Parshas Acharei Mos-Kedoshim 5786
- Torah Tavlin
- Apr 24
- 3 min read
מנחות דף צט: "בבליים אוכלין אותו חי"
The Mishna says” When יו"כ fell out on ערב שבת, the שעיר של יו"כ that was brought by day was eaten that night. Babylonian kohanim would eat it raw, "מפני שדעתן יפה" i.e., they were not finicky. Normally kohanim would cook this חטאת after יו"כ and eat it, but if יו"כ fell on Friday, that night would be שבת and אסור to cook. Hence, the above was done. The Gemara explains that these kohanim were really Alexandrians, but since the חכמים disliked the Babylonians, as תוס' explains, because they didn’t come back to ארץ ישראל בימי עזרא, they were disliked and called בבליים. Rashi explains: by eating raw meat the Alexandrian כהנים were displaying a מדה של רעבתנות so the רבנן addressed them derogatorily. תוס' points out they were referred to בלשון גנאי because they ate the שעיר של יו"כ raw, even though they were being מקיים a mitzvah by not letting it become נותר but since they were נוהג to eat it like this (raw) every year even if יו"כ didn’t fall out on ע"ש it is מחזי כרעבתנותא.
The רש"ש is מדייק: why does תוס' say they were מקיים a mitzvah by not letting the קרבן become נותר and not simply say they were being מקיים the מצות עשה של אכילת קדשים? He says this must be a ראיה that תוס' holds that eating something שלא כדרך אכילתן is not considered an אכילה even if to them it was their דרך. So, since they ate it raw, it is not considered an אכילה and they were not מקיים אכילת קדשים; they only succeeded in not letting it become נותר. He says this could also answer the kler of the משנה למלך [יסודי התורה פ"ה, ה"ח] who asks on the din of כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליה שלא כדרך הנאתן"”. This is regarding being עובר a לא תעשה. How about to be מקיים a עשה? Does the same hold true? For example, אכילת מצה or קרבן פסח, what is the דין if one would eat them שלא כדרך אכילה, would he be יוצא? The משנה למלך says that just like to be עובר a לאו of לא תאכל one must eat the item כדרך, so too, when trying to be מקיים a מצות עשה of אכילה one must eat the item כדרך אכילה. The רש"ש is inferring that we see from our תוס' that eating something שלא כדרך is also not considered an אכילה for a מצות עשה.
The [מצוה ז' אות ג'] מנח"ח brings the כרתי ופלתי who says חי (raw) or anything cooked less than כמאכל בן דרוסאי is considered שלא כדרך אכילה. He says that eating חי is considered כדרך אכילה and brings our Mishna as proof, since it is a מצות עשה to eat the שעיר and they ate it חי, so we see that it is viewed as an אכילה. The [שו"ת ח"ג ס' נב, אות ג' וד'] בית הלוי brings the above משנה למלך and says our Gemara of the בבליים is a proof that אכילה שלא כדרך is considered an אכילה since they ate the שעיר raw, which is not דרך אכילה. He adds that maybe the בבליים are not a ראיה to other מצות אכילה because here it is אכילת קדשים which is not the standard מצות אכילה but rather that it just gets eaten. ע"ש