Menachos 9 - THE
1) THE "HEICHAL" IS NO WORSE THAN THE "AZARAH"
(a) Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira) Question: If Nochrim surrounded (and were shooting projectiles into) the Azarah, what is the source to permit Kohanim to enter the Heichal to eat Kodshei Kodoshim (in safety)?
1. Answer: "B'Kodesh ha'Kodoshim Tochalenu"
2. Summation of question: Why is this verse needed? It says "Ba'Chatzer Ohel Mo'ed Yochluha" - the Tefel (the Azarah) should not be greater than the Ikar (the Heichal)!
(b) Answer: A slave serves in front of his master - therefore, it is even more proper to slaughter in a more Kadosh place;
1. A slave does not eat in front of his master - therefore, it is less proper to eat in a more Kadosh place, 'Tefel should not be greater than Ikar' does not apply.
2) A "MINCHAH" KNEADED OUTSIDE THE "AZARAH"
(a) (R. Yochanan): If a Minchah was kneaded outside the Azarah, it is Pasul;
(b) (Reish Lakish): It is Kosher.
(c) Reish Lakish learns from "Va'Yitzok Aleha Shemen v'Nosan Aleha Levonah" - afterwards, "Ve'Hevi'ah El Benei Aharon ha'Kohanim v'Komatz", from Kemitzah and onwards, Kohanim must do the Avodah;
1. This teaches that a Zar may pour the oil in it and knead it.
2. Since a Kohen is not needed, it need not be done in the Azarah.
(d) R. Yochanan is Posel - even though Kehunah is not needed, since it is in a Kli Shares, it must be done in the Azarah.
(e) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If a Zar kneaded a Minchah, it is Kosher; if it was kneaded outside the Azarah, it is Pasul.
3) A "MINCHAH" THAT BECAME "CHASER"
(a) (R. Yochanan): If a Minchah became Chaser before Kemitzah, he should bring more to complete the Shi'ur;
(b) (Reish Lakish): He may not bring more.
1. R. Yochanan says that he brings more - it is not called "ha'Minchah" (in which a lack cannot be filled) until Kemitzah;
2. Reish Lakish says that he may not bring more - it is called "ha'Minchah" from the time of Kidush (in the Kli.)
(c) Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If the Log of oil of a Metzora became Chaser before putting from it on the Metzora, he should bring more to complete the Shi'ur.
(d) Reish Lakish is refuted.
(e) (R. Yochanan): If Shirei Minchah became Chaser in between Kemitzah and Haktarah, we Maktir the Kometz;
(f) (Reish Lakish): We do not Maktir it.
(g) There is no doubt about R. Eliezer's opinion, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about R. Yehoshua's opinion:
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Even if the Shirayim became Teme'im, were burned or lost, the Minchah is Kosher;
2. R. Yehoshua says, it is Pasul.
3. Reish Lakish holds like R. Yehoshua. (He cannot hold like R. Eliezer, who is Machshir even when nothing remains of the Shirayim, all the more so when they are just Chaser!)
4. R. Yochanan says, (surely R. Eliezer and) even R. Yehoshua holds like me!
i. R. Yehoshua is Posel only when nothing remains of the Shirayim - when they are just Chaser, he is Machshir!
5. Support (R. Yochanan for himself - Beraisa - R. Yehoshua): If a k'Zayis of the meat or Chelev of any Zevach remains, we Zorek the blood;
6. If a half k'Zayis of the meat and a half k'Zayis of Chelev of (almost) any Zevach remains, Zerikah is not done;
i. The only exception is Olah - since it is Kalil (entirely burned), meat and Chelev join.
7. Regarding a Minchah, even if it is totally intact, Zerikah is not done.
i. Question: Zerikah (of blood) does not apply to a Minchah (Haktarah is not called Zerikah!)
ii. Answer (Rav Papa): It refers to Minchas Nesachim - one might have thought, since it accompanies a Zevach, it is just like the Zevach (and if it remains, Zerikah is done to permit Haktarah of the Minchah) - the Tana teaches, this is not so.
8. Rejection of Support: The law of a Minchah is different, we learn from "V'Herim ha'Kohen Min *ha'Minchah*...v'Hiktir" - if the entire Minchah is intact, we are Maktir.
i. Reish Lakish explains, as long as the Minchah was intact at the time of Kemitzah, we are Maktir.
(h) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If the Lechem ha'Panim was Nifras before it was removed, the Lechem is Pasul, we do not Maktir the Levonah;
1. If it was Nifras after it was removed, the Lechem is Pasul, we Maktir the Levonah.
2. (R. Elazar): When it says before (or after) it was removed, this really means before (or after) the time came for it to be removed - once the time comes, it is as if it was removed.
(i) Answer (Reish Lakish): The Beraisa is like R. Eliezer.
(j) Rejection (R. Yochanan): It is a Stam (unauthored) Beraisa, do not say that it is only like R. Eliezer!
1. If it is like R. Eliezer, why does it say that it was Nifras - he is Machshir even if it was burned or lost!
(k) Reish Lakish was silent.
(l) Question: Why was Reish Lakish silent - he should have answered, Lechem ha'Panim is different, for it is a Korban Tzibur;
1. Since Korbanos Tzibur may be offered b'Tum'ah, they may be offered Chaserim!
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): This teaches that Chaser is like a Ba'al Mum, the Tzibur may not offer it.
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef bar Shemayah): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish were arguing about the Omer, which is also a Korban Tzibur.
(o) Question (Rav Malkiyo): Two verses exclude a Minchah that is Chaser - why are both needed?
1. (Beraisa #1): "Mi'Soltah" - if any of the Soles is missing, it is Pasul; "Mi'Shamnah" - if any of the oil is missing, it is Pasul.
2. (Beraisa #2): "Veha'Noseres Min ha'Minchah" - this excludes a Minchah that is Chaser, or the Kometz is Chaser, or none of the Levonah was Huktar.
3. Suggestion: One teaches when it became Chaser before Kemitzah, the other teaches when the Shirayim became Chaserim after Kemitzah;
i. Both of these refute R. Yochanan - he said (above, (a)) that in the former case, we bring more to complete it, and in the latter case (g), we Maktir the Kometz!
(p) Answer: No - one teaches when it became Chaser before Kemitzah, that if we do not bring more to complete it, it will be Pasul;
1. The other teaches about when it became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah, that even Haktaras ha'Kometz does not permit eating the Shirayim.
2. This answers the following question (in the negative):
(q) Question: According to R. Yochanan, who permits Haktaras ha'Kometz when the Shirayim became Chaserim after Kemitzah, may the Shirayim be eaten?
(r) Answer #1 (Ze'iri): "Veha'Noseres (will be eaten)" - but not if it is Nosar (a remnant of) the Nosar (Shirayim).
(s) Version #1 - Answer #2 (R. Yanai): "Min ha'Minchah" - the Shirayim may be eaten only if they were intact at the time of Haktarah (this is like Ze'iri).
(t) Version #2 - Answer #2 (R. Yanai): "Min ha'Minchah" - as long as the Minchah was complete at the time of Kemitzah, even if the Shirayim became Chaser later (it may be eaten).
4) "KEMITZAH" REQUIRES THE RIGHT HAND
(a) (Mishnah): If Kemitzah was taken with the left hand (it is Pasul...)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (R. Zeira) Question: "Va'Yakrev Es ha'Minchah va'Ymalei *Chapo* Mimenah" - which hand does he use?
1. Answer: "...V'Yotzak Al Kaf ha'Kohen ha'Smolis".
2. Inference: Here, the left hand is used - wherever else "Kaf" is mentioned, it refers to the right hand.
(d) Question: "Ha'Smolis" is not extra to teach about other places, it is needed l'Gufo (to teach that Log Metzora is put in the left hand!)
(e) Answer: It says "Ha'Smolis" another time.
(f) Question: We should say that two Mi'utim (exclusions), one after the other, always come to include (the right hand)!
(g) Answer: It says "Ha'Smolis" a third time - this teaches that the left is used only here.
(h) Question: Just the contrary - we should learn from here that "Kaf" always refers to the left hand!
(i) Answer: It says "Ha'Smolis" four times, twice regarding a poor Metzora, twice regarding a rich Metzora (this shows that only here it refers to the left hand).
(j) Question (R. Yirmeyah): What do we learn from "Al Bohen Yado *ha'Yemanis* v'Al Bohen Raglo *ha'Yemanis*"? (We already know that the oil is put on the right thumb (Rashi - for it says, where the blood was put; Tosfos - from the above teaching!)
(k) Answer (R. Zeira): One teaches that sides of the finger and toe are valid, but not the underside.