OPINIONS: The Mishnah lists many procedures which must be done with a Korban Minchah. Common to all of these procedures is that if they are not done, the Minchah nevertheless is valid. One of these things is "Pesisah," the Torah's command to break the Minchah into pieces (see Vayikra 2:6).

This implies that a Minchah which is not broken into pieces at all remains valid. Is this the Halachah?

(a) RASHI (DH Lo Patas) writes that this is not the case. The breaking up of the Minchah must be done in order to perform the Kemitzah, as the Gemara states later (75b). The Mishnah means merely that if an amount which is sufficient for performing the Kemitzah is broken, the Minchah is valid; it is not necessary to break up the entire Minchah in order for it to be valid. This is also the opinion of the BARTENURA.

The TOSFOS YOM TOV has difficulty with this opinion. When the verse states an Avodah of Kodshim twice, this teaches that the Avodah is an absolute requirement, and if it is not done the Korban is not valid, even b'Di'eved (see, for example, Zevachim 23b). The breaking up of the Minchah is not mentioned twice in the Torah, and thus the Minchah should be valid b'Di'eved if it is not done, unlike Rashi says.

Moreover, the Mishnah concludes by saying that even if the Kohen broke up the Minchah into many pieces, it is valid. The Gemara (18b) asks why the Mishnah needs to mention this, when it already taught that the Minchah is valid even if the Minchah was not broken up at all. The Tosfos Yom Tov asks that according to Rashi, there is no question. Since an amount for the Kemitzah does need to broken up in order for the Korban to be valid, it is reasonable to assume that there might be laws related to the way it is broken up that cause the Minchah to be invalid.

The YAD BINYAMIN answers these questions on Rashi. To answer the first question, he explains that although the Torah does not say that one should break the Minchah twice, the Torah does say that the Kometz must be taken. In order to ensure that the Kohen does not separate more than the amount of a Kometz, he must break the amount which he intends to take as the Kometz. Therefore, it is the Kometz which requires breaking; there is no independent Mitzvah to break the Minchah.

He answers the second question by explaining that, according to Rashi, the Gemara apparently assumed that the case of the Mishnah is where the Kohen in fact broke up a small amount for the Kemitzah, and the rest of the Minchah was broken up into large pieces. This is why the Gemara asks that the Minchah in such a case obviously is valid.

(b) The Tosfos Yom Tov points out that the RAMBAM apparently maintains that no breaking at all is necessary b'Di'eved. The Tosfos Yom Tov infers this from the fact that the Rambam, in both Perush ha'Mishnayos and in Yad ha'Chazakah, makes no mention of any requirement to break a small amount for the Kometz. (It appears that the Tosfos Yom Tov does not agree with the Yad Binyamin's assertion that one cannot perform the a Kemitzah properly without breaking a small amount first.) (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Mishnah (18a) teaches that if one does not perform the last pouring of the oil or mix the Minchah, the Minchah nevertheless is valid. The Gemara explains that when the Mishnah says that "he did not pour [the oil]," it means that the oil was poured but not by a Kohen. It cannot mean that the oil was not poured at all, because the Torah teaches that the Minchah is invalid if the pouring is not done at all.

rom the fact that the Mishnah's case of pouring oil refers to when the pouring was done but not by a Kohen, the Gemara infers that the Mishnah's case of mixing also refers to when the mixing was done but not by a Kohen. Accordingly, if the Minchah was not mixed at all, it is invalid.

The Gemara questions this from the discussion of the Gemara later (103b). The Mishnah there states that up to sixty Esronim of flour is able to mix with one Log of oil, but more than sixty Esronim of flour cannot mix with one Log of oil. The Gemara asks, what difference does this make, if the Mishnah here teaches that the Minchah is valid even if the oil is not mixed with the Minchah at all? Rebbi Zeira there answers that "Kol ha'Ra'uy l'Vilah, Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo; v'Chol she'Eino Ra'uy l'Vilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo" -- as long as the Minchah is able to be mixed, it is valid, even if one does not mix it. If it is not able to be mixed (such as when there are sixty-one Esronim of flour and one Log of oil), it is not valid. (See Insights to Menachos 103:2.)

The Gemara there clearly understands that the Mishnah here means that the Minchah is valid even if the Minchah is not mixed at all. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah here indeed refers to two different situations. When it discusses oil that was not poured, it means oil that was poured but not by a Kohen. When it discusses a Minchah that was not mixed, it means that it was not mixed at all.

hy does the Gemara determine the intent of the Mishnah here based on Rebbi Zeira's answer there? On the contrary, Rebbi Zeira should answer there based on the straightforward intent of the Mishnah here! Rebbi Zeira should answer there that a Minchah indeed must be mixed, and it is not valid if it is not mixed. When the Mishnah here says that it is valid when it is not mixed, it refers to when it is mixed, but by a non-Kohen. This answer would resolve the contradiction between the Mishnayos, and it would uphold the Gemara's initial assumption that both cases of the Mishnah here, pouring oil and mixing, refer to when the act was done but not by a Kohen. (TOSFOS DH v'Amar)

(a) TOSFOS answers that perhaps Rebbi Zeira knew that there is no source in the Torah that teaches that failure to mix the Minchah at all invalidates it (in contrast to pouring the oil, for which there is a source that teaches that failure to pour the oil at all is invalid). Accordingly, Rebbi Zeira could not have answered that the Mishnah here refers to a Minchah mixed by a non-Kohen.

(b) The SEFAS EMES gives a different answer to this question, based on the continuation of the Gemara here. The Gemara says that since the Torah requires that a Kohen perform the Kemitzah for certain Menachos, it must be that only a Kohen may perform the Avodos from Kemitzah onward, while a non-Kohen may perform the Avodos before Kemitzah. This applies, however, only to Menachos for which the Torah states that the Kohen must perform the Kemitzah. The Torah does not state this requirement in the case of a Minchas Nesachim. Accordingly, there seems to be no source that a non-Kohen may perform any of the Avodos of a Minchas Nesachim, even those before the Kemitzah, including pouring or mixing.

However, since the Torah does not mention the act of pouring explicitly with regard to the Minchas Nesachim, it is reasonable to assume that this law may be derived from other Menachos to the Minchas Nesachim. In contrast, the Torah explicitly states the law of mixing with regard to the Minchas Nesachim. Rebbi Zeira therefore understands that if failure to mix would render the Minchas Nesachim invalid, the Minchas Nesachim also should be invalid if the mixing is done by a non-Kohen. This clearly conflicts with the Mishnah here. Rebbi Zeira therefore understands that the Mishnah here cannot mean that if a non-Kohen mixes the Minchah, it is valid, if failure to mix it would render it invalid. He therefore gives his answer that a Minchah does not need to be mixed in practice; rather, it needs to be able to be mixed. (Y. MONTROSE)