(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 90



(a) Our Mishnah states that all the Midos in the Mikdash were Gadush (heaped) except for - the Chavitei Kohen Gadol ...

(b) ... which did not need to be Gadush, because it was larger than the others to the extend that even when it was Machuk (level), it contained the same amount as the others when they were Gadush.

(c) The distinction the Tana makes between Midas ha'Lach and Midas ha'Yavesh is - that the Birutzei Midas ha'Lach is Kodesh, whereas the Birutzei Midas ha'Yavesh is Chol.

(d) Rebbi Akiva ascribes this to the fact that the former (Midas ha'Lach) is itself sanctified, whereas the latter is not. Rebbi Yossi maintains that both Keilim are sanctified on the inside (as we shall see). The difference between the Birutzei Lach and the Birutzei Yavesh therefore, stems from the fact - that whereas the Birutzei Lach were already joined to the liquid that is inside the K'li, the Birutzei Yavesh were not.

(a) The problem with our Mishnah, which states 'Kol Midos she'ba'Mikdash Nigdashos ... ' is - that according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir, there were two measures, one Gadush and one Machuk (so how can the Tana speak of 'all the Midos', as if there were many)?
2. ... the Rabbanan, there was only one.
(b) So we amend the Mishnah to read (instead of 'Kol ha'Midos') 'Kol ha'Medidos ... ' (meaning that all measuring was performed with the Gedushah, except for when the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, when they used the Machuk.
(a) The Tana Kama (as well as Rebbi Akiva) holds that the Midas ha'Lach was anointed both inside and outside. The Midas ha'Yavesh, he maintaints - was sanctified on the inside, but not on the outside.

(b) Rebbi Akiva holds that even though the inside of the Midas ha'Yavesh was not annointed - the contents become sanctified through Kedushas ha'Peh (a verbal declaration).

(c) Nevertheless, the Birutzin are not sanctified - because the owner only intends to sanctify what remains inside the K'li, but not what spills over the side.

(d) Whereas Rebbi Yossi (whom we already discussed in the Mishnah, and) who does not differentiate between Midas ha'Lach and Midas Yavesh, holds - that both measurements are sanctified inside but not outside.

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yossi how the Birutzei ha'Lach can become sanctified, seeing as the owner did not intend them to. Rav Shishna in the name of Rav learns from here - the principle 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin she'Lo mi'Da'as'.

(b) Ravina ascribes the Kedushah to a decree of the Chachamim - who were afraid that people might learn from there that one is permitted to take Kodesh from a K'li Shareis and declare it Chol.

(c) He argues with Rav Shishna in that he holds - 'K'lei Shareis Ein Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as'.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if the Lechem ha'Panim and the Bazichin are placed on the Shulchan only after Shabbos (instead of on Shabbos), and the latter is then burned on the following Shabbos - the Lechem ha'Panim are Pasul (because they need to be on the Shulchan for two Shabbasos before the Bazichin are burned).

(b) The Kohanim should have left the loaves on the Shulchan together with the Bazichin until the Shabbos, despite the fact that they remain on the Shulchan for longer than the prescribed seven days, (since the Lechem ha'Panim is not subject to Linah).

(c) Rebbi Zeira asks from there on Ravina - according to whom Chazal ought to have decreed for fear that people will learn from there to leave things that are Kadosh in a K'li Shareis, believing that Linah can never occur to Kodesh that is placed in a K'li Shareis.

(d) We answer 'Chutz a'Penim Karamis!' by which we mean - that we cannot really ask on Ravina from the Lechem ha'Panim, which are placed in the Heichal, an area that is only frequented by Kohanim, who are generally alert, and not prone to such mistakes, whereas the measuring of the Menachos takes place in the Azarah (which is accessible to everybody).

(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim rules that Mosar Nesachim goes - to Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

(b) According to Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, Mosar Nesachim refers to Birutzei Midos. Rebbi Yochanan defines it as - the excess over what someone who undertook to supply the Menachos for a year has to provide, as we will now explain.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan's explanation is based on another Mishnah in Shekalim, where the Tana rules that someone who receives payment to provide flour for the Menachos at ...

1. ... four Sa'ah per Sela, and the rate goes up to three - must continue to supply four.
2. ... three Sa'ah per Sela, and the rate drops to four - becomes obligated to supply four.
(d) The principle that governs this dual ruling is - 'Yad Hekdesh al ha'Elyonah' (Hekdesh always has the upperhand).
(a) We cite a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, and a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The first Beraisa rules that initially - the Birutzei Midos should be brought together with another Korban (which causes them to become sanctified) should it become avilable.

(b) If there is ...

1. ... and the Birutzei ha'Midos are not brought together with it - they become Pasul be'Linah (see Rambam).
2. ... not - then they are sold and with the proceeds one purchases Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.
(c) 'Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach', says the Tana, is brought on the Mizbe'ach as an Olas Tzibur (for Kayitz Hamizbe'ach) - and the skin is given to the Kohanim (of the Mishmar that is serving that week in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(d) If the Tana had not told us this, we might otherwise have thought - that the skin must be sold together with the rest of the animal, and used to purchase Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.




(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that all Korbanos require the Minchas Nesachim except for five. The ...
1. ... three Kodshim Kalim that do not require Nesachim are - Bechor, Ma'aser and Pesach.
2. ... two Kodshei Kodshim that do not require them either are - Chatas and Asham.
(b) Only one Chatas and one Asham requires Nesachim - the Chatas and the Asham of a Metzora.
(a) The Pasuk in Korach "Va'asisem Isheh la'Hashem Olah O Zevach" refers to the Din of Nesachim. According to the Beraisa, the word "Olah" comes to preclude - a Minchah that is brought on its own (without a Korban) from the Din of Nesachim.

(b) "Zevach" includes Shelamim in the Din of Nesachim. The Tana includes Todah - from the word "O".

(c) The Tana learns from "Lefalei Neder O Nedavah" - that only Korbenos Nedavah require Nesachim, but not Korbenos Chovah.

(d) Nevertheless, from "O be'Mo'adeichem" - he includes Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah in the Din of Nesachim (even though they are Korbenos Chovah of Yom-Tov).

(a) Based on the previous ruling, the Tana learns from "ve'Chi Sa'aseh ben Bakar" (bearing in mind that the Pasuk already mentioned "min ha'Bakar O min ha'Tzon") - that the Se'irei Chatas of Yom-Tov are precluded from the Din of Nesachim.

(b) We include Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah (from "O be'Mo'adeichem") but preclude the Sa'ir Chatas (from "ve'Chi Sa'aseh ben Bakar") - because there are Olos and Shelamim which come as Nedavos, but not Chata'os.

(c) Having already mentioned "O Zevach", from "La'asos Rei'ach Nicho'ach la'Hashem *min ha'Bakar O min ha'Tzon*" - the Tana precludes an Olas ha'Of from the Din of Nesachim.

(d) This is the opinion of Rebbi Yashiyah. Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with him - on the grounds that the Torah writes "Zevach", and a Korban Of is not called a Zevach.

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Adam ki s ... min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon", Rebbi Yonasan learns from " ... min ha'Bakar O min ha'Tzon" - that someone who declares a Neder to bring an Olah, may bring either the one or the other, and is not obligated to bring both (as the earlier Pasuk implies).

(b) The problem with this D'rashah is that according to Rebbi Yonasan himself - whenever the Torah does not write "Yachdav", it means either or, and not both (at first glance, rendering this D'rashah redundant).

(c) And we counter this argument - by explaining that the 'Vav' in "u'min ha'Tzon" is as if the Torah had written "Yachdav".

(d) The 'Vav' in "u'Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo" however, does not have the same implications - because the Torah has no choic other than to writ it (otherwise, the Torah would appear to be speaking about where a person's father cursed his mother).

Next daf


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