Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 60

1) PLACING OIL AND FRANKINCENSE ON THE MINCHAH

OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that we might have thought that when the verse says, "He shall not place oil upon it, and he shall not place frankincense upon it" (Vayikra 5:11), that it is referring to two Kohanim. The word "Aleha" in the verse teaches that it is referring to the body of the Minchah offering and not to the Kohanim.

What does the Beraisa mean when it says that we might have thought that the verse is referring to "two Kohanim," and what does it mean when it says that the verse is referring only to the "body of the Minchah"?

(a) RASHI learns that we might have though that if one Kohen places both oil and Levonah on the Minchah, he receives only one set of Malkus. Only when one Kohen places oil on the Minchah and another Kohen places Levonah on the Minchah do they receive two sets of Malkus. The verse teaches that the number of sets of Malkus depends on the Minchah offering itself -- if the Minchah is mixed with oil and Levonah, then two sets of Malkus are administered. It does not matter whether one Kohen or two Kohanim placed the oil and Levonah on the Minchah.

TOSFOS questions Rashi's explanation. Why would we have thought that one Kohen does not receive two sets of Malkus for transgressing the two Isurim? One person always receives two sets of Malkus for two Isurim!

It seems that Rashi understands that placing oil and placing Levonah on the Minchah are not two separate Isurim, but rather they constitute a single Isur -- the Torah prohibits changing the Minchah's state of being "Chareivah," dry, to being moist. Consequently, one Kohen who places both oil and Levonah on the Minchah -- without two separate Hasra'os -- will transgress only one Isur. We would have thought that the only way two sets of Malkus can be given for placing oil and placing Levonah on the Minchah (without having two separate Hasra'os) is when each act is done by a different Kohen. The Beraisa says that the extra word "Aleha" teaches us that the two acts are to be considered separate transgressions even if only one Kohen performs them and changes the Minchah from dry to moist. For every manner in which the Kohen changes the Minchah from being "Chareivah," he is Chayav for this Isur.

(b) TOSFOS explains that we might have thought that a Kohen will be Chayav only for the first act of placing something inappropriate on the Minchah. He will not be held liable for the second act of placing something on the Minchah since the Minchah already became Pasul. Only when two Kohanim place oil or Levonah on two separate Menachos will there be two sets of Malkus (one for each Kohen). The extra word "Aleha" teaches that the Kohen will be Chayav for the second act (for placing Levonah "on it" -- on the Minchah that already became Pasul because of the oil that he placed on it), even though the Minchah was already Pasul.

According to Tosfos, there are two ways to understand what the extra word "Aleha" is teaching us. One way is that it teaches that there is no requirement that the Minchah be valid in order for the Kohen to be punished for placing oil or Levonah on it. Accordingly, even if the Minchah was Pasul because of a different reason (other than oil or Levonah), the Kohen will be liable for placing oil or Levonah on it. A second way of understanding is that "Aleha" teaches that placing oil on the Minchah and placing Levonah on the Minchah are two parts of the same Isur. Just as there is an Isur to be Mechametz the Minchah even though it has already become Chametz (see Insights to Menachos 56:2), and the first act of Mechametz does not prevent one from being Chayav for performing a second act of Mechametz, so, too, one will be Chayav for placing oil or Levonah on the Minchah the other was already placed on the Minchah. Just as a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that the Isur of Mechametz applies even after the Minchah has already become Pasul because of Chametz, a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv also teaches that the Isur of oil or Levonah applies even after oil or Levonah was already placed on the Minchah. However, if the Minchah becomes Pasul for a different reason, then the Isur of placing oil or Levonah on it will *not* apply. (See SEFAS EMES.)

(c) Tosfos cites RABEINU TAM who gives the opposite explanation of Tosfos. We might have thought that *even* two Kohanim are both Chayav when they each place oil or Levonah on one Minchah. Likewise, we might have thought that even one Kohen is Chayav twice for placing Levonah on a Minchah after placing oil on it (the Beraisa refers to two Kohanim simply because it was the normal manner for two Kohanim to be involved in the preparation of the Minchah). The word "Aleha" teaches that one is *not* Chayav for placing Levonah on the Minchah where the oil was already placed (or on a Minchah that is entirely saturated with oil). Rather, one is Chayav only for placing the oil or Levonah "Aleha" -- on the Minchah itself, and not on a Minchah on which oil was already placed (nor is one Chayav for placing Levonah on a different part of the Minchah on which oil was placed, even though there is no oil on that part). Alternatively, "Aleha" teaches that one is Chayav only for placing Levonah on a valid Minchah, and not for placing Levonah on a Minchah that became Pasul already because of oil.

(d) The OR SAME'ACH asserts that the RAMBAM has a different approach to the Gemara. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 12:8) rules that one is Chayav for placing oil or Levonah on the Minchah only if he then offers the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam's logic is that the Torah requires that a Minchas Chotei be *offered* in a way that is fitting (i.e. it should not be beautified with oil and Levonah). The prohibition, therefore, is against *offering* it on the Mizbe'ach with oil or Levonah. There is no Isur regarding how it is actually prepared.

The Or Same'ach says that the Rambam learns the Beraisa as follows. We might have thought that two Kohanim who add the oil and Levonah to the Minchah are doing two acts of Aveirah (or one Kohen who adds both is doing two acts of Aveirah). The word "Aleha" teaches that the Torah does not prohibit the act of preparing the Minchah with oil or Levonah, but rather the Torah prohibits offering the Minchah itself with oil or Levonah on it. The act of offering is one Aveirah. Nevertheless, if both oil and Levonah were placed on the Minchah, the one who offers it on the Mizbe'ach will receive two sets of Malkus.

(e) RABEINU GERSHOM alludes to the explanation of the Rambam when he says, "The verse is referring to the 'body of the Minchah' itself, teaching that one shall not place on it [oil or Levonah] to be burned [on the Mizbe'ach], even by one Kohen." This implies that there is an Isur against offering the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach.

However, Rabeinu Gershom's words, "*Afilu* Kohen Echad" -- "*even* by one Kohen," imply that two Kohanim certainly will be Chayav. How can two Kohanim be Chayav if the Isur applies to the Hakravah, offering it on the Mizbe'ach (which is done only by one Kohen)? It must be that Rabeinu Gershom maintains that the Isur applies *both* to offering such a Minchah on the Mizbe'ach, *and* to preparing a Minchah with oil or Levonah. Thus, when two Kohanim place oil and Levonah on a Minchah, each is transgressing the Isur and is Chayav Malkus. (Although the Or Same'ach maintains that the Rambam disagrees with this, there are others who understand that this is also the way the Rambam rules.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

60b

QUESTION: Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue about whether or not a verse is needed to teach that the Minchas ha'Omer requires Hagashah. Rebbi Shimon maintains that it is learned from the verse, "v'Heveisa" (Vayikra 2:8). Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it does not need a verse, since it can be derived through a Binyan Av from the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah. Rebbi Shimon argues that it is not comparable to a Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah, since the Minchas ha'Omer can be brought only once a year, while the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah can be brought many times during the year if the need arises. Rebbi Yehudah argues that the Minchas ha'Omer is definitely brought once a year, while the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah might not be brought at all.

The KEREM ORAH points out that the Gemara in Zevachim (91a) seems to discuss this very issue. The Gemara cites a Beraisa that says that without an additional verse, we would not have excluded one who fails to perform the Mitzvah of Milah from the obligation to bring a Korban Chatas. The Beraisa says that "we would have excluded [one who fails to bring] the Korban Pesach, since it is not Tadir, but we would not have excluded [one who fails to perform] the Mitzvah of Milah, which is Tadir." The Gemara attempts to prove from there that the fact that Milah is "Matzuy" (something that is usually done very often but might not necessarily be done at all) gives it a status of "Tadir."

The Gemara there refutes this proof for two reasons. First, when the Beraisa says that Milah takes precedence because it is "Tadir," it means that it is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" -- it is more "constant" than other Mitzvos, since the commandment of the Mitzvah of Milah appears many times in the Torah and the word "Bris" is mentioned thirteen times (as Rashi there explains; see other explanations in Background to the Daf to Zevachim 91:7). Second, Milah is different because, when compared to the Korban Pesach, it is much more frequent, since Pesach occurs only once a year, while Milah usually occurs several times a day. Therefore, we cannot prove that something that is "Matzuy" is also considered "Tadir."

The Keren Orah understands these two answers of the Gemara there to be expressing the views of Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah respectively. The second answer of the Gemara there (that Milah is considered "Tadir" only in comparison to Korban Pesach, but no other case of "Matzuy" is considered "Tadir") follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that precedence is given to the Minchas Chotei, which is "Matzuy" since it is brought more often, even though it is not definitely going to occur like the Minchas ha'Omer. The first answer of the Gemara there (that Milah is not "Tadir" in the normal sense, but rather it is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos") follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that precedence is given to something that is obligated to be done at an established time (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) over something that has no established time (such as the Minchas Chotei). We see in the Gemara here that Rebbi Yehudah holds that something that occurs more frequently does not take precedence over something that has a set time, and thus Milah would not take precedence over Pesach without the reason of "Tedirah b'Mitzvos."

A practical difference between these two answers (and the opinions of Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah), says that the Keren Orah, is what Mitzvah should be done first when there is a choice to do two Mitzvos -- one that is "Matzuy," that is done more frequently, but there is no obligation to do it at any set time, and a Mitzvah that has a set time and must be done today. According to the second answer in Zevachim, the Mitzvah that is "Matzuy" should be done first (just as Milah is considered "Tadir" when compared to Pesach). According to the first answer, though, the Mitzvah that has a set obligation to be performed today should be done first. When the Gemara in Zevachim says that Milah is an exception because it is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos," that has nothing to do with the normal concept of "Tadir" that applies when determining what Mitzvah takes precedence. The fact that Milah is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" tells us only that it is more Chamur and cannot be excluded from the obligation of a Korban Chatas.

Since the Halachah always follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah when he argues with Rebbi Shimon, the Halachah will be that something that has an established, set time should take precedence over something that happens to be done more frequently in practice. However, we find that this is *not* the Halachah! The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 584:4) rules that Bris Milah should be performed before Teki'as Shofar on Rosh Hashanah. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Teki'as Shofar should be done first, since it is something that has an established, set time! (As mentioned above, the fact that Milah is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" does not tell us that it is "Tadir" and should be performed before a less-frequent Mitzvah. "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" only tells us that it is very Chamur, such that we might have thought that one must bring a Korban Chatas for failure to perform it.)

ANSWERS:

(a) The KEREN ORAH answers that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah agrees that a Mitzvah that is very "Matzuy" and occurs very frequently is done before a Mitzvah that has a set time but is done less frequently. Here in Menachos, Rebbi Yehudah gives more significance to the Minchas ha'Omer, that has a set time, than the Minchas Chotei which is brought more frequently, since the Minchas Chotei is still not brought *that* frequently and is certainly not as "Matzuy" as Milah.

(The Keren Orah asks a different question, based on the Gemara in Zevachim (91a), on the ruling that Milah is done before Teki'as Shofar, and he leaves his question unanswered.)

(b) The SHA'AGAS ARYEH (#21) gives a different approach. The Sha'agas Aryeh understands that when Rebbi Yehudah says that something with a set, established time (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) has more significance than something that is done more frequently (such as the Minchas Chotei), he is referring to something that merely has the *potential* to be done more frequently. (See RASHASH, who says that this point is the basis of the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah.) In contrast, something that is *actually* performed more frequently (such as Milah) *is* considered "Tadir" and does take precedence over something that has an established, set time. Thus, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, Milah should be done before Teki'as Shofar, because it is performed more frequently *in practice* and is not merely potentially *able* to be done more frequently. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)