Iyun Masechet Sota: 15a

 

The opening mishna of the second perek highlights the contrasts between the mincha of a sota and the regular  menachot that are brought as korbanot on various occasions: "all of the menachot need oil and levona but this one [minchat sota]  does not require oil and levona; all of the menachot are brought from wheat while this one is brought from barley, for minchat ha-omer, even though it is from barley, is from a finely sifted flour unlike minchat sota that is from plain flour.  R. Gamliel says: as her acts are animal-like acts, so is her korban from animal food."

 

The list of contrasts presented in the mishna leads us to the obvious question: what is the significance of these differences?  Are they simply a catalogue of contrasts that exist between minchat sota and other korbanot or do they reflect a more basic dichotomy between it and the other korbanot? 

 

Although the simplest interpretation of the mishna is probably the former, both Rashi and the Rambam, in light of a gemara  in Menachot (5b), perceive a radical difference between minchat sota and other korbanot.  The gemara there claims that the halakha of "shelo leshma" (that a korban is disqualified if it is not brought with the proper intention to be a korban that is sacrificed for a certain purpose) does not apply to minchat ha-omer, since the disqualification of shelo leshma applies only to korbanot that are worthy of being korbanot while minchat ha-omer is not considered a bona fide korban.  As the gemara does not explain this statement, various interpretations were offered to explain the unworthiness of the korban ha-omer.  Rashi and the Rambam interpret the gemara as claiming that minchat ha-omer cannot be considered a proper korban since it is brought from barley and not from wheat, thereby requiring us to seek its essence outside the world of korbanot.  Tosfot and the Ravad offer alternative interpretations that reject Rashi and the Rambam's line of reasoning.  The logic of Rashi and the Rambam's suggestion would apply to minchat sota as well and Rashi is well aware of this.  It, too, he  claims is essentially not a korban (even though the disqualification of shelo leshma DOES apply to minchat sota), but a mechanism of discovery whether the sota sinned or not ("levarer avon").  The Rambam also limits the applicability of shelo lishma to minchat sota in certain instances, but he does not adopt Rashi's sweeping interpretation of minchat sota, as the Ravad already noticed and questioned. 

 

The emphasis upon the barley–wheat distinction is somewhat surprising, as both are forms of grain and share many halakhic characteristics (see mishna Challah 1:1, Pesachim 35a etc.) Apparently, Rashi considers barley unworthy of a korban since it is primarily used for livestock and not for human consumption.  Regarding halakhot that are a function of an object's agricultural definition, all grain share similar halakhot regardless of their importance.  If their morphology and botanic classification are similar, they both qualify as grain for halakhot that relate to bread and baked products, (such as matza and berakha), regardless of their importance.  However, korbanot, that are a tribute offered to God, do take into account the worthiness and dignity of the offering.  This idea, familiar to us from the story of Kayin and Hevel, finds its halakhic expression in the concept, mentioned in our sugya (14b), of "hakrivehu na lephekhatekha" ("try giving it to your boss").  Lest anyone think that this rejection of unworthy or stingy offerings is merely a spiritual directive that lacks halakhic significance, it should be pointed out that the gemara (Menahot 64a) rules that if a scrawny undignified animal was brought as a korban, it is permissible to slaughter a prime animal on Shabbat as a replacement.  [For more information on this topic, see the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry of "hakrivehu na lepekhatekha."] Therefore, since barley is considered animal feed rather than human food, it cannot be a korban, despite the fact that it is grain. 

 

Rashi's interpretation of the wheat-barley distinction should cause us to consider the oil and levona issue as well, since both are grouped together in the mishna as unique to minchat sota.  Is the lack of these ingredients in minchat sota due to its being a lesser (or non) korban as Rashi understood the issue of the barley or not?

 

To answer this query, we must inquire what is the role of the oil and levona in a classic mincha.  The mishna in Menachot (27a) rules that the oil and grain in a mincha are indispensable to each other ("me'akvin zeh et zeh), but the wine that accompanies a mincha is not crucial for the grain(44b).  The logic that underlies this distinction is the different roles that the wine and the oil play within the mincha.  Although both serve as vegetative offerings that work in tandem with the grain to offer the KBH the basics of agricultural produce in the form of a korban (grain, wine and oil – "dagan, tirosh veyitzhar" – are grouped together in Tanakh as representative of the bounty of the earth), there is a basic difference in their role and function within the korban.  The wine accompanies the mincha but is not integrated into its fabric while the oil is combined with the grain to create a dough that is offered together.  Unlike the wine, the oil is integrated into the texture of the dough and serves it by transforming the flour into dough.  Therefore, it is not brought in a separate vessel as the wine nor can it be postponed and offered at a later date as the wine (see Menachot 74b-75a, 44b); and since the korban is a mincha of dough/bread and not grain, lack of the oil is critical as it prevents the flour from becoming dough. 

 

The difference between oil and wine in menachot expresses itself in many other sources as well.  The mishna (Menachot 104b) records a machloket between R. Akiva and R. Tarfon if oil can be brought as an independent korban or not.  R. Tarfon, who answers in the affirmative, explains his position by equating oil with wine and proving from wine that the accompanying liquids can be brought independently: "As we have found that wine is brought as an obligation [that accompanies a mincha] and is brought as a voluntary offering [i.e. independently], so, too, oil that is an obligation can be brought as an independent korban as well."  R. Akiva, though, objects that "wine is not a similar case [to oil] since it is offered as an independent accompaniment to a mincha while the oil is integrated into the mincha and is unknown to exist as a separate korban." 

 

As R. Tarfon does not deny the facts presented by R. Akiva, their argument must be understood to revolve around our understanding of the oil's status in the mincha system.  Thus, although R. Tarfon admits that the oil is mixed with the flour, he perceives this solely as an expedient form of offering two independent components and not as the essence of the oil's function, while R. Akiva is of the opinion that the oil becomes a component of the dough that lacks independent status, as the language of the Torah itself regarding oil (in contrast to its description of wine) - "mincha BELULA BA-SHEMEN" – implies.  The psukim in Yechezkel (46:14) that describe the oil as "shemen shlishit hahin laross et hasolet" – a third of a hin of oil to knead the flour [of the mincha] serve to further emphasize R. Akiva's concept that is concisely formulated in Menachot 79b in a statement that defines the oil as "shemen gufa demincha."

 

Since the role of oil in menachot is one of the basic issues of masechet Menachot, our discussion of it cannot begin to be comprehensive.  Therefore, at this point, we shall cease our treatment of the topic as such and simply provide the following basic sources for those interested in additional treatment: Menachot 8a, 9b, 22b-23a, 74b-75a, 103b and other scattered sugyot.  In addition, Zevachim 91b should be consulted for a fuller treatment of R.  Tarfon's position.

 

At this stage of our discussion, we must look into the status of the oil and levona in a minchat choteh (a sinner's offering that is prohibited from using oil and levona) and minchat sota.  At first glance, it would seem that if the oil serves the purpose of creating a dough out of the flour, its absence is a major deficiency in the mincha, while if it simply accompanies and embellishes the mincha, its denial to the sinner only results in a simpler korban but not in a radically different mincha.

 

Interestingly, the Torah not only prohibits to pour oil and levona into such a korban but also treats a korban without oil as a separate category of a "dry" korban.  Thus, the Torah mentions halakhot that apply to "every mincha mixed with oil and to a dry mincha" (Vayikra 7:10), treating the mincha without oil as a different entity than a regular mincha.  This gave rise to a machloket among Amoraim (Menachot 54a) whether it is permissible/necessary to knead the dough of such a mincha with water or not.  R. Ila ruled that the mincha must be totally dry since the abolishment of oil in these menachot created a different object from the normal mincha, while R. Yitzchak ben Avidimi advises kneading it with water because the Torah was only interested in abolishing oil as a premium liquid from the mincha and not in a different kind of mincha. 

 

[Here, too, regarding the halakhot of oil and levona in a minchat choteh, the interested reader is referred to the following sources for additional information: Menachot 8a, 23a and 59b-60a.]

 

Let us now return to our sugya.  The gemara records a list of differences between minchat sota and regular menachot that includes the switch from wheat to barley, the absence of a kli sharet and the lack of oil and levona in minchat sota.  As mentioned above, Rashi in Menachot cites the fact that minchat sota is from barley to prove that it is not really a korban, since its essence ("kiyum") is to serve as a clarification of the marital status and not to be presented as a token of love and appreciation from man to God.  In light of Rashi's claim and our above discussion, it is quite plausible that all of the three criteria mentioned in the mishna are due to its lacking the kiyum of a korban.  If, on the one hand, oil and levona are necessary to create the proper object of a mincha, and on the other hand, we are told that they are missing from a minchat sota, a highly probable conclusion is Rashi's claim that minchat sota is essentially not a real mincha.

 

After discussing the mishna, the gemara quotes R. Shimon's remark that the mincha should have included oil and levona but these were eliminated so that the sinner should not have a luxurious korban.  This would seem to imply that the need for oil and levona is an extrinsic requirement that embellishes the offering and makes it more "mehudar" but it is not an essential element per se; therefore, the sinner does not utilize them, for although he must bring a korban, a plain humble offering is far more desirable for his needs than an ambitious self confident korban.  However, if denial of oil and levona transform the offering into a non-korban, R. Shimon's line of reasoning does not apply.  R. Shimon's position seems to be that minchat sota is a legitimate korban that is not as fancy as other korbanot, due to circumstance. 

 

The result of this analysis is that Rashi's position must be based upon Tana Kama who presumably considers the differences between minchat sota and other menachot as more basic than R. Shimon does (or that the switch to barley is more basic than the elimination of the oil).  Surprisingly, though, the gemara in Menachot (6a-b) reverses this logic and allies R. Shimon with Rashi.  In response to the mishna's statement that both a regular mincha and a sinner's mincha are disqualified if performed by a non-kohen, the gemara explains that the need to single out minchat choteh is due to R. Shimon, since we were liable to have thought that he would not disqualify a sinner's korban in such a case because it is not really a korban that requires a kohen.  The gemara's reasoning is that since the oil and levona do indeed create the requisite object needed for a mincha and this is missing in a minchat choteh, the only possible conclusion to be derived from this is that it is not a korban, as Rashi claimed.  Although this claim is only a preliminary suggestion that is rejected, it, nevertheless, remains closely allied with Rashi's position, for this preliminary suggestion actually took Rashi's idea a step further than Rashi himself claimed.  Rashi's statement relates to the essence of the korban, not the act of sacrificing it, or, to make the same claim in a more "lomdishe" idiom, Rashi's claim is that the kiyum of minchat sota is not a kiyum korban, even though the ma'aseh is a ma'aseh hakrava.  The hava amina, though, attempted to suggest that according to R.  Shimon, we would have thought that even the ma'aseh is not a ma'aseh hakrava and can be performed by a non-kohen.  All that's rejected by the gemara in its conclusion, therefore, is the idea there is no ma'aseh hakrava in a minchat choteh; this, however, does not rule out Rashi's paradigm that the minchat sota is a ma'aseh hakrava without a kiyum of korban that requires a kohen.  This leaves the gemara's axiom that a minchat sota is less of a korban according to R. Shimon in place, ready to be utilized by Rashi.

 

[I have purposely limited the discussion to the role and function of oil and have not related to the levona, since oil itself suffices to prove our points regarding minchat sota and the expansion of our discussion to take in levona as well as oil is impractical in the confines of this format, as the inclusion of levona would have required an additional lengthy treatment of levona issues that are somewhat different than oil issues.]

 

     The final detail mentioned in the mishna also reflects the distinction between a regular mincha whose essence is a korban and is therefore delivered to the Mikdash ready to become a korban in a vessel that can bestow kedushah (in theory, if not in practice) while the minchat sota is brought in a dish that is designed to facilitate the sota procedure and is not part of the korbanot system.  Eventually, the minchat sota will require a kli sharet, as the opening mishna of the next perek makes clear, since it will be brought to the mizbeach; the point of our sugya, though, if on the de'oraita level and if midrabanan, is to highlight the basic difference between minchat sota and other korbanot as reflected in its arrival in the Mikdash and its presentation to the kohen.