Makos 18b

1 – Kol ha’Ro’uy l’Bilah, Ein Bilah Me’akeves Bo; v’she’Ein Ra’uy l’Bilah, Bilah Me’akeves Bo.

כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו

What does this classic statement mean?

Basically – when one brings a Mincha offering the ratio of flour to oil needs to be a maximum of 60:1. This is because the Torah says that the ingredients need to be mixed. If additional flour is added, then the blending of the two will not be accomplished properly.

Paradoxically, when all the ingredients are placed in one pan and the schlemiel [prior to the Kemitza and placement upon the Mizbeach] forgets to blend the mixture of flour and oil, the Mitzvah is considered done (albeit B’dieved).

So if the mixing is not important why should we care if the ratio is, say, 70:1? It needs not to be blended anyway (Be’Dieved)?

Good question. The answer is given in multiple places in Shas by Reb Zeira:

A Mincha needs to have the possibility and the option to be mixed. Thus a 60:1 Mincha can in theory be mixed properly even if ultimately the mixing never occurs.

Conversely if too much flour is added then it could have never have been properly mixed – it has lost the possibility.
So in the Shiur we see the Gemara utilizing this concept with regards to Bikkurim.

Performing the Mitzvah of Bikkurim, once arriving in Yerushalayim, is a multi-step process.

1. The Reading of the verses mentioned in the Torah; thanking G-d for the blessings bestowed and enabling the farmer to harvest his produce.
2. The Placing of the fruit next to the Mizbeach.

What if one does A and not B? Or the reverse, B and not A?

We find two contradictory statements that address this question:

One states that the Bikkurim fruits must be placed next to the Mizbeach in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikkurim.

In contrast, the Reading of the Parshah of Bikkurim, although it is a Mitzvah, is not essential to fulfilling the Mitzvah of Bikkurim; if one fails to read the Parshah of Bikkurim, one still fulfills the Mitzvah of Bikkurim.

In a different statement we find that if a person prepares his Bikkurim before Sukkos but does not bring the fruit to the Beis Hamikdash until after Sukkos, he should leave them to rot.

Apparently, this is because one cannot read the Parshah of Bikkurim after Sukkos. This statement implies that the Reading of the Parshah is an integral part of the Mitzvah, and without it one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikkurim at all.

The Gemara reconciles these two statements using the above principle of “Kol ha’Ro’uy l’Bilah, Ein Bilah Me’akeves Bo; v’she’Ein Ra’uy l’Bilah, Bilah Me’akeves Bo.”  כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו

As above, this rule teaches that it is possible for an act which is not an integral part of a Mitzvah to still be an obstacle to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. If part of the Mitzvah cannot be applied in a certain case, then that component of the Mitzvah prevents the fulfillment of the entire Mitzvah. If that part can be done but just happens not to have been fulfilled, then it does not impede the fulfillment of the entire Mitzvah.

This explains the above seemingly contradictory statements.  In the first statement, the reading of the Parshah is integral to the Mitzvah of bringing Bikkurim, but if one does not do it he nevertheless fulfills the Mitzvah because he can do the reading.

However, if a person is in a situation in which he cannot read the Parshah, such as when he delayed the bringing of the Bikkurim until after Sukkos (as discussed above), then the inability to read the Parshah does indeed impede the fulfillment of the entire Mitzvah.

2- We spoke about the question posed to the Rebbe in 1944 by Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz from Tzfas/ Winnipeg Canada.

He was one of the first to urge the Rebbe to accept the ‘Nesius’ in 1950…..and was sharply rebuked……

Open this link to see his most interesting history and photo.

Also see here page 12.

Background: On Shavuos in addition to the Yom Tov offerings there is a unique Mitzva to bring the Shtei Halechem – two loaves of bread made of Chametz accompanied by animal offerings.   These loaves were distributed to the Kohanim to eat.

Surprisingly the Zohar states that the Shtei Halechem were “burned upon the Mizbe’ach”!!!

Rabbi Horowitz asked the Rebbe for an explanation since it is obvious that these breads were Chometz (and as we say daily at the end of Ketores “anything with Chometz or honey is prohibited to be placed on the Mizbeach” and were entirely consumed by the Kohanim.

The Rebbe quotes at length the history of all the attempts to reconcile this difficult passage in the Zohar. Interestingly, no less than Reb Chaim Vital suggests an answer… which he himself admits is a stretch!

In short: The Rebbe’s answer is, one may humbly say, disarmingly simple.

The Rebbe quotes a Gemara that states the laws of placing ‘remnants’ on the Mizbeach.

The Torah requires that certain parts of the Karbanos be offered on the Mizbeach. These parts are collectively termed “Eimurim.”

It is prohibited to offer any other part (remnants of what was already placed on the Mizbeach) of the Korban on the Mizbeach.

The Gemara enumerates examples of placing on the Mizbeach “other parts”. One of them is Shtei Halechem!

The Gemara asks: Shtei Halechem? How are they “other parts”? They are not remnants of any part that was placed already on the Mizbeach since no part of them ever reached the Mizbeach!?

The Gemora answers that the Shtei Halechem are part and parcel of the accompanying animal offerings. They are inseparable parts of the total package. So despite the Shtei Halechem never reaching the Mizbeach they are considered “remnants” of this total Korban.

Thus, after placing the parts of the Eimurim (animal parts) on the Mizbeach, nothing else remaining from this Korban can be added. Not the remaining animal parts nor the Shtei Halechem themselves.

So in a sense the Shtei Halechem and the animal offerings are deemed to be placed on the Mizbeach!

And concludes the Rebbe that is what the Zohar meant. The Shtei Halechem was an integral part of the korban that needs to be brought upon the Mizbeach.

See there entire letter as the Rebbe continues his explanation as to the Chasidisher explanation of all the above.