THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "MINCHAS MARCHESHES" AND A "MINCHAS MACHAVAS"
QUESTION: The Mishnah says that the Minchas Marcheshes is "Amukah" and it is
made "Rochashin." The Minchas Machavas is "Tzafah" and it is made "Kashin."
RASHI explains that the Minchas Marcheshes is brought in a deep utensil
("Amukah"). The oil collects at the bottom of the utensil, and remains even
after the Minchah is fried (it moves, "Rochashin," when the Minchah is
touched). A Minchas Machavas is baked in a flat pan ("Tzafah" -- the bottom
of the pain "floats" on nearly the same level as the walls of the pan). The
Minchah becomes hard when fried, since the oil goes to the sides of the pan
and does not suffuse the Minchah.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:7) explains that the Minchas
Marcheshes is a Minchah fried in a deep utensil. Such a Minchah is usually
prepared with a soft dough, since the walls of the utensil can contain this
type of liquidy dough. The Minchas Machavas is fried in a flat frying pan.
Such a Minchah is usually made with a hard dough, so that the dough will not
seep out over the sides of the pan.
According to Rashi, whether a Minchah is a Marcheshes or a Machavas is
determined by the form of the final product -- if it has a lot of oil in it,
it is a Marcheshes, and if the oil is not noticeable, it is a Machavas.
According to the Rambam, the type of Minchah is determined by what type of
utensil is used to prepare the Minchah. Why does the Rambam not learn like
(a) The HAR HA'MORIYAH explains that the Rambam does not learn like Rashi,
because there should be no reason to use different types of utensils if the
only difference between the Marcheshes and the Machavas is how much oil is
contained in each. We should be able to use the same type of utensil (such
as a deep pan) for both, and merely turn off the flame before the oil burns
out in order to make a Marcheshes, and leave the flame on until the oil
burns out in order to make a Machavas! The Rambam therefore learns that it
is the utensil that determines what type of Minchah it will be.
(b) From the Rambam's words in Perush ha'Mishnayos, it seems that the
Rambam's source is the Gemara itself. Following his explanation of the
difference between a Marcheshes and a Machavas, the Rambam writes that "this
is the reasoning of the Gemara, that differentiates between them based on
their utensils, as I have described." The Rambam is referring to the Beraisa
cited here, in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about a case in which
a person makes an oath to donate a "Marcheshes." Beis Shamai says that there
is a doubt whether the word "Marcheshes" refers to the utensil in which the
Minchah is made, or whether it refers to the *manner* in which the Minchah
is made. Beis Hillel says that it refers to the utensil in which the Minchah
According to the Rambam, Beis Shamai is in doubt concerns not merely what
the word "Marcheshes" refers to (as Rashi explains his doubt), but rather
what determines whether the Minchah is a Marcheshes (the utensil in which it
is made, or the manner in which it is made). Since the Halachah follows the
view of Beis Hillel, who says that the word "Marcheshes" refers to the
utensil, the Rambam explains that it is type of the utensil that determines
whether the Minchah is a Marcheshes or a Machavas.
(We can understand Beis Shamai's words in a new way, according to the
Rambam's understanding. Beis Shamai says that when a person says, "Harei
Alai Marcheshes," it "must be left until Eliyahu comes" to clarify what the
person must bring. Rashi explains that there is a doubt whether the person
meant to make a Neder to bring a utensil called "Marcheshes," or whether he
meant to make a Neder to bring a Minchah offering. Tosfos asks that if the
doubt is as Rashi explains, then the person should simply bring both! The
Rambam, though, may learn the Gemara differently, and Tosfos' question will
not be difficult. According to the Rambam, Beis Shamai's doubt is whether
the type of Minchah is determined by the utensil in which it is prepared, or
by the manner in which it is prepared. Perhaps when the Torah says
"Marcheshes" it means that the Minchah must be prepared in a deep pan, but
that the oil should be burned out by leaving the fire on for a long time. On
the other hand, perhaps the Torah means that the oil should be left in the
Minchah (so that it will be "Rochashin"), but it does not necessarily have
to be prepared in a deep pan. Since there is a doubt about what type of
Minchah to bring, one must wait until Eliyahu comes to clarify the matter,
since one cannot simply bring both types out of doubt, since one of them
might not be a Minchah at all and will be Chulin ba'Azarah. See also SEFAS
EMES.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
2) A MINCHAH COMPRISED OF BOTH "CHALOS" AND "REKIKIN"
QUESTIONS: The Gemara says that, according to Rebbi Shimon, when bringing a
Korban Minchah comprised of Chalos and Rekikin, one performs one act of
Kemitzah on the Chalos and Rekikin together. If it happens that only one
type of loaf comes up in his hand, he has nevertheless fulfilled the Mitzvah
of Kemitzah. This implies that, l'Chatchilah, when performing Kemitzah, one
should try to take both types of loaves in his hand.
If, as Rebbi Shimon maintains, Chalos and Rekikin are considered the same
type of Korban, then why should the Kohen be required to take the Kemitzah
from both of them l'Chatchilah?
We may ask a similar question on the view of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. He
argues with Rebbi Shimon and says that one may not bring a Minchah comprised
of both Chalos and Rekikin. The Minchah must be comprised entirely of Chalos
or entirely of Rekikin. The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yosi is expressing the
same view as his father, Rebbi Yehudah (as recorded in the Mishnah on 63a).
The Gemara answers that he argues with his father with regard to
"b'Di'eved." If, b'Di'eved, one brought a Minchah that was comprised of both
Chalos and Rekikin, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Minchah is valid, while
Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Minchah is Pasul.
How can Rebbi Yehudah permit a Minchah comprised of both Chalos and Rekikin?
If he holds that the two types of loaves are separate types of Korbanos,
then he should hold that a Minchah comprised of both types together is Pasul
ANSWER: The Gemara here explains that the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and
Rebbi Yehudah is based on how to interpret the verse. Rebbi Yehudah says
that since the verse says that Chalos are to be mixed with oil (Vayikra 2:4)
and that Rekikin are to be mixed with oil, using the word "ba'Shemen" for
each one, this serve to create a break between the two types of loaves,
showing that they are two separate Korbanos and are not to be mixed. Rebbi
Shimon argues that if they were two separate Korbanos, then the Torah would
have used the term "Korban" twice to describe them. Since the Torah uses the
word "Korban" to describe both of them both (ibid.), it must be that Chalos
and Rekikin are one type of Korban and may be brought together as a single
Rebbi Shimon, however, does not entirely disregard the Derashah of Rebbi
Yehudah (of "ba'Shemen," "ba'Shamen"). Rebbi Shimon learns from there that
the Chalos and Rekikin *are* considered separate and distinct to some
degree. This teaches that l'Chatchilah, the Kemitzah should include both
types of loaves, as if they were two separate Korbanos. Nevertheless, since
the Torah does not separate them with the word "Korban," they may be brought
together as a single Minchah, and, in addition, if the Kohen took only one
type of loaf as the Kemitzah, b'Di'eved the Kemitzah is valid.
Similarly, Rebbi Yehudah does not entirely disregard the Derashah of Rebbi
Shimon (that the fact that the verse calls both types of loaves a single
"Korban," that they may be brought together). This teaches that, to some
degree, they are considered identical. Therefore, although l'Chatchilah the
Derashah of "ba'Shemen" teaches that the two types of loaves are considered
to be distinct Korbanos, nevertheless the Derashah of Rebbi Shimon teaches
that b'Di'eved they may be brought together as one Korban.
This also seems to be the way that RASHI learns the Gemara. In the Gemara
earlier (60a), Rav Papa says that "every place in the Mishnah [that mentions
the different types of Menachos], ten are taught." The Gemara asks, "What is
he teaching us?" It answers that Rav Papa is teaching us that the Mishnah
does not follow the view of Rebbi Shimon. Rashi explains that according to
Rebbi Shimon, there are *eleven* types of Menachos, since there is an added
Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur -- the type that consists of a mixture of Chalos and
The CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM offers a different explanation. He says that
according to Rebbi Shimon, there are actually only nine Menachos. Since
Rebbi Shimon holds that Chalos and Rekikin are not distinct Korbanos, a
Minchah comprised of ten Chalos and a Minchah comprised of ten Rekikin are
considered to be the same type of Minchah and do not count as separate
Why does Rashi not learn this way? The answer is that since, l'Chatchilah,
one should perform the Kemitzah with both types of loaves because, to some
degree, they are considered separate Korbanos, they are similarly considered
separate Korbanos with regard to numbering them. We may combine them to make
a single Korban, but it is still not exactly the same as a Minchah that is
comprised completely of Chalos or completely of Rekikin. This is why Rashi
says that according to Rebbi Shimon there are eleven types of Menachos.
(Mordechai Zvi Dicker)