POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Menachos 4
1) WHY EACH DID NOT LEARN LIKE THE OTHERS
(a) Rabah and Rava disagreed about whether the clarity of Lo
Lishmah is reason to Posel or Machshir - R. Hoshaya was
unsure about his.
2) WHEN DOES "SHE'LO LISHMAH" INVALIDATE THE OFFERING?
1. Question (R. Hoshaya): What does R. Shimon say about
Kemitzah of a Minchah l'Shem a Zevach?
(b) R. Asi and R. Hoshaya did not answer like Rabah, on
account of Abaye's question (4:c Daf 2B, Shinuy Ba'alim
and Shinuy Kodesh should have the same law.) (We cannot
answer like before, there is more reason to Posel when
the Lo Lishmah is evident, for R. Hoshaya and R. Asi were
unsure about this.)
i. Perhaps an evident Lo Lishmah is Kosher (like
Rabah) - if so, surely this is Kosher!
2. R. Asi: We are unsure of R. Shimon's reason.
ii. Or, perhaps he learns from "V'Zos Toras
ha'Minchah" (like Rava) - the verse does not
mention Zevachim, therefore, this is Pasul!
(c) They did not answer like Rava, for if so, R. Shimon
should similarly expound "V'Zos Toras ha'Chatas";
(d) They did not answer like Rav Ashi, on account of Rav
(a) (Mishnah): ...Except for Minchas Chotei and Minchas
Kena'os (Avodah Lo Lishmah in either of them is Posel.)
3) A "MACHSHIR" THAT DID NOT PERMIT
(b) Question: We understand why Minchas Chotei Lo Lishmah is
Pasul - the Torah calls it Chatas, "Lo Yasim Aleha
Shemen...Ki Chatas Hi".
1. But why is Minchas Kena'os Lo Lishmah Pasul?
(c) Answer #1: A reciter of Beraisos taught - Mosar (the
leftover of money Hukdash to buy) Minchas Kena'os goes to
Nedavah (to buy Olos (Rashi; Rambam - Menachos) Nedavah.)
1. Rav Nachman: That is correct - we learn from a
(d) Question #1: If so, also Asham Lo Lishmah should be
Pasul, we should learn "Avon-Avon" from Chatas!
i. Regarding Minchas Kena'os it says "Mazkeres
Avon", regarding Chatas it says "Lases Es Avon
2. Summation of answer: Similarly, just as Chatas Lo
Lishmah is Pasul, also Minchas Kena'os.
ii. Just as Mosar Chatas is Nedavah, also Mosar
(e) Answer #1: We learn Minchas Kena'os "Avon-Avon" from
Chatas, we do not learn Asham, for there it says "Avono".
(f) Objection: We can learn from a Gezerah Shavah, even if
the words are not the same!
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "*V'Shav*
ha'Kohen-*U'Va* ha'Kohen" - this (Gezeirah Shavah)
equates the law (of a house with Tzara'as) when the
Kohen (first) returns with when he comes (another
(g) Question #2 (against answer (c)): We should learn Asham
"Avono-Avono" from Shevu'as ha'Edus - "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa
(h) Answer (to Questions 1 and 2, and Rejection of answer
(c)): The Gezerah Shavah only teaches that the Mosar goes
1. Suggestion: We should say that when we learn from a
Gezerah Shavah, we learn all laws from it!
(i) Question (b), broadened: Since we cannot learn (even
Minchas Chotei) from Chatas, what is the source that Lo
Lishmah is Posel *Minchas Chotei and* Minchas Kena'os?
2. Rejection: "V'Shochat Osah l'Chatas" - only Chatas
(must be Lishmah, and) if it is not Lishmah, it is
Pasul - other Kodshim, even Lo Lishmah, are Kosher.
(j) Answer #2: We learned that Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul
from "(Chatas) Hi" - similarly, it says "Hi" regarding
(k) Question: We should say that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul,
for it says "Hu" regarding Asham!
(l) Answer: It says "Hu" regarding Asham after Haktaras
1. (Beraisa): It says "Hu" regarding Asham after
Haktaras ha'Eimurim - Lo Lishmah in Haktarah is no
worse than omitting Haktarah, it does not Posel
(once Zerikah was done, the Korban is Kosher).
(m) Question What do we learn from "Hu"?
(n) Answer: This teaches Rav Huna's law.
1. (Rav Huna): If an Asham was Nitak (given to a
shepherd) to graze (until it becomes blemished, it
will then be redeemed and an Olas Nedavah will be
bought with the money) and was slaughtered (in the
Mikdash) Stam (without intent for Asham, Olah or any
other Korban), it is Kosher.
2. Inference: If it was not Nitak (and was slaughtered
Stam), it is Pasul.
3. We learn from "Hu" - it is still an Asham (until it
is Nitak or Ne'ekar (slaughtered l'Shem a different
(a) (Rav): If Minchas ha'Omer was Nikmatz Lo Lishmah, it is
Pasul, since it comes to permit (Chadash) and (since Lo
Alah l'Shem Chovah,) it did not permit;
(b) Similarly, if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was
slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to
permit (drinking wine or eating Kodshim) and it did not.
(c) Question (Mishnah): If Kemitzah of any Minchah was Lo
Lishmah, it is Kosher, but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah, except
for Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os.
1. According to Rav, also Minchas ha'Omer Lo Lishmah is
(d) Answer #1: The Mishnah only lists Menachos brought by an
individual, not of the Tzibur.
(e) Answer #2: The Mishnah only lists Menachos brought by
themselves, not those accompanied by a Zevach (a lamb is
brought with the Omer.)
(f) Answer #3: The Mishnah only lists Menachos without a
(g) (Rav): Similarly, if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was
slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to
permit and it did not.
(h) Question (Mishnah): Any Zevach that was slaughtered Lo
Lishmah is Kosher, but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah, except for
Pesach or Chatas.
1. According to Rav, also Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora
Lo Lishmah is Pasul!
(i) Answer: The Tana could not say decisively that (any)
Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul, for some come to atone (not to
permit), e.g. Asham Gezeilos and Asham Me'ilos (and they
are Kosher Lo Lishmah), therefore he did not teach them
(j) Question: We say that if a Korban comes to permit and
does not permit it is Pasul - likewise, we should say
that if a Korban comes to atone and does not atone, it is
(k) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): We find that the Torah
distinguishes between Mechaprim and Machshirim -
Mechaprim sometimes come after death, Machshirim never
1. (Mishnah): If a Yoledes brought her Chatas (which is
Machshir her to Kodshim) and died (before bringing
her Olah, which is Mechaper), her heirs bring her
(l) Question (Rav Yehudah brei d'R. Shimon ben Pazi): Also
Machshirim sometimes come after death!
2. If she brought her Olah and died, her heirs do not
bring her Chatas.
1. (Mishnah): If a man was Makdish money *Stam* for his
Korbanos Nezirus (he did not specify how much for
each Korban), it is forbidden to benefit from them;
(if one benefited) there is no Me'ilah, because all
the money may be used for Shelamim (in which there
is no Me'ilah until after Zerikah);
(m) Answer (Rav Papa): R. Yirmeyah meant, a *fixed* Machshir
(it permits something which nothing else permits) never
comes after death;
2. If he died leaving Stam money, it goes to Nedavah
(to buy Olos Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach).
3. If he died leaving Mefurash money (he designated how
much is for each Korban):
i. The money for the Chatas is thrown in the Dead
Sea, it is forbidden to benefit from them;
there is no Me'ilah (for nothing can be offered
with this money);
4. Summation of question: Olah and Shelamim of a Nazir
are Machshirim, they come after death!
ii. The money for the Olah is used to bring an
Olah, Me'ilah applies to it;
iii. The money for the Shelamim is used to bring a
Shelamim, it is eaten for one day and a night
(like Shalmei Nazir), but it is not accompanied
1. Korbanos of Nazir are not fixed, for if a Nazir
shaved after bringing any one of them, he fulfilled
(n) Question (against Rav - Beraisa): If an Asham Metzora was
slaughtered Lo Lishmah, or if the blood was not put on
the (ear and) Behonos (thumb and toe), it is offered on
the Mizbe'ach, it is accompanied by Nesachim, another
Asham is required (to permit him to Kodshim).
(o) Rav is refuted.