What is the Halachah if a Kohen mixes up these Avodos, and performs Belilah
with Rekikin or Meshichah with Chalos? Would the Menachos still be valid?
(a) The RE'EM (Vayikra 2:4) says that if one does the wrong act, such as
Belilah with Rekikin or Meshichah with Chalos, he invalidates them and they
may not be offered.
(b) Both the LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:8) and the
MINCHAS CHINUCH (116:10) are perplexed by this view. What is the source to
say that these Menachos are Pasul? On the contrary, the Mishnah earlier
(18a) states that if one did not do Meshichah or Belilah for a Minchah, the
Minchah is still valid! This implies that these actions are not parts of the
Avodah which invalidate the Minchah.
The Minchas Chinuch adds another reason for why the switching of Meshichah
and Belilah should not invalidate the Minchah. He says that the only
difference between Chalos and Rekikin is that Belilah is done with one of
them, and Meshichah is done with the other. There is no other difference
between them. This means that if one did not do Belilah to his Chalos, and
decided afterwards to do Meshichah, he is not doing Meshichah to his Chalos,
but rather he is turning his Korban into Rekikin! The Minchas Chinuch says,
therefore, that he does not know of any reason for why this would
invalidate the Minchah, and not merely turn it into a different Korban. (The
Minchas Chinuch notes that he did not delve deeply into the topic, and
therefore the topic needs further clarification.)
Regarding the second comment of the Minchas Chinuch, we find that the IBN
EZRA (Shemos 29:2) writes that there indeed is another difference between
Chalos and Rekikin. The Chalos are baked as thick loaves, and the Rekikin
are baked as thin loaves. This is also implied by the TIFERES YISRAEL in
CHOMER BA'KODESH (2:42).
Nevertheless, the CHAZON ISH (Menachos 25:13) still supports the assertion
of the Minchas Chinuch that Belilah would turn a Minchah into Chalos instead
of Rekikin. The Chazon Ish explains that because the Belilah makes the form
of the Minchah turn out different than it turns out without Belilah, the
mixing of the oil into the Minchah turns it into a Chalah, and not into
Rekikin.
The KEREN ORAH finds a source that states that switching the Meshichah and
Belilah indeed invalidates the Minchah. The Tosefta (8:3) says that "we find
that what is valid by Chalos is Pasul by Rekikin, and what is valid by
Rekikin is Pasul by Chalos." Nevertheless, even though there is a source for
the ruling of the Re'em, why does the Re'em rule like the Tosefta and not
like the implication of the Mishnah earlier (18a)?
The Keren Orah explains that the Re'em understands that the Mishnah and
Tosefta are not contradicting each other. When the Mishnah states that the
lack of Belilah and Meshichah do not invalidate a Minchah, it is assuming
that the oil reached the Minchah in a different manner. However, Belilah and
Meshichah done to the wrong type of Minchah can cause the oil not to be
present at all. For example, Chalos -- which were supposed to have
Belilah -- must be mixed with oil *before* they are baked. If one decided to
do Meshichah to such a Minchah of Chalos instead of doing Belilah, he would
be adding the oil only *after* the baking of the Minchah. Consequently, the
Minchah would be Pasul, because it was lacking oil when it was baked.
Why, though, should the Chalos be Pasul because of the lack of oil? The
Minchah would still would have the oil from the Matan b'Kli, the placing of
oil into the vessel at the beginning of the preparation of the Minchah! The
Keren Orah explains that perhaps the Re'em's understanding of the Mishnah is
based on the ruling of the Rambam, who maintains that Matan b'Kli is not
done for a Minchas Ma'afeh.
(The Keren Orah suggests that the same problem should exist in the opposite
situation -- Belilah done to Rekikin could invalidate the Rekikin. However,
he says that it is clear that the Rambam would rule that the Rekikin would
be valid in such a case.) (Y. Montrose)