Shmuel says a mizrak is mekadesh dry flour. Proof is from Nesi'im who brought a mincha in a mizrak. Gemara asks, but mincha is moist. Gemara's first answer is, this refers to the dry flour that the oil didn't touch. My question is, the minhag of not eating gebrochs is due to a fear that their is some flour that didn't bake. The ikur halacha is that we aren't afraid for this. Is this gemora a proof to the minhag, and a kasha on the ikur halacha? Or do we assume: 1) When we bake matzos, we make sure it is kneaded well, especially we who use thin matzos; or 2) Does water mix better than oil does; or 3) Even though we lechatchila want a blila yafa by the mincha, we are afraid bidieved we did a partial blila, or not blila at all (like R. Zeira).
Moshe Schlusselberg, Spring Valley, NY, USA
Given the choices of (a) that the Chachamim (Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Meir in Pesachim 41a, "Matzah Sheruyah") permitted one to eat something that might be prohibited by an Isur Kares, and (b) that there is a difference in the very nature between Menachos and Matzah, I am inclined to choose the latter choice.
This is an example of a Halachah that depends on the Metzi'us, the actual nature of the object under discussion. If one opens up a Matzah and find pockets of flour, then he is forbidden to dip it in liquid, and the whole batch of Matzah probably needs to be checked. If one never finds pockets of flour in this kind of Matzah, then he may eat it without checking it.
It is not possible to bring proof from the Metzi'us of Menachos to the Metzi'us of Matzah anymore than it is possible to bring a proof about the possiblity of bug infestation of bananas from that of lettuce, or for that matter, to lettuce grown in sealed greenhouses to that grown outside. The Mishnah Berurah makes no mention of the Minhag of not eating gebrochts, yet it was well known that he himself kept this Minhag. When asked why he kept this Minhag if the Vilna Ga'on himself did not, he replied: "If I had the Ga'on's gebrochts, I would eat them too."
Also, keep in mind that Belilah for Menachos is only l'Chatchilah, and it is not Me'akev b'Di'evad (Mishnah, Menachos 18a; Rambam, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:11). In contrast, a proper Lishah obviously is required for Matzah.
Kol Tuv,
Yonasan Sigler
This is not a Psak Halachah
1) It is worth noting that in the language of the Torah we find different usages for the words "Kli Kodesh" and "Kli Shares." Bamidbar 31:6 says that Pinchas took the Klei ha'Kodesh with him. Rashi writes that this refers to the Aron and the Tzitz. We also find in Bamidbar 4:12 that "they will take all the Klei Shares." Rashi writes that these are the vessels used for the incense on the inner Mizbe'ach. We see that in this case Klei ha'Kodesh possess a higher level of Kedushah than Klei Shares.
2) See also the Mishnah in Zevachim 32a which states, "He received the blood in a Kli Kodesh and put in into a Kli Chol." This is an example of the word "Kli Kodesh" being used, even though it clearly means "Kli Shares," since the blood must be received in a Kli Shares after the Shechitah. However, there is not necessarily a proof from here that the two words are interchangeable, because one can say that the Mishnah uses the words "Kli Kodesh" because we want to stress the contrast with Kli Chol mentioned immediately afterwards.
3) Back to my original reply, about the difference between Kli Shares and the other vessels in the Beis ha'Mikdash, which, as I mentioned, also possess Kedushah. The Nafka Minah between the two kinds of Kelim is that Kli Shares make holy what is placed inside them (see Gemara 8b). This law does not apply to other Kelim (for example, the oven is not Mekadesh the bread placed inside it, according to Rebbi Shimon, in Menachos 96a, as I wrote earlier).
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom