(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 8



(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Chavitei Kohen Gadol - the twice daily Minchah consisting of a tenth of an Eifah brought by the Kohen Gadol (called by that name because it was baked on a flat pan, known as 'a Machavas'), mingled with oil, cannot be sanctified in halves.

(b) The ramifications of this ruling are - that if the Kohen Gadol does sanctify them in this way, they remain Chulin.

(c) According to Resh Lakish - they *may* be sanctified in halves.

(d) Even though, as we just saw, Resh Lakish holds that Dam cannot be sanctified in halves, he holds that the Chavitei Kohen Gadol can - because he does not learn Minchah from Dam.

(a) Rebbi Elazar rules - 'Minchah she'Kamtzah be'Heichal' is Kasher ...

(b) ... because of the precedent from Siluk Bazichin.

(c) Nevertheless, he does not learn Chavitei Kohen Gadol Minchah from Dam - because he only learns one Minchah from another, but not Minchah from Dam.

(a) If one of the twelve Lechem ha'Panim breaks - the Beraisa invalidates all twelve loaves.

(b) Assuming the loaf broke ...

1. ... before the loaves have been removed from the Shulchan - the Bazichin cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach either.
2. ... after they were removed - they can.
(c) Rebbi Elazar interprets 'ad she'Lo Parkah' to mean - before the loaves are due to be removed (during the week) and 'mi'she'Parkah' to mean - after they become due (on Shabbos).

(d) If a Minchah became Chaser before the Kemitzah has been taken from it (even though it is due to be taken), the Minchah is Pasul - and the Kometz, should it subsequently be taken, is Pasul too.

(a) This latter Halachah appears to clash with Rebbi Elazar's previous statement - because, if as we just said, Rebbi Elazar learns Minchah from Minchah, then (bearing in mind that the Kometz of the Minchah is already due to be placed on the Mizbe'ach with the bringing of the Minchah) why does he not learn the Minchah from the Lechem ha'Panim, and validate the Kometz?

(b) The difference between a regular Minchah and the Lechem ha'Panim, however, is that - in the latter case, the Bazichin are already separate, Rebbi Elazar considers them as having been taken, as it were, the moment the time falls due; whereas in the case of the Minchah, where the Kometz has not yet been separated, that is not possible, cannot say that it is as if they have been taken (since it is 'Mechusar Ma'aseh').

(c) We answer the Kashya on Rebbi Elazar, that in any case, the Bazichin should be Pasul, like 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah' is Pasul (even though here, it is not the Shirayim that became Chaser, but the Minchah itself) - by referring to a Machlokes Tana'im in this point (which we will discuss later). In any event, Rebbi Elazar holds like those who say 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzah le'Haktarah, Maktir Kometz Aleihem'.

(a) Earlier in the Sugya, we quoted the Machlokes whether 'Chavitei Kohen Gadol, Kedoshah la'Chatza'in' (Resh Lakish) or 'Einah Kedoshah la'Chatza'in' (Rebbi Yochanan). Rebbi Yochanan learns his ruling from the Pasuk "Minchah (Tamid) Machtzisah (ba'Boker u'Machtzisah ba'Erev") - which implies that the Minchah must be brought and sanctified complete, and not in halves.

(b) The Beraisa seems to support Rebbi Yochanan. According to the Tana, to permit bringing the Minchas Chavitin in halves, the Pasuk would have had to write - " ... Machtzis ba'Boker u'Machtzis ba'Erev"

(c) Resh Lakish - confines the Beraisa's ruling to Lechatchilah, whereas he is speaking Bedieved.

(d) Rav Gevihah from Bei Kasil asked Rav Ashi from the fact that the Torah writes Chukah ("Chok Olam") with regard to the Minchas Chavitin (and "Chukah" always means that the Halachah on hand is crucial), a Kashya on Resh Lakish (and even on Rebbi Yochanan, who requires a special Pasuk). Rav Ashi replied - by confining Chukah to the obligation of the Kohen Gadol to bring the Minchah complete from his house; whereas the Machlokes Amora'im pertains specifically to sanctifying it in halves after it arrived intact in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(a) The minimum Shi'ur of a Minchah is - one Isaron (a tenth of an Eifah [i.e. forty-three and a fifth egg-volumes]).

(b) Rav forbids designating half an Isaron for a Minchah, with the intention of adding the other half to it later - Rebbi Yochanan permits it.

(c) The problem concerning Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling is - why there, he forbids the Kohen Gadol to sanctify the Chavitin in halves, and here, in the case of a regular Minchah, he permits it?

(d) To answer the Kashya, we suggest - that Rebbi Yochanan does not learn Milsa mi'Milsa.

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with Shelamim) "u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed". Rebbi Yochanan rules - that in that case, one can certainly Shecht them inside the Heichal, because it would illogical for the Tafeil (the Azarah) to be more eligible than the Ikar (Heichal) which has a higher Kedushah than the Azarah).

(b) We see from there - that Rebbi Yochanan does learn Milsa mi'Milsa.

(c) We therefore ascribe his previous ruling, permitting one to designate half an Isaron for a Minchah, with the intention of adding the other half to it later (in spite of his ruling by Chavitin) - to the fact that the intention of adding is in itself, considered as if he had sanctified the two halves together.

(a) The Beraisa explains the Pasuk (in connection with the Chanukas ha'Mizbe'ach) "Sheneihem Mele'im So'les" - that the Nesi'im brought all the measurements (i.e. the flour, the wine and the oil for each respective Korban) in full.

(b) To which Rebbi Yossi adds - that this would only have been necessary as long as long as they did not intend to add to any half measure that they might have brought. If they had, it would have been Kasher (like we explained Rebbi Yochanan).

(c) Rav maintains that a Minchah can be sanctified without oil and without Levonah (though these must be added later. He learn that a Minchah can be sanctified ...

1. ... without Shemen - from the Lechem ha'Panim, which contains no oil.
2. ... without Levonah - from a Minchas Nesachim, which contains no Levonah.
3. ... without either - from a Minchas Chotei, which contains neither.
(d) Rav just learned that even if one intends to add to the Chatzi Isaron, it is Pasul. When we say that he must hold like Rebbi Yochanan regarding Chavitin, we mean that (now that he learns Milsa mi'Milsa), he cannot hold Rebbi Elazar, who permits sanctifying a Minchas Chavitin in halves. Otherwise, he would be Machshir the Minchah, like the Chavitin.
(a) Rav also learns that it is possible to sanctify the Shemen of a Minchah without the Levonah and vice-versa. He learns that it is possible to sanctify ...
1. ... the Shemen of a Minchah without the Levonah - from the Log Shemen of a Metzora, which does not contain Levonah.
2. ... the Levonah without the Shemen - from the Bazichei Levonah (which does not contain Shemen).
(b) Rebbi Chanina disagrees with Rav. According to him, it is not possible to sanctify the Minchah, the Shemen or the Levonah one without the other.

(c) When we ask that according to Rebbi Chanina, why were the Isaron and the Log anointed - we mean to ask that, since the Isaron of flour, plus the Shemen and the Levonah, must have amounted to more than just an Isaron, both measures would have been too small to sanctify the Minchah. So what purpose did they serve?

(d) And we answer - that the Isaron was used to sanctify the Minchas Chotei, and the Log, the Log Shemen of a Metzora.




(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim rules - that K'lei ha'Lach sanctify liquids and Midos ha'Yavesh, solids, but not vice-versa.

(b) Rebbi Chanina will establish 'Midos Yavesh Mekadshin Yavesh' - by a Minchas Chotei (which requires no oil or Levonah, as we learned earlier).

(a) Shmuel confines the ruling of the Mishnah in Zevachim to Midos (measuring vessels). He proves from the Pasuk (in connection with the silver dish and the silver bowl [and which we quoted earlier]) "Sheneihem Mele'im So'les ... " that the Mishnah's ruling does not extend to the bowls used for the Avodah - since they are used for the blood, yet they sanctify the flour of a Minchah.

(b) We prove from here that Shmuel holds like Rav with regard to a Minchah being sanctified on its own - because the Pasuk is referring to Minchos Nesachim, yet Shmuel maintains that the bowls sanctifying the flour of the Menachos on their own.

(c) When Rav Acha from Difti queried Shmuel's proof on the grounds that a Minchah is wet because it contains oil, Ravina answered - that Shmuel was referring to the dry part of the Minchah (since there are bound to be parts of the Minchah which are not wetted by the oil).

(d) The second answer, even assuming that the entire Minchah is mixed with oil - is that compared to blood. the Minchah is dry, and we can assume that the bowl sanctifies dry flour, too.

(a) We cited earlier a Beraisa which learns from the Pasuk "Ve'kamatz mi'Sham" 'mi'Makom she'Raglei Zar Omdos' - referring to the first eleven Amos of the Azarah, where a Zar is permitted to go.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah initially thinks that this poses a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar's ruling 'Minchah she'Kamtzah be'Heichal, Kesheirah' - because he interprets it to mean that the Kemitzah may only be performed in the Azarah (and not in the Heichal).

(c) To answer the Kashya, Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Ya'akov) explains that the Beraisa comes to include (to permit performing the Kemitzah anywhere in the Azarah), and not to exclude (performing it in the Heichal.

(d) We reject the suggestion that we would otherwise have compared it to other Kodshei Kodshim, which all require Tzafon. We could not learn it via a Binyan-Av from ...

1. ... Olos - because they are completely burned.
2. ... Chata'os - because they come to atone for Chayvei K'riysus.
3. ... Ashamos - because they are Zevachim (animal sacrifices, which require Zerikas ha'Dam, which in turn, is the major ingredient of Kaparah), and for the same reason, we could not even learn it from ...
4. ... all of them via a Tzad ha'Shaveh.
(a) In the end, we need the Pasuk to preclude learning from Hagashah - that the Kemitzah must take place by the south-west corner of the Mizbe'ach (which was the final destination of the Hagashah).

(b) In this context, the significance of the Pasuk "Vehikrivah el ha'Kohen, Ve'higishah el ha'Mizbe'ach, Ve'kamatz" is - that were it not for the additional word "mi'Sham", we would learn from there that the Kemitzah must take place there where the Hagashah ends, as we explained.

(a) We query Rebbi Yochanan, who validates a Shelamim that is Shechted in the Heichal 'she'Lo Yehei Tafeil Chamur min ha'Ikar', from a Beraisa. Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira there learns from the Pasuk "be'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Tochlenu" - that in case of emergency (i.e. if the enemy have surrounded the Azarah) the Kohanim may eat Kodshei Kodshim in the Heichal.

(b) The Pasuk (which in any event, cannot be referring to the actual Kodesh Kodshim) must be referring to the Heichal and not the Azarah - since the Pasuk in Tzav has already taught us "ba'Chatzar Ohel Mo'ed Yochluhah".

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, we now ask -why do we need a Pasuk for this? Why can we not apply the S'vara 'she'Lo Yehei Tafeil Chamur min ha'Ikar'.

(d) And we answer - that the S'vara applies to Avodah, because the closer one is to one's master, the more it is natural to serve him; but when it comes to eating, it is not considered Derech Eretz to eat in front of one's Master.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,