ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 7
MENACHOS 6-7 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas
Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.
(a) According to Rav Amram, the Tana'im (and Rav in the second Lashon) might
even hold 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin Afilu mi'Da'as'. Establishing the case
where the Kometz was returned to a K'li that was heaped over the brim -
ensures that it does not become Kodesh (because only something that is
actually inside the airspace of the K'li Shareis becomes sanctified.
(b) We cannot accept this answer however - because if that is so, how will
the Kohen subsequently perform the Kemitzah?
(c) We also object to the suggestion that the K'li was not heaped over the
brim, but to the brim - on the grounds that when the Kemitzah would have ben
taken, it would have then left a gap within the airspace of the K'li, and it
is into that gap that the Kemitzah was returned, leaving us with the Kashya
(d) So we finally establish Rav Amram - when the Kemitzah is returned on to
the top surface of the wall, and is allowed to fall by itself into the K'li,
which is considered as if a monkey had placed it there, and it does not
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira why Rav Amram did not establish the
case when whoever performed the Pasul Kemitzah, replaced it in a K'li on the
floor - because he initially presumes that a K'li only sanctifies what one
places inside it, as long as it is being held.
(b) From the fact that Rav Amram did not establish the case like that, Rebbi
Yirmiyah extrapolates - that it must sanctify what is inside it, even when
it is lying on the floor.
(c) Rebbi Zeira replied that he had touched on the She'eilah that Avimi had
already asked Rav Chisda (as we will explain shortly). We object however,
to the mere fact that he quoted Avimi as having asked Rav Chisda - since
Avimi was Rav Chisda's Rebbe, and not the other way round.
(a) We know that Rav Chisda was Avimi's Talmid, and not vice-versa - from
Rav Chisda himself, who testified - how he had received many Makos with a
club from his Rebbe, Avimi?
(b) The problematic Sugya (that Rav Chisda kept on forgetting) was that of
'Shum ha'Yesomim' in Erchin, where one Tana gave the time of assessment as
thirty days, and the other, as sixty.
(c) Avimi explained - that if they decided to announce the days
consecutively, then they would fix thirty days, whereas if they announced
only on Mondays and Thursdays, then they would fix sixty.
(d) Nevertheless, it was Avimi who asked Rav Chisda how one takes Kemitzah -
because he forgot the Sugya, so he asked his Talmid.
(a) He did not ask Rav Chisda to come to him - because he figured that by
making the effort to go to Rav Chisda, he would finding the answer.
(b) On the way, he met Rav Nachman.
When, in reply to Avimi's question how
one takes Kemitzah, the latter pointed to a K'li lying on the ground - Avimi
was quite surprised.
(c) Rav Nachman's replied - that what he meant was after the Kohen had
picked it up (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Leih').
(a) Avimi asked that if so, every Kemitzah would require three Kohanim, two
to hold the K'li containing the Minchah and the K'li into which the Kohen
would place the Kemitzah respectively, and one to perform the actual
Kemitzah. One Kohen not hold the first two Keilim - since Avodah 'bi'Semol
(b) To which, Rav Nachman replied - that if necessary, thirteen Kohanim
could perform an Avodah, like they did when they brought the Korban Tamid.
(c) The Mishnah later states 'Kol ha'Kometz, ve'Nosen bi'Cheli, ha'Molich
ve'ha'Maktir Davar Le'echol ... '. When Avimi asked Rav Nachman why the Tana
omitted 'ha'Magbihah', he replied - that the Tana was concerned with
independent Avodos (and not with the number of Kohanim).
(a) When they asked Rav Sheishes whether the Kohen may perform the Kemitzah
from a K'li that is lying on the floor, he cited a Beraisa. The Tana there
describes how every Shabbos, eight Kohanim would enter the Heichal - to
perform the Avodah of 'Siluk Bazichin' ...
(b) ... two were holding the (fresh) rows of Lechem ha'Panim and two, the
Bazichin (bowls with the frankincense), and the other four, to remove last
week's Loaves and Bazichin from the Shulchan.
(c) Rav Sheishes resolved the She'eilah from there - since the Tana made no
mention of Kohanim to pick up the Shulchan before removing the Lechem
ha'Panim (a proof that it is not necessary to hold the Minchah whilst
performing the Kemitzah.
(d) The connection between the Siluk Bazichin and the Kemitzah of the
Minchah is - that a. the former permits the Lechem ha'Panim to the Kohanim,
just as the latter permits them to eat the Minchah, and b. they are both
referred to as 'Azkarah'.
(e) Rav Sheishes countered the Kashya that maybe the Tana is speaking about
Avodos and not Kohanim (like we explained with regard to the previous
Beraisa) - by pointing out that this Tana refers to the number of Kohanim,
seeing as he actually made a point of mentioning how many Kohanim there
(a) According to Rava, it is obvious that the Kohen may perform Kemitzah
from a K'li which is lying on the floor, and likewise, he may sanctify the
Minchah in such a K'li. He learns the first ruling from the Siluk Bazichin,
like Rav Nachman, and the second ruling - from the 'Sidur Bazichin' (which
the Kohanim also did without picking up the Shulchan).
(b) He is not certain however, about being Mekadesh the Kometz in such a
K'li. On the one hand, maybe it is Kodesh just like the Kidush of the
Minchah. On the other, maybe it is not - like Kabalas ha'Dam, which cannot
be performed in two Keilim.
(c) He concludes - that we learn it from Kabalas ha'Dam.
(d) The four main Avodos of the Minchah correspond to the four main Avodos
of the Zevach. Kemitzah corresponds to Shechitah, Kidush Kometz to the
Kabalas ha'Dam ...
1. ... Holachas Kometz - to Holachas ha'Dam.
2. ... Haktaras Kometz - to Zerikas ha'Dam.
(a) Rav Nachman invalidates a Kometz which the Kohen halved and placed into
two Keilim. He learns it from - the blood of a Korban which the Kohen
received in two Keilim.
(b) Rava maintains - that it is Kasher.
(c) Having just learned the previous Din of Kometz from the Dam of the
Zevach - he also retracted from his stance against Rav Nachman - and
conceded that he was right.
(a) The original source of this ruling is where the Kohen was Mekadesh less
than the Shiur Haza'ah of the Mei Parah in two Keilim, rendering it Pasul.
Pouring the contents of one of the Keilim into the other to make up the
Shi'ur - will not help.
(b) We know that Dam does not become Kadosh in halves - from a Beraisa cited
by Rav Tachlifa ben Shaul (or from a Beraisa quoting Rebbi Tachlifa ben
Shaul), which first cites the Din by Kidush Mei Chatas, and then goes on to
discuss the Din by Kabalas ha'Dam.
(c) We will not learn Kabalas ha'Dam from it - if its source is Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai, (because we cannot learn from 'Halachah').
(d) If, on the other hand, we learn it from the Pasuk "Ve'taval ba'Mayim",
the Din extends to Kabalas ha'Dam too - because there too, the Torah writes
in Vayikra "Ve'taval ba'Dam".
(e) Rebbi Zerika Amar Rebbi Elazar concluded - 'Af be'Dam Lo Kidesh'.
(a) Rava informs us that this Halachah is already mentioned on a Beraisa.
The Tana there learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen
1. ... "Ve'taval" - that the Kohen must dip his finger into the blood inside
the bowl, and not take from the blood on the wall of the bowl.
(b) And when the Tana also Darshens from the Pasuk there "min ha'Dam" 'min
ha'Dam she'be'Inyan', he means - that the Kohen cannot use the blood that is
left on his fingers either.
2. ... "ba'Dam" - that the entire Shiur must be inside the bowl to begin
with (and not half in one bowl and half in another).
(c) This bears out a statement by Rebbi Elazar - who said 'Shirayim
(a) Ravin bar Rav Ada cites ... Rav Amram, who asks on Rebbi Elazar from a
Beraisa (in connection with the Kohen Gadol sprinkling the Dam of the
Chata'os Chitzoniyos). According to Rav Amram, 'Hayah Mazeh, Ve'nitzah
Haza'ah mi'Yado; Im ad she'Lo Hizah, Ta'un Kibus' means - that as long as
the Kohen Gadol has not concluded all the Haza'os, if blood from his finger
drips onto someone, that person's clothes require Tevilah, in which case the
blood must still be fit to be sprinkled, a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar.
(b) And he then explains the Seifa 'mi'she'Hizah, Eino Ta'un Kibus
Begadim' - to mean that once he has concluded all the Ha'za'os, blood that
drips from his finger does not render the clothes Tamei.
(c) To reconcile Rebbi Elazar with the Beraisa, Rava therefore interprets
'ad she'Lo Hizah', and 'mi'she'Hizah' as - before the blood has left his
finger (to be sprinkled on the Paroches) it renders Tamei, but not blood
that remains on his finger after the Kohen Gadol has already sprinkled it
(supporting Rebbi Elazar.
(d) Abaye infers from the Mishnah in Parah 'Gamar mi'Lehazos, Mekane'ach
Yado be'Gufah shel Parah' - that as long as he has not finished all the
Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol is not required to wipe the blood that remains on
his finger (a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, who holds that he must wipe his finger
from the blood after every Haza'ah ... )
(a) Rava answers the Kashya, by changing the inference to - 'Gamar ...
Mekane'ach es *Yado* ... Lo Gamar, Mekane'ach *Etzba'o*'.
(b) The ...
1. ... Parah was burned - at the foot of Har ha'Zeisim.
(c) The body of the Parah Adumah was burned - in the presence of the Kohen
who sprinkled it, after the latter had descended the mountain.
2. ... blood of the Parah was sprinkled towards the entrance of the Ohel
Mo'ed - at the top of the same mountain.
(d) The problem this present on our previous answer, obligating the Kohen to
wipe his finger between each Haza'ah is - that assuming that he too, had to
wipe his finger clean on the body of the bull, how could he be expected to
descend the mountain each time he needed to wipe his finger.
(a) Abaye (who asked the initial Kashya) answered this question - by
establishing the obligation of cleaning his finger by doing so on the bowl
(and not on the actual cow).
(b) This explains the fact that Ezra refers to the bowls as 'Kipurei
Zahav' - because the word also has connotations of cleaning.