Eat Like A King

The Gemorah in Chullin 132b says למשחה (18:8) teaches us לגדולה that מתנות כהונה should be eaten in a manner that is desirable and tasty.  Rashi ד"ה למשחה says the derasha is regarding מתנות כהונה.  Rashi Zevachim 28a ד"ה אבל הכא says the derasha is regarding קדשים.  Why does he change his terminology from מתנות כהונה to קדשים?  Rashi is explaining according to the context of the Gemorah.  In Zevachim the Gemorah says the din applies to the tail of the korban which is eaten by the owner.  It isn’t a discussion in מתנות כהונה, it’s a din in kodashim.  The Gemorah in Chullin references מתנות כהונה, hence Rashi explains accordingly.  What we can derive from these two different Gemoras is that there are two dinim in the law of למשחה לגדולה.  One halacha is that מתנות כהונה must be eaten in a manner of למשחה לגדולה.  This halacha, as the Gemorah indicates and Tosfos Bechorot 27a spells out, applies even to the זרוע, לחיים, והקיבה.  Even though such מתנות don’t have to be used in a manner of kedusha for the kohan can do whatever he wants with it, even to give to a dog; when the kohan eats them, he must eat them in a respectful manner.  This is the halacha of למשחה לגדולה regarding מתנות כהונה.  Another halacha is that kodashim must be eaten in a respectful manner due to their kedusha. This is a din in the cheftzah of the kodashim.

The aforementioned Tosfos in Bechorot debates whether the din of למשחה לגדולה applies to terumah.  Tosfos concludes that it wouldn’t apply for the din of למשחה לגדולה only applies to meat.  The Achronim ask how can Tosfos say the din only applies to eating meat; this runs against the Gemorah in Sotah 15a that the din ofלמשחה לגדולה   applies to menachos as well? Furthermore, the whole source of the din in the Torah is written in the context of terumah which isn’t meat?  Furthermore, the Gemorah in Temurah 23a derives from the possuk והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן ובניו that the kohan should eat other things before eating the mincha so that it should be eaten when he is already satiated.  The Mordechai end of Pesachim explains this din is based upon the principle of למשחה ולגדולה.  So we see again that the din isn’t limited to meat?

Based upon the previous understanding that there are two dinim in למשחה לגדולה we can possibly understand the Tosfos.  Tosfos agrees that there is a din of למשחה לגדולה regarding the cheftzah of terumah, he is questioning whether this law has the aspect of למשחה לגדולה of eating מתנות כהונה. (Approach of Gevurot Yitzchak, Minchas Avrohom, Moadanei Moshe.)

I have two difficulties with this interpretation of Tosfos.  One problem is that when Tosfos says that למשחה לגדולה only applies to meat, he would seem to mean a sevarah that only by meat it is applicable to say to eat it in a fancy manner.  How does it make sense to differentiate in that sevarah between a din in the eating vs. a din in the kedusha?  Number two is what is Tosfos contrasting between the זרוע, לחיים, והקיבה where there is למשחה לגדולה and terumah where there isn’t if they are two dinim of למשחה לגדולה?

Other Achronim suggest that Tosfos means to differentiate between an obligation of למשחה לגדולה and permission to eat in such a manner.  When it comes to meat, its an obligation to make the meat in a tasty manner, when it comes to menachos its merely permissive.  They bring support to this idea from the language of the Rambam.  When it comes to the meat (Bikkurim V’shar Matnos Kehunah 9:22) he says it’s a חובה to eat them למשחה לגדולה.  Regarding (Maaseh Korbanot 12:14) he says מותרים בכל מאכל.  [The difficulty is the terminology of the Gemorah Zevachim 76a and 90b regarding meat is רשאין לשנות באכילתן, indicating even regarding meat its not an obligation, see Torah Temimah hear that raises the question if its an obligation or not.  Either way, Rav Yosef Engel in Gevurot Shemonim #60 brings proves that the mitzvah of eating kodshim is fulfilled even if it wasn’t eaten in a manner of למשחה לגדולה.]