ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 4
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ... ki Chatas Hi" -
that a Minchas Chotei has the Din of a Chatas, and is Pasul she'Lo
(b) According to the Beraisa quoted by a Beraisa expert, the leftovers
(Mosar) of the Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah) - go to Nedavah.
(c) The ramifications of ...
1. ... 'Mosar' are - that if after purchasing the barley for a Sotah's
Minchah, there is money leftover, it goes to ...
2. ... 'Nedavah' - one of the boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash, which was used to
purchase Olos Nedavah shel Tzibur, which were sacrificed during the long
summer months ('Olos Kayitz Mizbe'ach'), when the Mizbe'ach was not in use.
(a) In response, Rav Nachman cited a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Avon" "Avon" (from
Chatas). The Mosar ha'Chatas - goes to Nedavah.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Kesef Asham ve'Kesef Chatas la'Kohanim
Yi'hyu" - that the Mosar ha'Chatas goes to Nedavah, to purchase Olos for
the Mizbe'ach, and the skin goes to the Kohanim.
(c) He also learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mazkeres *Avon*" from
"Laseis es *Avon* ha'Eidah" (in connection with Chatas) - that a Minchas
Kena'os is Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah (like a Chatas).
(a) We ask why, in that case, we do not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo
as well, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' Ve'nasa *Avono* from "Laseis es *Avon*
ha'Eidah". Initially, we try to answer this Kashya - by dismissing the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' by differentiating between "Avon" and "Avono".
(b) We refute this answer however, on two scores; one of them, because we
could then learn "Avono" "Avono" from "Im Lo Yagid Ve'nasa Avono" (written
in connection with the Chatas of Shemi'as Kol) - the other, based on the
principle 'Zu hi Shivah Zu hi Bi'ah' (with regard to Tzara'as Batim [that we
can learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' between two similar words, such as "Shivah"
and Bi'ah", even though they are not identical])
(c) Initially, we reject the suggestion that the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' was only
given (to Moshe at Har Sinai) to learn from it the Din of Mosar Nedavah - by
citing the principle 'Ein Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah'.
(d) We ultimately settle the issue by citing the Pasuk in "Ve'shachat *Osah*
le'Chatas" - which indicates that a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul, but
not other Korbanos (such as an Asham).
(a) The problem the D'rashah of "Osah" now creates vis-a-vis Minchas Chotei
and Minchas Kena'os is - that it also precludes them from the P'sul of
she'Lo li'Shemah, so how do we know that they are indeed Pasul?
(b) We therefore learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Chatas Hi" - that a Chatas she'Lo li'Shemah is Pasul.
2. ... "Chatas Hi" and "Minchas Kena'os Hi" - that a Minchas Chotei and a
Minchas Kena'os respectively, are Pasul she'Lo li'Shemah.
(a) We do not invalidate an Asham she'Lo li'Shemo, despite the fact that the
Torah writes there too "Ve'hiktir Osam ha'Kohen ... Asham *Hu*" - because
that speaks after the burning of the Eimurim ...
(b) ... and seeing as the burning is not crucial to begin with, performing
it she'Lo li'Shemah can hardly invalidate it.
(c) And "Hu" teaches us the Halachah contained in a statement of Rav Huna
Amar Rav, who rules - that an Asham (whose owner brought another Asham) that
is sent into the field to graze (i.e. that is placed under the jurisdiction
of a shepherd), and is then Shechted S'tam, is a Kasher Olah.
(d) He learns from "Hu" - that until it is actually given to the shepherd,
it remains a Pasul Asham.
(a) Rav declares a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo
li'Shemah, Pasul - because it comes to be Machshir (permit Chadash), but
fails to do so.
(b) Likewise, in the identical case concerning an Asham Nazir and an Asham
Metzora - Rav declares them Pasul, for the same reason.
(c) We ask why, according to Rav - our Mishnah does not add Minchas ha'Omer
to Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os when it precludes them from the
Menachos that are Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman.
(d) We answer this Kashya in two ways; one of them, that our Mishnah is only
concerned with Korbenos Yachid, and not with Korbenos Tzibur; the other -
that the Tana only deals with Menachos that are brought independently, not
those (such as the Minchas ha'Omer) that are brought together with Korbanos.
(a) We also ask why, according to Rav - the Tana in Zevachim omits Asham
Nazir and Asham Metzora from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Zevachim 'Kol
ha'Zevachim ... Chutz mi'Pesach ve'Chatas'.
(b) And we answer - that the Tana omits Ashamos, since Asham Gezeilos and
Asham Me'ilos are Kasher she'Lo li'Sheman.
(c) The basis to differentiate between Asham Nazir and Metzora on the one
hand, and Asham Gezeilos and Me'ilos on the other is - the fact that whereas
the latter come to atone, the former only come to be Machshir.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah bases this distinction - on someone who dies, leaving a
Machshir and a Mechaper, in which case his heirs are obligated to bring the
Mechaper, but not the Machshir.
(b) And he cites a Mishnah in Kidushin, which discusses a woman who gave
birth and died after bringing either her Chatas or her Olah. The status of
1. ... her Chatas is - Machshir (since it permits her to eat Kodshim).
(c) The Tana there rules - that in the case where she died after bringing
2. ... her Olah is - Mechaper.
1. ... her Chatas - the heirs must bring her Olah.
2. ... her Olah - they do not bring her Chatas (which must die).
(a) Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi queries Rebbi Yirmiyah's
answer however, from a Mishnah in Nazir. Although the Rabbanan forbid
deriving benefit from money that has been designated for one's Korbenos
Nezirus (Chatas, Olah and Shelamim), the Tana exempts someone who did so
from Me'ilah - because all the money is fit to be used to purchase the
Shelamim, which is not subject to Me'ilah, because it belongs to the owner,
and is not Kodshei Hashem (except for the Eimurim after the Shechitah).
(b) If the Nazir died leaving money S'tam for his Korbanos, it all goes to
Nedavah. If he specified the money, then the D'mei Chatas goes to the Yam
ha'Melach. The Rabbanan forbade deriving benefit from it, but it is not
subject to Me'ilah - because whatever stands to be killed or destroyed is
not considered Kodshei Gavohah, and is not therefore subject to Me'ilah.
(c) The ...
1. ... D'mei Olah - goes to Nedavah, and is subject to Me'ilah.
(d) The Tana does not mention D'mei Asham - because it is only a Nazir Tamei
who needs to bring an Asham, not a Nazir Tahor.
2. ... D'mei Shelamim - is used to purchase a Shelamim, which can be eaten
for one day (like the Din of Shalmei Nazir) but does not require loaves of
bread (because it is not a Todah).
(a) Rebbi Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi asks from the D'mei Olah
and the D'mei Shelamim - which are Machshirin, yet they are brought after
the owner's death.
(b) Rav Papa explains that Rebbi Yirmiyah is speaking specifically about a
Hechsher Kavu'a, whereas, based on a statement of Mar, the Olah and the
Shelamim of a Nazir are considered a Hechsher she'Eino Kavu'a. Mar said -
that someone who shaved on any one of the three Korbanos (Chatas, Olah or
Shelamim) has fulfilled his obligation, and is permitted to drink wine.