OPINIONS: Rava asks what the law is when the oil is not poured onto the Kometz before it is offered, as the Halachah requires, but rather the oil is poured on wood.

RASHI (DH Mahu, DH Etzem) gives two explanations for this question.

(a) In his first explanation, Rashi (DH Mahu) explains that Rava's question focuses on the Kometz. Is the Kometz invalid, since it is considered to be missing its oil, or since the Kometz is burned on top of the wood, it is considered attached to the oil that was poured on the wood, and thus it is not considered to be missing its oil?

(b) In his second explanation, Rashi (DH Etzem) explains that Rava's question focuses on the wood. Must the wood be burned together with the Kometz, or the Kometz is valid even if the wood is not burned?

The Gemara compares this question to a case in which Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue. Do a limb and bone combine to form a k'Zayis that would render a person liable for offering them as a Korban outside the Beis ha'Mikdash? Rebbi Yochanan says that he is liable, since they are considered attached to each other. Reish Lakish says that he is exempt, since they are considered unattached (and therefore do not combine to form a k'Zayis).

The SHITAH MEKUBETZES asks that according to both explanations of Rashi, why does the Gemara not offer a simple answer to this question from the Mishnah? The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Yehudah who says that when there are different types in the mixture, they became invalid, since they absorb from each other. This implies teaches that the mere fact that they are touching is not enough for them to be considered combined.

The Shitah Mekubetzes quotes RABEINU SHMUEL who answers that the Gemara here does not follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah, but it follows the view of the Rabanan. Rebbi Yehudah clearly does not agree with the concept that two items of Kodshim that are touching each other are considered to be the same unit. (See the Shitah Mekubetzes for another answer.)

(c) TOSFOS (DH Kometz) explains the question differently. Tosfos says that some of the oil is already absorbed into the wood, while some of it is still physically present on top of the wood. The question is whether the oil that is absorbed in the wood is considered to be physically on top of the wood together with the oil that is physically present on top of the wood. Tosfos notes that he believes that his explanation is better than both explanations presented by Rashi.

(d) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:17) has a different text in the Gemara. Instead of the word "Etzim" ("wood"), he has the text "Etzem" ("bone"). He understands that the Gemara's question refers to oil from the Kometz which fell onto a bone from a Korban, which then fell off of the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara's question is whether the bone must be placed back onto the Mizbe'ach since there is some oil on it.

The Rambam rules that the bone should be placed back onto the Mizbe'ach. The KESEF MISHNEH explains that he rules this way because in any case of a doubt about whether part of a Korban should be placed back onto the Mizbe'ach, the Halachah rules leniently in order not to belittle Kodshim. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara states that when Rav Kahana left to Eretz Yisrael, he found the sons of Rebbi Chiya there. Chizkiyah was a son of Rebbi Chiya. Does this mean that Chizkiyah was alive when Rav Kahana came to Eretz Yisrael?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Ki Salik) notes that this Gemara supports the opinion of RASHI in Gitin (84b, DH Dilchon), who writes that Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah from Rebbi Yochanan during the time of Chizkiyah. (This is the intention of Tosfos, as is apparent from the SHITAH MEKUBETZES #23.)

Further support may be found in the Gemara in Gitin there, where Rebbi Yochanan says to Chizkiyah, "Yours say...." Rashi there explains that whenever Rebbi Yochanan says, "Yours say...," he refers to Rav Kahana. When Rebbi Yochanan speaks to Chizkiyah, he refers to Rav Kahana as "yours" because both Chizkiyah and Rav Kahana were from Bavel originally. This proves that Chizkiyah and Rav Kahana were in Eretz Yisrael at the same time.

However, Tosfos notes that some have difficulty with Rashi's explanation. Tosfos is referring to the opinion of RABEINU TAM and the RI quoted in Tosfos in Gitin (84b, DH Rebbi Yochanan). They ask that the Gemara in Shabbos (112b) states that when Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rebbi Yochanan there as an old man with a large Yeshiva of many rows of students sitting in front of him.

Tosfos says that this is not difficult, since the Gemara here in Menachos explicitly states that Rav Kahana met up with the son of Rebbi Chiya, who was Chizkiyah. To answer their question more directly, Tosfos suggests that it is possible that Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael more than once; the Gemara in Shabbos refers to one of the later times that he went to Eretz Yisrael.

(b) Tosfos in Gitin quotes Rabeinu Tam and the Ri who say that when Rebbi Yochanan said, "Yours say...," he was not addressing Chizkiyah, for Chizkiyah passed away before Rav Kahana ever arrived in Eretz Yisrael. Rather, Rebbi Yochanan was addressing his students from Bavel.

Tosfos here notes that it is possible that Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael more than once. The Gemara in Zevachim (59a) relates that Rav Kahana met Rebbi Shimon, the son of Rebbi, in Eretz Yisrael. Since Rebbi Shimon was a contemporary of Rebbi Chiya, Rav Kahana clearly was in Eretz Yisrael at the same time as Chizkiyah.

While Tosfos here notes that this supports his answer for Rashi (end of (a) above), Tosfos in Gitin asks this as a question on the Ri and Rabeinu Tam. Tosfos answers that they also must maintain that Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael more than once.

The MAHARSHA in Gitin asks the obvious question on the view of Rabeinu Tam and the Ri. If they must say that Rav Kahana was in Eretz Yisrael more than once, then why do they insist that Rebbi Yochanan was not talking to Chizkiyah? Why do they interpret the Gemara to mean something other than its simple explanation, if the simple explanation is feasible?

The Maharsha answers that the opinion of Rabeinu Tam and the Ri is based on the implication of the Gemara in Bava Kama (117b). The Gemara there discusses Rav Kahana's arrival in Eretz Yisrael, when Rebbi Yochanan asked him many questions. Rabeinu Tam and the Ri infer from the Gemara there that Rebbi Yochanan did not know Rav Kahana before this encounter. This means that he would not have addressed Chizkiyah years earlier by saying, "Yours say...," as a reference to Rav Kahana. This is why they insist that Rebbi Yochanan was not addressing Chizkiyah when he said, "Yours say...." (Y. MONTROSE)