ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 100
MENACHOS 100 - Today's Daf has been sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. Zachary
Prensky of N.Y. in honor of the first birthday of Daniel S. (AKA Daniel
(a) Even though the Kohanim who ate the goat raw were Alexandri'im, as Rabah
bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan explained, the Tana nevertheless refers
to them as Bavli'im - because the Yerushalmim disliked the Bavli'im (so they
would refer to whoever had bad habits, as a Bavli [see Tosfos DH
(b) And we support this with Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa. When Rebbi Yehudah
acknowledged Rebbi Yossi's statement with 'Tanu'ach Da'atcha she'Hinachta
Da'ati', he meant - that he was grateful to him for attributing this bad
habit to the Alexandri'im and not to the Bavli'im, since his family were
(a) Our Mishnah renders Pasul the Avodah, in a case where they arranged the
Bazichin only on Motza'ei Shabbos (even if the Lechem ha'Panim were in place
already on Shabbos), if the Kohen then burned the Bazichin on the following
Shabbos - because, seeing as they were only arranged on the Shulchan after
Shabbos, they are premature until the Shabbos after.
(b) The Tana adds that Pigul, Nosar and Tamei will not apply in this case.
By 'Pigul', he means - that the Kohen burned the Bazichin with the intention
of eating the Lechem the following day.
(c) Pigul is not applicable - because the Matir (the Bazichin) was not
brought in the prescribed way ('she'Lo Kirev ha'Matir ke'Mitzvaso').
(d) The Lechem is not subject to ...
1. ... Nosar - because whatever is not edible, is not subject to Nosar.
2. ... Tumah (i.e. Kareis for eating it be'Tum'as ha'Guf) - because one is
only Chayav Kareis for eating be'Tum'ah something that can be eaten
(a) For the Avodas ha'Bazichin and the Lechem ha'Panim to be Kasher - the
Kohanim should leave the loaves on the Shulchan until the second Shabbos ...
(b) ... the Lechem ha'Panim cannot become Pasul be'Linah, until they have
spent two Shabbasos on the Shulchan.
(a) The Mishnah in Tamid discusses the time of the Shechitas ha'Tamid.
'Barkai' (meaning 'it has become day') was said - by any Kohen who, in
response to the Memuneh [officer]'s question whether the time to Shecht the
Tamid had arrived, would climb up on to the roof and ascertain that it had.
(b) Matisya ben Shmuel (the Menuneh in his time) would ask on Yom Kippur
whether the first rays of the sun had reached as far as Chevron. He
mentioned Chevron - in order to evoke the Z'chus Avos on that auspicious
(c) This entire ceremony became necessary - when, mistaking the light of the
moon for the first rays of the sun, they once Shechted the Tamid too early,
and subsequently had to send it to the Beis ha'Sereifah.
(d) They then sent the Kohen Gadol to Tovel a second time, as the Sugya
explains in Yoma. Based on the K'lal in the Beis-Hamikdash - whoever
relieved himself li'Gedolim, required Tevilah, li'Ketanim, needed to perform
only Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim.
(a) The father of Rebbi Avin cited a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that an
Olas ha'Of on which a Kohen performed Melikah and a Minchah on which he
performed Kemitzah at night time - are Pasul.
(b) Olas ha'Of presents no problem, because once it is Shechted, there is
nothing that can be done to bring it back to life. The problem with the
Beraisa's second Halachah regarding the Minchah is - why it is not possible
to return the Kemitzah to the Shirayim and to repeat the Kemitzah after
(c) Rebbi Avin's father, who asked the Kashya, answered it - with the
principle 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin she'Lo bi'Zemanan'.
(a) We query Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's answer however, from a Beraisa, where
the Tana rules that whatever is brought ...
1. ... by day - is sanctified by day.
(b) The Minchas Nesachim - can be sacrificed by night.
2. ... by night - is sanctified by night.
(c) We can extrapolate from the Beraisa's first statement that 'ba'Yom In,
ba'Laylah Lo' (a Kashya on Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's answer). We reconcile
them - by differentiating between whether they are being sanctified to be
brought on the Mizbe'ach (the latter Beraisa), or to become Pasul (Avuhah
(d) Rebbi Zeira still asks on him however, from the Seifa of our Mishnah,
which permits leaving the Lechem ha'Panim and the Bazichin that were placed
on the Shulchan after Shabbos until two Shabbasos time. According to what we
just explained, this ought to be forbidden, because the loaves should become
Pasul be'Linah that same night.
(a) Rabah liked Rebbi Zeira's Kashya. Yet Rebbi Avin's father cited a
Beraisa (which cannot just be dismissed). So he explains that the Kometz
becomes Pasul - due to the principle 'Laylah La'av Mechusar Z'man' (since
basically, the night follows the day, in which case, the Kemitzah was
sanctified in its right time [only for whatever reason, Avodah is Pasul at
night-time]). The Lechem ha'Panim on the other hand, which were placed on
the Shulchan six days too early, are really Mechusar Z'man (in which case
the Shulchan cannot sanctify the loaves to render them Pasul).
(b) This answer is not fully satisfactory however, since there is still
reason to believe - that the Lechem ha'Panim ought to become sanctified the
following Friday night (the night before they are due to become sanctified).
(c) To reconcile the Mishnah with Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin, Ravina establishes
our Mishnah - when they removed the loaves before dusk of Erev Shabbos and
returned them on the following day.
(d) Mar Zutra (or Rav Ashi) disagrees. According to him, the loaves cannot
become Pasul, even if they are not removed before dusk of Erev Shabbos -
because since they were placed prematurely, it is as if a monkey had
arranged them on the Shulchan, and they cannot become Pasul.
(a) Our Mishnah sdiscusses the times when the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the
Lechem ha'Panim could be baked and subsequently eaten. According to the Tana
Kama, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem were eaten on ...
1. ... the second day (after they were baked) - when Erev Shavu'os fell on a
(b) And the Lechem ha'Panim were eaten on ...
2. ... the third day - when it fell on Shabbos.
1. ... the ninth day (after they were baked) - if the Friday (the day before
they were arranged on the Shulchan) was a regular weekday.
(c) The principle that governs these Halachos is - that the baking of the
loaves overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom-Tov.
2. ... the tenth day - if Friday was a Yom-Tov.
3. ... the eleventh day - if Friday was the second day of Rosh Hashanah.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel partially disagrees with the Tana Kama -
agreeing with him that the baking does not override Shabbos, but not that it
does not override Yom-Tov.
(a) The Sugya in Beitzah cites a Machlokes whether or not, Nedarim and
Nedavos may be brought on Yom-Tov. The two possible ways of explaining the
opinion that holds that they may not are a. mi'd'Oraysa, b. mi'de'Rabbanan.
***** Hadran Alach 'Sh'tei ha'Lechem' *****
(b) If it is the Rabbanan who forbade it, the reason for their decree will
be - because they were afraid that people might then delay bringing their
Korbanos until Yom-Tov ('Shema Yashheh'), which besides being intrinsically
forbidden, will also lead them to transgress 'bal Te'acher' (failing to
bring one's Korban within its prescribed time-limit).
(c) Ravina proves from our Mishnah that it cannot be mi'de'Rabbanan -
because then, the Isur of bringing the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (which is obviously
less stringent that Nedarim and Nedavos) must also be only mi'de'Rabbanan.
However, seeing as Shema Yashheh does not apply here, there would be no
reason to forbid baking the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Yom-Tov.
***** Perek ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim *****
(a) According to our Mishnah, Menachos and Nesachim which became Tamei, are
subject to Pidyon (redemption) - before they have been sanctified in a K'li,
but not afterwards.
(b) The reason for this is because before Kidush K'li - they have the status
of Kedushas Damim (which are subject to Pidyon, and the money becomes
Kadosh) whereas afterwards - they adopt the status of Kedushas ha'Guf, which
(c) The Tana also rules - that Ofos, Eitzim, Levonah and K'lei Shareis that
became Tamei - cannot be redeemed ...
(d) ... because the redemption of Kedushas ha'Guf is only said in connection
with animals (after they become blemished).
(a) Shmuel remarks that 'she'Nitme'u' in the Reisha (with regard to Menachos
and Nesachim is 'La'av Davka'). He says that - because since they are
Kedushas Damim, (as we explained), there is no reason why they should be
subject to Pidyon.
(b) And the reason that the Tana says it is - to teach us that the Seifa
'mi'she'Kidshu bi'Cheli Ein Lahem Pidyon', speaks even if they were Tamei
(even though if they had a blemish, they would be subject to Tum'ah.
(a) We query this explanation however - on the grounds that this too, is
obvious. Why might we think that Kedushas ha'Guf without a Mum can be
redeemed, just because it is Tamei?
(b) And we answer - that we might otherwise have thought that, since the
Torah refers to a Ba'al- Mum as Tamei, Tum'ah will have the same Din as a
Mum as regards Pidyon?
(c) But we reject that answer - because the comparison of a Ba'al Mum to
Tamei only applies up to the time that the animal is sanctified with a K'li
Shareis; once it does, it is no longer redeemable.
(d) This applies to an animal of Hekdesh - which is Shechted after it has
become blemished, and which is no longer redeemable, since it has become
sanctified via the knife.