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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf



(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim are paid for by money that is collected from the Tzibur. Rebbi Shimon says - that the money is taken from the Terumas ha'Lishkah.
(b) The Beraisa - which was learned last is the more authentic of the two.
(c) The Rabbanan suggest to Rav Ashi that the first Beraisa was learned last - because Rebbi Shimon's opinion conforms with his opinion earlier (see Rabeinu Gershom), where he suspects that people will avoid paying under similar circumstances.
(d) Rav Ashi however, reconciles Rebbi Shimon's statement with the second Beraisa - because since we are talking about a Chatas, Rebbi Shimon will concede to the Chachamim that, in order to obtain a Kaparah, the people will be only pleased to pay.

(a) Rabah Zuti solved the problem by citing to Rav Ashi a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Shimon. The Beraisa quotes the Pasuk "es Korbani Lachmi le'Ishai, Re'ach Nicho'chi Tishmeru Lehakriv Li be'Mo'ado". Rebbi Shimon learns there from "Lachmi le'Ishai" - from which he learns that the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and the Se'irei Avodas-Kochavim are compared ...
(b) ... to the Korban Tamid - as regards the money coming out of the Terumas ha'Lishkah.
(c) What makes us think that this Beraisa is more authentic than the previous two is - the fact that it is based directly on a Pasuk.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if a new Kohen Gadol has not yet been appointed, then either the heirs or the Tzibur bring the Minchas Chavitin on the Mizbe'ach in its entirety, without dividing it. Rebbi Yochanan was not sure - whether this means that they bring the full Isaron in the morning, but nothing in the afternoon; or one Isaron in the morning and another one in the afternoon.
(b) When the Mishnah in Tamid says 'Shemini ba'Chavitin' - it means that the eighth Kohen (of the thirteen dealing with the Tamid, both shel Shachar and shel bein ha'Arbayim) brings the Chavitin.
(c) Rava tries to prove from there - that our Mishnah must mean that they bring the entire Minchas Chavitin in the afternoon too. Otherwise, it will transpire that sometimes, there were not thirteen Kohanim working on the Korban Tamid, only twelve.
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah was not very impressed with Rava's proof - referring to him as 'Hani Bavla'i Tipsha'i' (those foolish Babylonians), concluding 'who say dark (un-enlightening) things just because they live in a dark land (Bavel, which is very deep)'.

(a) The seventh item listed in the Mishnah is the flour of the Minchas Niskei Tamid which the Kohanim carried on to the Mizbe'ach, the ninth is - the wine.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah refuted Rava's proof from there by applying the principle 'de'I Lo Katani' - meaning that one cannot bring a proof from 'de'I' (Bedieved). i.e. the Tana lists the thirteen Kohanim who dealt with the Tamid Lechatchilah, but this does not mean that were occasions when there were less (such as the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim after the Kohen Gadol died [see Tosfos DH 'de'I').
(c) And he proves his point from the flour and the wine of the Minchas Niskei Tamid - which fit into the category of 'de'I', because one was permitted to bring them at a later date (as we have already learned). Yet they are included in the thirteen, because Lechatchilah they were brought together with the Tamid.

(a) When Rava said 'mi'Bishusin Amri Kamaihu, mi'Tivusan Lo Amri Kameihu', he meant - that people only seemed to relay their (the b'nei Babel's) errors to the Anshei Yerushalayim, but not their sound explanations.
(b) He changed his mind however, and declared 'Hani Nami Tivusan Hi' (what I said was also sound) after learning from the Pasuk "So'les Minchah Tamid" - that the Minchas Chavitin, like the Tamid, cannot be negated.
(c) In answer to the question 'Mai Havi Alah' (like Rava or like Rebbi Yirmiyah), Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cited a Beraisa, which explicitly stated - 'Sheleimah Shacharis, u'Sheleimah bein ha'Arbayim', in support of Rava.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan cites a Machlokes Tana'im regarding the Levonah that accompanies the Minchas Chavitin. According to Aba Yosef ben Dustai in a Beraisa, the Kohen Gadol brings a Kometz (a fistful) of Levonah with the half Isaron of flour in the morning, and likewise in the afternoon. According to the Rabbanan - they bring a whole Kometz, of which they burn half in the morning, together with the half Isaron of flour, and a half in the afternoon.
(b) Aba Yosef ben Dustai's reason is that we never find half a Kometz brought on the Mizbe'ach. The Rabbanan counter - that, on the other hand, we never find one Isaron that requires two Kematzim of Levonah.


(a) Rebbi Yochanan asks whether, in a case where the Kohen Gadol dies and his successor has not yet been appointed - the Rabbanan will require them to bring a double quota of Levonah (a Kometz in the morning and a Kometz in the afternoon), like they bring a double quota of Minchah.
(b) They might not have to - because of the S'vara 'Mai de'Gali, Gali; Mai de'Lo Gali, Lo Gali' (what the Torah has 'revealed', it has 'revealed', and what it has not, it has not).
(c) The She'eilah is confined to the Rabbanan - because it is feasible to bring a Kometz on each occasion, but nowhere do we find having to bring two Kematzim, as would be the case according to Aba Yosef ben Dustai.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan also asks, even according to Aba Yosef ben Dustai, whether they are obligated to bring a double quota of Shemen ...
(b) ... three Lugin in the morning and three Lugin in the afternoon.
(c) We try and resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Chamishah Kematzin Hein' - since, assuming the answer to the She'eilah to be in the positive, this would entail seven cases of Kometz (one additional Kometz in the morning, and one in the afternoon), and not five.
(d) We refer to seven Kematzim, and not six. We count the two Kematzim as two, despite the fact that they belong to the same Korban - because the Tana himself lists the two Bazichei Levonah as two, even though they both belong to the Lechem ha'Panim.

(a) The Tana does not include the regular Kometz Levonah shel Chavitin in the list, because it is brought in halves, and he is only concerned with full Kematzim.
(b) We refute the proof from the Beraisa on the grounds - that the Tana might not count the two Kematzin due to the S'vara 'de'I Lo Katani' (as we learned earlier).
(c) Rav Yosef bar Sh'maya objected to this answer, when he heard it from Rav Papa - on the grounds that the Beraisa includes 'Ma'alah Kometz ba'Chutz' (someone who brings a Kometz on a Mizbe'ach outside the Azarah) which is a case of 'de'I'.
(d) This proves - that they did not bring a double quota of Levonah.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites the Beraisa that we discussed earlier 'Sheliemah Shachris, u'Sheleimah bein ha'Arbayim'. The Tana goes on to say - 'u'Mafrish Lah Sh'nei Kematzim, Kometz Shacharis ve'Kometz bein ha'Arbayim'.
(b) Assuming the author to be the Rabbanan, the problem with the Tana's next statement 'u'Mafrish Lah Sheloshah Lugin, Log u'Mechtzah Shacharis, ve'Log u'Mechtzah bein ha'Arbayim' is - that if the Rabbanan double the quota of the Levonah, why do they not also double the quota of the Shemen?
(c) This forces us to draw the conclusion that the author of the Beraisa is Aba Yosef ben Dustai.
(d) And seeing as the quota of Shemen is not doubled, according to Aba Yosef ben Dustai - the Rabbanan too, will hold that neither the quota of Shemen nor the quota of Levonah are doubled either (like Rav Yosef bar Sh'mayah proved earlier).

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling like Aba Yosef ben Dustai is - the S'tam Mishnah that we cited earlier 'Chamishah Kematzim Hein', which is a S'tam Mishnah like the Rabbanan, and ruling like Aba Yosef ben Dustai clashes with Rebbi Yochanan's own principle 'Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah'.
(b) The Mishnah goes like the Rabbanan and not like Aba Yosef ben Dustai - inasmuch as it omits the Kometz of the Minchas Chavitin, because it is brought in halves, like the Rabbanan.
(c) We resolve it - by turning Rebbi Yochanan's opinion into a Machlokes Amora'im; some attribute the principle to him, others don't.

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Techeiles' ***

***** Perek Kol ha'Menachos ***

(a) All Menachos, says our Mishnah, are baked as Matzos, except for two. One of them is the Chametz loaves of the Korban Todah - the other, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.
(b) When Rebbi Meir says 'Se'or Bodeh Lahen mi'Tochan u'Mechamtzan' he means - that they produce the yeast from the Isaron of flour itself, by adding a little water immediately after measuring out the flour, and kneading a small dough, which they then add to the remaining flour.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with this - because, he says, the yeast has not fomented properly, in which case the Minchah will not become properly Chametz.
(d) And the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, who says that one adds yeast that one brought from home - because, they argue, this will result either in the Isaron ultimately taking up more space than it should of the total (if the yeast is thick and compact) or less (if the yeast is very thin [in which case it will take up more of the total than it should]).

Next daf


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