OPINIONS: The Minchas Chavitin is brought regularly from one Isaron of flour twice a day. One half of the Isaron is brought in the morning, and one half is brought in the afternoon. If the Kohen Gadol dies and the Minchas Chavitin is brought by his heirs or by the public (see 51b), they bring a complete Isaron.

Does this mean that a complete Isaron is offered in the morning and another complete Isaron is offered before evening, or does this mean that one complete Isaron is brought in the morning, and it is not necessary to bring another Minchas Chavitin in the afternoon? The Gemara answers that the verse, "Soles Minchah Tamid" (Vayikra 6:13), teaches that the Minchas Chavitin is like the Minchah of the Tamid, which is always offered twice a day.

Is the requirement to offer a complete Isaron as the Minchas Chavitin the only difference between the Minchas Chavitin brought by the heirs (or public) and that brought by the Kohen Gadol himself, or are there other differences?

(a) The MINCHAS CHINUCH (Mitzvah 136:5) has a lengthy discussion about how the heirs bring the Minchas Chavitin. He understands that since the Gemara mentions only the difference that the heirs bring a whole Isaron twice a day, this implies that all of the other laws remain the same. Accordingly, although the amount of flour is doubled for each offering, the amount of the oil and frankincense remains the same. As a result, each Isaron has only one and a half Log of oil, and a half of a Kometz of frankincense.

Similarly, just as the Kohen Gadol normally brings six loaves made from each half of the Isaron that comprises his Chavitin, his heirs bring six loaves (which are double the size of the loaves of the Kohen Gadol) made from each half (i.e. from an entire Isaron) of the Chavitin.

He proves that the laws of the Chavitin of the heirs are the same as the laws of the Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol. The Minchas Chavitin is made with three Lugin of oil. Since the Minchas Chavitin is comprised of a total of twelve loaves, each loaf is made with one fourth, or a Revi'is, of a Log of oil. When the Kohen Gadol makes his Chavitin, he uses the small measuring vessel (a Kli Shares) of a Revi'is (one fourth of a Log) for measuring the oil for each loaf. If the heirs must make twelve loaves in the morning and twelve at night, a measuring vessel of half of a Revi'is would be required to measure out the oil for each loaf. However, the Gemara in Menachos (88a) teaches that there was no vessel of that measure in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Accordingly, it must be that they make six loaves from half of the Chavitin.

(b) The TZAFNAS PANE'ACH (Hilchos Matnos Aniyim 39a) uses the same logic but arrives at a different conclusion. He understands that the Chavitin of the heirs should be made into 24 loaves, but since that is impossible -- since there is no measuring vessel of only a half-Revi'is in the Beis ha'Mikdash, they do not make any loaves at all from their Chavitin. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Rebbi Preida asked Rebbi Ami, "What is the source that all of the loaves of Menachos are brought as Matzah?" Rebbi Ami replied, "'What is the source'?! Those that have verses to this effect have verses, and those that do not are learned from the verse, "This is the law of the Minchah... they shall be eaten as Matzos" (Vayikra 6:7).

Rebbi Preida explained that he was not asking for the source that all Menachos must be Matzah. Rather, he was asking for the source that the requirement that a Minchah be Matzah is "Me'akev," and that it is invalid if it is Chametz.

Rebbi Ami answered that this is also taught by a verse, "Do not bake it as Chametz" (Vayikra 6:10). It may not be made into Chametz, but rather Matzah.

TOSFOS (DH Minayin) asks that Rebbi Preida's question and Rebbi Ami's answer are perplexing. The Mishnah later (55a) explicitly states that one must ensure that Menachos do not become Chametz, as the verse states, "No flour offering, which you shall bring to Hash-m, shall be made Chametz" (Vayikra 2:11). Why was Rebbi Preida seeking an additional source, and why did Rebbi Ami not answer him by quoting the Mishnah there?

Moreover, the verse of the Mishnah later is more inclusive. Since it refers to Menachos in general, it includes all types of Menachos, even a Minchas Sotah and Minchas Kohanim. In contrast, the verse which Rebbi Ami quotes refers specifically to standard types of Menachos (see Tosfos at length). Why did Rebbi Preida seek another source?

(a) TOSFOS answers that Rebbi Ami did not answer Rebbi Preida with the Mishnah later because he thought that Rebbi Preida was asking for a source for the positive Mitzvas Aseh to eat Menachos as Matzah, in cases where the verse does not mention explicitly a Mitzvah to eat these types of Menachos as Matzos. The verse quoted in the Mishnah later refers only to the prohibition against making the Menachos into Chametz, but it teaches no Mitzvas Aseh to eat Menachos as Matzah. Also, the verse quoted by Rebbi Ami indeed includes all types of Menachos.

However, the second part of the dialogue still needs clarification. When Rebbi Preida responded that he wanted to know the source that Menachos are invalid if they are made into Chametz, why did Rebbi Ami not answer with the Mishnah later? If Rebbi Ami had another source that teaches that a Minchah made as Chametz is invalid, then why, according to Rebbi Ami, does the Mishnah not quote his verse?

(b) Tosfos writes in the name of RABEINU TAM that Rebbi Preida was asking a different question: What is the source that Menachos may not be brought as Si'ur or Chalut (boiled)? The Mishnah later (55a) teaches only that they may not be made as Chametz! Rebbi Ami answered that the verse, "they shall be eaten as Matzos" (Vayikra 6:7), clearly teaches that they should be eaten as Matzah, and not as Si'ur or Chalut. Rebbi Preida asked that while this verse teaches that it is a Mitzvah, he wanted to know the source that the Minchah is invalid in such a case.

Rebbi Ami answered with the verse which prohibits baking the Minchas as Chametz, implying that it must be baked as Matzah or it is invalid. This verse is superior to the verse of the Mishnah later, which teaches that a Minchah made as Chalut or Si'ur is invalid, because the verse explicitly mentions Matzah. Accordingly, when the verse says that it should not be baked as Chametz, it clearly means that only Matzah, which is mentioned in the verse, is acceptable, not Si'ur or Chalut. In contrast, the verse in the Mishnah, "No flour offering... shall be made Chametz" (Vayikra 2:11), makes no explicit mention of the word Matzah. (Y. MONTROSE)