Ketores

The Gemorah Zevachim 109b says that if one burns aכזית  of קטורת outside the mikdash it is a violation of העלאת חוץ.  Normally, one is only liable for a הקטרה that would be valid if done in the mikdash.  Tosfos proves from here that the amount of ketores that must be burnt in order to fulfill the mitzvah is an olive’s amount.  However, the Gemorah in Kerisos (6b) says that they would split aמנה  into half and burn half in the morning and half in the afternoon which is much larger than a כזית?  Tosfos says that the amount of a מנה  is a הלכה למשה מסיני, howeverבדיעבד  one fulfills the obligation by burning an olive’s amount.  [That would seem to be the explanation of the Tosfos if you don’t change the text as some Achronim do.]

However, Rashi in Zevachim says that the amount of taking a מנה and splitting it into two to burn it is only Rabbinic.  Asks the Mishne Lemelech (Timidim 3:2) if so, why is one obligated only for coping a מנה of קטורת, one should be obligated for a כזית?  The Briskor Rav (Menachos 49a) cites his brother, the גר"מ, that one fulfills the obligation of offering the ketores with an olive’s worth, but it is only defined as a korban, it only has a שם קרבן if it is a מנה. 

The Briskor Rav (Kli Mikdash) points out that the Rambam says the mitzvah of offering ketores is incumbent upon the kohanaim as opposed to korbanot which are an obligation on Klal Yisroel.  He explains that in regard to korbanot the mitzvah is the attonement achieved as by the nation as opposed to ketores the mitzvah is merely to do an act of burning, which is performed by the kohanim.  In line with this reasoning he cites Rav Chaim said there is no pesul is the ketores was burnt without having in mind for the sake of the tzibbur because the act of burning the ketores was done.  This is quite interesting for the Rachash Lavuv #47 cites from the Beis Halevi that if the ketores is offered not for the sake of the owner it is indeed posul.  Even though we don’t have a derasha to say it should be pasul, since one may not voluntarily offer a ketores offering, a korban not being offered for the owner defacto becomes a voluntary offering and in the case of ketores that makes it pasul.  It would seem to be a contradiction within the Brisker dynasty as to how we should view a ketores that was offered not for the sake of the owner.
See update on that here.

Of course, the approach of Rav Chaim and the Rav is classic Brisk and they explain the vos but not the farvus.  Now despite the fact that it may be apekorses to ask such a question but there are certain instances when I feel the farvus is quite glaring and apparent.  Why is ketores different than other communal offerings?!  Possibly we can explain based upon the Ramban at the end of last week’s parsha that explains that the ketores has a power of din, it can cause great harm, yet it can bring great reward as well.  One can offer a korban and achieve atonement, however the ketores has a power to change din into rachamim.  That power is not within a person’s reach.  All the person can do is to offer the maaseh hakravah and the transformation into rachamim will happen by itself as the offering climbs the heavenly spheres.