QUESTION: The Mishnah says that Rebbi Yosi agrees that when one performs Kemitzah with intent to eat the Shirayim or to offer the Kometz Chutz l'Zemano, the Minchah is Pigul and one who eats it is punished with Kares. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah expresses this law by saying that "Rebbi Yosi agrees" with it. Why would one have thought that Rebbi Yosi disagrees?

The Gemara answers that since Rebbi Yosi disagrees with the second law in the Mishnah, one might have thought that he also disagrees with the first law. The Mishnah says that when one performs Kemitzah with intent to offer the Levonah Chutz l'Zemano, the Chachamim say that it is Pigul and one who offers it is Chayav Kares, while Rebbi Yosi disagrees and says that the Minchah is Pasul and one is not Chayav Kares for it. The Gemara explains that one might have thought that Rebbi Yosi's reason in the second case of the Mishnah is 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 also would rule 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. The Mishnah is teaching that Rebbi Yosi's reason in the second case is not "Ein Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir" but rather it is a different reason that does not apply in the first case: having a thought of Pigul during one Matir about another Matir does not cause the second Matir to become Pigul ("Ein Matir Mefagel Es ha'Matir").

(As Rashi and Tosfos explain, the Gemara here uses the words "Ein Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir" in a way that differs from the normal usage of the words. "Ein Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir" normally means that one cannot cause a Korban to become Pigul by thinking a thought of Pigul while he performs the first Matir, without thinking a thought of Pigul while he performs the second Matir (see the Mishnah on 16a). The Gemara here refers to a person who performs the entire Avodah with intent 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 time.)

The Gemara concludes that both Rebbi Yosi and the Chachamim agree that a person can cause the Korban to become Pigul when he performs the Avodah with intent to perform half of the Haktarah Chutz l'Zemano. RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK, cited by the MINCHAS AVRAHAM, asks that this conclusion seems to contradict the Gemara in Zevachim (27a). The Gemara there teaches that when the Kohen intends 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 intent to perform Zerikah on the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach, Chutz l'Zemano.

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 intent to be Maktir the Kometz Chutz l'Zemano should not make the Minchah become Pigul! Why is this case different from a Machshavah to perform an invalid Zerikah Chutz l'Zemano?

(a) One may suggest 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, and it plays no role in permitting the Korban to be eaten. However, the Haktarah of the Kometz does play a role 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 (in Perush ha'Mishnayos, end of the first Perek and beginning of the second Perek, and in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 14:10) writes that the Haktarah of the Kometz and the Levonah is comparable not only to the Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban, but also to the Haktaras ha'Eimurin of the Korban. His source seems to be the words of the Chachamim in the Mishnah here, 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.)

The law is that a Korban becomes Pigul either when the Kohen has intent to perform Zerikas ha'Dam Chutz l'Zemano, or when he has intent 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, because the Haktarah of a Kometz Chutz l'Zemano is comparable to Zerikas ha'Dam, 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; see Menachos 4a), 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 become Pigul because the Haktarah of a Kometz Chutz l'Zemano is comparable to Haktaras ha'Eimurin.

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 make the Korban become Pigul only if it is able to permit the Korban to be eaten. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

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 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 writes 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 itself.

The words of the Gemara and Rashi are difficult to understand in light of the Gemara in Sotah (14b). The Gemara there quotes the Tosefta (Menachos 1:10) which describes the exact procedure of offering a Minchah. The Tosefta says that after the Kohen performs the Kemitzah and places the Kometz inside 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.

Why does the Gemara here compare gathering the Levonah to Holachah? 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 Avodah 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 the act of bringing 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.

Moreover, why does Rashi write that gathering the Levonah is performed after the Kometz has been offered on the Mizbe'ach? The Tosefta clearly states 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 disagrees 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 it is offered directly on the Mizbe'ach from the Kohen's hand.

Rashi (14a, DH ul'Afukei) cites additional proof from the 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 intent to offer the Levonah at a later time, implying that he does not offer the Levonah together with the Kometz.

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 the Mizbe'ach for Zerikah.

Rashi writes that the Kometz is offered separately, after (or before) the Levonah 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, 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?

Apparently, the Rambam has an entirely different understanding (and perhaps a different Girsa) of the 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, the act of placing the Kometz in the Kli is a Chatzi Matir, and the other half of the Matir is the act of placing the Levonah in the Kli. The act of bringing the Kometz to the Mizbe'ach is a Chatzi Matir, and the other half is the act of bringing the Levonah to the Mizbe'ach. Similarly, the act of offering either one of them on the Mizbe'ach is a Chatzi Matir. The full Matir is the act of offering both of them on the Mizbe'ach. As the CHAFETZ CHAYIM 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 the Gemara here which 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 does not compare the gathering of the Levonah to the Holachah that occurs after the Kometz is placed in a Kli, the question about 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 text of the Gemara; see also MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:1.)

This approach explains some other rulings of the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:1) rules that when a Zar gathers the Levonah, he 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 the above-mentioned explanation, the Rambam is consistent with his own opinion that Likut Levonah is not a form of Holachah, but 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 ul'Afukei; see previous Insight). The Rambam learns that the Chatzi Matir is not the act about which the Kohen had the thought of Pigul; rather, it is the act that the Kohen performs while he thinks the thought of Pigul about a different act. The Kohen gathers the Kometz of the Minchah while he thinks a thought of Pigul. The Kemitzah of the Minchah is a Chatzi Matir and his thought is ineffective, unless the Kohen has the same thought during the Likut Levonah as well.

There are a number of questions on the Rambam's opinion.

1. The Beraisa (16b, and in Zevachim 42b) 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, without the Likut of the Levonah, is a Chatzi Matir, then why does the Gemara conclude that the Mishnah is not teaching that one can be Mefagel a Chatzi Matir? In the 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)

These questions may be answered as follows.

1. The Rambam apparently has a different Girsa in the Beraisa cited by the Gemara (16b, and Zevachim 42b). His Girsa is not that Pigul takes effect when the thought occurs during the Kemitzah and placing the Kometz into a Kli, and 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 the acts of Kemitzah, placing it in a Kli, and the 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 ha'Kasuv l'Akev"). This Halachah, in fact, is mentioned 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. (MINCHAS AVRAHAM)

3. The Gemara understands that when the Mishnah says that the Kohen has a thought of Pigul while he performs Kemitzah, it does not mean that he has the thought only during the Kemitzah, but rather that he has 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 causes the Minchah to become Pigul by having a thought of Pigul at the time that he performs Kemitzah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)