(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. However, we can ask - 'Mah le'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen she'Kein Mitzvasah be'Kach'.

(b) All the cases that we brought were really to counter the original 'Kal Chomer' from 'Ba'al-Mum', which rendered the Pasuk redundant. Rav Ashi attempts to refute the 'Kal-va'Chomer' itself - inasmuch as Ba'al-Mum applies to the Makriv (the Kohen) no less than to the Nikrav (the Korban), a Chumra that does not exist by T'reifah.

(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava ask on this from a Yotzei Dofen (an animal born by a cesarean birth) - which does not apply to the Kohanim either, yet it is permitted to a Hedyot, but forbidden to Gavohah. So we try to learn T'reifah from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a Yotze Dofen.

(d) We ask on ...

1. ... this however - that a Yotzei Dofen is not subject to the Din of Bechor, whereas a T'reifah is.
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) - in that T'reifah is 'Hutrah mi'Chelalah' (enjoys a special concession), which they do not.
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries the Pircha. The leniency of Hutrah mi'Chelalah by T'reifah not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of (which goes to Gavohah) - because as far as birds are concerned, they too, enjoy the concession of ' ... ve'Ein Tamus (ve'Zachrus) be'Of' (meaning that Ba'alei-Mum and even T'reifos are permitted to Gavohah, too).

(b) If it does not refer to the Melikah of Olas ha'Of, we suggest that it refers to - the Melikah of Chatas ha'Of, which is a concession to the Kohanim.

(c) It cannot in fact, refer to Chatas ha'Of (la'Kohanim) either - because what the Kohanim receive is from Hashem's table, in which case it remains a concession to Gavohah (and not to the Kohanim).

(d) The problem, if we cannot break the Tzad ha'Shaveh is - why we need the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar", seeing as we already know from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh', that a T'reifah is Pasul as a Korban.

(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, and we need the Pasuk - to invalidate a T'reifah that was not discernible during the animal's life-time, but was discovered after the Shechitah.

(b) We also learn from the Pasuk "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" and from the Pasuk "mi'Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" (by Ma'aser Beheimah) - that a T'reifah is Pasul.

(c) Having written ...

1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (which speaks about a blemish from birth, as we shall see), the Torah needs to add the Pasuk "Kol Asher Ya'avor" - to include an animal that became a T'reifah after birth.
2. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor" (which speaks when the blemish preceded the Hekdesh), it found it necessary to write "min ha'Bakar" - to invalidate an animal that became a T'reifah after being declared Hekdesh.
(d) We establish the Pasuk ...
1. ... "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael by Mumin from birth - because Orlah and K'lai-ha'Kerem (which are certainly Asur from their inception) appear in the same Pasuk.
2. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor ... " is talking about where the T'reifus preceded the Ma'aser - because the word that precludes T'reifos from Ma'aser is "Ya'avor" (because a T'reifah, which has no life, is not called 'Overes').
(a) Our Mishnah rules ...
1. ... that a Minchah whose Kemitzah was performed by a Zar, Onan, T'vul-Yom, a Mechusar Begadim or a Mechusar Begadim - is Pasul.
2. ... that there is no difference between a Minchas Chotei and all other Menachos in this regard.
(b) The same applies to 'she'Lo Rachatz Yadayim ve'Raglayim', Areil, Tamei and Yoshev. Finally, the Tana invalidates a Kemitzah that is performed whilst standing on any one of three things - on a vessel, on an animal or on another Kohen's foot.

(c) The last P'sul listed by the Tana Kama is 'Kamatz bi'Semol'.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains - that in all the above cases, he should return the Kometz to the Minchah, and perform it again correctly.

(a) The Tana rules that in a case where the Kometz included a pebble, salt or Levonah - it is Pasul, because the Kometz is then Chaser.

(b) The Tana describes 'Yeser' as 'Mevuratz' - meaning either heaped up or interrupting between the Kohen's fingertips and the palm of his hand.

(c) And he describes 'Chaser' as - where the Kohen performed the Kometz only with his fingertips.

(a) The problem with the Lashon 'Echad Minchas Chotei, ve'Echad Kol ha'Menachos' is - why the Tana needs to mention 'Minchas Chotei' at all? Why is it not included in 'Kol ha'Menachos'?

(b) And we answer that the Tana needs to write this because of Rebbi Shimon, who comments that ...

1. ... on the one hand, oil and frankincense ought to be included in a Minchas Chotei, and Nesachim in a Chatas - so that the sinner should not benefit financially, from his sin.
2. ... on the other, they are not - in order that his Korban should not be of a high standard.
(c) And it is according to Rebbi Shimon that the Tana mentioned 'Minchas Chotei' independently, to teach us that even Rebbi Shimon does not permit a Zar to make Kemitzah, in order that the Minchas Chotei should not be supreme.
(a) Based on what we just said, we ask from the opening Mishnah in Zevachim ('Kol ha'Zevachim she'Ninizbechu she'Lo li'Sheman, Kesheirim'). There too, the Tana ought to have added 'Echad Chatas Cheilev ve'Echad Kol ha'Zevachim ... ', in order to accommodate Rebbi Shimon.

(b) And we answer - that we already know that, from the fact that the Tana says 'Kol ha'Zevachim', without adding 'Chutz mi'Chatas Cheilev'.

(c) The fact that our Mishnah too, writes 've'Echad *Kol ha'Menachos*' without adding 'Chutz mi'Minchas Chotei' however, will not suffice to accommodate Rebbi Shimon, seeing as, having already established the Reisha of the Mishnah (regarding she'Lo li'Shemah') not like Rebbi Shimon (at least according to Rabah and Rava), we would have established the Seifa not like him too (in spite of the Lashon 'Kol'), if the Tana had not specifically included 'Minchas Chotei.




(a) Having learned in our Mishnah 'Zar she'Kamatz Pasul', we reconcile it with Rav's statement 'Zar she'Kamatz Yachzir' - by confining the Mishnah to before the Kometz has been returned.

(b) The problem with this is - that that is what ben Beseira says.

(c) If, as we suggest, the Rabbanan agree with ben Beseira when the Kometz is still available, then the basis of their Machlokes is - whether the owner should bring the missing ingredients from his home and add it to the Shirayim, and the Kohen should once again take the Kemitzah, with his right hand (ben Beseira) or not (the Rabbanan).

(d) The Rabbanan's reason is - because once the K'li sanctifies the Minchah, and it subsequently becomes Pasul, it cannot then be transformed into a Kasher Minchah.

(a) We query this explanation - on the basis of the fact that ben Beseira only spoke about re-taking the Kemitzah, making no mention about bringing anything from his house.

(b) So we establish Rav like ben Beseira. Initially, we explain Rav's Chidush as being - that ben Beseira does not only argue by 'Kamtzah bi'Semol', but extends his ruling to all the other cases in the Mishnah, as well.

(c) We would otherwise have thought that ben Beseira permits only 'Kamatz bi'Smol' - because 'S'mol' has a precedent on Yom Kipur, when the Kohen Gadol walks into the Kodesh Kodshim holding the Machtah in his right hand, and the Kaf in his left.

(d) 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) - by pointing out that Shechitah is not an Avodah.

(a) The reason Rav gives for the ruling Rebbi Zeira cites in his name 'Shechitas Parah be'Zar Pesulah' is - because the Torah writes in connection with Parah "Elazar" and "Chukah" (both of which generally render the current ruling crucial).

(b) We try to prove from there - that Rav considers Shechitah to be an Avodah (a Kashya on what we just said in his name).

(c) We refute this proof in that Parah Adumah is different - inasmuch as it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (which do not require Avodos).

(d) We persist however, by Darshening a 'Kal-va'Chomer, because if the Shechitah of a Zar is Pasul by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, where Avodah is not applicable, then how much more so by the Shechitah of Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which is.

(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi answers this Kashya by comparing Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis to Mar'os Nega'im - which have nothing to do with Avodah, yet they require specifically a Kohen.

(b) Clearly then, there are times then the Torah requires Kehunah from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', which is the case by Parah Adumah (and we cannot learn a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').

(c) So we try to use Bamah - as a precedent for a Zar (in which case ben Beseira ought to validate 'Kamtzah Zar' too).

(d) We reject that proof however - on the grounds that we cannot learn Mizbe'ach from Bamah, since at that stage Aharon had not yet been sanctified [see Tosfos DH 'she'Harei']).

(a) The Beraisa learns that Yotzei is included in the Din of 'Im Alah, Lo Yeired' from - Bamah.

(b) Nevertheless, we apply the principle 'mi'Bamah Lo Yalfinan' - because the Limud from Bamah is no more than a support for the real Limud, which is from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah", which teaches us 'Torah Achas le'Chol ha'Olin' (she'Im Alu, Lo Yerdu').

(c) If not for Rav, we would have confined ben Beseira's ruling to Kamatz bi'Semol. We query this from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - specifically extend his ruling to all the cases in our Mishnah (and not only to Kamatz ba'Laylah).

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'kamatz mi'Sham" - that unlike the Shechitah of a Zevach, the Kemitzah may be performed anywhere in the Azarah ("mi'Sham", mi'Makom she'Raglei ha'Zar Omdin Sham'), even in the south, even though a Minchah is Kodesh Kodshim.

(b) ben Beseira learns from there - that with regard to the Minchah from which the Kohen already took the Kemitzah once, he should take it again (e.g. in a case where he performed the Kemitzah with his left hand, or any other P'sul [such as Zar she'Kamatz]).

(c) This too, poses a Kashya on Rav - seeing as Rebbi Shimon has specifically stated what Rav is ostensibly coming to teach us.

(d) ben Beseira mentions Kamatz bi'Semol. Nevertheless, we know that he is referring to all Pesulin, and not just to Kamatz bi'Semol - since there is no indication that the Pasuk is speaking about one P'sul more than the other.

(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 ... '. We might have thought otherwise - because Tana'im in a Beraisa actually say the opposite.

(b) Rebbi Yossi ben Yasian and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nachtom say - that ben Beseira speaks exclusively where the Minchah was not sanctified in a K'li, but if it was, the Minchah will remain Pasul, even according to ben Beseira.

(c) In the second Lashon - Rav establishes ben Beseira specifically when the there had been no Kidush K'li.

(d) We query this opinion 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - if Kemitzah Pesulah ...

1. ... Avodah Hi' - what does Kidush K'li add?
2 ... La'av Avodah Hi' - what is its significance?
(a) Rav Nachman presumes 'Kemitzas Pesulin Avodah Hi', and ben Beseira holds - that the Avodah is not complete until 'Kidush K'li'.

(b) The problem with that is that from the moment whoever performed the Kemitzah returns the Kometz to the K'li - it ought to become Kadosh and Pasul (irrespective of the fact that it is being placed in the same K'li as before).

(c) We extrapolate from there - that since it does not, Kidush K'li only sanctifies what one places inside it, if had the express intention of sanctifying the object.

(d) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who told Resh Lakish that 'K'lei Shareis Ein Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Likarev Lechatchilah' - by from his words 'Ein Mekadshin Likarev, but 'Mekadshin Lipasel'.

Next daf


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