OPINIONS: In a case in which the Shirayim loses some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Shirayim may not be eaten. According to Rebbi Yochanan (9a), the Kometz nevertheless may be offered on the Mizbe'ach even when the Shirayim loses some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah.

What is the status of the Minchah when some of the flour of the Shirayim becomes lost after the Kemitzah but before the Kidush Kli? In such a case, may the Kometz be offered?

(a) The law in the case of animal offerings is that the Korban must remain whole (aside from the Shechitah itself) until after the Kabalas ha'Dam is performed (Zevachim 25b). The act of Kabalas ha'Dam for an animal offering parallels the act of Kidush Kli for the Kometz of a Minchah offering. Since the Gemara (9b) says that a Minchah that loses some of its flour is like an animal offering that becomes blemished (a Ba'al Mum), it stands to reason that a Minchah that loses some of its flour before the Kidush Kli should be Pasul, just as a Zevach that becomes a Ba'al Mum before Kabalas ha'Dam is Pasul.

(b) However, the KEHILOS YAKOV suggests logical grounds to differentiate between Zevachim and Menachos with regard to the Pesul of not being whole. In the case of Zevachim, the Kabalas ha'Dam is performed directly from the neck of the animal. There is an immediate connection between the Shechitah and the Kabalas ha'Dam. In such a case, the Torah requires that two conditions be fulfilled when one performs the Kabalas ha'Dam. The first condition is that the blood must come directly from the animal that was slaughtered; if the blood first falls to the floor, it is Pasul and cannot be used for the Kabalas ha'Dam. The second condition is that the Kabalas ha'Dam must be done while the animal is whole, with no blemish.

These conditions are relevant only to Zevachim, where the Kabalas ha'Dam is done directly from the animal. The Avodah of a Minchah, in contrast, does not have this connection between the Kemitzah and the Kidush Kli. The Kemitzah process does not involve transferring the Kometz directly from the original vessel in which the Minchah was sanctified to the vessel in which the Kometz is sanctified. This is because the Kometz is held first in the hand of the Kohen, before it is placed into the vessel. Although the Torah requires that the Kometz come directly from the hand of the Kohen into the vessel, there still is no immediate connection between the Kemitzah and the Kidush Kli. Since there is no requirement that the Kemitzah come directly into the Kli from the original pan, there is also no requirement that the Kidush Kli be performed while the original Minchah is still whole. The logic of this difference is that the Kidush Kli of the Kometz of a Minchah is not an act that relates to the original Minchah, but rather it is an act that relates solely to the Kometz.

The Kehilos Yakov asserts, therefore, that the Kidush Kli may be done even after some of the flour of the Minchah was lost.

The Gemara here supports the assertion of the Kehilos Yakov. The Gemara asks about the law in a case in which the Minchah lost some of its flour "between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah." The simple understanding is that the loss of flour at any point after the Kemitzah -- even before Kidush Kli -- does not invalidate the Minchah. (If the loss of flour before the Kidush Kli would invalidate the Minchah, then the Gemara should ask about a Minchah that lost some of its flour "between the Kidush Kli and the Haktarah.")

An even stronger support for the Kehilos Yakov is the Gemara later (at the end of the Amud) that says, "Keivan d'b'Matan Kli... Lo Masni Lei." The Gemara explains that the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya does not mention a case of one who has an improper thought to eat a k'Zayis of the Shirayim Chutz l'Mekomo because the Beraisa wants to include a case in which there is only a k'Zayis left of the Shirayim and, if not for the thought of Pigul, it would be valid. The Gemara's words clearly support the Kehilos Yakov's assertion that a loss of flour between the Kemitzah and Kidush Kli does not invalidate the Minchah, since the Gemara says, "Keivan d'b'Matan Kli... Lo Masni Lei" -- regarding Matan Kli (placing the Kometz into a Kli to become sanctified), the Beraisa does not mention having a thought to eat the Shirayim Chutz l'Mekomo, since it is discussing a case in which there is only a k'Zayis left from the Shirayim at the time of the Matan Kli. If there is only a k'Zayis left, then it must be that the Minchah lost some of its flour before Matan Kli and, nevertheless, without a thought of Pigul the Minchah remains valid. (Indeed, the ACHI'EZER (YD 41:12) made this point before the Kehilos Yakov.)

(The TAHARAS HA'KODESH refutes the ruling of the Kehilos Yakov based on the words of TOSFOS earlier (9b) who says that a Minchah that is lacking flour is valid only in a case in which a Zevach that is lacking would be valid. Since a Zevach that is lacking is Pasul only when it became lacking before the Kabalas ha'Dam, a Minchah that is lacking should also be Pasul when it became lacking before the Kidush Kli.

However, the Kehilos Yakov reasons that there is no proof from Tosfos, because Tosfos refers only to a case in which the Pesul is in the Haktarah itself, such as when there is no Shirayim at all at that time. In such a case, there is no reason to differentiate between a Zevach and a Minchah. However, in a case in which the Zevach became a Ba'al Mum before Kabalas ha'Dam, the Zevach became Pasul because, as explained above, the blood must come directly from an unblemished animal. In this case, there is a reason to differentiate between a Zevach and a Minchah since the Matan Kli of the Minchah is not done directly from the original vessel, and thus the words of Tosfos are not applicable in this case.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: In a case in which the Shirayim loses some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah, the Shirayim may not be eaten. According to Rebbi Yochanan (9a), the Kometz nevertheless may be offered on the Mizbe'ach even when the Shirayim loses some of its flour between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah. The Gemara earlier (12a) asks whether, in such a case, burning the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach with intent to eat the Shirayim Chutz l'Zemano constitutes Pigul, or functions to remove the Shirayim from the prohibition of Me'ilah. The Gemara discusses this question at length.

Rava (12a) initially suggests that the Haktarah of the Kometz in such a case is effective. Rava here (12b), however, retracts his opinion based on the words of a Beraisa. The Beraisa derives from the verse, "Kodesh Kodashim Hu" (Vayikra 24:9), that if one of the twelve loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim is broken, then all of the loaves are Pasul. This proves that the Haktarah does not remove from the law of Me'ilah a Minchah that is lacking flour (and thus it may not be eaten, as Me'ilah still applies to it).

What is Rava's proof from the Beraisa? The Beraisa says merely that all of the loaves are Pasul. The Gemara knew that the Shirayim of the Minchah is Pasul, and its only question was whether or not the Haktarah of the Kometz is effective to remove from them the prohibition of Me'ilah. What, then, is the proof from the Beraisa that the Haktarah is not effective? (TOSFOS DH Hu)

ANSWER: The KEHILOS YAKOV explains as follows. The normal Pesul of "Chaser," of a Minchah that lacks flour, is not relevant to the Lechem ha'Panim. Since each loaf is baked separately, the Pesul of "Chaser" in one of the loaves does not disqualify the other loaves. The other loaves become Pasul only when one of the loaves is entirely missing (since there must be twelve loaves), or if a broken loaf is considered as though the loaf is entirely missing.

This explains Rava's proof from the Beraisa. The Gemara (12a) asks whether the Pesul of "Chaser" is limited to the allowance to eat the Shirayim, but the ability of the Haktarah to remove from the Shirayim the prohibition of Me'ilah remains, or whether the Pesul of "Chaser" is so strong that it impedes the Haktarah's ability to remove the prohibition of Me'ilah from the Shirayim.

In the case of an ordinary Minchah that is Pasul because it lacks some flour, the Shirayim may not be eaten, but the Haktarah still may retain its ability to remove the prohibition of Me'ilah from the Shirayim. The fact that the Shirayim may not be eaten does not affect the ability of the Haktarah to remove the prohibition of Me'ilah from the Shirayim.

However, the case of a loaf of the Lechem ha'Panim that broke is different. There is no Pesul of "Chaser" on all of the loaves, since each loaf is baked separately. The only Pesul that invalidates all of the loaves is the absence of an entire loaf. Therefore, the only question about the validity of the other loaves is whether the Haktarah is effective for a Korban that is lacking. If the Haktarah is effective and still performs its function of removing the law of Me'ilah from the loaves, then there is no reason to consider the Lechem ha'Panim invalid. The broken loaf itself is Pasul because of "Chaser" and it may not be eaten, but its Haktarah still removes from it the law of Me'ilah, and thus that loaf is considered present in some respect, such that twelve loaves of Lechem ha'Panim indeed are present.

This is Rava's proof from the Beraisa that Haktarah works when the Shirayim of the Minchah is lacking. The Beraisa says that when one of the loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim is broken, all of the loaves are Pasul. Since the unbroken loaves do not have a Pesul of "Chaser" that would forbid them from being eaten, it must be that the Pesul of "Chaser" of the broken loaf causes the Haktarah to be ineffective; that is, the Haktarah does not permit the loaf with regard to Me'ilah. Since the Haktarah does not permit it, the Lechem ha'Panim is lacking twelve loaves, and, consequently, all of them are Pasul. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)