(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 10

MENACHOS 10 (20 Tishrei) - Dedicated by Al, Sophia and Jared Ziegler (of Har Nof, Jerusalem) in loving memory of Al's mother, Chaya bas Berel Dov Ziegler.



(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira concerning the Pasuk "Al Bohen Yado ha'Yemanis ve'al Bohen Raglo ha'Yemanis" (in connection with placing of the oil of the Metzora Ashir), which is seemingly redundant - since the Torah has already written that he must place the oil on the location of the blood of the Asham.

(b) One, Rebbi Zeira replied, comes to include the side of the thumb and the big toe - because the word "al" also implies 'beside' (only he would then have to place both the blood and the oil there).

(c) From the other "al" - he precludes 'Tzidedei Tzedadin' (the flesh below the thumb and the big toe), because 'al' has connotations of 'beside', but not 'below'.

(d) Having written by Metzora ...

1. ... Ashir (also in connection with the placing of the oil) "al Dam ha'Asham", the Torah then writes by Metzora Ani "al Mekom Dam ha'Asham", to teach us - that even if the blood has been wiped away, he should still place the oil (on the exact location where the blood was).
2. ... Ani "al Mekom Dam ha'Asham", it then writes by Metzora Ashir "al Dam ha'Asham" - to teach us that even if the blood is still there, he should place the oil (and that the blood is not a Chatzitzah [an interruption]).
(a) The only remaining problem, says Rava, is why the Torah writes "Yemanis" - by the placing of the oil, both by Metzora Ashir and by Metzora Ani (seeing as that is where he placed the blood of the Asham?

(b) Rava therefore scraps the original D'rashah of "Kaf" (to invalidate Kemitzas S'mol). He now Darshens "Yad", "Regel", "Ozen" and "S'malis" of Metzora Ashir. He learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...

1. ... "Yad" "Yad" - that if the Kohen performs Kemitzah with his left hand, it is Pasul.
2. ... "Regel" "Regel" - that Chalitzah from the left foot is Pasul.
(c) Likewise, he Darshens - "Ozen" "Ozen" with regard to an Eved Ivri, to invalidate piercing his left ear, should he ask to continue serving his master beyond the six-year period.
(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi explains the second "S'malis" by Metzora Ashir, according to Rava, to invalidate the right ear (because we would otherwise have learned that if where S'mol is Pasul, Yemin is Kasher, certainly where S'mol is Kasher, Yemin should be Kasher).

(b) According to Rava, the second "S'malis" is no longer a 'Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut' (which comes to include the right hand, like we said earlier) - because following the various 'Gezeirah-Shavahs', we would have also Darshened "Kaf" "Kaf" to require the right hand, and to preclude the left. "S'malis" therefore comes to include the left-hand, and not to exclude the right.

(c) We ask what Rava learns from the two additional "S'malis" written by Metzora Ani, and we answer by citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says 'Kol Parshah she'Ne'emrah ve'Nishnis - Lo Nishnis Ela Bishevil Davar she'Nischadesh Bah', in which case we can no longer Darshen all the words that the Torah repeats there from Metzora Ashir.

(d) The Chidush that prompted the Torah to write the Parshah of Metzora Ani is - the fact that an Ani is entitled to bring different Korbanos than an Ashir (in other words, the Korban Olah ve'Yored itself is the Chidush).

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah quoted Resh Lakish, who states - that whenever the Torah writes "Etzba" and "Kehunah" - the point to which it relates is crucial to the Avodah.

(b) Assuming the source for this statement to be the Pasuk "Ve'taval ha'Kohen es Etzba'o ha'Yemanis", this leads us to believe - that it is only when the Torah writes both "Etzba" and "Kehunah" that they come 'Le'akev'.

(c) That is why we learn Haza'as ha'Dam by Chatas from there ("Ve'lakach ha'Kohen mi'Dam ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o"). The problem this creates with Kemitzah, where the Mishnah invalidates Kemitzah bi'Semol is - that the Torah writes 'Kehunah' there, but not 'Etzba'.

(d) So Rava reinterprets Resh Lakish principle - to read (not "Etzba" *and* "Kehunah", but) "Etzba" *or* "Kehunah".

(a) With regard to taking the Eivarim to the Kevesh, the Torah writes "Ve'hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah". Abaye asks from the Mishnah in Yoma, where the Tana rules - that the Kohen carried the right hind-leg of the Tamid on to the Mizbe'ach with his left-hand, with the skin facing outwards.

(b) And we answer that Holachah is different than other Avodos - inasmuch as it is in itself dispensable (since the Kohen can receive the blood next to the Mizbe'ach, or hand the bowl down a line of Kohanim without moving from the spot).

(c) The Kashya remains however, from Kabalas ha'Dam, which is certainly indispensable, and by which the Torah writes "Ve'hikrivu B'nei Aharon es ha'Dam" - yet Rebbi Shimon validates Kabalah bi'Semol (as we learned in our Mishnah).

(d) Indeed, we reply, Resh Lakish's principle goes according to the Rabbanan, and not according to Rebbi Shimon - who requires both 'Etzba' and 'Kehunah' (in the way that we initially interpreted Resh Lakish).

(a) Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa - that wherever the Torah uses the Lashon 'Yad' or 'Etzba' - it is crucial.

(b) When we just explained that Rebbi Shimon requires both 'Etzba' and 'Kehunah', we meant - that 'Kehunah' on its own is not le'Ikuva; but 'Etzba' is.

(c) Rebbi Shimon Darshens from 'Kehunah' - that the Kohen must wear the Bigdei Kehunah, to be considered fit to do the Avodah.

(a) Rebbi Shimon does indeed not consider 'Kehunah' on its own to be crucial, and (bearing in mind that the Torah only writes 'Kehunah' by Zerikah) his silence when, in the Mishnah in Zevachim, the Chachamim invalidate Zerikah bi'Semol, is meaningless - since he argues in a Beraisa.

(b) We cannot ask the same Kashya on Kemitzah, where the Torah writes 'Kehunah' ("ve'Kamatz ha'Kohen") but not 'Etzba', and we learned in our Mishnah 'Kamatz bi'Semol, Pasul', because the reason Rebbi Shimon does not dispute it is - because the Torah refers to Minchah as 'Kodesh Kodashim, ka'Chatas ve'che'Asham', which is the reason why he agrees with the Rabbanan there.

(c) Rebbi Shimon says in the Beraisa ...

1. ... Kibeil bi'Semol - Kasher.
2. ... Zarak bi'Semol - Kasher.



(a) Despite the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Kamatz ha'Kohen", Rava still needs "Yad" "Yad" from Metzora Ashir, to invalidate Kemitzah bi'Semol - one with regard to the actual Kemitzah, and the other, for the Kidush Kemitzah (placing the Kemitzah into a K'li, to carry to the Mizbe'ach).

(b) We ask why Rebbi Shimon (who does not require Kidush Kometz), needs "Yad" "Yad". In fact, we can ask on Rebbi Shimon even if he does require Kidush Kometz - because he validates it with the left-hand (as we shall see shortly).

(c) Nor can Rebbi Shimon learn from "Yad" "Yad" that Kamatz bi'Semol is Pasul - because he knows that from another D'rashah (as we shall now see).

(d) We answer that Rebbi Shimon learns like Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya, who Darshens the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchah) "Kodesh Kodashim Hi ka'Chatas ve'che'Asham. He learns from ...

1. ... "ka'Chatas" - that when the Kohen comes to bring the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach, then if he decides to bring it with his hand, then he must use his right-hand, like the Avodah of a Chatas.
2. ... "ve'che'Asham" - that should he decide to bring it in a K'li Shareis, then he may take it in his left hand, like an Asham Metzora (where the Kohen is permitted to use his left hand, as we learned earlier).
9) We conclude that Rebbi Shimon needs "Yad" "Yad" to teach us that Kemitzah bi'Semol is Pasul even by a Minchas Chotei. We might have thought that Rebbi Shimon holds otherwise - because, since he exempts a Minchas Chotei from Shemen and Levonah (so that his Korban should not be of a high standard), so too will he permit Kemitzas S'mol (for the same reason).

Next daf


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