Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 12

1) A MINCHAH THAT LOSES SOME OF ITS FLOUR BETWEEN "KEMITZAH" AND "KIDUSH KLI"

OPINIONS: In a case in which the Shirayim lost some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Shirayim is forbidden to be eaten. According to Rebbi Yochanan (9a), though, the *Kometz* may still be offered on the Mizbe'ach even when the Shirayim lost some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah. The Gemara asks whether, in such a case, burning the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach with intention to eat the Shirayim Chutz l'Zemano constitutes Pigul, or functions to remove the Shirayim from the prohibition of Me'ilah. The Gemara discusses this question at length.

We learned earlier that everyone agrees that when some of the flour of the Minchah became lost *before* the Kemitzah (and, according to Rebbi Yochanan, it was not replaced with new flour), the Minchah is Pasul. It is also clear from our Gemara that Rebbi Yochanan maintains that when some of the flour of the Shirayim became lost after the Kidush Kli of the Kometz, when the Kohen placed the Kometz that was in his hand into the vessel to be Mekadesh it, the Kometz may still be offered on the Mizbe'ach. What is the status of the Minchah when some of the flour of the Shirayim became lost after the Kemitzah but before the Kidush Kli? In such a case, may the Kometz be offered or not?

(a) We know that with regard to animal offerings, the Korban must remain whole (aside from the Shechitah itself) until after the Kabalas ha'Dam is performed (Zevachim 25b). The act of Kabalas ha'Dam for an animal offering parallels the act of Kidush Kli for the Kometz of a Minchah offering. Since the Gemara (9b) says that a Minchah that lost some of its flour is like an animal offering that became blemished (a Ba'al Mum), it stands to reason that a Minchah that lost some of its flour before the Kidush Kli should be Pasul, just as a Zevach that became a Ba'al Mum before Kabalas ha'Dam is Pasul.

(b) However, the KEHILOS YAKOV suggests that there are logical grounds to differentiate between Zevachim and Menachos with regard to the Pesul of not being whole. With regard to Zevachim, the Kabalas ha'Dam is performed directly from the neck of the animal. There is an immediate connection between the Shechitah and the Kabalas ha'Dam. In such a case the Torah requires that two conditions be fulfilled when performing the Kabalas ha'Dam. First, the blood must come directly from the animal that was slaughtered; if the blood first falls to the floor, it is Pasul and cannot be used for the Kabalas ha'Dam. Second, the Kabalas ha'Dam must be done while the animal is whole, without any blemish.

These conditions are relevant only to Zevachim, where the Kabalah is done directly from the animal. The Avodah of a Minchah, in contrast, does not have this connection between the Kemitzah and the Kidush Kli. The Kemitzah process does not involved transferring the Kometz directly from the original vessel in which the Minchah was sanctified to the vessel in which the Kometz is sanctified. This is because the Kometz is first held in the hand of the Kohen, before being placed into the vessel. Although the Torah requires that the Kometz come directly from the hand of the Kohen into the vessel, there still is no immediate connection between the Kemitzah and the Kidush Kli. Since there is no requirement that the Kemitzah must come directly into the Kli from the original pan, there is also no requirement that the Kidush Kli be performed while the original Minchah is still whole. The logic of this difference is that the Kidush Kli of the Kometz of a Minchah is not an act that relates to the original Minchah, but rather it relates solely to the Kometz.

The Kehilos Yakov asserts, therefore, that the Kidush Kli may be done even after some of the flour of the Minchah was lost.

The Gemara here supports the assertion of the Kehilos Yakov. The Gemara asks about a case in which the Minchah lost some of its flour "between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah." The simple understanding is that the loss of flour at any point after the Kemitzah -- even before Kidush Kli -- does not invalidate the Minchah. (If losing flour before the Kidush Kli would invalidate the Minchah, then the Gemara should have asked about a Minchah that lost some of its flour "between the Kidush Kli and the Haktarah.")

An even stronger support for the Kehilos Yakov is the Gemara later (at the end of the Amud) that says, "Keivan d'b'Matan Kli... Lo Masni Lei." The Gemara explains that the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya does not mention having an improper intention to eat a k'Zayis of the Shirayim Chutz l'Mekomo because the Mishnah wants to include a case in which there was only a k'Zayis left of the Shirayim and yet, if not for the thought of Pigul, it would be valid. The Gemara's words clearly support the Kehilos Yakov's assertion that a loss flour between the Kemitzah and Kidush Kli does not invalidate the Minchah, since the Gemara says, "Keivan *d'b'Matan Kli*... Lo Masni Lei" -- regarding *Matan Kli* (placing the Kometz into a Kli to become sanctified), we do not mention having intention to eat the Shirayim Chutz l'Mekomo, since we are discussing a case in which there is only a k'Zayis left from the Shirayim at the time of the Matan Kli. If there is only a k'Zayis left, then it must be that the Minchah lost some of its flour before Matan Kli and, nevertheless, without a thought of Pigul the Minchah remains valid. (Indeed, the ACHIEZER (YD 41:12) makes this point before the Kehilos Yakov.)

(The TAHARAS HA'KODESH refutes the ruling of the Kehilos Yakov based on the words of TOSFOS earlier (9b) who says that a Minchah that is lacking flour is valid only in a case in which a Zevach that is lacking would be valid. Since a Zevach that is lacking is Pasul only when it became lacking before the Kabalas ha'Dam, a Minchah that is lacking should also be Pasul when it became lacking before the Kidush Kli.

However, the Kehilos Yakov reasons that there is no proof from Tosfos, because Tosfos is referring only to a case in which the Pesul is in the Haktarah itself, such as when there is no Shirayim at all at that time. In such a case, there is no reason to differentiate between a Zevach and a Minchah. However, in a case in which the Zevach became a Ba'al Mum before Kabalas ha'Dam, the Zevach become Pasul because, as we explained above, the blood must come directly from an unblemished animal. In this case, there is a reason to differentiate between a Zevach and a Minchah since the Matan Kli of the Minchah is not done directly from the original vessel, and thus the words of Tosfos are not applicable in this case.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

12b

QUESTION: In a case in which the Shirayim lost some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Shirayim is forbidden to be eaten. According to Rebbi Yochanan (9a), though, the *Kometz* may still be offered on the Mizbe'ach even when the Shirayim lost some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah. The Gemara earlier (12a) asks whether, in such a case, burning the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach with intention to eat the Shirayim Chutz l'Zemano constitutes Pigul, or functions to remove the Shirayim from the prohibition of Me'ilah. The Gemara discusses this question at length.

Rava (12a) initially suggested that the Haktarah of the Kometz in such a case is effective. Rava here (12b), however, retracts his opinion based on the words of a Beraisa. The Beraisa quotes the verse, "Kodesh Kodashim Hu" (Vayikra 24:9), and derives from here that if one of the twelve loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim is broken, then all of the loaves are Pasul. From here we see that the Haktarah does *not* remove a Minchah that is lacking flour (and thus may not be eaten) from the law of Me'ilah; Me'ilah still applies to it.

What is Rava's proof from the Beraisa? The Beraisa merely says that all of the loaves are Pasul. We knew all along that the *Shirayim* of the Minchah is Pasul, and our only question was whether or not the *Haktarah of the Kometz* is effective. What, then, is the proof from the Beraisa that the Haktarah is not effective? (TOSFOS DH Hu)

ANSWER: The KEHILOS YAKOV explains as follows. The normal Pesul of "Chaser," of a Minchah lacking some flour, is not relevant to the Lechem ha'Panim. Since each loaf is baked separately, the presence of the Pesul of "Chaser" in one of the loaves does not disqualify the other loaves. The other loaves will be Pasul only when one of the loaves is entirely missing (since there must be twelve loaves). One when of the loaves is *broken*, it is considered as though it is missing and thus all of the loaves are Pasul.

We can now understand Rava's proof from the Beraisa. The Gemara's question (12a) was whether the Pesul of "Chaser" is limited to the ability to *eat* the Shirayim, but the ability of the Haktarah to remove from the Shirayim the prohibition of Me'ilah remains, or whether the Pesul of "Chaser" goes further and establishes a Pesul on the entire ability of the Haktarah to remove from the Shirayim the prohibition of Me'ilah.

When discussing a normal Minchah that is Pasul because it is lacking some flour, the Shirayim are forbidden to be eaten, but the Haktarah may still retain its ability to remove from the Shirayim the prohibition of Me'ilah. The fact that the Shirayim are forbidden to be eaten does not tell us anything about the ability of the Haktarah to remove from the Shirayim the prohibition of Me'ilah.

However, the case of a loaf of the Lechem ha'Panim that broke is different. There is no Pesul of "Chaser" on all of the loaves, since each loaf is baked separately. The only Pesul that invalidates all of the loaves is the absence of an entire loaf. Therefore, the only question about the validity of the other loaves is whether the Haktarah is effective for a Korban that is lacking. If the Haktarah is effective and can still perform its function of removing the loaves from the law of Me'ilah, then there is no reason for the Lechem ha'Panim to be considered Pasul. The broken loaf itself is Pasul because of "Chaser" and cannot be eaten, but it still has a Haktarah that removes from it the law of Me'ilah, and thus that loaf is considered to be present in some respect, such that we indeed have twelve loaves of Lechem ha'Panim.

This is Rava's proof from the Beraisa that Haktarah works when the Shirayim of the Minchah is lacking. The Beraisa says that when one of the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim is broken, they are all Pasul. Since the unbroken loaves do not have a Pesul of "Chaser" that would forbid them from being eaten, it must be that the Pesul of "Chaser" of the broken loaf causes the Haktarah to be ineffective (i.e. it does not permit it, with regard to Me'ilah). Since the Haktarah does not permit it, the Lechem ha'Panim is lacking twelve loaves and, consequently, they are all Pasul. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)