OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses Rebbi Shimon's method of expounding a verse when the letter "Vav" links the context of the previous verse with the following verse. The Gemara asks that according to Rebbi Shimon, a non-Kohen may not perform the Shechitah of a Korban, since the verse says, "v'Shachat... v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim" -- "and he shall slaughter... and the sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall bring [the blood...]" (Vayikra 1:5), linking the act of Shechitah to the act of Kabalas ha'Dam. Just as the Kabalas ha'Dam must be done by a Kohen, the Shechitah also should have to be done by a Kohen. The Gemara answers that the word "v'Shachat" is linked to the previous verse which says, "v'Samach." Just as Semichah is done by a non-Kohen (the owner of the Korban), Shechitah may be done by a non-Kohen.

The Gemara asks that if Shechitah is compared to Semichah, then just as Semichah must be done by the owner, Shechitah also should have to be done only by the owner. The Gemara answers that this cannot be so, based on logical grounds. If the Zerikas ha'Dam, which is the main act of atonement of the Korban, does not need to be done by the owner, then certainly the Shechitah does not need to be done by the owner.

Does the Gemara conclude that there is no reason for the owner to slaughter his own Korban, or does it conclude that the owner is not obligated to slaughter his own Korban, but he still has a Mitzvah to do so? (See Insights to Pesachim 64:3.)

(a) The CHESHEK SHLOMO writes that, l'Chatchilah, the owner should slaughter his Korban, since the Gemara compares Shechitah to Semichah.

The Cheshek Shlomo cites many sources in the Mishnah and Gemara which prove that the owner should slaughter his own Korban. One of these sources is the Gemara in Pesachim (7b). The Gemara there differentiates between the text of a blessing for a Mitzvah which uses the infinitive verb form (e.g. "... Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu... l'Hadlik Ner Shel Shabbos") and the text of a blessing which uses the noun form (e.g. "... Asher Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu... Al ha'Milah"). The Gemara understands that the former form indicates that this person must perform the Mitzvah himself. The latter form indicates that anyone may do this Mitzvah. The Gemara questions this from the blessing for Shechitah, "Al ha'Shechitah." How can this blessing be recited for the Shechitah of the Korban Pesach and other Korbanos, if the owner of the Korban is supposed to perform the Shechitah himself? RASHI there (7b, DH Pesach v'Kodshim) explains that the owner is commanded to slaughter his own Korban, as the verse says, "v'Samach... v'Shachat." The Cheshek Shlomo points out that Rashi's source is the Gemara here in Menachos. The Gemara in Pesachim clearly understands that the owner is required to slaughter his own Korban, l'Chatchilah. (The Cheshek Shlomo adds that although no Semichah is done to a Korban Pesach, it is compared to most other Korbanos, for which Semichah is done.)

(b) The NIMUKEI HA'GRIV writes that although it is a Mitzvah for the owner to slaughter l'Chatchilah, Rebbi Shimon and the Chachamim disagree about whether this Mitzvah is a Mitzvah mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.

This is apparent from the words of TOSFOS in Chagigah (16b, DH Daber). Tosfos writes that the Gemara's comparison of Shechitah to Semichah does not mean that the owner must slaughter his Korban, because the comparison of "v'Shachat" to "v'Samach" is only mid'Rabanan in nature. The Nimukei ha'Griv explains that Tosfos means that the Gemara here, which apparently understands that this comparison is a Torah law, is only according to Rebbi Shimon. According to the Chachamim, this comparison is only an Asmachta. This is why they do not maintain that there is a Mitzvah mid'Oraisa for the owner to slaughter his own Korban. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Gemara records a dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Rav says that whenever the Torah repeats a law of a Korban Minchah (in Parshas Tzav, after it taught the laws of Menachos in Parshas Vayikra), its intention is to teach that this the validity of the Minchah depends on the fulfillment of this law. Shmuel disagrees with this rule and maintains that the repetition of a law of a Minchah does not mean that it is absolutely required.

Later in the Gemara, Rav Huna questions Rav's position from the requirement to salt the Minchah. The Torah does not state this law twice, and yet it is an absolute requirement, without which the Minchah is not valid, as the Beraisa teaches in the name of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon.

Rav Yosef answers that Rav follows the view of the Tana of the Mishnah here, who says that if one does not salt the Kometz, the Minchah still is valid. Abaye says that the Mishnah does not mean that the Minchah is valid if one fails to salt the Kometz. Rather, the Mishnah means that the Minchah is valid even if a non-Kohen salts it. Rav Yosef replies (in his first answer), "Do you think that a non-Kohen comes close to the Mizbe'ach?"

What is the meaning of Rav Yosef's response to Abaye?

(a) The KEREN ORAH explains that Rav Yosef means that the Mishnah cannot be saying that the Minchah is valid if a non-Kohen salts the Minchah, because the salting must be done near the Mizbe'ach in an area which a non-Kohen may not enter. Rather, the Mishnah must be teaching that a Minchah which is not salted at all remains valid, and if a non-Kohen salts it, it is invalid (since a salting done by a non-Kohen is worse than failure to salt a Minchah at all).

(b) In his second explanation, the Keren Orah writes that Rav Yosef is telling Abaye that the Mishnah cannot be teaching that a Minchah must be salted in order to be valid but the salting done by a non-Kohen is acceptable, because a non-Kohen cannot approach the Mizbe'ach. However, if the Mishnah means that a Minchah is valid even when it is not salted, it is possible that if it is salted by a non-Kohen it remains valid. (Y. MONTROSE)