QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses the source for the requirement that the Minchas Chavitin be made with three Lugin of oil. The Beraisa derives from the extra word "b'Shemen" in the verse of the Minchas Chavitin (Vayikra 6:14) that more oil than the standard Log is to be added. The Beraisa then discusses whether the Minchas Chavitin is to be compared, through a Gezeirah Shavah, with the Minchas Nesachim, which requires three Lugin of oil, or with the Minchas Nedavah, which requires one Log of oil. The Beraisa concludes that the Minchas Chavitin is to be compared with the Minchas Nesachim. Rebbi Yishmael explains that this comparison is derived from the verse, "Soles Minchah Tamid" (Vayikra 6:13), which teaches that the Chavitin is like the Minchah brought with the Tamid, which requires three Lugin of oil.

The Gemara asks that the word "b'Shemen" in the verse of the Minchas Chavitin should suffice to teach that the Minchas Chavitin needs three Lugin of oil. Since that word teaches that more oil than the standard amount is needed, why would one have thought the Minchas Chavitin is to be compared with the Minchas Nedavah and only one Log of oil is necessary?

Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua answers that one would might have thought that there should be no oil in the Minchas Chavitin, and that it should be like a Minchas Chotei (the Minchah of a sinner). The word "b'Shemen" teaches that it has at least a standard Log of oil. The other derivations teach that three Lugin are required.

The RASHBA (quoted in the ASIFAS ZEKENIM here) asks, why would one have thought that the Minchas Chavitin should be compared to the Minchas Chotei? The Minchas Chotei lacks oil because the Torah specifically states that the Minchah brought by a person who sinned should be inferior and not be made with oil. Why should this apply to a Minchas Chavitin?

(a) The RASHBA answers that the Tana who teaches the reason for why a Minchas Chotei has no oil is Rebbi Shimon (see Sotah 15a). Perhaps Rebbi Yishmael, whose opinion Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua is explaining, has a different reason for why the Minchas Chotei has no oil.

(b) In his second answer, the Rashba writes that one might have thought that the Chavitin should have no oil as a way of preserving the humility of the Kohen Gadol. By bringing an inferior Minchah offering, the Kohen Gadol will be reminded not to become arrogant. Precedence for such a concept appears in the Gemara in Berachos (34b). The Gemara there says that a king must bow at the beginning of every blessing of Shemoneh Esreh, because a person in such a high position of authority needs more frequent reminders that he should be humble before Hash-m. Accordingly, one might have thought that the Kohen Gadol's Minchas Chavitin should have no oil. The word "b'Shemen" therefore is needed to teach that the Chavitin is not like the Minchas Chotei, and then the requirement that it have three Lugin of oil can be derived from Rebbi Yishmael's teaching. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Beraisa says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, if the Kohen Gadol dies and no other Kohen Gadol is appointed, the Minchas Chavitin is brought by his heirs. He derives this from the verse, "veha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav Ya'aseh Osah" (Vayikra 6:15). However, they do not bring one half at a time, because the verse says, "Osah" ("it"), implying that the entire Minchah must be offered at once.

Rebbi Shimon says that if the Kohen Gadol dies, the Minchas Chavitin is brought by the public. Rebbi Shimon derives this from the words, "Chok Olam" ("an everlasting statute"; ibid.). The word "Olam" also means "world" (i.e. the public), implying that if the Kohen Gadol dies, the Minchas Chavitin should be brought by the public. The words, "Kalil Taktar" ("it should be totally burned"; ibid.) imply that the entire Minchah should be burned.

Rashi explains the last teaching of Rebbi Shimon (that the Minchah should not be burned) in two ways. One way is that the leftovers should not be eaten. Alternatively, Rebbi Shimon means that it should be entirely burned, unlike a normal Minchas Chavitin which is offered half in the morning and half in the afternoon.

The Gemara asks, what does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the words "Kalil Taktar"? According to the second explanation of Rashi, the Gemara's question is clear. Since Rebbi Yehudah understands that "Osah" teaches that the entire Minchah is offered at once, why are the words "Kalil Taktar" necessary?

However, according to Rashi's first explanation, that Rebbi Shimon understands from "Kalil Taktar" that the leftovers should not be eaten, perhaps Rebbi Yehudah also requires these words to teach that the entire Korban should be burned at once, and not divided in half?

TOSFOS (DH she'Tehei) asks this question on Rashi. He answers that since it is a Minchas Kohanim, it is obvious that there are no leftovers. Only according to Rebbi Shimon, who says that the Minchah comes from the public, is a verse needed to teach that there are no leftovers.

Tosfos apparently means that since Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Kohen Gadol's heirs (who are Kohanim) bring this Korban, it obviously has the status of a Minchas Kohanim, which is entirely burned. Rebbi Yehudah therefore does not need the words of "Kalil Taktar" to teach this.

However, this approach raises a question. Does the ruling of Rebbi Yehudah, that the Korban is offered by the heirs, apply only when the heirs are Kohanim? For example, if the Kohen Gadol has daughters and no sons, does this law apply? After all, the Minchah of a daughter of a Kohen does not have the status of a Minchas Kohanim. If this law does apply in such a case, and the daughters must supply the Korban from the estate of their father, it seems that Rebbi Yehudah still would require "Kalil Taktar" to teach that even when the heirs are not Kohanim, the Minchah is entirely burned, just as Rebbi Shimon needs the words because he maintains that the Minchah is brought from the public. The answer of Tosfos, according to this, is not so strong. What is the explanation of the Gemara (and Tosfos)?

(a) The MINCHAS CHINUCH (Mitzvah 136:5) explains that the heirs are obligated to supply the Korban whether or not they are Kohanim. Why, then, does Tosfos say that if the Minchas Chavitin is brought by the heirs, it is considered a Minchas Kohanim?

It must be that there is another fundamental difference between the opinion that the heirs supply the Korban and the opinion the public supplies it. If the heirs are obligated to bring the Korban, then they are actually bringing it for their father; the Korban is considered their father's, even though he is no longer alive. This is implied by the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 3:22). When the Rambam rules that the heirs of the Kohen Gadol must bring the Korban, he writes that they do so "for his atonement." The Rambam implies that the Minchah that the heirs bring is basically the same obligation of the Minchas Chavitin that their father had, whether or not the heirs are Kohanim.

In contrast, according to the opinion that the Korban is brought from the public, the obligation no longer is the Kohen Gadol's obligation, since there is no longer such person. Rather, the obligation becomes that of all of the Jewish people. This type of Minchah is not necessarily a Minchas Kohanim. Accordingly, the verse is needed to teach that it still has the status of a Minchas Kohen and must be completely burned on the Mizbe'ach with nothing leftover.

(b) The CHAZON ISH understands that the heirs mentioned in this Sugya are only heirs fit to become a Kohen Gadol. Such heirs are obligated to bring the Minchas Chavitin until a new Kohen Gadol is appointed. This is implied by the verse quoted by Rebbi Yehudah, "veha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav" - "and the Kohen who is anointed in his place from his sons." If there are no heirs fit to be a Kohen Gadol, Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the Minchas Chavitin becomes an obligation of the public. According to the Chazon Ish, Tosfos' words are straightforward. If the Minchas Chavitin comes from the heirs, then it certainly is a Minchas Kohanim.

(It should be noted that the Minchas Chinuch also addresses this possibility. However, he says that the lack of any explicit mention to this effect in the Gemara and Rambam indicates that the obligation to bring the Minchas Chavitin of the deceased Kohen Gadol applies to all heirs, even those who are not Kohanim.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)