POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Menachos 14
1) PARTIAL "PIGUL" (cont.)
(a) Answer #1 (and Answer #3 to Question (3)): The Beraisa is
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): If one of the lambs (Shalmei
Tzibur) was slaughtered with intent to eat (Chutz
li'Zmano) half a k'Zayis of one loaf and the other
was slaughtered with intent to eat the other, it is
(b) Objection: Since the Beraisa must be like R. Yosi, (f) is
not a valid answer to Question (e)!
2. Inference: This is because he specified, half a
k'Zayis from each - had he said, a k'Zayis from both
of them, they would join!
3. Question: Which Tana (in our Mishnah) does Rebbi
i. It is not like Chachamim - they say, even
intent for a k'Zayis from one of them is
Mefagel both of them!
4. Answer: It is like R. Yosi.
(c) Answer #2 (and defense of Answer 3:e): Really, the
Beraisa is Chachamim;
1. It should not say, 'Unless he was Mefagel
b'*Shteihem* (the feminine form of 'both', it refers
to Shtei ha'Lechem), rather, 'b'*Shneihem*' (the
masculine form of 'both', i.e. he intended during
slaughter of both lambs), it suffices if he intended
to eat from one loaf.
(d) Objection #1: If so, why does it say 'There is *never*
Kares unless...'? (This connotes, even though one factor
suggests that there should be Kares, another factor is
2. Chachamim say this to oppose the opinion of R. Meir,
who says that intent during the Avodah of part of
the Matirim (in this case, one of the lambs) makes
1. We understand if the Beraisa is R. Yosi - he opposes
R. Meir and Chachamim, he teaches that even if he
intended to eat from Shteihem (both loaves), there
is not Kares unless he intended in Shneihem (both
(e) Objection #2: Rav Ashi proved otherwise from a Beraisa!
2. But if it is Chachamim, they say this just to oppose
R. Meir, they should have said 'There is *not* Kares
1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar citing R. Yosi): Intent to do
(Chutz li'Zmano) an outer Avodah (i.e. outside the
Heichal, but in the Azarah) takes effect, such
intent to do (or while doing) an inner Avodah does
not take effect;
(f) Objection #3: Ravina proved otherwise from the first
Mishnah of our Perek!
2. If one slaughtered (an inner Chatas) outside with
intent to do Haza'ah (an inner Avodah), it is not
3. If one did Haza'ah inside with intent Lehaktir
Eimurim or Lizrok Shirayim (on the outer Mizbe'ach)
it is not Pigul;
4. If he slaughtered outside with intent Lehaktir
Eimurim or Lizrok Shirayim, it is Pigul; for the
action and intention were both outside.
5. Question: When he intended Lizrok Shirayim, what
6. Answer #1: The blood becomes Pigul.
7. Rejection (Mishnah): Pigul does not apply to the
following (in most cases, because they do not have
i. The Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, a Minchah of a
Kohen, Minchas Nesachim, Minchas Chavitin (the
daily Minchah of a Kohen Gadol), and blood.
8. Answer #2: The meat becomes Pigul.
9. Culmination of objection: R. Yosi says that Pigul
without intent for meat (rather, for Shirei Dam) is
Mefagel meat - all the more so, Pigul with intent
for meat (i.e. for one thigh) is Mefagel meat (the
1. (Mishnah): R. Yosi admits that if Kemitzah was done
with intent to eat the Shirayim tomorrow or Lehaktir
the Kometz tomorrow, the Minchah is Pigul, there is
2. Question: When he intended Lehaktir the Kometz, what
3. Answer #1: The Kometz becomes Pigul.
4. Rejection (Mishnah): Pigul does not apply to the
following - the Kometz...
5. Answer #2: The Shirayim become Pigul.
6. Culmination of objection: R. Yosi says that Pigul
without intent for Shirayim (rather, for the Kometz)
is Mefagel Shirayim - all the more so, Pigul with
intent for one thigh, which is part of a Korban, is
Mefagel the other thigh.
2) R. YOSI'S SOURCE
(a) Answer #2 (to Question 4:c, 13B - R. Yochanan): R. Yosi
learns from contradictory connotations in the verse of
3) WHEN DO INTENTS JOIN?
1. Version #1 (Rashi): They are considered to be one
unit, ("Shtayim Shnei Esronim...Soles *Tihyenah*"
teaches that) having two loaves is Me'akev, if there
are not two, they are Pesulim;
(b) Question (R. Yochanan): If one was Mefagel in (one kind
of bread of) Lachmei Todah or Minchas Ma'afe Tanur, what
is the law?
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): "Tavi'u *Lechem* (singular)
Tenufah" refers to them like one; (end of Version
3. Contradiction: The verse also refers to them like
two units ("Shtayim Shnei Esronim") - each must be
kneaded and arranged by itself!
4. Resolution: If he had a joint intent (e.g. to eat a
k'Zayis (Chutz li'Zmano) from both of them
together), they are like one, both become Pesulim;
if his intent was individual (to eat only from one
of them), only it becomes Pigul.
5. (The verse teaches this about Shtei ha'Lechem, but
intent for one thigh is Mefagel the other, as Rav
Ashi and Ravina taught above - R. Yochanan argues
with Rav Huna (13B).)
(c) Answer (Rav Tachlifa - Beraisa): The same applies to
Lachmei Todah and Minchas Ma'afe Tanur (R. Yosi and
Chachamim argue like they do about Shtei ha'Lechem and
(a) (Beraisa): If a person intended during slaughter to eat
half a k'Zayis (Chutz li'Zmano), and during Zerikah he
intended for half a k'Zayis, this makes Pigul, for
slaughter and Zerikah join.
4) CAN A "KORBAN TZIBUR" BE DIVIDED?
(b) Version #1: Slaughter and Zerikah join, for both of them
permit (slaughter is Mekadesh the blood and permits
Zerikah, Zerikah permits the Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach
(and in Korbanos that are eaten, it permits the meat to
people), but Kabalah and Holachah do not permit, they do
not join (with each other or with slaughter or Zerikah.))
(c) Version #2: Slaughter and Zerikah join, even though they
are the first and last of the four Avodos, all the more
so Kabalah and Holachah join (with each other or with
slaughter or Zerikah, for there is less time in between.)
(end of Version #2)
(d) Question: But Levi taught, the four Avodos (slaughter,
Kabalah, Holachah and Zerikah) do not join for Pigul!
(e) Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is like Chachamim, Levi's
teaching is like Rebbi:
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): If one slaughtered a lamb
(Shalmei Tzibur) with intent to eat half a k'Zayis
of one loaf, and the other lamb with intent to eat
half a k'Zayis of the other loaf, the lambs (and
loaves) are Kesherim;
(f) Rejection (Abaye): This shows that Rebbi holds intents
for partial Shi'urim during partial Matirim do not join,
but perhaps he holds that such intents during (different)
full Matirim join!
(g) Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan): If Rebbi holds that
intents for partial Shi'urim during full Matirim join, he
should decree that such intents during partial Matirim
join, lest people come to think that even the former do
not join - we find that R. Yosi and Chachamim make such
1. (Mishnah - R. Yosi): If he intended to Lehaktir the
Levonah tomorrow, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no
Kares (this is a decree, on account of intent for
the Shirayim or Kometz);
(h) Rejection (Abaye): No - in those cases, there is good
reason to decree!
2. Chachamim say, it is Pigul, there is Kares. (The
*following* proves that Chachamim also decree.)
3. (Mishnah - R. Meir): If one was Mefagel (intended to
eat the Shirayim Chutz li'Zmano during Haktarah of)
the Kometz but not of the Levonah, or vice-versa,
the Minchah is Pigul, there is Kares (for eating the
4. Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was
Mefagel in (Avodah of) the entire Matir.
i. (Inference: There is no Kares, but it is Pasul
- this is a decree on account of when he was
Mefagel in both Matirim.)
1. R. Yosi decrees regarding intent Lehaktir a Kometz
of Levonah, on account of intent Lehaktir Kometz of
a Minchah (which makes Pigul);
(i) Support (Mishnah): Chachamim agree with R. Meir that if
one was Mefagel in the Kometz of Minchas Chotei or
Minchas Kena'os, it is Pigul, there is Kares, for the
Kometz is the Matir.
2. Chachamim decree regarding Haktarah of a Kometz (by
itself) and Levonah (by itself) on account of times
when this is the full Matir, i.e. Minchas Chotei
(which has no Levonah) and Lechem ha'Panim (which
has no Kometz);
3. Chachamim also decree (16A, Mishnah) to Posel a lamb
on account of (when he would also have intent in)
the other, and one Bezech on account of the other.
4. But here, there is intent in only half a Matir for
only half a k'Zayis, there is no need to decree!
1. Question: Obviously, there is no other Matir - why
is it necessary to say this?
2. Answer: This teaches that the reason Chachamim Posel
when he was Mefagel in the Kometz of Minchas Nedavah
is on account of the Kometz of Minchas Chotei (for
then there is Kares.)
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one of the loaves (of Shtei
ha'Lechem) or one Seder (of Lechem ha'Panim) became
Tamei, both (loaves or Sedarim) are burned in Beis
ha'Sereifah, for a Korban Tzibur is never divided (half
Kosher and half Pasul);
(b) Chachamim say, the Tamei one is burned, the Tahor one is
(c) (Gemara - R. Elazar): They argue when it became Tamei
before Zerikah (of the blood of the Shalmei Tzibur, or
before Haktarah of Bazichei Levonah of Lechem ha'Panim) -
if it became Tamei after Zerikah, all agree that each is
treated according to its status (the Tamei one is burned,
the Tahor one is eaten.)