ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 9
(a) Rebbi Yochanan invalidates a Minchah that is mixed (with oil) outside
the precincts of the Azarah. Resh Lakish declares it Kasher.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'yatzak Allah Shemen ... Ve'hevi'ah el B'nei
Aharon ha'Kohanim Ve'kamatz" - that a Zar is eligible to perform any Avodah
before the Kemitzah i.e. Yetzikah and Belilah (pouring in the oil and mixing
it with the flour).
(a) Resh Lakish extrapolates from the precious D'rashah - that since these
Avodos do not require Kehunah, they do not require P'nim (inside the Azarah)
(b) Rebbi Yochanan argues that - on the contrary, since they require a K'li
Shareis, they require P'nim.
(c) We quote a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana there states -
'Balelah Zar, Kesheirah; Chutz le'Chomas ha'Azarah, Pesulah'.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, if a Minchah became Chaser before the
Kemitzah - the owner should fetch more flour and supplement it ...
(b) ... because it is the Kemitzah that turns a Minchah into a Minchah.
Before that, whatever goes missing can be supplemented.
(c) Resh Lakish invalidates the Minchah - because, in his opinion, it is the
placing it in the k'li Shareis that turns it into a Minchah.
(d) The basis of their Machlokes is how to interpret the D'rashah from the
Pasuk "min ha'Minchah" - 'P'rat le'she'Chasrah' (to exclude one that became
Chaser, which is Pasul).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked on Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, where the Tana
rules, in a case where the Log Shemen shel Metzora became Chaser before the
Kohen poured it into his left palm - that the owner should supplement it.
(b) Resh Lakish has no answer to that - so we remain with a 'Tiyuvta'.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Shirayim she'Chasru bein Kemitzsah le'Haktarah,
Maktir Kometz Aleihen' - Resh Lakish disqualifies the Kometz.
(b) The two parties do not dispute Rebbi Eliezer, who rules in a Mishnah in
ha'Kometz Rabah that a Minchah, whose Shirayim became Tamei, burned or
lost - is Kasher.
(c) Their dispute is based on the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules -
that it is Pasul.
(d) The basic Machlokes of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua concerns
Zevachim. Rebbi Eliezer holds - 'Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar', whilst Rebbi
Yehoshua holds - 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam' (and the Kometz without Shirayim,
is like Dam without Basar).
(e) Resh Lakish certainly follows Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion. Rebbi Yochanan
reconciles his opinion with Rebbi Yehoshua - by differentiating between the
Mishnah, which speaks when nothing is left at all of the blood, whereas he
speaks when a k'Zayis remains.
(a) In fact, Rebbi Yehoshua himself in a Beraisa, corroborates Rebbi
Yochanan's opinion. In a case where a little Basar or Cheilev remain, he
permits the Kohen to go ahead with the Zerikas Dam - provided a 'k'Zayis
remains, but not if less than a k'Zayis remains.
(b) He even permits half a k'Zayis of Basar and half a k'Zayis of Cheilev -
by the case of an Olah, which is all burned, in which case there is no
reason to distinguish between the Basar and the Cheilev (so that both can
combine to make up a k'Zayis), but not by other Korbanos (where Achilas
Mizbe'ach and Achilas Adam do not combine).
(c) Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement 'u've'Minchah, Af-al-Pi
she'Kulah Kayemes, Lo Yizrok' - to refer to a Minchas Nesachim, to teach us
that even if a k'Zayis of the Minchah remains, if there is no Basar or
Cheilev, the Korban is Pasul.
(d) Otherwise, we would have thought - that since the Minchah comes together
with the Zevach, it is considered as much part of the Korban as the Basar
and the Cheilev.
(a) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "Ve'heirim ha'Kohen min *ha'Minchah*
es Azkarasah Ve'hiktir ha'Mizbeichah" - that the Kometz is only burned on
the Mizbe'ach, if the Minchah remains complete (i.e. that the Shirayim did
not become Chaser between the Kemitzah and the Haktarah); otherwise not.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan interprets "min ha'Minchah" to mean - that it must have
been complete at the time of the Kemitzah (as we explained earlier).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan questions Resh Lakish from the Beraisa (that we already
discussed above), which rules that if Lechem ha'Panim breaks after being
removed from the Shulchan (which is equivalent to after the Kemitzah of a
Minchah) - the Lechem is Pasul, but the Bazichin are nevertheless burned on
(d) According to Resh Lakish - the Bazichin ought to become Pasul, just like
the Kometz in the equivalent case by Minchah (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
(a) To refute the Kashya - Resh Lakish establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi
Eliezer (who is Machshir the Kometz like he is Machshir the Dam even if
there is no Basar (as we learned earlier).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan did not accept that however, because it is a S'tam
Mishnah, and had the author been Rebbi Eliezer, the Beraisa ought to have
presented a case where the Lechem ha'Panim got burned or lost (and not just
(c) Resh Lakish reacted to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya - with silence (because
he had no answer).
(d) We ask why Resh Lakish did not answer that the Lechem ha'Panim is
different, seeing as it is a Minchas Tzibur - in which case, we ought to
permit Chaser, just as we permit Tum'ah.
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah answered - that from the fact that Resh Lakish did
not answer that, it is evident that Chaser is comparable (not to Tum'ah,
which is permitted by a Tzibur, but) to a 'Ba'al-Mum (which is not).
(b) When Rav Papa repeated the previous Kashya (regarding the distinction
between a private Minchah and the Lechem ha'Panim [see also Shitah
Mekubetzes]), Rav Yosef expressed surprise. Who says, he asked - that Rebbi
Yochanan and Resh Lakish are not arguing by the Minchas ha'Omer, which is a
Minchas Tzibur (and even there, Resh Lakish disqualifies the Kometz).
(a) Rav Malkiyo cites two Beraisos, which quote two individual Pesukim. The
1. ... first Beraisa learns from "mi'Saltah, u'mi'Shamnah" - that a Minchah,
whose flour or oil becomes Chaser (even a Kol-she'Hu) is Pasul.
(b) Both Beraisos are referring to a Minchah that became Chaser at one
point. The problem with this is - why we need two Pesukim to invalidate the
Minchah itself which became Chaser (since the second Pasuk does not
specifically mention the oil)?
2. ... second Beraisa learns from "ve'ha'Noseres min ha'Minchah" - that a
Minchah which becomes Chaser (irrespective of whether it is the Minchah
itself or the Kometz, or if the Levonah is not brought on the Mizbe'ach at
all) is Pasul.
(c) Rav Malkiyo asks on Rebbi Yochanan on two scores - because, establishing
that one Beraisa is referring to a Minchah that became Chaser before the
Kemitzah, and the other, to a Minchah whose Shirayim became Chaser after the
Kemitzah, he focuses on the aspects of the cases where Rebbi Yochanan
declares the Minchah, Kasher (the first case, where the owner supplemented
it; the second case, with regard to sacrificing the Kometz. Even those
cases, he asks, the Tana is stringent.
(d) We counter that however, by switching to the aspects of the same two
cases which Rebbi Yochanan agrees are Pasul (the first case, where the owner
failed to supplement the missing Minchah; and the second with regard to
eating the Shirayim).
(a) They asked whether, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who is Machshir the
Kometz), if the Shirayim became Chaser between the Kemitzah and the
Haktarah, the Kohanim may eat the Shirayim. Ze'eiri and Rebbi Yanai argue
over this point (neither, it appears, saw the previous Beraisa) based on
Pesukim in Tzav.
1. Ze'iri resolves the She'eilah from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Noseres min
ha'Minchah" - 've'Lo ha'Noseres min ha'Noseres'.
(b) We might also interpret Rebbi Yanai's words to mean that the Kohanim are
only permitted to eat the Shirayim, if the Minchah (i.e. the Shirayim) is
intact at the time of the Haktarah, in which case, he agrees with Ze'iri in
principle, only arguing with him as to the source.
2. Rebbi Yanai (assuming that he argues with Ze'iri's basic ruling) resolves
it from "min ha'Minchah" - 'Minchah she'Haysah K'var' (i.e. as long as the
Minchah was complete at the time of the Kemitzah [like Rebbi Yochanan
Darshened earlier, but regarding the Kometz]).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Kamatz bi'Semol, Pasul'. Initially, we learn
that from the Pasuk (in connection with the Milu'im) "Va'yakrev es
ha'Minchah Va'yemalei *Chapo* Mimenah", because, bearing in mind the Pasuk
(in connection with the Asham Metzora Ashir) "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Log
ha'Shemen Ve'yatzak al *Kaf* ha'Kohen ha'Semalis", it teaches us - that it
is only there that the left palm is eligible for the Avodah of a Kohen, but
everywhere else, the Kohen must use his right palm.
We now Darshen the four "Semalis" as follows - One for itself, the second
one to Darshen 'Here the left hand, but nowhere else', the third, to
indicate that the first two are not a 'Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut'; and the fourth,
to teach us that the third "Semalis" does not come to permit the left-hand
(b) We answer the Kashya that we need the Pasuk to teach us the intrinsic
Halachah - by pointing to a second "Semalis" to teach us the second
(c) The problem with that (that forces us to answer that ...
1. ... a third "Semolis" is mentioned there) is - that two consecutive
'Miy'utin' (such as the two times "Semalis" here), usually come to include
(and not exclude ['Ein Miy'ut Basar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos']), in which case,
they will come to permit using even the right palm.
(d) We will find - two of those "Semolis" by Metzora Ani and two, by Metzora
2. ... a fourth "Semalis" is - that maybe after the first two "Semalis"
include the left-hand, maybe the third "Semalis" comes to permit using the
left-hand for all other Avodos?