ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 21
(a) Among the four things that do not require salt the Beraisa lists wine,
blood and wood - and the Ketores.
(b) The author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi - because then the Beraisa
should not have included wood, as we just learned.
(c) Neither can the author be the Rabbanan of Rebbi, we declare, because the
Beraisa includes Ketores, which it should not have done - seeing as it needs
wood (as we also just learned). In addition, we will learn explicitly on the
next Amud, that Ketores requires salting.
(d) We therefore establish the author as Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi
Yochanan ben Berokah, who learns from the P'rat, Davar ha'Mekabel Tum'ah,
Olah le'Ishim and Yeshno al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. He precludes from ...
1. ... Davar ha'Mekabel Tum'ah - wood, which is not subject to Tum'ah.
(e) When the Sugya in Pesachim includes Eitzim and Levonah in the Din of
Tum'ah - it is referring to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, whereas we are speaking
about Tum'ah d'Oraysa.
2. ... Olah le'Ishim - wine and blood, neither of which go on the
3. ...Yeshno al Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon - Ketores, which is brought on the
(a) The problem with the Tana's need to preclude Dam from Melichah is that,
according to Ze'iri, this would appear to be obvious.
1. Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina ruled - that one is not Chayav for drinking
blood that has been cooked.
(b) The reason for these two rulings is - a. because one is only Chayav
Kareis on blood that is fit to atone, and cooked blood is not (because it
has lost its identity), and b. because salting is, to some extent, like
2. Rav Yehudah Amar Ze'iri - issued the same ruling regarding blood that has
(c) Rav Yehudah himself said that limbs which have been roasted before
bringing them on the Mizbe'ach - are not subject to "Rei'ach Nicho'ach".
(d) According to Ze'iri, the Tana contemplates salting the blood - just a
little, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, but not sufficiently to render the
(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who eats blood that has been congealed by
heating, or who drinks melted Cheilev - is Chayav Kareis.
(b) Rava reconciles Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina with this Beraisa - by
establishing the latter by blood that was heated by the sun, and Ze'iri, by
blood that was heated by fire ...
(c) ... because whereas the latter cannot revert to regular blood, and is
therefore unfit to atone, the former, which can, retains its identity, and
therefore remains fit to atone.
(a) We query Rava's answer, based on a ruling of Rebbi Yochanan. When Rebbi
Mani asked Rebbi Yochanan about someone who drinks congealed blood - he
replied 'Ho'il Ve'nidcheh, Yidacheh' (once it has been rejected, it remains
rejected even if it subsequently melts).
(b) Assuming that Rebbi Yochanan is also referring to the blood of Chulin,
the Kashya is - why the Beraisa does not apply the same S'vara with regard
to blood that was congealed by the sun?
(c) Rava, who had no answer to the Kashya - reacted by remaining silent.
(d) Abaye (who asked the initial Kashya) suggested that ...
1. ... the Beraisa is speaking about Chata'os Chitzoniyos and Chulin,
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan is speaking by Chata'os Penimiyos (as we shall now
(a) This reminded Rava what he had heard from Rav Chisda, who ruled - that
someone who ate the congealed blood ...
1. ... of Chata'os Chitzoniyos is Chayav, seeing as the Torah writes
"Ve'lakach ... Ve'nasan" (and this is applicable even when the blood is
(b) Someone who eats the congealed blood of Chulin - is Chayav, since it is
fit to atone by Chata'os Chitzoniyos.
2. ... of Chata'os Penimiyos is Patur (since the Pasuk writes "Ve'taval
Ve'hizah", which is not possible when the blood is congealed).
(a) This is the opinion of Rava quoting Rav Chisda. Rava himself disagrees.
He declares Chayav even someone who eats the congealed blood of Chata'os
ha'Penimiyos - because it is fit to atone in the case of Chata'os
(b) Rav Papa extrapolates from Rava's ruling - that someone who eats the
congealed of a donkey will be Chayav too (by virtue of the same 'Migu' [see
(c) Rav Gidal Amar Ze'iri rules that blood that is wet or congealed - is
considered a Chatzitzah (and will invalidate Tevilah).
(d) Rav Gidal will reconcile this with the Beraisa, which declares that
dried blood, ink, honey and milk are not Chotzetz - by establishing the
Beraisa by blood that is completely liquefied, whilst *he* is referring to
liquid blood that is still sticky.
(a) We already discussed the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchascha ba'Melach Timloch".
The Beraisa explains that "Timloch" comes to preclude 'Tevoneihu' (which we
will discuss shortly). The Tana learns from "ba'Melach" - that the Kohanim
must use real salt, and not brine.
(b) And from "ve'Lo Sashbis Melach ... ", the Tana confines the Mitzvah to
Melach Sedomis - which (as "Lo Sashbis" implies) is available at all times,
both in summer and winter (because the sea produces it constantly).
(c) The difference between Melach Sedomis and Melach Isteruknis (which man
mines from the ground) is - that the former is fine, whereas the latter is
coarse (see also Mesores ha'Shas quoting the Aruch).
(d) We learn that if there is no Melach Sedomis, the Kohanim may use Melach
Isteruknis - from the word "Takriv".
(a) The Tana also learns from "Takriv", besides the fact that 'Kol-she'Hu'
will suffice - that the Mitzvah of salting the limbs of a Korban Tzibur
applies even be'Tum'ah and even on Shabbos.
1. Abaye refutes Rabah bar Ula's suggestion that when the Tana says 'Yachol
Yetavneihu', he means that one should mix in lots of salt like 'straw in
cement' ('Yachol Yisbonenu') - on the grounds that the Tana ought to have
then said 'Yachol Yetavnenu (or Yetavlenu)').
(c) According to Rava, who leaves the text as 'Tevoneihu' (or amends it to
'Yevonenu'), Rav Ashi explains the Beraisa to mean - that one might have
thought that one should add salt to the point that it can be tasted (even
just on one side [see also Tosfos DH 'Yitein']).
2. And Rava refutes Abaye's suggestion that he means that one should add row
upon row of salt like a building - because then, he ought to have said
(d) In fact, one places salt on one side of the limb, and then turns it over
and salts the other side.
(e) Abaye comments - that the same applies to Chulin meat that one wishes to
(a) The Beraisa draws a distinction between the salt on the limb, and the
salt on the ramp and on top of the Mizbe'ach in that - the former is subject
to Me'ilah, whereas the latter is not.
(b) There is no Me'ilah in the case of the latter - because it is no longer
fit to salt the Korbanos.
(c) Rav Masna extrapolates that Me'ilah does apply to the former, from the
Pasuk "Ve'hikravtem Lifnei Hashem, Ve'hishlichu ha'Kohanim Aleihem Melach,
Ve'he'elu Osam Olah la'Hashem" - since the Navi refers to the salt as well
the actual Korbanos as "Olah".
(a) The Mishnah is Shekalim lists Melach and Eitzim of Kodesh (among seven
items) - that the Rabbanan made a T'nai permitting the Kohanim to derive
benefit from them.
(b) Shmuel restricts this concession - by permitting them to use it only for
their Korbanos, but not to eat.
(c) Initially, we think that when Shmuel said ...
1. ... 'le'Korbanam', he meant - to salt their own Korbanos ...
(d) We ask on this however - that if they were permitted use the salt for
salting the skins of the Korbanos that they received (as we shall now see),
then how much more so, to eat the Kodshim that they received?
2. ... 'Aval la'Achilah, Lo' - meaning that it was not permitted to use
the salt or the wood for the Korbanos (Kodshei Kodshim) that they received
(a) Salt, says the Beraisa, was deposited in three places. The salt that was
1. ... in the Lishkas ha'Melach was used - to salt the skins of Kodshim that
were given to the Kohanim.
(b) Then what did Shmuel mean when he said 'le'Korbanam'?
2. ... on the Kevesh was used - to salt the Eivarim of the Olah and the
Eimurim of other Korbanos.
3. ... on top of the Mizbe'ach was used - to salt all the Menachos (that
were burned) including the Kometz and the Levonah - the Ketores and the Olas
(c) When he said 'Aval la'Achilah, Lo', he could he not have been referring
to Achilas Chulin - since it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah
(see Shitah Mekubetzes 3).
(d) In fact, he was referring to Chazal's concession (based on the
superfluous word in Tzav "ve'ha'Noseres Mimenu Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav ....
*Yochluhah*)" to eat Chulin and Terumah in the Azarah, in order to eat their
Menachos and Kodshim to satisfaction. For them, Shmuel now teaches us, they
are not permitted to use wood or salt of Hekdesh.
(a) When someone brings a Minchah ...
1. ... the Levonah is provided - by the owner (as is evident from the
sequence of the Pasuk).
(b) We might learn the salt from ...
2. ... the wood is provided - by the Tzibur (as we shall soon see).
1. ... the wood rather than from the Levonah - because, as opposed to the
Levonah, all Korbanos require both wood and salt.
(c) We now learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "B'ris Melach Olam Hi" and "me'es
B'nei Yisrael B'ris Olam" (in Emor, in connection with the Lechem
ha'Panim) - that the salt is provided by the Tzibur.
2. .... the Levonah rather than from the wood - because, unlike the wood,
the Levonah is brought together with the salt in the same K'li.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Mishnah in Shekalim, quote ben Buchri as saying -
that Kohanim who donate a half Shekel in Adar do have not sinned.
(b) If the Kohanim are not Chayav to donate a half-Shekel, ben Buchri needs
to tell us that it is not a sin if they do - because otherwise, we may have
thought that it is considered bringing Chulin to the Azarah.
(c) Rav Mordechai quoting Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi, extrapolated from the
current Machlokes Tana'im - that the special dispensation permitting the
Kohanim to use the Eitzim and the Melach of Kodesh was confined to the
opinion of ben Buchri, because according to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, it
would not have been necessary, seeing as they were joint partners in all
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, a Kohen who fails to give half a Shekel has
1. He learns this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Machtzis ha'Shekel)
"Zeh Yitnu" - from the fact that the numerical value of "Zeh" is twelve
(incorporating the tribe of Levi [though it is not clear how this proves how
the Kohanim had to donate, and not just the Levi'im] see also Tosfos DH 'Kol
(b) The Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim - are ultimately
eaten by the Kohanim.
2. Whereas ben Buchri learns his opinion from the Pasuk (in connection with
the counting) "Kol ha'Over al ha'Pekudim" - and the tribe of Levi were not
counted together with the rest of K'lal Yisrael.
(c) According to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, the problem the Kohanim had with
that (that prompted them not to donate their half-Shekalim) - was the Pasuk
"ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Se'achel", forbidding a Kohen to eat
his own Minchah. Consequently, they figured, if they were joint partners in
the three above 'Menachos', how could they eat them? Which is why they
declined to donate their half-Shekalim.
(d) This was not however justifiable - because the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas
Kohen ... " applies exclusively to their personal Korbanos, not to communal
ones, since, even if they were joint owners, they were in the minority.