ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 108
MENACHOS 108 (28 Teves) - sponsored by Reb Uri Sondhelm, to honor the
fifty-first Yahrzeit of his father, Reb Asher ben Uri Shraga Sondhelm Z"L.
May Reb Asher's grandson Menachem merit, in the Zechus of his grandfather
and his other righteous ancestors, to build a Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael with
his newly engaged Kalah, Naomi Stimler of London, England!
(a) Rebbi Yochanan, Ze'iri and bar Pada decline to learn like Chizkiyah,
because each Beis-Av served on his day. What do we mean by that? and in
any event, there were skins of Korbanos that they received over and above
those that were purchased with money from the box?
(b) The other three decline to learn like ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan ('she'Lo Yis'apshu ha'Ma'os') - because they are not
concerned about the money rotting.
(c) They also disagree with him regarding the Ma'ah, because they hold like
Rebbi Meir in a Berasisa. Rebbi Elazar there holds that the Ma'ah goes
li'Nedavah. Rebbi Meir says - 'li'Shekalim'.
2. ... Ze'iri ('Keneged Par, ve'Ayil ... G'di ve'Sa'ir, ve'Rebbi Hi') -
because they want to avoid establishing our Mishnah like an individual
3. ... bar Pada ('Keneged ha'Parim, ve'ha'Eilim ... ') on principle -
because how can they have had a special box marked 'Mosros', when all of
them are Mosros.
(a) Shmuel maintains that the six boxes corresponded to 'Moser Chatas ...
u'Mosar Minchas Chotei u'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol' (as we
learned in the previous Perek). The leftovers of a regular Minchah - are
used to purchase another Minchah.
(b) And the reason that Shmuel lists Moser Chatas and Mosar Minchas Chotei
u'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol in this list is - because of a
D'rashah of Yehoyada ha'Kohen, who Darshens that whatever comes from Mosar
Chatas or Mosar Asham (even if it is in fact, a Minchah) should be used to
buy Olos Tzibur, and their skins given to Kohanim.
(c) Rebbi Oshaya disagrees. He replaces 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen
Gadol' with [Mosar Kinin'.
(a) Shmuel omits Mosar Kinin - because it already appears in the Reisha,
among the seven boxes that are not li'Nedavah.
(b) Rebbi Oshaya counters this - by omitting Kinin from the Reisha.
(c) We reconcile this with the Beraisa cited by him, which does cite Kinin
in the Reisha - by inserting Kinin in the Reisha, and Mosar Kinin in the
(d) 'Kinin' in the Reisha means - that a Mechusar Kipurim (who was Chayav to
bring a pair of birds) would place his money in the box marked Kinin, and on
the assumption that the Kohanim had emptied the boxes, he was permitted to
eat Kodshim after nightfall.
(a) Rebbi Oshaya omits Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol - because he
concurs with those who hold that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol is
left to rot ('Yerakev'), as we shall now see.
(b) We learned in a Beraisa 'Mosar Minchas Nedavah, Mosar Minchah Yerakev'.
According to Rav Chisda, the Reisha refers to Mosar Minchas Chotei. What
does the Seifa refer to?
(c) Rabah establishes the Seifa by Mosar Lachmei Todah. It cannot be brought
1. ... as it is - because Lachmei Todah can only be brought together with
the Korban Todah.
(d) He includes Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol in the Reisha
('li'Nedavah') together with Mosar Minchas Chotei.
2. ... together with another Korban Todah - because every Todah comes
together with its own loaves.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan too, holds that Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol
Nedavah goes to Nedavah. Rebbi Elazar says - Yerakev.
(b) We learned in another Beraisa 'Mosar Shekalim, Chulin'. The Tana there
rules that 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah, Mosar Kinei Zavin ve'Zavos, ve'Kinei
Yoldos, va'Chata'os va'Ashamos' - Nedavah.
(c) We try and interpret 'Mosar Asiris ha'Eifah' as - Asiris ha'Eifah shel
Kohen Gadol, a proof for those who hold that it goes li'Nedavah'.
(d) We refute this proof however, by establishing it by Mosar (Asiris
ha'Eifah) of a Minchas Chotei.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites a Beraisa, which quotes the Pasuk in (in
connection with a Minchas Chotei) "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ve'Lo Yitein
Alehah Levonah *Ki Chatas Hi*", from which Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates - "Hi
Keruyah Chatas", 've'Ein Acheres Keruyah Chatas' (to preclude the Asiris
ha'Eifah shel Kohen Gadol from the exemption from Levonah).
(b) The Torah refers to the Asiris ha'Eifah of the Kohen Gadol as - a
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak nevertheless learns from the Beraisa - that
although it is a Chatas, since it does have the Din of a Chatas as regards
the Levonah, it does not have the Din of a Chatas as regards Nedavah, either
(a proof for those who hold 'Yerakev').
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone says 'Shor Zeh Olah', and the animal
became blemished - he may use the proceeds to purchase two oxen.
(b) The Tana Kama says the same in the reverse case, 'Sh'nei Shevarim Eilu
Olah Ve'nista'avu, Ratzah bi'Demeihen Echad' - Rebbi forbids it.
(c) In a similar ruling, if someone said 'Ayil Zeh Olah' and the ram got a
blemish, the Mishnah permits using the proceeds to purchase a lamb. In in
the reverse case 'Keves Zeh Olah, Ve'nista'av' - it cites the same Machlokes
as it did in the precious case, the Tana Kama permits purchasing a ram with
the procceeds, Rebbi forbids it.
(d) We reconcile the first ruling in the Mishnah 'Shor Zeh Olah Ve'nista'av,
Im Ratzah Yavi be'Damav Shnayim', with the previous Mishnah 'Harei Alai Shor
be'Manah Ve'heivi Shenayim, Lo Yatza' - by pointing to the fact that whereas
the previous Mishnah speaks about a Neder ('Harei Alai'), which the Noder
remains obligated to fulfill, this Mishnah speaks about a Nedavah ('Harei
Zu'), from which he becomes absolved, once the animal becomes blemished.
(a) Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking about a Nedavah (as we just
explained), Rebbi forbids bringing one instead of two - because even though
it is a Nedavah, the Chachamim did not allow him to change his Korban in
(b) In fact - he argues in the Reisha, in the reverse case too, only he
waited for the Rabbanan to finish their statement, before making his.
(c) We might have thought that he would concede to the Rabbanan in the
Reisha - where the Noder is actually improving his Korban by bringing two
instead of one (despite the fact that they cost the same).
(d) And we prove this from the Seifa, where Rebbi argues in the case of
'Keves Zeh le'Olah ... Yavi be'Damav Ayil' - which is also an improvement,
yet he forbids it.
(a) We then ask whether the Noder may change from one species to another -
whether, for example, one may purchase two rams instead of a bull.
(b) And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa - where the Tana rules 'Shor
Zeh Olah Ve'nista'ev, Lo Yavi be'Damav Ayil' adding - 'Aval Meivi be'Damav
(c) Rebbi forbids it because of 'Ein Bilah' - meaning that one would have to
bring two Menachos in two Keilim, and one would not be able to bring them in
one K'li, in accordance with the Din.
(d) We have now proved - that one may change from one species to another,
even according to Rebbi, who is only concerned about the Menachos, but not
about the Korban itself.
(e) We reconcile the Reisha of this Beraisa with our Mishnah, which permits
bringing even one lamb with the proceeds of a ram - by presenting it as a
Machlokes Ta'an'im. Our Mishnah permits it Lechatchilah, whereas the Beraisa
(a) The Beraisa concludes 'u'vi'Tehorim, Eigel, Ve'heivi Par, Keves Ve'heivi
Ayil, Yatza'. 'Tehorim' means - without a blemish.
(b) The author of this statement is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi, because,
according to Rebbi, 'Katan Ve'heivi Gadol' is not Yotzei'.
(c) We just concluded that, were it not for the problem with the Menachos,
Rebbi would agree to the purchase of two rams with the proceeds of one bull.
The problem with that from our Mishnah 'Ayil Zeh Olah Ve'nista'ev ... Keves
Zeh Olah, Ve'nista'ev' is - that Rebbi forbids bringing a ram or a lamb
there, even though the Minchah is brought in one K'li.
(d) We resolve the problem - by once again presenting it as a Machlokes
Ta'an'im (whether Rebbi is concerned only about the Menachos, or even about
the Korban itself, as we learned above).
(a) Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid Amar Rav qualifies our Mishnah 'Shor Zeh Olah
... Im Ratzah Yavi be'Damav Shenayim'. Had the Noder said 'Shor Zeh *Alai*
Olah', he maintains - it would be fixed exactly as he said it.
(b) We reject Rav Menashyah bar Z'vid's statement however, with the argument
that 'Alai' means 'Alai Lehavi'o' (obligating him to bring specifically that
ox as a Nedavah, but exempting him once it becomes blemished).
(c) What Rav therefore really said was - our Mishnah only speaks when he
declared 'Shor Zeh Olah' or 'Shor Zeh Alai Olah', but if he added the word
've'Damav', he means to fix it as a Neder, and is obligated to bring one ox,
and not two.
(a) If a man declares one of his lambs or one of his oxen Hekdesh, our
Mishnah rules, assuming that he owned ...
1. ... two such animals - that he is obligated to bring the larger one.
(b) In a case where he remembered specifying which one he would bring, but
cannot recall what he said, or if he cites his father on his death-bed, but
does not know which one his father was referring to, the Tana rules - that
he is obligated to give his biggest animal to Hekdesh ...
2. ... three such animals - that he brings the middle one.
(c) ... because, based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "Mivchar Nidreichem", we assume
that this is what he had in mind to give.
(a) We can learn from the Reisha of our Mishnah ' ... ha'Gadol she'Bahen
Hekdesh' - that someone who is Makdish, does so generously.
(b) And the Mishnah then continues ' ... ha'Benoni Hekdesh', says Shmuel,
for exactly the same reason - because the middle one too, is considered
generous, compared to the smallest, and we therefore suspect that this is
what he may have meant.
(c) What Rebbi Chiya bar Rav suggests he does, to avoid having to give both
animals to Hekdesh is - to wait until the middle one becomes blemished, and
then to transfer its Kedushah on to the larger one (mi'Mah Nafshach
rendering it Chulin).
(a) Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies our Mishnah, by confining the Reisha to where
the Noder said 'Echad mi'Shevarai Hekdesh', but where he said 'Shor
bi'Shevarai Hekdesh' - he means Davka the best, and not the middle one.
(b) We query this from a statement by Rav Huna bar Chiya Amar Ula 'ha'Omer
la'Chavero, Bayis be'Beisi Ani Mocher Lach, Mar'eihu *Aliyah*', which we
initially interpret to mean - his attic, which is an inferior section of the
house (quite the opposite to Rabah bar Avuhah's interpretation of this
(c) We reconcile Rabah bar Avuhah with the Beraisa - by re-interpreting
'Aliyah' to mean 'min ha'Me'uleh she'be'Batim' (the best part of his house).
(a) We ask on Rabah bar Avuhah from a Beraisa 'Shor bi'Shevarai *Hekdesh*
... ', which means 'an Olah' in this context.
(b) The Tana rules that in a case where someone says 'Shor bi'Shevarai
Hekdesh' or where his ox became mixed up with his other animals - he takes
the biggest and gives it to Hekdesh.
(c) The Tana adds to this statement - that the rest of his animals must be
sold as Olos and the money remains Chulin.
(d) The money remains Chulin - because it is only when one redeems Hekdesh
(as in the case of Hekdesh animals that became blemished), that the Kedushah
needs to be transferred from the animal on to the money.
(a) We ask on Rabah bar Avuhah from here - because we think that the final
statement ('ve'Chulan Yimachru ... ') extends to the Reisha too (even though
he said 'Shor bi'Shevarai').
(b) We query the answer that 've'Chulan Yimachru le'Tzorchei Olah ... ' only
refers to the Seifa 've'Chein Shor shel Hekdesh She'Nis'arev ba'Acherim ...
' - on the basis of the word 've'Chein', which implies that the Reisha and
the Seifa are equivalent.
(c) But we answer that the Tana inserts the word 've'Chein' - only with
regard to the initial Din 'ha'Gadol she'Bahen Hekdesh' (which is indeed
common to both cases), but not to the second statement.
(a) Another Beraisa rules that in a case where someone agreed to sell his
friend 'Bayis be'Beisi' or 'Eved ba'Avadai' - he may offer him a house that
fell down or an Eved that died ...
(b) ... whereas according to Rabah bar Avuhah - he ought to give him the
best that he owns.
(c) We answer the Kashya - by differentiating between Hekdesh (where we say
'be'Ayin Yafah Makdish') and Mecher (where we apply the principle 'Yad Ba'al
ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah' [a branch of 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav
(d) That being the case, we can also revise our answer to the earlier Kashya
from 'Bayis be'Beisi Ani Mocher Lach' - because by the same token, we will
apply the same S'vara there, and 'Mar'eihu Aliyah' will then mean that the
seller has the right to offer the purchaser the attic.