QUESTIONS: The Gemara derives from the verse, "v'Nasata Aleha Shemen"
(Vayikra 2:15), that oil is placed on the individual's Minchas Nedavah and
it is not placed on the Lechem ha'Panim. The Gemara asks that perhaps the
verse is excluding the Minchas Kohanim from the requirement of oil, and not
the Lechem ha'Panim. The Gemara explains that it is more logical to include
the Minchas Kohanim, because the Minchas Kohanim is similar to a Minchas
Nedavah offering in a number of ways. (The Gemara concludes that the reason
it is more logical to include the Minchas Kohanim in the requirement of oil
is because it is also an individual's Minchah offering, as the verse says
"Nefesh" with regard to the one who brings it.)
One of the ways in which the Minchas Kohanim is similar to a Minchas Nedavah
is the common requirement of "Kli." To what does the requirement of "Kli"
RASHI explains that the requirement of "Kli" refers to the requirement to
knead all of the Menachos, including the Minchas Kohanim, in a Kli. The
Lechem ha'Panim becomes Kadosh only after it is baked in the oven and,
therefore, its kneading does not need to be done in a Kli.
The simple way of understanding Rashi's words is that all Menachos (except
the Lechem ha'Panim) are already Kadosh at the time of the kneading and,
therefore, they need to be kneaded in a Kli Shares, while the Lechem
ha'Panim becomes Kadosh only later (when it is baked), and, therefore, its
kneading does not need to be done in a Kli.
However, Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand for a number of
First, as TOSFOS asks, there is no reason to assume that all Menachos are
already Kadosh at the time they are kneaded, while the Lechem ha'Panim is
not. If the Kli used for measuring flour is Kadosh, then the flour of the
Lechem ha'Panim is also Kadosh! If, on the other hand, only the Kli used for
measuring liquids (and not flour) is Kadosh, and that Kli is not used for
the Lechem ha'Panim, then we must ask a question -- why is the liquid
measuring cup not used for the Lechem ha'Panim? It cannot be because no oil
is used in the Lechem ha'Panim, for that is exactly the point that the
Gemara here is trying to prove, and we do not know yet that no oil is used
in the Lechem ha'Panim! (That is, the Gemara cannot prove that the Lechem
ha'Panim is not made with oil from the fact that a liquid measuring cup is
not used, since the only reason a liquid measuring cup would not be used is
if the Lechem ha'Panim is not made with oil!) Since, at this point in the
Gemara, we do not yet know that the Lechem ha'Panim is made without oil, we
must assume that oil is used, and thus the liquid measuring cup is also used
for the Lechem ha'Panim. Consequently, the Lechem ha'Panim should also be
Kadosh before it is baked!
Second, the YASHAR V'TOV (96a, based on the words of Tosfos to 95b, end of
DH u'Mai) infers from Rashi later than Rashi holds that when the Lishah
(kneading) and Arichah (arranging) of a Minchah are done in the Azarah, they
must be done in a Kli, even when they are not yet Kadosh. If a Kli is
necessary only for a Minchah that is already Kadosh, then why should Rashi
there necessitate using a Kli when the Minchah is not yet Kadosh?
Third, Rashi here quotes the Derashah of the Gemara later (96a) that derives
from a Hekesh that a Minchah needs a Kli when it is prepared inside the
Azarah. There is no indication in the verses cited by the Gemara there that
this applies only when the Minchah is already Kadosh. Why, then, should the
requirement of a Kli depend on the Minchah being Kadosh?
ANSWER: The KEREN ORAH answers these questions as follows. It is obvious
that a Minchah may be offered only when it is Kadosh. It is also obvious
that a Minchah is offered from a Kli. In the case of a Minchas Nedavah, the
Kemitzah is done from the Kli. In the case of a Minchas Kohanim, for which
there is no Kemitzah, the entire Minchah is brought to the Mizbe'ach in a
Kli. Hence, the Minchah is Kadosh when it is in the Kli. In contrast, the
Lechem ha'Panim does not necessarily have to be offered in a Kli. It is true
that the Lechem ha'Panim might be Kadosh already when it is kneaded, such as
when the flour (or oil) was measured in a Kli Shares. Nevertheless, this
stage is not necessary for the Avodah of the Lechem ha'Panim. Rather, the
time at which the Lechem ha'Panim *must* become Kadosh is only during the
baking or even later, when it is placed on the Shulchan, for it is at that
moment that the Avodah is done with the Lechem ha'Panim.
According to this, we can understand the words of Rashi. When the Derashah
later (96a) teaches that the other Menachos need a Kli, it is referring to
Menachos that *must* have Kedushah by the time that they are in a Kli, just
before being offered on the Mizbe'ach. We learn from the Hekesh that the
earlier steps in the preparation of the Minchah also need to be done in a
Kli, when they are done in the Azarah. Rashi continues and says that the
Lechem ha'Panim, in contrast, does not *need* Kedushah until it is baked.
While it might technically acquire Kedushah while being prepared, as Tosfos
says, the Avodah of the Lechem ha'Panim does not require this. The verse is
not referring to Menachos that do not require Kedushah of a Kli during the
This explains the intention of Rashi and answers the question of Tosfos as
well as the question of the Yashar v'Tov. Rashi does not mean to make the
requirement of a Kli dependent upon the Minchah having Kedushah. Rashi means
that the Menachos that *need* Kedushah of a Kli when they are offered on the
Mizbe'ach also need Kedushah of a Kli for their preparatory stages.
Therefore, even if the kneading is done when the flour is not yet Kadosh, it
must be done in a Kli.
This does not answer the third question, though. What hint is there in the
verse that the requirement of a Kli applies only when the Minchah must have
Kedushah at the time of the Avodah of the Minchah (excluding the Lechem
Perhaps the answer to this question is as follows. The Hekesh of the Gemara
later (96a) is learned from the verse, "This is the place in which the
Kohanim will cook the Asham and the Chatas, and in which they will bake the
Minchah" (Yechezkel 46:20). Just as the Asham and Chatas are cooked in a Kli
(since there is no other way to cook them, as Rashi there points out), so,
too, the Minchah must be baked in a Kli. If the baking must be done in a
Kli, then it is logical that the rest of the Minchah's preparation,
including the Lishah and Arichah, must also be done in a Kli.
All of the Menachos are able to be included in this Derashah, since their
final stage of preparation (baking, or frying in the case of a Minchas
Marcheshes and Machavas, or kneading in the case of a Minchas Soles) can be
done in a Kli. The verse is teaching that this final stage of preparation
*must* be done in a Kli, and we extrapolate from there that the other stages
of preparation also require a Kli.
The Lechem ha'Panim, however, is not able to be included in the Derashah,
because the Lechem ha'Panim is not completed in a Kli. The loaves of the
Lechem ha'Panim are baked in an oven, without a Kli. While it is true that
the flour of the Lechem ha'Panim is kneaded and arranged, the verse is
referring to the final stage of the preparation when it says that the
Menachos need a Kli, and the final stage of the Lechem ha'Panim certainly is
not done in a Kli and thus cannot be included in the verse (and thus the
Lishah and Arichah also do not need a Kli).
QUESTION: The Beraisa says that if Levonah was placed on a Minchas Chotei or
Minchas Sotah, and then one had a thought of Pigul about the Minchah, the
Minchah becomes Pasul (but one is not Chayav Kares for offering it, since it
was not fit to be offered while the Levonah was on it).
The Gemara asks, "v'Tihavei Pach" -- it should be like "Pach."
RASHI explains that the Gemara is asking that the Minchas Chotei on which
Levonah was placed should be no different than a Minchas Chotei on which oil
was placed. Such a Minchah becomes entirely unfit to be used as a Korban
(since the oil is inextricable), and a thought of Pigul has no effect.
Similarly, a Minchas Chotei on which Levonah was placed is entirely unfit at
the present moment to be used as a Korban, and a thought of Pigul should
have absolutely no effect. Consequently, when the Levonah is removed, the
Minchah should be valid! Why, then, does the Beraisa say that the Minchah
becomes Pasul because of the thought of Pigul?
TOSFOS says that the correct Girsa is, "v'Tihavei Dachuy." He explains that
the Gemara is asking a question on the first part of the Beraisa, and on the
Mishnah, both of which say that if Levonah was placed on a Minchas Chotei,
one should remove the Levonah and the Minchah will be valid. Why is the
Minchah valid? Once it has become unfit to be offered (by having Levonah
placed on it), it should remain unfit!
Abaye answers that the verse specifically refers to the Minchas Chotei as a
"Chatas," teaching that it retains some degree of validity even when it has
Levonah on it (Rashi), or that it does not become Dachuy (Tosfos).
Rava answers that the Mishnah and Beraisa are following the opinion that
does not agree that something that became Dachuy remains unfit. (According
to this opinion, it is still necessary for the earlier Beraisa to derive
from the word "Chatas" that a Minchas Chotei does not become Pasul due to
Levonah placed on it, since we might have thought that just as oil
invalidates the Minchah, Levonah invalidates the Minchah. The word "Chatas"
teaches that Levonah does not invalidate the Minchah.)
Rav Ashi answers that something that is within the ability of a person to
correct is not considered Dachuy. Since the person can remove the Levonah,
the Minchah is not considered to be unfit.
The BRISKER RAV questions Rava's answer. According to Rava, there is no
Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (of "Chatas") teaching that Dachuy does not apply to a
Minchas Chotei on which Levonah was placed. Consequently, the opinion that
*does* hold of Dachuy will say that once the Levonah was placed on the
Minchah, the Minchah remains unfit even after the Levonah is removed.
However, the earlier Beraisa derives from the word "Chatas" that once the
Levonah is removed from the Minchah, the Minchah is valid. While it is true
that the Minchah is no longer Pasul due to the Levonah being on it, but --
according to the opinion that holds of Dachuy -- it should be Pasul because
it was once pushed away from being fit, and thus it should remain unfit! How
does the verse of "Chatas" help make the Minchah fit to be offered?
(The simple answer would be that the opinion that holds of Dachuy also
argues with the first Beraisa.)
ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV answers that there must be a difference between an
inherent Pesul (such as the Pesul of a Minchas Chotei that has Levonah on
it) and a Pesul that is only because of Dachuy (such as the Pesul of a
Minchas Chotei that *once* had Levonah on it but the Levonah was removed).
What is the difference between the two types of Pesul?
If placing Levonah on a Minchas Chotei disqualifies the Minchah absolutely,
then the Minchah remains Pasul after the Levonah is removed even without the
principle of Dachuy, and one who offers the Minchah will transgress the Isur
of offering a Minchah that had Levonah placed on it. However, if the verse
of "Chatas" teaches that the Pesul of Levonah is not absolute, then the
Pesul does *not* remain once the Levonah is removed from the Minchah, and
one who offers the Minchah after removing the Levonah has not transgressed.
Even though the Minchah is Pasul because of Dachuy, nevertheless the
transgression of offering a Minchas Chotei with Levonah has been removed.
With this basic principle, the Brisker Rav answers the question that Tosfos
asks on Rav Ashi's answer. Rav Ashi says that since it is within the
person's ability to remove the Levonah, the Minchah is not considered to be
Dachuy. Tosfos asks what the difference is between the Gemara here and the
Gemara in Zevachim (59a) that says that all of the Korbanos that were ready
to be offered when the Mizbe'ach became damaged and could not be offered,
remain Pasul even after the Mizbe'ach is fixed. Why should the Korbanos be
Dachuy if it was within our ability to fix the Mizbe'ach?
The Brisker Rav answers based on the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei
ha'Mizbe'ach 3:22). The Rambam says that when the Mizbe'ach was damaged,
"all slaughtered Korbanos that were there become Pasul, because there is no
Mizbe'ach on which to perform the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the verse says, 'And
you shall offer upon it your Olos and your Shelamim,' which means that when
you offer the Korbanos, the Mizbe'ach must be standing in its perfect form."
Why does the Rambam give two separate reasons for why the Korbanos cannot be
offered when the Mizbe'ach is damaged? The Rambam first says that it is
because there is no proper Mizbe'ach on which to perform the Zerikah, and
then he quotes the verse that teaches that the Mizbe'ach must be whole and
complete in order to offer Korbanos upon it! The first reason should
suffice -- the Korban has become unfit from being offered since there is no
Mizbe'ach on which to perform the Zerikah!
The answer is that without a verse we would only know that the Korbanos are
Pasul because of the principle of Dachuy, since there is a technical
obstacle in offering the Korbanos in that the Zerikah cannot be performed.
However, we would assume that once the Mizbe'ach is fixed, then those
Korbanos are *not* Pasul and may be offered, since it was in our ability to
fix the Mizbe'ach, and any Pesul that is within our ability to fix is not
considered Dachuy. The verse teaches that when there is no proper Mizbe'ach
on which to offer the Korbanos, it is not merely a technical problem of
Dachuy. It is a new Pesul -- the Korbanos became Pasul because of the lack
of a proper Mizbe'ach. Once such a Pesul takes effect, it disqualifies the
Korbanos absolutely and they cannot be offered at all. (Mordechai Zvi