QUESTION: The Mishnah says that the Minchas Marcheshes is "Amukah" and is made "Rochashin." The Minchas Machavas is "Tzafah" and is made "Kashin."

RASHI explains that the Minchas Marcheshes is brought in a deep utensil ("Amukah"). The oil collects at the bottom of the utensil and remains even after the Minchah is fried (it moves, "Rochashin," when the Minchah is touched). A Minchas Machavas is baked in a flat pan ("Tzafah"; the bottom of the pan "floats" on nearly the same level as the walls of the pan). The Minchah becomes hard when fried, since the oil goes to the sides of the pan and does not suffuse the Minchah.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:7) explains that the Minchas Marcheshes is a Minchah fried in a deep utensil. Such a Minchah is usually prepared with a soft dough, since the walls of the utensil can hold this type of liquidy dough. The Minchas Machavas is fried in a flat frying pan. Such a Minchah is usually made with a hard dough, so that the dough will not seep out over the sides of the pan.

According to Rashi, whether a Minchah is a Marcheshes or a Machavas is determined by the form of the final product. If it has a lot of oil in it, it is a Marcheshes, and if the oil is not noticeable, it is a Machavas. According to the Rambam, the type of Minchah is determined by what type of utensil is used to prepare the Minchah. Why does the Rambam not learn like Rashi?

(a) The HAR HA'MORIYAH explains that the Rambam does not learn like Rashi because there should be no reason to use different types of utensils if the only difference between the Marcheshes and the Machavas is how much oil is used in each. The same type of utensil (such as a deep pan) should be used for both; in order to make a Marcheshes, one should merely extinguish the flame before the oil burns out, and in order to make a Machavas, one should leave the flame burning until the oil burns out. The Rambam therefore learns that it is the utensil that determines what type of Minchah it will be.

(b) From the Rambam's words in Perush ha'Mishnayos, it seems that the Rambam's source is the Gemara itself. Following his explanation of the difference between a Marcheshes and a Machavas, the Rambam writes that "this is the reasoning of the Gemara, which differentiates between them based on their utensils, as I have described." The Rambam refers to the Beraisa cited here, in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about a case in which a person makes an oath to donate a "Marcheshes." Beis Shamai says that there is a doubt about whether the word "Marcheshes" refers to the utensil in which the Minchah is made, or whether it refers to the manner in which the Minchah is made. Beis Hillel says that it refers to the utensil in which the Minchah is made.

According to the Rambam, Beis Shamai is in doubt not merely about what the word "Marcheshes" refers to (as Rashi explains his doubt), but about what determines whether the Minchah is a Marcheshes (the utensil in which it is made, or the manner in which it is made). Since the Halachah follows the view of Beis Hillel, who says that the word "Marcheshes" refers to the utensil, the Rambam explains that it is the type of utensil that determines whether the Minchah is a Marcheshes or a Machavas.

(According to the Rambam's understanding, Beis Shamai's words may be interpreted as follows. Beis Shamai rules that when a person says, "Harei Alai Marcheshes," it is "left until Eliyahu comes" to clarify what the person must bring. Rashi explains that the doubt is whether the person meant to make a Neder to bring a utensil called "Marcheshes," or whether he meant to make a Neder to bring a Minchah offering. Tosfos asks that if the doubt is as Rashi explains, then the person should simply bring both! The Rambam may have a different way of learning the Gemara, according to which the question of Tosfos does not apply. According to the Rambam, Beis Shamai's doubt is whether the type of Minchah is determined by the utensil in which it is prepared, or by the manner in which it is prepared. Perhaps when the Torah says "Marcheshes" it means that the Minchah must be prepared in a deep pan, but that the oil should be burned out by leaving the fire on for a long time. On the other hand, perhaps the Torah means that the oil should be left in the Minchah (so that it will be "Rochashin"), but it does not necessarily need to be prepared in a deep pan. Since there is a doubt about what type of Minchah to bring, one must wait until Eliyahu comes to clarify the matter, since one cannot simply bring both types out of doubt, since one of them might not be a Minchah at all and will be Chulin ba'Azarah. See also SEFAS EMES.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Shimon, when one brings a Korban Minchah comprised of Chalos and Rekikin, he performs one act of Kemitzah on the Chalos and Rekikin together. If it happens that only one type of loaf comes up in his hand, he nevertheless fulfills the Mitzvah of Kemitzah. This implies that, l'Chatchilah, when performing Kemitzah, one should try to take both types of loaves in his hand.

If, as Rebbi Shimon maintains, Chalos and Rekikin are considered the same type of Korban, then why should the Kohen be required to take the Kemitzah from both of them l'Chatchilah?

A similar question may be asked on the view of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who disagrees with Rebbi Shimon and says that one may not bring a Minchah comprised of both Chalos and Rekikin. The Minchah must be comprised entirely of Chalos or entirely of Rekikin. The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yosi is expressing the same view as his father, Rebbi Yehudah (as recorded in the Mishnah on 63a). The Gemara answers that he disagrees with his father with regard to "b'Di'eved." If, b'Di'eved, one brought a Minchah that was comprised of both Chalos and Rekikin, according to Rebbi Yehudah the Minchah is valid, while according to Rebbi Yosi the Minchah is Pasul.

Why does Rebbi Yehudah permit a Minchah comprised of both Chalos and Rekikin? If he maintains that the two types of loaves are separate types of Korbanos, then he should rule that a Minchah comprised of both types together is Pasul even b'Di'eved.

ANSWER: The Gemara here explains that the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah is based on how to interpret the verse. Rebbi Yehudah says that since the verse (Vayikra 2:4) says that Chalos are to be mixed with oil and that Rekikin are to be mixed with oil, and it uses the word "ba'Shemen" for each one, it creates a break between the two types of loaves, showing that they are two distinct Korbanos and are not to be mixed. Rebbi Shimon argues that if they are two distinct Korbanos, then the Torah should use the term "Korban" twice to describe them. Since the Torah uses the one word "Korban" to describe both of them, it must be that Chalos and Rekikin are one type of Korban and may be offered together as a single Minchas Ma'afeh.

Rebbi Shimon, however, does not entirely disregard the Derashah of Rebbi Yehudah (of "ba'Shemen, ba'Shamen"). Rebbi Shimon derives from the two words "ba'Shemen" that the Chalos and Rekikin are considered distinct to some degree, such that l'Chatchilah the Kemitzah should include both types of loaves, as if they are two separate Korbanos. Nevertheless, since the Torah does not separate them with the word "Korban," they may be brought together as a single Minchah, and, furthermore, if the Kohen took only one type of loaf as the Kemitzah, b'Di'eved the Kemitzah is valid.

Similarly, Rebbi Yehudah does not entirely disregard the Derashah of Rebbi Shimon (that since the verse calls both types of loaves a single "Korban," they may be brought together). The single word "Korban" teaches that they are considered identical to some degree. Therefore, although l'Chatchilah the Derashah of "ba'Shemen" teaches that the two types of loaves are considered distinct Korbanos, the Derashah of Rebbi Shimon teaches that if, b'Di'eved, they were brought together as one Korban, they are valid.

This also seems to be the way that RASHI learns the Gemara. In the Gemara earlier (60a), Rav Papa says that "every place in the Mishnah [that mentions the different types of Menachos], ten are taught." The Gemara asks, "What is he teaching us?" The Gemara answers that Rav Papa is teaching that the Mishnah does not follow the view of Rebbi Shimon. Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Shimon, there are eleven types of Menachos, since there is one more type of Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur -- the type that consists of a mixture of Chalos and Rekikin.

The CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM offers a different explanation. He says that according to Rebbi Shimon, there are actually only nine Menachos. Since Rebbi Shimon maintains that Chalos and Rekikin are not distinct Korbanos, a Minchah comprised of ten Chalos and a Minchah comprised of ten Rekikin are considered the same type of Minchah and do not count as separate Menachos.

Why does Rashi not learn this way? The answer is that since, l'Chatchilah, one should perform the Kemitzah with both types of loaves because, to some degree, they are considered separate Korbanos, they are similarly considered separate Korbanos with regard to numbering them. Although they may be combined to make a single Korban, it is still not exactly the same as a Minchah that is comprised completely of Chalos or completely of Rekikin. This is why Rashi says that according to Rebbi Shimon there are eleven types of Menachos. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)