QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa (39b) which discusses both the Mitzvah of Yibum
and the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah, the part of the Minchah offering
which is not brought upon the Mizbe'ach. The Beraisa says with regard to these two
Mitzvos that they involve something which when done in one form is Mutar and when
done in another form is Asur. The Gemara explains that it is possible that Aba Shaul
authored the Beraisa, and the Beraisa is teaching that Yibum when done in one manner
is a Mitzvah, and if done in another manner is Asur; when it is done l'Shem Mitzvah,
it is a Mitzvah, and when done for other motives, it is Asur.
The Gemara then attempts to explain in a similar manner the part of the Beraisa that
discusses the Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah. The Gemara says that at
first, before it is make Hekdesh, the flour of the Minchah offering is permitted to
be eaten. When it is made Hekdesh, it becomes prohibited to be eaten. Once the Kometz
of the Minchah is offered upon the Mizbe'ach, the remaining Minchah becomes permitted
to be eaten. We might have thought that the remaining Minchah may be eaten the same
way that it could be eaten before it was made Hekdesh, and therefore the Torah
teaches "l'Mitzvah" -- it must be eaten in the proper way and it may not be eaten in
a different way.
The Beraisa does not specify what other way there is to eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah.
What is the verse trying to exclude?
The Gemara first suggests that it is excluding eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah with
Achilah Gasah, but it rejects that answer because *nothing* which requires a proper
Achilah may be eaten with Achilah Gasah. The Gemara concludes that the verse is
excluding eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah in a state of "Chalat" (with boiling water
poured over it).
RASHI and TOSFOS ask why the Gemara did not simply answer that the verse is teaching
that the Sheyarei ha'Minchah may not be eaten in the same manner in which Yibum may
not be done -- she'Lo l'Shem Mitzvah (such as eating it out of hunger or in order to
enjoy the taste). Perhaps the verse is teaching that it must be eaten l'Shem
RASHI and TOSFOS answer that the Gemara did not give this answer because the Sheyarei
ha'Minchah may be eaten with whatever intention one wants; one does not need to have
intention to eat it l'Shem Mitzvah. It is only when doing Yibum that one must have
the proper intention, for if he has intention to do the act for his own pleasure, he
is near to transgressing the Isur of "Eshes Ach." When eating the Minchah, though, he
is doing nothing wrong if he eats it to enjoy it and not l'Shem Mitzvah.
This answer is difficult to understand. Why do Rashi and Tosfos assume that it is
permitted to eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah for personal benefit and there is no Isur
involved? It should be Asur because the Minchah was made Hekdesh, at which point it
was prohibited to be eaten, and now that the Torah permits eating it, it should only
be permitted to be eaten l'Shem Mitzvah, because otherwise one is coming near to
transgressing the Isur of benefiting from Hekdesh, just like the case of Yibum (where
one comes near to transgressing the Isur of "Eshes Ach")!
Second, the Acharonim (see KEREN ORAH) ask that we know that there is an opinion in
the Gemara that holds "Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah" -- a person fulfills a Mitzvah only
when he has Kavanah to fulfill it (Pesachim 114b, Rosh Hashanah 28b). Why do Rashi
and Tosfos assume, then, that when one has Kavanah to enjoy the food, he fulfills the
Mitzvah of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah?
(a) There is a basic difference between the Mitzvah of Yibum and the Mitzvah of
Achilas Minchah. Why is it that Aba Shaul says that if a person has ulterior
intentions, it is as if he is "Pogei'a b'Ervah?" The RAMBAM (Teshuvos P'er ha'Dor
146, cited by MAHARAM ALSHAKER 79; see also PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS Bechoros, end of ch.
1), in explaining the Machlokes between Aba Shaul and the Chachamim, says that the
Chachamim maintain that the Isur of "Eshes Ach" was removed as soon as the brother
died and the wife fell to Yibum. Therefore, the Yavam cannot be "Pogei'a b'Ervah" no
matter what intentions he has at the time of the Yibum, because the Isur of "Eshes
Ach" is no longer present at all and there is no remnant of it. Aba Shaul, though,
maintains that the Isur of "Eshes Ach" is still present even after the brother died
and his wife fell to Yibum. The Isur remains upon the woman until the act of Yibum is
done, at which time it is pushed aside (see Insights to Yevamos 7a). That is, the
Isur is "Dechuyah," and not "Hutrah." Accordingly, Aba Shaul could not be saying that
the Sheyarei ha'Minchah may not be eaten without proper Kavanah to eat it l'Shem
Mitzvah, because in the case of the Minchah offering it is clear that the Isur of
Hekdesh was removed as soon as the Kometz was offered upon the Mizbe'ach. It is not
that eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah in the proper manner is Docheh the Isur of
Hekdesh; the Isur was already removed.
To explain this further, we know that the purpose of bringing the Minchah is not in
order to do the Mitzvah of eating it. The purpose is to offer the Minchah upon the
Mizbe'ach, and a secondary part of that Mitzvah of Hakravah is that we also eat the
Sheyarei ha'Minchah. As such, it is not logical to say that the Mitzvah of eating it
is Docheh the Isur of eating Hekdesh, because the Mitzvah of eating it is not the
main purpose of the Korban. When the consumption of the Korban is not the main
purpose of offering the Korban, it is not the type of act that can be Docheh an Isur
at all. (We eat the Minchah because it became Mutar, and not that it became Mutar in
order to be eaten.) Therefore, it must be that the Torah removed the Isur as soon as
the Kometz was brought.
The act of Yibum, in contrast, is obviously the whole purpose of the Mitzvah, and
therefore it stands to reason that it is Docheh the Lo Ta'aseh of "Eshes Ach."
(b) The Acharonim suggest that when eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah, proper Kavanah is
not necessary because the Mitzvah is not a specific Mitzvah for the *person* to eat
the Sheyarei ha'Minchah, but for the Sheyarei ha'Minchah itself to be eaten.
Therefore, the person does not have to have Kavanah.
The CHAZON ISH says that this has nothing to do with Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah,
because in this case of Yibum, one has in mind *both* to fulfill the Mitzvah *and* to
derive personal pleasure. The person *does* have in mind to fulfill the Mitzvah.
Therefore, when Rashi explains that the Gemara did not say that the verse is teaching
that the Sheyarei ha'Minchah must be eaten l'Shem Mitzvah, because the Sheyarei
ha'Minchah may be eaten with whatever intention one wants, he means that one may eat
it *both* with intention to fulfill the Mitzvah *and* intention to derive personal
benefit; Kavanah for personal benefit does not detract from the Kavanah to fulfill
However, even according to the Chazon Ish, why did the Gemara not say that the case
of eating the Sheyarei ha'Minchah improperly is when one has Kavanah *only* for
pleasure and not for the Mitzvah? The answer is that if one holds that Mitzvos
Tzerichos Kavanah and one does not have Kavanah for the Mitzvah, then one is
certainly not Yotzei and we do not need a verse to teach us that. If so, then the
original question is answered as well. It could be that Rashi and Tosfos who say that
one is Yotzei without intending to eat it l'Shem Mitzvah are saying that only
according to the opinion that holds that Mitzvos do *not* need Kavanah, and that is
why they say that one is Yotzei. It is not logical that the Torah should be
prohibiting eating it when one does not have Kavanah, because it is no different than
any other mitzvah.
Rashi and Tosfos are not addressing the opinion that holds Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah,
because according to that opinion it is obvious why we do not need a verse here to
tell us that one is not Yotzei the Mitzvah without Kavanah. (According to this answer
of the Chazon Ish, it comes out that Aba Shaul holds that Mitzvos *Ein* Tzerichos