ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 25
MENACHOS 25 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in
Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between a Kometz which became Tamei and
one which was Yotzei - in that the Tzitz atones for the former, but not for
(b) In fact - the Tzitz even permits the Shirayim of a Tamei Minchah to be
eaten by the Kohanim.
(c) According to the Beraisa, when the Torah writes (in connection with the
Tzitz) "Ve'nasa Aharon es Avon ha'Kodashim", it cannot refer to the sin of
1. ... Pigul - since the Torah writes there "Lo Yeichashev".
(d) It refers to the sin of Tum'ah rather than the above two - because
Tum'ah already enjoys a special dispensation with regard to a Tzibur (where
the Torah writes "be'Mo'ado", 'Afilu be'Tum'ah').
2. ... Nosar - since there the Torah writes "Lo Yeiratzeh".
(a) Rebbi Zeira suggested that maybe it pertains to the sin of Yotzei -
since it too, has a special dispensation by Bamos (which have no curtains
behind which to restrict a Korban).
(b) Abaye answered by quoting the Pasuk there "le'Ratzon Lahem Lifnei
Hashem" - which serves to dismiss Rebbi Zeira's suggestion, by virtue of the
fact that "Lifnei Hashem" implies a sin that took place bi'Fenim, and not by
(c) And, based on the key Pasuk "Avon ha'Kodashim", Abaye refutes Rebbi
Ila'a's suggestion, that perhaps it comes to atone for the sin of S'mol,
which is permitted on Yom Kipur (by the Kaf and the Machtah) - because
"Avon" by definition, means a sin, to preclude 'S'mol', which in the context
of the Kaf and the Machtah, is not a sin, since that is the way the Avodah
is meant to be performed.
(d) Rav Ashi answers differently. He extrapolates from the Lashon "Avon
ha'Kodashim" - that the Tzitz comes to atone for the sin of the Kodshim, and
not for the sin of the Kohanim who sacrifice it.
(a) Rav Sima b'rei de'Rav Idi (or b'rei de'Rav Ashi) suggested to Rav Ashi
that perhaps the Tzitz atones for the sin of Ba'al-Mum - which enjoys a
special dispensation by Ofos (as Mar said ' ... Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus
(b) Rav Ashi replied - that the Torah specifically writes in Emor (in
connection with bringing a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach)- "Ki Lo le'Ratzon
(a) The Beraisa draws a distinction between Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Shogeg
and Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Meizid - inasmuch in the case of the former,
the Tzitz atones, whereas in the case of the latter, it does not.
(b) This distinction does not apply - to a Korban Tzibur, by which the Tzitz
atones even be'Meizid.
(c) The Beraisa adds - 'u've'Oved-Kochavim, bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid,
bein be'O'nes bein be'Ratzon, Lo Hurtzah' ...
(d) ... which we learn - from the Pasuk "le'Ratzon Lahem", 've'Lo
(a) We ask on the previous Beraisa from another Beraisa. According to the
Tana there the Tzitz atones - for the Dam, the Basar and the Cheilev of a
Korban which became Tamei.
(b) According to him, the Tzitz atones bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid, bein
be'Ones bein be'Ratzon, bein be'Yachid bein be'Tzibur.
(a) Rav Yosef tries to connect the two Beraisos to a Machlokes between Rebbi
Yossi and the Rabbanan in a third Beraisa - where the Tana forbids
separating Terumah from Tamei crops on to Tahor ones.
(b) The Tana Kama draws a distinction between someone who did so Bedi'eved
be'Shogeg - whose Terumah is valid, and one who did so be'Meizid - whose
Terumah is not.
(c) Rebbi Yossi maintains - that either way, it is valid.
(d) Rav Yosef compares the ruling of Rebbi Yossi tallies with that of the
second Beraisa - in that in both cases, the Tana does not penalize the
sinner, even though he sinned be'Meizid.
(a) We query Rav Yosef's suggestion that the authors of the two Beraisos are
Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan. Even Rebbi Yossi might not agree with the
latter Beraisa concerning Ritzuy Tzitz, we suggest - because the fact that
he does not penalize the person for taking Terumah from Tamei crops on to
Tahor ones, does not mean that he is also lenient with regard to Ritzuy
(b) In fact, we assume that Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the fact that the
Tzitz atones even for Achilos (i.e. to permit the Kohanim to eat the Basar),
since in another Beraisa, he argues with Rebbi Eliezer who holds 'ha'Tzitz
Meratzeh al Achilos'.
(c) Rav Yosef will simply switch the opinions - Rebbi Eliezer will hold that
the Tzitz does not atone for Achilos, whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that it
(d) We query this answer too however, with another Beraisa. The Tana there
learns from the Pasuk "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar ... ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal
Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim ... ve'Tum'aso Alav, ve'Nichresah" - that one is
only Chayav Kareis for eating be'Tum'ah Kodshim that are permitted to
Tehorim, but not Kodshim that are forbidden ...
(e) ... exempting a Tamei person who eats Kodshim before the Zerikas ha'Dam,
(a) When we suggest 'Ne'echal li'Tehorin Chayavin Alav Mishum Tum'ah,
ve'she'Eino Ne'echal li'Tehorim, Ein Chayavin Alav ... ' we mean that
perhaps the Torah is coming to preclude Lan and Yotzei (which were Nitar but
are not Ne'echal).
(b) We ...
1. ... initially include - Pigulin and Nosaros from "Asher la'Hashem" ...
(c) Bearing in mind that Nosaros is synonymous with Lan, when the Beraisa
says (after having included 'Lan and Yotzei') 'Yachol she'Ani Marbeh es
ha'Pigulin *ve'es ha'Nosaros'*, it really means - ' ... es ha'Pigulin
2. ... but ultimately exclude them from "mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim" ('ve'Lo Kol
(d) Now that we have one Pasuk to include (Kareis for eating Kodshim
be'Tum'as ha'Guf), and one Pasuk to exclude, we opt to include Lan and
Yotzei, and exclude Basar which became Tamei before the Zerikas Dam - since
the former were permitted for a short time, whereas the latter were not.
(a) We now ask on Rav Yosef, who switched the opinions of Rebbi Eliezer and
Rebbi Yossi (regarding 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'). We know that the author
of this Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer - because he is the one who holds 'Ein
Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei' ...
(b) ... yet the Beraisa also holds that the Tzitz atones for Achilos, like
Rebbi Eliezer said in the Beraisa above (a Kashya on Rav Yosef who switched
that opinion to that of Rebbi Yossi).
(a) Rav Chisda finally resolves the original discrepancy between the two
Beraisos - by presenting the author of the second Beraisa as Rebbi Eliezer
(and not as Rebbi Yossi).
(b) And we know that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the ruling in the second
Beraisa, which does not penalize even the sinner who sinned be'Meizid -
because we have a specific Beraisa to the effect that he validates the
Terumah, even if it was made Tamei, be'Meizid.
(c) We must assume that Rebbi Eliezer is lenient by Kodshim just as he is
lenient with regard to Terumah - because otherwise, who will be the author
of the second Beraisa?
(a) Ravina resolves the initial discrepancy differently. He draws a
distinction between the Tum'ah and the Zerikah regarding Shogeg and Meizid -
permitting the former even be'Meizid, as long as the latter was performed
(b) Consequently, he establishes ...
1. ... the first Beraisa, which differentiates between Shogeg and Meizid -
by the Zerikah.
(c) Rav Shilo disagrees with Ravina. According to him, it does not matter
whether the Zerikah is performed be'Shogeg or be'Meizid. Provided the Tumah
occurred be'Shogeg, the Tzitz atones.
(d) And he explains the Lashon of ...
2. ... the second Beraisa, which does not - by the Tum'ah (as the respective
Lashon in each Beraisa implies).
1. ... the second Beraisa ' ... she'Nitma bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid' to
mean - 'Nitma be'Shogeg; ve'Zarko, bein be'Shogeg bein be'Meizid'.
2. ... another Beraisa 'Dam she'Nitma ve'Zarko be'Shogeg Hurtzah; be'Meizid,
Lo Hurtzah' to mean - Dam she'Nitmah ve'Zarko, Nitma be'Shogeg Hurtzah;
be'Meizid, Lo Hurtzah'.