(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, 79


OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses the status of Nesachim which became Kadosh in a Kli, and the Korban with which they were being brought became Pasul. The Mishnah says that if there is a different Korban (that requires Nesachim) being brought that day, then the Nesachim may be brought with that Korban. If there is no other Korban being brought that day, then the Nesachim should be left to become Pasul through Linah (being left overnight).

The Gemara quotes Ze'iri who says that Nesachim only become Kadosh through the slaughtering of the Korban they accompany. This statement seems strange, since the Mishnah says clearly that Nesachim become Kadosh in a Kli. What does Ze'iri mean when he says that the slaughtering of the Korban makes Nesachim become Kadosh?

(a) RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH Ela b'Shechitah) and the BARTENURA say that when the Mishnah says "she'Kidshu b'Kli," it does not mean that the Kli itself causes the Nesachim to became Kadosh. Rather, the Mishnah means that it just happens to be that the Nesachim are in a Kli when the Korban is slaughtered, and it is the slaughtering of the Korban that causes the Nesachim to become Kadosh. Consequently, even if the Nesachim were in the Kli and the Korban was not brought for whatever reason, the Nesachim would not have to be left overnight to become Pasul with Linah.

According to Rashi Kesav Yad, the Gemara proceeds to question Ze'iri from the words of the Mishnah which imply that even an invalid Shechitah requires that the Nesachim be left to become Pasul with Linah. This seems to contradict Ze'iri, who said that only a valid Shechitah causes the Nesachim to become Kadosh such that they will have to become Pasul with Linah if the Korban is not brought. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is not discussing a Korban that became Pasul because of an invalid Shechitah, but rather because of an invalid Zerikah. Since the Shechitah was valid, the Nesachim indeed must be left to become Pasul with Linah.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Ein ha'Nesachim) says that the Kli does bestow some degree of Kedushah on the Nesachim. Once the Nesachim are placed in the Kli, they become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf and must be left to become made Pasul with Linah if they cannot be brought that day. The Shechitah gives the Nesachim an added degree of Kedushah, by making the Nesachim exclusively designated for use with this Korban and for no other Korban.

This explanation, however, does not seem consistent with the next question in the Gemara. The Gemara questions Ze'iri's statement from another inference in the Mishnah. The Mishnah implies that if the Korban became Pasul during the Shechitah, the Nesachim may still be used for a different Korban. According to Tosfos, though, Ze'iri agrees that the Nesachim may be used for a different Korban when the Shechitah of the first Korban was not done properly!

Tosfos earlier (15b, DH Efshar) explains the Gemara's question according to his position. He explains that the Gemara is asking according to the qualifying statements made in the Gemara later (79b), where the Gemara says that the Nesachim may be used for another Korban only if that other Korban was slaughtered and has no Nesachim, or because of a special stipulation that Beis Din makes for Nesachim. According to Ze'iri's statement that the Nesachim are non-transferable only when a valid Shechitah was performed, why do we need to qualify the Mishnah by saying that another Korban was slaughtered without Nesachim, or that Beis Din makes a special stipulation? This is the Gemara's question on Ze'iri, and this is why the Gemara needs to answer that the Mishnah indeed is discussing a case in which the Korban become Pasul not because of an invalid Shechitah, but because of an invalid Zerikah.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 12:6) writes, "When Nesachim became Kadosh in a Kli Shares, and the Korban became Pasul, if it (the Korban) became Pasul at the time of the Shechitah, then the Nesachim did not become Kadosh to be offered." The KESEF MISHNEH explains that the Rambam learns like Rashi, who says that the Nesachim are not Kadosh at all unless a valid Shechitah is performed.

However, the TOSFOS YOM TOV has difficulty with the Kesef Mishneh and argues that the Rambam learns like Tosfos. (See also KEREN ORAH, who gives an entirely different explanation of the Gemara.) (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Gemara records an argument between Rebbi Shimon and the Chachamim regarding unnecessary Temidin. Rebbi Shimon says that such Temidin cannot be redeemed when they are still whole; only after they become blemished (with a Mum) and unfit to be offered may they be redeemed. The Chachamim say that they may be redeemed even though they do not have a Mum. What is the case of "unnecessary Temidin"?
(a) RASHI (KESAV YAD and RASHI DH Temidin) explains that every year, at the end of Adar, there were four leftover sheep that were waiting to be brought for the Korban Tamid. This is because, as the Gemara earlier (47b) states, there are never less than six sheep in the Lishkas ha'Tela'im on any given day. The reason for this is that the sheep always have to be removed for inspection for four days prior to being offered as a Korban. On most days, two sheep would be brought and two exchanged for them, leaving six sheep. On the last day of Adar, two sheep would be brought, and no more Korbanos from the remaining sheep could be brought, because the Korban Tamid for Rosh Chodesh Nisan had to come from the new public funds (Terumas ha'Lishkah), which were only released from Rosh Chodesh Nisan. This means that four sheep that were designated for the Tamid would be leftover, giving us unnecessary Temidin.

The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#4) has difficulty with this explanation. He asks in the name of the SAR MI'KUTZI, why does the Terumas ha'Lishkah not simply "buy" these leftover animals and use them for the Korbanos of the new year?

The MIKDASH DAVID (19:3) is perplexed by the question of the Sar mi'Kutzi. There are no funds with which to buy these animals before Rosh Chodesh Nisan, since the funds were released only on Rosh Chodesh Nisan!

The YAD BINYAMIN answers that the Sar mi'Kutzi's question was as follows. The last four animals that remain should not become the property of Hekdesh until Rosh Chodesh Nisan. They would put the animals in the Lishkas ha'Tela'im in order to fulfill the requirement to have at least six animals there, but they would not actually dedicate them to Hekdesh until Rosh Chodesh Nisan. The Yad Binyamin proves that the requirement to have six animals in the Lishkah is fulfilled even when Hekdesh does not own the animals. The Gemara in Pesachim (96a) says that the Korban Pesach that was brought for generations (as opposed to the one brought in Mitzrayim) did not have to be separated four days before it was brought. However, the Gemara says that the animal must be examined for four days before it is brought as a Korban. These two statements seem to contradict each other. How can we say that one does not have to buy the Korban Pesach four days beforehand, if one is required to examine it for four days before offering it? It must be that one may examine the animal for four days without owning it. It follows that Hekdesh, too, may examine an animal for four days even though it does not yet own the animal. The Yad Binyamin says that this is implied by Rashi in Pesachim (96a, DH d'Kavasei). (The question of the Shitah Mekubetzes, according to the explanation of the Yad Binyamin, is also asked by the TUREI EVEN in Megilah 29b.)

(b) Rashi cites another explanation. Rebbi Shimon states in Shevuos (12a) that when a Par or Se'ir of Yom Kipur was lost, another was designated to take its place, and then the original Par or Se'ir was found, the original animal cannot even be brought as a Korban on Sukos. Similarly, if a Korban Tamid was lost and another animal was brought in its place, the Korban Tamid, when found, may no longer be offered.

The comparison between these two cases seems unclear. It is understandable that a Korban that was designated to be a special Korban can no longer be brought as a different kind of Korban. Why, though, should this affect a lost Korban Tamid, which can still be brought as the exact same Korban (a Korban Tamid) on a different day?

(c) The Shitah Mekubetzes suggests a third explanation. He explains that the Gizbar (treasurer) of Hekdesh miscalculated the need for Korbanos and purchased more sheep than were needed for the Korban Tamid. This is also the approach of RABEINU GERSHOM. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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