Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 9

1) WHAT "ESTABLISHES" THE MINCHAH

QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about a Minchah offering that was complete at the time that it was sanctified in a Kli Shares, but that became incomplete (some of the flour fell out) before the Kemitzah. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Minchah remains valid, and the owner may bring new flour from his home to make up for the missing flour, because he maintains that it is the Kemitzah that establishes ("Kav'ah") the validity of the Minchah. Reish Lakish says that one may not bring new flour to make up for the missing flour, because it is the initial Kidush in the Kli Shares that establishes the validity of the Minchah (and thus new flour may not be added after the Kidush was done). RASHI (DH Kemitzah) explains that "Kav'ah" means the establishing of the Minchah such that no changes or additions may be made to it.

The Gemara later explains that the words "Min ha'Minchah" (Vayikra 2:9) teach that the Minchah must be complete and not lacking. Both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that "Min ha'Minchah" teaches that the Kemitzah must be taken from a complete measure of Minchah. Reish Lakish maintains that if some of the Minchah falls out before the Kemitzah, there is nothing to do about it, because it is the initial placing of the flour in the Kli Shares which is Kove'a the Minchah, and there can be no changes or additions after that point. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that one may add to the Minchah by replacing the flour that was lost, because he holds that it is the act of Kemitzah which is Kove'a the Minchah. The final contents of the Minchah are established only with the Kemitzah, and before the Kemitzah one may still change or add to the Minchah.

What, though, is the basis for their dispute? Why does one hold that "Kedushas Kli Kav'ah," while the other holds that "Kemitzah Kav'ah"?

ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV points out that Rashi (DH Kemitzah) clearly states that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the verse ("Min ha'Minchah") is not referring to a Minchah before the Kemitzah, because at that point it does not yet have the status of a Minchah. Only according to Reish Lakish does it have the status of a Minchah at that point and, therefore, the verse can teach that Kemitzah cannot be done with a Minchah that is lacking. The argument between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, according to Rashi, is whether the flour in the Kli has the status of a Korban Minchah before Kemitzah, such that we can apply the Derashah that excludes a Minchah that is lacking.

Why, though, according to Reish Lakish, can one not fill in the measure of the Minchah before Kemitzah? How does the "Kevi'us" of the Minchah prevent any changes or additions from being made?

The Brisker Rav answers that the Gemara is teaching a new understanding of the Pesul of Chaser, a Minchah that is lacking flour. The Pesul is does due to the fact that a Kemitzah must be taken from a complete Minchah. If that were the source of the Pesul, then there would be no reason for the Minchah to become "Kavu'a" such that nothing could be added to it. Rather, the Pesul of Chaser is an intrinsic problem in the Minchah offering itself, like a Mum in an animal offering (as the Gemara itself says (9b), "the Chisaron [in a Minchah] is like a Ba'al Mum"). Since, according to Reish Lakish, the flour already has the status of a Korban Minchah, a Pesul can take effect on it. Once a Pesul takes effect, it takes effect on the entire Minchah, even on the part that is left in the Kli. This is why adding more flour to the Kli cannot make the Minchah valid. This is the basis for Reish Lakish's opinion. When he says that "Kedushas Kli Kav'ah," he means that as soon as the flour is in the Kli, nothing can be changed, because once any of the flour falls out and the Minchah is lacking, the entire Minchah becomes Pasul because of Chaser.

Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand, maintains that prior to the Kemitzah, the flour does not yet have the status of a Korban Minchah, and the verse of "Min ha'Minchah" does not apply to it. According to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no Pesul of Chaser on the Minchah before the Kemitzah. The reason why one must fill up the Minchah before Kemitzah is because of a different Derashah (as the Gemara (9b) teaches) from the verse of "mi'Saltah" (Vayikra 2:2). (The Gemara there explains that the verse of "Min ha'Minchah" is used to teach that if the Shirayim, after the Kemitzah, becomes Chaser, then it may not be eaten. See Rashi there, DH Asurim b'Achilah.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

9b

QUESTION: The Gemara (9a) records a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish with regard to the Shirayim (the flour leftover after the Kometz has been separated) of a Minchah that lost some of its flour before the Haktarah of the Kometz (burning it on the Mizbe'ach). Rebbi Yochanan says that the Kometz may be burned on the Mizbe'ach even though the Shirayim is lacking, and Reish Lakish says that it may not be burned on the Mizbe'ach when the Shirayim is lacking. The Gemara there says that both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish can be following the view of Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah later (26a). The Mishnah states that when the Shirayim of the Minchah is burned, lost, or becomes Tamei burned before the Haktarah of the Kometz, Rebbi Eliezer says that the Kometz nevertheless may be brought, while Rebbi Yehoshua says that it may not be brought. The Gemara says that it is obvious that Reish Lakish does not agree with the view of Rebbi Eliezer but rather follows the view of Rebbi Yehoshua. However, it is possible that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with the view of Rebbi Yehoshua. Rebbi Yehoshua says that the Kometz may not be offered when the Shirayim is lacking only when the Shirayim is *entirely* lacking -- it was entirely destroyed, lost, or Tamei. When, however, some of it is left, Rebbi Yehoshua would agree that the Kometz may be offered, as Rebbi Yehoshua himself says with regard to the Zerikas ha'Dam of animal offerings that are missing part of their meat.

How, though, does Reish Lakish understand Rebbi Yehoshua's statement that permits the Zerikas ha'Dam as long as part of the Korban remains? The Gemara answers that Menachos are different, because the verse states, "v'Herim ha'Kohen Min ha'Minchah Es Ezkarasah v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah" (Vayikra 2:9). This verse implies that the Kohen cannot be Maktir the Kometz if anything is missing from the Shirayim of the Minchah.

This Gemara, however, seems problematic. If Reish Lakish derives from the verse that Menachos are different than Zevachim, then he can even agree with the view of Rebbi Eliezer! Even though Rebbi Eliezer says that in the case of Zevachim the blood may be thrown on the Mizbe'ach even when there is no meat left, perhaps in the case of Menachos it *is* necessary for all of the Shirayim to be present in order for the Kometz to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, because of the special teaching of the verse! (SHITAH MEKUBETZES, Hashmatos #2)

ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV answers as follows. The verse from which Reish Lakish derives that all of the Shirayim must be present in order for the Kometz to be offered does not say explicitly that the burning of the Kometz may be done only when the rest of the Minchah is present. Rather, Reish Lakish derives this law from the verse in the following manner. The burning of the Kometz can have two purposes. One purpose is to fulfill the Mitzvah of offering the Kometz. This Mitzvah is independent of the Shirayim. The second purpose is to represent the entire Minchah upon the Mizbe'ach.

According to Rebbi Eliezer, both purposes are valid. The Kometz may be offered on the Mizbe'ach as an independent Mitzvah, and it may also be offered on the Mizbe'ach to represent the rest of the Minchah.

Rebbi Yehoshua argues. Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the only purpose of burning the Kometz is to represent the rest of the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach. There is no independent Mitzvah to burn the Kometz itself, and, therefore, "if there is no Shirayim, there is no Kometz."

Reish Lakish understands that the verse, "v'Herim ha'Kohen Min ha'Minchah... v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah," relates only to the second purpose of burning the Kometz. The words, "v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah" -- "and he shall burn it upon the Mizbe'ach," refers back to the words, "Min ha'Minchah" -- from [the rest of] the Minchah," in the verse. Reish Lakish learns that these words ("Min ha'Minchah") imply a complete Minchah, and that the verse is requiring that the entire Minchah be present and not lacking in order for the Kometz to be burned on the Mizbe'ach. (Rebbi Yochanan argues and maintains that "Min ha'Minchah" also means what is *left* from the Minchah, and therefore it suffices to half a k'Zayis left of the Shirayim in order to offer the Kometz.)

Reish Lakish understands further that the words "v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah" refer to the words "Min ha'Minchah," and that the verse is teaching that the purpose of burning the Kometz ("v'Hiktir") is only to represent the rest of the Minchah ("Min ha'Minchah"). This is the view of Rebbi Yehoshua. According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Derashah is not applicable, because he maintains that the Kometz may be offered even when there is no Shirayim, in order to fulfill the independent Mitzvah of offering the Kometz itself. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)