ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 26
MENACHOS 26-27 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas
Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, says our Mishnah, if the Shirayim became
Tamei, burned or lost, the Minchah is Kasher. Our Mishnah is referring to
Rebbi Eliezer's ruling in Pesachim 'Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar'. By the
same token, we will say 'Kometz, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Shirayim'.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua holds - 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam'; likewise, he will hold
here 'Im Ein Shirayim, Ein Kometz'.
(c) Rav qualifies Rebbi Yehoshua - by establishing it when all of the
Shirayim became Tamei, but as long some of it remains intact, it is Kasher.
(d) Assuming that Rav is referring to 'Nitme'u', and not to 'Nisrefu' or
'Ne'evdu', the problem with this, if Rav holds ...
1. ... 'Shiyura Milsa Hi' is - why the same will not apply to 'Nisrefu' and
2. ... 'Shiyura La'av Milsa Hi' and his reason by Nitma is because of Ritzuy
Tzitz - then why is the Minchah not Kasher even if all the Shirayim became
(a) We conclude that Rav's reason is because of 'Shiyura Milsa Hi', and the
reason that he confines his ruling to 'Nitme'u Shiyrehah' is (not to
preclude Nisrefu and Ne'evdu, but) - because it is the first of the three
cases. In fact, the Halachah extends to Nisrefu and Ne'evdu as well.
(b) And we corroborate this with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehoshua rules that
1. ... all the Korbanos of which a k'Zayis Basar or a k'Zayis Cheilev
remains - 'Zorek es ha'Dam'.
(c) The reason for this difference is - because whereas in the former case
Achilah and Haktarah do not combine, in the latter case both half-k'Zeisim
comprise Haktarah, and there is no reason why they should not combine.
2. ... 'all the Korbanos' of which half a k'Zayis Basar or half a k'Zayis
Cheilev remains - 'Eino Zorek es ha'Dam'.
3. ... an Olah of which half a k'Zayis Basar and half a k'Zayis Cheilev
remains - 'Zorek es ha'Dam'.
(a) According to Rav Papa, when Rebbi Yehoshua's states 'u've'Minchah, Afilu
Kulah Kayma, Lo Yizrok', he is referring to a Minchas Nesachim that
accompanies a Korban.
(b) We would otherwise have thought - that precisely because it accompanies
the Korban, it is considered part of the Korban and is no different than the
Cheilev in this regard.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan Mishum Rebbi Yishmael (or Mishum Rebbi Yehoshua) learns
from the Pasuk "Ve'zarak ha'Kohen es ha'Dam ... Ve'hiktir ha'Cheilev" - that
as long as the Cheilev (or a k'Zayis of Cheilev) remains, the Kohen may
perform the Zerikas ha'Dam (even though no Basar remains).
(a) We extrapolate from the Beraisa 'u've'Minchah, Afilu Kulah Kayemes, Lo
Yizrok' - that if the Yoseres (ha'Kaveid) or the Sh'tei Kelayos remain,
(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns from "le'Re'ach Nicho'ach" (in the same Pasuk) -
that whatever remains, as long as it serves the purpose of 'Re'ach
Ni'cho'ach', it will enable the Kohen to sprinkle the blood (e.g. the
Yoseres and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos).
(c) The Torah needs to write "le'Re'ach Nicho'ach", to teach us the Din of
Yoseres and the Sh'tei ha'Kelayos, which we would not have known from
Cheilev (presumably because they are less attached to the Basar than it is).
And having written "le'Re'ach Nicho'ach, it still needs to write "Cheilev" -
to preclude a Minchas Nesachim, which on its own, does not enable the Dam to
be sprinkled (as we just learned).
(a) Our Mishnah states 'she'Lo bi'Cheli Shareis Pasul - ve'Rebbi Shimon
(b) They are arguing over - Kidush Kometz. It is obvious to all - that the
initial Minchah requires a K'li Shareis.
(c) The Tana rules that if the Kometz is burned in two lots - it is Kasher.
(a) Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya learns from the Pasuk "Kodesh Kodashim Hi,
ka'Chatas ve'cha'Asham" - that should the Kohen decide to bring the Kometz
with his hand, then he must bring it with his right hand (like the Avodah of
a Chatas), whereas if he decided to bring it in a K'li Shareis, then he may
do so (like an Asham), even with his left-hand.
(b) According to Rebbi Yanai - once the Kohen performs the Kemitzah from a
K'li Shareis, he may even carry it to the Mizbe'ach with his belt or in an
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak disagrees with both opinions. In his opinion -
the Komeitz initially requires Kidush K'li (see Chidushei Rashba).
(a) We ask on Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya from a Beraisa, where the Tana
1. ... Hekter Chalavim ve'Eivarim ve'Eitzim - both with the hand and with a
K'li, both with the right hand and with the left ...
(b) The author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Shimon - because he permits
Avodah with the left hand.
2. ... and the same applies to the Kometz, the Ketores and the Levonah.
(c) Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya will interpret the Seifa of the Beraisa -
'li'Tzedadin', i.e. either with the right hand, or in a K'li even with his
left (to conform with his earlier ruling).
(a) In a case where 'Kamtzo mi'Cheli Shareis ve'Kidsho she'Lo bi'Cheli
Shareis Ve'he'elo Ve'hiktiro she'Lo bi'Cheli Shareis', the Beraisa rules -
(b) 'Rebbi Elazar ve'Rebbi Shimon Machshirin *be'Matan K'li'*, a Kashya on
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - who also requires the Kometz to be placed in a
(c) He therefore amends the Beraisa to - 'Rebbi Elazar ve'Rebbi Shimon
Machshirin *mi'Matan K'li* va'Eilech'.
(a) In another Beraisa, the Chachamim require the Kometz to be taken from a
K'li Shareis, placed into a K'li Shareis - and taken to the Mizbe'ach, in a
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak will amend the Seifa 'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Keivan
she'Kamtzo *mi'Cheli Shareis*, Ma'alo u'Maktiro ve'Dayo' - to ' ... Keivan
she'Kamtzo ve'Kidsho *bi'Cheli Shareis*, Ma'alo u'Maktiro ve'Dayo'
(c) In a case where the Kohen performed the Kemitzah with his right hand and
transferred the Kometz to his left hand, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon in a
Beraisa - require him to transfer it back to his right hand.
(d) In a case where the Kohen had a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekomo or Chutz
1. ... whilst the Kometz was still in his left hand - they rule - that the
Korban is Pasul, but that it is not subject to Kareis (see Shitah Mekubetzes
2. ... after he returned it to his right hand - then in the case of the
Machsheves Chutz li'Zemano, it is subject to Kareis, too.
(a) The Rabbanan invalidate a Kometz which the Kohen transferred to his left
hand - on the basis of the fact that it still requires Kidush K'li, and it
is like blood that fell on the floor *before* being placed in a K'li.
(b) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon validate the Kometz which the Kohen
transferred to his left-hand - because they do not require a K'li, and it is
comparable to blood that fell on the floor *after* having been placed in a
K'li Shareis, which remains Kasher once it is retrieved.
(c) This is a Tiyuvta (to which there is no answer) - on Rav Nachman bar
Yitzchak, who maintains that even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon require
(d) This Beraisa also lends support to Yehudah b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya - in
that it requires the Kohen to return the Kometz to his right hand, should he
intend to carry the Kometz to the Mizbe'ach with his hand.
(e) In that case, it is a Tiyuvta on Rebbi Yanai (who permits even carrying
the Kometz in the Kohen's belt or in an earthenware vessel). Rebbi Yanai
will counter - that he holds like the Beraisa of 'Hekter Chalavim
ve'Eivarim', without establishing it 'li'Tzedadin' (like Yehudah b'rei
de'Rebbi Chiya did).
(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi comments on our Mishnah ('Hiktir Komtzah
Pa'amayim, Kesheirah') 'Pa'amayim, ve'Lo Pa'amei Pa'amayim', he means - that
the Kometz can be brought in two lots, but not in three.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds - 'Pa'amayim, va'Afilu Pa'amei Pa'amayim'.
(c) Rebbi Zeira explains how each one extrapolate his opinion from 'Hiktir
Komtzah Pa'amayim'. Basically, they argue over - whether there can be a
Kometz of less than two k'Zeisim. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that there
cannot; Rebbi Yochanan holds that there can.
(d) Consequently, according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - 'Pa'amayim' (which had to be at least two
k'Zeisim) entails bringing the Kometz not less than a 'k'Zayis' at a time,
leaving us with no proof that one can bring less a k'Zayis at a time.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand, if the Kometz is less than two
k'Zeisim, 'Pa'amayim' will entail bringing less than a k'Zayis at a time, in
which case, they may just as well bring it in three or four lots.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Shirayei ha'Minchah)
"Kodesh Kodshim me'Ishei Hashem" - that the Kohanim only receive a portion
from the Shirayim after the Kometz has become a fire-offering.
(b) According to Rebbi Chanina, this refers to as soon as the fire has
stared to burn part of the Kometz. Rebbi Yochanan says - only after the fire
has burned the majority of the Kometz.
(c) Rav Yehudah proved this to Rabah bar Rav Nachman from the Pasuk (in
connection with the burning of S'dom) "ve'Hinei Alah Kitor ha'Aretz ke'Kitor
ha'Kivshan - because smoke only rises from a furnace once the majority of
its contents have caught fire (and the Pasuk uses the word "Ve'hiktir" by
the Minchah, too).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Hi ha'Olah al Mokdah al ha'Mizbe'ach Kol
ha'Laylah" that the Eivarim u'Pedarim are burned all night on the Mizbe'ach.
We might have thought that this does not apply to the Kometz, the Levonah,
the Ketores, the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach and the Minchas Nesachim - because
they all need to be brought by day.
(b) This latter list incorporates virtually all the Korbanos. The only
Korban that would then burn all night would be - the Olah.
(c) We reconcile the Beraisa's insertion of Minchas Nesachim with the ruling
'Minchasam ve'Niskeihem ba'Laylah' - by establishing the former by Nesachim
that are brought together with the Korban (exclusively).
(d) The Beraisa cited by Rav Amram learns from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah"
(ibid) - that the above Korbanos have the same Din as the Olah, and may be
burned at night.
(a) The Beraisa said 'she'Ma'alan u'Maktiran mi'Bo ha'Shemesh'. The problem
1. ... this Lashon is - how one can place the Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach
after nightfall, seeing as they already became Pasul be'Linah with the
advent of night?
(b) We answer 'Ka'an Lehaklit, Ka'an Lehatir' - meaning that, although Rebbi
Yochanan may well require this Shi'ur to permit the Shirayim, he will
concede that the Korban leaves the realm of Linah as soon as part of the
Kometz is burning (like the Shi'ur of Rebbi Chanina).
2. ... amending it to 'Im Ba ha'Shemesh' - is how the fire will be able to
burn the majority of each limb before nightfall (to prevent it from becoming
Pasul be'Linah), as required by Rebbi Yochanan.
(c) Rebbi Elazar retains the original Lashon 'mi'Bo ha'Shemesh', and he
answers the Kashya from 'Darkan Likarev ba'Yom' - by establishing the
Beraisa with regard to limbs that fall off the Mizbe'ach (Pok'in)
(a) The problem with the fact that Rav Dimi cites Rebbi Yanai as holding the
same view as Rebbi Elazar is - that Rebbi Yanai specifically rules that
Ketores that falls off the Mizbe'ach (ha'Zahav) cannot be returned (and the
Beraisa currently under discussion includes Ketores in its list).
(b) And what's more, Rav Chanina bar Minyumi quoting a Beraisa of Rebbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "Asher Tochal ha'Eish es ha'Olah
al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that even whole granules of Ketores that fall off the
Mizbe'ach may not be returned.
(c) We resolve the problem - by dropping Ketores from the list in the
(a) Rebbi Elazar asked - whether it is permissible to arrange the Ma'arachah
for the Korbanos on top of the Kometz, seeing as it might not be considered
conventional to burn animals in this way.
(b) Chizkiyah asked a similar She'eilah about arranging the Ma'arachah on
top of the Eivarim (which apparently, is less unconventional than arranging
it on top of the Kometz). It may nevertheless not be permitted o do so -
because the Torah writes "al ha'Eitzim" (and not 'al ha'Olah').
(c) On the other hand, he says, perhaps we will learn from the Pasuk there
"Asher Tochal ha'Eish es ha'Olah al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Kohen has the
option of placing the Olah directly on the Mizbe'ach and the wood on top of
(d) The outcome of both She'eilos is ''Teiku'.
(a) "Al" can mean either 'on' or 'next to'.
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha asked whether it is acceptable to place the
Eivarim beside the Ma'arachah (and not on top of it). Seeing as the Torah
writes "al ha'Eitzim", this She'eilah initially ties up with the two
interpretations of 'al' - because, if it means 'on top of', then it is
obvious that placing it at the side is not permissible; whereas if it means
'next to', then it ought to be permissible to do so.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha however thinks that, even if 'Al' means 'next to',
it might not mean that here - because the Torah also writes "al
ha'Mizbe'ach" which can only mean 'on the Mizbe'ach', so just as there it
means 'on', so too, by "al ha'Eitzim" does it mean 'on', and not 'next to'.
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.