QUESTIONS: The Gemara derives from the verse, "v'Nasata Aleha Shemen" (Vayikra 2:15), that oil is placed on the individual's Minchas Nedavah and it is not placed on the Lechem ha'Panim. The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse is excluding the Minchas Kohanim, and not the Lechem ha'Panim, from the requirement of oil. The Gemara explains that it is more logical to include the Minchas Kohanim, because the Minchas Kohanim is similar to a Minchas Nedavah offering in a number of ways. (The Gemara concludes that the reason it is more logical to include the Minchas Kohanim in the requirement of oil is that it is also an individual's Minchah offering, as the verse says "Nefesh" with regard to the one who brings it.)

One of the ways in which the Minchas Kohanim is similar to a Minchas Nedavah is the common requirement of "Kli." To what does the requirement of "Kli" refer?

RASHI explains that the requirement of "Kli" refers to the requirement to knead all of the Menachos, including the Minchas Kohanim, in a Kli. The Lechem ha'Panim becomes Kadosh only after it is baked in the oven and, therefore, its kneading does not need to be done in a Kli.

The simple way of understanding Rashi's words is that all Menachos (except the Lechem ha'Panim) are already Kadosh at the time of the kneading and, therefore, they need to be kneaded in a Kli Shares, while the Lechem ha'Panim becomes Kadosh only later (when it is baked) and, therefore, its kneading does not need to be done in a Kli.

However, Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand for a number of reasons.

As TOSFOS asks, there is no reason to assume that all Menachos are already Kadosh at the time they are kneaded, while the Lechem ha'Panim is not. If the Kli used for measuring flour is Kadosh, then the flour of the Lechem ha'Panim is also Kadosh! If, on the other hand, only the Kli used for measuring liquids (and not flour) is Kadosh, and that Kli is not used for the Lechem ha'Panim but it is used for the other Menachos, why indeed is that Kli not used for the Lechem ha'Panim? It cannot be because no oil is used in the Lechem ha'Panim, for that is exactly the point that the Gemara here is trying to prove, and it is not yet known that no oil is used in the Lechem ha'Panim. (That is, the Gemara cannot prove that the Lechem ha'Panim is not made with oil from the fact that a liquid measuring cup is not used, since the only reason why a liquid measuring cup would not be used is that the Lechem ha'Panim is not made with oil!) Since, at this point in the Gemara, it is not yet known that the Lechem ha'Panim is made without oil, the Gemara must assume that oil is used, and thus the liquid measuring cup should also be used for the Lechem ha'Panim. Consequently, the Lechem ha'Panim should also be Kadosh before it is baked!

Moreover, the YASHAR V'TOV (96a, based on the words of Tosfos to 95b, end of DH u'Mai) infers from Rashi later than Rashi maintains that when the Lishah (kneading) and Arichah (arranging) of a Minchah are done in the Azarah, those acts must be done in a Kli, even when the Minchah is not yet Kadosh. If a Kli is necessary only for a Minchah that is already Kadosh, then why should Rashi there necessitate using a Kli when the Minchah is not yet Kadosh?

Finally, Rashi here quotes the Derashah of the Gemara later (96a) that derives from a Hekesh that a Minchah needs a Kli when it is prepared inside the Azarah. There is no indication in the verses cited by the Gemara there that this applies only when the Minchah is already Kadosh. Why, then, should the requirement of a Kli depend on the Minchah being Kadosh?

ANSWER: The KEREN ORAH answers these questions as follows. It is obvious that a Minchah may be offered only when it is Kadosh. It therefore is obvious that a Minchah is sanctified by a Kli. In the case of a Minchas Nedavah, the Kemitzah is done from the Kli. In the case of a Minchas Kohanim, for which there is no Kemitzah, the entire Minchah is brought to the Mizbe'ach in a Kli. Hence, the Minchah is Kadosh when it is offered on the Mizbe'ach. In contrast, the Lechem ha'Panim does not necessarily have to be sanctified in a Kli. It is true that the Lechem ha'Panim might be Kadosh already when it is kneaded, such as when the flour (or oil) was measured in a Kli Shares. Nevertheless, this stage is not necessary for the Avodah of the Lechem ha'Panim. Rather, the time at which the Lechem ha'Panim must become Kadosh is only during the baking, or even later, when it is placed on the Shulchan, because it is only at that moment that the Avodah is done with the Lechem ha'Panim.

This approach answers the question of Tosfos and the question of the Yashar v'Tov. When the Derashah later (96a) teaches that the other Menachos need a Kli, it refers to Menachos that must have Kedushah in a Kli, just before they are offered on the Mizbe'ach. The Hekesh teaches that the earlier steps in the preparation of the Minchah also need to be done in a Kli, when they are performed in the Azarah. Rashi continues and says that the Lechem ha'Panim, in contrast, does not need Kedushah until it is baked. While it might technically acquire Kedushah while being prepared, as Tosfos says, the Avodah of the Lechem ha'Panim does not require this. The verse does not refer to Menachos that do not require the Kedushah of a Kli during their preparations.

Rashi does not mean that the requirement of a Kli depends upon the Minchah having Kedushah. Rashi means that the Menachos that need Kedushah of a Kli when they are offered on the Mizbe'ach also need Kedushah of a Kli for their preparatory stages. Therefore, even if the kneading is done when the flour is not yet Kadosh, it must be done in a Kli.

This approach, however, does not answer the third question. Where does the verse imply that the requirement of a Kli applies only when the Minchah must have Kedushah at the time it is offered upon the Mizbe'ach (excluding the Lechem ha'Panim)?

Perhaps the answer to this question is as follows. The Hekesh of the Gemara later (96a) is learned from the verse, "This is the place in which the Kohanim will cook the Asham and the Chatas, and in which they will bake the Minchah" (Yechezkel 46:20). Just as the Asham and Chatas are cooked in a Kli (since there is no other way to cook them, as Rashi there points out), the Minchah also must be baked in a Kli. If the baking must be done in a Kli, then it is logical that the rest of the Minchah's preparation, including the Lishah and Arichah, must be done in a Kli as well.

All of the Menachos are subject to inclusion in this Derashah, since their final stage of preparation (baking, or frying in the case of the Minchas Marcheshes and Machavas, or kneading in the case of the Minchas Soles) can be done in a Kli. The verse teaches that this final stage of preparation must be done in a Kli, and we extrapolate from there that the other stages of preparation also require a Kli.

The Lechem ha'Panim, however, is not subject to inclusion in the Derashah, because the Lechem ha'Panim is not completed in a Kli. The loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim are baked in an oven, without a Kli. While it is true that the flour of the Lechem ha'Panim is kneaded and arranged, the verse refers to the final stage of the preparation when it says that the Menachos need a Kli, and the final stage of the Lechem ha'Panim certainly is not done in a Kli and cannot be included in the verse (and, consequently, the Lishah and Arichah also do not need a Kli).

QUESTION: The Beraisa says that if Levonah was placed on a Minchas Chotei or Minchas Sotah, and then one had a thought of Pigul about the Minchah, the Minchah becomes Pasul (but one is not Chayav Kares for offering it, since it was not fit to be offered while the Levonah was on it).

The Gemara asks, "v'Tihavei Pach" -- it should be like "Pach."

RASHI explains that the Gemara is asking that the Minchas Chotei on which Levonah was placed should be no different than a Minchas Chotei on which oil was placed. Such a Minchah becomes entirely unfit to be used as a Korban (since the oil is inextricable), and a thought of Pigul has no effect. Similarly, a Minchas Chotei on which Levonah was placed becomes entirely unfit at the present moment to be used as a Korban, and a thought of Pigul should have absolutely no effect. Consequently, when the Levonah is removed, the Minchah should be valid. Why does the Beraisa say that the Minchah becomes Pasul because of the thought of Pigul?

TOSFOS says that the correct Girsa is, "v'Tihavei Dachuy." He explains that the Gemara is asking a question on the first part of the Beraisa, and on the Mishnah, both of which say that if Levonah was placed on a Minchas Chotei, one should remove the Levonah and the Minchah will be valid. Why is the Minchah valid? Once it has become unfit to be offered (since Levonah was placed on it), it should remain unfit.

Abaye answers that the verse specifically refers to the Minchas Chotei as a "Chatas," teaching that it retains some degree of validity even when it has Levonah on it (Rashi), or that it does not become Dachuy (Tosfos).

Rava answers that the Mishnah and Beraisa follow the opinion that does not maintain that something that became Dachuy remains unfit. (According to this opinion, it is still necessary for the earlier Beraisa to derive from the word "Chatas" that a Minchas Chotei does not become Pasul due to the Levonah placed on it, since one might have thought that just as oil invalidates the Minchah, Levonah invalidates the Minchah. The word "Chatas" teaches that Levonah does not invalidate the Minchah.)

Rav Ashi answers that something that is within the ability of a person to correct is not considered Dachuy. Since the person can remove the Levonah, the Minchah is not considered unfit.

The BRISKER RAV questions Rava's answer. According to Rava, no Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (of "Chatas") teaches that Dachuy does not apply to a Minchas Chotei on which Levonah was placed. Consequently, the opinion that does apply Dachuy will say that once the Levonah was placed on the Minchah, the Minchah remains unfit even after the Levonah is removed. However, the earlier Beraisa derives from the word "Chatas" that once the Levonah is removed from the Minchah, the Minchah is valid. Although it is true that the Minchah is no longer unfit once the Levonah is removed, it still should be Pasul -- according to the opinion that applies Dachuy -- because it was once "pushed away" from being fit, and thus it should remain unfit! How does the verse of "Chatas" make the Minchah fit to be offered?

(The simple answer is that the opinion that applies Dachuy also argues with the first Beraisa.)

ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV answers that there must be a difference between an inherent Pesul (such as the Pesul of a Minchas Chotei that has Levonah on it) and a Pesul that is due solely to Dachuy (such as the Pesul of a Minchas Chotei that once had Levonah on it but the Levonah was removed). What is the difference between the two types of Pesul?

If placing Levonah on a Minchas Chotei disqualifies the Minchah absolutely, then the Minchah remains Pasul after the Levonah is removed even without the principle of Dachuy, and one who offers the Minchah transgresses the prohibition against offering a Minchah that had Levonah placed on it. However, if the verse of "Chatas" teaches that the Pesul of Levonah is not absolute, then the Pesul does not remain once the Levonah is removed from the Minchah, and one who offers the Minchah after removing the Levonah transgresses no Isur. Even though the Minchah is Pasul because of Dachuy, the prohibition against offering a Minchas Chotei with Levonah has been removed.

With this basic principle, the Brisker Rav answers the question that Tosfos asks on Rav Ashi's answer. Rav Ashi says that since it is within the person's ability to remove the Levonah, the Minchah is not considered to be Dachuy. Tosfos asks what the difference is between the Gemara here and the Gemara in Zevachim (59a) that says that all of the Korbanos that were ready to be offered when the Mizbe'ach became damaged (and thus they could not be offered) remain Pasul even after the Mizbe'ach is fixed. Why should the Korbanos be Dachuy if it was within man's ability to fix the Mizbe'ach?

The Brisker Rav answers based on the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mizbe'ach 3:22). The Rambam says that when the Mizbe'ach was damaged, "all slaughtered Korbanos that were there become Pasul, because there is no Mizbe'ach on which to perform the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the verse says, 'And you shall offer upon it your Olos and your Shelamim,' which means that when you offer the Korbanos, the Mizbe'ach must be standing in its perfect form."

Why does the Rambam give two separate reasons for why the Korbanos cannot be offered when the Mizbe'ach is damaged? The Rambam first says that it is because there is no proper Mizbe'ach on which to perform the Zerikah, and then he quotes the verse that teaches that the Mizbe'ach must be whole and complete in order to offer Korbanos upon it! The first reason should suffice; the Korban has become unfit from being offered since there is no Mizbe'ach on which to perform the Zerikah!

The answer is that without a verse, one would know only that the Korbanos are Pasul because of the principle of Dachuy, since there is a technical obstacle to offering the Korbanos, in that the Zerikah cannot be performed. However, one would assume that once the Mizbe'ach is fixed, those Korbanos are not Pasul and may be offered, since it was in man's ability to fix the Mizbe'ach, and any Pesul that is within man's ability to fix does not render the Korban Dachuy. The verse teaches that when there is no proper Mizbe'ach on which to offer the Korbanos, it is not merely a technical problem of Dachuy. It is a new Pesul; the Korbanos become Pasul because of the lack of a proper Mizbe'ach. Once such a Pesul takes effect, it disqualifies the Korbanos absolutely and they cannot be offered at all. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)