(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 45


(a) Why can 'Eilim' in our Mishnah not refer to the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh and Shavu'os (like the Parim and the Kevasim)?

(b) What is the difference between the Parim, Eilim and Kevasim in Chomesh ha'Pekudim (Pinchas) and those in Toras Kohanim (Emor)?

(c) Why do we initially think that it cannot refer to the Korbanos in Toras Kohanim?

(a) We conclude that Eilim in our Mishnah refers to the Eilim in Toras Kohanim.
How do we then resolve the current problem? What is the Mishnah coming to teach us?

(b) How can it be that our Tana refers to the Parim and the Kevasim even of the same set, but to Eilim specifically of different sets?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "u'va'Yom ha'Chodesh ...
  1. ... Par ben Bakar Temimim"?
  2. ... ve'Shishah Kevasim"?
  3. ... ve'la'Kevasim Asher Tasig Yado"?
(b) Then why does the Torah write "Shishah Kevasim"?

(c) And what do we learn from "Yih'yu"?

(a) What problem do we have with the Pasuk (ibid.) "Koh Amar Hashem Elokim ba'Rishon be'Echad la'Chodesh Tikach Par ben Bakar Ve'chiteisa es ha'Bayis"?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintained that only Eliyahu solve this problem once the third Beis-Hamikdash has been built. Rav Ashi claimed that he had an answer. How did he explain this Korban? To which Beis-Hamikdash does it refer?

(c) We support this with a Beraisa. What did Rebbi Yossi reply, when Rebbi Yehudah made the same comment regarding the Pasuk in Yechezkel as Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) What was Rebbi Yehudah's reaction to that?

(a) What problem did Rebbi Yochanan have with the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim"? What did he comment in this regard?

(b) How did Ravina explain it? Why might we have thought that the Kohanim would be allowed to eat Neveilah and Tereifah?

(c) How did Rebbi Yochanan interpret the Pasuk (ibid.) "ve'Chein Ta'aseh be'Shiv'ah ba'Chodesh me'Ish Shogeh u'mi'Pesi ... "? How did he explain ...

  1. ... ve'Chein Ta'aseh"?
  2. ... "be'Shiv'ah"?
  3. ... "ba'Chodesh"?
  4. ... "me'Ish Shogeh u'mi'Pesi"?
(a) To whom was Rav Yehudah Amar Rav referring when he said 'May that man be remembered for the good'?

(b) What problems confronted him?

(c) What did he do in order to solve them?

(d) Why did Rav praise him so highly?

(a) What problem does Rebbi Shimon have with the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Eifah la'Par ve'Eifah la'Ayil Ya'aseh Minchah ... "?

(b) So what does he learn from there?

Answers to questions



(a) Our Mishnah rules that the bull, the rams, the lambs and the goat on Shavu'os are not Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, nor vice-versa.
How will we reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva's next statement, that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are Me'akev the lambs?

(b) Are the lambs Me'akev the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, according to Rebbi Akiva?

(c) On what basis does Rebbi Shimon ben Nannes say the opposite?

(d) Why did they not bring the Sh'tei ha'Lechem in the desert?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon add, after ruling like ben Nannes?

(b) What principle does he state that clashes with what ben Nannes said?

(c) Why then, according to Rebbi Shimon, may one bring the lambs without the Lechem, but not the Lechem without the lambs?

(a) Seeing as "Shiv'as Kevasim Temimim" implies that the lambs can be brought independently (see Tosfos DH 'Shiv'as'), how does Rebbi Tarfon in a Beraisa explain "Ve'hikravtem al ha'Lechem"?

(b) How do we know that the Korbanos mentioned in the Pasuk in Emor are not the same ones as those mentioned in Pinchas (which would mean that the Musafin were not brought in the desert)?

(c) What conclusion does Rebbi Tarfon draw from this?

(d) How does he know that ...

  1. ... the distinction extends even to the lambs, which are the same in both Parshiyos?
  2. ... all the animals in the two Parshiyos are not the same ones? Perhaps the Torah gave the Kohen the choice of bringing one bull and two rams or two bulls and one ram?
(a) What does Rebbi Akiva (in our Mishnah) learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yih'yu" (Ve'heinif ha'Kohen Osam al Lechem ha'Bikurim ... Yih'yu la'Hashem") "Tih'yenah" ("So'les Tih'yenah" [both in Emor])?

(b) Why does ben Nannes prefer to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk there (in connection with the animals) "Yih'yu Olah la'Hashem" that it is the Kevasim that are Me'akev the Lechem?

(c) Why does he not contend with Rebbe Yishmael's principle 'Mah Hi 'Shivah', Mah Hi 'Bi'ah' (as long as the words in the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' are similar in meaning)?

(d) How does Rebbi Akiva counter that argument? Why does he nevertheless opt to learn from "So'les Tih'yenah"?

(a) Alternatively, they argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen".
What does Rebbi Akiva mean when he says that it is the Lechem that goes entirely to the Kohen?

(b) On what grounds does ben Nannes object to that? How does he interpret "la'Hashem la'Kohen"?

(c) Why does Rebbi Akiva disagree with him?

(d) How does he then interpret the expression "la'Hashem la'Kohen"? What did Rav Huna say?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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