1. Kemitzah in fact is not like Zerikah, but rather like Shechitah. This is stated in Menachos (13b), "Kometz Hainu Shochet" -- Kemitzah is in place of Shechitah. There the Gemara states that Maktir, burning the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach, is equivalent to Zerikah.

2. However, the laws of Kemitzah do not need to be identical to Shechitah. This is evident from the beginning of the Tosefta (Menachos 1:2) which states, "There is a stringency in Shechitah which does not exist in Kemitzah, and there is a stringency in Kemitzah which does not exist in Shechitah." Each process, Kemitzah and Shechitah, possesses aspects which are more stringent than the aspects of the other. The Tosefta states that one of the Chumros of Shechitah is that it applies to all Korbanos, while Kemitzah applies only to some of the Menachos and not all of them. On the other hand, the Tosefta states certain stringencies apply to Kemitzah which do not apply to Shechitah. It is clear from the Tosefta that there are several differences between Shechitah and Kemitzah.

3. Rashi (Menachos 13b, DH Zeh ha'Klal) explains how Kemitzah is similar to Shechitah. Shechitah separates the portion that belongs to Gavoha, to the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m, from the portion that belongs to the Kohanim. The blood is offered to Hash-m and the meat of the Korban goes to the Kohanim. Shechitah is the action which separates the blood from the meat. In the same way, Kemitzah separates the flour of the Minchah which is burned on the Mizbe'ach for Hash-m from the Shirayim, the remainder of the Minchah, which may be eaten by the Kohanim.

4. However, this does not mean that every Korban must have Kemitzah. Rather, it means that whenever a Korban *does* have Kemitzah, it performs a role similar to that of Shechitah. In contrast, every Korban obviously must have Shechitah, because one cannot offer a live animal on the Mizbe'ach.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Here is a slightly different approach (see previous mailing) to suggest that even though a Minchah is valid even though it does not possess all four Avodos, it is nevertheless a different kind of Minchah when it lacks all four Avodos.

This is based on an inference in the Chidushei ha'Ritva to Yoma (end of 48a). The Gemara there states that if "Linah" (being left overnight) disqualifies the Ketores, then "Machshavas Pigul" (the wrong thought at the time of its offering) also disqualifies the Ketores. The Ritva writes that this principle of the Gemara does not always apply, because there are three types of Korbanos (Minchas Kohen, Minchas Nesachim, and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach) which are Pasul if left overnight but which do not become Pasul through Machshavah.

The Ritva adds the reason for why Machshavah does not disqualify these types of Korbanos: it is because they do not possess four Avodos, since Kemitzah is not done with them.

This explanation of the Ritva appears slightly different from the reason given by the Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 18:8) for why there is no Pigul for the Minchas Kohen and Minchas Nesachim. The Rambam writes that the reason is that there is no Kometz which can permit them. This seems different from the reason given by the Ritva, because according to the Ritva the primary reason for why there is no Pigul is that there are not four Avodos. The fact that Kemitzah is missing is not the causative factor for why there is no Pigul; its lack merely causes that there are not four Avodos, and the lack of four Avodos is the reason why there is no Pigul. In contrast, according to the Rambam, the primary reason is that there is no Kemitzah; the lack of four Avodos is only an incidental consequence.

In other words, according to the Ritva the lack of four Avodos is a sign that this Korban is different from other Korbanos, and therefore Pigul does not apply. Even though it is possible to have a Minchah without the four Avodos, it nevertheless automatically follows that such a Minchah differs in its essence from other Menachos.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom