ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 3
(a) We ask on Rabah from Kodshei Kodshim that one Shechted in the north of
the Azarah as Kodshim Kalim. We reject the suggestion that here too, the two
are distinguishable (because, had the Korban been Kodshim Kalim, it would
have Shechted it in the south) - on the basis of the Mishnah in Zevachim,
which permits the Shechitah of Kodshim Kalim anywhere in the Azarah (because
whenever when we speak of Shechitas Kodshim Kalim in the south, it comes to
include the south, not to preclude the north).
(b) We answer the Kashya on Rabah from the reverse case (i.e. Kodshim Kalim
that one Shechted in the south as Kodshei Kodshim) - based on people's
reactions. What they will say is that really the Korban is Kodshei Kodshim
which were erroneously Shechted in the south (not like the previous reason
that we gave to explain Rebbi Shimon [see Tosfos DH 'u'Me'aver']).
(c) In that case, we ask, why did we not give the same answer by a Minchas
Marcheshes, with which the Kohen performed the Kemitzah as a Minchas al
ha'Machavas (i.e. in a Machavas)?
(d) We dispense with the query however, based on the Mishnah in 'ha'Menachos
ve'ha'Nesachim', where the Tana rules that if someone declares 'Harei Alai
be'Machavas', and he then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or vice-versa - it
actually becomes a Minchas Marcheshes, only the owner has not fulfilled his
Neder (and the two remain distinguishable [in which case, she'Lo li'Shemah
will be Kasher, according to Rebbi Shimon).
(a) We query this however, based on the Mishnah there, where the Tana rules
that once the owner actually designates the Minchah ('Harei Zu Lehavi
be'Machavas ... '), the Minchah will be Pasul, should he change to the other
K'li - from which we see that once the Minchah has been designated, placing
it in the other K'li does not change its status. In that case, the two
Menachos are indistinguishable, and back comes the Kashya, that Shinuy
Kodesh ought to invalidate the Minchah, according to Rebbi Shimon.
(b) And we answer by establishing this Mishnah like the Rabbanan. Rebbi
Shimon rules there - that even in the case of 'Harei Zu ... ', the Minchah
is not only Kasher, but the owner has fulfilled his Neder, a proof that he
ignores the designation, and goes by the K'li in which the Minchah is
brought, like we explained.
(c) Consequently, in the case where the Kohen performs the Kemitzah from a
Minchah al ha'Machavas as a Minchas Marcheshes (because the owner told him
that this what he originally undertook to bring) - the Minchah is indeed a
Minchah al ha'Machavas, and is clearly recognizable as such, in which case,
Shinuy Kodesh will not invalidate the Minchah.
(d) In the case where the Kohen sprinkled the Chatas ha'Of below the Chut
ha'Sikra as an Olas ha'Of, we could not answer that the two are not easily
distinguishable, because people will say that it is an Olas ha'Of that was
erroneously sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra - because that would entail
two errors, Haza'ah instead of Mitzuy, and below the Chut instead of above
(and that is something that no-one will suspect the Kohen of doing [see also
Tosfos DH 'u'Me'aver']).
(a) We ask why, if someone Shechted an Olah as a Chatas it is not Kasher
according to Rebbi Shimon, seeing as an Olah is a Zachar, and a Chatas, a
Nekeivah (rendering them clearly distinguishable). It would be a problem, if
it were - because Rebbi Shimon differentiated between Menachos, which are
clearly distinguishable, and Zevachim, which are not.
(b) We answer - that it might well be a Chatas Nasi, which is a Zachar, too.
(c) We refute this however, on two scores; one of them, that we can still
ask from a case where the Shochet specifically Shechted it as a Chatas
Yachid (which can only be a Zachar); the other - that we can still ask from
the case of where they Shechted a Chatas Yachid as an Olah.
(d) We refute the suggestion that both a Chatas Nekeivah and an Olas Zachar
are covered by the Alyah (fat-tail), so that they are not easily
distinguishable - by switching the Kashya to a goat Chatas, that does not
have an Alyah.
(a) We finally answer that an Olah and a Chatas, are not considered clearly
distinguishable - simply because people do not take note of the fact that
one is a Zachar, and the other a Nekeivah.
(b) We then ask that, according to Rebbi Shimon, a Pesach that one Shechted
as an Asham ought to be Kasher - because the former is a lamb in its first
year, whereas the latter is a ram already in its second.
(c) We answer that it is not, because of an Asham Nazir and Asham Metzora -
which are lambs in their first year, just like the Pesach.
(d) We are not satisfied with this answer - because we can still ask from
Pesach and Asham Gezeilos and Me'ilos (either where he brought a Pesach as
one of them, or where he brought one of them as a Pesach).
(a) We finally refute the Kashya from Pesach and Asham - by referring to a
lamb that (is perhaps almost one year old and) resembles a ram, and to a ram
that (has maybe only just turned one and) that still resembles a lamb.
Consequently, one cannot consider the two as being clearly distinguishable.
(b) What makes a goat clearly distinguishing from a sheep is - the fact that
it does not have fleece like the latter.
(c) We answer the Kashya from ...
1. ... a goat that was Shechted as an Asham in that - people will think that
it is a black sheep (since goats are generally black).
(d) And when Rebbi Shimon differentiated between Menachos (which are easily
distinguishable and therefore Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman) and Zevachim (which
are not), he meant - the majority of cases regarding Zevachim.
2. ... a calf or a bull that were Shechted as a Pesach, which really are
distinguishable - with 'Ein Hachi Nami' (one in the name of the other will
indeed be Kasher, according to Rebbi Shimon).
(a) Rava resolves the contradiction in Rebbi Shimon's two statements by
differentiating between bringing (e.g. performing the Kemitzah) one Minchah
as another Minchah, and bringing a Minchah as a different Korban - meaning
that as long as he brings one Minchah as another Minchah 'Alu le'Ba'alim
le'Shem Chovah, but not if he brought it le'Shem Zevach.
(b) He learns this from the Pasuk in "ve'Zos Toras ha'Minchah" - implying
that whichever Minchah one brings any specific Minchah as, it is Kasher.
(c) And he explains Rebbi Shimon's words ...
1. ... 'Mipnei she'Ma'asav Mochichin Alehah' - to mean that in spite of the
fact that the Menachos are clearly different (which he refers to as
'Machshavah de'Lo Minkera' [which is a reason to invalidate them, according
to him]), the Minchah is Kasher, due to the Pasuk.
(d) Rebbi Shimon derives that (by Zevachim) the owner has not fulfilled his
obligation - from the fact that the Torah writes "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" -
and not 'Zos Toras ha'Minchah ve'ha'Zevach'.
2. ... 'Aval bi'Zevachim Eino Kein, Shechitah
Achas le'Kulan ... ' - that, on the other hand, in the case of Zevachim,
where any Korban is Shechted as another one, the owner ought to have
fulfilled his obligation (seeing as the Shechitos ... are all the same).
(a) We ask on Rava - that Rebbi Shimon ought to Darshen the Pasuk "ve'Zos
Toras ha'Chatas" in the same way as he Darshens "Zos Toras ha'Minchah"
('Torah Achas le'Chol ha'Chata'os'), and validate a Chatas Cheilev that is
Shechted as a Chatas Dam, Avodas-Kochavim, Nazir or Metzora, and that the
owner should even be Yotzei.
(b) The problem with this is - the Mishnah in Zevachim, which precludes the
Korban Pesach and the Korban Chatas from the K'lal that renders Kasher all
Kodshim that are Shechted she'Lo li'Sheman.
(c) And we answer - that according to Rebbi Shimon, this is indeed the case,
and that the Mishnah in Zevachim goes according to the Rabbanan.
(a) According to the Rabbanan, Rava draws a distinction between whether one
Shechts a Chatas Cheilev as a Chatas Dam or as a Chatas Avodas-Kochavim on
the one hand - in which case the Rabbanan concede that the Korban is Kasher,
or whether one Shechts a Chatas Dam as a Chatas Nazir or Metzora, on the
other - where it is not.
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava disagrees. He explains the Pasuk "Ve'shachat Osah
le'Chatas" to mean - that a Chatas is only Kasher if it is Shechted as the
Chatas that it really is. Otherwise, even if a Chatas Cheilev is Shechted as
a Chatas Dam, it is Pasul (as if it had written 've'Shachat le'Osah
(b) And when he presents the reason for this as 'Hani (the latter two) Olos
Bahadayhu Ninhu', he means - that since an Olah is brought together with the
them, if we would declare it Kasher, people might think that it was bein
brought as the Olah, and validate a Chatas that is brought as another
(c) Alternatively, we might explain this as if it had written 'Hani Olos
Ninhu' - because Chatas Nazir and Chatas Metzora come, not to atone (like a
Chatas Cheilev), but to permit the Nazir to drink wine, and the Metzora to
enter the camp.
(d) We reject the interpretation that they require Nesachim like Olos - on
the grounds that it is only a Chatas Metzora that requires Nesachim, but not
a Chatas Nazir.
(a) We already cited Rav Ashi's solution to the discrepancy between Rebbi
Shimon's rulings 'Ka'an Kometz Machavas le'Shem Marcheshes, Ka'an be'Kometz
Minchas Machavas le'Shem Minchas Marcheshes'. It is not Pasul in the
Reisha - because a Machshavah on the K'li alone is not a proper Machshavah.
(b) And he explains Rebbi Shimon's words ...
1. ... 'Mipnei she'Ma'asehah Mochichin' to be (not a reason why she'Lo
li'Shemah is Kasher, as Rabah explains, but) - a reason why it might be
Pasul (teaching us that it is Kasher in spite of the fact that the Avodas
ha'Korban is very different [like Rava learned]), because the more different
the one Korban is from the other, the greater the danger that one might come
to permit changing one Korban for another.
(c) We counter Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's Kashya from 'Chareivah le'Shem
Belulah' (where there is no K'li involved), yet Rebbi Shimon does not
invalidate it - by interpreting 'le'Shem Belulah' to mean that he performed
the Kemitzah in order to subsequently mix it (which is no less abstract than
'le'Shem Marcheshes', because he did not think about the Korban).
2. ... 'Aval bi'Zevachim Eino Chein; Shechitah Achas le'Chulan ... ' to
mean - that even though the Avodas ha'Korban is the same, it is nevertheless
Pasul, because he thought about the Korban, and not about the K'li.
(d) However, the case of 'Olah le'Shem Shelamim' (which Rebbi Shimon
invalidates) is different. There, he means (not that he is bringing the Olah
in the name of peace, but) - the Korban Shelamim, since 'Shelamim' is the
name of the Korban (which 'Belulah ba'Shemen' is, but not 'Belulah).
(a) The reason that ...
1. ... Rava and Rav Ashi decline to learn like Rabah is - because in their
opinion, when his words appear false, that is reason to invalidate the
Korban (not to validate it, as Rabah holds).
(b) Rav Hoshaya asked (some say that he asked Rebbi Asi) what Rebbi Shimon
will hold with regard to someone who brings a Minchah as a Zevach - whether
Rebbi Shimon's reason is because 'Ta'ama de'Minkera' (which it the case
here) does not invalidate (like Rabah), or because he Darshens 'Zos Toras
ha'Minchah" (and not 'Zos Toras ha'Minchah ve'ha'Zevach' [like Rava]), in
which case it will be Pasul here, too.
2. ... Rabah and Rav Ashi decline to learn like Rava - because they do not
agree with his interpretation of "Zos Toras ha'Minchah" ('Torah Achas
le'Chol ha'Menachos' [since nowhere do we find Rebbi Shimon validating a
Chatas Cheilev as a Chatas Nazir]).
3. ... Rabah and Rava decline to learn like Rav Ashi - because of Rav Acha
b'rei de'Rav's Kashya (from 'Chareivah le'Shem Belulah' [since they consider
'Belulah' to be as much the name of the Korban as 'Belulah be'Shemen').
(c) He did not resolve the She'eilah ...
1. ... like Rabah - because of Abaye's Kashya ('Michdi ... Mah Li Shinuy
Kodesh, Mah Li Shinuy Ba'alim').
2. ... like Rava - because he does not Darshen "ve'Zos Toras ha'Chatas" like
3. ... like Rav Ashi - because of Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's Kashya.