(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Menachos 67

1) [line 1] GILGUL HEKDESH - when the emissary of the Beis ha'Mikdash kneads a dough

2) [line 2] AD SHE'LO GILGELAH - before she kneads it
3) [line 4] GIZBAR - the emissary of the Beis ha'Mikdash
4) [line 10] DEKA'MECHAYEVEI HASAM - who rule that the Miru'ach of a Nochri does not exempt the grain from Terumos and Ma'asros (see Daf 66b and Background to Menachos 66:43-44)

5) [line 11] DEGANCHA DEGANCHA YESEIRA - the words "Degancha" - "your grain" in the following three verses: "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'sar Degancha" - "You may not eat in your settlements (lit. gates) the [second] tithe of your grain" (Devarim 12:17); "v'Achalta Lifnei HaSh-m Elokecha... Ma'sar Degancha" - "And you shall eat before HaSh-m, your G-d... the [second] tithe of you crops" (Devarim14:23); "Reishis Degancha" - "the first grain [of your crop]" (Devarim 18:4)

(a) When a Mi'ut (text that excludes a particular case or item) is followed by another Mi'ut, the law is that "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela l'Rabos." That is, when one limitation of the law appears after another limitation, the Torah's intent is to *extend* the law, rather than limit it.
(b) This rule of Biblical interpretation interprets the occurrence of two Mi'utim regarding an identical point as *extending* the Halachah they describe, rather than limiting it to include fewer items or to apply in fewer cases. That is, even though a single Mi'ut limits the Halachah to specific items or cases, a double Mi'ut teaches to *extend* the Halachah and not to interpret it in a limiting sense.
(c) The logical derivation for this rule is as follows: If we already know to apply the Halachah under discussion to a particular item (or case), it would not be necessary for the Torah to again teach that the Halachah applies only to that item. It is therefore evident from the second Mi'ut that the first one was *not* meant to limit the law to fewer items or cases. Likewise, the second Mi'ut cannot have been written to exclude those cases, for the Torah could have taught to exclude them by writing *only* the first Mi'ut. It must therefore be concluded that the double Mi'ut means to teach that we should *not* learn to exclude items or cases in the Halachah under discussion. (This rule is closely related to the rule of "Shenei Chesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdim" -- see Background to Zevachim 24:1 and to the converse rule of "Ein Ribuy Achar Ribuy Ela l'Ma'et -- see Background to Menachos 60:1.)
(d) In all cases of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, the obvious question is why did the Torah write even a single Mi'ut? Let the Torah write neither Mi'ut and we would know by ourselves not to exclude items or cases from the law, since there is no Mi'ut to exclude it! (Obviously the item would not be excluded without a Mi'ut, since we originally found it necessary to interpret the first Mi'ut as excluding that item.) TOSFOS (to Yoma 60a DH Trei) asks this question and answers that perhaps we would have excluded that item without the first Mi'ut, through a Binyan Av (see Background to Menachos 56:1) or a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Avodah Zarah 46:22). The first Mi'ut was not really necessary, but we would have justified the Mi'ut as "Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Chasav Lah Kra" - "the Torah troubles itself to write out explicitly that which can be learned from a Kal va'Chomer" (see Kidushin 4a, Chulin 118b). The second Mi'ut teaches not only to ignore the first Mi'ut, but also to ignore the Binyan Av or Kal va'Chomer as well.

7) [line 13] TREI ZIMNEI ARISOSEICHEM KESIV - the two times that the word "Arisoseichem" - "your kneading" is written in the following verses: "Reishis Arisoseichem Chalah Tarimu Serumah" (Bamidbar 15:20); "me'Reishis Arisoseichem Titnu la'Sh-m Terumah" (Bamidbar 15:21). These two words do not constitute a Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, since they are both necessary. One excludes the dough kneaded by Ovdei Kochavim and one excludes the dough kneaded by Hekdesh.

8) [line 14] KEDEI ISASCHEM - Challah must be taken from a dough which has the same amount of flour used in the doughs in the desert at the time of the giving of the Torah; i.e. an Omer, a tenth of an Eifah (approx. 2 quarts). (Note: the SHITAH MEKUBETZES #2 deletes the words "Kedei Isaschem v'Chad Arisoseichem" from the Girsa of the Gemara -- see next entry)

9) [line 15] V'LO ISAS OVDEI KOCHAVIM [V'CHAD ARISOSEICHEM] V'LO ISAS HEKDESH - (the SHITAH MEKUBETZES #3 adds the words "v'Chad Arisoseichem" to the Girsa of the Gemara)

10) [line 18] REISHIS REISHIS - they learn from a Gezeirah Shavah (see Background to Zevachim 103:30) between the words "Reishis" (in the verses "Reishis Arisoseichem Chalah Tarimu Serumah" (Bamidbar 15:20) and "Reishis Degancha" (Devarim 18:4)) that the kneading of a dough by a Nochri also requires Chalah to be separated

11) [line 19] YEHEI RA'AVA D'ECHEZEI B'CHEILMA - It should the will [of HaSh-m] that I should see in a dream [the answer to my question as to whether Rebbi Meir rules that dough kneaded by a Nochri is exempt from Chalah or not]

12a) [line 24] SHE'HIFRISH PETER CHAMOR - (a) who separated a [sheep to give to a Kohen as a redemption for his] first-born donkey (RASHI); (b) who separated a first-born donkey to give to a Kohen (TOSFOS DH Oved)

b) [line 24] PETER CHAMOR
There is a Mitzvah to redeem each firstborn male donkey, as the verse states, "v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha HaSh-m El Eretz ha'Kena'ani... v'Chol *Peter Chamor* Tifdeh v'Seh, v'Im Lo Sifdeh va'Arafto" - "And it shall come to pass that when HaSh-m brings you to the land of the Kena'ani... And every *firstborn donkey* must be redeemed with a sheep [that is given to a Kohen]. If it is not redeemed, you must decapitate it" (Shemos 13:11-13).

13) [line 26] GOZEZ - he may shear it (the sheep given as a redemption for his Peter Chamor)

14) [line 30] TERUMASO B'CHUTZAH LA'ARETZ - his Terumah taken from produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael (TERUMAS CHUTZ LA'ARETZ) There is an obligation mid'Rabanan to separate Terumah from produce grown in Bavel, Egypt, Amon and Moav (See Insights to Chulin 6:3).

15) [line 32] EINAH MEDAMA'AS - it does not cause Chulin to become Meduma (MEDUMA)
(a) Terumah only becomes Batel (canceled) if one part of Terumah falls into at least 100 parts of Chulin. Even if the Terumah is Batel, it is forbidden for non-Kohanim to eat the entire mixture; the equivalent of the amount of Terumah that fell in must first be removed.
(b) If the percentage of Terumah that fell into the Chulin was greater than one in one hundred, the mixture is known as *Meduma* (lit. mixed) and is forbidden to be eaten by non-Kohanim.
(c) According to TOSFOS to Chulin 99a DH Ein, this law applies only if the Terumah was the same type of food as the Chulin; otherwise Terumah is Batel just like any other Isur.
(d) The Rabanan and Rebbi Shimon argue as to whether Terumah of a Nochri (separated from fruits grown in Eretz Yisrael) that falls into Chulin makes the Chulin prohibited (Rabanan) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

16) [last line] GEZEIRAH MISHUM BA'ALEI KISIN - (a) it is a Rabbinic decree lest rich merchants, who would be used to purchasing produce from Nochri merchants without separating Terumos and Ma'asron (had Miru'ach Ovdei Kochavim been exempt even mid'Rabanan), purchase produce from *Jewish* merchants and assume that their produce, also, is exempt from Terumos and Ma'asros (RASHI, 1st explanation); (b) it is a Rabbinic decree lest rich landowners sell (or give) their produce to Nochrim for Miru'ach in order to be exempt from Terumos and Ma'asros (RASHI, 2nd explanation)


17) [line 1] EFSHAR D'AFI LAH PACHOS ME'CHAMESHES REVA'IM KEVACH VA'OD - it is possible for them to bake bread in small enough portions (less than the amount that requires Chalah to be separated) so that they will not be required to separate Chalah (and will not need Nochrim to exempt themselves from their obligations)

18) [line 4] MA'ARIM ADAM - a person performs a deceptive act

19a) [line 4] U'MACHNISAH BA'MOTZ SHELAH - he takes it into his yard while the grain is still in it chaff, and it is exempt from Terumos and Ma'asros because (a) it resembles animal food, which is exempt from Terumos and Ma'asros (RASHI, 1st explanation); (b) it is covered by the chaff and as such, the grain is not "Ro'eh Penei ha'Bayis," - (lit. it does not see the front door of the house) it was not harvested and brought into the owner's house in a normal manner (RASHI, 2nd explanation)

(a) By Torah Law, a person is required to tithe his grain only if he harvests it in a normal manner. This includes removing the chaff in the field, piling up the grain there and bringing it through the front door of his house (Berachos 35b). If he brings it into his house while it is still in its chaff, the obligation to tithe the grain is only mid'Rabanan.
(b) The Rabanan did not prohibit eating such grain in a temporary fashion (Achilas Ara'i). Feeding an animal is termed Achilas Ara'i and is therefore permitted.

20) [line 6] D'AYIL LAH DERECH GAGOS V'DERECH KARPIFOS - he brings the produce into his house by walking on roofs and through Karpifos, enclosed areas that are located outside of a settlement, that are usually used for storage and other such purposes (i.e. the grain was not harvested and brought into the owner's house in a normal manner)

21) [line 7] B'FARHESYA - in public
22) [line 7] ZILA BEI MILSA - and it is degrading for him (to bring in his produce while it is still in its chaff or to bring it to his house from the roof or through Karpifos, and as such, he will not use these methods but rather try to exempt himself by using a Nochri -- therefore Chazal made a decree against this)

23) [line 8] B'TZIN'A - in private
24) [line 9] BA LO LA'ISARON - (lit. he comes to the Isaron) he begins to prepare the Minchas ha'Omer with the Isaron of fine barley flour

25) [line 9] NASAN (ALAV) SHAMNO U'LEVONASO - he puts [some] oil [in the utensil, then adds the flour] and [afterwards, when the dough is kneaded, he places] Levonah [on the side of the dough] (the word "Alav" is omitted from the Mishnah, since the Mishnah does not describe the steps of preparing the Minchah in order -- SHITAH MEKUBETZES #3)

26a) [line 10] YATZAK - he pours in more of the oil
b) [line 10] BALAL - he mixes up the dough and oil (and water)
c) [line 10] HENIF - he performs Tenufah, waving the Minchah in all four directions and up and down
d) [line 10] HIGISH - he performs Hagashah, where a Kohen touches the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach with the utensil that contains the Minchah
e) [line 10] KAMATZ - he performs Kemitzah, taking out a handful of dough to be burned
f) [line 10] HIKTIR - he burns the Kometz of the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon

27) [line 12] KEMACH V'KALI - flour and parched grain

28a) [line 16] OR ARBA'AH ASAR - the night between the thirteenth and the fourteenth of Nisan
b) [line 17] ARBA'AH ASAR SHACHARIS - the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan
c) [line 17] SHE'AS HA'BI'UR - the time when the Chametz is meant to be burned, the sixth hour of the day (RASHI)

29) [last line] LO VADAK [B'SOCH HA'MO'ED, YIVDOK L'ACHAR HA'MO'ED] - if he did not check [for Chametz at the time [that it must be burned], he shall check after the time [that is must be burned, and we are not worried that he will eat Chametz when it is prohibited]

30) [last line] CHADASH
Until the Minchas ha'Omer is offered, there is a prohibition to eat the new grain of the year (Chadash) (Kidushin 37a, Menachos 68b, RAMBAM Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 10:2), which is removed after it is offered. Until the Shtei ha'Lechem are offered, there is a prohibition to offer Menachos of Chadash in the Be(Menachos ibid.).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,