(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 74



(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Va be'Chol Avas Nashfo Ve'sheires" - that a Kohen can come and bring his own Korban whenever he likes.

(b) We nevertheless need a special Pasuk ("Ve'haysah la'Kohen ka'Minchah"), according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon - to allow him to bring even his own Chatas as will be explained).

(c) We do indeed learn from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper ha'Kohen al ha'Nefesh ha'Shogeges" (incorporating himself) - but that is talking about a Chatas, that is brought be'Shogeg, whereas "Ve'haysah la'Kohen ka'Minchah", is speaking even when he transgressed be'Meizid ...

(d) ... because it is speaking about - a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, incorporating the sin of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, which pertains to Meizid as well as Shogeg.

(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon reiterates what he taught in the previous Beraisa, regarding the Minchas Chotei of a Kohen. His son Rebbi Elazar, disagrees with him however. He maintains that the Kohanim burn the Shirayim (not on the Makom ha'Ma'arachah, but) - in the Beis Hadeshen.

(b) The problem Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quoting Rebbi Yochanan has with this is - that if he is referring to the Beis-Hadeshen on top of the Mizbe'ach (i.e. the Tapu'ach in the middle of the Mizbe'ach, to which the ashes of the Mizbe'ach are transferred), then he is in effect, mimicking what his father said.

(c) Alternatively - the Beis ha'Deshen refers to the spot beside the ramp, where they burned, among other things, the Terumas ha'Deshen each morning.

(d) The problem Rebbi Yochanan has with establishing the statement with regard to that Beis-Hadeshen is - that he considers it highly irregular to bring a Korban with the intention of burning it Lechatchilah in a location other than on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) Rebbi Aba asked 'Dilma le'Ibud', by which he meant - that maybe the Kohen brought the Minchah, not to sacrifice at all, but to go to waste.

(b) And they laughed at him - because who has ever heard of a Korban that is brought Lechatchilah in order to go to waste?

(c) Rebbi Avin's father quoted a Beraisa "Kol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Se'achel", 'la'Achilah Hikashtiv ve'Lo Le'Davar Acher' - which teach us that the only factor that a Kohen's Minchas Chotei shares with his Minchas Nedavah is the fact that it is not eaten. Unlike the latter however, it is not brought as a Korban, but goes to waste (a support for Rebbi Aba).

(a) Based on the Beraisa's comment, Abaye explains the Pasuk like this "Kol Minchas Kohen Lo Se'achel (Chovaso [which is not "Kalil"]), Kalil Tih'yeh (Nidvaso)" See Shitah Mekubetzes 7. Rava objects to this interpretation - because it inverts the two phrases, seeing as the Torah writes "Kalil Tih'yeh" first.

(b) So *he* interprets it the other way round - first "Kalil Tih'yeh" (Nidvaso), and then Kol Minchas Kohen Lo Se'achel (Chovaso)".

(c) The Torah is comparing the Kohen's Minchas *Nedavah* to the Kohen Gadol's Minchas Chavitin (that has been discussed in the previous Pesukim).

(d) The Torah compares it to the Kohen Gadol's Minchas Chavitin, rather than his Minchas Chovah - because it is similar to it in more points (than the Minchas Chovah is), as we shall now see.

(a) As opposed to the Minchas Chovah, the Kohen's Minchas Nedavah is similar to the Minchas Chavitin, because it is common and is not brought to atone for a sin. In addition, it is 'Basim Reicheih', which means - either that it contains Shemen and Levonah, or that the Torah writes in connection with it "Rei'ach Ni'cho'ach" (none of which pertain to a Minchas Chotei) See Tosfos DH 'u'Basim Reicheih'.

(b) Initially, we counter that the Korban Chovah is 'Chovah' and 'Isaron' - by which we mean - that it is fixed at one Isaron, whereas a Korban Nedavah can consist of as many Isronos as one pleases.

(c) When we ask what the Rabbanan do with "Kol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh Lo Se'achel", we are referring to - the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon (who maintain that a Minchas Chotei of a Kohen is burned whole, like his Nedavah, in which case this Pasuk is superfluous).

(a) We reply with a Beraisa, which speaks about 'Elyonah be'Kalil Toktar' and 'Tachtonah be'Lo Se'achel', referring to the Minchas Chavitin of a Kohen Gadol and the Minchah of a Kohen Hedyot, respectively.

(b) The Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kalil" "Kalil" (one from the other) - that "Kalil Toktar" extends to a Minchas Kohen, and "Lo Se'achel" to a Minchas Chavitin.

(c) Ravina asked whether a Kohen who ate the Eimurin (i.e. the lobe of the liver or the kidneys) of the Korban of a Kohen will be Chayav (just like he is Chayav for eating his Minchah) or not. He is ...

1. ... not referring to the La'av of Zarus ("Kol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh" [in Emor])
2. ... referring to that of "Lo Se'achel" (currently under discussion).
(d) Rav Aharon resolved Ravina's She'eilah from a Beraisa quoting Rebbi Eliezer, who issues a statement (based on the fact that the Pasuk inserts "Kalil Tih'yeh" in the same Pasuk as "Lo Se'achel") - that any Korban that is subject to "Kalil Sih'yeh", is subject to "Lo Se'achel".



(a) Our Mishnah lists Minchas Nesachim, Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach on the one hand, and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, on the other. The Tana rules that ...
1. ... the Minchas Nesachim, the Minchas Kohanim and the Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach - all go entirely on the Mizbe'ach (that nothing is given to the Kohanim).
2. ... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim - are eaten entirely by the Kohanim (and nothing is burned on the Mizbe'ach).
(b) The Tana describes the one's basic advantage - as 'the power of the Mizbe'ach is stronger than that of the Kohanim' and the other, vice-versa.

(c) In his list of things that go entirely on the Mizbe'ach, the Tana declines to include ...

1. ... the Olah - because the skin goes to the Kohanim.
2. ... the Olas ha'Of - because the crop and the feathers are removed and thrown to the Beis-ha'Deshen, before it is burned.
3. ... the Nesachim - because they do not go on the Mizbe'ach (but are poured into the bowl by the south-western Keren, from where they flow down to the Shitin [below the Mizbe'ach]).
(a) When the Tana says '*ba'Zeh* Yafeh Ko'ach Mizbe'ach' (with regard to the first list), he is coming to preclude the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that when someone donates wine on its own - it is sprinkled on to the Makom ha'Ma'arachah on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Our Mishnah holds - that it is poured into the bowl on the south-western corner (like the Nesachim).

(c) Shmuel rules that if someone who donates Shemen on its own - the Kohen takes a Kemitzah (which he subsequently burns on the Mizbe'ach), whilst the remainder is eaten by the Kohanim.

(d) Shmuel differentiates between wine and oil in this regard - because it is impossible to perform Kemitzah with wine.

(e) When we conclude that our Mishnah supports Shmuel, we mean - that our Mishnah which says 'ba'Zeh Yafeh Ko'ach Mizbe'ach' comes to preclude Shemen, which, unlike wine, goes partially on the Mizbe'ach and partially to the Kohanim.

(a) In his list of things that are eaten entirely by the Kohanim, the Tana declines to include ...
1. ... the Chatas ha'Of - because of the blood that is first placed on the wall of the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... the Log Shemen shel Metzora - because of the Matanos that are first placed on various parts of the Metzora's body.
(b) The Tana says '*ba'Zeh* Yafeh Ko'ach Kohanim' - to stress that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem always goes to the Kohanim (even when it is brought by itself [without the two Kevasim]) ...

(c) ... to preclude the opinion which holds that in such a case they must be burned (as we learned earlier in 'Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os').

(a) Our Mishnah rules that all Menachos prepared in a K'li Shareis require three Matnos Shemen (Yetzikah, Belilah and Matan Shemen) - incorporating a Minchas al ha'Machavas and a Minchas Marcheshes.

(b) They are performed in the reverse order that the Tana lists them - the Yetzikah follows the Belilah (mixing the second oil with the flour), which in turn follows the Matan Shemen.

(c) A Minchas So'les does not comprise Chalos.

(a) Rebbi holds 'Chalos Bolelan' - the Chachamim hold - 'So'les Bolelan'.

(b) The Mishnah draws a distinction between Chalos and Rekikin (wafers) with regard to the Matnos Shemen in that - the latter require Meshichah (anointing) in place of Belilah.

(c) The Meshichah is performed - in the shape of a Greek 'Chi' (which is similar to a final 'Kaf).

(d) The remainder of the oil - is eaten by the Kohanim.

(a) 'Kol ha'Menachos ha'Na'asos bi'Cheli Te'unos Sheloshah Matanos' - to preclude a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur, which is not considered prepared in a K'li (see Tosfos DH 'Lime'uti), and which does not require Yetzikah (as we shall see later).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Minchas Marcheshes Korbanecha, So'les ba'Shemen Te'aseh" - (implying that the flour is placed into the oil) that a Minchas Marcheshes requires Matan Shemen.

(c) We know that a Minchah al ha'Machavas requires Matan Shemen, too - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Korbanecha" "Korbanecha".

(d) And we know that a Minchas Marcheshes requires Yetzikah and Belilah, too - from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (since the Torah specifically mentions Yetzikah and Belilah by Minchah al ha'Machavas).

Next daf


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