Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHICH "MENACHOS" REQUIRE OIL AND "LEVONAH"?

(a) (Mishnah): Some Menachos require oil and Levonah, some require oil but not Levonah, some require Levonah but not oil, some do not require oil or Levonah. (b) The following require oil and Levonah:

1. Minchas Soles, Machavas, Marcheshes, (Ma'afe Tanur) Chalos and Rekikim, Minchas Kohanim, Chavitim, the Minchah of Nochrim or women, the Omer;

(c) Minchas Nesachim requires oil but not Levonah;
(d) Lechem ha'Panim requires Levonah but not oil;
(e) Shtei ha'Lechem, Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os do not require oil or Levonah.
(f) Version #1 (Gemara - Rav Papa): Whenever the Mishnah lists the Minchos Nedavah (i.e. here, 60A, 72B), each of them is baked into 10 loaves;

1. Rav Papa holds that the Halachah is not like R. Shimon, who says that Ma'afe Tanur may be brought half Chalos and half Rekikim.

(g) Version #2 (Rav Papa): Whenever the Mishnah lists the different Minchos (i.e. here, 60A, 72B), it lists 10 kinds;

1. The Stam Mishnah argues with R. Shimon, who says that Ma'afe Tanur may be brought half Chalos and half Rekikim (he says that there is an 11th kind, half-half.)

(a) (Beraisa): "V'Nasata Aleha (on Minchas ha'Omer) Shemen" - but not on Lechem ha'Panim, the verse overrides a Kal va'Chomer:

1. Minchas Nesachim does not require Levonah, yet it requires oil - Lechem ha'Panim requires Levonah, all the more so it should require oil!
2. Therefore it says "Aleha Shemen" - but not on Lechem ha'Panim.
3. "V'Samta Aleha Levonah (on the Omer)" - but not on Minchas Nesachim, the verse overrides a Kal va'Chomer:

i. Lechem ha'Panim does not require oil, yet it requires Levonah - Minchas Nesachim requires oil, all the more so it should require Levonah!
ii. Therefore it says "Aleha Levonah" - but not on Minchas Nesachim.

4. "Minchah" - this includes the Minchah offered on the eighth day (of Chanuchas ha'Mishkan), it had Levonah;
5. "Hi" excludes Shtei ha'Lechem from oil and Levonah.

(b) Question: The Beraisa expounded "Aleha" to exclude Lechem ha'Panim (from oil) - why not exclude Minchas Kohanim instead?
(c) Answer: It is more reasonable that Minchas Kohanim has oil, like the Omer, for they share the following properties:

1. They are one Isaron of flour, they are kneaded in a Kli Shares, they are offered outside (of the Heichal), after one night they are Nifsalim on account of Linah, Hagashah is done, Haktarah applies (at least partially).

(d) Question: We should rather learn Lechem ha'Panim from the Omer (that it has oil), for they share the following properties:

1. They are Korbanos Tzibur, they are obligatory, they override Tum'ah, they are (mostly or fully) eaten, Pigul applies to them, they are (always or sometimes) brought on Shabbos!

(e) Answer: It says "Nefesh" at the beginning of Parshas Menachos (of a Yisrael, which have oil) - presumably, we learn that all Menachos of individuals have oil.
(f) Question: The Beraisa expounded "Aleha" to exclude Minchas Nesachim (from Levonah) - why not exclude Minchas Kohanim instead?
(g) Answer: It is more reasonable that Minchas Kohanim has Levonah, like the Omer, for they share the following properties:

1. One Isaron is kneaded with one Log of oil, Hagashah is done, the Korban comes for its own sake (whereas Minchas Nesachim is on account of a Korban.)

(h) Question: We should rather learn Minchas Nesachim from the Omer (that it has Levonah), for they share the following properties:

1. They are Korbanos Tzibur, they are obligatory, they override Tum'ah, they are (sometimes) brought on Shabbos!

(i) Answer: We learn from "Nefesh" that all Menachos of individuals have Levonah.
(j) (Beraisa): "Minchah" - this includes the Minchah of the eighth day, it had Levonah.
(k) Question: Perhaps it rather comes to exclude (from Levonah!)
(l) Answer: It is reasonable that it comes to include (we have no other source to include);

1. To say that it excludes, we must have a source that it should include - but we do not learn (Korbanos that were a Hora'as) Sha'ah from (those that apply to all) generations!

(m) (Beraisa): "Hi" excludes Shtei ha'Lechem from oil and Levonah.
(n) Question: Perhaps it rather excludes Minchas Kohanim!
(o) Answer: It is more reasonable that Minchas Kohanim is like the Omer, for they have these similarities:

1. They are one Isaron of flour, they are kneaded in a Kli Shares, they are Matzah, they are brought for their own sake, Hagashah is done, Haktarah applies (at least partially).

(p) Question: We should rather learn Shtei ha'Lechem from the Omer, for they have more similarities!

1. They are Korbanos Tzibur, they are obligatory, they override Tum'ah, they are (mostly or fully) eaten, Pigul applies to them, their Avodah can be on Shabbos, they permit (new grain, to people or the Mizbe'ach), Tenufah is done, they must be from grain of Eretz Yisrael, they are from new grain!

(q) Answer: We learn from "Nefesh" that all Menachos of individuals have Levonah.

(a) (Mishnah): If one puts oil and Levonah on Minchas Chotei, he is liable for each of them by itself;
(b) If one put oil (on Minchas Chotei), it is Pasul; if he put Levonah, he must remove it.
(c) If one put oil on the Shirayim he does not transgress a Lav; if he put a Kli with oil on the Kli holding the Minchah, the Minchah is Kosher.
(d) (Gemara - Beraisa): "Lo Yasim Aleha Shemen" - if he put oil on it, it is Pasul;

1. Suggestion: "V'Lo Yiten Aleha Levonah" - perhaps if he put Levonah on it, it is Pasul!
2. Rejection: "Ki Chatas" (it is still Mechaper like a Chatas, even if Levonah was put on it.)
3. Suggestion: Perhaps this also applies if he put oil on it!
4. Rejection: "Hi" (it is Mechaper only if done properly.)
5. Question: (The words that Machshir and Posel do not specify which is Posel and which is not -) why do we say that oil is Posel and not Levonah, and not vice-versa?
6. Answer: Oil is Posel because it cannot be removed, Levonah is not Posel because it can be removed.

(e) Question (Rabah bar Rav Huna): If ground up Levonah was put on it, what is the law?

1. If (normally) Levonah is not Posel because it can be removed, here it cannot be removed!
2. If Levonah is not Posel because it is not absorbed (by the flour), also this is not absorbed!

(f) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If he put Levonah, he must remove it. (We infer, if not, it is Pasul!)
(g) Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah teaches two reasons why it is Kosher:

1. Firstly, it is not absorbed; secondly, it can be removed.

(h) Answer #2 (Beraisa): Levonah is not Posel because it can be removed.
(i) Rejection: Here also, the Mishnah gives two reasons to Machshir, it is not absorbed; and it can be removed.
(j) Question: What was the conclusion?
(k) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Beraisa): If Levonah was put on Minchas Chotei or Minchas Kena'os, it must be removed, the Minchah is Kosher;

1. If the Kohen had intent Chutz li'Zmano *or* Chutz li'Mkomo before it was removed, it is Pasul, there is no Kares;
2. If he had intent after it was removed - Chutz li'Zmano makes Pigul, there is Kares; Chutz li'Mkomo is Posel, there is no Kares.
3. (This shows that the Minchah is Pasul until the Levonah is removed!)

(l) Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Question: The Levonah is like a flask of oil - while it is on the Minchah, the Minchah is Pasul, intent should not take effect!
(m) Answer #1 (Abaye): It is called Chatas (intent takes effect, even when Levonah is on it);
(n) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: The Minchah is Pasul while the Levonah is on it - it should be Nidcheh (removing the Levonah should not help!)
(o) Answer #1 (Abaye): It is called Chatas (even when Levonah is on it, therefore, it can become Kosher again.) (End of Version #2, answers 2 and 3 apply to both versions.)
(p) Answer #2 (Rava): Our Mishnah is like Chanan ha'Mitzri, who argues with the concept of Dichuy (Rashi - it is as if the Minchah is Kosher even before the Levonah is removed):

1. (Beraisa - Chanan ha'Mitzri): If the goat sent to Azazel (on Yom Kipur) died after slaughtering the goat selected for Hash-m, we find another goat to send to Azazel

(q) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Our Mishnah is even like Chachamim - anything which a person can fix is not considered Dichuy.
(r) Support (for Rav Ashi - Rav Ada): Presumably, Rav Ashi is correct - R. Yehudah holds (in the following Mishnah) that Dichuy takes effect, but when a person can fix it (in the following Beraisa), he says that Dichuy does not take effect!

1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If the goat selected for Hash-m was slaughtered and the blood spilled, the goat selected for Azazel must die (and two new goats are taken); if the goat selected for Azazel died, we spill the blood of the slaughtered goat.
2. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (After the Korbanos Pesach were offered,) they would gather a bucketful of blood from the floor from all the Korbanos and throw it on the Mizbe'ach, to Machshir a Korban (in case its blood spilled. Even though Zerikah must be from a Kli, it was not Nifsal when it spilled.)

(a) Version #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): If any amount of oil was put on a k'Zayis of Minchah, it is Pasul.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer: "Lo *Yasim*" - any amount; "Aleha" - on a proper Shi'ur;
(d) (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): If a k'Zayis of Levonah was put on any amount of Minchah, it is Pasul.
(e) Question: What is the reason?
(f) Answer (R. Yochanan): "V'Lo *Yiten*" - a proper Shi'ur; "Aleha" - it already said this (teaching that one must put on a proper Shi'ur of Minchah) - whenever two exclusions teach the same thing, they actually come to exclude, i.e. one who puts on any amount of Minchah transgresses.
(g) Version #2 - Question (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): If any amount of oil was put on a k'Zayis of Minchah, what is the law?

1. Must 'Simah' (of oil) resemble 'Nesinah' (of Levonah, which connotes a k'Zayis?)

(h) This question is not resolved.