ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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.
(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).
2. ... after they were removed - they can.
(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
(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
(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
(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
1. ... without Shemen - from the Lechem ha'Panim, which contains no oil.
(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.
2. ... without Levonah - from a Minchas Nesachim, which contains no Levonah.
3. ... without either - from a Minchas Chotei, which contains neither.
(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
1. ... the Shemen of a Minchah without the Levonah - from the Log Shemen of
a Metzora, which does not contain Levonah.
(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.
2. ... the Levonah without the Shemen - from the Bazichei Levonah (which
does not contain Shemen).
(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
(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