OPINIONS: Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda what the Halachah is in a case in which one places the meat of a Chatas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach. Does the person transgress the Isur of "Lo Saktiru Mimenu" (Vayikra 2:11), offering part of a Korban on the Mizbe'ach when part was already offered ("Kol she'Mimenu l'Ishim")? Since no part of the Chatas ha'Of was offered on the Mizbe'ach, perhaps it is not included in the Isur. On the other hand, perhaps it is included in the Isur since it is called a "Korban," and all of the Avodos that needed to be done with it have already been done. The Gemara concludes that one receives Malkus for burning the Chatas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach, since it is called a "Korban."

Why should the fact that the Chatas ha'Of is called a "Korban" cause it to be included in the Isur of "Lo Saktiru Mimenu"?

The Rishonim understand this Sugya in two different ways.

(a) RASHI explains that the word "Korban" appears immediately after the verse, "Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem," as it is the first word of the next verse, "Korban Reshis..." (Vayikra 2:12). This teaches that the Isur of "Lo Saktiru" applies to anything called a "Korban."

According to Rashi's explanation, why does the Torah need to say "Lo Saktiru Mimenu" in order to teach that it is forbidden to burn on the Mizbe'ach anything that was already offered as a Korban? This prohibition is derived from the fact that the Torah says "Lo Saktiru... Korban"!

It must be that from the Derashah of "Lo Saktiru... Korban" alone, we would not be able to learn that the prohibition applies to anything that is called a "Korban," because the word "Korban" in the verse is not an extra word. Only after we learn from the Derashah of "Mimenu" -- which is an extra word -- the prohibition against burning on the Mizbe'ach anything that is "Kol she'Mimenu l'Ishim" are we able to use the word "Korban" (and the principle of "Mikra Nidrash l'Fanav") to teach that the Torah extends its prohibition to all other Korbanos as well, besides Korbanos that are "Kol she'Mimenu l'Ishim." "Kol she'Mimenu l'Ishim" is only a way of referring to a Korban, or part of a Korban, that is not supposed to be burned on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:3-5) has an entirely different understanding of the Sugya. The Rambam maintains that the prohibition against burning parts of a Korban on the Mizbe'ach ("Lo Saktiru Mimenu") is not a Lo Sa'aseh for which one is Chayav Malkus. It is Asur mid'Oraisa ("mi'Pi ha'Shemu'ah," as the Rambam writes), but one does not receive Malkus for transgressing it. This is clear from the fact that the Rambam does not include this prohibition in his list of Mitzvos. In addition, the Rambam does not say that one is Chayav Malkus for offering the meat of a Korban Chatas on the Mizbe'ach (ibid. 5:5); he says only that it is prohibited.

How, then, does the Rambam learn the Gemara here? The SEFAS EMES explains that the Rambam learns, based on the Sifra (cited by the LECHEM MISHNEH, ibid. 5:4), that when the Gemara (57b) says that a Lo Sa'aseh forbids burning the meat of a Chatas on the Mizbe'ach, it refers to burning the meat of a Chatas together with Se'or or Devash, as mentioned in the verse. Indeed, the Rambam (ibid. 5:4) writes, "One who burns the meat of a Chatas... with Chametz or with Devash is punished with Malkus."

Since the Rambam learns that the Lo Sa'aseh of "Lo Saktiru" applies to burning the meat of a Chatas on the Mizbe'ach together with Se'or or Devash (as the words of the verse imply) and not to burning the meat of a Chatas by itself on the Mizbe'ach, he writes (ibid. 5:1) that the Isur of "Lo Saktiru" applies to two acts: burning Se'or or Devash by itself on the Mizbe'ach l'Shem Korban (with intention that it is a Korban to Hash-m), and burning Se'or or Devash not l'Shem Korban but together with the meat of another Korban. In addition, burning the meat of another Korban on the Mizbe'ach (which is not supposed to be burned on the Mizbe'ach) is forbidden by the Derashah, but doing so is not punishable with Malkus.

The Rambam understands that when the Gemara derives from the verse of "Korban" that one is liable for burning the meat of a Chatas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach, it refers to one who burns the Chatas ha'Of together with Se'or or Devash. According to Rav Chisda's conclusion, this is learned from the verse, "Korban Reishis Takrivu... v'El ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu" (Vayikra 2:12). Rav Chisda understands that the verse is teaching that Se'or and Devash may be offered when brought as a "Korban Reishis" (i.e. Bikurim or Shtei ha'Lechem), but they may not be offered when brought with a Korban that is not a "Reishis." Indeed, the Rambam quotes the entire verse of "Korban Reishis Takrivu" (ibid. 5:4), implying that the entire verse is the source for the Isur and not just the first word (as Rashi learns). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OPINIONS: Abaye and Rava disagree about what the words "Ki Chol... Lo Saktiru" (Vayikra 2:11) come to include in the prohibition against offering a Minchah with Se'or or Devash. Abaye says that "Lo Saktiru" prohibits offering a k'Zayis, "Chol" prohibits offering half of a k'Zayis, and "Ki Chol" prohibits offering a mixture. Rava says that "Lo Saktiru" prohibits offering a Kometz, "Chol" prohibits offering half of a Kometz, and "Ki Chol" prohibits offering a mixture.

The Gemara explains the basis for this argument as follows. Abaye maintains that a Kometz may be less than two k'Zeisim, and Haktarah may be less than a k'Zayis. Rava maintains that a Kometz must be at least two k'Zeisim, and Haktarah must be at least a k'Zayis.

How does this explain their argument about how to learn the verse?

(a) RASHI explains that according to Abaye, had the Torah said only "Lo Saktiru," we would have understood it to mean that one may not offer a Kometz of a Minchah with Se'or or Devash, since the normal act of Haktarah on the Mizbe'ach involves the Kometz of the Minchah. "Chol" teaches that the prohibition applies to half of the amount used for a Kometz. Since Abaye maintains that a Kometz may be less than two k'Zeisim, half of that amount is less than a k'Zayis. Once the Torah teaches that one is liable for less than a k'Zayis, we know that there is no minimum Shi'ur and that one is liable for even a minute amount.

Rava maintains that "Chol" teaches that one is liable not only for offering a Shi'ur of a Kometz on the Mizbe'ach, but one is liable for offering half of a Shi'ur of a Kometz. Since Rava maintains that a Kometz is not less than two k'Zeisim, the Torah is teaching that one is liable for offering a k'Zayis of Se'or, but not less than a k'Zayis. "Ki Chol" teaches that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur," so that less than a k'Zayis of Se'or will join with dough that is not Se'or to make a Shi'ur of a k'Zayis.

Rashi's explanation is not entirely consistent with the words of the Gemara. The Gemara says that the dispute between Abaye and Rava involves two matters, the size of the Kometz and the size of a Haktarah. According to Rashi, the dispute involves only one matter, the size of a Kometz. If a Kometz is not less than two k'Zeisim, then a Haktarah must be done with at least a k'Zayis. If a Kometz may be less than two k'Zeisim, then a Haktarah may be less than a k'Zayis.

(b) The RAMBAM learns differently. The Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:2) rules like Rava, who says that a Haktarah is not less than a k'Zayis. Nevertheless, the Rambam also rules that the prohibition against offering Se'or and Devash on the Mizbe'ach applies even to a minute amount (ibid. 5:1). How are these two Halachos to be reconciled?

The BRISKER RAV explains that according to the Rambam, once "Chol" teaches that one is liable even without a full Kometz of Se'or and Devash, we know that no minimum Shi'ur of Se'or and Devash is necessary to transgress the Isur. However, Rava maintains that a Haktarah must be done with at least a k'Zayis. When the Torah says "Lo Saktiru," it teaches that a significant Haktarah is necessary in order to transgress the prohibition; such a Haktarah is done with a k'Zayis. However, a k'Zayis of Se'or and Devash themselves is not necessary. One transgresses even if he offers the Se'or or Devash together with other things, and the total volume is a k'Zayis. This is what the Rambam means when he says that Haktarah must be done with a k'Zayis, and yet one can transgress "Lo Saktiru" by burning a minute amount of Se'or or Devash on the Mizbe'ach.

This approach is more consistent with the wording of the Gemara. The first argument between Abaye and Rava is whether a Kometz must be two k'Zeisim or it may be less. According to Abaye, the minimum Shi'ur of the prohibition of "Lo Saktiru" without the Derashah of "Chol" is a k'Zayis of Se'or. The Derashah teaches that it is forbidden to burn even less than a k'Zayis. According to Rava, without the Derashah the minimum Shi'ur is two k'Zeisim, and the Derashah teaches that one transgresses with even less than that. At this point, Abaye and Rava would be saying the same thing: there is no minimum Shi'ur of k'Zayis needed in order to transgress the prohibition.

However, there is a second argument between Abaye and Rava. Abaye maintains that once we know that the prohibition applies to even less than a k'Zayis of Se'or or Devash, we also know that one is liable for burning any minute amount, because Abaye maintains that Haktarah may be less than a k'Zayis. Rava argues and says that although there is no minimum Shi'ur for the amount of Se'or and Devash needed to transgress the prohibition, one does not transgress the prohibition until he burns a k'Zayis on the Mizbe'ach, since a Haktarah must be done with at least a k'Zayis. However, the k'Zayis that is necessary to qualify as a Haktarah in order to constitute a transgression of the Isur does not need to be comprised entirely of Se'or or Devash. Rather, a minute amount of Se'or or Devash will suffice when it is burned together with something else, as long as the total volume is at least a k'Zayis. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)