QUESTION: Rav Papa asks what the Halachah is in a case of a Minchah that became Chametz and was then taken out of the Azarah ("Yotzei"), and then a person continued to make it Chametz. Perhaps one is not Chayav for the second act of making it Chametz since it became Pasul by being taken out of the Azarah. On the other hand, perhaps since it was already Pasul because it was Chametz, it did not become Pasul due to Yotzei when it left the Azarah, and one is Chayav for the second act of making it Chametz.

RASHI explains that the reason why the Minchah would not become Pasul because of Yotzei is that since it is Chametz, it does not have a full degree of Kedushah, and the Pesul of Yotzei does not take effect on something that does not have a full degree of Kedushah. The Gemara's question is whether a Minchah that is Pasul because of Chametz can become Pasul because of Yotzei.

The TUREI EVEN (Hashmatos to Chagigah 9a) questions Rashi's explanation from the Gemara in Zevachim (99a). The Gemara there suggests the possibility that only a Kohen who is fit to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash may receive a share of the meat of a Korban. Nevertheless, the Torah makes an exception for a Ba'al Mum, teaching that he receives a share of the Korbanos even though he is not fit to perform the Avodah. A Kohen who is Tamei, however, who is not fit to perform the Avodah, does not receive a share of the Korbanos. The Gemara there says that a Kohen who was a Ba'al Mum and who became Tamei does receive a share of the Korbanos. Since he received a share while he was not fit to perform the Avodah because he was a Ba'al Mum, he continues to receive a share once he becomes Tamei as well, since his status did not change.

Why does the Gemara here not apply the same logic? The Torah teaches that the Isur of Chametz applies to the Minchah even though it already became Pasul as Chametz. Consequently, it should make no difference when the Minchah becomes Pasul because of Yotzei, since that second Pesul does not change its status. The Isur of making it Chametz still should apply.

The Gemara in Zevachim also poses a question according to the RAMBAM's understanding of the Gemara here (as understood by the MEKOR BARUCH 1:14). The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 12:12) describes Rav Papa's case as a Minchah of Chametz that "went out [of the Azarah] and then returned, and was made into Chametz after it become Pasul by being taken out." It is clear that the Rambam understands that the Pesul of Yotzei takes effect, even though the Minchah was already Pasul because of Chametz.

According to the Rambam's understanding, Rav Papa's question is as follows. The Torah teaches that when a Minchah is Pasul because of Chametz, the prohibition against making it Chametz still applies (as the Gemara teaches on 7a). Since there is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that the Isur of making the Minchah become Chametz applies even when the Minchah is already Pasul due to Chametz, does the Isur apply even when the Minchah is Pasul because of an additional Pesul, such as Yotzei? If the Isur applies when the Minchah is Pasul because of one Pesul, then perhaps it should apply regardless of how many Pesulim there are, since once the Minchah is Pasul it cannot become more Pasul.

The Gemara here is left with a doubt about whether or not this logic applies. Why, though, is there any doubt? The Gemara in Zevachim clearly does apply this logic!

ANSWER: The KOVETZ HE'OROS (37:4) answers as follows. There is a difference between what is needed in order to apply the prohibition against being Mechametz a Minchah, and what is needed in order for a Kohen to receive a share in the Korbanos. In order for the Isur of Mechametz to apply, the Minchah must be an entirely valid Minchah (except for a pre-existing Pesul of Chametz, in which case the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that the Isur of Mechametz applies). When a Minchah that is Pasul because of Chametz is taken out of the Azarah, that act of Yotzei does not cause the Minchah to become Pasul, since it is already Pasul. However, the Minchah certainly is not a valid Minchah, because even without the Pesul of Chametz the fact is that the Minchah was taken out of the Azarah. Therefore, perhaps the Isur of Mechametz does not apply, since -- even if we ignores the pre-existing Pesul of Chametz -- the Minchah is not a valid Minchah due to Yotzei. On the other hand, perhaps an additional Pesul indeed does not make a difference and the Isur of Mechametz still applies.

A Kohen's entitlement to receive a share in the Korbanos is different. A Kohen is entitled to receive a share in the Korbanos by virtue of the fact that he is a Kohen. He does not need to have a special status of being a "valid" Kohen. As long as he is not Pasul he receives a share, since there is no Pesul that takes that right away from him. A Ba'al Mum does not lose his share in the Korbanos, because the Torah teaches that the Pesul of Ba'al Mum does not take away his right to a share in the Korbanos. Consequently, when a Kohen who is a Ba'al Mum becomes Tamei as well, he does not lose his right to a share in the Korbanos, since his Tum'ah did not make him unfit to perform the Avodah; he was already unfit because of his status as a Ba'al Mum.

The TUREI EVEN adds another case in which the logic of the Gemara here may apply. The Mishnah in Chagigah (9a) teaches that a Korban Chagigah that was not brought on the first day of Yom Tov may be brought on any of the following six days as Tashlumin for the first day (according to the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan there). Consequently, if a person was exempt from bringing a Korban Chagigah on the first day (for example, he was lame in one leg), he has no obligation to make it up on the subsequent days if his condition changes. The exception to this is one who is exempt on the first day because he is Tamei, who nevertheless is required to bring the Korban Chagigah on one of the other days as Tashlumin if he becomes Tahor. What is the Halachah in a case in which one was Tamei on the first day of Yom Tov, and he also became lame? Since, originally, there was a requirement of Tashlumin when he was exempt on the first day because of Tum'ah, does that requirement of Tashlumin remain even though he became lame?

The Turei Even infers from the words of Rashi here that there is no such logic. Only in the Sugya here, where the Pesul of Yotzei does not take effect because the Kedushah of the Minchah was not complete, does the Isur of Mechametz remain. In the case of Tashlumin for the Korban Chagigah, where the person was definitely exempt because he became lame, the Halachah is that he has no requirement of Tashlumin.

The Turei Even, however, is left with a difficulty from the Gemara in Zevachim, which would seem to apply the logic that once the person was exempt because of Tum'ah, the exemption of becoming lame does not affect him, and the requirement of Tashlumin should remain.

The Kovetz He'oros, however, based on his approach to the Gemara in Zevachim, says that the Gemara in Zevachim poses no problem to the comparison between the case of Tashlumin of the Korban Chagigah and the case of the Gemara here. For the requirement of Tashlumin to apply, the person who became lame must have had an actual obligation to bring the Korban Chagigah from which becoming lame exempted him. Since he was exempt already because of Tum'ah, becoming lame did not cause him to become exempt, and thus he has no requirement of Tashlumin. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OPINIONS: The Beraisa (57a) quotes Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who derives from the words "Asher Takrivu" (Vayikra 2:11) that the Minchas Nesachim is included in the prohibition against making a Minchah become Chametz. Rebbi Akiva argues and says that these words include the Lechem ha'Panim in the prohibition.

The Gemara asks that the Minchas Nesachim is not made from water, but from Mei Peros (oil), and dough made from fruit juice does not become Chametz. Why, then, does Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili say that the Minchas Nesachim is included in the prohibition against causing a Minchah to become Chametz? Reish Lakish answers that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Minchas Nesachim may be kneaded with water as well as with oil, and thus it can become Chametz.

The Gemara concludes, however, that the opinions in the Beraisa should be switched, and that it is Rebbi Akiva who learns that the verse includes the Minchas Nesachim in the prohibition.

(a) The NODA B'YEHUDAH (Mahadura Kama #22) derives from this Gemara an important Halachah with regard to Chametz Nuksheh (Chametz items that are not intended and not fit for eating) on Pesach.

There is a dispute about whether or not Chametz Nuksheh has the status as Chametz Gamur (complete Chametz) with regard to the law of Bitul on Pesach. The TERUMAS HA'DESHEN rules that Chametz Nuksheh has the same status as Chametz Gamur with regard to the law of Bitul on Pesach. Just as a minute amount of Chametz Gamur is forbidden on Pesach and is not Batel even in a large amount of non-Chametz food, a minute amount of Chametz Nuksheh is forbidden on Pesach and is not Batel.

The MAGEN AVRAHAM argues with the Terumas ha'Deshen. The Magen Avraham says that the Terumas ha'Deshen is stringent only because he maintains that, mid'Oraisa, Chametz Nuksheh is considered real Chametz (like the view of Rebbi Meir on 53a). However, the Halachah is that Chametz Nuksheh is forbidden only mid'Rabanan (like the view of Rebbi Yehudah), and therefore it is Batel in a mixture with sixty times more non-Chametz food.

Based on the words of the Magen Avraham, some Poskim rule that if a piece of wheat is found in a food made from flour mixed with water and Mei Peros, it is Batel b'Shishim. This is based on the view of RABEINU TAM (see Insights to 45a) who maintains that flour mixed with water and Mei Peros is Chametz Nuksheh and not Chametz Gamur.

(b) The Noda b'Yehudah strongly disagrees with this ruling, and he bases his argument on the Gemara here. He asserts that Rabeinu Tam's statement that dough made from water and Mei Peros is Chametz Nuksheh was said only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who maintains that Chametz Nuksheh is Asur mid'Oraisa. However, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that Chametz Nuksheh is Asur mid'Rabanan, dough made from water and Mei Peros must be Chametz Gamur. He proves this from the Gemara here which says that the Isur of Mechametz will apply to the Minchas Nesachim when the flour is mixed with water aside from the oil of the Minchah. Obviously, the Isur d'Oraisa will apply only when the Chametz that is produced is Chametz d'Oraisa. Accordingly, there are only two possible reasons for why mixing the Minchas Nesachim with water should cause it to become Chametz d'Oraisa: either the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir who says that Chametz Nuksheh is considered Chametz d'Oraisa, or the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah, and Rebbi Yehudah maintains that dough made from flour mixed with water and Mei Peros is not Chametz Nuksheh but Chametz Gamur. Since the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah (that Chametz Nuksheh is considered Chametz only mid'Rabanan), it must be that flour mixed with water and Mei Peros is Chametz Gamur, Chametz mid'Oraisa. (Rebbi Yehudah has no verse to teach that there is an "intermediate" form of Chametz mid'Oraisa, and thus there can be only Chametz Gamur or non-Chametz.)

Therefore, the Noda b'Yehudah rules that wheat found in a food made from flour mixed with water and Mei Peros is not Batel b'Shishim. Since the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah who says that Chametz Nuksheh is only Asur mid'Rabanan, it must be that dough made from water and Mei Peros can become Chametz Gamur mid'Oraisa.

The Noda b'Yehudah, however, asks two questions on this conclusion. Rabeinu Tam (cited by Tosfos, 54a) proves from the Gemara here that water together with Mei Peros can become Chametz, and that it is not like Mei Peros alone which cannot become Chametz. Why, though, does Rabeinu Tam need to prove this from the Gemara? He should prove this from the fact that any Minchah can become Chametz! All of the Menachos are made with oil, and yet they still can become Chametz, as is evident from the fact that the Torah teaches a prohibition against causing them to become Chametz! It must be that flour kneaded with water and Mei Peros (oil) can become Chametz.

Moreover, Rabeinu Tam's proof from the Gemara here is difficult to understand. Perhaps the reason why a Minchas Nesachim can become Chametz when kneaded with water is that the water might touch the flour in a place where there is no oil! In such a case the flour certainly becomes Chametz Gamur. How can Rabeinu Tam prove from here that flour kneaded with water and Mei Peros together can become Chametz?

The Noda b'Yehudah answers one question with the other question. The reason why Rabeinu Tam does not prove from all other Menachos that dough made of water and Mei Peros can become Chametz is that all other Menachos have only a small amount of oil in them, and thus it can happen that some of the flour has no oil mixed with it. When the water touches that flour, it will become Chametz Gamur (and not because water mixed with Mei Peros can become Chametz Gamur). Rabeinu Tam's proof is from the Minchas Nesachim, which has a large amount of oil such that the oil certainly reaches all of the flour. The only way that the Minchah can become Chametz Gamur, therefore, is if water together with Mei Peros can become Chametz Gamur. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)