OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that all Menachos are supposed to be made into ten loaves. This means that from every Isaron of flour that the Minchah contains, ten Chalos should be brought.

Does this requirement apply only to Menachos that are baked before the Kemitzah is done, or does it apply even to Menachos that are baked after the Kemitzah is done, such as a Minchas Soles? (See RASHI to Vayikra 2:1, who says that the Kemitzah of a Minchas Soles is done before it is baked.)

(a) RASHI KESAV YAD (DH Kol ha'Menachos) writes that although the Kemitzah of a Minchas Soles is done before the Minchah is baked, the requirement to bake it into ten Chalos still applies.

(b) Rashi on the verse (Vayikra 2:4, DH v'Chi Sakriv), however, explains differently. Rashi there writes that the Gemara in Menachos teaches that Menachos "that are baked before their Kemitzah and that have Kemitzah done to them with Pesisah are all baked into ten Chalos, and the Menachos that are to be brought [in the form of] Rekikin are brought as ten Rekikin." The RE'EM points out that Rashi's words imply that only Menachos that have Kemitzah done to them after they are baked are supposed to be brought in the form of ten Chalos. Moreover, Rashi explicitly states earlier in Menachos (74b, DH Yetzikah) that a Minchas Soles does not come in the form of Chalos at all.

The RE'EM and the LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:10) have difficulty with Rashi's opinion. Why does Rashi not give the simple explanation of the Mishnah and say that the Mishnah does not really mean that all Menachos are brought as ten Chalos?

The MISHNEH L'MELECH does not understand the problem that the Re'em and the Lechem Mishneh have with Rashi's opinion. One should assume that the Mishnah refers to every Minchah which the Torah requires to be baked or fried in some manner. However, the Torah gives no instruction about how to bake or fry a Minchas Soles. Why, then, should one think that a Minchas Soles should have to be baked or fried into ten loaves? Not only does it not have to be baked into ten Chalos, it does not have to be baked at all! After the Kemitzah is done and offered on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohanim may eat the flour even without baking it if they so wish.

Accordingly, the Lechem Mishneh and Mishneh l'Melech question the position of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:10). After the Rambam discusses the various types of Menachos, he writes, "When [all of these four Menachos] are baked, every Isaron is baked into ten Chalos." The difficulty is obvious: the Rambam just finished discussing five types of Menachos: Soles, Machvas, Marcheshes, Chalos, and Rekikin. Which one does the Rambam now omit from this list?

1. The Lechem Mishneh answers that none of them are omitted. Since both Chalos and Rekikin are baked in an oven, they are considered to be in one general category of Minchas Ma'afeh, Menachos that are baked.

2. The Mishneh l'Melech explains that the Rambam is omitting Minchas Soles, since it is not baked and does not have to be made into Chalos.

The KEREN ORAH (55a) and others are perplexed by the words of the Mishneh l'Melech. With regard to the Minchas Soles, the Torah explicitly states, "And the leftovers from it, Aharon and his sons shall eat. It should be eaten as Matzos in a holy place" (Vayikra 6:9). The Torah clearly states that the Minchas Soles should be baked into Matzos! TOSFOS (52b, DH Minayin) also implies that the Minchas Soles must be made into Matzos. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the fact that the Lechem ha'Panim may be brought as flour and then sifted, in contrast to ordinary Menachos that must be brought as Soles (very fine flour). RASHI KESAV YAD (DH Talmud Lomar) explains that ordinary Menachos are not permitted to be sifted by the person who brings them, since not everyone is trusted to sift their flour properly. Why does this concern not apply to the flour of the Lechem ha'Panim? The Gemara answers, "Because of Chisachon."

What is "Chisachon"? Rebbi Elazar explains that the Torah is concerned about the money of Yisrael, and therefore it does not require that the Lechem ha'Panim -- which is offered every week -- be brought as expensive Soles. Only other Menachos, which are not brought often, must be brought as Soles.

The Gemara asks where in the Torah is there any allusion to the concept that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael. The Gemara answers that it is alluded to in the verse, "You shall bring forth for them water from the rock, and give drink to the people and their animals" (Bamidbar 20:8). This verse teaches that Hash-m is concerned not only about the people, but also about their animals.

Why does the Gemara ask what the source is for the concept that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael? The Mishnah in Nega'im (12:5) explicitly teaches the source for this concept! The verse states with regard to a house that will be declared by the Kohen as Tamei due to Tzara'as, "And the Kohen will command that they clear out the house" (Vayikra 14:36). Rebbi Meir addresses the reason for clearing out the contents of the house before the Kohen declares the house as Tamei with Tzara'as. If the house must be cleared out in order to prevent the owner's wooden utensils, metal utensils, or clothing from becoming Tamei, then there should be no need to clear out the house since these items can be immersed in a Mikvah and easily made Tahor. It must be that the Torah is concerned about the person's earthenware vessels. If such vessels become Tamei, there is no way to make them Tahor; they will have to be destroyed. Rebbi Meir continues and says that if the Torah cares so much about a person's objects of insignificant value, then how much more so does the Torah care about his objects of significant value. This Mishnah, and the verse it quotes with regard to Tzara'as, seems to be the source that the Torah is concerned about the money of Yisrael. Why, then, does the Gemara here quote a different verse and not the Mishnah in Nega'im?

Moreover, RASHI in many places (Yoma 39a, Rosh Hashanah 27a, Chulin 49b) says that the source for this concept is the teaching in Nega'im. Why does he make no mention of the source given by the Gemara here?

(a) The NODA B'YEHUDAH (YD 2:160) answers that the Gemara here does not quote the Mishnah in Nega'im, because the verse quoted here is a more appropriate source for this concept than the verse quoted in Nega'im. The fact that the Torah says that the house should first be cleared out is understandable, since it is easy to save the person's vessels and not cause them to be destroyed for no reason. In contrast, when Hash-m supplied water for the Jewish people, He caused a miracle to happen by making the water for the entire nation come out of a rock. It is known that Hash-m performs a miracle only when it is absolutely necessary, and He minimizes the miraculous nature of the event as much as possible. This verse shows that even though Hash-m needed to make only a miracle to enable the people to drink, He made a greater miracle so that their cattle should survive as well, because He cares about the money of Yisrael.

However, this verse shows only that Hash-m cares about the money of all of Yisrael, as He saved all of their cattle from dying; it does not teach that Hash-m is concerned even for the money of an individual. The Mishnah in Nega'im teaches that Hash-m is concerned even for the money of an individual. This is why Rashi cites the teaching of Nega'im in Chulin and in Rosh Hashanah; the Gemara in those places is discussing the money of an individual. Although the Gemara in Yoma is discussing the public vessel used for the lottery that determined which goat would be brought as a Korban and which would be la'Azazel, the Gemara there says that it was not a Kli Shares. The Noda b'Yehudah says that the Kohen Gadol technically could make those vessels and keep them. This is why Rashi there mentions the verse mentioned in Nega'im as the source that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael; that verse teaches that He is concerned even with an individual's money.

(b) The NIMUKEI HA'GRIV prefaces his answer by explaining the Mishnah in Nega'im. The Mishnah there quotes two Tana'im who argue with Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that even though not all items in a house are able to become Tamei, the Torah is teaching that, in this case, everything in the house does become Tamei if left in the house. The Torah is not specifically concerned with saving the person's money. Rebbi Shimon says that the reason why the Torah says to remove all of the things from the house is not due to a special Halachah that all things in the house become Tamei. Rather, the Torah commands a person to remove all of his things from the house even though they will not become Tamei; and it is a decree from Hash-m, unrelated to any regard for his possessions. (See VILNA GA'ON in ELIYAH RABAH, and TIFERES YISRAEL, in contrast to the view of the BARTENURA who says that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Meir.) This means that the only Tana who says that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael is Rebbi Meir, and the other Tana'im have no source for the concept that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael.

The Gemara here quotes a Sifra. The Gemara in Shabbos (137a) teaches that the Sifra was written by Rebbi Yehudah (where no other Tana is quoted). This means that the Gemara cannot quote Rebbi Meir's teaching in Nega'im as proof for the Sifra's concept that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael, since the Sifra is expressing the view of Rebbi Yehudah, and Rebbi Yehudah does not agree with Rebbi Meir's proof in Nega'im!

Why, then, does Rashi quote Rebbi Meir's opinion as the source for this teaching? The Nimukei ha'Griv gives two explanations. First, Rashi usually explains the Gemara according to Rebbi Meir, since any anonymous Mishnah is attributed to Rebbi Meir. Second, the Bartenura learns that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Meir's teaching, and the Halachah follows their view against that of Rebbi Yehudah. Accordingly, it makes sense that Rashi generally accepts the Mishnah in Nega'im as the source. The Gemara here does not quote this as the source, because the Gemara is expressing the view of Rebbi Yehudah. (Y. MONTROSE)