QUESTION: The Mishnah records a dispute between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim with regard to a Kohen who has a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the Kemitzah of a Korban Minchah, but not during the Levonah, or during the Levonah but not during the Kometz. Rebbi Meir says that the Minchah is rendered Pigul, and one who eats the Sheyarei ha'Minchah is Chayav Kares. The Chachamim say that the Minchah is not rendered Pigul, and one who eats the Sheyarei ha'Minchah is not Chayav Kares, because the Kohen did not have a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the entire Avodah which permits the Minchah, but only during half of it.

RASHI (DH Pigel) explains that the Mishnah is discussing a Kohen who, during the burning of the Kometz, has intent to eat the Sheyarei ha'Minchah Chutz l'Zemano. Why does Rashi not mention that the Mishnah may also be discussing a Kohen who has such intent when he separates the Kometz from the Minchah?

The answer seems obvious. The Mishnah earlier (13a) implies that everyone agrees that intent of Chutz l'Zemano during the separating of the Kometz gives the Minchah a status of Pigul. Rashi himself writes this explicitly (14a, DH ul'Afukei), where he differentiates between separating the Kometz and burning the Kometz. He explains that the separating of the Kemitzah is a complete Avodah (and therefore a complete Matir) which has no equivalent with the Levonah. In contrast, the burning of the Kometz and the burning of the Levonah together are considered one Avodah that permits the Minchah.

Based on this understanding, many Acharonim have difficulty with the words of the RAMBAM in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (16:7). The Rambam writes, "If one has a thought of Chutz l'Zemano while he performs the Kemitzah but not while he gathers the Levonah, or if he has such a thought while he gathers the Levonah but not while he performs the Kemitzah, it is invalid but not Pigul." The Rambam apparently understands that the Mishnah here refers to a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the separating of the Kemitzah. If this is how the Rambam understands the Mishnah here, how does the Rambam explain the Mishnah earlier (13a)?

(a) The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH answers in the name of RABEINU HESHEL that the Rambam understands that the Mishnah (13a) indeed refers to the separating of the Kemitzah and the gathering of the Levonah in order to perform the Kemitzah. Since the gathering of the Levonah is done in order to do the Kemitzah, it is considered part of the service of the Kemitzah. Accordingly, just as the Kohen must have a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the burning of the Kometz and the Levonah in order for the Minchah to be Pigul, he must have this thought during the entire Kemitzah, which includes the gathering of the Levonah. This is the Rambam's understanding of the Mishnah earlier (13a).

However, the CHOK NASAN and TAHARAS HA'KODESH challenge this answer. They cite a number of sources to prove that the gathering of the Levonah before the Kemitzah is not considered part of the Kemitzah.

(b) The TOSFOS YOM TOV (2:1) answers the question from the Mishnah earlier (13a) in a different manner. The Mishnah there states that Rebbi Yosi agrees that a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the Kemitzah causes the Minchah to become Pigul. This implies, as mentioned above, that everyone agrees that a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the separating of the Kemitzah alone causes Pigul. The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that Rebbi Yosi's agreement is addressed to Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah here; Rebbi Meir maintains that a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during either the burning of the Kemitzah or the burning of the Levonah suffices. However, the Rambam understands that the Rabanan in the Mishnah here indeed argue and maintain that this thought must also occur during the gathering of the Levonah in order for the Minchah to become Pigul. (See CHOK NASAN and KEREN ORAH at length for other answers.) (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a Kohen burns a small amount of the Kemitzah and Levonah at a time. Each amount is the size of a sesame seed. During the burning, he has intent to eat the rest of the Minchah Chutz l'Zemano. The Gemara says that Rav Chisda, Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Sheshes disagree with each other about the Halachah in this case. One rules that the Minchah is Pigul, one rules that it is invalid (but not Pigul), and one rules that it is valid.

The Gemara concludes that the Amora who rules that the Minchah is Pigul maintains that it is normal for a person to eat and burn such small amounts, and therefore it is Pigul. The Amora who rules that the Minchah is invalid (but not Pigul) maintains that although it is normal for a person to eat such small amounts, it is not normal to burn small amounts. The Amora who rules that the Minchah is valid maintains that it is not normal for a person to eat or burn such small amounts at a time.

The KEREN ORAH asks that the last two opinions seem to conflict with the Gemara in Zevachim (31b). The Gemara there asks, does having a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, a k'Zayis in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" (the amount of time which constitutes one act of eating) invalidate a Korban? Is a thought to eat a Korban Chutz l'Zemano comparable to the Mizbe'ach's "eating" of the Korban, for which this time period does not apply, or is it comparable to an ordinary person's act of eating, for which this time period does apply? RASHI there explains that the "eating" of the Mizbe'ach (i.e., the fire which consumes the Korban) often takes longer than "Kedei Achilas Peras." This implies that it is normal for a Korban to burn slowly. Does the Gemara there argue with the two opinions here which maintain that that it is not normal to burn small amounts at a time?

ANSWER: The KEREN ORAH answers that there is a simple difference between the two Gemaras. The Gemara in Zevachim discusses a case in which the proper amount that needed to be burned was placed on the Mizbe'ach, but the fire was small and did not burn it quickly. This is a normal way to burn something. In contrast, the Gemara here discusses a case in which an amount merely the size of a sesame seed was placed on the Mizbe'ach at a time, which is not a normal manner of burning.

However, this explanation raises a question on the Gemara in Zevachim. The Gemara there compares man's eating to the Mizbe'ach's consumption. Just as intent to burn a k'Zayis of the Korban, Chutz l'Zemano, in more than the time of "Kedei Achilas Peras" invalidates the Korban and renders it Pigul, intent to eat a k'Zayis of the Korban, Chutz l'Zemano, in more than the time of "Kedei Achilas Peras" invalidates the Korban and renders it Pigul. However, if the Gemara in Zevachim refers to when the Kohen has intent to place a complete amount on the Mizbe'ach, but the fire is too small to consume it within "Kedei Achilas Peras," then how can the Gemara derive from that case that the same law applies to intent to eat the Korban in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras"? Eating slowly involves eating a small amount at one time, eventually eating a k'Zayis in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras." If the Kohen would have intent to put such a small amount on the Mizbe'ach at one time, it also would not be a valid Machshavah of Pigul.

The Keren Orah concludes that it must be that while it is normal to put an entire Korban (or at least a k'Zayis) on the Mizbe'ach at one time (and this is the way in which one must burn Korbanos), it is not normal to eat an entire k'Zayis at one time. Rather, one eats a k'Zayis in small pieces, within the time of "Kedei Achilas Peras." The Gemara therefore compares eating a k'Zayis in too long of a time (more than "Kedei Achilas Peras") to burning a k'Zayis in too long of a time (more than "Kedei Achilas Peras"). (Y. MONTROSE)