ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 6
MENACHOS 6-7 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas
Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.
(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi suggests that we need "min ha'Bakar" to
preclude a T'reifah from the 'Mah ha'Tzad' of Melikah and Cheilev va'Dam.
However, we can ask - 'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen she'Kein Mitzvasah
(b) All the cases that we brought were really to counter the original 'Kal
Chomer' from 'Ba'al-Mum', which rendered the Pasuk redundant. Rav Ashi
attempts to refute the 'Kal-va'Chomer' itself - inasmuch as Ba'al-Mum
applies to the Makriv (the Kohen) no less than to the Nikrav (the Korban), a
Chumra that does not exist by T'reifah.
(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava ask on this from a Yotzei Dofen (an animal born
by a cesarean birth) - which does not apply to the Kohanim either, yet it is
permitted to a Hedyot, but forbidden to Gavohah. So we try to learn T'reifah
from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Yotze Dofen.
(d) We ask on ...
1. ... this however - that a Yotzei Dofen is not subject to the Din of
Bechor, whereas a T'reifah is.
2. ... the 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Ba'al-Mum and Yotzei Dofen (which are
permitted to a Hedyot and forbidden to Gavohah) on to T'reifah, which is
forbidden to a Hedyot) - in that T'reifah is 'Hutrah mi'Chelalah' (enjoys a
special concession), which they do not.
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries the Pircha. The leniency of Hutrah
mi'Chelalah by T'reifah not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of (which goes
to Gavohah) - because as far as birds are concerned, they too, enjoy the
concession of ' ... ve'Ein Tamus (ve'Zachrus) be'Of' (meaning that
Ba'alei-Mum and even T'reifos are permitted to Gavohah, too).
(b) If it does not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of, we suggest that it
refers to - the Melikah of Chatas ha'Of, which is a concession to the
(c) It cannot in fact, refer to Chatas ha'Of (la'Kohanim) either - because
what the Kohanim receive is from Hashem's table, in which case it remains a
concession to Gavohah (and not to the Kohanim).
(d) The problem, if we cannot break the Tzad ha'Shaveh is - why we need the
Pasuk "min ha'Bakar", seeing as we already know from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh',
that a T'reifah is Pasul as a Korban.
(a) We conclude that the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' (from Ba'al-Mum and Yotzei Dofen)
is different, because their blemish is recognizable, whilst a T'reifah is
not necessarily so, and we need the Pasuk - to invalidate a T'reifah that
was not discernible during the animal's life-time, but was discovered after
(b) We also learn from the Pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" and from the Pasuk
"mi'Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" (by Ma'aser Beheimah) - that a
T'reifah is Pasul.
(c) Having written ...
1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (which speaks about a blemish from birth, as we
shall see), the Torah needs to add the Pasuk "Kol Asher Ya'avor" - to
include an animal that became a T'reifah after birth.
(d) We establish the Pasuk ...
2. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor" (which speaks when the blemish preceded the
Hekdesh), it found it necessary to write "min ha'Bakar" - to invalidate an
animal that became a T'reifah after being declared Hekdesh.
1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael by Mumin from birth - because Orlah and
K'lai-ha'Kerem (which are certainly Asur from their inception) appear in the
2. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor ... " is talking about where the T'reifus preceded
the Ma'aser - because the word that precludes T'reifos from Ma'aser is
"Ya'avor" (because a T'reifah, which has no life, is not called 'Overes').
(a) Our Mishnah rules ...
1. ... that a Minchah whose Kemitzah was performed by a Zar, Onan,
T'vul-Yom, a Mechusar Begadim or a Mechusar Begadim - is Pasul.
(b) The same applies to 'she'Lo Rachatz Yadayim ve'Raglayim', Areil, Tamei
and Yoshev. Finally, the Tana invalidates a Kemitzah that is performed
whilst standing on any one of three things - on a vessel, on an animal or on
another Kohen's foot.
2. ... that there is no difference between a Minchas Chotei and all other
Menachos in this regard.
(c) The last P'sul listed by the Tana Kama is 'Kamatz bi'Semol'.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains - that in all the above cases, he
should return the Kometz to the Minchah, and perform it again correctly.
(a) The Tana rules that in a case where the Kometz included a pebble, salt
or Levonah - it is Pasul, because the Kometz is then Chaser.
(b) The Tana describes 'Yeser' as 'Mevuratz' - meaning either heaped up or
interrupting between the Kohen's fingertips and the palm of his hand.
(c) And he describes 'Chaser' as - where the Kohen performed the Kometz only
with his fingertips.
(a) The problem with the Lashon 'Echad Minchas Chotei, ve'Echad Kol
ha'Menachos' is - why the Tana needs to mention 'Minchas Chotei' at all? Why
is it not included in 'Kol ha'Menachos'?
(b) And we answer that the Tana needs to write this because of Rebbi Shimon,
who comments that ...
1. ... on the one hand, oil and frankincense ought to be included in a
Minchas Chotei, and Nesachim in a Chatas - so that the sinner should not
benefit financially, from his sin.
(c) And it is according to Rebbi Shimon that the Tana mentioned 'Minchas
Chotei' independently, to teach us that even Rebbi Shimon does not permit a
Zar to make Kemitzah, in order that the Minchas Chotei should not be
2. ... on the other, they are not - in order that his Korban should not be
of a high standard.
(a) Based on what we just said, we ask from the opening Mishnah in Zevachim
('Kol ha'Zevachim she'Ninizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirim'). There too,
the Tana ought to have added 'Echad Chatas Cheilev ve'Echad Kol ha'Zevachim
... ', in order to accommodate Rebbi Shimon.
(b) And we answer - that we already know that, from the fact that the Tana
says 'Kol ha'Zevachim', without adding 'Chutz mi'Chatas Cheilev'.
(c) The fact that our Mishnah too, writes 've'Echad *Kol ha'Menachos*'
without adding 'Chutz mi'Minchas Chotei' however, will not suffice to
accommodate Rebbi Shimon, seeing as, having already established the Reisha
of the Mishnah (regarding she'Lo li'Shemah') not like Rebbi Shimon (at least
according to Rabah and Rava), we would have established the Seifa not like
him too (in spite of the Lashon 'Kol'), if the Tana had not specifically
included 'Minchas Chotei.
(a) Having learned in our Mishnah 'Zar she'Kamatz Pasul', we reconcile it
with Rav's statement 'Zar she'Kamatz Yachzir' - by confining the Mishnah
to before the Kometz has been returned.
(b) The problem with this is - that that is what ben Beseira says.
(c) If, as we suggest, the Rabbanan agree with ben Beseira when the Kometz
is still available, then the basis of their Machlokes is - whether the owner
should bring the missing ingredients from his home and add it to the
Shirayim, and the Kohen should once again take the Kemitzah, with his right
hand (ben Beseira) or not (the Rabbanan).
(d) The Rabbanan's reason is - because once the K'li sanctifies the Minchah,
and it subsequently becomes Pasul, it cannot then be transformed into a
(a) We query this explanation - on the basis of the fact that ben Beseira
only spoke about re-taking the Kemitzah, making no mention about bringing
anything from his house.
(b) So we establish Rav like ben Beseira. Initially, we explain Rav's
Chidush as being - that ben Beseira does not only argue by 'Kamtzah
bi'Semol', but extends his ruling to all the other cases in the Mishnah, as
(c) We would otherwise have thought that ben Beseira permits only 'Kamatz
bi'Smol' - because 'S'mol' has a precedent on Yom Kipur, when the Kohen
Gadol walks into the Kodesh Kodshim holding the Machtah in his right hand,
and the Kaf in his left.
(d) We counter the Kashya that, just as S'mol is permitted on Yom Kipur, so
too, is a Zar permitted to perform Shechitah (in which case ben Beseira
ought to validate the Kemitzah of a Zar, as well) - by pointing out that
Shechitah is not an Avodah.
(a) The reason Rav gives for the ruling Rebbi Zeira cites in his name
'Shechitas Parah be'Zar Pesulah' is - because the Torah writes in connection
with Parah "Elazar" and "Chukah" (both of which generally render the current
(b) We try to prove from there - that Rav considers Shechitah to be an
Avodah (a Kashya on what we just said in his name).
(c) We refute this proof in that Parah Adumah is different - inasmuch as it
is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which do not require Avodos).
(d) We persist however, by Darshening a 'Kal-va'Chomer, because if the
Shechitah of a Zar is Pasul by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, where Avodah is not
applicable, then how much more so by the Shechitah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach,
(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi answers this Kashya by comparing Kodshei
Bedek ha'Bayis to Mar'os Nega'im - which have nothing to do with Avodah, yet
they require specifically a Kohen.
(b) Clearly then, there are times then the Torah requires Kehunah from a
'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', which is the case by Parah Adumah (and we cannot learn
a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').
(c) So we try to use Bamah - as a precedent for a Zar (in which case ben
Beseira ought to validate 'Kamtzah Zar' too).
(d) We reject that proof however - on the grounds that we cannot learn
Mizbe'ach from Bamah, since at that stage Aharon had not yet been sanctified
[see Tosfos DH 'she'Harei']).
(a) The Beraisa learns that Yotzei is included in the Din of 'Im Alah, Lo
Yeired' from - Bamah.
(b) Nevertheless, we apply the principle 'mi'Bamah Lo Yalfinan' - because
the Limud from Bamah is no more than a support for the real Limud, which is
from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah", which teaches us 'Torah Achas le'Chol
ha'Olin' (she'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu').
(c) If not for Rav, we would have confined ben Beseira's ruling to Kamatz
bi'Semol. We query this from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah
and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - specifically extend his ruling to all the
cases in our Mishnah (and not only to Kamatz ba'Laylah).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'kamatz mi'Sham" -
that unlike the Shechitah of a Zevach, the Kemitzah may be performed
anywhere in the Azarah ("mi'Sham", mi'Makom she'Raglei ha'Zar Omdin Sham'),
even in the south, even though a Minchah is Kodesh Kodshim.
(b) ben Beseira learns from there - that with regard to the Minchah from
which the Kohen already took the Kemitzah once, he should take it again
(e.g. in a case where he performed the Kemitzah with his left hand, or any
other P'sul [such as Zar she'Kamatz]).
(c) This too, poses a Kashya on Rav - seeing as Rebbi Shimon has
specifically stated what Rav is ostensibly coming to teach us.
(d) ben Beseira mentions Kamatz bi'Semol. Nevertheless, we know that he is
referring to all Pesulin, and not just to Kamatz bi'Semol - since there is
no indication that the Pasuk is speaking about one P'sul more than the
(a) So we present Rav's Chidush as the fact that even though the Kohen was
already Mekadesh the Minchah in a K'li, ben Beseira holds 'Yachzir ... '. We
might have thought otherwise - because Tana'im in a Beraisa actually say the
(b) Rebbi Yossi ben Yasian and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nachtom say - that ben
Beseira speaks exclusively where the Minchah was not sanctified in a K'li,
but if it was, the Minchah will remain Pasul, even according to ben Beseira.
(c) In the second Lashon - Rav establishes ben Beseira specifically when the
there had been no Kidush K'li.
(d) We query this opinion 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - if Kemitzah Pesulah ...
1. ... Avodah Hi' - what does Kidush K'li add?
2 ... La'av Avodah Hi' - what is its significance?
(a) Rav Nachman presumes 'Kemitzas Pesulin Avodah Hi', and ben Beseira
holds - that the Avodah is not complete until 'Kidush K'li'.
(b) The problem with that is that from the moment whoever performed the
Kemitzah returns the Kometz to the K'li - it ought to become Kadosh and
Pasul (irrespective of the fact that it is being placed in the same K'li as
(c) We extrapolate from there - that since it does not, Kidush K'li only
sanctifies what one places inside it, if had the express intention of
sanctifying the object.
(d) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who told Resh Lakish that 'K'lei
Shareis Ein Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Likarev Lechatchilah' - by from his words 'Ein Mekadshin Likarev, but 'Mekadshin Lipasel'.