ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 101
MENACHOS 101-102 - 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) The Beraisa establishes the Pasuk (in connection with which animals must
be sacrificed and which can be redeemed) "ve'Im Kol Beheimah Temei'ah ...
" - by a Ba'al-Mum (which it refers to as 'Tamei', the source of our
(b) We are forced to divest it of its simple meaning (i.e. a non-Kasher
species) - because we already have a Pasuk to teach us that ("ve'Im
ba'Beheimah Temei'ah u'Padah be'Erkecha").
(c) And the Tana learns from the Pasuk "Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Isheh
la'Hashem" - that it is only on a permanent blemish that a Hekdesh animal
may be redeemed, but not on a passing one (that prevents the animal from
being sacrificed today, but is gone tomorrow).
(a) Rav Huna bar Mano'ach queries Shmuel (who learns that 'she'Nitme'u' in
the Reisha of our Mishnah is 'La'av Davka') from the Seifa of the Mishnah
itself 'ha'Ofos, ve'ha'Eitzim ve'ha'Levonah u'K'lei Shareis, mi'she'Nitme'u
Ein Lahen Pidyon'. Birds are not redeemable - because (unlike animals) they
adopt Kedushas ha'Guf from the moment they are declared Hekdesh (and do not
require a K'li Shareis to attain that status).
(b) Rav Huna bar Mano'ach initially explains that the latter three are not
redeemable - because Machshirei Korban (such as Menachos and Nesachim)
cannot be redeemed as long as they Tahor, and the above three are not
subject to Tum'ah (as we will now explain), posing a Kashya on Shmuel.
(c) Eitzim and Levonah are only subject to Tum'ah because of Chibas
ha'Kodesh - meaning that under normal circumstances, raw materials other
than food are not subject to Tum'ah, and it is only because they are Hekdesh
that the Torah gives them a Din Tum'ah.
(a) Chibas ha'Kodesh is not applicable with regard to ...
1. ... Eitzim - because we are speaking about wood that has not yet been cut
(b) Neither can Tum'ah be the reason that K'lei Shareis cannot be redeemed -
since they can easily be Toveled in a Mikvah.
2. ... Levonah - because we are speaking before it has been sanctified in a
(c) We refute this Kashya on Shmuel by accepting his ruling with regard to
Nesachim and Menachos - which are easy to replace, whereas Eitzim, Levonah
and K'lei Shareis, which are uncommon, the Rabanan declared unredeemable.
(d) Wood for the Mizbe'ach is uncommon - because it must be free of worms
(as we learned in 'Kol Korbenos Tzibur').
(a) The Beraisa rules - that unblemished animals that one declares Hekdesh
Bedek ha'Bayis can only be redeemed for the purpose of bringing them on the
(b) ... because whatever is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, never leaves the
realm of Mizbe'ach (meaning that it does not go out le'Chulin).
(c) Rav Papa assumes that if Shmuel had heard of this Beraisa - he would
have retracted his statement (since there is no difference between animals
that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach and Menachos and Nesachim).
(d) We refute Rav Papa's suppositon however. Shmuel knew of this Beraisa,
yet he did not retract - because he places animal Korbanos in the category
of things that are uncommon (and on which the Chachamim therefore decreed),
since the slightest blemish (such as eye's-web) renders them Pasul.
(a) Rav Kahana disagrees with Shmuel. He maintains - that Menachos and
Nesachim can only be redeemed when they are Tamei, but not when they are
(b) In the first Lashon, Rebbi Oshaya agrees with Rav Kahana, but in the
second - he agrees with Shmuel.
(c) Rebbi Elazar makes a compromise. Basically, he holds like Rav Kahana,
holding like Shmuel only with regard to - the Asiris ha'Eifah of a Minchas
(d) And he learns it from a Pasuk (in connection with the Korban Oleh
ve'Yored). He learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Korban ...
1. ... Ashir) "me'Chataso" - that if after designating a lamb as his Korban,
he becomes poor, the lamb automatically goes out to Chulin.
2. ... Ani) "al Chataso" - that if after designating an Asiris ha'Eifah for
his Minchah, he becomes rich, he is obligated to redeem the flour, and use
the proceeds towards purchasing a lamb or a goat for his Chatas.
(a) Rebbi Oshaya heard - that a Minchah which a Kohen rendered Pigul,
according to Rebbi Shimon - is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin.
(b) The Tana Kama rules that Isurei Hana'ah (such as Orlah, K'lai ha'Kerem
and Shor ha'Niskal ... ) - are subject to Tum'as Ochlin.
(c) When he includes ...
1. ... 'Shor ha'Niskal' - he is referring to a Shor ha'Niskal that one
Shechted (after Beis-Din had declared it was Chayav Sekilah).
(d) ... because once the ox has been stoned and the donkey has stopped
convulsing - they are Tamei Tum'as Neveilus, rendering the Tum'as Ochlin
irrelevant (since it is more stringent than Tum'as Ochlin [in that even a
k'Zayis is Metamei, whereas Tum'as Ochlin needs to be a k'Beitzah in order
to be Metamei).
2. ... 'Peter Chamor' - he is referring to a first-born donkey that one
Shechted on behalf of a Nochri, and which was still convulsing ...
(a) Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Tana Kama that Basar be'Chalav is Metamei
Tum'as Ochlin - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (was originally permitted
[see Rabeinu Gershom]) or because even after mixing them together, they
remain permitted until one cooks them together (see Gilyon Maharsha).
(b) A Shor ha'Niskal (and the other animals mentioned in the Beraisa)
however, did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher before it gored - because as long
as the animal is alive, it is be'Chezkas Isur until it has been proved to
have been Shechted; and besides, a live animal is never subject to Tum'ah.
(c) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes Rebbi Shimon's ruling to the Pasuk
(in connection with Tum'as Ochlin) "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" - which
implies that food that one can feed to others is Tamei Tum'as Ochlin, but
not food that one cannot [such as Isurei Hana'ah]).
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon learns from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Am *Kadosh* Atah la'Hashem Elokecha, Lo Sevashel G'di
ba'Chaleiv Imo" "ve'Anshei *Kodesh* Tih'yun Li, u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo
Socheilu" - that Basar be'Chalav, like T'reifah, is Mutar be'Hana'ah.
(b) When he gave the reason for his conceding to the Tana Kama that Basar
be'Chalav is Tamei Tum'as Ochlin as the fact that it originally had a Sha'as
ha'Kosher - he was merely adding a second reason to the previous one ('Chada
(a) We query Rebbi Oshaya from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon rules - that
there are cases of Nosar being Metamei Tum'as Ochlin and cases of Nosar that
(b) 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah, Eino Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, le'Achar Zerikah
Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' - because the former did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher,
whereas the latter did.
(c) He stated that ...
1. ... Pigul, both with regard to Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim - is not
Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, whereas ...
(d) We answer that the Beraisa is speaking about a Minchah which had a
Sha'as ha'Kosher, whereas Rebbi Oshaya is speaking about one which did
not - i.e. where the owner declared the wheat Hekdesh whilst it was still
attached to the ground.
2. ... Pigul by a Minchah - is, a Kashya on Rebbi Oshaya (who said that
according to Rebbi Shimon, it is not).
(a) The problem with this explanation is that even wheat that is sanctified
when it is still attached to the ground ought to have a Sha'as ha'Kosher -
because it can be redeemed.
(b) We cite the first Lashon of Rebbi Oshaya himself on the previous Amud,
where he said - 'Temei'in Nifdin, Tehorin Ein Nifdin' (in which case until
it became Tamei, the Minchah did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher).
(c) According to the second Lashon however ('Afilu Tehorin Nifdin'), the
Kashya remains. The problem that we initially have with the answer that
since the Minchah was not redeemed, it is considered as if it did not have a
Sha'as ha'Kosher is - that Rebbi Shimon himself holds 'Kol ha'Omed li'Pados,
(d) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa explains that a Parah Adumah is Metamei Tum'as
Ochlin - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.
(e) To which Resh Lakish adds - that even if the Parah has already been
Shechted and is waiting to be burned it can be redeemed (from which we can
see that it is considered a Sha'as ha'Kosher because it can be redeemed,
even if ultimately, it is not.
(a) We answer the Kashya by differentiating between a Parah Adumah - which
stands to be redeemed, and a Minchah - which does not.
(b) The problem with this from 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah' in our Mishnah, where
the Tana rules 'Ein Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' is - that there too, they could
have performed Zerikah, and it was a Mitzvah to do so, yet the Tana, placing
it in the category of 'Lo Hayah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher', rules 'Ein Metamei
(c) So we establish the case - when the Korban was Shechted so close to dusk
that there was not time in the day to perform the Zerikah (in which case it
really was a case of 'Lo Hayah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher').
(d) And we answer the Kashya as to why the Tana then switches to 'Lan
le'Achar Zerikah' to find a case of Haysah Lo Sha'as ha'Kosher, and not
simply 'Haysah Lo Sha'us ba'Yom' - with 'Hachi Nami Ka'amar ... ' (meaning
that when the Beraisa says 'Lan le'Achar Zerikah', it actually means to say
'Lan le'Achar *she'Yera'eh* li'Zerikah' [even though the Zerikah has not yet
been performed in practice]).