YOMA 48 (23 Teves) - Dedicated in memory of Nachum ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis Z"L, who passed away on 23 Teves 5700, by his son and daughter-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Sid Mosenkis.

1) AN ACT OF "KEMITZAH" WITH DOUGH STUCK TO THE SIDES OF THE VESSEL
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a number of questions concerning the Kemitzah and the Chafinah. Rav Papa asks what the status of the Kemitzah is in a case in which the Kometz was affixed to the sides of the vessel and not placed on the bottom of the vessel. Mar bar Rav Ashi asks a similar question with regard to the status of the Kemitzah in a case in which the vessel was turned over and the Kometz was affixed to the bottom of the upturned vessel. (According to one Girsa of Rashi in Menachos (11a) as cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes there, this question refers to a normal bowl which was turned upside down and the Kometz was placed on the outer side of the floor of the upturned bowl. According to the Girsa of Rashi in our texts, this question refers to a bowl that is attached to a stand shaped like a small inverted bowl. The bowl was turned upside down and the Kometz was placed in the inverted stand.) These questions are left unanswered.
Which vessel is the subject of the questions of the Gemara? Two different vessels are used during the Kemitzah of the Minchah. The first vessel holds the dough of the Minchah from which the Kohen takes the Kometz. The second vessel is the one into which the Kohen places the Kometz when he separates it from the rest of the Minchah. The placing of the Kometz into the second vessel sanctifies the Kometz. (The second vessel corresponds to the vessel used for Kabalas ha'Dam into which the blood of a Korban is placed at the time it is slaughtered.)
(a) RASHI explains that the Gemara's questions refer to the second vessel, into which the Kometz is placed and which is Mekadesh the Kometz. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi ask whether a Kometz affixed to the wall or bottom of the vessel is considered as though it has been placed inside of it.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:25) apparently understands the Gemara differently, as the CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) points out in Menachos (11a). The Rambam understands that the Gemara's questions refer to the first vessel, the one in which the Minchah is brought and from which the Kometz is taken. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi ask whether the Kemitzah is acceptable if the Kohen sticks some of the dough of the Minchah onto the side of the vessel, or onto the bottom of an upturned vessel, and then takes that part of the Minchah as the Kometz.
The basis of the argument between Rashi and the Rambam appears to be as follows. According to Rashi, the Amora'im ask that in order for the vessel to be Mekadesh the Kometz, perhaps it does not suffice for the Kometz to enter the vessel, but rather the Kohen must perform a "Ma'aseh Hanachah" in the vessel -- he must place the Kometz in such a way that it is considered resting in the vessel. If the Kohen affixes the Kometz to the side of the vessel or to the bottom of the upturned vessel, does this act constitute an act of Hanachah, and even if it does not constitute an act of Hanachah, is an act of Hanachah necessary or does it suffice for the Kometz merely to enter the vessel?
The Rambam, on the other hand, maintains that it certainly is not necessary for the Kohen to perform an act of Hanachah in the vessel in order for the vessel to be Mekadesh the Kometz. It suffices for the Kometz merely to enter the vessel. Rather, the questions concern the act of Kemitzah. Does the act of Kemitzah require that the Kohen specifically sink his hand into the dough in the vessel and grasp a handful, or does it suffice to lift out dough that is stuck to the sides of the vessel or to lift out dough from the bottom of the upturned vessel? The Amora'im ask whether such acts are considered valid acts of Kemitzah. (M. KORNFELD)

48b----------------------------------------48b

2) "PIGUL" DISQUALIFIES THE COALS
QUESTION: Rav Papa asks whether a Machshavah of Pigul, an invalidating thought, disqualifies the Ketores if the Kohen has such a thought while he performs the Chafinah of the Ketores. The Gemara proves from a Beraisa that a Machshavah of Pigul does disqualify the Ketores. The Beraisa states that when a person who is Tamei as a Tevul Yom touches part of the Ketores he invalidates it. This implies that the degree of sanctity of the Ketores is great enough that it can become disqualified with Linah (being left overnight) as well. Accordingly, the degree of sanctity of the Ketores is also great enough that it can become disqualified through a Machshavah of Pigul (intent at the time of the Chafinah to leave it overnight).
Rav Papa asks another, related question. Does a Machshavah of Pigul disqualify the coals on which the Ketores is burned if the Kohen has such a thought while he shovels them from the Mizbe'ach? Are the coals, which are Machshirei Mitzvah, considered like the Mitzvah (the Ketores) itself and a thought of Pigul disqualifies them, or are they not considered like the Mitzvah itself and a thought Pigul does not disqualify them?
What is Rav Papa's question? The same Beraisa that states that the Ketores becomes disqualified when a Tevul Yom touches it (from which the Gemara infers that the Ketores also becomes disqualified with Linah and Pigul) states that coals become disqualified when a Tevul Yom touches them! The Gemara should infer that the coals also become disqualified through Linah and Pigul, just as it infers that Linah and Pigul disqualify the Ketores!
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI apparently addresses this question. In his first explanation of the Gemara, Rashi writes that Rav Papa's question is not whether the coals become disqualified by a Machshavah of Pigul. Rather, his question is whether the Ketores becomes disqualified if the Kohen, as he shovels the coals for the Ketores, thinks about leaving the Ketores overnight. Is the shoveling of the coals considered the beginning of the procedure of the Ketores, such that a Machshavah of Pigul during the shoveling of the coals disqualifies the Ketores? The answer to that question cannot be inferred from the Beraisa.
(b) In his second explanation, Rashi writes that Rav Papa's question indeed is whether the coals themselves become disqualified with Pigul. Nevertheless, the answer to his question cannot be inferred from the Beraisa. When the Beraisa teaches that the coals are holy and become disqualified when touched by a Tevul Yom, this implies only that the coals can become disqualified with Linah as well, but not with Pigul. To become disqualified with Pigul, the Kohen must have the Machshavah of Pigul during an Avodah, but the act of shoveling the coals is not an Avodah. Even though the coals have Kedushah (and therefore can become disqualified when touched by a Tevul Yom or through Linah), perhaps they cannot become disqualified with Pigul because the act of shoveling the coals does not constitute an Avodah. (TOSFOS (DH Chishav) accepts this explanation as well.)
(c) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH explain that when the Beraisa states that a Tevul Yom's touch disqualifies the coals, it does not imply that Linah and Pigul also disqualify the coals. Linah is equivalent to the Pesul of Tevul Yom only in the case of an object which itself is offered ("b'Etzem ha'Davar ha'Karev"), such as the Ketores. The coals, though, are not offered themselves (they are used only to offer the Ketores), and therefore Linah and Pigul might not affect them even if they have Kedushah.
(d) RABEINU CHANANEL groups the two questions together (does Pigul disqualify the Ketores, and does Pigul disqualify the coals). He writes that the Gemara indeed proves from the Beraisa that Pigul disqualifies both. He apparently had a different text in the Gemara, according to which the Beraisa is cited after the question of the coals. (This indeed was the Girsa in an early edition of the Gemara, as cited by the Dikdukei Sofrim, note #400.)
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:27) rules that Pigul does disqualify the coals. The commentators question why the Rambam gives a conclusive ruling in the matter when the Gemara itself leaves the matter unresolved (and as the Rambam himself rules with regard to the other questions). (With regard to the other questions in the Gemara which are left unanswered, the Rambam rules that one may be lenient b'Di'eved.)
The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM and the CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) suggest that the Rambam had the same Girsa as Rabeinu Chananel, according to which the Gemara itself rules that Pigul disqualifies the coals.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF