ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 11
MENACHOS 11 (21 Tishrei, Hoshana Raba) - dedicated by Gedalyah Jawitz of
Wantagh, N.Y., honoring the Yahrtzeit of his father, Yehuda ben Simcha Volf
(a) Having taught us that ...
1. ... a pebble in the Kometz invalidates it, our Mishnah nevertheless found
it necessary to add 'a grain of salt' - because (unlike the pebble) it is
fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) Seeing as a Kometz that contains a grain of Levonah is Pasul (because it
is Chaser), the Kohen avoids finding grains of Levonah in it - by moving it
all to the side before performing the Kemitzah, and then taking the Kometz
from the middle.
2. ... a grain of salt invalidates it, the Tana nevertheless saw fit to add
'a particle of Levonah' - because (unlike the salt) it is brought together
with the Minchah.
(c) The Kometz (like everything that went on the Mizbe'ach) was salted -
after being placed on the Ma'arachah.
(d) The Tana could indeed have begun with 'a particle of Levonah' (in which
case he could have omitted the pebble and the salt altogether) - only it is
normal for the Tana to present a few cases in the form of 'Lo Zu af Zu'
(starting with the smaller Chidush, going on to the bigger one).
(a) The Mishnah disqualifies a Kometz which contains a pebble ... because it
is 'Yeser'. It might just as well have said 'because it constitutes a
Chatzitzah' (i.e. the pebble divides, either the flour on either side of it
or between the flour and the Kohen's hand).
(b) To explain why the Tana chose the reason of 'Yeser', Rebbi Yirmiyah says
'min ha'Tzad', by which he means - that the Mishnah is speaking even when
the pebble is at the edge of the Kometz, dividing between the last particle
of flour and either the air outside the Kometz, or the thumb or the little
finger (neither of which is part of the Kometz, as we shall now see, and
which does therefore not constitute a Chatzitzah).
(c) He refers to it as 'min ha'Tzad' - because after placing his hand into
the Minchah (palm downwards), filling his palm and closing his fingers over
it (as we shall see shortly), he turned his hand round, palm upwards (to
prevent any flour of the Kometz from spilling), so that his little finger
and thumb were both at the side.
(d) When Abaye asked Rava how the Kohen performed Kemitzah, the latter
replied 'ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi' (like people do) - meaning with all five
fingers (so that the palm is absolutely full.
(a) We query this from a Beraisa however, which lists the names of the five
fingers and their meanings (starting from the little finger). The
significance of ...
1. ... the 'Zeres' is - to measure the Choshen Mishpat of the Kohen Gadol
(which had to measure a Zeres by a Zeres). This constituted the distance
between the tip of the little finger to the tip of the thumb, stretched full
length (and was equivalent to exactly half an Amah).
(b) 'Lehashvos' means - that with the thumb and the little finger the Kohen
would remove any excess flour that protruded outside the three fingers which
constituted the Kometz.
2. ... the 'Kemitzah' (the index finger) is - to serve as the outer wall of
the Kemitzah (a Tiyuvta on Rava).
3. ... the 'Amah' (the middle finger) is - to determine the length of the
sticks (from the elbow to the tip of the Amah when the arm and hand are both
outstretched) which were used to measure the Amos of the building and the
Keilim of the Beis Hamikdash.
4. ... the 'Etzba' (the forefinger) is - for the Kohanim to dip into the
blood for Haza'ah.
5. ... the 'Godel' is - to place the blood of the Asham Metzora and the oil
(c) Rav Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav briefly described the process. He said -
that the Kohen would cover the palm of his hand with his fingertips until
they touched it at the far end, and then perform the Kemitzah.
(d) This is corroborated by a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Melo Kumtzo" - that the palm must be full (by the three fingers
touching the far end of the palm and not somewhere in the middle).
2. ... "Ve'heirim mimenu be'Kumtzo" - that it must be exactly a palm-full,
and no more (that the flour should not protrude from the spaces between the
fingers or at the sides of the palm.
(a) The Minchah al ha'Machavas and the Minchas Marcheshes differed from a
plain Minchas So'les - in that they were first baked in their respective
Keilim and broken into pieces, before the Kohen performed Kemitzah.
(b) To perform Kemitzah - the Kohen would place his hand sideways inside the
K'li (in the same way as he did with a Minchas So'les), and then push away
the protruding pieces with his thumb and little finger.
(c) We query the Beraisa's statement that the Kemitzah was the most
difficult Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash - on the basis of two other Beraisos
which refer to the Melikah (of a bird) and the Chafinah (of the Ketores on
Yom Kipur) as the most difficult Avodah respectively (and how can three
Avodos all be the most difficult Avodah?).
(d) So we amend it - to 'one of the most difficult Avodos ... '.
(a) When Rav Papa said 'M'lo Kumtzo ke'de'Kamtzi Inshi' - he meant that the
Kohen pushes his hands sideways into the flour in the way that we explained,
and proceeds to fill his palm by moving it across the flour, allowing it to
fill the cavity formed by his fingers bent over his palm.
(b) And when he asked what the Din will be if the Kohen performed the
1. ... 'be'Roshei Etzbe'osav', he meant - that the Kohen performed the
Kemitzah by pushing his stretched out hand (palm down) into the flour, and
then curling them into the palm of his hand, after his palm was full.
(c) The Kohen Gadol performs the Chafinah (taking the handful of Ketores) on
Yom Kipur in the same way as a Kohen takes the Kemitzah. Rav Papa asked the
same three She'eilos regarding it as he asked in connection with the
Kemitzah, adding the She'eilah what the Din will be - if the Kohen Gadol
takes half a handful with each hand and then combines them.
2. ... 'min ha'Tzedadin', he meant - that he placed his hand on the flour
(palm up), and allowed the flour to fall into his palm by sliding his hand
across the flour (or that he took the flour from the side of the K'li and
not from the middle).
3. ... 'mi'Matah le'Ma'alah', he meant that the Kohen slid the tips of his
fingers into the flour (palm up), and then closed them on to the palm of his
hand, after the palm was full.
(d) The outcome of all these She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.
(a) Rav Papa also asks what the Din will be if the Kohen then sticks the
Kometz onto the wall of the K'li Shareis to carry it to the Mizbe'ach.
What might be wrong with that is - the fact that he did not place it inside
the k'li, which is maybe what the Torah wants him to do.
(b) And Mar bar Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if he sticks the Kometz
on to the floor of the K'li Shareis, which is upside-down (see Shitah
Mekubetzes) - or if he turns the K'li upside-down, and places it in the base
of the K'li. which is in the form of a receptacle.
(c) What might be wrong with that is - the fact that this is not the
conventional way of placing things inside vessels.
(a) A regular Minchah requires - a Log of oil ad a Kometz (a fistful) of
(b) Our Mishnah rules that adding too much, or too little oil or Levonah to
the Minchah - invalidates it.
(c) Rebbi Elazar establishes 'Ribah Shamnah' as two Login of oil, which we
initially take to mean - specifically two Lugin which the owner designated
for his Minchah, because it now resembles two Menachos in one.
(d) We infer from Rebbi Elazar that Shemen of Chulin or Shemen of another
Minchah will not disqualify it. Rav Zutra bar Tuvya however, has a problem
with that concerning a Minchas Chotei, which we know can become Pasul
through the oil. But how, according to Rebbi Elazar - seeing as a Minchas
Chotei does not contain oil to begin with (so how can the owner add to it),
whereas oil from somebody else's Minchah or from Chulin does not invalidate
a Minchah, according to Rebbi Elazar?
(a) So we conclude - that when Rebbi Elazar said 'K'gon she'Hifrish Sh'nei
Lugin', he meant that *even* if the owner designated two Lugin (it still
invalidates the Minchah), but certainly oil from somebody else's Minchah or
(b) We might otherwise have thought - that since either of the two Lugin is
eligible to constitute the required measure of Shemen, both will not
invalidate the Minchah.
(c) Rava explains that Rebbi Elazar actually extrapolates this from our
Mishnah - because 'Ribah Shamnah' implies that the owner actually designates
more oil than he need (and not that he added other oil later, in which case,
the Tana would have said 'Ribah Lah Shemen').
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Levonah she'Chasrah constitutes less than
two particles remaining at the time of the Haktarah - Rebbi Shimon requires
the last particle to be Chaser, before the Minchah will be Pasul.
(b) When we cite the Beraisa 'Kometz u'Levonah (or Kometz Levonah)
she'Chasar Kol-Shehu, Pasul', we are asking on Rebbi Shimon, whose name it
seems, appears in the original version of this Beraisa (see Shitah
(c) So we amend the Beraisa to - Koret Levonah she'Chasar Kol-she'Hu ... ').
(d) Alternatively, we resolve the discrepancy (even without amending the
text) - by establishing the latter Beraisa by someone who donated Levonah on
its own (since the D'rashah permitting part of it, is confined to the
Levonah that is brought together with the Minchah, (which is what the
Tana'im are arguing about).
(a) We just cited the Machlokes Tana'im, who argue over whether two
particles of Levonah must remain for the Minchah to be Kasher (Rebbi
Yehudah) or only one (Rebbi Shimon). Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi
Yochanan cites a third opinion, Rebbi Meir - who holds that the Kometz
Levonah must be intact at the time when it is brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns this from our Mishnah, which states S'tam 'Chisar
Levonasah, Pasul', and 'S'tam Mishnah Rebbi Meir'.
(c) All three Tana'im agree - that Lechatchilah, the Levonah must comprise a
(d) And all three Darshen from the same Pasuk "ve'es Kol ha'Levonah Asher al
1. ... Meir interprets the Pasuk to mean - that all the Levonah that was
brought together with the Minchah must be sacrificed (and not just part of
2. ... Yehudah explains that "*Kol* ha'Levonah" - implies even if it is only
one particle (since he translates "Kol" as 'Kol-she'Hu', and "ve'es" comes
to include a second particle.
3. ... Shimon learns "Kol" like Rebbi Yehudah, but he does not Darshen
(a) According to Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, the above
Machlokes Tana'im is confined to Levonah which is brought together with a
Minchah. Even Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon will learn from the Pasuk
"ve'es Kol ha'Levonah *Asher al ha'Minchah*" - that the Din of "Kol" and
"ve'es" only pertain to Levonah that comes with the Minchah, but not to
Levonah that comes on its own.
(b) And Rebbi Yochanan - repeats this latter ruling with regard to the
Levonah that comes in the Bazichin.
(c) We think that this is obvious - on account of the fact that the Torah
does not write "Kol" and "es" by the Bazichin.
(d) It is not so obvious however - when we bear in mind that the Bazichin
came together with the Lechem ha'Panim, in which case, we might have
attributed to it the Din of Levonah that come together with the Minchah.
(e) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over Rebbi Yochanan's original
statement. One of them holds like him. The other one - does not
differentiate between Levonah that comes independently and Levonah that
comes together with a Minchah. According to him, the D'rashah of "Kol" and
"ve'es" extends to the former, as well.
(a) Our Mishnah invalidates 'Chiser Levonasah', implying that 'Yatir
Levonasah' is Kasher. Rami bar Chama reconciles this with the Beraisa which
invalidates it - by establishing the former when the owner designated two
Kematzim of Levonah (which is excessive, and no longer appears to be part of
the same 'Korban').
(b) Rami bar Chama goes on to discuss someone who designated two Kematzim of
Levonah for his Minchah, and one of them got lost. He draws a distinction
between whether it got lost before the Kemitzah - in which case it was not
fixed together with the Minchah, and will not disqualify it because of Yiter
Levonasah, or after it - and it has already been fixed as 'Yiter Levonasah',
and it disqualifies the Minchah.
(c) Alternatively, when Rami bar Chama says 'K'gon she'Hifrish Lah Sh'nei
Kematzim', he is referring to the Beraisa, which validates it - because both
Kematzim are eligible to serve as the required Kometz (a S'vara which we
rejected earlier), and it is our Mishnah which holds that a little extra is
Pasul (like the Din by 'Yiter Shamnah').
(d) According to this second interpretation (validating 'Yiter Levonasah') -
if, in the following case, one of the Kemaztim got lost before the Kemitzah,
the Minchah will be Kasher, because it is not considered a case of 'Chiser
Levonasah' at the time of Haktarah (even according to Rebbi Meir), as it
would be if it got lost after the Kemitzah.
(a) And he draws a similar distinction between someone who designated four
Bazichei Levonah for the Lechem ha'Panim, where two of them got lost,
whether they got lost before the Siluk Bazichin - in which case they are not
fixed together with the Lechem ha'Panim (or are not considered 'Chiser
Levonasah'), and do therefore not disqualify it, or they are.
(b) The latter ruling appears to be an obvious extension of the first.
Nevertheless, Rami bar Chama is coming to teach us - that, based on the fact
the Bazichin are already designated, they ought to be fixed from the time
that they are due to be burned (to render the Lechem Pasul) even though the
Siluk Bazichin has not yet taken place.
(c) If that was the case, we would then consider 'Higi'a Zemanah' - from the
time the Korban Musaf has been brought.