Menachos 4 - WHY EACH DID NOT LEARN LIKE THE OTHERS
1) WHY EACH DID NOT LEARN LIKE THE OTHERS
(a) Rabah and Rava disagreed about whether the clarity of Lo Lishmah is reason to Posel or Machshir - R. Hoshaya was unsure about his.
1. Question (R. Hoshaya): What does R. Shimon say about Kemitzah of a Minchah l'Shem a Zevach?
i. Perhaps an evident Lo Lishmah is Kosher (like Rabah) - if so, surely this is Kosher!
ii. Or, perhaps he learns from "V'Zos Toras ha'Minchah" (like Rava) - the verse does not mention Zevachim, therefore, this is Pasul!
2. R. Asi: We are unsure of R. Shimon's reason.
(b) R. Asi and R. Hoshaya did not answer like Rabah, on account of Abaye's question (4:c Daf 2B, Shinuy Ba'alim and Shinuy Kodesh should have the same law.) (We cannot answer like before, there is more reason to Posel when the Lo Lishmah is evident, for R. Hoshaya and R. Asi were unsure about this.)
(c) They did not answer like Rava, for if so, R. Shimon should similarly expound "V'Zos Toras ha'Chatas";
(d) They did not answer like Rav Ashi, on account of Rav Acha's question.
2) WHEN DOES "SHE'LO LISHMAH" INVALIDATE THE OFFERING?
(a) (Mishnah): ...Except for Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os (Avodah Lo Lishmah in either of them is Posel.)
(b) Question: We understand why Minchas Chotei Lo Lishmah is Pasul - the Torah calls it Chatas, "Lo Yasim Aleha Shemen...Ki Chatas Hi".
1. But why is Minchas Kena'os Lo Lishmah Pasul?
(c) Answer #1: A reciter of Beraisos taught - Mosar (the leftover of money Hukdash to buy) Minchas Kena'os goes to Nedavah (to buy Olos (Rashi; Rambam - Menachos) Nedavah.)
1. Rav Nachman: That is correct - we learn from a Gezerah Shavah:
i. Regarding Minchas Kena'os it says "Mazkeres Avon", regarding Chatas it says "Lases Es Avon ha'Edah";
ii. Just as Mosar Chatas is Nedavah, also Mosar Minchas Kena'os.
2. Summation of answer: Similarly, just as Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul, also Minchas Kena'os.
(d) Question #1: If so, also Asham Lo Lishmah should be Pasul, we should learn "Avon-Avon" from Chatas!
(e) Answer #1: We learn Minchas Kena'os "Avon-Avon" from Chatas, we do not learn Asham, for there it says "Avono".
(f) Objection: We can learn from a Gezerah Shavah, even if the words are not the same!
1. (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "*V'Shav* ha'Kohen-*U'Va* ha'Kohen" - this (Gezeirah Shavah) equates the law (of a house with Tzara'as) when the Kohen (first) returns with when he comes (another week later).
(g) Question #2 (against answer (c)): We should learn Asham "Avono-Avono" from Shevu'as ha'Edus - "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono"!
(h) Answer (to Questions 1 and 2, and Rejection of answer (c)): The Gezerah Shavah only teaches that the Mosar goes to Nedavah.
1. Suggestion: We should say that when we learn from a Gezerah Shavah, we learn all laws from it!
2. Rejection: "V'Shochat Osah l'Chatas" - only Chatas (must be Lishmah, and) if it is not Lishmah, it is Pasul - other Kodshim, even Lo Lishmah, are Kosher.
(i) Question (b), broadened: Since we cannot learn (even Minchas Chotei) from Chatas, what is the source that Lo Lishmah is Posel *Minchas Chotei and* Minchas Kena'os?
(j) Answer #2: We learned that Chatas Lo Lishmah is Pasul from "(Chatas) Hi" - similarly, it says "Hi" regarding these Menachos.
(k) Question: We should say that Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul, for it says "Hu" regarding Asham!
(l) Answer: It says "Hu" regarding Asham after Haktaras ha'Eimurim;
1. (Beraisa): It says "Hu" regarding Asham after Haktaras ha'Eimurim - Lo Lishmah in Haktarah is no worse than omitting Haktarah, it does not Posel (once Zerikah was done, the Korban is Kosher).
(m) Question What do we learn from "Hu"?
(n) Answer: This teaches Rav Huna's law.
1. (Rav Huna): If an Asham was Nitak (given to a shepherd) to graze (until it becomes blemished, it will then be redeemed and an Olas Nedavah will be bought with the money) and was slaughtered (in the Mikdash) Stam (without intent for Asham, Olah or any other Korban), it is Kosher.
2. Inference: If it was not Nitak (and was slaughtered Stam), it is Pasul.
3. We learn from "Hu" - it is still an Asham (until it is Nitak or Ne'ekar (slaughtered l'Shem a different Korban).)
3) A "MACHSHIR" THAT DID NOT PERMIT
(a) (Rav): If Minchas ha'Omer was Nikmatz Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit (Chadash) and (since Lo Alah l'Shem Chovah,) it did not permit;
(b) Similarly, if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit (drinking wine or eating Kodshim) and it did not.
(c) Question (Mishnah): If Kemitzah of any Minchah was Lo Lishmah, it is Kosher, but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah, except for Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os.
1. According to Rav, also Minchas ha'Omer Lo Lishmah is Pasul!
(d) Answer #1: The Mishnah only lists Menachos brought by an individual, not of the Tzibur.
(e) Answer #2: The Mishnah only lists Menachos brought by themselves, not those accompanied by a Zevach (a lamb is brought with the Omer.)
(f) Answer #3: The Mishnah only lists Menachos without a fixed time.
(g) (Rav): Similarly, if Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul, since it comes to permit and it did not.
(h) Question (Mishnah): Any Zevach that was slaughtered Lo Lishmah is Kosher, but Lo Alu l'Shem Chovah, except for Pesach or Chatas.
1. According to Rav, also Asham Nazir or Asham Metzora Lo Lishmah is Pasul!
(i) Answer: The Tana could not say decisively that (any) Asham Lo Lishmah is Pasul, for some come to atone (not to permit), e.g. Asham Gezeilos and Asham Me'ilos (and they are Kosher Lo Lishmah), therefore he did not teach them at all.
(j) Question: We say that if a Korban comes to permit and does not permit it is Pasul - likewise, we should say that if a Korban comes to atone and does not atone, it is Pasul!
(k) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): We find that the Torah distinguishes between Mechaprim and Machshirim - Mechaprim sometimes come after death, Machshirim never do!
1. (Mishnah): If a Yoledes brought her Chatas (which is Machshir her to Kodshim) and died (before bringing her Olah, which is Mechaper), her heirs bring her Olah;
2. If she brought her Olah and died, her heirs do not bring her Chatas.
(l) Question (Rav Yehudah brei d'R. Shimon ben Pazi): Also Machshirim sometimes come after death!
1. (Mishnah): If a man was Makdish money *Stam* for his Korbanos Nezirus (he did not specify how much for each Korban), it is forbidden to benefit from them; (if one benefited) there is no Me'ilah, because all the money may be used for Shelamim (in which there is no Me'ilah until after Zerikah);
2. If he died leaving Stam money, it goes to Nedavah (to buy Olos Kitz ha'Mizbe'ach).
3. If he died leaving Mefurash money (he designated how much is for each Korban):
i. The money for the Chatas is thrown in the Dead Sea, it is forbidden to benefit from them; there is no Me'ilah (for nothing can be offered with this money);
ii. The money for the Olah is used to bring an Olah, Me'ilah applies to it;
iii. The money for the Shelamim is used to bring a Shelamim, it is eaten for one day and a night (like Shalmei Nazir), but it is not accompanied by bread.
4. Summation of question: Olah and Shelamim of a Nazir are Machshirim, they come after death!
(m) Answer (Rav Papa): R. Yirmeyah meant, a *fixed* Machshir (it permits something which nothing else permits) never comes after death;
1. Korbanos of Nazir are not fixed, for if a Nazir shaved after bringing any one of them, he fulfilled his obligation.
(n) Question (against Rav - Beraisa): If an Asham Metzora was slaughtered Lo Lishmah, or if the blood was not put on the (ear and) Behonos (thumb and toe), it is offered on the Mizbe'ach, it is accompanied by Nesachim, another Asham is required (to permit him to Kodshim).
(o) Rav is refuted.