QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that discusses at length the verse of salting the Korban Minchah. The Beraisa derives from a verse written with regard to the Korban Minchah that all Korbanos require salting (excluding wood, blood, and other non-Korban items on the Mizbe'ach). The Gemara implies that the salting of Menachos and the salting of other Korbanos have the same laws.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:12) rules that all Korbanos must be offered with salt. If one offers a Korban without salt, he is punished with Malkus, as the verse teaches, "And every sacrifice of your flour offering shall you season with salt; and you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of Hash-m to be lacking from your flour offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt" (Vayikra 2:13). However, the Rambam writes that even if one does not put salt on the Korban, the Korban remains valid unless it is a Minchah. The lack of salt invalidates the Kemitzah, as the verse says, "... and you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of Hash-m to be lacking from your flour offering."

If the source of the requirement to salt all Korbanos is the Korban Minchah, then why does the Rambam differentiate between all Korbanos and the Korban Minchah? Why is the Korban Minchah invalid if it is not salted, while all other Korbanos remain valid, and why does one receive Malkus only for failure to salt the Minchah but not for failure to salt all other Korbanos?

(a) The KESEF MISHNEH understands that the Rambam had the same text as TOSFOS (19b, DH Harei) in the words of Rav Huna. Rav Huna says that although the Torah mentions only once the requirement to salt the Minchah, salting is an absolute requirement, without which the Minchah is invalid. According to our text of the Gemara, the verse in which the requirement of salting is mentioned is, "Bris Melach Olam Hi" -- "it is a covenant of salt forever" (Bamidbar 18:19), which is written with regard to the Matnos Kehunah. According to the Girsa of Tosfos, the verse which the Gemara quotes is, "... the salt of the covenant of Hash-m..." (Vayikra 2:13).

According to the Girsa of Tosfos and the Rambam, since the verse which mentions the requirement of salting is written specifically with regard to the Korban Minchah, it is understandable that salting is an absolute requirement only for the Minchah and not for other Korbanos.

The Kesef Mishneh continues and explains that although Rebbi Shimon implies that the same requirement of salting applies to all Korbanos, the Halachah does not follow the view of Rebbi Shimon, since he argues with Rebbi Yehudah. Similarly, even though the Mishnah rules that a Minchah that is not salted is valid, the Rambam rules like Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa (in which both Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue with the Tana of the Mishnah). Alternatively, the Kesef Mishneh explains, the Gemara accepts the last answer of Rav Yosef, that the word "Bris" ("covenant") means that salting is required, as conclusive, and thus salting is absolutely required for a Minchah.

(b) The KEREN ORAH (19b) offers a simple explanation for why the Rambam differentiates between a Minchah and other Korbanos. Korbanos that are slaughtered (i.e. animal offerings) achieve atonement for their owners through the sprinkling of their blood. Since the blood itself does not require salting, it is clear that the Korbanos are valid even when the limbs of the Korbanos are not salted when they are placed on the Mizbe'ach. In contrast, a Korban Minchah achieves atonement for its owner through the offering of its Kometz. Since the Kometz must be salted, the lack of salting renders the Kometz invalid. The Keren Orah points out that this is implied by the Rambam's words, "Salt causes the Kemitzah to be invalid." (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the blood of a Korban becomes invalid for Zerikah after sunset. What is the source for this statement?

RASHI (DH Dam) explains that the law that blood may not be sprinkled at night is learned from the verse, "b'Yom Tzavoso Es Bnei Yisrael l'Hakriv" -- "on the day that he commanded the Jewish people to offer..." (Vayikra 7:38). The blood becomes unfit at sunset, as Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi (in Zevachim 56a) derives from the verse, "b'Yom Hakrivo Es Zivcho Ye'achel" -- "he may eat it on the day that it is offered" (Vayikra 7:16), which teaches that on the same day that one slaughters the Korban, he should bring the blood close, and on the day that one does not slaughter, he should not bring the blood close.

TOSFOS in Zevachim (56a, DH Minayin) asks that according to Rashi's explanation, Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi's teaching seems redundant. If the blood cannot be sprinkled at night, no additional verse is needed to teach that it becomes invalid when night arrives; it should immediately become invalid due to Linah (being left overnight).

Why does Rashi write that this law is derived from two verses?

(a) The SHA'AGAS ARYEH (#17) answers that from the verse of "b'Yom Tzavoso" alone, one might have derived that as long as the first required sprinkling is done before sunset, the other sprinklings (which, if not done, do not render the Korban invalid) may be done after sunset. This is comparable to the limbs of Korbanos, which may be burned at night on the Mizbe'ach, even though the Korban itself must be offered during the day. Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi teaches that the blood is invalid after sunset and one may not sprinkle any of it, even if he already performed one sprinkling before sunset.

(b) The YAD BINYAMIN in Zevachim (56a) answers that Rashi must maintain that the primary source for this law is the verse cited by Rav Yitzchak bar Avodimi, as the Gemara in Zevachim implies. Rashi merely adds that no verse is necessary to teach that the blood is invalid at night, since the verse says, "b'Yom Tzavoso," teaching that blood cannot be sprinkled at night. (See Insights to Zevachim 56:1.) (Y. MONTROSE)