ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 45
(a) 'Eilim' in our Mishnah cannot refer to the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh and
Shavu'os (like the Parim and the Kevasim) - because they only brought one
ram (so the term 'Eilim' is inappropriate).
(b) The Parim, Eilim and Kevasim in Chomesh ha'Pekudim comprise the Musaf -
whereas those in Toras Kohanim - comprise the set of Korbanos that accompany
the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.
(c) Initially, we think that it cannot refer to the Korbanos in Toras
Kohanim either - since the Torah writes there "Yih'yu Olah" (and 'Havayah'
always comes to be Me'akev).
(a) We conclude that Eilim in our Mishnah refers to the Eilim in Toras
Kohanim, and the Mishnah is coming to teach us that the Eilim in Toras
Kohanim are not Me'akev those in Chomesh ha'Pekudim (nor vice-versa).
(b) There is no problem with our Tana referring to the Parim and the Kevasim
even of the same set, but to Eilim specifically of different sets - since
the Dinim of Parim, Eilim and Kevasim are not part of the same Halachah, but
constitute three independent Halachos.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'va'Yom ha'Chodesh ...
1. ... Par ben Bakar Temimim" - that if the Kohanim did find two bulls for
the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh (as required), then they may bring just one.
(b) Nevertheless, the Torah writes "Shishah Kevasim", to teach us - that
they must make every effort to bring as many of the prescribed lambs as
2. ... ve'Shishah Kevasim" - that if they did not have the seven prescribed
lambs, then they may bring six.
3. ... ve'la'Kevasim Asher Tasig Yado" - that in a case of emergency, they
are even permitted to bring just one lamb.
(c) Whereas from "Yih'yu" we learn - that the bulls, the rams and the lambs
are Me'akev each other (see Tosfos DH 'u'Minayin').
(a) The problem with the Pasuk "Koh Amar Hashem Elokim ba'Rishon be'Echad
la'Chodesh Tikach Par ben Bakar Ve'chiteisa es ha'Bayis" is - that the bulls
on Rosh Chodesh are brought as an Olah, and not a Chatas (as implied in this
(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintained that Eliyahu will solve this problem once the
third Beis-Hamikdash has been built. Rav Ashi claimed that he had an answer.
According to him - this bull was brought as a Milu'im (an inaugural
sacrifice) on the eighth day after the completion of the second
Beis-Hamikdash (in the same way as Moshe brought a goat as a Chatas, at the
Milu'im on the eighth day after the completion of the Mishkan.
(c) We support this with a Beraisa, where, when Rebbi Yehudah made the same
comment regarding the Pasuk in Yechezkel as Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yossi
replied - that the bull was brought to inaugurate the second Beis-Hamikdash.
(d) To which Rebbi Yehudah replied 'May Hashem set your mind at rest, just
as you set my mind'.
(a) The problem that Rebbi Yochanan had with the Pasuk "Neveilah u'Tereifah
Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim" was - why this is mentioned here, seeing as
Yisre'eilim are not permitted to eat Neveilos and T'reifos any more than
Kohanim? Here too, he commented that only Eliyahu will be able to answer
(b) Ravina explained that the Pasuk needs to mention this specifically with
regard to Kohanim, whom we might otherwise have thought are permitted to eat
Neveilah and Tereifah - seeing as they are permitted to eat Melikas ha'Of
(which is in fact, Neveilah).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan, interpreting the Pasuk "ve'Chein Ta'aseh be'Shiv'ah
ba'Chodesh me'Ish Shogeh u'mi'Pesi ... ", explained ...
1. ... ve'Chein Ta'aseh" to mean - that, should it become necessary, they
should bring a bull as a Par He'elam Davar, just as they brought the bull
2. ... "be'Shiv'ah" - even if only seven tribes (the majority of tribes,
even if they do not constitute the majority of people) followed the ruling
of Beis-Din ha'Gadol ...
3. ... "ba'Chodesh" - who issued a new ruling (forbidding something that is
Chayav Kareis) ...
4. ... "me'Ish Shogeh u'mi'Pesi" - and the people acted be'Shogeg upon their
(a) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said 'May that man be remembered for the
good', he was referring to - Chanina (or Chananya) ben Chizkiyah.
(b) Who was confronted - by the various problems in Seifer Yechezkel which
we just discussed.
(c) In order to solve them - he took three hundred barrels of oil (as fuel)
up to his attic, where he toiled, until he resolved all the difficulties.
(d) Rav praised him so highly - because, were it not for his efforts, they
would have hidden the Book of Yechezkel.
(a) The problem Rebbi Shimon had with the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Eifah
la'Par ve'Eifah la'Ayil Ya'aseh Minchah ... " was - that the Minchah of a
Par consists of three Esronim, whereas that of an Ayil is two Esronim. So
how can the Pasuk equate them?
(b) He therefore learns from there - that it is preferable to bring one bull
with its Minchah or one ram with its Minchah, rather than many bulls without
their Menachos (as we learned in our Mishnah).
(a) Our Mishnah rules that the bull, the rams, the lambs and the goat on
Shavu'os are not Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, nor vice-versa. Rebbi
Akiva's next statement, that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are Me'akev the lambs is
not a contradiction to this - since he is referring to the two lambs that
accompanied the Sh'tei-ha'Lechem, whereas the Tana Kama is referring to the
seven lambs that were brought simultaneously, together with a bull and two
(b) The lambs are not Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, according to Rebbi
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Nannes, it is the lambs that are Me'akev
the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, but not vice-versa - because, he says, during the
forty years in the desert, they brought the lambs, but not the loaves ...
(d) ... because the Sh'tei ha'Lechem must be brought from the crops of Eretz
(a) After ruling like ben Nannes, Rebbi Shimon adds - that this ruling is
not based on his reason.
(b) He states the principle - that whatever is mentioned in Chomesh
ha'Pekudim (the Musafim) they brought in the desert, but not whatever is
mentioned in Toras Kohanim (the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Korbanos that were
brought together with them (whereas ben Nannes maintains that they brought
the latter and not the former).
(c) And the reason that, according to Rebbi Shimon, one may bring the lambs
without the Lechem, but not the Lechem without the lambs is - because the
lambs are Matir themselves (to be eaten), whereas the Loaves need the lambs
to be Matir them, and cannot be Matir themselves.
(a) Seeing as "Shiv'as Kevasim Temimim" implies that they can be brought
independently (see Tosfos DH 'Shiv'as'), Rebbi Tarfon explains "Ve'hikravtem
al ha'Lechem" to mean - that the lambs were not brought as long as the
Loaves coould not be brought (i.e. in the desert).
(b) We know that the Korbanos mentioned in the Pasuk in Emor are not the
same as those mentioned in Pinchas (which would mean that the Musafin were
not brought in the desert) - because of the differences between them (one
bull and two rams in the former, and one bull and two rams in the latter).
(c) Rebbi Tarfon therefore concludes - that although they did not bring the
animals listed *in Emor* in the desert, they did bring those listed *in
(d) And he knows that ...
1. ... the distinction extends even to the lambs, which are the same in both
Parshiyos - because it would be illogical to distinguish between the lambs
in Pinchas on the one hand, and the bulls and the rams on the other, seeing
as they are all listed together.
2. ... all the animals in the two Parshiyos are not the same ones (and that
the Torah did not simply give the Kohen the choice of bringing one bull and
two rams or two bulls and one ram) - because the Torah also changes the
order (from Kevasim, Par and Eilim in Emor to Parim, Ayil and Kevasim in
(a) Rebbi Akiva (in our Mishnah) learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yih'yu"
(Ve'heinif ha'Kohen Osam al Lechem ha'Bikurim ... Yih'yu la'Hashem")
"Tih'yenah" ("So'les Tih'yenah" - that the Lechem is Me'akev the Kevasim.
(b) ben Nannes learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' learns from the Pasuk there (in
connection with the animals) "Yih'yu Olah la'Hashem" that it is the Kevasim
that are Me'akev the Lechem - because he prefers to learn "Yih'yu" from
"Yih'yu" (rather than from "Tih'yenah").
(c) He does not contend with Rebbe Yishmael's principle 'Mah Hi 'Shivah',
Mah Hi 'Bi'ah' (as long as the words in the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' are similar in
meaning) - because that is only when there is no alternative.
(d) Rebbi Akiva counters that argument however, nevertheless opting to learn
from "So'les Tih'yenah" - because he prefers to learn what is a Matanah to
the Kohen (the Lechem and the Kevasim) from what is a Matanah to the Kohen
(the Lechem) than from the Olos that go to Hashem.
(a) Alternatively, they argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "Kodesh
Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen". When Rebbi Akiva says that it is the Lechem that
goes entirely to the Kohen, he means - that the Pasuk obviously refers to it
and not to the Kevasim, whose Eimurim go on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) ben Nannes objects to that - due to the fact that the Torah writes
"la'Hashem la'Kohen", which he interprets as if the Torah had written
"la'Hashem ve'la'Kohen", implying that it pertains to the Kevasim and not to
(c) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with him however - since, in his opinion, the
Torah should then have written "la'Hashem ve'la'Kohen" (with a 'Vav').
(d) He therefore interprets the expression "la'Hashem la'Kohen" like Rav
Huna - who explained (with regard to Gezel ha'Ger) 'Kan'o Hashem ve'Nasno
la'Kohen', which is synonymous with the principle 'Kohanim mi'Shulchan
Gavohah ka'Zachu' (the Kohanim eat as guests at Hashem's table).