ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 19
MENACHOS 19 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk 'Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar Ve'hikrivu b'nei
Aharon ha'Kohanim es Damo ... " - that the Mitzvah of Kehunah begins only
from the Kabalas ha'Dam (and that a Zar may perform the Shechitah).
(b) This ruling poses a Kashya on our current interpretation of Rebbi
Shimon, because then - we ought to compare the Shechitah to the Kabalah via
the 'Vav' in "Ve'hikrivu" (see Shitah Mekubetzes 4).
(c) We counter this D'rashah with that of "ve'Samach ve'Shachat", from which
Rebbi Shimon will then learn - that just as Semichah may be performed by a
Zar, so too, Shechitah.
(d) We do not, on the other hand, require the owner to perform the
Shechitah, like he must be the one to perform the Semichah - because if he
does not need to perform the Zerikah (which is the major Kaparah), then how
much so the Shechitah.
(a) The problem with the previous 'Kal va'Chomer' from Zerikah is - that,
bearing in mind that a Zar is not permitted to perform the Zerikas ha'Dam,
how can we learn Shechitah (which a Zar *is* permitted to perform) from
Zerikah (which he is *not* ['Efshar mi'she'I Efshar'])?
(b) We therefore quote the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'shachat es ban ha'Bakar
Asher Lo" - which (in connection with the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur) - from
which we can infer that as far as other Korbanos is concerned, the owner is
not required to Shecht his own Korban.
(a) Rav says that wherever the word 'Torah' and 'Chukah' appears, it comes
'Le'akev' (to render crucial whatever is written in that Pasuk). Based on
the Pasuk "Zos Chukas ha'Torah", we initially explain - that Rav requires
both words to be Me'akev (and not just either).
(b) The Torah only writes "Torah" by Nazir. Nevertheless, Tenufah is
Me'akeiv, based on the Pasuk ("Kein Ya'aseh al Toras Nizro") - because "Kein
Ya'aseh" is considered like "Chukah".
(c) We have a similar problem with the Mishnah in the following Perek, which
considers each of the four types of loaves of a Korban Todah crucial to the
Todah - despite the fact that the Torah writes only "Torah" there (and not
(d) And we answer the Kashya, by quoting Mar, who comments on the Pasuk "Al
Zevach Todas *Shelamav*" - from which Mar includes the Shalmei Nazir, which
the Torah comparing to a Todah (regarding various Halachos of the loaves of
a Nazir). And once the Torah compares a Korban Todah to the loaves of a
Shalmei Nazir (since a Hekesh always cuts both ways), the previous Kashya is
(a) By Metzora too, the Torah only writes Torah, yet the Mishnah there
considers crucial all four items that the Torah prescribes for his
purification - the cedar wood, the crimson thread, the hyssop and the two
(b) And we answer the Kashya by quoting the Pasuk "Zos Tih'yeh Toras
ha'Metzora" - since "Tih'yeh" too, is considered like "Chukah" and is
(c) And we finally ask on Rav from the Avodah on Yom Kipur, where the Torah
writes only "Chukah" - from which the Mishnah will later derive that the two
goats are Me'akev the Avodah.
(d) We therefore conclude - that, when Rav said 'Torah ve'Chukah' are
Me'akev, he meant either one or the other, and not both.
(a) Based on the fact that various aspects of other Korbanos are not
Me'akev, in spite of the fact that the Torah writes "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah
ve'la'Minchah ... ", we restrict Rav's statement to "Chukah", but 'Toras' is
not Me'akev at all.
(b) When he said "Torah ve'Chukah", he meant - that even though the Torah
writes "Toras" it is not Me'akev unless it adds the word "Chukas".
(c) Rav states that in whichever respect the Torah repeats itself, it is
Me'akev. He is referring to - the Torah repeating in Tzav what it has
already written in Vayikra.
(d) In spite of the Torah having written "Kol Zachar bi'Venei Aharon
Yochlenah, Chok Olam ... ", we initially think that Rav needs to come on to
the fact that the Torah repeats itself - because the Pasuk is written in
connection with the Achilah (and not with the Avodah).
(a) We retract from the previous suggestion however, based on the Mishnah
later, which rules - that the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim as well as the two
Bazichei Levonah, are Me'akev each other, and so are the Lechem ha'Panim and
the Bazichei Levonah Me'akev each other.
(b) The source for these rulings - is the Pasuk in Emor "Ve'ichluhu be'Makom
Kadosh ... Chok Olam", a Kashya on what we just said - seeing as we Darshen
that they are Me'akev, even though "Chukah" is written with regard to
(c) We therefore conclude that even "Chukah" that is written with regard to
Achilah is Me'akev in other areas of Halachah, too. And we learn from the
Pasuk "mi'Girsah u'mi'Shamnah" - that (with an extra 'Hey') that all the
ground flour and the oil of the Minchah must remain intact, but not other
things (in which case "Chukah" is 'La'av Davka').
(a) We just quoted Rav, who said that in whichever respect the Torah repeats
itself, it is Me'akev. Shmuel holds that although 'Geres' and 'Shemen' are
Me'akev (as we just explained), nothing else is.
(b) The problem with this is - why Shmuel should disagree with the principle
of 'Tana Bei K'ra Le'akev'?
(c) And we conclude that Shmuel agrees on principle that repetition
constitutes 'Le'akev', and he argues with Rav over 'M'lo Kumtzo' (in Shemini
[where the Torah writes "Vayemalei Chapo Mimenah"]) and "be'Kumtzo" (Tzav) -
from which we learn that the Kohen may not make a measure for the Kometz (as
we learned in the first Perek).
(d) Shmuel declines to learn that it is Me'akev - since the Chidush is
written in Shemini, which discusses the Din of the Milu'im (a momentary
ruling ['le'Sha'ah]), and he does not learn Doros from Sha'ah.
(a) We already cited Shmuel in the first Perek, who learns that even though
the liquid measures do not sanctify solids and vice-versa, the bowls (for
the blood) do. His source for this is - the Pasuk in Naso (in connection
with the Chanukas Mizbe'ach of the Besi'sim) "Sheneihem Melei'im So'les".
(b) Although he declines on principle to learn 'Doros' from Sha'ah
(regarding 'Midah le'Kometz' or anywhere else), he nevertheless learns Doros
from Sha'ah regarding the Din of 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin' - because it is
repeated, not just once, but twelve times.
(a) When the Pasuk writes "Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakreiv Osah b'nei Aharon
Lifnei Hashem", it is referring to - Hagashah.
(b) Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav from this repetition - from our
Mishnah, which rules 'Lo Higish, Kasher'.
(c) To which Rav replied - that this Pasuk is not just a repetition, but is
needed to fix the exact location of Hagashah (as we shall now see).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Lifnei Hashem" - that the Minchah must be brought to the western
side of the Mizbe'ach (which faces the Heichal and the D'vir).
(b) To accommodate both Pesukim - the Minchah was therefore brought to the
south-western corner (facing the tip of the south-western Keren).
2. ... "el P'nei ha'Mizbe'ach - that it must be brought to the southern side
(because that is where the Kevesh was situated.
(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Minchah was brought specifically to the
southern side of the Mizbe'ach. Rav Ashi bases Rebbi Eliezer's reasoning on
the location of the Mizbe'ach - which, the latter holds, was situated
entirely on the northern area of the Azarah.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer now holds that since (bearing in mind that the south side
of the Mizbe'ach was facing the Heichal according to him), we ignore the
inference from 'Lifnei Hashem' that the west side is eligible for this
Avodah (since it cannot satisfy "el P'nei ha'Mizbe'ach') and take it to the
south side, which satisfies the Pasuk ''Lifnei Hashem'' as well as that of