ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 20
MENACHOS 20 (30 Tishrei) - dedicated by Reb Mordechai Rabin
(London/Yerushalayim) l'Iluy Nishmas his father, ha'Gaon Rav Gedalya
Rabinowitz of Manchester, England (and in his later years, Bnei Brak,
Israel). Hearing a Shiur of ha'Gaon Rav Gedalya's was an unforgettable
experience, as his many Talmidim, both Bnei Yeshiva and Ba'alei Batim, can
(a) Rav Ivya asks on Rav (who, in the realm of Kodshim, requires repetition
for something to be Me'akev) from Melach - which is Me'akev (as we shall now
see), even though Melichah is not repeated.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, comments on the Pasuk "B'ris Melach Olam
Hi" - that Hashem made a covenant with salt, that it will never cease from
(c) Rebbi Shimon learns from the fact that the Torah writes "B'ris" by salt,
just like it writes "B'ris Kehunas Olam" - that just as there can be no
Korbanos without Kohanim, so too, can there be no Korbanos without salt.
(d) Practically, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon do not argue - only over
'Mashma'os Dorshin' (the source).
(e) In answer to Rav Ivya's Kashya, Rav Yosef explains - that Rav holds like
our Tana, who says 'Lo Malach, Kasher'.
(a) The Melichah took place - on top of the Mizbe'ach (beside the
(b) We interpreted 'Lo Yatzak Kasher' in our Mishnah to mean - 'Lo Yatzak
Kohen Ela Zar'.
(c) We cannot interpret 'Lo Malach Kasher' in the same way (to answer Rav
Ivya's Kashya on Rav) - because, since we just learned that Melichah took
place on top of the Mizbe'ach, it goes without saying that a Zar (who is
forbidden even to enter that section of the Azarah, let alone ascend the
Mizbe'ach), cannot perform it.
(d) The alternative answer to Rav Ivya's Kashya, based on the Pasuk "B'ris
Melach Olam" itself is - that "B'ris" has the same connotations as
(a) The problem that the Pasuk "ve'Chol Korban Minchascha ba'Melach Timlach"
creates with the current Suya is - how we can then claim that Melach is not
(b) To answer the Kashya, we cite a Beraisa, which explains how this Pasuk
is needed. The Tana learns from ...
1. ... "Minchascha" - that only a Korban like a Minchah, which requires
firewood to burn it, must be salted, but not a Korban Eitzim or Dam (of
Korbanos), which are independent.
(c) The Beraisa learns that the Levonah which comes with the Minchah
requires salting too - from the fact that it is brought together with the
Minchah in the same K'li.
2. ... the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sashbis Melach ... *me'al
Minchasecha*" - 've'Lo me'al Damcha' (that the blood of a Korban does not
require salting [in case we try to learn Dam, which is Matir, from Minchah
i.e. the Kometz, which is Matir, too).
3. ... "Korbancha"- that the Sheyari Minchah do not require salting.
(d) The Tana incorporates in the Melichah, Levonah that comes by itself, as
well as the Levonah in the Bazichin, the Ketores, the Minchas Kohanim, the
Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach and the Minchas Nesachim - (which are all completely
burned, from the Pasuk in Vayikra "al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach".
(a) The Tana's source for salting ...
1. ... the Eimurin of all Korbanos and the Eivarim of the Olah is - the same
Pasuk ("al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach"), and so is his source for salting
(b) Having listed Eimurei Chatas and Eimurei Asham, the Tana nevertheless
added 'Eimurei Kodshei Kodshim' - to include Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (on
Shavu'os), which ...
2. ... the Olas ha'Of.
(c) ... we know are Kodshei Kodshim - because whereas Shalmei Yachid can be
eaten for two days, they can be eaten for only one.
(a) In spite of having included in the salting, whatever requires wood to
burn it, from "ve'Chol Korban Minchascha be'Melach Timloch", we need the
S'vara that Levonah came together with the Minchah, in order to incorporate
it too, because we might have otherwise precluded it - on the grounds that
"Korban" is a 'K'lal', and "Minchascha", a 'P'rat' (and we would apply the
principle 'Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'bi'Perat' [to the exclusion of the
(b) We know that this is not the case - because "al Kol Korbancha Takriv
Melach" is a second 'K'lal' from which we include whatever is similar to the
(c) And this also explains - why we are able to include all the items that
the Tana learns from "al Kol Korbancha Takriv Melach" (which would otherwise
have been precluded from the 'K'lal u'P'rat').
(d) And we learn from the 'P'rat' (Minchah) - that whatever requires wood
(a) We suggest that perhaps we should learn from the 'P'rat' whatever has an
accompanying Chovah (i.e. Levonah), which would include the Dam in the Din
Melichah - since it too, is accompanied by Nesachim.
(b) And we suggest that in fact, the Nesachim accompany the Eimurin (and not
the Dam) - because if 'Kevayachol', the Eimurim are considered Hashem's
food, the Nesachim are the drink.
(c) We counter that argument however, by suggesting that the Nesachim might
go better with the Dam than with the Eimurin - because after the Kaparah
comes the Simchah.
(d) We finally reject the suggestion that Dam requires salting because of
the Nesachim, just like the Minchah requires salting because of the
Levonah - since the latter are brought together in the same K'li, whereas
the former are not.
(a) We ask why we do not learn from the P'rat the Levonah in the Bazichin
exclusively. To arrive at that conclusion, we would have to Darshen - 'Mah
ha'P'rat Mefurash she'Acherim Ba'in Chovah Lah (wood) u'Materes (the
(b) Our answer is based on the D'rashah "me'al Minchasecha", 've'Lo me'al
Damcha' - from which we can extrapolate that if not for this Drashah, we
would learn Dam from Minchah, even though it is similar to it in only one
way (inasmuch as it is Matir), and not two (as we currently suggesting), and
so it is regarding all the other things that we learn from the Minchah.
(a) The Tana just Darshened "me'al Minchasecha", 've'Lo me'al Damcha'. The
alternative D'rashah we suggest is - "me'al Minchasecha", 've'Lo me'al
(b) And we cite six similarities between Eivarim and Minchah. Four of them
are 'Acherim Ba'in Chovah Lah, Ishim, ba'Chutz and Nosar'. 'ba'Chutz'
means - that Eivarim, like Kemitzah, are always sacrificed outside the
Heichal (in the Azarah), whereas Dam is sometimes sprinkled bi'Fenim.
(c) The remaining two are - Tum'ah and Me'ilah, which do not apply to Dam.
(d) There is no Nosar, Tum'ah or Me'ilah by Dam - because the Torah writes
three Pesukim to preclude Dam from these three things (as we learned in
(a) We conclude that in spite of the two similarities between Dam and
Minchah, the similarities between Eivarim and Minchah outweigh them. One of
those two similarities is 'Matir' - the other, is 'Nifsal bi'Sheki'as
(b) The Eimurin become Pasul - the following morning.
(c) We know that - because we learn from the Parshah of Terumas ha'Deshen
that it is a Mitzvah to burn the Eivarim and Eimurin all night.
(a) The Beraisa precluded Eitzim and Dam from Melichah, even though they are
considered a Korban. The Tana who considers Eitzim a Korban is - Rebbi.
(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk "Nefesh ki Sakriv *Korban*
Minchah" - that Eitzim is called a Korban.
(c) We also find wood referred to as a Korban - in Nechemyah, who writes
"ve'ha'Goralos Hipalnu al Korban ha'Eitzim".
(d) The minimum Shiur that someone who donates a Korban Eitzim must bring
is - two large blocks of wood.
(a) According to Rebbi, a Korban Eitzim (which he considers to be a Korban
Minchah) requires salt - and Hagashah (to the south-western corner of the
(b) Rava adds that it also requires Kemitzah, and Rav Papa adds to that -
(c) The question then arises how the Beraisa can then preclude a Korban
Eitzim from salt, to which we answer - 'Sami mi'Ka'an Eitzim' (erase Eitzim
from the Beraisa).
(d) Neither does "Minchah" come to preclude Dam, seeing as we ultimately
learn Dam from "me'al Minchasecha". "Minchah" ('Kol she'Acherim Ba'in Lahem
Chovah') therefore comes to preclude - Nesachim, which do not require wood.