ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf MENACHOS 59
(a) Our Mishnah discusses all the possible computations regarding which Menachos require both Shemen and Levonah, which require one or the other, and which require neither. The Torah requires both Shemen and Levonah by a Minchas So'les - which comprises one Isaron of un-baked flour, and is mixed with oil and frankincense, from which the Kohen then takes the Kemitzah.
(b) The Tana states that a Minchas So'les, Machavas, Marcheshes, Chalos, Rekikin, Minchas Kohanim, Kohen Mashi'ach, Oved-Kochavim, Nashim and the Minchas ha'Omer - all require Shemen and Levonah.
(c) 'Chalos' and 'Rekikin' - refers to the Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur, which comprises either one or the other (and is therefore listed as two).
(a) We learn that all the Menachos in this list but for one require both Shemen and Levonah - from the word "*Nefesh* ki Sakriv Korban Minchah" (in Parshah Vayikra).
(b) The only exception is - the Minchas ha'Omer,which is brought by the Tzibur and not by a Yachid).
(c) We know that it requires both Shemen and Levonah - because the Torah specifically says so.
(a) The difference between the Minchas Nesachim and the Lechem ha'Panim regarding Shemen and Levonah is - that the former requires Shemen but not Levonah, whereas the latter requires Levonah but not Shemen.
(b) The Sh'tei ha'Lechem, the Minchas Kena'os and the Minchas Chotei - require neither Shemen nor Levonah.
(c) Rav Papa declares that all the cases in our Mishnah require ten Chalos, precluding the opinion of Rebbi Shimon later in the Perek - who validates a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur which comprises half Chalos and half Rekikin (five of each).
(d) Alternatively, Rav Papa means that both this Mishnah and the Mishnah on the following Daf, list ten cases of Minchah, to preclude Rebbi Shimon, who lists eleven - because whereas we list the Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur as two Menachos (as we explained in the Mishnah), Rebbi Shimon (who permits half Chalos and half Rekikin) lists it as three, making a total of eleven Menachos.
(a) The Beraisa discusses the sources for the differences listed in our Mishnah. We would have thought that ...
1. ... the Lechem ha'Panim ought to contain oil, 'Kal va'Chomer' from Minchas Nesachim - which does not contain Levonah (which they do).
2. ... the Minchas Nesachim ought to contain Levonah, 'Kal va'Chomer' from Lechem ha'Panim - which does not require Shemen (which it does).
(b) We therefore learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Minchas ha'Omer) ...
1. ... "Ve'nasata Alehah Shemen" - 'Alehah Shemen, ve'Lo al Lechem ha'Panim Shemen'.
2. ... "Ve'samta Alehah Levonah" - 'Alehah Levonah, ve'Lo al Minchas Nesachim Levonah'.
(c) The Pasuk concludes "Minchah Hi". From the word ...
1. ... "Minchah" the Tana includes - Minchas Shemini (not listed in our Mishnah because it is no longer relevant) in the Din of Levonah.
2. ... "Hi" the Tana precludes - the Sh'tei ha'Lechem from both Shemen and Levonah.
(a) We initially think that the Tana prefers to preclude Lechem ha'Panim from Shemen from the Pasuk "Ve'nasata Alehah Shemen" rather than Minchas Kohanim, because of six Halachos that the latter has in common with the Minchas ha'Omer, but not to the former. The Din of the Lechem ha'Panim as opposed to ...
1. ... Isaron, K'li and Chutz is - two Isronos per Chalah (twenty-four all in all); it does not require kneading in a K'li (it becomes Kadosh in the oven, as we learned earlier in the Perek), and it is brought in the Heichal.
2. ... 'Tzurah', 'Hagashah' and 'Ishim' is - that it does not become Pasul be'Linah (Tzurah) overnight, because it remains on the Shulchan for a whole week; it does not require Hagashah (because no part of it goes on the Mizbe'ach) - which also explains the Halachah vis-a-vis 'Ishim'.
(b) We counter this however, with six things that the Lechem ha'Panim has in common with the Minchas ha'Omer, which the Minchas Kohanim does not. Unlike the former, the latter is a Korban Yachid and a Korban Nedavah, and it does not override Tum'ah. In addition, the former are described as de'Achil, Pigula, and be'Shabsa. These specifications do not pertain to the Minchas Kohanim - which is entirely burned, and is therefore not subject to Pigul (because it has no Matir). Nor does it override Shabbos (because it is a Korban Yachid, which is also the reason that it does not override Tum'ah).
(c) Now that we have six reasons to include the Minchas Kohanim in the Din of Shemen and six reasons against, the Tana chooses to include it - because "Nefesh" written by Minchas So'les incorporates all Minchos Yachid.
(a) We initially think that the Tana prefers to preclude Minchas Nesachim from Levonah from the Pasuk "Ve'samta Alehah Levonah" rather than Minchas Kohanim, because of five Halachos that the latter has in common with the Minchas ha'Omer, but not the former. The Din of the Minchas Nesachim, as opposed to ...
1. ... 'Isaron, 'Balul' and 'be'Log' (with regard to the Minchas ha'Omer and the Minchas Kohanim) is - three Esronim (for a Keves) and that it is mixed with the three Lugin of oil that are brought with it.
2. ... 'Mugash' and 'bi'Gelal Etzem' is - that it does require Hagashah (as we will learn in the next Mishnah), and that it is brought together with a Korban.
(b) We counter this however, with four things that the Minchas Nesachim has in common with the Minchas ha'Omer, which the Minchas Kohanim does not. Besides the fact that the Minchas Kohanim is neither a Korban Tzibur nor a Chovah, the two other distinctions that mark it from the Minchas Nesachim and the Minchas ha'Omer are - that it overrides neither Tum'ah nor Shabbos.
(c) We could have replied that we prefer to preclude Minchas Kohanim, because Minchas Nesachim has more things in common with the Minchas ha'Omer. What we actually reply is - that it is because "Nefesh" written by Minchas So'les incorporates all Minchos Yachid.
(a) The Beraisa includes Minchas Shemini in the Din Levonah from "Minchah" (written by the Minchas ha'Omer). The Tana knows that it comes to include it and not to exclude it - because that would mean assuming that we learn the Minchas Shemini from other Menachos with a 'Binyan Av', which would clash with the principle 'Sha'ah mi'Doros Lo Yalfinan'.
(b) And from "Hi", the Tana precludes the Sh'tei ha'Lechem from both Shemen and Levonah. We query this - by suggesting that he might preclude Minchas Kohanim from there instead.
(c) We ultimately explain that the Tana prefers to preclude the Sh'tei ha'Lechem from the Din of Shemen and Levonah and to include Minchas Kohanim, and not vice-versa (even though there are more reasons to say vice-versa) - because once again, "Nefesh" written by the Minchas So'les overrides all other considerations.
(a) Initially, however, we suggest that we should preclude the Sh'tei ha'Lechem from the Din of Shemen and Levonah and include the Minchas Kohanim because the latter shares six specifications with Minchas ha'Omer that the former does not. Four of them are 'K'li', 'Matzah', '(bi'Gelal) Etzem' and 'Hagashah'. By 'K'li' we mean - that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (like the Lechem ha'Panim) does not require kneading in a K'li Shareis (in fact, doing so invalidates them), and is sanctified in the oven.
(b) The other two are - 'Isaron' and 'Ishim' (since the Sh'tei ha'Lechem consists of two Esronim, and is entirely eaten).
(c) We counter this however, by listing eleven specifications that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem share with the Minchas ha'Omer, which the Minchas Kohanim does not: 'Tzibur, Chovah, Tamya, de'Achal, 'Pigula, be'Shabsa'. Pigul applies to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem but not to Minchas Kohanim - because it has a Matir (the two Kevasim), whereas the Minchas Kohanim does not.
(d) The remaining five are 'Matir, Tenufah, ba'Aretz, bi'Zeman, Chadash'. The Minchas ha'Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem require Tenufah, as we shall see in the next Mishnah. By ...
1. ... 'Matir', we mean - that they are both Matir Chadash (in the land and in the Beis-Hamikdash, respectively).
2. ... 'ba'Aretz' - that they must come from the produce of Eretz Yisrael.
3. ... 'bi'Zeman' - that they have a fixed time (Pesach and Shevu'os respectively).
4. ... 'Chadash' - they must come from that year's crops.
(a) Our Mishnah states that someone who adds Shemen ...
1. ... to a Minchas Chotei without Levonah, or vice-versa - has nevertheless transgressed a La'av.
2. ... to the Shirayim of a Minchas Chotei - has not.
3. ... to the Minchah whilst the Shemen is still inside the K'li - does not invalidate the Minchah.
(b) The distinction the Tana draws between adding Shemen and adding Levonah is - that whereas the former invalidates the Korban, the latter does not (and one simply removes it).
(c) With regard to the Pasuk "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen, ve'Lo Yiten Alehah Levonah, Chatas Hi", we learn from ...
1. ... "Chatas" - that if one did add Levonah, the Minchah remains Kasher.
2. ... "Hi" - that if one added Shemen, it becomes Pasul.
(d) We learn this way and not the other way round - because the Levonah can be removed, whereas the Levonah cannot.
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna asked Rebbi Yochanan whether adding ground Levonah, which cannot be removed, will invalidate the Minchas Chotei Pasul. It might not invalidate it - because, unlike Shemen, it does not become absorbed in the Minchah.
(b) We refute the proof from our Mishnah 'u'Levonah Yelaktenah', and from the Beraisa 'Machshir Ani bi'Levonah she'Efshar Lelaktenah' - by suggesting that 'Chada ve'Od ka'Amar', meaning that the Tana is adding a second reason to the initial one (that the Levonah does not become absorbed in the Minchah).
(c) Rav Nachman resolves the She'eilah from another Beraisa. After teaching us that if one removed the Levonah, the Minchah is Kasher, the Tana rules that where the Kohen had a Machsheves ...
1. ... Chutz li'Mekomah either before or after one removed it - the Minchah is (permanently) Pasul, but does not carry a Chiyuv Kareis.
2. ... Chutz li'Zemanah before having removed it - the Minchah is (permanently) Pasul, but does not carry a Chiyuv Kareis - because Pigul only takes effect on a Korban which is Kasher.
3. ... Chutz li'Zemanah after having removed it - the Minchah is Pigul, and carries a Chiyuv Kareis.
(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak proves from here - that as long as the Levonah has not been removed, the Minchah is Pasul, even though it does not become absorbed in it.
(a) When we ask on the Beraisa 've'Tehavi Pach (see Rabeinu Gershom), ve'Amai Paslah be'Machshavah', we mean to ask - that seeing as a Minchas Chotei becomes Pasul as long as the Levonah is on it, why should the Machshavah take effect at all? Why is it not Dachuy (rejected)?
(b) And when Abaye answers 'Chatas Karya Rachmana', he means that seeing as the Torah refers to it as a Chatas, even with the Levonah on it (as we learned earlier) - the P'sul Machshavah can be valid.
(c) Rava establishes the author of the Beraisa as Chanan ha'Mitzri, who rules that, if the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died - they simply bring another goat, and pair it off with the existing Sa'ir la'Hashem (which is not Pasul because of Dachuy).
(d) This answers the question - in that just as Chanan ha'Mitzri does not hold of Dachuy there, so too, does he not hold of Dachuy regarding the Minchah containing the Levonah.
(a) According to Rav Ashi, the author could even be the Rabbanan, because they will agree that a Minchas Chotei containing Levonah is not Dachuy - because of the possibility of removing the Levonah (in which case it is not considered Dachuy to begin with).
(b) Rav Shiya supports Rav Ashi from the Mishnah in Yoma, where Rebbi Yehudah argues with Chanan ha'Mitzri. Rebbi Yehudah says there that in a case where ...
1. ... the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem spilt - the Sa'ir la'Azazel must die.
2. ... the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died - the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem must be poured out
(c) Yet Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa prescribes filling a Kos with the spilt blood of the Pesachim that is lying on the floor of the Azarah - which he sprinkles once towards the Yesod, in case the blood of some of the Korbanos spilt before being sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ...
(d) ... a proof that even those who hold of Dichuy, reject the concept, there where it is reversible.
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns that someone who places even a Mashehu of Shemen on part of a Minchah, he invalidates it, though he would not do so if he placed less than a k'Zayis of Levonah on it - because the Torah writes "Lo Yasim" regarding the former (implying even a Mashehu), but "Lo Yiten" regarding the latter, implying at least a k'Zayis).
(b) And he learns that Shemen invalidates the Minchah only if it (the Minchah) comprises at least a k'Zayis, whereas Levonah invalidates even a Mashehu of Minchah - because on the one hand, "Alehah" written by Shemen (which is a Ribuy) implies a k'Zayis, on the other, the same "Alehah" regarding Levonah constitutes a 'Ribuy Achar Ribuy' when it is repeated, which comes to exclude.
(c) "Nesinah" implies a k'Zayis - because in the source Pasuk in Emor ("Ve'nasan la'Kohen es ha'Kodesh"), the Torah mentions Achilah ("ve'Ish ki Yochal Kodesh bi'Shegagah"), and we have a principle 'Achilah bi'k'Zayis'.
(d) In the second Lashon, Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef quoting Rebbi Yochanan asks whether one is Chayav for placing a Mashehu Shemen on a k'Zayis of Minchah. One might be Patur, despite the Torah's use of the expression "Lo Yasim" - because we will learn from "Lo Yiten Alehah Levonah", that Shemen requires a k'Zayis, too.