THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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
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
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)
2) OFFERING THE "KOMETZ" WHEN THE "SHIRAYIM" IS LACKING
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,
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
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)