QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about a Minchah offering which was complete at the time it was sanctified in a Kli Shares but which became incomplete (some of the flour fell out) before the Kemitzah. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Minchah remains valid and the owner may bring new flour from his home to make up for the missing flour. He maintains that the Kemitzah is what establishes ("Kav'ah") the validity of the Minchah. Reish Lakish says that one may not bring new flour to make up for the missing flour, because he maintains that the initial Kidush in the Kli Shares is what establishes the validity of the Minchah (and thus new flour may not be added after the Kidush was done). RASHI (DH Kemitzah) explains that "Kav'ah" means the establishing of the Minchah such that no changes or additions may be made to it.

The Gemara later explains that the words "Min ha'Minchah" (Vayikra 2:9) teach that the Minchah must be complete and not lacking. Both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that the words "Min ha'Minchah" teach that the Kemitzah must be taken from a complete measure of Minchah. Reish Lakish rules that if some of the Minchah falls out before the Kemitzah, nothing can be done about it. He maintains that it is the initial placing of the flour in the Kli Shares which is Kove'a the Minchah, and there can be no changes or additions after that point. Rebbi Yochanan rules that one may add to the Minchah by replacing the flour that was lost, because he maintains that it is the act of Kemitzah which is Kove'a the Minchah. The final contents of the Minchah are established only with the Kemitzah, and as long as the Kemitzah has not yet been done one may change or add to the Minchah.

What is the basis for their dispute? Why does one Amora understand that "Kedushas Kli Kav'ah," while the other understands that "Kemitzah Kav'ah"?

ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV points out that Rashi (DH Kemitzah) clearly states that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the verse ("Min ha'Minchah") does not refer to a Minchah before the Kemitzah, because before the Kemitzah it does not yet have the status of a Minchah. Only according to Reish Lakish does it have the status of a Minchah at that point and, therefore, the verse teaches that Kemitzah cannot be done with a Minchah that is lacking. According to Rashi, Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the flour in the Kli has the status of a Korban Minchah before Kemitzah, such that it is subject to the Derashah that excludes a Minchah that is lacking.

Why, according to Reish Lakish, may one not replenish the measure of the Minchah before the Kemitzah? Why does the "Kevi'us" of the Minchah prevent any changes or additions from being made?

The Brisker Rav answers that the Gemara is teaching a new way to understand the Pesul of Chaser, a Minchah that lacks flour. The Pesul is not due to the fact that a Kemitzah must be taken from a complete Minchah, because if that would be the basis of the Pesul, then there would be no reason for the Minchah to become "Kavu'a" such that nothing could be added to it. Rather, the Pesul of Chaser is an inherent disqualification in the Minchah offering itself, like a Mum in an animal offering (as the Gemara itself says on 9b, "the Chisaron [in a Minchah] is like a Ba'al Mum"). Since, according to Reish Lakish, the flour already has the status of a Korban Minchah, a Pesul takes effect on it. Once a Pesul takes effect, it takes effect on the entire Minchah, even on the part that is left in the Kli. Adding more flour to the Kli cannot make the Minchah valid, because the problem is not merely that there is not enough flour in the Kli, but that the flour in the Kli is disqualified. This is the basis for Reish Lakish's opinion. When he says that "Kedushas Kli Kav'ah," he means that as soon as the flour is in the Kli, nothing can be changed, because once any of the flour falls out and the Minchah is lacking, all of the flour in the Kli becomes Pasul because of Chaser.

Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand, maintains that before the Kemitzah, the flour does not have the status of a Korban Minchah, and the verse of "Min ha'Minchah" does not apply to it. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Minchah has no Pesul of Chaser before the Kemitzah. The requirement to fill up the Kli before Kemitzah is based on a different Derashah (as the Gemara on 9b teaches), from the verse of "mi'Saltah" (Vayikra 2:2). (The Gemara there explains that the verse of "Min ha'Minchah" teaches that if the Shirayim, after the Kemitzah, became Chaser, then it may not be eaten. See Rashi there, DH Asurim b'Achilah.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree (9a) about Shirayim (the flour that remains after the Kometz has been separated) of a Minchah that lost some of its flour before the Haktarah (burning) of the Kometz. Rebbi Yochanan says that the Kometz may be burned on the Mizbe'ach even though the Shirayim is lacking. Reish Lakish says that the Kometz may not be burned on the Mizbe'ach when the Shirayim is lacking.

The Gemara says that both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish may follow the view of Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah later (26a). The Mishnah discusses a case in which the Shirayim of the Minchah was burned, lost, or became Tamei before the Haktarah of the Kometz. Rebbi Eliezer says that the Kometz nevertheless may be offered. Rebbi Yehoshua says that it may not be offered. The Gemara explains that Reish Lakish obviously follows the view of Rebbi Yehoshua and not the view of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yochanan, however, may agree with either Tana, even with Rebbi Yehoshua. Rebbi Yehoshua says that the Kometz may not be offered when the Shirayim is lacking only when the Shirayim is entirely lacking; it was entirely destroyed, lost, or Tamei. When, however, some of the Shirayim is left, Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that the Kometz may be offered, as Rebbi Yehoshua himself says with regard to the Zerikas ha'Dam of animal offerings that are missing part of their meat.

How does Reish Lakish understand Rebbi Yehoshua's statement that the Zerikas ha'Dam is permitted as long as part of the Korban remains? The Gemara answers that Menachos are different, because the verse states, "v'Herim ha'Kohen Min ha'Minchah Es Azkarasah v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah" (Vayikra 2:9). This verse implies that the Kohen may not burn the Kometz if anything is missing from the Shirayim of the Minchah.

The Gemara is difficult to understand. If Reish Lakish derives from the verse that Menachos differ from Zevachim, then he can agree even with the view of Rebbi Eliezer! Even though Rebbi Eliezer says that in the case of Zevachim the blood may be thrown on the Mizbe'ach even when there is no meat left, perhaps in the case of Menachos he maintains that it is necessary for all of the Shirayim to be present in order for the Kometz to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, because of the special teaching of the verse! (SHITAH MEKUBETZES, Hashmatos #2)

ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV answers as follows. The verse from which Reish Lakish derives that all of the Shirayim must be present in order for the Kometz to be offered does not say explicitly that the burning of the Kometz may be done only when the rest of the Minchah is present. Rather, Reish Lakish derives from the verse that in order for the Kometz to represent the entire Minchah, all of the Shirayim must be present. However, the burning of the Kometz can have two purposes. One purpose is to fulfill the Mitzvah of offering the Kometz; this Mitzvah is independent of the Shirayim. The second purpose is to represent the entire Minchah upon the Mizbe'ach.

According to Rebbi Eliezer, both purposes are valid. The Kometz may be offered on the Mizbe'ach as an independent Mitzvah, and it also may be offered on the Mizbe'ach to represent the rest of the Minchah.

Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees. He maintains that the burning of the Kometz must represent the rest of the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, "if there is no Shirayim, there is no Kometz."

Reish Lakish understands that the verse, "v'Herim ha'Kohen Min ha'Minchah... v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah," relates to the second purpose for burning the Kometz. The words, "v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah" -- "and he shall burn it upon the Mizbe'ach," refers back to the words, "Min ha'Minchah" -- from [the rest of] the Minchah," in the verse. Reish Lakish learns that these words ("Min ha'Minchah") imply a complete Minchah, and that the verse requires that the entire Minchah be present and not lacking in order for the Kometz to be burned on the Mizbe'ach. This is why he maintains that even though for Zevachim it suffices if a k'Zayis is left, for Menachos it is necessary for the entire Minchah to be left. (Rebbi Yochanan disagrees and maintains that "Min ha'Minchah" also refers to what is left from the Minchah, and therefore it suffices if a k'Zayis of the Shirayim is left in order to burn the Kometz.)

However, this applies only according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who requires that the Kometz represent the rest of the Minchah in order to burn the Kometz. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Kometz may be burned without representing the Minchah. Accordingly, Reish Lakish's statement does not apply to the view of Rebbi Eliezer. Even though "Min ha'Minchah" refers to all of the Shirayim, the Kometz may be offered even if there is nothing left, since one must fulfill the independent Mitzvah of offering the Kometz itself. This is the proof that Reish Lakish follows the view of Rebbi Yochanan. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)