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) THE "CHATZI MATIR" OF A MINCHAH
QUESTION: The Mishnah begins by saying that Rebbi Yosi agrees that when one
performs Kemitzah with intention to eat the Shirayim, or to offer the
Kometz, Chutz l'Zemano, the Minchah is Pigul and the person is Chayav Kares
for it. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah expresses this law by saying that
"Rebbi Yosi agrees" to it. Why would we have thought that Rebbi Yosi
The Gemara answers that since Rebbi Yosi disagrees with the second law
stated in the Mishnah, we might have thought that he also disagrees with the
first law. The Mishnah says that when one performs Kemitzah with intention
to offer the Levonah Chutz l'Zemano, the Chachamim say that it is Pigul and
he is Chayav Kares, while Rebbi Yosi argues and says that the Minchah is
Pasul and one is not Chayav Kares for it. The Gemara explains that we might
have thought that Rebbi Yosi's reason in the second case of the Mishnah is
that he holds that "Ein Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir" -- one cannot cause Pigul
by having an improper thought during half of the Matir. Accordingly, in the
first case of the Mishnah, Rebbi Yosi should also hold that the Minchah is
Pasul, and not Pigul, and that there is no Kares. Therefore, the Mishnah
states in the first case that "Rebbi Yosi agrees" that Pigul applies,
teaching that his reason in the second case is not because of "Ein Mefalgin
b'Chatzi Matir," but rather it is because of a different reason that does
not apply to the first case -- having a thought of Pigul during one Matir
about another Matir cannot cause the second Matir to become Pigul ("Ein
Matir Mefagel Es ha'Matir").
(As Rashi and Tosfos explain, the Gemara here is not using the term, "Ein
Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir," in the sense in which it is normally used.
Normally, it means that one cannot cause a Korban to become Pigul by
thinking a thought of Pigul while performing the first Matir, without
thinking a thought of Pigul while performing the second Matir (see the
Mishnah on 16a). Our Gemara is referring to a person who performs the entire
Avodah with intention to offer one of the Matirim of the Minchah in the
wrong time, Chutz l'Zemano, but to offer the other Matir in the correct
The Gemara's conclusion is that both Rebbi Yosi and the Chachamim agree that
a person can cause the Korban to become Pigul when he performs the Avodah
with intention to perform half of the Haktarah Chutz l'Zemano. RAV CHAIM
SOLOVEITCHIK, cited by the MINCHAS AVRAHAM, asks that this seems to
contradict the Gemara in Zevachim (27a). The Gemara there teaches that when
the Kohen has intention to perform Zerikas ha'Dam Chutz l'Zemano, and the
Zerikah which he has in mind is not the type of Zerikah that permits the
animal to be eaten, the Korban does not become Pigul. The example that the
Gemara there gives is a case in which the Kohen has intention to perform a
Zerikah on the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach Chutz l'Zemano.
We know that the Haktarah of the Kometz and Levonah is comparable to the
Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban (13b). If the Haktarah of the Kometz alone cannot
permit the Shirayim of the Minchah to be eaten, then having intention to be
Maktir the Kometz Chutz l'Zemano should not make the Minchah become Pigul!
Why should this case be different than a Machshavah to perform an invalid
Zerikah Chutz l'Zemano?
(a) It may be suggested that the Haktarah of the Kometz without the Levonah
is not comparable to a Zerikah performed on the wrong place on the
Mizbe'ach. A Zerikah on the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach cannot permit the
Korban to be eaten, nor does it play any part in permitting the Korban to be
eaten. However, the Haktarah of the Kometz *does* play a part in permitting
the Shirayim to be eaten -- that is, when the Levonah is eventually offered
on the Mizbe'ach. It is the Haktarah of the Levonah, together with the
Haktarah of the Kometz, that permits the Minchah to be eaten. Therefore, the
Haktarah of the Kometz is considered a Haktarah that *can* permit the
Shirayim to be eaten.
(b) The MINCHAS AVRAHAM cites RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK who suggests a
different answer, based on the words of the RAMBAM. The Rambam (Perush
ha'Mishnayos, end of first Perek and beginning of second Perek, and end of
Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 14:10) writes that the Haktarah of the Kometz
and the Levonah is not only comparable to the Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban,
but it is also comparable to the Haktaras ha'Eimurin of the Korban. His
source seems to be the words of the Chachamim in our Mishnah, who compare
the Achilas Basar and Haktaras ha'Eimurin of a Korban to the Haktarah of the
Kometz and Levonah of a Minchah. (See SHITAH MEKUBETZES #4.)
We know that a Korban is made Pigul either when the Kohen has intention to
perform Zerikas ha'Dam Chutz l'Zemano, or when he has intention to eat the
meat of the Korban, or offer the Eimurin on the Mizbe'ach, Chutz l'Zemano.
It is true that a Machshavah to be Maktir the Kometz Chutz l'Zemano will not
make the Minchah become Pigul, similar to a Machshavah to do Zerikas ha'Dam
Chutz l'Zemano, since the Kometz is not a Matir and does not permit the
Shirayim by itself, as Rav Chaim points out in his question. However, a
Machshavah to be Maktir the Kometz Chutz l'Zemano is also similar to a
Machshavah to be Maktir the Eimurin of a Korban Chutz l'Zemano. The Haktaras
ha'Eimurin does not permit the Korban to be eaten (since the Korban is valid
even if the Eimurin are not offered; Menachos 4a, DH Asham), and yet such a
Machshavah can make the Korban become Pigul. Therefore, the Machshavah to
offer the Kometz Chutz l'Zemano will make the Minchah Pigul
Rav Chaim points out that Zerikas ha'Dam is not considered like Haktaras
ha'Eimurin (unlike the Haktarah of the Kometz), and that is why the Zerikah
can only make the Korban become Pigul if it is able to permit the Korban to
2) THE ACT OF GATHERING THE "LEVONAH" OF A MINCHAH
QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yanai teaches that when a Zar (a non-Kohen) gathers the
Levonah of a Minchah ("Likut Levonah"), the Minchah is disqualified. The
Gemara explains that the reason is because gathering the Levonah is
comparable to the Avodah of Holachah, bringing the blood of an animal to the
Mizbe'ach in order to perform Zerikas ha'Dam. Just as the Holachah may not
be performed by a Zar, the gathering of the Levonah may not be performed by
a Zar. RASHI explains that gathering the Levonah is done after the Kometz
has been offered on the Mizbe'ach. It involves gathering the Levonah from on
top of the Shirayim of the Minchah and offering it on the Mizbe'ach by
The words of the Gemara and Rashi are difficult to understand in light of
the Gemara in Sotah (14b). The Gemara there quotes a Tosefta (Menachos 1:10)
that describes the exact procedure of offering a Minchah. The Tosefta says
that after the Kohen performs the Kemitzah and places the Kometz inside of a
Kli Shares, he gathers the Levonah and places it on top of the Kometz in the
Kli Shares, and he offers them together on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara in
Sotah cites a source for this from the Torah (Vayikra 6:8). Rashi there
explains that the verse teaches that the Kometz and the Levonah are supposed
to be offered on the Mizbe'ach together.
Based on the Gemara in Sotah, we may ask a number of questions on the Gemara
First, why does the Gemara here compare gathering the Levonah to Holachah?
We know that there is an order in which the four Avodos of a Korban are
performed. Holachah always occurs after Kabalas ha'Dam (because the Kohen
does not bring the blood to the Mizbe'ach before it enters the Kli Shares
from the neck of the animal). In the case of a Minchah, the action which is
comparable to Holachah is taking the Kometz, which has been placed in a Kli
Shares, and bringing it to the Mizbe'ach. Bringing the Kometz to the Kli is
not comparable to Holachah, but rather to Kabalah, as the Gemara here says.
Consequently, since the Levonah is placed in a Kli together with the Kometz,
the Avodah which is comparable to Holachah should be taking the Levonah in
the Kli to the Mizbe'ach, together with the Kometz! Gathering the Levonah,
on the other hand, should be comparable to Kabalas ha'Dam, or perhaps to
Shechitah, just as the acts of Kemitzah and placing the Kometz in the Kli
are comparable to Shechitah and Kabalah.
Second, how can Rashi write that gathering the Levonah is performed after
the Kometz has been offered on the Mizbe'ach? The Tosefta states clearly
that the gathering of the Levonah is performed *before* the Kometz is
offered on the Mizbe'ach, in order that the Levonah and Kometz be offered
together! (This question is asked by the MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Ma'aseh
ha'Korbanos 13:12, and by the RASHASH.)
(a) The CHOK NASAN and KEREN ORAH (16a) explain that Rashi maintains that
the Gemara here argues with the Tosefta. This is evident from the Beraisa
cited later (16b), which states that neither the act of Kemitzah nor the act
of placing the Kometz in a Kli is considered a Chatzi Matir. If, however,
the Levonah is also gathered and placed in the Kli together with the Kometz,
then the act of Kemitzah and the act of placing the Kometz in a Kli should
each be considered a Chatzi Matir, since the full Matir involves performing
the same act with the Levonah! This indeed is the case with regard to
Haktarah; the Haktarah of the Kometz is considered a Chatzi Matir since the
Levonah also must be offered in order to permit the Shirayim to be eaten.
Based on this, Rashi (16b, DH Hiluch, and Zevachim 42b, DH ba'Meh Devarim
Amurin) concludes that the Gemara does not agree with the Tosefta, and it
maintains that the Levonah is gathered only into the Kohen's hand and not
into a Kli, and is offered directly on the Mizbe'ach from the Kohen's hand.
Rashi (14a, DH v'la'Afukei) cites further proof to this from our Mishnah
(13a). The Mishnah states that a Machshavah of Pigul during the act of
Kemitzah is considered a Machshavah during a full Matir. The Rashash here
points out that this is also evident from the Gemara here, which says that a
person may offer either the Levonah first, or the Kometz first, implying
that they are not offered together but that they are offered separately.
This is also the implication of the Gemara later (17a), which discusses the
case of a Kohen who offers the Kometz with intention to offer the Levonah at
a later time, implying that he is not offering the Levonah together with the
According to the Chok Nasan, the words of the Gemara and Rashi here are
clear. The Gemara compares gathering the Levonah to Holachah, since it does
*not* precede the act of placing the Levonah in a Kli, but it does precede
offering it on the Mizbe'ach. Thus, it is similar to the Holachah of the
blood of an animal that is brought to be thrown on the Mizbe'ach.
Rashi's words are also clear. Rashi writes that the Kometz is offered
separately, after (or before) the Kometz is offered, since it is evident
that the Mishnah and Gemara disagree with the Tosefta and maintain that the
Levonah is not placed in the Kli that holds the Kometz. Rather, it is
offered on the Mizbe'ach independently, in a separate act.
(b) However, the Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:12) records the
Halachah as expressed by the Tosefta and writes that the Levonah is placed
in the Kli together with the Kometz. How does the Rambam explain why the
Gemara compares gathering the Levonah to Holachah, if gathering the Levonah
is performed before the Levonah enters the Kli, and Holachah is performed
*after* the blood enters the Kli?
It seems that the Rambam has an entirely different approach (and perhaps a
different Girsa) in our Gemara. The Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin
16:7) writes that the Kemitzah is considered a Chatzi Matir, and the other
half of the Matir is the gathering of the Levonah. He adds that, similarly,
placing the Kometz in the Kli is a Chatzi Matir, and the other half is
placing the Levonah in the Kli. Bringing the Kometz to the Mizbe'ach is a
Chatzi Matir, and the other half is bringing the Levonah to the Mizbe'ach.
Similarly, offering either one of them on the Mizbe'ach is a Chatzi Matir.
The full Matir is offering both of them on the Mizbe'ach. As the CHAFETZ
CHAIM points out in ZEVACH TODAH, it seems that the Rambam maintains that
gathering the Levonah is not a form of Holachah, but rather a form of
Shechitah or Kemitzah.
How does the Rambam learn our Gemara that compares the gathering of the
Levonah to Holachah? Perhaps the Rambam has a different Girsa in the Gemara,
which compares the gathering of the Levonah to *Kemitzah* and not to
Holachah. Alternatively, perhaps the Gemara compares it to Holachah because
Holachah is the Avodah which involves the least significant action.
Similarly, gathering the Levonah is a very insignificant action, as the
Kohen merely gathers together the Levonah that was already sanctified in the
Kli Shares. However, the Avodah to which the gathering of the Levonah is
compared is actually the Avodah of Kemitzah. Since the Gemara is not
comparing the gathering of the Levonah to the Holachah that occurs after the
Kometz is placed in a Kli, our question concerning the comparison of Likut
Levonah and Holachah is answered.
The Rambam's Girsa also does not read that "Holachah she'Lo b'Regel" is a
Holachah (see TOSFOS DH Mishum, who questions the Girsa of our Gemara, and
the MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:1).
This explains some other rulings of the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei
ha'Mukdashin 11:1) rules that when a Zar gathers the Levonah, it
disqualifies the Minchah, even though the Rambam himself rules that
"Holachah she'Lo b'Regel" is *not* considered a Holachah, as the Mishneh
l'Melech there points out. According to what we have said, the Rambam is
consistent with his own opinion that Likut Levonah is not a form of
Holachah, but is a form of Kemitzah.
The BRISKER RAV cited by the MINCHAS AVRAHAM points out that according to
the Rambam, the words "Ein Mefaglin b'Chatzi Matir" (on 13a) may be
understood in the normal sense of the term (unlike Rashi and Tosfos there,
and Rashi to 14a, DH v'la'Afukei; see previous Insight). The Rambam learns
that the Chatzi Matir is not the act *about which* the Kohen thought the
Pigul thought; rather, it is the act that the Kohen is performing while he
thinks the Pigul thought about a different act. The Kohen is gathering the
Kometz of the Minchah while he thinks a thought of Pigul. The Kemitzah of
the Minchah is a Chatzi Matir, unless the Kohen has the same thought during
the Likut Levonah as well.
However, there are a number of questions on the Rambam's opinion.
1. The Beraisa (16b, and in Zevachim 42b) that we cited above clearly states
that the acts of Kemitzah and placing it in a Kli are each a full Matir. It
is only the Haktarah (burning) of the Kometz that is a Chatzi Matir. This
implies that the Levonah does not require an act parallel to the act of
Kemitzah or being placed into a Kli. (MISHNEH L'MELECH loc. cit.)
2. The Gemara here says that a person may be Maktir the Kometz first or the
Levonah first, implying that they are not offered on the Mizbe'ach together,
unlike the Rambam's opinion! (RASHASH)
3. If the Kemitzah of the Kometz, without the Likut of the Levonah, is a
Chatzi Matir, then why does our Gemara conclude that the Mishnah is *not*
teaching that one can be Mefagel a Chatzi Matir? In our Mishnah, the Pigul
was done during the Chatzi Matir, since it was done during the Kemitzah of
the Minchah, as Rashi points out (14a)! (KEREN ORAH)
We may answer these questions as follows.
1. The Rambam apparently has a different Girsa in the Beraisa cited by our
Gemara (16b, and Zevachim 42b). His Girsa was not that Pigul takes effect
when the thought occurs during the Kemitzah and placing the Kometz into a
Kli, but not during the Haktarah of the Kometz. Rather, his Girsa is that
Pigul takes effect when done in a single Avodah with an *animal* Korban.
However, with regard to Kemitzah, placing it in a Kli, or Haktarah of a
Minchah, each Avodah is only a Chatzi Matir. (This seems to be the intention
of the MAHARI KURKUS in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:1.)
2. The Gemara here means that the Kometz and the Levonah may be offered
separately *b'Di'eved*, since the Torah does not repeat the requirement to
offer them together ("Lo Shanah Alav l'Akev"). This Halachah, in fact, is
stated explicitly in the Tosefta (5:9), which states that if the Kometz and
the Levonah are offered separately, then b'Di'eved the Minchah is valid.
3. The Gemara understood that when the Mishnah says that the Kohen had a
thought of Pigul while performing Kemitzah, it does not mean that he had the
thought *only* during the Kemitzah, but rather that he had the thought
during both the Kemitzah and the gathering of the Levonah (which is parallel
to the Kemitzah). The Mishnah mentions only Kemitzah for the sake of
brevity. This is also evident from the Mishnayos elsewhere (11b and 17a),
which teach that a Kohen can cause the Minchah to become Pigul by having a
thought of Pigul at the time that he performs Kemitzah.