Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 48

1) DOING AN ACT OF "KEMITZAH" WITH DOUGH STUCK TO THE SIDES OF THE "KLI"

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a number of questions concerning the Kemitzah and the Chafinah. At the beginning of this Amud, Rav Papa asks what the status of the Kemitzah is in a case where the Kometz was affixed to the sides of the Kli and not placed on the bottom of the Kli. Mar bar Rav Ashi asks similarly concerning the status of the Kemitzah in a case where the Kli was turned over and the Kometz was affixed to the bottom of the upturned Kli. (One Nusach of Rashi in Menachos (11a), as cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes there, explains that the question refers to a normal bowl which was turned upside down and the Kometz was placed on the floor of the upturned Kli. The Nusach of Rashi that we have is that the question refers to a bowl that has a stand under it which looks like a small inverted bowl. The big bowl was turned upside down and the Kometz was placed in the inverted stand.) These questions are left unanswered.

Which Kli is the subject of the questions in the Gemara? There are two different Kelim used during the Kemitzah of the Minchah. The first Kli is the one which holds the dough of the Minchah from which the Kohen takes the Kometz. The second Kli is the one into which the Kohen places the Kometz when he separates it from the rest of the Minchah. The placing of the Kometz into this second Kli sanctifies the Kometz. (This second Kli parallels the Kli used for Kabalas ha'Dam, into which the blood must be placed when it is taken from the animal during Shechitah.)

(a) RASHI explains that our Sugya is discussing the second Kli, the Kli into which the Kometz was placed and which was Mekadesh the Kometz. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi ask whether a Kometz affixed along the side of the Kli or on the bottom of an upturned Kli is considered as being placed in the Kli.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:25) seems to understand the Gemara differently, as the CHAFETZ CHAIM (Zevach Todah) points out in Menachos (11a). The Rambam understands that the Kli being discussed here is the first Kli, the one which in which the Minchah was brought and from which the Kometz was taken. The questions of the Gemara are whether the Kemitzah is acceptable if the Kohen stuck some of the dough of the Minchah on the side of the Kli, or on the bottom of an upturned Kli, and then took that part of the Minchah as the Kometz.

The argument between Rashi and the Rambam appears to be as follows. According to Rashi, the Amora'im are asking that in order for the Kli to be Mekadesh the Kometz, perhaps it does not suffice for the Kometz to enter the Kli, but there must be a "Ma'aseh Hanachah" in the Kli -- the Kometz must be *placed* in such a way that it is considered as resting in the Kli. The question is whether affixing the Kometz to the sides of the Kli, or to the bottom of the Kli when it is upturned, constitutes an act of Hanachah (or whether an act of Hanachah is necessary, or it suffices for the Kometz to enter the Kli).

The Rambam, on the other hand, learns that it is certainly not necessary to have a Hanachah in the Kli for the Kli to be Mekadesh it; it suffices for the Kometz to merely enter the Kli. Instead, the question concerns the act of *Kemitzah*. Does the act of Kemitzah *sinking* one's hand into the dough in the Kli and grabbing a handful, or can it also be defined as lifting out dough that is stuck to the sides, or lifting off dough from the bottom of the upside down Kli? The question is whether such an act can also be called an act of Kemitzah. (M. Kornfeld)

48b

QUESTION: Rav Papa asks whether a Machsheves Pigul, an invalidating thought, will disqualify the Ketores if one has such a thought while performing the Chafinah of the Ketores. The Gemara proves from a Beraisa that a Machsheves Pigul *will* disqualify the Ketores. The Beraisa states that if someone who is Tamei as a Tevul Yom touches part of the Ketores, it becomes Pasul. That implies that the Ketores is Kadosh enough to become Pasul with Linah (leaving it overnight) as well. If so, it is also Kadosh enough to become disqualified through a Machshavah of Pigul (planning to leave it overnight, at the time of the Chafinah).

Rav Papa asks a second, related question. Does a Machsheves Pigul disqualify the coals (used for burning the Ketores) if the Kohen has such a thought while shoveling them from the Mizbe'ach? Are the coals, which are Machshirei Mitzvah, considered like the Mitzvah (the Ketores) itself and Pigul will disqualify them, or are they not considered like the Mitzvah itself and Pigul will not disqualify them?

What is Rav Papa's question? The same Beraisa that states that Ketores becomes Pasul when touched by a Tevul Yom -- from which the Gemara inferred that Ketores will also become Pasul with Linah and Pigul -- states as well that coals become Pasul when touched by a Tevul Yom! The Gemara should infer, the same way it did for the Ketores, that the coals also become Pasul through Linah and Pigul!

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI appears to have been bothered by this question. In his first explanation of the Gemara, he avoids the question by saying that Rav Papa was not asking if the *coals* become Pasul with Machsheves Pigul. Rather, he was asking whether the *Ketores* becomes Pasul if -- while shoveling the coals for the Ketores -- one thinks about leaving the Ketores overnight. He was asking if the shoveling of the coals is considered like the beginning of the procedure of the Ketores, and as such a Machshavah of Pigul done during the shoveling of the coals will disqualify the Ketores. The answer to that cannot be inferred from the Beraisa.

(b) RASHI offers a second explanation. Perhaps Rav Papa is asking whether the coals themselves become Pasul with Pigul. However, no solution can be derived from the Beraisa, because the Beraisa shows only that the coals themselves are Kadosh and can become Pasul when touched by a Tevul Yom, and by inference can become Pasul with Linah as well. However, to become Pasul with Pigul, the Machshavah of Pigul must be thought during an *Avodah*. The act of shoveling the coals is not an Avodah. Even though the coals have Kedushah (and therefore can become Pasul by a Tevul Yom or with Linah), perhaps they cannot become Pasul with Pigul because shoveling them does not comprise an Avodah. (TOSFOS DH Chishav accepts this explanation as well.)

(c) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH explain that the Beraisa -- by stating that a Tevul Yom is Posel the coals -- does *not* imply that Linah and Pigul will also disqualify the coals. Linah is equivalent to the Pesul of Tevul Yom only for an object which itself is offered ("b'Etzem ha'Davar ha'Karev"), such as the Ketores. The coals, though, are not offered (they are only used to offer the Ketores), and therefore Linah and Pigul might not affect them even if they are Kadosh.

(d) RABEINU CHANANEL actually puts the two questions -- whether Pigul disqualifies Ketores and whether Pigul disqualifies the coals -- together. He writes that the Gemara indeed proves from the Beraisa that Pigul disqualifies both. He apparently had a different Girsa in the Gemara, in which the Beraisa was brought *after* the question of the coals. (This Girsa can indeed be found in a manuscript Gemara, cited by the Dikdukei Sofrim, note #400.)

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:27) rules that Pigul *does* disqualify the coals. The commentators wonder why the Rambam rules so definitely on the matter and does not say that it is a Safek as the Gemara concludes, and as he himself rules regarding the other questions. (Regarding the questions in the Gemara which are left unanswered, the Rambam rules that b'Di'eved one may be lenient.)

The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM and the CHAFETZ CHAIM (Zevach Todah) suggest that the Rambam had the same Girsa as Rabeinu Chananel, in which the Gemara itself ruled that Pigul disqualifies the coals.