OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that one might have thought that when the verse says, "He shall not place oil upon it, and he shall not place frankincense upon it" (Vayikra 5:11), it refers to two Kohanim. The word "Aleha" ("upon it") in the verse teaches that it refers to the body of the Minchah offering and not to the Kohanim.

What does the Beraisa mean when it says that one might have thought that the verse refers to "two Kohanim," and what does it mean when it says that the verse refers only to the "body of the Minchah"?

(a) RASHI explains that one might have thought that if one Kohen places both oil and Levonah on the Minchah, he receives only one set of Malkus. Only when one Kohen places oil on the Minchah and another Kohen places Levonah on the Minchah do they receive two sets of Malkus. The verse teaches that the number of sets of Malkus depends on the Minchah offering itself; if the Minchah is mixed with oil and Levonah, then two sets of Malkus are administered. It does not matter whether one Kohen or two Kohanim places the oil and Levonah on the Minchah.

TOSFOS questions Rashi's explanation. Why would one have thought that one Kohen does not receive two sets of Malkus for transgressing the two Isurim? One person always receives two sets of Malkus for two Isurim!

Rashi apparently understands that placing oil and placing Levonah on the Minchah are not two separate Isurim, but rather they constitute a single Isur: the Torah prohibits changing the Minchah's state of being "Chareivah," desolate, to being beautiful. Consequently, one Kohen who places both oil and Levonah on the Minchah -- without two separate Hasra'os -- transgresses only one Isur. One would have thought that the only time that two sets of Malkus can be given for placing oil and placing Levonah on the Minchah (without having two separate Hasra'os) is when each act is done by a different Kohen. The Beraisa says that the extra word "Aleha" teaches that the two acts are to be considered separate transgressions even when only one Kohen performs them and changes the Minchah from dry to moist. For every manner in which the Kohen changes the Minchah from being "Chareivah," he is Chayav for his act.

(b) TOSFOS explains that one might have thought that a Kohen is Chayav only for the first act of placing something inappropriate on the Minchah. He is not held liable for the second act of placing something on the Minchah, since the Minchah was already Pasul. Only when two Kohanim place oil or Levonah on two separate Menachos will there be two sets of Malkus (one for each Kohen). The extra word "Aleha" teaches that the Kohen indeed will be Chayav for the second act (for placing Levonah "on it" -- on the Minchah that already became Pasul because of the oil that he placed on it), even though the Minchah was already Pasul.

According to Tosfos, there are two ways to understand the intent of the extra word "Aleha." One way is that it teaches that there is no requirement that the Minchah be valid in order for the Kohen to be punished for placing oil or Levonah on it. Accordingly, even if the Minchah was Pasul because of a different reason (other than oil or Levonah), the Kohen will be liable for placing oil or Levonah on it. A second way of understanding is that "Aleha" teaches that placing oil on the Minchah and placing Levonah on the Minchah are two parts of the same Isur. Just as there is an Isur to be Mechametz the Minchah even though it has already become Chametz (see Insights to Menachos 56:2), and the first act of Mechametz does not prevent one from being Chayav for performing a second act of Mechametz, so, too, one will be Chayav for placing oil or Levonah on the Minchah even though the other was already placed on the Minchah. Just as a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that the Isur of Mechametz applies even after the Minchah has already become Pasul because of Chametz, a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that the Isur of oil or Levonah also applies even after oil or Levonah was already placed on the Minchah. However, if the Minchah becomes Pasul for a different reason, then the Isur of placing oil or Levonah on it does not apply. (See SEFAS EMES.)

(c) Tosfos cites RABEINU TAM who gives the opposite explanation of Tosfos. One might have thought that even two Kohanim are Chayav when they each place oil or Levonah on one Minchah. Likewise, one might have thought that even one Kohen is Chayav twice for placing Levonah on a Minchah after placing oil on it. (The Beraisa refers to two Kohanim simply because it was the normal manner for two Kohanim to be involved in the preparation of the Minchah.) The word "Aleha" teaches that one is not Chayav for placing Levonah on the Minchah where the oil was already placed (or on a Minchah that is entirely saturated with oil). Rather, one is Chayav only for placing the oil or Levonah "Aleha" -- on the Minchah itself, and not on a Minchah on which oil was already placed. (Similarly, one is not Chayav for placing Levonah on a different part of the Minchah on which oil was placed, even though there is no oil on that part.) Alternatively, "Aleha" teaches that one is Chayav only for placing Levonah on a valid Minchah, and not for placing Levonah on a Minchah that became Pasul already because of oil.

(d) The OR SAME'ACH asserts that the RAMBAM has a different approach to the Gemara. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 12:8) rules that one is Chayav for placing oil or Levonah on the Minchah only if he then offers the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam's logic is that the Torah requires that a Minchas Chotei be offered in a way that is fitting (i.e. it should not be beautified with oil and Levonah). The prohibition, therefore, is against offering it on the Mizbe'ach with oil or Levonah. There is no Isur regarding how it is actually prepared.

The Or Same'ach explains that the Rambam learns the Beraisa as follows. One might have thought that two Kohanim who add oil and Levonah to the Minchah are doing two acts of Aveirah (or one Kohen who adds both is doing two acts of Aveirah). The word "Aleha" teaches that the Torah does not prohibit the act of preparing the Minchah with oil or Levonah, but rather the Torah prohibits offering the Minchah itself with oil or Levonah on it. The act of offering is one Aveirah. Nevertheless, if both oil and Levonah were placed on the Minchah, the one who offers it on the Mizbe'ach will receive two sets of Malkus.

(e) RABEINU GERSHOM alludes to the explanation of the Rambam when he says, "The verse refers to the 'body of the Minchah' itself, and it teaches that one may not place on it [oil or Levonah] to be burned [on the Mizbe'ach], even by one Kohen." This implies that there is a prohibition against offering the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach.

However, Rabeinu Gershom's words, "Afilu Kohen Echad" -- "even by one Kohen," imply that two Kohanim certainly will be Chayav. How can two Kohanim be Chayav if the prohibition applies to the Hakravah, the act of offering it on the Mizbe'ach (which is done by only one Kohen)? It must be that Rabeinu Gershom maintains that the prohibition applies both to offering such a Minchah on the Mizbe'ach and to preparing a Minchah with oil or Levonah. Thus, when two Kohanim place oil and Levonah on a Minchah, each transgresses the prohibition and is Chayav Malkus. (Although the Or Same'ach maintains that the Rambam disagrees with this, there are others who understand that this is the way the Rambam rules.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah disagree about whether a verse is needed to teach that the Minchas ha'Omer requires Hagashah. Rebbi Shimon maintains that the requirement of Hagashah is derived from the verse, "v'Hevesa" (Vayikra 2:8). Rebbi Yehudah maintains that no verse is necessary, since the requirement for Hagashah may be derived through a Binyan Av from the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah. Rebbi Shimon argues that the Minchas ha'Omer is not comparable to the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah, since the Minchas ha'Omer is brought only once a year, while the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah may be brought many times during the year if the need arises. Rebbi Yehudah argues that, on the contrary, the Minchas ha'Omer definitely is brought once a year, while the Minchas Chotei and Minchas Sotah might not be brought at all.

The KEREN ORAH points out that the Gemara in Zevachim (91a) discusses this issue. The Gemara there cites a Beraisa that says that without an additional verse, one who fails to perform the Mitzvah of Milah would not have been excluded from the obligation to bring a Korban Chatas. The Beraisa says that "we would have excluded [one who fails to bring] the Korban Pesach, since it is not Tadir, but we would not have excluded [one who fails to perform] the Mitzvah of Milah, which is Tadir." The Gemara attempts to prove from the Beraisa that the fact that Milah is "Matzuy" (something that may be done often but might not be done at all) gives it a status of "Tadir."

The Gemara there refutes this proof for two reasons. When the Beraisa says that Milah takes precedence because it is "Tadir," it does not mean that it occurs more frequently. Rather, it means that it is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" -- it is more "constant" than other Mitzvos, since the Mitzvah of Milah appears many times in the Torah and the word "Bris" is mentioned thirteen times (as Rashi there explains; see other explanations in Background to the Daf to Zevachim 91:7). Moreover, Milah is different because -- when compared to the Korban Pesach -- it is much more frequent, since Pesach occurs only once a year, while Milah usually occurs several times a day. Therefore, the Beraisa is not proof that something that is "Matzuy" is also considered "Tadir."

The Keren Orah understands that the two answers of the Gemara there express the views of Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah, respectively. The second answer of the Gemara there (that Milah is considered "Tadir" only in comparison to Korban Pesach, but no other case of "Matzuy" is considered "Tadir") follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that precedence is given to the Minchas Chotei, which is "Matzuy" since it is brought more often, even though it is not definitely going to be offered like the Minchas ha'Omer. The first answer of the Gemara there (that Milah is not "Tadir" in the normal sense, but rather it is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos") follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that precedence is given to a Mitzvah that must be done at an established time (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) over a Mitzvah that has no established time (such as the Minchas Chotei). It is clear from the Gemara here that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Mitzvah that occurs more frequently does not take precedence over one that has a set time, and thus Milah would not take precedence over Pesach without the reason of "Tedirah b'Mitzvos."

A practical difference between these two answers (and the opinions of Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah) is which Mitzvah should be done first when there is a choice to do two Mitzvos: one Mitzvah is "Matzuy," done more frequently, but there is no obligation to do it at any set time, and the other Mitzvah has a set time and must be done today. According to the second answer in Zevachim, the Mitzvah that is "Matzuy" should be done first (just as Milah is considered "Tadir" when compared to Pesach). According to the first answer, the Mitzvah that must be performed today should be done first. When the Gemara in Zevachim says that Milah is an exception because it is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos," the Gemara is not referring to the normal concept of "Tadir" that applies when determining what Mitzvah takes precedence. The fact that Milah is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" teaches only that it is more stringent and cannot be excluded from the obligation of a Korban Chatas.

Since the Halachah always follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah when he argues with Rebbi Shimon, the Halachah should be that a Mitzvah that has an established time should take precedence over one that happens to be done more frequently in practice. However, the Poskim do not rule this way. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 584:4) rules that Bris Milah should be performed before Teki'as Shofar on Rosh Hashanah. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Teki'as Shofar should be done first, since it is has an established, set time! (As mentioned above, the fact that Milah is "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" does not mean that it is "Tadir" and should be performed before a less-frequent Mitzvah. "Tedirah b'Mitzvos" teaches only that it is very stringent, such that one might have thought that one must bring a Korban Chatas for failure to perform it.) Why does the Halachah not follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) The KEREN ORAH answers that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah agrees that a Mitzvah that is very "Matzuy" and occurs very frequently is done before a Mitzvah that has a set time but is done less frequently. Here in Menachos, Rebbi Yehudah gives more significance to the Minchas ha'Omer, which has a set time, than to the Minchas Chotei, which is brought more frequently, since the Minchas Chotei is still not brought that frequently and is certainly not as "Matzuy" as Milah.

(The Keren Orah asks a different question, based on the Gemara in Zevachim (91a), on the ruling that Milah is done before Teki'as Shofar, and he leaves that question unanswered.)

(b) The SHA'AGAS ARYEH (#21) gives a different approach. The Sha'agas Aryeh understands that when Rebbi Yehudah says that a Mitzvah with an established time (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) has more significance than something that is done more frequently (such as the Minchas Chotei), he refers to a Mitzvah that merely has the potential to be done more frequently. (See RASHASH, who says that this point is the basis of the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah.) In contrast, a Mitzvah that is actually performed more frequently (such as Milah) is considered "Tadir" and does take precedence over a Mitzvah that has an established, set time. Thus, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, Milah should be done before Teki'as Shofar, because it is performed more frequently in practice and is not merely potentially able to be done more frequently. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)