ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 73
(a) We just learned that the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen
va'Chareivah" comes to incorporate the Minchas ha'Omer and the Minchas
Kena'os in the Din of giving the Shirayim to the Kohanim. We query this
however, from a Beraisa, where the Tana first of all learns from the Pasuk
"ve'Chol ha'Minchah Asher Te'afeh ba'Tanur le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" -
that the Kohanim are forbidden to swap Menachos for Zevachim (but that each
Kohen receives a portion of the Menachos and of the Zevachim).
(b) We learn from "ve'Chol Na'aseh ba'Marcheshes le'Chol B'nei Aharon
Tih'yeh" that the same applies to swapping Menachos for Ofos, and from
"ve'al Machavas le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh", that it also extends to
swapping Ofos for Beheimos. We might otherwise have thought that swapping
1. ... Menachos for Ofos is permitted (even though Menachos for Zevachim is
forbidden) - because by a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, a poor man can bring a
Minchah instead of an Of (which is not the case by Menachos and Zevachim).
(c) And we learn from the prohibition of swapping one Minchah for another
from "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" -
which we would otherwise have permitted (even though Ofos against Zevachim
is forbidden) since both are performed by hand (whereas by Ofos and
Zevachim, the former is performed by hand, and the latter, with a K'li).
2. ... Ofos for Beheimos is permitted, even though Menachos for Ofos is
not - because they are both blood sacrifices (which is not the case by
Menachos and Ofos).
(d) And finally, we learn from ...
1. ... "va'Chareivah le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" - that even swapping one
Minchah al ha'Machavas for another (which are both wet) or a Marchashes
against a Marcheshes (which are both dry), is forbidden, too.
2. ... " ... Ish ke'Achiv ... Im al Todah" - that the prohibition of
swapping even extends to Kodshim Kalim (via 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav', seeing
as the Torah is comparing Kodshim Kalim to Kodshei Kodshim in this regard).
(a) The Tana also learn from "Ish" - that a 'man' receives a portion (even
if he is a Ba'al-Mum, but not a Katan (even if he is not).
(b) The problem this creates with the previous D'rashah from "ve'Chol
Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah" (that the Kohanim receive the
Shirayim from a Minchas Se'orim, according to Rebbi Shimon) is - that having
used this Pasuk to teach us the prohibition of swapping one Minchah for
another, how can we then learn from it that a Minchos Se'orim is given to
(c) And we answer - that the Tana learns his D'rashah (not from the actual
words of the Pasuk, but) from the word "Chol".
(d) We query this however, in that we need "Chol" to teach us the D'rashah
of Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah - who uses it to teach us that a Minchas
Ma'afeh Tanur can consist of either loaves or wafers, but not both (see
Tosfos DH 've'Ha Apikteih').
(a) In fact, we conclude, the Tana learns his D'rashah (not from the word
"Chol" but) - from the 'Vav' of "u've'Chol".
(b) And we learn 'Teneihu Inyan la'Chareivah' (i.e. that the Minchas Kena'os
too, is given to the Kohanim) from - the word "ve'Chol *Minchah*".
(c) When Ravina explains that he learns 'it from the Beraisa of Levi, who
Darshens the Pasuk "le'Chol Korbanam, u'le'Chol Minchasam, u'le'Chol
Chatasam u'le'Chol Ashamam" ' (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3) - he is referring to
the source of Rebbi Shimon, for the Halachah that the Minchas Se'orin is
eaten by the Kohanim.
(a) From "le'Chol Korbanam", the Tana includes Log Shemen shel Metzora. We
would have otherwise precluded it from the Matnos Kehunah - since the Torah
writes "min ha'Eish", and the Log Shemen, which was given entirely to the
Kohanim, was not placed on the fire.
(b) From "u'le'Chol Minchasam", he includes - the Minchas ha'Omer and the
(c) We would otherwise have precluded them - because, unlike other Menachos,
which come to atone, the former comes to be Matir (Chadash), and the latter,
to clarify the Sotah's sin.
(d) From "u'le'Chol Chatasam", the Tana includes a Chatas ha'Of - which we
would otherwise have thought is forbiden to the Kohanim, because it is
(a) And from "u'le'Chol Ashamam" he includes an Asham Nazir and an Asham
Metzora, which we amend to 'Asham Nazir ke'Asham Metora' - seeing as the
Torah specifically compares the Asham Metzora to a Chatas (regarding giving
it the Kohanim).
(b) Otherwise, we would have thought that an Asham Nazir, unlike other
Ashamos, is not given to the Kohanim - since (like the Minchas ha'Omer) it
comes to be Matir (the Nazir to drink wine), and not as a Kaparah.
(c) The Tana learns from "Asher Yashivu" - that Gezel ha'Ger too (assuming
that he has no heirs), goes to the Kohanim).
(d) And he Darshens from the words "Lecha Hu u'Levanecha" - that Gezel
ha'Ger becomes the personal property of the Kohanim, who are even permitted
to be Mekadesh a woman with it (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5).
(a) Rav Huna rules - that the Shelamim of a Nochri is brought as an Olah.
(b) He learns it from a S'vara as well as from a Pasuk. The Pasuk is in Emor
"Ish Ish ... " (from which we learn that a Nochri may bring a Korban, and)
which continues "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem le'Olah". The S'vara is - that the
Nochri dedicates his Korban to G-d, and not to the Kohanim.
(c) Rav Chama bar Guryah queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which rules (in
connection with the Shelamim of a Nochri) 'Nasnan le'Yisrael, Yisrael
Ochlan; Nasnan le'Kohen, Ochlan'. To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna,
Rava establishes it in a case - where the Nochri actually designated the
Korban for the Yisrael or the Kohen to fulfill his Neder (and not as a
(d) Rav Shizbi asks on Rav Huna from our Mishnah - which includes the
Minchah of a Nochri among the Menachos whose Shirayim are eaten by the
(a) Rebbi Yochanan answers the Kashya by presenting this as a Machlokes
Tana'im (as we shall now see). The Beraisa Darshens "Ish Ish" 'Lerabos es
ha'Ovdei-Kochavim'. "Asher Yakrivu la'Hashem le'Olah" refers to a Korban
Olah, and the Tana learns from ...
1. ... "Nidreihem" - that a Nochri may also bring an Olah, and from ...
(b) "*le'Chol* Nidreihem" includes Ofos, whereas "*le'Chol* Nidvosam" comes
to include - wine, frankincense and wood.
2. ... "Nidvosam" - that he may bring a Todah, too.
(c) According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, "Olah" comes to preclude - a Nochri
(d) Whereas Rebbi Akiva learns from "Olah" - that a Nochri can only bring an
(a) Rav Huna then holds like - Rebbi Akiva ...
(b) ... whilst the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Daber el *B'nei Yisrael* ... Ish ki Yafli
Lindor Neder Nazir Lehazir" - that only a Yisrael can be Noder Nezirus, but
not a Nochri.
(d) Even according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, we need this Pasuk - because
"le'Olah" only teaches us that a Nochri cannot donate the Korbanos of a
Nazir, whereas from here we learn that he cannot even become a Nazir either.
(a) In a Mishnah in Shekalim, Rebbi Shimon lists seven Takanos Beis-Din, one
of which concerns the Nesachim that accompany the Korban Olah of a Nochri.
They instituted - that if the Nochri does not send Nesachim together with
his Olah, then they are paid for by the Tzibur (i.e. from Terumas
(b) Initially, we think that Rebbi Shimon must hold like Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili - because Rebbi Akiva confines the Korban of a Nochri to an Olah,
which precludes also Nesachim.
(c) We conclude however, that he might even hold like Rebbi Akiva - because
Rebbi Akiva only precludes a Nochri from bringing independent Korbanos
(including Nesachim), but not whatever comes together with the Olah.
(a) We ask the same Kashya on another Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk (in
connection with the Nesachim) "Kol ha'Ezrach be'Yisrael Ya'aseh Kachah". The
Tana there learns from the word ...
1. ... "ha'Ezrach"- that a Nochri cannot donate independent Nesachim.
2. ... "Kachah" - that a Nochri is obligated to bring Nesachim together with
(b) We think that the author cannot be Rebbi Yossi Hagelili either - because
the Beraisa precludes a Nochri from bringing Nesachim, whereas, as we
learned earlier, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili includes wine among the things that a
Nochri may bring.
(c) We have already explained why the author could be Rebbi Akiva. We now
amend the Beraisa to conform with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, too - by erasing
'wine' from Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's list.
(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the
Minchah of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored) "Ve'haysah la'Kohen ka'Minchah" that a
Kohen is permitted to bring his own Minchas Chotei. He interprets
"ka'Minchah" to mean - 'like his own Minchah' (which he is permitted to
bring even though it is not his Mishmar that is serving that week).
(b) The current Pasuk adds to the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh
Lo Te'achel" - that not only is his Korban Nedavah completely burned, but so
is his Korban Chovah.
(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with this D'rashah. Based on the fact that the
Torah writes "ka'Minchah", and not "ke'Minchaso", he explains "Ve'haysah
la'Kohen ka'Minchah" to mean - that his Minchas Chotei, 'like the Minchah of
a Yisrael', requires Kemitzah (as he already stated in our Mishnah).
(d) Subsequently, he extrapolates from "la'Kohen ka'Minchah" 've'Lo le'Ishim
ka'Minchah' - which means that the Mizbe'ach receives, not only the Kometz
(as it does in the case of a Minchas Yisrael), but the entire Minchah
(Shirayim and all), though the Kometz and the Shirayim are burned