Skip to main content
Iyun in Sota -
Lesson 14

Iyun Masechet Sota: 14b

Text file

 

The sugya in the beginning of the second perek quotes a beraita that details the order and sequence of the acts that are performed to a mincha.  Surprisingly enough, although the source of the beraita is a Tosefta in Menachot, this is the only place that it appears in the Shas, as it is not quoted at all throughout masekhet Menachot.  Masekhet Sota is not the place to engage in a lengthy discussion of all the menachot aspects that are included in the beraita, so we shall limit ourselves to a basic point or two.

 

First, let us just present the basic structure of a korban mincha.  Essentially, there are four stages to every mincha: kemitza, matan kometz be-kli, holakha to the mizbeiach and haktarat ha-kometz.  These are halakhically analogous to the four avodot of an animal korban: shechita, kabala, holakha and zerikat ha-dam, and have the same halakhic significance (e.g. regarding piggul).  In this shiur, we will focus upon this system that deals with the element of the mincha that is handed over to the mizbeiach and not upon the prior actions such as hagasha or tenufa that relate to the entire mincha before the kometz is separated from it.

 

The beraita mentions the need to put the kometz in a kli sharet twice in order to make it kadosh, initially when the mincha is brought to the Mikdash and after the kemitza.  The gemara, thereby, asks the obvious question: why is there a need for a double act of bestowing kedusha?  The gemara answers that a mincha is analogous in this regard to a regular animal korban that also has a dual system of hakdasha, since the animal's blood becomes kadosh both by means of the shechita and the subsequent kabala.  Thus, there is nothing unique or problematic in the mincha sequence as a double hakdasha is standard practice.

 

Nevertheless, we must still inquire as to the meaning of the dual requirement, for the gemara has only proven that it is not unique by providing a similar instance in zevachim; it has not, though, explained the logic of the system.

 

The first necessary step to understand the double hakdasha is to focus upon the mechanism that brings about kedusha in a kli sharet.  The gemara in our sugya (14b) briefly mentions a machloket that frequently appears in discussions of kedushat mincha, whether kli sharet require intention (da'at) to bestow kedusha on the mincha or is the kedusha automatically conferred upon the mincha.  A similar dilemma, whether kedushat kli sharet is contingent on the time-element of the korban as a prerequisite for kedusha or not, is discussed in other sugyot (see Menachot 100a and Tosafot Sukka 50a).  Essentially, the issue is whether contact with the kli sharet itself creates kedusha by the very presence of the object within the holy vessel, regardless of any other factors, or not.  The idea that contact with a kli sharet results in an objective kedusha that is independent of the hakrava status of the object is rooted in a pasuk: "kol hanogea ba-mizbeiach yikdash" (Shemot 29:37, 30:29).  From this pasuk, Chazal derived the halakha that a disqualified korban that reached the mizbeiach is sacrificed, since the contact with mizbeiach granted it an additional status of kedusha unrelated to its original kedusha as a korban designated for mizbeiach.  The same halakha applies to kli sharet as well as the mizbeiach (Zevachim 87a).  Thus, the gemara's inquiry whether kli sharet are able to sanctify potential korbanot prior to their appointed time depends upon the nature of kedushat kli sharet.  If we consider the actual presence of the object within the utensil as a sanctifying agent, regardless of the process of hakrava, then it will become kadosh in the kli sharet, but if the kedusha is a result of its role as a korban, then it cannot become kadosh prematurely. 

 

The necessity of a dual action reflects these two elements of kedusha.  The kedusha that is created at shechita is the kedusha bestowed upon the blood as participating in the process of hakrava.  Its functioning as a korban is what creates the kedusha, not its contact with a kli sharet.  The significance of the shechita knife is not the contact of the blood with a kli sharet but its being the initial stage of the hakrava.  Therefore, an additional kedusha is effected by the kabala, when the blood is received into a kli sharet.  This provides the second element of kedusha, as it is not due to the involvement in the process of hakrava but is kedusha based upon contact of the blood with a holy vessel.

 

The idea that shechita and kabala create separate forms of kedusha is crucial to understanding a sugya in Menachot (78b) that sheds much light upon our sugya.  The gemara discusses a case in which a person brought 80 toda loaves instead of the required 40 loaves and quotes a machloket whether 40 of them are kadosh or not.  Abaye's interpretation of the machloket is that it revolves around the issue of da'at in kli sharet.  R. Yochanan who claims that none of the loaves are kadosh is of the opinion that kli sharet require intent to bestow kedusha upon objects that are placed within them, while Chezkia disagrees and rules that they are kadosh, since kli sharet can sanctify objects without da'at.  Although the issue of da'at for kedusha of kli sharet is a well known machloket, the gemara quotes Rav Papa's opinion that the debate here is not about the general case of da'at in kli sharet but a specific machloket regarding the need for intention of kedusha to bring about kedusha through the shechita knife.  Rav Papa's claim is presented in two versions: in the first one, he is represented as claiming that although the requirement of da'at in regular kli sharet is the subject of a machloket, all agree that the shechita knife must be accompanied by da'at; while the other option reverses Rav Papa's opinion and claims that the shechita knife certainly does not require da'at.  Either way, there is a distinction between the shechita knife and regular kli sharet that is explained (in both versions) by the fact that the knife is different than normal keilim since it is flat and does not have an inside.  The meaning of this is that the knife is not considered a bona fide kli sharet that creates kedusha by the presence of an object within it, as is the case with classic kli sharet; rather the reason that it confers kedusha on the korban is the fact that the process of hakrava has begun.  According to the first opinion, this results in a need for da'at (which should be understood as intention), unlike regular kli sharet, since only the "objective" kedusha whose source is the physical presence of the object within a holy vessel does not require da'at.  The second approach (that apparently conceives of da'at as a more formal independent component that does not accompany and define the actions of the kohen) assumes that shechita does not require da'at since the blood becomes kadosh by virtue of the very fact that it is participating in the process of the hakrava.

 

Tosafot in Zevachim (47a, d.h. Eizhu, and the Tosafot Shanz in our sugya) quote R. Ephraim's opinion that the shechita knife need not be a kli sharet and argue against this from our sugya in Sota and from the sugya in Menachot, since both establish that the knife sanctifies the blood, and hence it must be a kli sharet.  Tosafot's axiomatic assumption that kedusha is created only by kli sharet is obviously rejected by R. Ephraim.  The reason for this is clear.  Had the kedusha of the shechita been due to the contact between the knife and the blood, it obviously would have to be a kli sharet; however, since the kedusha created by the knife is due to the process and not to the object, there is no need for the knife to be a kli sharet.  The essential issue is the act of the shechita; for this a kli is required but not a kli sharet. 

 

Let us now return to our sugya.  The comparison of menachot to zevachim is the key to our understanding the double stages of kedushat mincha, as the specific contribution of each element in zevachim is clear and enables us to apply it to menachot as well.  As the stages of menachot are analogous to those of zevachim, as mentioned above (this rule that underlies many sugyot in menachot is explicitly established by the sugya Menachot 13b and has been previously mentioned in Sota by Rashi 6b d.h. kideish ha-kometz), the role of kabala in both is to bestow the kedusha of contact with a kli sharet.  This point is explicit in Menachot 13b: "both are to establish kedushat kli, what difference does it make if it [the blood or the kometz] is actively placed there by the kohen or passively received in the vessel?" 

 

The significance of the first kedusha, therefore, must be the creation of kedusha as part of the process of hakrava, as is proved from the comparison to the shechita knife.

 

This analogy would have led me to expect that kemitza (the menachot corollary of shechita) would create the kedusha.  But this is not the case.  Surprisingly, a prior placement of the mincha within a kli sharet is apparently the cause of hakrava-kedusha. 

 

Two possible explanations suggest themselves.  The first (and probably simpler) is to claim that the process of hakrava already begins prior to kemitza as witnessed by the acts of tenufa and hagasha that precede kemitza (especially if we hold that they require a kohen to perform them – see Tosafot Menachot 9a d.h. mikemitza and Tosafot Kiddushin 36a d.h.  ha-smikhut), so that the placement of the kometz within the kli sharet is the initial stage of hakrava (this does not preclude the role of the matan mincha be-kli as establishing the kedushat ha-guf of the mincha in addition to setting in motion the process of hakrava).

 

A second answer was suggested by R. Mordechai Ilan (author of Torat Hakodesh, a two volume work on Kodshim, and compiler of the Knesset Rishonim on Zevachim). He calls attention to Rashi (Sota 6b d.h. kideish ha-kometz), who writes that kemitza must be performed from a kli sharet since it is analogous to shechita that creates kedusha.  The requirement of kemitza to be done from a kli sharet is associated by Rashi with the role of the kemitza to establish kedusha; apparently, he views the act of kemitza itself as creating the initial kedusha of the kometz and not the prior placement of the mincha in a kli sharet.  Therefore, Rashi added the idea that the kemitza qua mekadesh has the need for a kli sharet (in similar manner to shechita that according to Rashi (Sota 14b d.h. sakin) must also be done with a kli sharet.  Thus, if we accept his interpretation, the kemitza itself fulfils a role of kedusha that is process and not object oriented.

 

In conclusion, we must point out that we have obviously not exhausted a subject that is basic to an entire masekhet in Shas.  Anyone interested in further research is referred to the sugyot in Menachot 7a-b, 26a and additional sugyot in Menachot.  Special mention should be made in the context of our discussion of Rava's dilemma (Menachot 7b) whether kiddush kometz is learnt from kiddush mincha or from kiddush of the blood in zevachim.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!