Menachot 74

He's of his Masechus Mennachos stuff.

I indulged the first Mishnah and of a base,

teaches us which are the offerings that are entirely burned

on the Miesbach with no part of them being eaten

by the Koranim, by the priest.

And this list includes the meal offering of the Koranim,

that of the Koy Mashiach, the Koyangadol, the high priest,

and that brought with the Nasechim,

the libations that came with the Olot,

the Korbanat, the Fully Burnt, and the Shlamim,

the other types of Korbanat.

Regarding these, we learn,

uvazet, jaffet, Koyach, Miesbach, Mikoach, Koranim.

We see that the power of the altar,

the Miesbach, is even greater than the Koyach,

than the power of the Koranim, as it fully consumes

those meal offerings and none of it goes to the Koranim.

The Gammara subsequently notes that this phrase

in the Mishnah was coming to exclude the opinion of Shmuel,

which was first brought, and we learned in Zvachim,

Sadik Althamir Bez, and brought here again,

where he taught that one who donates wine

for Nasechim, for libations too,

the Bezimik does, brings it and pours it, Mizalfo,

over at the fires of the Miesbach,

it's more like an animal offering,

and not a libation, and therefore the language of the Mishnah

teaches us that wine donated this way,

goes to the drain pipes, not like Shmuel,

who said that it gets burned.

In the Gammara in Zvachim, we learned that even though

the wine droplets could cause the fire to be extinguished,

in the place that he pours it,

the Torah says explicitly in Pasha Satsav,

say for Vajigra, Paragvav Pasha Gvav,

Ishtami Tukadal Miesbach, Loh Sihbach,

we are not allowed to extinguish the fire

that's on top of the alt of the Miesbach.

So this is permitted, however,

according to the opinion of Rabshimon,

who holds Davar, Shayna, Miskavin, Pator.

General principal, when a person performs a prohibited act

and does so without any intention at all

for that prohibited result,

he's going to be exempt from the prohibition.

The prohibition is not going to be attached to his action.

However, in Akhinami, according to Rabhihudah,

who disagrees with Rabshimon,

and he holds Davar, Shayna, Miskavin,

is, Asur, the person is gone ahead

and done something problematic.

One should not pour wine over the Miesbach,

one should not pour wine over the fire.

We don't look at it as if it's not his action.

So there is, however, a powerful question

of the Khalkas Yauaf.

So that's how we wrap up the whole issue in Zvachih.

But when it comes to this bigger question, Khalkas Yauaf,

brings in his clintress, Kavadakashyasa,

or he points out,

then in addition to the negative Midswa,

of the Torah saying Loh Sihbach,

when it comes to the fire,

not to extinguish the fire on the Miesbach,

there is a positive Midswa of Aish Tami Tukad,

on the Miesbach, the first part of the Pasuch,

which is to have a fire lit on the Miesbach, on the altar.

So if so, we could, of course,

invoke Roshimon's opinion of Davar, Shayna, Miskavin,

not being a violation.

But that's only applicable by prohibitions,

where we say a person perform a prohibition

without any Kavanaugh to do so.

They didn't mean to do the prohibition.

So we don't connect, we're not mithyachase,

the prohibited act, the result with that person.

But it's not a getative jail-free card,

when it comes to performing the positive Midswa,

the Midswa's as a say.

The Torah commanded us to light the altar's fire,

and one will have failed to do so,

if one will have failed to do so.

One can't just ignore this Midswa, it's a requirement.

So the morocid off brings this fascinating analysis

and quotes an approach from a Shimon Masha diskin,

in the say for Masha's and Malach,

Pasha's Tsav, where he differentiates between

the prohibition to extinguish the fire,

and the Midswa to light the fire.

And he says as follows,

the Midswa of kindling the fire,

of the Misbahach, Aish du Kada Misbah,

Tamihid remains in force.

So long as even part of the fire

is still existing on the Misbahach.

Some part of the fire that gets extinguished,

that's not considered that you've uprooted

the entire Midswa, since the fire really is still going.

However, diminishing the fire in some way,

that will indeed be a violation

of what the Torah is telling us low-sichtbar,

since one has extinguished part of the fire,

and therefore when it comes to the wine of Arsukya,

there is no violation of the positive Midswa,

of Aishami to Kada Misbah,

and the fear around the Midswa,

the negative Midswa is solved by our principle

of the Varshalomiscaving.

Personally, it didn't have intent

to do that prohibition, is going to end up being exempt.