bigdei kehunah - kedushas damim or kedushas ha'guf; the price for enjoyment of an aveira

The gemara (Meg 12) tells us that Achashveirosh threw the grand party described at the opening of the megillah because he thought the 70 years of galus had ended. Since the expected date of our redemption had come and gone and nothing had happened, he wanted to celebrate our downfall. At that party, he put on the bigdei kehuna:

בהראותו את עושר כבוד מלכותו א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מלמד שלבש בגדי כהונה כתיב הכא יקר תפארת גדולתו וכתיב התם לכבוד ולתפארת

A little further down on the same amud the gemara tells us that he also took out the klei ha'mikdash to use at this party:

והשקות בכלי זהב וכלים מכלים שונים משונים מיבעי ליה אמר רבא יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם ראשונים כלו מפני כלים ואתם שונים בהם

The two gemaras ae similar, but there is one big difference between them. The second gemara tells us that a bas kol came out to protest what Achashveirosh was doing. Balshatazar had tried the same thing; he also thought the 70 years were up and made a big party, and he was killed. The bas kol cried out, "Achashveirosh, you didn't get the message? You guys want to make the same mistake twice?!" But no such bas kol came out when he put on the bigdei kehunah. Why the difference? Why the protest over using klei ha'mikdash but not over using bigdei kehunah?

The answer to this question may hinge on a machlokes Rishonim. Tos (Kiddushin 54a) equates bigdei kehunah with klei shareis and assumes both have kedushas ha'guf. Ramban and Ritva disagree and hold that the bigdei kehunah have only kedushas damim. Nafka minah: do bigdei kehunah lose their kedusha if someone violates the issur meila and uses them for a mundane purpose? According to Tos, the begadim, like klei shareis, retain their kedusha, but Ritva writes:

והנכון דכתנות כהונה אינם קדושת הגוף ככלי שרת שהרי אין משתמשין בהן בגופן ומכשירי עבודה הם ודינם כקדושת דמים שיוצאין לחולין בשוגג

Sefer haMakneh points out that based on Ritva, we can understand the difference between  the klei shareis and bigdei kehunah. The gemara (A"Z 52b) darshens from a pasuk in Yechezkel ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה that when the Beis haMikdash was destroyed, the gold and silver in its storehouses lost their kedusha. According to Baal haMaor, the mechanism behind this de-sanctification is the din of mei'ila. The same din that applied to the money should also apply to bigdei kehunah, which according to Ritva have only kedushas damin. The meila committed at the time of churban caused the garments to lost their kedusha. When Achashveirosh put on the garments of bigdei kehunah, he was putting on clothes that no longer had any sanctity -- they were, for all halachic intents and purposes, ordinary garments.  The klei shareis, however, have kedusas ha'guf, which cannot be spoiled by meila. They retained their sanctity. Therefore, the bas kol cried out when Achashveirosh defiled that which was still holy.

There wrinkle in this approach is that Ramban is difficult l'shitaso. Unlike Baal haMaor who learns that ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה operates through the framework of mei'ila, Ramban learns that it is a chiddush din which applies across the board even to kedushas ha'guf. L'shitaso, the klei shareis themselves should also no longer have had any kedusha. (See also Rashi in A"Z 52 who has a different understanding of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה ).

The Chida in his commentary on the megillah Chomas Anach makes a similar point as the Sefer HaMakneh to explain another gemara on that same amud:

שאלו תלמידיו את רשב"י מפני מה נתחייבו שונאיהן של ישראל שבאותו הדור כליה אמר להם אמרו אתם אמרו לו מפני שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע אם כן שבשושן יהרגו שבכל העולם כולו אל יהרגו אמרו לו אמור אתה אמר להם מפני שהשתחוו לצלם אמרו לו וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר אמר להם הם לא עשו אלא לפנים אף הקב"ה לא עשה עמהן אלא לפנים

Why does the gemara focus on the enjoyment of the meal alone, asks Chida? If the dishes were being served in klei ha'midash at this party, shouldn't BnY have been guilty of mei'ila? He answers:

ולא מפני ששתו ישראל בכלי הקדש נתחייבו שהרי ירדו מקדושתן כדכתיב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה משבאו לידם נעשו חולין וז"ש וכלים מכלים שונים כלומר כלים שנשתנו בידם והיו חולין אכן עונש ישראל שנהנו מסעודת הרשע

Clearly Chida assumed like Ramban and not Baal haMaor that the din of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה can remove kedusha even from klei shareis, even from kedushas ha'guf.

Derech agav, R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim on last week's parsha quotes a diyuk of the Chasam Sofer on this gemara that I would explain via a quote from a 1971 NY Times interview with R' Meir Kahane.  The Times asked for Kahane's reaction to the US Attorney General, who was Jewish, asking for a high bail for a Jewish defendant accused of shooting  at the Soviet Mission. Didn't he have an obligation, as a US official, to act as he did, even if, as a Jew, he might be sympathetic to the cause of the defendant. Kahane responded:

No, Mr. Morse [the Attorney General] has an obligation to the U.S. Government. Let me try and explain this to you with a bit of a story. During World War I, there was a very very famous rabbi. He was asked by Jewish soldiers who had been drafted in to the Russian Army whether they could eat pork since that was the only thing served. He said, “Yes, if this is the only food served, then eat it—to live. You can eat the pork. But don't suck the bones.”

My point was that Mr. Morse can come into the court and ask for his $100,000 bail. You can ask for it—and you can ask for it. You can say, “We ask for $100,000 bail be cause he's a dangerous crimi nal”—and then shut up. The judge hesitated. He wavered. And Morse kept at it and kept at it and kept at it and ham mered at it as if he enjoyed it. He was sucking the bone.

Says the Chasam Sofer: Achashveirosh demanded everyone come to the party. Whether Ploni Reb Yid  should have gone or not gone is not the issue. You can't really find fault with someone who goes because he has a gun  pointed at his head. But even if you go, even if you have to eat tarfus, you don't have to suck the bones. The punishment is not for going; the punishment is for שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע, for the enjoyment.

R' Chaim Elazari relates the story of a talmid of a yeshiva who had gone off the derech and once bumped into his old Rosh Yeshiva. The R"Y asked him if he retained anything at all from his days in yeshiva. The talmid replied that indeed he did. He may not keep kosher, he may not keep Shabbos, he may do other aveiros, but he cannot enjoy those aveiros the way other people do because of the impression his past left on him.

R' Chaim Elazari writes that we might think this is a trivial thing, but what we see from the Chasam Sofer is that indeed it is not.