ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 89
(a) Six Beitzim comprise a Log.
(b) From the fact that the Torah (in connection with the Lachmei Todah)
writes "ba'Shemen" twice - Rebbi Akiva Darshens 'Ein Ribuy Ela Lema'et',
reducing the Log of oil that other Menachos require to hlf a Log.
(c) The ojection to the initial wording 'Ilu Lo Ne'emar Ela "ba'Shemen"
Echad' is - that if one "ba'Shemen" is needed for the intrinsic Halachah,
then it cannot be considered a 'Ribuy Achar Ribuy'.
(d) We therefore amend the text to read - 'Ilu Lo Ne'emar ba'Shemen (Kol
Ikar)', meaning that we would have learned the Din of Log Shemen from the
(a) We therefore reduce the amount of oil that is needed for the Todah - to
half a Log.
(b) The Todah consists of - three kinds of loaves, Chalos, Rekikin and
(c) We reject the suggestion that the oil is divided into three equal
portions (of one k'Beitzah each), one for each king of loaf - due to the
fact that the Torah writes an extra "ba'Shemen" by the Revuchah loaves
(intimating that they should receive more oil than the Chalos and the
(d) Consequentrly, it is distributed - half (one and a half k'Beitzim) for
the Revuchh loaves, and a quarter for each of the Chalos and the Rekikin.
(a) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah from
"ba'Shemen" "be'Shemen". He learns Rebbi Akiva's Din from - 'Halachah
(b) Besides Revi'is Shemen le'Nazir, he adds - the eleven days (of Zivus)
after the termination of the days of Midus, during which time she is subject
to Zivus instead of Nidus.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with
the Metzora Ani) "Isaron ... Balul ... ve'Log Shamen" - that each Isaron of
flour requires a Log of oil.
(b) Whereas Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learn from the
same Pasuk "le'Minchah ve'Log Shamen" - that even a Minchah of sixty Log
requires only one Log of oil.
(c) Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ban Ya'akov maintain that the Torah
needs "Isaron ... Balul ... ve'Log Shamen" to teach us - that a Minchas Ani
requires one Isaron. The Rabbanan do not consider this necessary - because
we could learn it from a Metzora Ashir, who brings three Korbnos consisting
of three Esronos.
(d) However ...
1. ... Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagree with that. In
their opinion, we would not be able to learn Metzora Ani from Metzora
Ashir - who might not have to bring a Minchah at all, because, as we see,
the Torah takes pity on him (and permits him to bring a cheaper Korban).
Maybe it also absolves from the Minchah altogether.
2. ... the Rabbanan do not accept Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben
Ya'akov's argument - because even though it allows him to bring a cheaper
Korban, it does not follow that it exempts him from bringing any Minchah at
(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "le'Minchah ve'Log Shamen" - that one
is not permitted to donate a Minchah that requires less than a Log of oil
(i.e. one Isaron).
(b) And Rebbi Nechemyah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov know that from there
two. Due to the principle 'Hei Minayhu Mafkas' (when one is faced with two
equal D'rashos, one learns them both).
(c) We know that the Shemen ha'Mishchah consisted of a Hin - from a Pasuk in
Ki Sisa ("ve'Shemen Zayis Hin").
(d) We then learn from the Pasuk in ...
1. ... Ki Sisa "Shemen Mishchas Kodesh Yih'yeh *Zeh* Li ... " - that a Hin
is equivalent to twelve Lugin (the numerical value of "Zeh").
2. ... Pinchas "ve'Niskeihem Chatzi ha'Hin Yih'yeh la'Par ... " that the
wine for a bull comprises six Lugin (for a ram, four Lugin and a lamb,
three). And once we convert the liquid measure from a Hin to Lugin with
regard to wine, it is obvious that the same will apply to oil.
(a) The Torah writes in Tetzaveh (in connection with the oil for the
Menorah) "me'Erev ad Boker". Besides the obligation to place sufficient oil
in the lamps to burn all night, we also learn - that it can be performed
after the Tamid shel Erev and right through the night (the only Avodah which
enjoys this distinction).
(b) We learn from the first interpretation that each lamp requires half a
Log - because the Chachamim assessed that this is how much oil is needed to
burn for that period of time, in the long nights of Tekufas Teives.
(c) Some say that they arrived at the conclusion of half a Log 'mi'Lema'alah
Lematah'; others 'mi'Lematah Lema'alah'.
1. 'mi'Lema'alah Lematah' means - that they began measuring with a Log, and
when they discovered that oil remained in the morning, they tried again the
following night with three quarters of a Log, and so on, until they arrived
at half a Log, which was just right.
(d) Those who say that one begins with a Log and works one's way downwards
hold - that it doesn't matter if, in the process, some of the oil gets
wasted, because we have a principle 'Ein Aniyus be'Makom Ashirus' (Hekdesh
is considered wealthy, and it is not becoming for someone who is wealthy to
behave like a poor man). Whereas, those who hold that one begins with a
Revi'is ha'Log and works one's way upward - cite the principle (that we have
already cited earlier) that the Torah 'has pity on the money of Yisrael'.
2. 'mi'Lematah Lema'alah' means - that they begn with a quarter of a Log,
adding a little each night, until they arrived at half a Log.
(e) Now that each lamp requires half a Log of oil during the long winter
nights - one can either use the same amount all nights of the year, and
simply burn the oil that is left over in the summer; or can avoid that by
using progressively thinner wicks, so that the oil always burns out at
(a) Our Mishnah permits mixing the Nesachim of a bull with those of a ram
(assuming that the respective Menachos have either been brought or that they
too, got mixed up [Tif'eres Yisrael]). The Tana is referring to the wine and
the oil of the Minchas Nesachim.
(b) The Tana permits it - because the proportion of the Nesech and the
Minchah are the same in both cases (two Login per Isaron).
(c) The Tana also permits the Nesachim of one lamb with the Nesachim of
another - even if one ...
1. ... belongs to a Yachid, and the other to the Tzibur (since the
proportion of the Nesech and the Minchah of one is the still the same as the
other (both are three Lugin per Isaron), and the same will apply if one of
2. ... is from today's Korban, and the other, from yesterday's (since we
have already learned that one may bring one's Minchah today and the Nesech
anything up to ten days later.
(a) The Tana prohibits mixing the Nesachim of a lamb with those of a bull or
a ram - because the proportion of the Nesech and the Minchah of one is
different than the other.
(b) He permits the oil of the Nesech of a lamb that one did mix together
with that of a bull or a ram - provided they were both already mixed
together with their respective Menachos.
(c) Finally, the Tana says that ...
1. ... although the Minchas Nesachim of the lamb that accompanied the Omer
is double (i.e. two Esronim) ...
2. ... the Nesech that comes with the Minchah is not ( i.e. it remains a
quarter of a Hin).
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Cheilev of the
Shelamim) "Ve'hiktiro" (in the singular) - that one is not permitted to mix
the Chalavim of two different Korbanos (but each should be burned
(b) This poses a Kashya on our Mishnah - which permits mixing the Nesachim
of two different Korbanos (provided the proportion between the Nesech and
the Minchah is the same in both cases).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan answers - that whereas the Beraisa is speaking
Lechatchilah, our Mishnah is speaking Bedi'eved.
(d) We query Rebbi Yochanan from the Seifa 'Balelan Eilu Bifnei Atzman
ve'Eilu Bifnei Atzman Ve'nis'arvu Kesheirin' because then ...
1. ... the Reisha 've'Ein Me'arvin Niskei Kevasim be'Niskei Parim
ve'Eilim' - must be speaking Lechatchilah, and so must ...
2. ... the Reisha de'Reisha 'Me'arvin Niskei Parim be'Niskei Eilim ... '.
(a) Abaye answers 'Me'arvin Yeinan Im Nis'areiv Saltan ve'Shamnan', by which
he means - that the Reisha 'Me'arvin Niskei Parim be'Niskei Eilim' is
referring to the wines, which one is permitted to mix even Lechatchilah,
provided their flour and oil were also mixed together (as indeed they should
be [and as will be explained shortly]).
(b) We refute Abaye's answer however, from a Beraisa, which draws a
distinction between mixing the flour and oil of two Korbanos - which is
forbidden, and mixing their wines - which is permitted (irrespective of
whether their flour and oil were mixed together or not).
(a) Abaye therefore reinterprets the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Me'arvin Niskei
Parim be'Niskei Eilim' (even Lechatchilah) - confining it to where the flour
and oil of the two Korbanos have already been burned (even if they were not
actually mixed together).
(b) If they have not, one is forbidden to mix them.
(c) The Tana permits mixing the wines after the flour and the oil have been
burned, but forbids it beforehand - on account of a decree, for fear that
they might go on to mix the flour and oil of the two Korbanos (which is
(d) Mixing the wines Lechatchilah is not intrinsically included in the
prohibition of mixing the Chalavim - because "Hukt'ru" is confined to
Kodshim that are burned on the Mizbe'ach, whereas the wine is poured into
the bowls on the Keren.
(a) Even though the Torah writes (in connection with the Keves ha'Ba im
ha'Omer) "u'Minchaso Sh'nei Esronim", we know that the wine of its Nesech is
not double too - because the Pasuk specifically writes there "ve'Nisko Yayin
(b) And Rebbi Elazar learns from the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Nisko"
with a 'Hey' (as if it had written "ve'Niskah"), even though it is read with
a 'Vav' - that the Nesech of the Minchah (i.e. its oil) is not double
(c) And this latter Pasuk is necessary, because we might have otherwise
thought - that notwithstanding the fact that the wine is not double, the
oil, which is mixed with the Minchah, is.
(a) An Asham that is Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo - is nevertheless brought on
the Mizbe'ach, though the owner has not fulfilled his obligation, and is
obligated to bring another one.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules that in the case of an Asham Metzora that is
Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo - the Asham also requires Nesachim. He refers
specifically to an Asham Metzora, because no other Asham requires Nesachim
to begin with.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan gives his reason as 'she'Im I Atah Omer Kein, Paslaso'.
That is because, without Nesachim, it is not fit to be brought as an Asham
Metzora. Neither can it be brought as ...
1. ... an Olah - because it would then first require 'Nituk li'Re'ayah'
(i.e. an Asham can only adopt the Kedushah of an Olah, once it has been sent
into the field to obtain a blemish).
2. ... an Asham Nedavah - because an Asham cannot be brought as a Nedavah.
(a) Rav Menashya bar Gada asks - why Rebbi Yochanan does not also
incorporate in his ruling where one Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo ...
1. ... Keves ha'Ba im ha'Omer - which ought to be brought together with its
(b) Abaye answers that this is indeed the Halachah in all three cases. Rebbi
Yochanan however - only mentioned one of the four cases, and it is
self-understood that the same applies to the other three.
2. ... Tamid shel Shachar - brought together with two blocks of wood carried
by one Kohen?
3. ... Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim - brought together with two blocks of wood
carried by two Kohanim.
(c) Rebbi Aba disagrees. All three cases that we queried, he explains, are
Olos, and an Olah is different than Asham - inasmuch as if it cannot be
brought as an Olas Chovah, it can still be brought as an Olas Nedavah (and
does not therefore require the unique specifications that it needed as an
(d) We cite a Beraisa that corroborates Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana presents an
alternative case with regard to the Asham, besides 'Shachto she'Lo
li'Shemo'; namely - there where the blood was not placed on the right ear,
the right thumb and the right big toe.