(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, 92

MENACHOS 92 (12 Teves 5764) - dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky and daughters to honor the first Yahrzeit of Joel Bikelnitzky, Reb Yoel Yitzchak ben Shraga Feivish, affectionately known as "Feter Yoel" to everyone in Crown Heights. Beloved uncle of Layah Bergman (Chicago IL), Zahava Mandel (Cedarhurst NY), and Sima Weinstock (Kew Gardens Hills, NY)


OPINIONS: The Mishnah says that a person who inherits a Korban performs Semichah on the Korban and brings Nesachim. RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH ha'Yoresh Somech) explains that the Mishnah is referring to a case in which a person's father dedicated a Korban Olah or Korban Shelamim, and died before he was able to bring the Korban.

The Mishnah does not clarify, though, whether the heir is supposed to bring the Nesachim from his own property, or whether he brings Nesachim only if he inherited the Nesachim from his father. What is the Mishnah's intention?

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV explains that the case of the Mishnah is when a person inherits the Nesachim from his father. It seems that the Tosfos Yom Tov would agree that if the original owner of the Korban had not set aside any Nesachim, his son would still have to bring Nesachim from money that he inherited from his father. However, if he did not inherit anything other than the animal from his father, then he would not have to buy Nesachim.

(b) The OR GADOL argues and says that a person who inherits a Korban is considered like the owner of the Korban. Even if he does not inherit anything else, he must bring Nesachim from his own money in order to complete the Korban. The Or Gadol proves this from the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:6) which states that if a convert dies with no heirs and leaves a Korban that needs to be brought, we bring the Korban, together with the Nesachim that the convert left as well. If he left no Nesachim, then we bring Nesachim from the public funds. According to the Tosfos Yom Tov, why does that Mishnah discuss a convert who dies? The same Halachah applies to an ordinary Jew who dies! The Or Gadol proves from there that it must be that the heir of an ordinary Jew always brings Nesachim from his own money if his father did not provide Nesachim. This is also the opinion of the CHAZON ISH (Zevachim 1:5).

The TIFERES YISRAEL in Shekalim apparently learns like the Tosfos Yom Tov. He explains why the Mishnah in Shekalim talks specifically about a convert. If an ordinary Jew dies and leaves a Korban without Nesachim, we would say that the Nesachim should be brought from his estate. If a convert dies and leaves a Korban without Nesachim, it is not possible to bring Nesachim from his estate, because the property of a convert who dies without heirs is considered Hefker, ownerless. Since his property is Hefker, there is no property of the convert from which to bring Nesachim, and therefore the Nesachim are brought from the public funds.

The Or Gadol cites the KEHILOS YAKOV (on Mishnayos) who understands that this argument is based on a different argument. There is a dispute regarding whether the lien on one's property that is created when one commits himself to a monetary obligation is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan ("Shi'abuda d'Oraisa" or "Shi'abuda Lav d'Oraisa"; see end of SHULCHAN ARUCH CM 175, and Background to the Daf to Bava Basra 175:18). One opinion maintains that even though the convert committed himself to bring a Korban while he was alive, his commitment did not cause the monetary value of the Nesachim to become designated for Nesachim, since the lien that results from such a commitment is only mid'Rabanan. The other opinion, which holds "Shi'abuda d'Oraisa," maintains that the Nesachim should be brought from the estate of the convert, because a lien mid'Oraisa was created on the converts property for the monetary value of the Nesachim. This might be why the Tosfos Yom Tov holds that the case of a convert in the Mishnah in Shekalim, which says that Nesachim are brought from his property, applies only when the convert separated these actual Nesachim before he died. According to the opinion that "Shi'abuda d'Oraisa," even if the convert did not separate specific Nesachim, there would be a lien mid'Oraisa on his property for the purpose of bringing Nesachim, and this lien overrides the property's new status of Hefker. According to this opinion, the Mishnah in Shekalim is obviously discussing a case in which the convert had no possessions to bequeath, and he did not dedicate any Nesachim before his death. In such a case, the Nesachim must be brought from public funds. In contrast, when a Jew -- who has heirs who inherit his property -- dies, those heirs must bring his Nesachim for him from their own property.

The Or Gadol points out, however, that according to the Tosfos Yom Tov who explains that the heir is not considered the owner of the Korban and cannot bring his own Nesachim, why should the Mishnah discuss specifically a convert? Why should an ordinary Jew be different? If the Jew did not dedicate the Nesachim before he died, why should the Nesachim be brought from the money he bequeathed to his children, when that money is no longer the property of the person who died? It must be that the heir indeed is considered an owner of the Korban, and therefore his money is also valid to use for Nesachim for this Korban. (See also SHOSHANIM L'DAVID in Shekalim 7:6, and MIKDASH DAVID 10:3). (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Mishnah state that all private Korbanos require Semichah, with the exception of a Bechor, Ma'aser, and a Korban Pesach. The Gemara suggests that these exceptions are derived from the three extra times that the Torah mentions the word, "Korbano" -- "his Korban" (RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH Korbano) says that these three extra words are written with regard to the Semichah of Shelamim, referring to Vayikra 3. However, we find only two words "Korbano" in that chapter that are written with regard to Semichah, while there are many other occasions of the word in that chapter with regard to Shelamim in general.) These three extra words exclude Bechor, Ma'aser, and Pesach.

How does the word "Korbano" imply that we should exclude these three types of Korbanos?

(a) RASHI (DH Korbanos) explains that the word "Korbano" implies that one is trying to bring himself closer to Hashem voluntarily ("*his* Korban"). This refers specifically to a voluntary, freewill offering, and not to a Korban that one is obligated to bring, such as a Bechor, Ma'aser, and Pesach.

The CHIDUSHIM HA'MEYUCHASIM LA'RASHBA asks that this explanation is not consistent with the Halachah regarding an Asham and a Chatas. Both of these Korbanos are obligatory, and yet they still require Semichah! He answers that an Asham and a Chatas "are not Kadosh before they are offered, and they are brought solely for the person's own benefit, and therefore they are called 'Korbano.'" In contrast, a Bechor is Kadosh immediately upon birth.

This answer, however, does not explain why Ma'aser and a Korban Pesach -- which are not Kadosh from birth -- are different from an Asham and Chatas.

The EIZEHU MEKOMAN suggests that it is possible that "Korbano" implies that there are two requirements necessary for Semichah. First, the person bringing the Korban must be Makdish the animal (and not that it is Kadosh from birth), and, second, that it is a Korban that is offered for appeasement. A Bechor becomes Kadosh at birth, while Ma'aser and Pesach are not offered for appeasement, but rather to fulfill the obligation of bringing these special Korbanos. An Asham and Chatas are brought for appeasement, and therefore they require Semichah even though they are obligatory. It seems that the Rashba himself alludes to this when he writes, "And they are brought solely for the person's own benefit," referring to the appeasement attained by the Korban. This is a reason which is not necessary for Bechor, since the Rashba already stated Semichah does not apply since it becomes Kadosh at birth and not through the owner's act of being Mekadesh it.

(b) The SEFAS EMES also explains that "Korbano" excludes a Bechor because a Bechor is Kadosh from birth. However, he explains that Ma'aser is similarly excluded, because whichever animal is the tenth animal becomes Kadosh, and its Kedushah is considered to happen by itself. A Korban Pesach is excluded from "Korbano" for a different reason altogether. "Korbano," or "his Korban," refers to a Korban which is exclusively *his*, as opposed to a Korban that everyone is obligated to bring on the same day, such as the Korban Pesach. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


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