ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf MENACHOS 49
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah cited a Beraisa 'Kivsei Atzeres she'Shachtu le'Shem Eilim, Kesheirim, ve'Lo Alu le'Ba'alim le'Leshem Chovah'. The owner referred to by the Tana is - the Tzibur (K'lal Yisrael).
(b) When Rav heard the Beraisa from Rabah bar bar Chanah, he commented - 'Alu ve'Alu' (K'lal Yisrael have definitely fulfilled their obligation).
(c) Rav Chisda qualified Rav's ruling - by confining it to where the Kohen had in mind that he is Shechting rams, only he Shechts them as if they were lambs ...
(d) ... but if the Kohen also Shechted them as rams, Rav will concede that the Tzibur is not Yotzei - because it is 'Akirah be'Ta'us' (an erroneous transfer from Kevasim to Eilim), and he holds 'Akirah be'Ta'us Havya Akirah'.
(a) Rabah disagrees with Rav Chisda. He holds 'Akirah be'Ta'us Lo Havya Akirah', in which case the Tzibur will be Yotzei even if he thought they were Eilim and he Shechted them as Eilim.
(b) Rava queries Rabah from a Beraisa, which declares Chayav, Kohanim who were Mefagel (rendered Pigul) a Korban intentionally - which refers to where they Shechted a Chatas as a Shelamim, with the intention of eating it 'Chutz li'Zemano' (in two days instead of the prescribed one), for which they are now obligated to pay the owner.
(c) We can extrapolate from the Beraisa that if they did the same thing be'Shogeg - they would be Patur. And in this connection, the Beraisa adds - that the Pigul nevertheless takes effect.
(d) Rava's Kashya on Rabah is - from this latter statement, since (we initially assume that) the Tana can only be speaking when the Kohanim took it to be a Shelamim and Shechted it as a Shelamim (a classical case of Akirah be'Ta'us).
(a) We dismiss the suggestion that the Tana (in the inference) is speaking in a case where the Kohen knew that it was a Chatas, but performed the Avodah le'Shem Shelamim - because then he would not be a Shogeg.
(b) Abaye accepts the previous suggestion after all - by establishing the case when the Kohen thought that it was permitted (Omer Mutar).
(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa rules that all Menachos whose Kemitzah was taken she'Lo li'Sheman, such as 'Machavas le'Shem Marcheshes' or 'Chareivah le'Shem Belulah' - are Kasher, because everyone can see which Minchah it really is.
(b) The difference between a Minchas Marcheshes and a Minchas Machavas is - that the former, cooked in a pot, is spongy in substance, whereas the latter, baked in a deep pan, is crispy.
(c) 'Chareivah' refers to - a Minchas Chotei (which contains no oil).
(d) Zevachim are different - inasmuch as all Korbanos look the same when they are Shechted, sprinkled or burned.
(a) Rebbi Zeira thinks that the current Beraisa cannot be speaking when the Kohen knew that it was a Machavas and performed the Avodah le'Shem Marcheshes - because then he will have made an Akirah (and what difference does it make whether the difference is clear or not?).
(b) The Beraisa must therefore be speaking - when the Kohen took it to be a Minchas Marcheshes and he performed the Kemitzah in that capacity (another classical case of Akirah be'Ta'us).
(c) We extrapolate from the Beraisa - that in this case only, do we not consider Akirah be'Ta'us to be an Akirah (for the reason mentioned there), but elsewhere, we do (a Kashya on Rabah).
(d) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when the Kohen knew that it was a Machavas and performed the Avodah le'Shem Marcheshes, because Rava (who asks the original Kashya on Rabah) follows his own reasoning. To explain Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa, Rava said - 'Machshavah de'Lo Mink'ra Pasal Rachmana ... ' (in other words, the Torah ignores a Machshavah which contradicts what is clearly visible to be otherwise, even if it is be'Meizid).
(a) Our Mishnah rules that the Musafin ...
1. ... and the Temidin are not Me'akev each other ...
2. ... are not Me'akev each other.
(b) According to the Tana Kama, they must bring the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim, even if they did not bring the Tamid shel Shachar, and the same applies to the Ketores, if they did not bring it (the half-Manah) in the morning. According to Rebbi Shimon, they ...
1. ... only bring the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim - if they were Anusin, but not if they were Mezidin.
2. ... bring the Ketores shel Shachar together with that of bein ha'Arbayim.
(c) Our Mishnah states that the only way of inaugurating ...
1. ... the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav is - with the Ketores (shel bein ha'Arbayim [according to one text]).
2. ... the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah is - with the Tamid shel Shachar.
3. ... the Shulchan is - with the Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos.
4. ... the Menorah is - with the kindling of the seven lamps in the afternoon.
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin asked Rav Chisda which has priority, the Temidin or the Musafin (if only one is available). This does not refer to the Temidin and the Musafin of that day, because that would be a case of 'Tadir u'Mekudash'. Certainly, the Tamid is more Tadir than the Musaf; 'Mekudash' means - that the Musaf possesses more Kedushah than the Tamid, because it is brought on Shabbos and Yom-Tov. Alternatively, the Temidin which have already been sanctified take precedence over the Musafin, because they are brought first.
(b) The case therefore, is - when they have the Temidin of tomorrow and the Musafin of today, and the She'eilah is which takes precedence, Tadir or Mekudash.
(a) Rav Chisda replied by citing our Mishnah 'ha'Temidin Ein Me'akvin es ha'Musafin ve'ha'Musafin Ein Me'akvin es ha'Musafin'. The Tana cannot be speaking when both are available, and it is a matter of which comes first, due to a D'rashah of Rava - who learned from the Pasuk "ha'Olah", 'Olah Rishonah' (that no Korban may precede the Tamid shel Shachar), in which case, there can be no question of the Musaf preceding the Tamid.
(b) Neither can the Tana be speaking about when there only sufficient animals for one or the other on that day, as we explained a little earlier. So he must be speaking when they have tomorrow's Temidin and today's Musafin, and Rav Chisda proves from there - that the two are equal, and that neither takes precedence over the other.
(c) Abaye refutes the proof by establishing the case when the Temidin and the Musafin of that day are both available, like we suggested at first. As for the D'rashah "ha'Olah", 'Olah Rishonah' - that only applies Lechatchilah, but not Bedi'eved.
(a) We query Rav Chisda again from another Beraisa. The Tana requires at least six Tela'im Mevukarin (lambs examined for blemishes) in the Lishkas ha'Tela'im when Rosh Hashanah falls on Thursday and Friday.
(b) For the Musafin of two days Rosh Hashanah followed by Shabbos - one would require sixteen lambs (two for Shabbos, and seven for each day Rosh Hashanah.
(c) So we establish the Beraisa when there are only six lambs for the Temidin, two each day.
(d) And this proves - that the Temidin of the three days take precedence over the Musafin of the Shabbos.
(e) We might otherwise have thought that one brings all six lambs for the Temidin and the Musaf of Shabbos - since Shabbos is more Kadosh than Yom-Tov.
(a) We refute this proof by establishing the author of the Beraisa as ben Bag-Bag, who learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Tishmeru" from "Ve'hayah Lachem le'Mishmeres a Arba'ah-Asar Yom" - that the Korban Tamid, like the Korban Pesach, requires inspection four days before it is brought.
(b) And we establish the Beraisa itself - with regard to the lambs for the Korban Tamid four days before they are actually brought.
(c) The Beraisa no longer has any bearing on the She'eilah (in fact, it might even be speaking when there are sufficient lambs for the Temidin as well as for the Musafin) - because it is only the Tamid that is compared to the Pesach in this regard, and not the Musafin.
(a) Ravina asked Rav Ashi why the Beraisa requires only six lambs and not seven, one for the Sunday after; only seven - because as far as the lambs for Sunday afternoon, Monday and Tuesday are concerned - the Kohen will have Sunday morning to search for animals that have been examined four days earlier, (though it would be impractical to do so on Motza'ei Shabbos for Sunday morning).
(b) Rav Ashi asked Ravina why he did not refer to an eighth lamb, namely that of Friday afternoon. The significance of Friday afternoon here is - in a case where Shabbos preceded Rosh Hashanah, and the Kohanim were still left with the Tamid of Bein ha'Arbayim of Erev Shabbos to bring (plus the six for Shabbos and Rosh Hashanah) as well as the seventh, which will now be the one of Tuesday morning (instead of the Sunday morning, to which we referred earlier, though it is unclear why the Sugya changes the case in the middle for no apparent reason [see Eizehu Mekoman]).
(c) We refute Rav Ashi's Kashya however - by establishing the Beraisa after they had already brought the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.
(a) The Kashya from seven lambs however, remains, causing us to retract from the original text. So we re-interpret the Beraisa to mean, not the six inspected lambs that one requires for the two days of Rosh Hashanah and Shabbos, but the six inspected lambs that are required every day.
(b) And the significance of the two days of Rosh Hashanah and Shabbos is - merely as a Si'man by which to remember the number six.
(c) We prove this explanation from the Lashon of the Beraisa itself ('Ein Pochsin ... 'Kedei le'Shabbos ve'li'Shenei Yamim-Tovim shel Rosh Hashanah') - since the word 'Kedei' implies the Shi'ur of the three days, but not the three days themselves (in which the Tana would have said 'le'Shabbos u'Shenei Yamiim-Tovim').
(a) Practically speaking then, assuming the Beis Hamikdash will be inaugurated on a Wednesday, they will begin inspecting the first two lambs (for the Korban Tamid) for blemishes - on Shabbos (four days before, excluding the actual day of Shechitah).
(b) Come Wednesday morning, there will be eight lambs in the Lishkas ha'Tela'im. On that same morning - they take two lambs for the Korban Tamid shel Shachar, which they immediately replace, a procedure which they repeat in the afternoon, for the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim.
(c) The Chachamim fixed specifically six Tela'im - to give the Kohanim a clear leeway of three days to search for lambs should any difficulty arise in obtaining them.