(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 6

MENACHOS 6-7 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.


(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi suggests that we need "min ha'Bakar" to preclude a T'reifah from the 'Mah ha'Tzad' of Melikah and Cheilev va'Dam.
What can we ask on the 'Mah ha'Tzad'?

(b) All the cases that we brought were really to counter the original 'Kal Chomer' from 'Ba'al-Mum', which rendered the Pasuk redundant.
How does Rav Ashi attempt to refute the 'Kal-va'Chomer' itself? What additional Chumra exists by Ba'al-Mum that does not exist by T'reifah?

(c) What does Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava ask on this from a Yotzei Dofen? What is a Yotzei Dofen?

(d) What Pircha do we ask on ...

  1. ... the 'Kal va'Chomer from Yotzei Dofen? In what way is it different than T'reifah?
  2. ... the 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Ba'al-Mum and Yotzei Dofen (which are permitted to a Hedyot and forbidden to Gavohah) on to T'reifah, which is forbidden to a Hedyot)?
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries the Pircha.
Why can the leniency of Hutrah mi'Chelalah by T'reifah not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of (which goes to Gavohah)?

(b) If it does not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of, then what do we suggest that it refers to?

(c) Why can it not in fact, refer to Chatas ha'Of (la'Kohanim) either?

(d) What is the problem, if we cannot break the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'?

(a) We conclude that the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' (from Ba'al-Mum and Yotzei Dofen) is different, because their blemish is recognizable, whilst a T'reifah is not necessarily so.
If the T'reifus is not discernible, then what is the Pasuk coming to teach us? How will we know not to bring it?

(b) What do we also learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" and from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "mi'Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" (by Ma'aser Beheimah)?

(c) Having written ...

  1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael", why does the Torah need to add the Pasuk "Kol Asher Ya'avor"?
  2. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor", why does it need to add "min ha'Bakar"?
(d) What makes us establish the Pasuk ...
  1. ..."mi'Mashkeh Yisrael by Mumin from birth?
  2. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor ... " by an animal whose T'reifus preceded the Hekdesh?
(a) What does our Mishnah say about ...
  1. ... a Minchah whose Kemitzah was performed by a Zar, Onan, T'vul-Yom, a Mechusar Begadim or a Mechusar Begadim?
  2. ... a Minchas Chotei and all Menachos in this regard?
(b) The same applies to 'she'Lo Rachatz Yadayim ve'Raglayim', Areil, Tamei and Yoshev.
The Tana invalidates a Kemizah that is performed whilst standing on any one of three things.
Which three things?

(c) What is the last P'sul listed by the Tana Kama?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira say? To which case is he referring?

(a) What does the Tana say in a case where the Kometz included a pebble, salt or Levonah? Why is that?

(b) The Tana describes 'Yeser' as 'Mevuratz'.
What does this mean?

(c) And how does he describe 'Chaser'?

(a) What problem do we have with the Lashon 'Echad Minchas Chotei, ve'Echad Kol ha'Menachos'?

(b) And we answer that the Tana needs to write this because of Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon comment on the absence of oil and frankincense in a Minchas Chotei, and of Nesachim in a Chatas? Why ...

  1. ... on the one hand, ought they to be included?
  2. ... on the other, are they not?
(c) How does this explain the insertion of 'Minchas Chotei' in the Mishnah?
(a) Based on what we just said, what do we ask from the opening Mishnah in Zevachim ('Kol ha'Zevachim she'Ninizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirim'). What ought the Tana to have said there?

(b) How do we answer the Kashya, based on the fact that the Mishnah there begins with the words 'Kol ha'Zevachim'?

(c) Bearing in mind that our Mishnah too, writes ' ... ve'Echad *Kol ha'Menachos*', why did the Tana nevertheless see fit to mention Minchas Chotei independently?

Answers to questions



(a) Having learned in our Mishnah 'Zar she'Kamatz Pasul', how do we reconciles it with Rav's statement 'Zar she'Kamatz Yachzir'?

(b) What problem do we initially have with this?

(c) If, as we suggest, the Rabbanan agree with ben Beseira when the Kometz is still available, then what exactly is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) What is the Rabbanan's reason?

(a) On what grounds do we query this explanation? What ought ben Beseira then to have said?

(b) So we establish Rav like ben Beseira.
How do we initially answer the Kashya 'P'shita'?

(c) Why would we have otherwise thought that ben Beseira permits only 'Kamatz bi'Smol'?

(d) How do we counter the Kashya that, just as S'mol is permitted on Yom Kipur, so too, is a Zar permitted to perform Shechitah (in which case ben Beseira ought to validate the Kemitzah of a Zar, as well)?

(a) What reason does Rav give for the ruling Rebbi Zeira cites in his name 'Shechitas Parah be'Zar Pesulah'?

(b) What do we try to prove from there?

(c) How do we refute this proof? What makes Parah Adumah different?

(d) We persist however, by Darshening a 'Kal-va'Chomer.
Which 'Kal-va'Chomer'?

(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi answers this Kashya by comparing Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis to Mar'os Nega'im.
What are the specifications of Mar'os Nega'im?

(b) What does he prove from there?

(c) What do we try to learn from Bamah?

(d) On what grounds do we reject that proof?

(a) From where does the Beraisa learn that Yotzei is included in the Din of 'Im Alah, Lo Yeired'?

(b) Then how can we apply the principle 'mi'Bamah Lo Yalfinan'? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Zos Toras ha'Olah"?

(c) If not for Rav, we would have confined ben Beseira's ruling to Kamatz bi'Semol. We query this from a Beraisa.
What do Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say about ben Beseira's ruling?

(a) What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "Ve'kamatz mi'Sham"?

(b) What does ben Beseira learn from there, in connection with 'Kamatz bi'Semol' and any other Kemitzah Pesulah?

(c) Why does this too, pose a Kashya on Rav?

(d) ben Beseira mentions 'Kamatz bi'Semol'.
How do we know that he is referring to the other Pesulin in the Mishnah, too?

(a) So we present Rav's Chidush as the fact that even though the Kohen was already Mekadesh the Minchah in a K'li, ben Beseira holds 'Yachzir ... '.
Why might we have thought otherwise?

(b) What do Rebbi Yossi ben Yasian and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nachtom say?

(c) How do we explain Rav in the second Lashon?

(d) How do we query this opinion 'mi'Mah Nafshach'? What ought we to say even if the Tana'im hold 'Kemitzas Pesulin ...

  1. ... Avodah Hi'?
  2. ... La'av Avodah Hi'?
(a) Rav Nachman presumes 'Kemitzas Pesulin Avodah Hi'.
Then what does Kidush K'li add?

(b) What problem do we have with that, from the moment whoever performed the Kemitzah returns the Kometz to the K'li?

(c) What do we extrapolate from there regarding Kidush K'li?

(d) How do we reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who told Resh Lakish that 'K'lei Shareis Ein Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Likarev Lechatchilah'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,