This week’s daf yomi introduces the ruling of R. Zera that a situation that allows for the flour and oil to be mixed in the korban mincha (e.g., a vessel that can hold enough for that mixing) is both necessary and sufficient even if that mixing is never done. This is a fascinating concept – namely that potential for a particular action is enough even if the action never happens – and it is applied to other realms of halakha as well. In this shiur we will examine this concept and what it teaches us about halakha.

Menachot 18

Printable sources

Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com

1. מנחות יח:

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

And Rabbi Zeira said the following explanation: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.

2. מנחות קג:

מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן, וּמֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. (אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – מֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד). אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ – מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד.

MISHNA: A person may pledge a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and bring all sixty tenths in one vessel. If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty tenths of an ephah, one brings it in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one tenths of an ephah, one brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel, as the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings as meal offerings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of an ephah of fine flour are brought.

דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִן הַצִּיבּוּר אֶחָד.

It is sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community. When the first day of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, thirteen bulls, two goats, and fourteen lambs are sacrificed as the additional offerings of Sukkot, two lambs are sacrificed as the daily offerings, and two lambs are sacrificed as the additional offering of Shabbat. Three tenths of an ephah are brought for each bull, two tenths for each goat, and a tenth for each lamb. Altogether, that is sixty-one tenths of an ephah.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ לַפָּרִים, וְאֵלּוּ לַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵינָם נִבְלָלִים זֶה עִם זֶה! אֶלָּא עַד שִׁשִּׁים יְכוֹלִין לִיבָּלֵל.

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren’t these meal offerings for bulls and those for lambs, and they are not mixed with each other (see 89a)? Rather, the reason that one may not bring more than sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel is because up to sixty tenths of fine flour can be mixed with one log of oil.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, וְשִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין?! אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל מִדּוֹת חֲכָמִים כֵּן – בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, וּבְאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן.

The Rabbis said to him: Is it so that sixty tenths of flour can be mixed with a log of oil, but sixty-one tenths cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: All the measures of the Sages are so: For example, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.

גמרא:

..אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר אַתָּה״. אָמַר לָהֶם: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה״, כְּבָר אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא מִנְחָה שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְהִיבָּלֵל.

…The Sages said to him: You should state a reason why a meal offering of more than sixty tenths of an ephah must be brought in more than one vessel. Rabbi Shimon said to them: It says in the Torah: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.

…

וְכִי אֵין נִבְלָלִין, מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא תְּנַן: אִם לֹא בָּלַל – כָּשֵׁר! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil with the flour in a meal offering, if he did not mix them, it is still valid? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira says: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Although there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering.

Application to Mikveh

3. נדה סו:

וְאָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם יִלְמַד אָדָם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא אִשָּׁה מְדִיחָה בֵּית קַמְטֵיהּ בְּמַיִם. מֵיתִיבִי: בֵּית הַקְּמָטִים וּבֵית הַסְּתָרִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְבִיאַת מַיִם!

And Rava says: A man should always teach in his house that a woman should rinse any place with creases, e.g., her undarms, in water before she immerses in a ritual bath, to ensure that they are clean. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Places with creases and any concealed part of the body (e.g., inside the mouth) do not require immersion in water. In other words, the immersion is valid even if the water does not touch those parts of the body. If so, why must she rinse them before immersing?

נְהִי דְּבִיאַת מַיִם לָא בָּעֵינַן, מְקוֹם הָרָאוּי לְבִיאַת מַיִם בָּעֵינַן, כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה — אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְשֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְבִילָּה — בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

The Gemara answers: Granted that they do not require immersion in water, but we require that they must be a place that is suitable for immersion in water. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says: For any amount of flour suitable for mingling with oil in a meal offering, mingling is not indispensable for it, i.e., it is valid even if it is not mixed. But for any amount of flour not suitable for mingling, e.g., if the quantity of flour is so great that the ingredients cannot be properly mixed, mingling is indispensable for it, and such a meal offering is invalid. This teaches a halakhic principle: There are certain actions that prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva if they are impossible, even if the actual performance of those actions are not indispensable to the mitzva.

When 9 Av falls on Saturday Night: What about havdalah?

4. תוס’ פסחים קז. ד”ה אמימר

…ובתשעה באב שחל להיות במוצ”ש נמי רגילין להבדיל אחר התענית וכן בסדר דרב עמרם

…And when Tisha B’Av falls on Saturday night, we make havdalah after the fast (on Sunday night), and so it is in seder Rav Amram.

(Note: practically, we do make havdalah on Sunday night when 9 Av falls on Sat night, but without besamim or fire, which are reserved exclusively for Sat. night havdalah in general.)

5. רא”ש תענית פיסקא מ’

…ואלו דברי הרמב”ן ז”ל…ואדרבה איפכא מסתברא דכי אסור למיכל באפוקי שבתא ולא חזי לאבדולי בחד בשבא לא מבדיל בתרי בשבא דהא לא חזי בשעתיה לאבדולי וטפי (בטפי) איכא למימר דאפילו למאן דאמר מבדיל והולך כל השבת כולה הני מילי היכא דמוצאי שבת חזיא לאבדולי אבל היכא דמוצאי שבת לא חזי ליה לא מבדיל בלא זמניה משום כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו…

And these are the words of Ramban/Nachmanides: …And the opposite makes sense, namely that because it is prohibited to eat on sat. night, and one therefore cannot recite havdalah on sunday, one should not required havdalah on Monday – as in its time, making havdalah was not viable. And one can say even further that even one who says that a person may make havdalah all week, that is only when making havdalah on Sat. night was viable, but if it was not viable on Sat. night, one does not make havdalah at a different time – based on the principle of “Only when mixing is viable is mixing not strictly required, but where it is not viable, mixing is strictly required…

What is the logic?

6. תוספות מנחות יח:

…ואם תאמר מנליה דליבעי ראוי לבילה מאחר דבילה לא מעכבא? ויש לומר סברא בעלמא הוא כיון דכתב רחמנא בילה דנבעי לכל הפחות ראוי לבילה, וכן לגבי קריאה דחליצה דפ’ מצות חליצה (יבמות דף קד:) וגם קריאה דביכורים בפרק המוכר את הספינה (בבא בתרא דף פא:) ובמכות (דף יח:) דבכל הנהו מייתי דרבי זירא…

…And if you ask: how does he know that even if mixing is not strictly necessary, having the conditions of viability to mix is necessary? We can answer: it is logical that given that Scripture states “mixing” that we at least require the conditions for mixing to be viable. And likewise regarding the declaration of halitzah, the declaration of first fruits, for in all of these it brings the words of R. Zeira…

7. רשב”ם בבא בתרא פא:

…מה שאי אפשר להבלל מעכבת בו דכיון דכתיב ויצק עליה שמן וצוה לבלול דכתיב בלולה ש”מ שצוה הקב”ה להביא מנחה שיכול לקיים בהן מצות בלילה וכשהוא מביא ששים ואחד מנחה כזו לא צוה להביא והרי הוא כמביא מנחה מן הקטניות דאינה כלום שכל דבר שצוה הקב”ה להביא יש עיכוב בעיקר הבאתו להביא באותו ענין שצוה הכתוב ולא בענין אחר אבל מצות האמורות באותה מצוה כגון תנופה בקרבן בלילה במנחה יש שמעכבין אם גילה הכתוב לשנות עליו ולעכב ויש שאין מעכבין…

…The fact that it cannot be mixed undermines because, given that it is written “and he shall pour oil onto it” and it commanded to mix, as is written, “mixed,” this teaches that God commnaded to bring a mincha offering in which one can achieve the commandment of mixing/And when one brings 61 acronym, this is not what God commanded to bring. And it is as though one has brought a mincha of legumes (i.e., of the wrong material), which is nil. For everything that God commanded to bring, there is a basic requirement in bringing it to bring it with that which Scripture commanded, and not with something else. However, the subcommandments within that commandment – such as waving the offering, mixing the mincha – only some of those are strictly requirement if the Torah revealed it by repeating it to make it strictly required, and there are others that are not strictly required…

8. אור שמח על הרמב”ם הלכות ייבום וחליצה ד”ח

כתב הרב המגיד, אבל בדיעבד כשרה שהרי אין רקיקה מעכבת כמו שיתבאר, והמשנה למלך תמה ע”ז דהא רקיקה עדיפא מקריאה ואפ”ה באלם ואלמת אם חלצו חליצתן פסולה מפני שאינן ראוין לקריאה והוי כמי שאינו ראוי לבילה, כש”כ כאן שאינה ראויה לרקיקה בפניו דהוי חליצה פסולה דהוי כמו שאינה ראויה לבילה עכ”ל.

The Maggid Mishnah wrote: but post facto it is kosher, for spitting is not strictly required, as will be explained. And the Mishneh leMelech questioned this – for spitting is more important than declaring, and yet regarding a mute male and female, even post facto if they performed the halitzah it is invalid because they are unable to make the declaration. And it is similar to the case of the mincha in which mixing is not viable; all the more so here when it is not viable for her to spit in his face (i.e., that he would see it), that the halitzah should be invalid, asi it is similar to the case of the mincha in which mixing is not viable – end quote…

…

אולם באמת כאשר תעיין בכל התלמוד לא תמצא הך דכל שאינו ראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו אלא דוקא היכי שהדבר הראוי להעשות בעי להיות טרם גמר הדבר המעכבת, וכמו בילה גבי מנחה שהבלילה נעשית במנחה טרם הקטרת קומץ המתירה, וכן בכיסוי הדם שכיסוי העפר שיתן למטה צריך שיתן אותו טרם ששופך הדם שמכסין אח”כ מלמעלה, וכן גבי ביכורים בפרק הספינה, דהקריאה הוא קודם ההנחה שמניחן ע”ג המזבח שאותה ההנחה היא המתרת והיא המעכבת, וכן גבי הפרת נדרים דהשמיעה בעי שתהיה קודם ההפרה, וכן גבי טבילה ובכולהו, אבל כאן שהרקיקה סדרה הוא אחרי החליצה אעפ”י שהסדר אינו מעכב אמנם הסדר כך הוא, א”כ בעת החליצה הרי לא חסר דבר רק שאינו ראוי לרקיקה שאח”כ זה לא מעכבא, 

However, when you search in all of the Talmud you will only find this principle of viability being determinant where that which is viable to be done must be done before the essential thing is done – like the mixing of the mincha, for the mixing is done before the burning of the kometz which permits it (to be eaten); and likewise regarding covering the blood – where covering the ground with dirt under the blood must be done before spilling the blood that will afterwards be covered above. And likewise regarding first fruits, where the declaration precedes placing the fruits on the altar – and that placement is what causes permission and what is strictly necessary. And likewise regarding invalidating an oath, where the hearing of the oath must preceded the invalidating, and likewise regarding immersion, and so in all of them. Here, however, where the spitting comes after the halitzah (=removal of the shoe), though the order is not strictly required, this is the general order. If so, at the time of the removal of the shoe nothing is missing – but it is only that he is not viable for the spitting afterwards – this does not undermine.

וטעמא ברירא, דבכולהו הרי בעת העשות גמר הדבר המעכב לא נעשה כהלכתו, שאם הוא אלם הרי חסר הקריאה שלפני החליצה, וכן חסר הנתינת עפר למטה, וכן חסר הקריאה של בכורים והשמיעה שקודם ההפרה, רק שאינו מעכב, ע”ז אמרינן כיון שלא היה יכול להיות שפיר מעכב, אבל כאן בעת החליצה עדיין אינו חסר דבר ונעשה כהלכתו רק שלא יכול להיות דבר שצריכה להיות אח”כ, מנא לן דמעכבא ולא שייך ע”ז כללא דכל שאינו ראוי לבילה:

And the reason is clear, for in all of them at the time when it was done, the essential/strictly required actively was not done properly – for if he was mute, there was no declaration before halitzah, and likewise there was no placement of dust below, and likewise there was no declaration of first fruits or hearing before invalidating a vow – only that these things are not usually strictly required – in these cases we say that the viability can be undermining. Here, however, at the time of the removal of the shoe, nothing is missing, and it was done according to the rules – just that the thing that is supposed to happen next cannot happen – why would we say that undermines? The ruling of viability does not apply.