ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 22
(a) ben Buchri, we said earlier, is coming to teach us that a Kohen who
donates a half-Shekel is not guilty of bringing Chulin to the Azarah -
because he donates it to the Tzibur.
(b) If not for T'nai Beis-Din, according to ben Buchri, the Kohanim would
not be permitted to use the salt - because seeing as it is the Yisre'eilim
who placed their Shekalim in the room from where the money was taken to
purchase the salt, it stands to reason that they are the ones who are
allowed to benefit from the salt, and not the Kohanim.
(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "Al ha'Eitzim Asher al
ha'Eish Asher al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Eitzim for every Korban, like the
Mizbe'ach, may constitute communal wood.
(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua learns from the same Hekesh that Eitzim, like
Mizbe'ach, must not have been used by a Hedyot. Practically speaking, this
means - that only new unused wood may be used (but not according to Rebbi
Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).
(a) When, in Seifer Sh'muel, Aravnah ha'Yevusi sold David Hamelech the Makom
ha'Mikdash, he also sold him the cattle with which he had been plowing - the
former, as an Olah, the latter, to use as firewood with which to burn it.
(b) One of the things included in the sale was "Morigin", which Ula
translates as 'Mitah shel Turbal', which Rav Yehudah defines as 'Iza
de'Kurk'sa de'Dasha bah Dashta'i'. Rav Yosef cites the Pasuk "Hinei Samtich
*le'Morag* Charutz Chadash Ba'al Pifiyos". In fact, 'Morigin' is - a sort of
wooden goat with sharp spikes and niches, which they would attach to the
oxen, to pull over the stalks of corn after they had been threshed, cutting
them up and turning them into hay.
(c) We reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who requires new wood to
be used for the Korbanos - by establishing the Pasuk by new Morigin that had
not yet been used.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the Kometz of a Minchas Yisrael became mixed
1. ... another Kometz - they are both Kasher
(b) ... because, like the Kometz, they are completely burned.
2. ... a Minchas Kohanim, a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim -
they are both Kasher, too ...
(c) Rebbi Yehudah invalidates a Kometz that became mixed up with a Minchas
Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim - on the grounds that they contain far
more oil than a Minchas Yisrael (three Lugin per Isaron, against one).
Consequently, when they touch, the latter absorbs some of the oil of the
former, leaving the one with too much oil (Nisrabsah Shamnah) and the other,
with too little (Nisma'atah Shamnah).
(d) In this last case, the Tana says 'Pesulah' and not 'Pesulos' - to
balance the Reisha, where he used the singular, when he said Kesheirah (and
(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim permits blood that became mixed with water, to
be sprinkled, provided it still resembles blood. If it became mixed with
1. ... wine - it is still considered blood, provided that, assuming that the
wine was water, it would resemble blood, and the same will apply if it was
mixed with ...
(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the latter ruling. In his opinion - blood
is never Mevatel blood (in which case it can always be sprinkled).
2. ... the blood of Beheimos or Chayos.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im derive their respective
reasons from the same source. The problem with the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos
"Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" is - how one can still refer to
the 'Dam ha'Sa'ir' as such, seeing as the bull's blood exceeds it by far; so
why is it not Bateil?
(b) The Rabbanan extrapolate from there - that Korbanos cannot be Mevatel
each other. Consequently, there is no reason for the bloods in the Mishnah
in Zevachim (which are Chulin) not to be Mevatel each other).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from this Pasuk - that 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino
(a) The Rabbanan know that the Torah's reason is not because of 'Miyn
be'Miyno' - because if it was, the Torah would have indicated this ruling by
(b) And Rebbi Yehudah knows that the Torah's reason is not because of 'Ein
Olin Mevatlin ... ' - because if it was, the Torah would have written it by
'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno'?
(c) The problem that we still have with both the opinion of the Rabbanan and
that of Rebbi Yehudah is - how they know that both criteria are not required
to negate the Bitul (but that the criterion of 'Miyn be'Miyno' on its own
and that of 'Olin' on its own, will not prevent the Bitul from taking
(d) The problem turns out to be insoluble - we remain with a Kashya.
(a) We ask on Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah ('be'Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach
u've'Minchas Nesachim Pesulah she'Zu Belilasah Avah ... '), from Rebbi'
Yehudah's own opinion in the Mishnah in Zevachim, according to which the
fact that the mixture of one is thick and the other, thin, ought not to make
any difference, even though the one absorbs the other, since neither becomes
(b) Rava answers that Rebbi Yehudah holds Kol she'Hu Miyn be'Miyno ve'Davar
Acher, Saleik es Miyno ke'Mi she'Eino - ve'she'Eino Miyno Rabah Alav
(c) In our context, it means - that we remove the oil of the Kometz, and the
flour is then Mevateil the oil of the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or the Minchas
Nesachim, explaining why Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is Pasul.