Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm probably missing something rather simple but a cursory check has not given me a suitable answer -- when someone bakes challah and takes that chunk out to be put aside for a kohen, because the local kohens are all tamei, the challah must be burned. I know that there are different traditions and halachot about how much it has to be burned, covered or not etc, but my concern is that afterwards, the challah is either thrown out or buried. Isn't this going against bal tashchit?

share|improve this question
1  
Once it is already burned, why would bal tashchis still apply? –  Fred May 13 '12 at 17:46
2  

2 Answers 2

Doing something the Torah tells one to do can never be a violation of the Torah.

Destroying chometz which one finds on pesach isn't baal tashchis either, since if the Torah says you can't use it or have benefit from it then by definition the prohibition of baal tashchis is removed.

share|improve this answer
1  
Is doing Milah on Tzaraat a violation of the Torah? –  Double AA May 13 '12 at 20:41
    
The Torah doesn't say anywhere that you must burn challah. It's the minority opinion of the rosh, which some Jews accepted. -1 If I could. –  Hahu Gavra May 14 '12 at 23:06
    
@HahuGavra Who said the case was happening in the Diaspora? –  Double AA Nov 19 '13 at 5:37

"Bal tashchis" is a prohibition on destroying something for which there is potential use. Destroying something that has no use is not in violation of that prohibition. Because there is no use for separated chala (because, as you note, there's no one around these days who can eat it), one may destroy it. Moreover, one can separate the chala even though it will wind up destroyed, because fulfillment of a mitzva is a valid reason for destroying something: it does not violate "bal tashchis".

Source: This is common knowledge of the prohibition of "bal tashchis". One example source is the Chinuch (529), who writes (in my own loose translation) "...but certainly it's permissible to cut them [=fruit trees] if he finds a purpose in doing so... and any non-fruit tree, [the rabbis] said, one may cut even if he doesn't need it...". As an example of the permissibility of destroying something for a purpose, Mishna B'rura 560:9 writes that it's permissible to break a cup at a wedding "since they do so as a hint to a lesson, so people place it in their hearts".

share|improve this answer
    
A tip of the hat to torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5760/behaaloscha.html for pointing me to the Mishna B'rura. See that page for more citations (including a Sh'vus Yaakov). –  msh210 May 13 '12 at 16:48
    
there is an opinion which says "Challah that is separated in Eretz Yisroel may not be eaten be a kohain who is tamei tum’as meis. In chutz la’aretz, only a kohain who has a tumah hayotzei migufo is forbidden from eating challah. Therefore, if a kohain was a ba’al keri and he went to the mikvah he may eat chalas chutz la’aretz even though he is tamei tum’as meis. The Rema (Orach Chayim 457:2) records that nevertheless some have the minhag not to give challah to kohanim b’zman ha’zeh." It is a minhag not to use it? Potential exists? www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/8981 footnote 11 –  Danno May 13 '12 at 16:49
1  
@Dan, why don't you ask that as a separate question? Looks like a good one. –  msh210 May 13 '12 at 16:52
    
Why doesn't the separator just give it to a cohen follower of Maran haShulchan Aruch? –  Baal Shemot Tovot May 13 '12 at 18:00
1  
Also, isn't it Tamei when the Tamei person separates it, and therefore the Kohen couldn't eat it anyway? –  Menachem May 13 '12 at 18:35

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.