus see that the source of the prohibition of “drink of Jews” is that the status of the item as forbidden to Jews is intrinsic to its being forbidden on the altar. As meat was not forbidden for Jews at that time (there were yet no Jews) but only for Adam and his sons, we see that they were able to sacrifice animals even though they were not allowed to eat them.
This proof has been rejected on several bases. We will share two of them. The author of Oneg Yom Tov explains in the preface that we must not define the prohibition to eat meat until Noach’s era as an ordinary prohibition of eating, but rather that until Noach left the Ark, Hashem forbade people to kill animals for food, as one creature was not allowed to kill another. Thus, meat was not considered inferior food for Adam but, on the contrary, a type of food that Adam was unfit to eat but which surely could be offered to Hashem.
On the other hand, Pardes Yosef (Bereishis 8:20) concurs with the Acharonim cited above and mentions that the halacha forbidding the sacrifice of a forbidden food was not conveyed to and has no connection to Noachides at all but only to Jews (see Keli Chemdah, Bereishis, os 3, and Margaliyos Hayam, Sanhedrin, ibid.; see Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 299, os 21-22, who inclines to say that even food that is forbidden by rabbinical decree is disqualified by the Torah for the altar because of the prohibition derived from “drink of Jews,” yet he leaves the matter as one that requires more research).