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 9
1) THE "HEICHAL" IS NO WORSE THAN THE "AZARAH"
(a) Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira) Question: If
Nochrim surrounded (and were shooting projectiles into)
the Azarah, what is the source to permit Kohanim to enter
the Heichal to eat Kodshei Kodoshim (in safety)?
2) A "MINCHAH" KNEADED OUTSIDE THE "AZARAH"
1. Answer: "B'Kodesh ha'Kodoshim Tochalenu"
(b) Answer: A slave serves in front of his master -
therefore, it is even more proper to slaughter in a more
2. Summation of question: Why is this verse needed? It
says "Ba'Chatzer Ohel Mo'ed Yochluha" - the Tefel
(the Azarah) should not be greater than the Ikar
1. A slave does not eat in front of his master -
therefore, it is less proper to eat in a more Kadosh
place, 'Tefel should not be greater than Ikar' does
(a) (R. Yochanan): If a Minchah was kneaded outside the
Azarah, it is Pasul;
3) A "MINCHAH" THAT BECAME "CHASER"
(b) (Reish Lakish): It is Kosher.
(c) Reish Lakish learns from "Va'Yitzok Aleha Shemen v'Nosan
Aleha Levonah" - afterwards, "Ve'Hevi'ah El Benei Aharon
ha'Kohanim v'Komatz", from Kemitzah and onwards, Kohanim
must do the Avodah;
1. This teaches that a Zar may pour the oil in it and
(d) R. Yochanan is Posel - even though Kehunah is not needed,
since it is in a Kli Shares, it must be done in the
2. Since a Kohen is not needed, it need not be done in
(e) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If a Zar kneaded a
Minchah, it is Kosher; if it was kneaded outside the
Azarah, it is Pasul.
(a) (R. Yochanan): If a Minchah became Chaser before
Kemitzah, he should bring more to complete the Shi'ur;
(b) (Reish Lakish): He may not bring more.
1. R. Yochanan says that he brings more - it is not
called "ha'Minchah" (in which a lack cannot be
filled) until Kemitzah;
(c) Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If the Log of oil of a
Metzora became Chaser before putting from it on the
Metzora, he should bring more to complete the Shi'ur.
2. Reish Lakish says that he may not bring more - it
is called "ha'Minchah" from the time of Kidush (in
(d) Reish Lakish is refuted.
(e) (R. Yochanan): If Shirei Minchah became Chaser in between
Kemitzah and Haktarah, we Maktir the Kometz;
(f) (Reish Lakish): We do not Maktir it.
(g) There is no doubt about R. Eliezer's opinion, R. Yochanan
and Reish Lakish argue about R. Yehoshua's opinion:
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Even if the Shirayim became
Teme'im, were burned or lost, the Minchah is Kosher;
2. R. Yehoshua says, it is Pasul.
3. Reish Lakish holds like R. Yehoshua. (He cannot hold
like R. Eliezer, who is Machshir even when nothing
remains of the Shirayim, all the more so when they
are just Chaser!)
4. R. Yochanan says, (surely R. Eliezer and) even R.
Yehoshua holds like me!
i. R. Yehoshua is Posel only when nothing remains
of the Shirayim - when they are just Chaser, he
5. Support (R. Yochanan for himself - Beraisa - R.
Yehoshua): If a k'Zayis of the meat or Chelev of any
Zevach remains, we Zorek the blood;
6. If a half k'Zayis of the meat and a half k'Zayis of
Chelev of (almost) any Zevach remains, Zerikah is
i. The only exception is Olah - since it is Kalil
(entirely burned), meat and Chelev join.
7. Regarding a Minchah, even if it is totally intact,
Zerikah is not done.
4) "KEMITZAH" REQUIRES THE RIGHT HAND
(h) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If the Lechem ha'Panim
was Nifras before it was removed, the Lechem is Pasul, we
do not Maktir the Levonah;
i. Question: Zerikah (of blood) does not apply to
a Minchah (Haktarah is not called Zerikah!)
8. Rejection of Support: The law of a Minchah is
different, we learn from "V'Herim ha'Kohen Min
*ha'Minchah*...v'Hiktir" - if the entire Minchah is
intact, we are Maktir.
ii. Answer (Rav Papa): It refers to Minchas
Nesachim - one might have thought, since it
accompanies a Zevach, it is just like the
Zevach (and if it remains, Zerikah is done to
permit Haktarah of the Minchah) - the Tana
teaches, this is not so.
i. Reish Lakish explains, as long as the Minchah
was intact at the time of Kemitzah, we are
1. If it was Nifras after it was removed, the Lechem is
Pasul, we Maktir the Levonah.
(i) Answer (Reish Lakish): The Beraisa is like R. Eliezer.
2. (R. Elazar): When it says before (or after) it was
removed, this really means before (or after) the
time came for it to be removed - once the time
comes, it is as if it was removed.
(j) Rejection (R. Yochanan): It is a Stam (unauthored)
Beraisa, do not say that it is only like R. Eliezer!
1. If it is like R. Eliezer, why does it say that it
was Nifras - he is Machshir even if it was burned or
(k) Reish Lakish was silent.
(l) Question: Why was Reish Lakish silent - he should have
answered, Lechem ha'Panim is different, for it is a
1. Since Korbanos Tzibur may be offered b'Tum'ah, they
may be offered Chaserim!
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): This teaches that Chaser
is like a Ba'al Mum, the Tzibur may not offer it.
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef bar Shemayah): R. Yochanan and Reish
Lakish were arguing about the Omer, which is also a
(o) Question (Rav Malkiyo): Two verses exclude a Minchah that
is Chaser - why are both needed?
1. (Beraisa #1): "Mi'Soltah" - if any of the Soles is
missing, it is Pasul; "Mi'Shamnah" - if any of the
oil is missing, it is Pasul.
(p) Answer: No - one teaches when it became Chaser before
Kemitzah, that if we do not bring more to complete it, it
will be Pasul;
2. (Beraisa #2): "Veha'Noseres Min ha'Minchah" - this
excludes a Minchah that is Chaser, or the Kometz is
Chaser, or none of the Levonah was Huktar.
3. Suggestion: One teaches when it became Chaser before
Kemitzah, the other teaches when the Shirayim became
Chaserim after Kemitzah;
i. Both of these refute R. Yochanan - he said
(above, (a)) that in the former case, we bring
more to complete it, and in the latter case
(g), we Maktir the Kometz!
1. The other teaches about when it became Chaser
between Kemitzah and Haktarah, that even Haktaras
ha'Kometz does not permit eating the Shirayim.
(q) Question: According to R. Yochanan, who permits Haktaras
ha'Kometz when the Shirayim became Chaserim after
Kemitzah, may the Shirayim be eaten?
2. This answers the following question (in the
(r) Answer #1 (Ze'iri): "Veha'Noseres (will be eaten)" - but
not if it is Nosar (a remnant of) the Nosar (Shirayim).
(s) Version #1 - Answer #2 (R. Yanai): "Min ha'Minchah" - the
Shirayim may be eaten only if they were intact at the
time of Haktarah (this is like Ze'iri).
(t) Version #2 - Answer #2 (R. Yanai): "Min ha'Minchah" - as
long as the Minchah was complete at the time of Kemitzah,
even if the Shirayim became Chaser later (it may be
(a) (Mishnah): If Kemitzah was taken with the left hand (it
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (R. Zeira) Question: "Va'Yakrev Es ha'Minchah
va'Ymalei *Chapo* Mimenah" - which hand does he use?
1. Answer: "...V'Yotzak Al Kaf ha'Kohen ha'Smolis".
(d) Question: "Ha'Smolis" is not extra to teach about other
places, it is needed l'Gufo (to teach that Log Metzora is
put in the left hand!)
2. Inference: Here, the left hand is used - wherever
else "Kaf" is mentioned, it refers to the right
(e) Answer: It says "Ha'Smolis" another time.
(f) Question: We should say that two Mi'utim (exclusions),
one after the other, always come to include (the right
(g) Answer: It says "Ha'Smolis" a third time - this teaches
that the left is used only here.
(h) Question: Just the contrary - we should learn from here
that "Kaf" always refers to the left hand!
(i) Answer: It says "Ha'Smolis" four times, twice regarding a
poor Metzora, twice regarding a rich Metzora (this shows
that only here it refers to the left hand).
(j) Question (R. Yirmeyah): What do we learn from "Al Bohen
Yado *ha'Yemanis* v'Al Bohen Raglo *ha'Yemanis*"? (We
already know that the oil is put on the right thumb
(Rashi - for it says, where the blood was put; Tosfos -
from the above teaching!)
(k) Answer (R. Zeira): One teaches that sides of the finger
and toe are valid, but not the underside.