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


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 74


OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon who says that the Kemitzah of the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen is offered upon the Mizbe'ach by itself, and the rest of the Minchah is scattered on the Beis ha'Deshen. What is this "Beis ha'Deshen"? The Gemara says that it cannot refer to the "upper Beis ha'Deshen" that is on top of the Mizbe'ach, because then Rebbi Elazar would be saying the same thing as his father, Rebbi Shimon, but in the Beraisa he argues with his father! It must be that he is referring to the "lower Beis ha'Deshen."

What is this "lower Beis ha'Deshen"? We know that the term "Beis ha'Deshen" can refer to a number of different places. For example, the Gemara in Zevachim (104b) lists three different places which are called Beis ha'Deshen. Which place is our Gemara referring to when it says the "lower Beis ha'Deshen"?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Iy d'l'Matah) quotes RASHI as saying that the "lower Beis ha'Deshen" refers to the place outside the Beis ha'Mikdash where certain things were deposited. This is the text of Rashi as quoted by the CHIDUSHIM HA'MEYUCHASIM LA'RASHBA.

Tosfos asks that this explanation is problematic. How could the placement of the leftover Minchah be outside the Beis ha'Mikdash? The Minchah is Kodesh Kodashim, and thus when it leaves the Beis ha'Mikdash, it immediately becomes Pasul because of "Yotzei"!

The TZON KODSHIM, KEREN ORAH, and others answer that there is no Pesul of Yotzei where the Halachah of the Korban itself requires that they be taken outside the Beis ha'Mikdash. Indeed, we find that the Parim ha'Nisrafin are taken outside of all three camps of Benei Yisrael in order to be burned, even though they are Kodshei Kodashim.

(b) TOSFOS explains that the Gemara is referring to the Beis ha'Deshen where the Parim and Se'irim are burned. Tosfos apparently means the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah, where we burn the Parim and Se'irim that were found to be Pasul before their blood was sprinkled (see Zevachim 104b). The SEFAS EMES writes that the text of Tosfos should read, "... where the Parim and Se'irim *that became Pasul* are burned."

The RASHASH, YAD DAVID, and others question the wording of Tosfos. Tosfos refers to the place where the Parim and Se'irim (that became Pasul) are burned. The truth is that all Korbanos that become Pasul before Zerikah are burned in this Beis ha'Deshen, and not just Parim and Se'irim. It is unclear why Tosfos does not say simply that this refers to the place where all Kodshei Kodashim that became Pasul are burned.

(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU TAM who says that this Beis ha'Deshen refers to the place near the ramp of the Mizbe'ach, where the Terumas ha'Deshen was placed. This is also the explanation that appears in our texts of RASHI (DH Ela).

However, Tosfos says that this explanation is not possible. The Terumas ha'Deshen was performed early in the morning, before the Korban Tamid was offered. Only after the Korban Tamid was offered could other Korbanos be offered. By this time, the coals from the Terumas ha'Deshen (which were coals that had almost turned to ash; see Tamid 1:4) would already have cooled down, unable to burn anything placed on top of them.

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH and SEFAS EMES answer that Rashi (and Rabeinu Tam) maintain that the scattered leftovers of this Minchah are *not* burned. How can this be? When the Gemara asks, "Is there something that is offered that goes to waste," it seems to be saying that the leftovers are offered, meaning burned. However, these Acharonim explain that this is not the Gemara's question. The Gemara's question is asking how can it be that the leftovers are scattered while the Kemitzah is offered and burned; we never find any Korban that is burned on the Mizbe'ach whose leftovers are supposed to be burned. This was the Gemara's question. (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that there are three different actions performed with oil for the various types of Minchah offerings. These are Yetzikah (pouring oil), Belilah (mixing oil), and Matan b'Kli (placing oil in the vessel). The Mishnah actually lists these processes in the reverse order. The placement of the oil in the vessel is done first. The mixing of more oil (Belilah) with the flour after the flour has been placed in the vessel is done second, and then the rest of the oil is poured (Yetzikah) on the Minchah. The Mishnah continues and says that that Menachos that are comprised of Chalos require Belilah, while Menachos that are comprised of Rekikin require Meshichah (smearing the oil on top of the completed loaves).

What is the Halachah if a Kohen mixes up these Avodos, and performs Belilah with Rekikin or Meshichah with Chalos? Would the Menachos still be valid?

(a) The RE'EM (Vayikra 2:4) says that if one does the wrong act, such as Belilah with Rekikin or Meshichah with Chalos, he invalidates them and they may not be offered.

(b) Both the LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:8) and the MINCHAS CHINUCH (116:10) are perplexed by this view. What is the source to say that these Menachos are Pasul? On the contrary, the Mishnah earlier (18a) states that if one did not do Meshichah or Belilah for a Minchah, the Minchah is still valid! This implies that these actions are not parts of the Avodah which invalidate the Minchah.

The Minchas Chinuch adds another reason for why the switching of Meshichah and Belilah should not invalidate the Minchah. He says that the only difference between Chalos and Rekikin is that Belilah is done with one of them, and Meshichah is done with the other. There is no other difference between them. This means that if one did not do Belilah to his Chalos, and decided afterwards to do Meshichah, he is not doing Meshichah to his Chalos, but rather he is turning his Korban into Rekikin! The Minchas Chinuch says, therefore, that he does not know of any reason for why this would invalidate the Minchah, and not merely turn it into a different Korban. (The Minchas Chinuch notes that he did not delve deeply into the topic, and therefore the topic needs further clarification.)

Regarding the second comment of the Minchas Chinuch, we find that the IBN EZRA (Shemos 29:2) writes that there indeed is another difference between Chalos and Rekikin. The Chalos are baked as thick loaves, and the Rekikin are baked as thin loaves. This is also implied by the TIFERES YISRAEL in CHOMER BA'KODESH (2:42).

Nevertheless, the CHAZON ISH (Menachos 25:13) still supports the assertion of the Minchas Chinuch that Belilah would turn a Minchah into Chalos instead of Rekikin. The Chazon Ish explains that because the Belilah makes the form of the Minchah turn out different than it turns out without Belilah, the mixing of the oil into the Minchah turns it into a Chalah, and not into Rekikin.

The KEREN ORAH finds a source that states that switching the Meshichah and Belilah indeed invalidates the Minchah. The Tosefta (8:3) says that "we find that what is valid by Chalos is Pasul by Rekikin, and what is valid by Rekikin is Pasul by Chalos." Nevertheless, even though there is a source for the ruling of the Re'em, why does the Re'em rule like the Tosefta and not like the implication of the Mishnah earlier (18a)?

The Keren Orah explains that the Re'em understands that the Mishnah and Tosefta are not contradicting each other. When the Mishnah states that the lack of Belilah and Meshichah do not invalidate a Minchah, it is assuming that the oil reached the Minchah in a different manner. However, Belilah and Meshichah done to the wrong type of Minchah can cause the oil not to be present at all. For example, Chalos -- which were supposed to have Belilah -- must be mixed with oil *before* they are baked. If one decided to do Meshichah to such a Minchah of Chalos instead of doing Belilah, he would be adding the oil only *after* the baking of the Minchah. Consequently, the Minchah would be Pasul, because it was lacking oil when it was baked.

Why, though, should the Chalos be Pasul because of the lack of oil? The Minchah would still would have the oil from the Matan b'Kli, the placing of oil into the vessel at the beginning of the preparation of the Minchah! The Keren Orah explains that perhaps the Re'em's understanding of the Mishnah is based on the ruling of the Rambam, who maintains that Matan b'Kli is not done for a Minchas Ma'afeh.

(The Keren Orah suggests that the same problem should exist in the opposite situation -- Belilah done to Rekikin could invalidate the Rekikin. However, he says that it is clear that the Rambam would rule that the Rekikin would be valid in such a case.) (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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