Our discussion begins with a specific halachic scenario concerning a sacrifice. We consider the case of a priest who brings a Korban, but his intention, or Kabbana, is to leave the blood unsprinkled until the following day. Typically, discussions of invalidity, known as Pasul, revolve around sprinkling the blood past its designated time, or consuming the meat outside its prescribed area or beyond its timeframe—issues related to the concept of Pigul. In our current case, the priest did not actually leave the blood over; rather, he harbored the intention to do so while performing the Korban service. The question arises: does such an intention alone render the Korban Pasul, even if the blood was ultimately sprinkled at the correct time?
We recall an opinion from a Braitah attributed to Rabbi Yehuda, who rules that such an intention indeed renders the Korban Pasul. The traditional understanding of this Braitah suggests that according to Rabbi Yehuda, everyone agrees that the Korban is Pasul in this scenario; there is no dissenting opinion. The Gemara, however, challenges this premise.
The Gemara asks: does Rabbi Yehuda truly maintain that when the intention is to leave the blood over until tomorrow, everyone agrees it is Pasul? To address this, a story is recounted by Rabbi. Rabbi states that when he went to study Torah and clarify his halachic doubts with Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, he witnessed an exchange. Some say Rabbi sought to clarify his own doubts, while others suggest he aimed to fully absorb Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua's Torah teachings.
During this time, Rabbi observed a student named Yosef HaBabli, who was particularly beloved by Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, sitting before his teacher. Yosef HaBabli posed a question to Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, describing our case: a priest slaughtered a Korban with the intention to leave the blood over until tomorrow. Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua responded that the Korban is Kashir, or valid. He explained that an intention to leave the blood over is not a type of intention that renders a Korban Pasul; rather, only intentions like eating the meat past its time or in a different place would invalidate it. Yosef HaBabli asked this same question three times—in the morning, at noon, and in the afternoon—and each time, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua reiterated that it was Kashir.
Then, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua added a new opinion, stating that according to Rabbi Eliezer, such an intention does render the Korban Pasul. Upon hearing this, Yosef HaBabli's face lit up with joy. Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, noticing his student's reaction, remarked, "Yosef, it seems my halachic ruling was not precise until now. I told you this halakha three times with no reaction. Now that I mention Rabbi Eliezer's opinion that it's Pasul, you accept the halakha. What is your reaction? Why were you not pleased with my previous answers?"
Yosef HaBabli explained his joy: "I had a tradition that Rabbi Yehuda ruled it Pasul, and I was searching for someone who agreed with him. I knew Rabbi Yehuda held it Pasul, but I didn't know on whom he relied. When you kept telling me it was Kashir, Kashir, Kashir, I was puzzled. But now, when you mentioned that Rabbi Eliezer says it is Pasul, my lost object has been returned to me. I now understand who Rabbi Yehuda was holding like. This fact had always bothered me, and now I have clarity."
Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua was deeply moved by his student's profound excitement over what might seem like a small nuance in Torah law. He began to weep, impressed by Yosef HaBabli's love for Torah. He exclaimed, "Fortunate are you, Torah scholars, that the Torah is so endearing to you!" He then recited the verse from Psalms, "How I love Your Torah! It is my meditation all the day," a verse attributed to David HaMelech, highlighting the constant engagement with Torah.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua then provided further context regarding Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. He explained that Rabbi Yehuda's father was Rabbi Ilai, and Rabbi Ilai's teacher was Rabbi Eliezer. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda was transmitting the opinion of his father's teacher when he ruled it Pasul.
The Gemara now questions the initial premise of the story. If we learned that Rabbi Yehuda stated that *everyone* agrees it's Pasul, why would Yosef HaBabli be so excited to find a single opinion of Pasul, exclaiming that his "lost object" was returned? This implies that Yosef HaBabli understood Rabbi Yehuda's ruling to be a matter of dispute, not a universal consensus. If Rabbi Yehuda indeed said everyone agrees it's Pasul, Yosef HaBabli should have corrected Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, saying, "No, Rabbi Yehuda said everyone agrees it's Pasul, not that it's a dispute."
The Gemara therefore suggests a revised understanding of the story: when Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef HaBabli the halakha, he told him that while the halakha is generally Kashir, there is an opinion, that of Rabbi Eliezer, that says it is Pasul. Thus, it was known from the beginning that it was a dispute. So, when Yosef HaBabli asked Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, and was repeatedly told it was Kashir, he was waiting to hear the dissenting opinion. When Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua finally mentioned Rabbi Eliezer's Pasul opinion, Yosef HaBabli was happy because it confirmed what Rabbi Yehuda had taught him – that there was indeed a Pasul opinion. This explains his joy: "Now I'm happy because that's how he told it to me. He told me it's a dispute, that it's Kashir like the Rabbis, but there's an opinion of Pasul. And you weren't telling me that. Now you're returning my lost object."
The Gemara then raises another question: if Rabbi Yehuda initially presented it as a dispute, why did Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua later need to explain that Rabbi Yehuda's reason for holding the Pasul opinion was because he followed his father's rabbi? If it was simply a known dispute, such a historical explanation would be superfluous. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda *did* teach that everyone says it is Pasul. He did not teach it as a dispute. So, when Yosef HaBabli heard "Kashir, Kashir, Kashir" from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, he was initially confused, thinking Rabbi Yehuda was completely off. However, when Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua then introduced Rabbi Eliezer's Pasul opinion, Yosef HaBabli was happy because at least there was *an* opinion in the world that said Pasul, giving Rabbi Yehuda's stance some basis, even if it wasn't the universal one he was taught. The subsequent explanation about Rabbi Yehuda's lineage then clarifies *why* Rabbi Yehuda personally adopted that specific Pasul opinion.
We now transition to a new Mishnah, moving away from the subject of Pigul, at least temporarily, to discuss the procedure of the meal offering, or Mincha. The Mincha offering involves specific steps for preparing the flour and oil. There are three stages of pouring oil onto the Mincha. First, oil is placed in a vessel. Then, flour is added to the vessel. Before mixing, more oil is added. This mixing process is called Bilila. The second pouring of oil is associated with this mixing. Finally, a third pouring of oil is made on top of the mixture. The Mishnah states that if one did not perform the final pouring of oil, known as Yitzikah, the offering is still Kashir.
The Mishnah then lists other actions that, if omitted, still result in a Kashir offering: "If he did not mix it (Lo Balal)," "If he did not bake it," "If he did not break it into pieces (Petita)," "If he did not salt it (Milichot)," "If he did not wave it (Tenufot)," "If he did not bring it to the corner of the Mizbeah (Hagashot)," or "If he made large pieces instead of small ones." All these omissions, the Mishnah concludes, still result in a Kashir offering.
The Gemara seeks to clarify the Mishnah's statement regarding Yitzikah. If the Mishnah says "he didn't make Yitzikah" and it's Kashir, it cannot mean that the pouring of oil was entirely omitted, as that is a fundamental requirement. Instead, the Gemara suggests it means that the Yitzikah was performed by a non-priest (Zav), and the novelty of the Mishnah is that even in such a case, the offering is Kashir. The Gemara then attempts to apply this consistent interpretation to the next clause: "Lo Balal" (he didn't mix it). This would mean that if a non-priest performed the mixing, it is also Kashir. However, the Gemara notes that if "he didn't mix it" means it wasn't mixed at all, it would certainly be Pasul.
This interpretation faces a challenge from a known halachic principle: the mixing (Bilila) of the Mincha is not always an absolute requirement. Rather, the *capacity* for mixing is key. For example, 60 measures (Aishronim) of flour will properly mix with one Log of oil. If 60 measures are used, and the oil is poured, the offering is Kashir even if no actual mixing occurs, because it *could* be mixed. However, if 61 measures of flour are used with one Log of oil, it will not mix properly. In this case, if it is not mixed, it is Pasul because it lacks the capacity for proper mixing. The Gemara therefore questions how the Mishnah can imply that "not mixing at all" makes it Pasul, when the law states that mixing is not always strictly necessary.
The Gemara resolves this by stating that each part of the Mishnah should be interpreted independently. The initial clause, "he didn't make Yitzikah," refers to a non-priest performing the action, and the offering is Kashir. The subsequent clause, "he didn't mix it," refers to a situation where mixing *is* required (e.g., with 61 measures of flour) and was entirely omitted. In such a case, it would indeed be Pasul. Thus, the Mishnah's clauses are not necessarily consistent in their underlying scenario.
The Mishnah also states, "Or he made Petita (breaking into pieces) but made big pieces, it's Kashir." The Gemara asks: what is the novelty here? If not breaking it at all is Kashir, then surely breaking it into big pieces should also be Kashir. The Gemara explains that the Mincha has two names: before it's broken, it's called Halot (loaves), and after it's broken, it's called Pitim (pieces). One might have thought that if it's broken into big pieces, it's neither fully a Halot nor properly Pitim, and thus might be worse, rendering it Pasul. The Mishnah teaches us that even when broken into big pieces, it remains Kashir.
We now revisit the Mishnah's ruling on Yitzikah, where a non-priest (Zav) performing it is deemed Kashir. This is challenged by the opinion of Rav Bishamon. Rav Bishamon states that any Kohen who does not believe in the Temple service (Avodah) loses his priestly portion. He supports this with a verse that refers to "those who offer the blood of the peace offerings," implying that one must believe that this entire service was given by God to Moshe at Sinai for the Bnei Aharon (descendants of Aaron, i.e., the priests). If a Kohen believes Moshe made these ceremonies up, he loses his share in the Avodah. The Gemara then lists 15 services (Yitzikot, Bililot, Pititot, Milichot, Tenufot, Hagashot, Kimitzot, Haktarot, Milikot, Zarikot, giving water to drink, purifying the Matzorah, etc.) that were given to the Bnei Aharon. Yitzikah is one of these 15 services. If Yitzikah is an integral priestly service, how can the Mishnah state that if a non-priest performs it, it is Kashir?
Rav Nachman resolves this apparent contradiction by distinguishing between two types of meal offerings: Menachat Kohanim and Menachat Yisrael. In Menachat Kohanim, brought by a priest, there is no Kimitza (scooping a handful of flour to burn on the Mizbeah); the entire offering is burned. In this case, the Kohen's involvement begins from the very start, so a non-priest performing Yitzikah would indeed render it Pasul. However, the Mishnah is referring to Menachat Yisrael, brought by an Israelite, which *does* have a Kimitza. For Menachat Yisrael, the Kohen's first direct involvement is at the stage of Kimitza. Therefore, earlier stages like pouring oil or mixing, if performed by a non-priest, do not invalidate the offering. The Mishnah's ruling that a non-priest's Yitzikah is Kashir applies to Menachat Yisrael.
The Gemara then questions: if the law of Yitzikah for Menachat Kohanim is derived from Menachat Yisrael, and in Menachat Yisrael a non-priest's Yitzikah is Kashir, how can we then say that a non-priest's Yitzikah for Menachat Kohanim is Pasul? You cannot derive a stricter law from a lenient source.
Rav Papa offers a different resolution: the Mishnah's ruling that a non-priest's Yitzikah is Kashir applies to offerings that *have* Kimitza (Nekmatzot). This is because the Kohen's essential role begins with Kimitza. However, for offerings that *do not* have Kimitza (She'en Nekmatzot), the Kohen's involvement is required from the start, making a non-priest's Yitzikah Pasul. This distinction includes not only Menachat Kohanim but also Menachat Nesachim, which are meal offerings brought alongside animal sacrifices and also lack Kimitza. In these cases, a non-priest's Yitzikah would be Pasul.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah, which states that a non-priest's Yitzikah is Kashir, is indeed *not* in accordance with the opinion of Rav Bishamon, who requires a believing Kohen for all 15 services from the outset. The Mishnah represents a different halachic approach.