This Week's Article

Lishchat Eitzim

Midot (2:5) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 days ago

The Mishnah (2:5) teaches that the Ezrat Nashim had four different chambers, one in each corner. The chamber in the northeastern corner was called the lishchat eitzim. The Mishnah explains that it was in that chamber that they would inspect the firewood and remove any wormy pieces. This task was carried out by the kohanim that had a physical blemish, invalidating them from performing any avodah in the Beit HaMikdash.

The Tosfot Yom Tov notes that he has not seen any hint in the pesukim why wormy wood be invalid. He does direct our attention to Gemara Menachot, where Rava asks if someone sanctified firewood that was wormy, would he be liable to lashes for consecrated a baal mum -- a blemished korban. The question is whether the pesul is equivalent to a mum or whether a mum on applies to korbanot. That question is left unanswered. The Tosfot Yom Tov also adds that the Gemara there cites Shmuel how explains that the wood would only need to be discarded if it was moist. If it was dry, the wormy parts could be extracted, and the wood could then be used.

Returning to the potentional prohibition of consecrating wormy wood, the Chazon Ish (Menachot 42:25) cites the Tosfot who explain that the Gemara's question is not related to the firewood for the mizbeach (atzie maaracha). The discussion is only related to the opinion of Rebbi, who maintains that one can bring a korban eitzim -- wood that by itself would constitute an offering. It is in that sense the Gemara is unsure whether it being wormy constitutes a mum.

The Chazon Ish however continues that from a simple reading of the Gemara it appears that it was related to the atzei maaracha. Furthermore, this appears to be the position of the Rambam. Firstly, he does not rule like Rebbi that wood can constitute a korban (Maaseh Korbanot 16:13). Additionally, he rules (Issurei Mizbeach 6:1) that if someone consecrates invalid wood to the mizbeach it is a doubt whether it is considered like consecrating a baal mum. The Rambam therefore rules that he would not receive lashes on a biblical level, but makkot mardut. In other words, the Gemara's question was regarding one who consecrated wormy wood to supply the pyres on the mizbeach.

The Chazon Ish continues, that if the question was regarding the donated wood, then why would they be checking the wood in the lishchat eitzim? It should have been checked before it was donated!

The Chazon Ish provided several answers. The first is that indeed it was checked prior to be consecrated. This was an additional check prior to it being used on the mizbeach. Alternatively, when they would donate piles of wood, they would stipulate that the wormy pieces were not included in the consecration. Consequently, when the kohanim later sorted them in the lishchat eitzim, the pieces that were removed were never consecrated. The final suggestion of the Chazon Ish is as follows. Recall that if the wood was dry, it could be cleaned and used. He therefore suggests that perhaps equating donating wormy wood with consecrating a baal mum, is only if it was moist and would need to be discarded. For dry wood that could be remedied, there was no doubt, and no prohibition would apply. That being the case, he suggests that the wood that made it to the lishchat eitzim was only dry wood, consequently the inspection and sorting could be done then.

Download

Calendar