(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 109

MENACHOS 109-110 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.



(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone says 'Harei Alai Olah' and who subsequently brings it in Beis Chonyo (which will be explained later in the Sugya) - is not Yotzei.

(b) The Tana rules that if the Noder added that he would bring it in Beis Chonyo, he is nevertheless obligated to bring it in the Beis-Hamikdash - because having declared 'Harei Alai Olah', he is obligated to bring a Kasher Olah.

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon, he is not even Yotzei Bedi'eved, if he brought it in Beis Chonyo. The Tana Kama says - he is.

(d) According to the Tana someone who declares that he is a Nazir ...

1. ... and shaves in Beis Chonyo - is not Yotzei.
2. ... and adds that he will shave in Beis Chonyo - is obligated to shave in the Beis-Hamikdash.
3. ... adding that he will shave in Beis Chonyo, and does - is Yotzei according to the Tana Kama, but not according to Rebbi Shimon.
(a) Someone who sacrifices in Beis Chonyo - is Chayav Kareis (because of Shechutei Chutz).

(b) Rav Hamnuna explains that our Mishnah rules 've'Im Hikrivah be'Veis Chonyo, Yatza', in spite of the Chiyuv Kareis - because it is as if he said that he knows that he will get killed, and that he accepts no Achrayus (liability) on the Korban (which simply means that he is no longer Chayav to bring it).

(c) Rava disproves Rav Hamnuna's answer from the Seifa 've'Im Gilach be'Veis Chonyo, Yatza' - because in that case, without shaving in the Beis-Hamikdash, how can his Korban be Kasher?

(d) Consequently, Rava explains - that the Noder does not mean to bring a Korban, only to give a gift to the best of his ability. If it is too far to travel to the Beis-Hamikdash, then he intends to bring his Korban (or shave his hair) in Beis Chonyo, in which case, he is not Chayav Kareis either.

(a) Rav Hamnuna concedes that Rava is right - with regard to the Din of Nezirus, yet he retains his own interpretation of the Mishnah - regarding that of Olah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan concurs with Rav Hamnuna. Rabah bar Chanah says in his name that someone who says 'Harei Alai Olah she'Akrivenah be'Veis Chonyo', and who subsequently brings it somewhere in Eretz Yisrael - is Yotzei and is Chayav Kareis.

(c) Even though he did not bring the Korban in Beis Chonyo, he is nevertheless Yotzei - because Beis Chonyo has no Halachic significance, in which case it makes no difference where he brings it outside the Beis-Hamikdash.

(a) Finally, we support Rav Hamnuna with a Beraisa, which rules 'Harei Alai Olah she'Akrivenah ba'Midbar, Ve'hikrivah be'Eiver ha'Yarden (i.e. in Eretz Yisrael [the other side of the Midbar]) - Yatza ve'Anush Kareis'.

(b) The Noder spoke about bringing his Korban in the desert - because he believed that, on account of the Mishkan, the desert remained Kadosh even after Yisrael had left it.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that the Kohanim who served in Beis Chonyo - may not serve in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) When the Tana adds 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar le'Davar Acher', he means - that it goes without saying that Kohanim who served Avodah-Zarah are forbidden to do so.

(c) This is based on a Pasuk, where the Navi writes - that Kohanim who served on the Bamos are not permitted to ascend the Mizbe'ach.

(d) The Tana ascribes to them the Din of Ba'alei-Mumin - which permits them to receive a portion of Kodshim and to eat them, but not to sacrifice them.

(a) When Rav Yehudah describes the Korban of a Kohen who Shechted to Avodah Zarah as 'Re'ach Ni'cho'ach', he is referring to - a Kohen who sacrifices a Korban, after having Shechted to Avodah Zarah.

(b) He learns this from the Pasuk "Ya'an Asher Yesharsu Osam Lifnei Giluleihem ... ve'Yigshu Eilai Lechahen Li" - which invalidates a Kohen who has served (been Meshares) to Avodah Zarah from serving in the Beis-Hamikdash, precluding Shechitah, which is not called 'Sheirus' ...

(c) ... since it is Kasher when performed by a Zar.

(a) According to Rav Nachman, the Korban of a Kohen who performed Zerikah for Avodah-Zarah is Kasher. Rav Sheishes rules - that it is Pasul.

(b) Rav Sheishes derives his opinion from the previous Pasuk "Ve'hayu le'Veis Yisrael le'Michshol Avon" - since "Avon" implies be'Meizid, and "le'Michshol", be'Shogeg.

(c) Rav Nachman explains - the two words as one thing 'le'Michshol de'Avon' (a 'Shogeg sin').

(a) Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban for having worshipped Avodah-Zarah) "Ve'chiper ha'Kohen al ha'Nefesh ha'Shogeges *be'Chet'ah bi'Shegagah*" - that a Kohen who sacrificed to Avodah-Zarah be'Shogeg - may bring his own Korban.

(b) The Pasuk must be referring to a Kohen who performed Zerikah be'Shogeg and not Shechitah - because for Shechitah, he maintains, it would be permitted even if he had sinned be'Meizid.

(c) Rav Sheishes counters Rav Nachman's proof - because in his opinion, even Shechitah to Avodah-Zarah will invalidate a Kohen from sacrificing Korbanos, if he performed it be'Meizid.

(d) Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes argue specifically over Shechitah be'Meizid. Rav Nachman's reason, as we already explained, is because it is not called 'Sheirus'. But Rav Sheishes holds - that when all's said and done, he became a 'servant of Avodah Zarah'.




(a) Rav Nachman proves his ruling from a Beraisa, which rules that if a Kohen who served Avodah-Zarah and did Teshuvah - 'Korbano Re'ach Nicho'ach'.

(b) He proves that the Tana is speaking about ...

1. ... Meizid - because if it had been be'Shogeg, it would not require Teshuvah (since the Kohen never meant to sin in the first place).
2. ... Shechitah - because if the Tana was taking about Zerikah (be'Meizid), doing Teshuvah would not permit him to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash.
(c) In refuting Rav Nachman's proof, Rav Sheishes, explains 'Shav' to mean - 'Shav Me'ikaro' (which is equivalent to Shogeg (in which case, the Tana is speaking specifically about Shechitah be'Shogeg).
(a) If the Kohen prostrated himself before an idol, Rav Nachman holds 'Korbano Re'ach Nicho'ach'. Rav Sheishes holds - 'Ein Korbano Re'ach Nicho'ach'.

(b) Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes need to argue the same Machlokes so many times. We would have thought, had they argued with regard to ...

1. ... Zerikah (be'Shogeg), but not by Shechitah (be'Meizid) - that Rav Sheishes only argues with Rav Nachman in the former, because the Kohen performed Sheirus, but not in the latter, where he did not.
2. ... Shechitah (be'Meizid), but not with regard to Hishtachavayah (be'Meizid) - that Rav Sheishes only argues with Rav Nachman in the former, because the Kohen did perform an Avodah, but not in the latter, where he didn't.
(c) They also argue over 'Hodeh' (a Kohen who declares his belief in the divine character of an idol), in spite of their having presented their Machlokes by 'Hishtachaveh' - because the latter entails an act, whereas the former entails only speech (and we might have thought that Rav Sheishes concedes to Rav Nachman there).
(a) We can extrapolate from the fact that, when switching from Beis Chonyo to Avodah-Zarah, our Mishnah used the expression 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar Davar Acher' - that Beis Chonyo was not an Avodah Zarah.

(b) This concurs with one opinion in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Meir there, Shimon ha'Tzadik discovered one Yom Kipur that he was not destined to survive that year - when, instead of the old man (see Tosfos DH 'Nizdamen Li') dressed in white, accompanying him both into the Kodesh Kodshim and out of it, that year he was dressed in black, and accompanied him in, but not out.

(c) Shimon ha'Tzadik died - after Succos (after an illness lasting seven days). At the time of his death, the Kohanim refrained from blessing the people with the Name of Hashem.

(d) Shim'i, Shimon ha'Tzadik's son, was jealous of - his brother Chonyo, whom his father appointed Kohen Gadol just before he died (and who was two and a half years his junior).

(a) In an attempt (that almost succeeded) to make the other Kohanim kill him, Shim'i, making out that he was teaching his brother the Dinim of the Avodah, dressed him in a leather garment and girded him with a leather belt, and then aroused the wrath of the Kohanim by telling them that Chonyo had made a Neder to his wife that on the day that he became Kohen Gadol, he would wear her leather garment and gird himself with her belt.

(b) When the Kohanim wanted to kill him, Chonyo escaped to - Alexandria in Egypt, where he built a Mizbe'ach upon which he sacrificed to Avodah Zarah.

(c) The Chachamim learn from this episode - that if a person is capable of attempting to kill his brother because of a position that he merely coveted, imagine what a person who is demoted from an important position, is capable of doing. So we should learn from here to be extremely wary of removing someone from a high position.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Meir. He learns from the Pasuk "be'Yom ha'Hu Yih'yeh Mizbe'ach la'Hashem be'Toch Eretz Mitzrayim ... " - that Chonyo built the Mizbe'ach in Mitzrayim le'Shem Shamayim (and not to le'Shem Avodah Zarah).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah also argues over the details of the story. According to him, Chonyo declined to accept his father's appointment - because he did not want to step on his older brother Shim'i's toes.

(c) Nevertheless, he subsequently became jealous of Shim'i.

(a) In fact, says Rebbi Yehudah - it was Chonyo who aroused the Kohanim's ire, by doing to Shim'i precisely what Rebbi Meir maintains, Shim'i did to Chonyo ...

(b) ... and it was he who ended up having to escape in Alexandria - because his plan backfired, when before the Kohanim had a chance to kill Shim'i, he managed to tell them what had happened, and they turned on Chonyo.

(c) He first escaped - to the King's palace, but when everyone who saw him pointed him out to his pursuers, he fled to Alexandria (see Agados Maharsha).

(d) The Chachamim learn from this episode - that if someone who initially runs away from Kavod can attain such a level of jealousy for a position that he merely covets, imagine what a person who wants Kavod is capable of doing. So we should learn from here not to stand in the way of a person who is seeking Kavod.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben P'rachya in a Beraisa ...
1. ... initially said that if someone would encourage him to accept the position of Nasi - he would tie him up and place him in front of a lion.
2. ... later said that if anyone would encourage him to step down - he would pour a kettle of boiling water on his head.
(b) And he cited a precedence for this change of heart from Shaul ha'Melech - who was found hiding among the vessels when they Shmuel wanted to crown him king, yet he tried to kill David because he considered him to be a threat to the throne.

(c) Others have the text 'Kol ha'Omer Olah O Minchah Alai ... (instead of 'Kol ha'Omer Alai'. What Rebbi Yehoshua ben P'rachya was then saying was - that he took a dim view of someone who made a Neder to bring a Korban ('Harei Alai ... '), as we shall see at the beginning of Chulin.

Next daf


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