ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 5
MENACHOS 5 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) The Beraisa validates an Asham Metzora that was Shechted she'Lo
li'Shemo, or whose blood was not placed on the thumb or big toe of the
Metzora. It also necessitates bringing ...
1. ... Nesachim.
(b) This is a Tiyuvta on Rav - who just invalidated it, because it failed to
achieve its purpose of being Machshir.
2. ... another Asham (to permit the Metzora to re-enter the camp).
(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with the first statement of Rav. He rules that ...
1. ... a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Shemah - is
2. ... the Kohanim are not however, permitted to eat the Shirayim - because
of the Isur of Chadash, which remains intact until the new Minchah is
(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Nesachim) "mi'Mashkeh
Yisrael" - that one is forbidden to offer Hashem whatever is forbidden to a
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains that Resh Lakish nevertheless permits
bringing the Pasul Minchas ha'Omer (even though it is still Asur to a
Hedyot) - due to the principle 'Ein Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom' (since it
will become permitted on that same day without anything being done to it, it
is as if it was already permitted).
(c) Rav Ada b'rei de'Rav Yitzchak queries this from a Beraisa, which
discusses the special Halachos that pertain to Ofos and not to Menachos, and
vice-versa. Ofos can be brought by two partners and by Mechusrei Kaparah
(but not Menachos).
(d) The third advantage that Ofos enjoy over Menachos is - that the Isur of
Neveilah (to which a Chulin bird that is killed by Melikah is subject)
becomes permitted (whereas Menachos have no special concession).
(a) Menachos, on the other hand, require K'li, Tenufah and Hagashah - and
they can be brought communally (which Ofos cannot).
(b) Rav Ada b'rei de'Rav Yitzchak asks that, according to Rav Ada bar
Ahavah, the last concession by Ofos ('Hutru mi'Chelal Isuran') ought to
apply to Menachos too, inasmuch as Minchas ha'Omer is permitted even though
it is forbidden to a Hedyot.
(c) We resolve the problem - by pointing out that, once we say 'Ein Mechusar
Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom' - it is no longer considered an Isur.
(a) The Kohen would place blood of the Asham and oil on the thumb and big
toe of the Metzora, and to sprinkle oil towards the Kodesh seven times. The
order of priority was - 1. placing the blood ... 2. sprinkling the oil ...
3. placing the oil ... .
(b) If he inadvertently placed the oil before ...
1. ... the blood - he was obligated (after placing the blood) to refill the
crucible with oil and place it again, and the same applied if he did so
(c) This poses a Kashya on Rav Ada bar Ahavah - because if we say 'Ein
Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom, why should the Kohen need to place the oil
2. ... sprinkling the oil.
(d) Rav Papa answers that a Metzora is different, because the Torah writes
'Havayah' ("Zos *Tih'yeh* Toras ha'Metzora ... )" - implying that the Kohen
must adhere to the correct order of events.
(a) The Asham of the Metzora precedes his Chatas. According to the Beraisa,
a Chatas which the Kohen Shechted before the Asham - requires 'Ibur Tzurah'
(being left overnight off the Mizbe'ach, to become Pasul be'Linah), and then
burning in the Beis ha'Sereifah.
(b) This ruling precludes the possibility - of someone stirring the blood of
the Chatas until the Asham has been Shechted and its blood sprinkled, before
placing the blood of the Chatas.
(c) Rav Papa asks from this Beraisa on Rav Ada bar Ahavah - the same Kashya
as we just asked a moment ago. Why is the Chatas Pasul, seeing as 'Ein
Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom'?
(d) True, Rav Papa himself just explained how Metzora is different (because
the Torah writes 'Havayah'). He did not however, consider that answer
appropriate here - since it is the Shechitah of the Chatas that is the
problem, and Shechitah is not an Avodah. Consequently, 'Havayah' will not
apply to it, and we will need to understand why the alternative solution (of
stirring the blood) is not applicable.
(a) According to Rav Papa therefore, based on the Beraisa, we must hold -
'Yesh Mechusar Z'man le'Bo ba'Yom'.
(b) And Resh Lakish permits the Kometz of the Pasul Minchas ha'Omer to be
burned on the Mizbe'ach, based on a ruling of Rebbi Yochanan and himself -
who both stated that the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan permits Chadash
(and not the Omer [even in the time of the Beis Hamikdash]).
(c) They learn it from the Pasuk (in connection with Chadash) "be'Etzem
ha'Yom ha'Zeh" (implying that Chadash becomes permitted from the beginning
of the day).
(d) And they reconcile this with the Pasuk "ad Havi'achem es Omer
ha'Tenufah" - by establishing the Pasuk as a Mitzvah (but not an
(a) Resh Lakish did not actually make the previous statement - but it can be
implied from a statement that he did make.
(b) The Mishnah in 'Rebbi Yishmael' rules - that the Kohanim may not bring
Menachos, Bikurim or Minchos Beheimah (i.e. Minchos Nesachim) before having
1. ... the Omer (on the sixteenth of Nisan), and if they did, it is Pasul.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Resh Lakish qualified the former ruling - by
confining it to the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan. If they brought it on
the sixteenth before the Omer, it is Kasher ...
2. ... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (on Shavu'os), but if they did, it is
(d) ... because the new crops become permitted already by the light of day
(even before the Omer has been brought).
(a) Rava disagrees even with Resh Lakish. According to him - not only may
one bring a Minchas ha'Omer whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Shemah, but
the Kohanim are even permitted to eat it ...
(b) ... because a Machsheves P'sul can only take effect on something that is
fit to (regularly) perform the Avodah with, precluding the Minchas ha'Omer,
which consists of barley, and which is therefore unfit for the Avodah
(c) Rava also extends this rule to someone who is eligible to serve and in a
location that is eligible. What is meant by ...
1. ... someone who is not eligible is - a Kohen Ba'al-Mum.
2. ... a location that is not eligible is - there where the Mizbe'ach is
(a) The Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar" - to preclude a
(b) We try to refute the need for such a D'rashah, by means of a
'Kal-va'Chomer from Ba'al-Mum - which is permitted to a Hedyot, yet it is
forbidden to Gavohah. In that case, a T'reifah, which is forbidden to a
Hedyot, should certainly be forbidden to Gavohah.
(c) We ask on this however, from Cheilev and Dam, which are forbidden to a
Hedyot, but permitted to Gavohah. But we refute this Pircha - from the fact
that Cheilev and Dam are part of an amimal that is permitted, whereas a
T'reifah is entirely forbidden.
(d) So we try again to refute the 'Kal va'Chomer', by citing Melikah which
is completely Asur, yet it is forbidden to a Hedyot but permitted to
Gavohah. And we counter this - by pointing to the fact that Melikah is the
very thing that, not only forbids it to a Hedyot, but that permits it to
Hekdesh, whereas the fact that is a T'reifah does not render it Kadosh.
(a) So we make a further attempt at reinstating the need for a Pasuk to
forbid bringing a T'reifah as a Korban. We try to learn - from a 'Mah
Matzinu' from Minchas ha'Omer. which is permitted to Gavohah, despite being
forbidden to a Hedyot. In that case, the same ought to apply to a T'reifah.
(b) We refute the counter-argument that Minchas ha'Omer is different because
it has the distinction ...
1. ... of permitting Chadash - since we can still learn from it in the
Sh'mitah-year, when Chadash is permitted anyway.
(c) Rav Acha bar Rava told Rav Ashi however, that even according to Rebbi
Akiva, the Minchas ha'Omer permits Chadash even in the Sh'mitah - in Chutz
2. ... even in the Sh'mitah year, of permitting Sefichin (the seeds that
grow wild) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who forbids Sefichin when the time of
Bi'ur arrives, and which are therefore not permitted by the Omer.
(d) And what's more, he added, even according to those who hold that Chadash
in Chutz la'Aretz is, to begin with, only de'Rabbanan, the Minchas ha'Omer
has the distinction of permitting the La'av within it, by which he means -
that even though they are forbidden in Eretz Yisrael because of Shevi'is,
the Omer nevertheless removes the La'av of Chadash.
(a) Rav Acha from Difti speaking to Ravina, queried Rav Acha bar Rava's
final argument, from T'reifah itself - in that by the same token, perhaps we
need the Pasuk to preclude from likewise bringing a T'reifah as a Korban, to
permit the La'av of T'reifah.
(b) We finally refute the Kashya from Minchas ha'Omer on T'reifah - by
virtue of the fact that by Minchas ha'Omer, the only way of performing the
Mitzvah is via the Isur, which is not the case by T'reifah (in which case,
we have still to justify the Pasuk ["min ha'Bakar"]).
(c) Resh Lakish tries to learn T'reifah from *Mefatem ha'Ketores*, which is
forbidden to a Hedyot, but permitted to Gavohah. The problem with Resh
Lakish's initial text is - that 'Mefatem ha'Ketores' refers to a person, so
how can Resh Lakish go on to say 'Asur le'Hedyot' and 'Mutar la'Gavohah'?
(d) After amending it to 'Pitum ha'Ketores', we refute the proof from
there - on the grounds of 'Mitzvasah be'Kach' (like we just concluded to
distinguish the Minchas ha'Omer from a Beheimah T'reifah).
(a) We refute Mar b'rei de'Ravina's proof from Temidin u'Musafin on Shabbos
in the same way. We reject the initial Pircha, that Shabbos is different
than T'reifah, in that 'Hutra mi'Chelalah Eitzel Milah' - on the grounds
that Milah itself is Tzorech Gavohah, and not Tzorech Hedyot.
(b) And we follow exactly the same pattern with regard to Rav Ada bar Aba's
proof from Kil'ayim (Sha'atnez) which is permitted to Gavohah, even though
it is forbidden to a Hedyot. The only one of the Bigdei Kehunah that
definitely entails wearing Kil'ayim is - the Avneit (the belt) of the Kohen
(c) We initially consider Kil'ayim 'Hutrah mi'Chelalah Eitzel Hedyot' - with
regard to Tzitzis on a linen garment.