ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 102
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) Assuming that our Mishnah 'Pigeil, bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... Eino
Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', speaks about Pigeil bi'Zerikah, this is a Kashya on
Rebbi Oshaya - according to whom Rebbi Shimon (based on the principle, 'Kol
ha'Omed Lizarek ... ') ought to have said 'Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'.
(b) To reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi Oshaya - we establish it when the
Kohen was Mefagel by the Shechitah, (rendering it a case of 'Lo Hayah Lo
(c) The problem with the continuation of the Mishnah 'Pigeil be'Minchcah,
Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' is - that the Tana should have rather gone on to a
case of 'Pigeil bi'Zerikah' (without switching to a Korban Minchah)?
(d) And we answer that the Tana deliberately switches to Minchah to teach
us - that even though the Kohen was Mefagel by the Kemitzah (which is the
equivalent to the Shechitah of a Korban (which is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin,
as we just learned), it is nevertheless Metamei Tum'as Ochlin (as we
(a) When Rav Ashi said over this whole piece to Rav Nachman, the latter
refuted it. He established the case in our Mishnah ...
1. ... 'Lan Lifnei Zerikah' - to read as it stands (without changing it to
'Kodem she'Yera'eh li'Zerikah').
(b) Yet in both cases, he justifies the Tana for ruling 'Eino Metamei Tum'as
Ochlin, even according to Rebbi Oshaya - because Rebbi Shimon does not
extend the principle 'Kol ha'Omed Lipados, ke'Paduy Dami', to Zerikah (to
say 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... ke'Zaruk Dami') ...
2. ... 'Pigeil bein be'Kodshei Kodshim ... ' - by 'Pigeil bi'Zerikah' (and
not by 'Pigeil Lifnei Shechitah').
(c) ... because whereas Pidyon entails no more than saying a few words,
Zerikah constitutes an act (and as long as the act has not been performed,
even Rebbi Shimon will concede that it cannot be considered as if it has.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah in Me'ilah, confines Me'ilah (with regard
to Kodshim that became Pasul) to something which the Kohanim were at no
stage, permitted to eat. Something that the Kohanim are permitted to eat, on
the other hand, is not subject to Me'ilah - because it has left the category
of "Kodshei Hashem" (with which the Parshah of Me'ilah begins).
(b) The latter category comprises three cases, 'she'Lanah',
'she'Nitme'ah' - and 'she'Yatz'ah'.
(c) The former comprises three cases too, 'she'Nishchatah Chutz li'Zemanah
ve'Chutz li'Mekomah' - 've'she'Kiblu Pesulin ve'Zarku es Damah'.
(d) We query Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi's explanation however, from 'Lanah' in
the Reisha - because assuming that the Tana means literally that the Basar
and the Dam remained overnight before the Zerikas Dam, then 'Sha'as Heter
la'Kohanim' would mean that the Kohen could have performed the Zerikah had
he wished (which is what Rav Nachman just rejected).
(a) In attempting to answer the Kashya, we establish the case of 'Lanah' -
when it is fit to become Pasul through 'Nitme'ah' or 'Yatz'ah', meaning
after the Zerikah.
(b) But in a case of 'Lanah Mamash' (before the Zerikah) - Rebbi Shimon
would hold Mo'alin (because he agrees that 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek La'av
ke'Zaruk Dami', as Rav Nachman explained according to Rebbi Oshaya).
(c) The problem with the Lashon 'Kol she'Haysah Lah Sha'as Heter la'Kohanim'
is - that since the Tana is speaking when no P'sul has actually occurred, he
ought to have said 'Kol she'Yesh Heter le'Kohanim' (rather than 'Kol
she'Haysah ... ').
(d) In fact, Rav Ashi really answered Rav Nachman by drawing a distinction
between Me'ilah - which is a derivative of Kedushah, which (due to 'Kol
ha'Omed Lizarek ke'Zaruk Dami'), departs from the Kodshim animal as soon as
it ready for Zerikah, and Tum'as Ochlin - which is only applicable when it
is actually a food (but not on account of 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek').
(a) We query this answer too, from a Beraisa, which discusses someone who
brings an Asham Taluy, and who discovers in the process, that he did not
sin. One brings an Asham Taluy - for a case of Safek Chatas (e.g. someone
who ate one of two pieces of fat that were lying in front of him, one
Cheilev, the other, Shuman (be'Shogeg), and he doesn't know which one he
(b) Rebbi Meir permits him to let the animal loose among his animals,
because it is Chulin. The Chachamim say - 'Yir'eh ad she'Yista'ev
Ve'yimacher, Ve'yiplu Damav li'Nedavah', because, afraid that he really
sinned, the owner declares it Hekdesh without reservations (in spite of the
(c) Rebbi Eliezer even permits him to bring it - because, he maintains, one
is permitted to bring an Asham Taluy every day to atone for any Safek Kareis
that he may have transgressed..
(d) In a case where he only discovered his innocence after the Shechitah,
the Beraisa rules - that the blood must be poured out and the animal burned
(in the Beis ha'Sereifah).
(a) If the blood has already been sprinkled when the owner discovers that he
did not sin, the Tana Kama holds that the Basar may be eaten. Rebbi Yossi
rules even more leniently. According to him - the Basar may be eaten even if
the blood is still in the bowl (and has yet to be sprinkled).
(b) We try to prove from Rava, who equates Rebbi Yossi with Rebbi Shimon -
that even as regards turning something that is not edible into a food, Rebbi
Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizrok ke'Zaruk Dami' (seeing as we are permitting
the blood to be sprinkled and the Basar to be eaten [even though he already
knows that he did not sin] on the basis of 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek ... '), a
Kashya on Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi.
(c) We reject Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi however, by citing Rebbi
Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who ascribes Rebbi Yossi's reason - to the principle
'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin es ha'Pesulin Lechatchilah Likarev'.
(a) Based on Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi, Rav Ashi commented to Rav
Kahana that - if, as Rava suggests, Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizarek
ke'Zaruk Dami', then he will also hold 'Kol ha'Omed Lisaref' ke'Saruf
(b) In that case, he asked, bearing in mind that Nosar and Parah both stand
to be burned - why are they Tamei Tum'as Ochlin. Since when are ashes Tamei
(c) Rava replied - by ascribing Tum'as Ochlin to Chibas ha'Kodesh.
(a) Ravina was surprised at Rava's reply. He thought that, notwithstanding
the fact that Chibas ha'Kodesh can cause Hekdesh that is not otherwise
subject to Tum'ah to become Tamei - but he did not think that it would go so
far as to cause it to adopt Tum'as Ochlin, to be a Rishon, which is Metamei
(b) In any event, he thought that, with Rava's explanation, one could
resolve the She'eilah of Resh Lakish, who asked whether one counts Rishon
ve'Sheini in the case of Tz'rid shel Menachos - a section of the flour of a
Minchah which had not been touched by the oil, and which would therefore not
be subject to Tum'ah, were it not for Chibas ha'Kodesh.
(c) Rav Ashi's reply was - that whereas Resh Lakish was asking about the Din
Torah, Rav Kahana's statement referred to the Din de'Rabbanan (even assuming
that min ha'Torah, one does not count Rishon ve'Sheini).
(d) If we were to count Rishon ve'Sheini mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Nosar, the
Parah or the Tz'rid shel Menachos then touched Kodshim - it would be left
hanging in abeyance (because Kodshim that became Tamei through a Tum'ah
de'Rabbanan may not be burned).
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone undertakes to bring ...
1. ... '*a Minchah* al ha'Machavas' and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or
vice-versa - his Minchah is Kasher, but he remains obligated to fulfill his
(b) The same distinction will apply where someone undertakes to bring '*two
Esronim* in one K'li' (as one Minchah) and he brings them in two Keilim (as
two), or vice-versa, or '*these two Esronim* in one K'li' and he brings them
in two Keilim, or vice-versa. In the latter set of cases, the Minchah is
Pasul if he brings the Minchah in two Keilim instead of one - a. because he
took two Kematzim whereas he undertook to take only one; and b. because each
K'li contains a Minchah Chaseirah (less than what he undertook to bring).
2. ... '*this Minchah* (with reference to flour lying in front of him) as a
Minchah al ha'Machavas' and then brings a Minchas Marcheshes, or
vice-versa - the Minchah that he brought is Pasul.
(c) And in a case where someone undertook to bring two Esronim in one K'li,
and brought them in two Keilim. Then, ignoring people who reminded him that
he had said 'one K'li', he went ahead and finished bringing them in two
Keilim, the Tana rules - that the Minchah that he brought is Pasul ...
(d) ... even though he did not say "Eilu' (despite the fact that in the
previous case, the Korban is Kasher because he did not say 'Eilu') - because
the absence of a statement on his part, to the effect that they were right
and that he was bringing it in fulfillment of another Neder, proves that
this was not the case, and that he mistakenly brought it in fulfillment of
(a) And in the equivalent case to the previous one, where he erred and
brought the Minchah in one Keili instead of two, in spite of the people who
reminded that he had said 'two' - the Mishnah rules that the Minchah has the
Din of two Korbanos that became mixed ...
(b) ... where the Halachah is - that it is possible to take a Kometz from
each Minchah separately, he should do so; otherwise, the two Menachos are
Pasul (as we learned in 'ha'Kometz Rabah).
(c) We do not say the same with regard to the earlier case 'Eilu Lehavi
bi'Shenei Keilim Ve'heivi bi'K'li Echad, Pasul' is - because there Tana
speaks in a case where it was not possible to take a Kometz from each one.
(a) Having taught the Din in ...
1. ... the Reisha (with regard to a Minchah al ha'Machavas and a Minchas
Marcheshes), the Tana found it necessary to repeat it in the Seifa (with
regard to two Esronos in one K'li and in two) - since the owner did not
change the basic Korban, we might have thought that in the Reisha de'Seifa,
he will have fulfilled his Korban, too.
(b) Our Mishnah, in the Reisha de'Reisha and the Reisha de'Seifa rules 'Mah
she'Heivi Heivi, vi'Yedei Nidro Lo Yatza'. Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa,
disagrees. He holds - 'Af Yedei Nidro Nami Yatza'.
2. ... the Seifa, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it in
the Reisha - because we might otherwise have thought that, since he did not
split one large Minchah into two, in the Reisha de'Seifa, he would have
fulfilled his obligation, too.
(a) We ask on our Mishnah from a Beraisa (in connection with the Korban
Minchah). When the Tana there writes 'Lo Kidshum K'lei Shareis' - he means
that the K'li Shareis in which one brings a Minchah does not sanctify it.
(b) This poses a Kashya on our Mishnah, which rules - 'Zu Lehavi be'Machavas
Ve'heivi be'Marcheshes ... Harei Zu Pesulah'. But if the K'li does not
sanctify the Minchah, why can he not simply transfer the Minchah into the
(c) And we answer - that although the K'li does not sanctify the Minchah to
allow it to be brought, it does sanctify it to become Pasul (as is the case
(a) Abaye learns from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Nadarta" - that mentioning the
K'li (whether the Minchah will be a Machavas or a Marcheshes) at the time of
the declaration of the Neder fixes the K'li, but not mentioning it at the
time of designation (after the Neder has been made).
(b) This enables him to qualify our Mishnah - by confining the P'sul in the
Seifa de'Reisha ('Zu Lehavi be'Machavas ... ') to where he fixed the K'li at
the time of the Neder, but had he fixed it at the time of designation, he
would be permitted to change it afterwards.
(c) Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan - says the same.