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 17
1) CAN "HAKTARAH" BE "MEFAGEL" ANOTHER "HAKTARAH"?
(a) (The sharp Chachamim of Pumbadisa, i.e. Eifah and Avimi):
Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah (e.g. if Haktaras Kometz was
with intent Lehaktir the Levonah Chutz li'Zmano);
***** PEREK HA'KOMETZ RABAH ****
1. Even Chachamim only say that intent during only part
of the Matirim is not Mefagel, e.g. intent in the
Kometz for the Shirayim, there was no improper
intent for the Levonah, but when the intent is for
the Levonah, it is as if he intended for all the
Matirim, they agree that there is Pigul. (Clearly,
this is not according to R. Yosi (at the beginning
of our Perek).)
(b) Support (Rava - Mishnah): The general rule regarding
Kemitzah, Nesinah, Holachah or Haktarah done with intent
(Chutz) to eat something that is normally eaten, or
Lehaktir something that is normally Huktar:
1. If he intended Chutz li'Mkomo, the Minchah is Pasul,
there is no Kares;
(c) Rejection: No, the other Avodos are Mefagel whether the
intent was to eat or Lehaktir, Haktarah is Mefagel only
if the intent was (during the entire Haktarah) to eat.
2. If he intended Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, there is
3. Suggestion: Haktarah is like the other Avodos, it is
Mefagel whether the intent was to eat or Lehaktir.
(d) (Rav Menasiya bar Gada citing Rav Chisda): Haktarah is
not Mefagel Haktarah;
1. Even R. Meir only says that intent during part of
the Matirim is Mefagel when he intends for the
Shirayim, for the Kometz permits them, but not when
he intends for the Levonah, for the Kometz does not
(e) Abaye: Did Rav Chisda say that in Rav's name?
(f) Rav Menasiya: Yes.
1. (Rav Chisda citing Rav): Haktarah is not Mefagel
(g) Support (R. Yakov bar Idi - Mishnah): If he slaughtered
one of the lambs with intent to eat it tomorrow, it is
Pigul, the other lamb is Kosher;
1. If he slaughtered it with intent to eat a k'Zayis of
the other lamb tomorrow, both are Kesherim.
(h) Rejection: One lamb does not Mefagel the other because
they were not in a Kli together;
2. Suggestion: One lamb does not permit the other, this
is why one does not Mefagel the other.
1. Kometz and Levonah were in a Kli together, they are
like one, (perhaps) Kometz can Mefagel Levonah.
(i) (Rav Hamnuna): R. Chanina taught the following to me, it
is as dear to me as all my learning:
1. If Haktaras Kometz was with intent Lehaktir the
Levonah with intent to eat the Shirayim tomorrow, it
(j) Question: What is the Chidush?
1. If it teaches that Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah, it
should merely say 'If Haktaras Kometz was with
intent Lehaktir the Levonah (tomorrow, it should not
mention eating the Shirayim!)'
(k) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Really, Haktarah is not
Mefagel Haktarah, intent for part of the Matirim is not
2. If it teaches that intent for part of the Matirim is
Mefagel, it should merely say 'If Haktaras Kometz
was with intent to eat the Shirayim (without
mentioning the Levonah!)'
3. If it teaches that Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah
*and* that intent for part of the Matirim is
Mefagel, it should say 'If Haktaras Kometz was with
intent Lehaktir the Levonah *or* to eat the Shirayim
(it is Pigul)!'
1. This case is different, for all of the Minchah is
involved in the intent Chutz li'Zmano.
(l) (A reciter of Beraisos): If Haktaras Kometz was with
intent to eat the Shirayim (tomorrow), all agree that it
(m) Objection: Tana'im argue about this!
(n) Correction: Rather, all agree that it is Pasul (at least,
some say that it is even Pigul.)
(o) Question: Why not amend the Beraisa to say that R. Meir
says that it is Pigul?
(p) Answer: It is reasonable to say that the reciter heard
'All agree that it is Pasul', and mistakenly thought that
he heard '...it is Pigul';
1. It is unlikely that he heard 'R. Meir says that...'
and mistakenly thought that he heard 'All agree
2) INTENT FOR ABNORMAL EATING OR "HAKTARAH"
(a) (Mishnah): If Kemitzah was done with intent to eat (Chutz
li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo) something which is not
normally eaten, or Lehaktir something not normally
Huktar, it is Kosher;
(b) R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
(c) If he intended to eat less than a k'Zayis of something
normally eaten, or Lehaktir less than a k'Zayis of
something normally Huktar, it is Kosher;
(d) If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis and Lehaktir half a
k'Zayis, it is Kosher, because eating and Haktarah do not
(e) (Gemara - Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer learns
from "V'Im He'achel Ye'achel..." - the verse discusses
two kinds of eating, of people and of the Mizbe'ach;
1. Just as intent (Chutz) for people to eat is Posel,
also intent for the Mizbe'ach to 'eat' (Haktarah);
2. Just as intent for people to eat what is fit for
people (e.g. Shirayim), or for the Mizbe'ach to
'eat' what is fit for the Mizbe'ach (Kometz), intent
for people to eat what is fit for the Mizbe'ach or
vice-versa is also Posel.
3. Question: What is the source of this?
4. Answer: The Torah refers to Haktarah as 'eating' to
5. Chachamim (argue, they) learn from this that intent
(Chutz) Lehaktir is Posel whether the intent was
said using an expression of 'eating' or 'Haktarah'.
6. Alternatively, they learn from this that the Shi'ur
for Haktarah (that improper intent is Posel) is a
k'Zayis, the Shi'ur for eating;
(f) Question (R. Zeira): If R. Eliezer learns from the verse,
he should Mechayev Kares!
i. However, the intent must be for what is
normally eaten (by the person or Mizbe'ach);
7. R. Eliezer says, the Torah could have said 'He'achel
He'achel' or 'Ye'achel Ye'achel', and this would
teach these two laws (the latter follows from the
i. Rather, it used two different words "He'achel
Ye'achel" to also teach that intent for
abnormal eating also makes Pigul.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!
(g) Answer: (Rashba - R. Yochanan contradicted himself to
teach that) Tana'im argue about R. Eliezer's opinion;
2. Rejection: You yourself (Rav Asi) cited R. Yochanan
to say that R. Eliezer agrees that there is no
1. Some say that he is Posel (and is Mechayev Kares)
mid'Oraisa, others say that he is Posel mid'Rabanan.
(h) Question: According to whom is R. Yehudah Posel?
2. (Beraisa): If one slaughtered a Korban with any of
the following intents (Chutz li'Zmano), it is
i. To drink the blood, Lehaktir the meat, to eat
3. R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
4. R. Yehudah says, if he intended to leave some of the
blood until tomorrow, it is Pasul;
5. R. Elazar (ben Shamu'a) says, even in this case, R.
Eliezer is Posel, Chachamim Machshir.
1. Suggestion: This is according to Chachamim.
(i) Answer: It is according to R. Eliezer.
2. Rejection: They Machshir even when he intended for
the Mizbe'ach to eat (tomorrow, what is fit for
people), all the more so in this case!
(j) Question: Also R. Elazar says that R. Eliezer is Posel
and Chachamim Machshir (what do R. Elazar and R. Yehudah
(k) Answer #1: They argue whether or not R. Eliezer is
1. The first Tana (R. Yehudah) holds that intent to
leave over is only Posel, but intent for improper
consumption is Mefagel;
(l) Rejection: No, all agree that improper consumption is not
2. R. Elazar holds that both of these are only Posel,
there is no Kares.