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 57
1) LIABILITY FOR PARTIAL COOKING
(a) (R. Ami): If Reuven put Se'or on a dough and it fermented
by itself, he is liable, just like for Melachah on
2) THE "LAV" TO BE "MECHAMETZ" THE "MENACHOS"
(b) Question: One is exempt for such Melachah on Shabbos!
1. (Rabah bar bar Chanah): If one left meat over coals
(on Shabbos) and turned over the meat, he is liable;
if he did not turn it over, he is exempt.
(c) Answer (Rava): R. Ami is Mechayev here (Rashi - even
though he merely left it; Tosfos - only if he moved the
Se'or around in the dough), just like one is liable for
roasting on Shabbos (when he turned it over.)
(d) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): If one left meat over coals and
turned over the meat, he is liable; if he did not turn it
over, he is exempt.
1. If the meat will not get cooked if he does not turn
it over, this is obvious!
(e) Answer #1: The meat will get cooked even if he does not
turn it over.
(f) Rejection: If so, he should be liable even if he does not
turn it over!
(g) Answer #2: If he does not turn it over, the meat will get
cooked like Ma'achal Ben Drusai (food that was minimally
(a third or half) cooked) on one side (the other side
will get cooked even less); if he turns it over, it will
get cooked like Ma'achal Ben Drusai on both sides;
1. Rabah teaches that cooking like Ma'achal Ben Drusai
on one side is insignificant.
(h) Version #1 (Rava): If k'Grogeres (a date's worth) becomes
roasted on one side in one place, he is liable.
(i) Question (Ravina): We may infer that if the k'Grogeres is
in two or three places, he is exempt (but this is wrong!)
1. (Mishnah): One who drills a hole of any size is
(j) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (2) - Rav Ashi):
Really, the hole is in one place - it is on the base of a
key, a tooth can be inserted.
2. Question: What is the case?
i. If the hole is in one place, it is useless
(surely, he is exempt!)
3. Answer #1: Rather, it is in two or three places, it
is possible to join the holes (to make a long hole.)
(k) Version #2 (Rava): If k'Grogeres becomes roasted, even in
two or three places, he is liable.
(l) Support (Ravina - Mishnah): One who drills a hole of any
size is liable.
1. Question: What is the case?
(m) Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question (2) - Rav Ashi):
Really, the hole is in one place - it is on the base of a
i. If the hole is in one place, it is useless!
2. Answer #1: Rather, it is in two or three places, it
is possible to join the holes.
(a) (Beraisa): Had it said "Asher Takrivu la'Sh-m Lo Se'aseh
Chametz", we would only know that there is a Lav for
making the Kometz Chametz;
1. Question: What is the source that there is a Lav for
the entire Minchah (before Kemitzah?)
(b) Question (Rav Papa): If one was Mechametz and again
Mechametz after it left the Azarah, is he also liable for
the second time?
2. Answer: "(Ha')Minchah (Asher Takrivu...)"
3. Question: (This verse refers to Marcheshes -) what
is the source for other Menachos?
4. Answer: "Kol ha'Minchah..."
5. "Asher Takrivu la'Sh-m" - the Lav only applies to
Menachos Kosher to be offered, not to Pesulim;
i. This teaches that one who is Mechametz a Kosher
Minchah is liable, one who is Mechametz a Pasul
Minchah is exempt.
1. Once it left the Azarah, it is Pasul, he is exempt
(for future Chimutz);
(c) This question is not resolved.
2. Or, since it was already Pasul once it became
Chametz, leaving the Azarah has no effect (and
Mechametz after Mechametz is liable?)
(d) Question (Rav Mari): If one was Mechametz a Minchah on
top of the Mizbe'ach, what is the law?
1. "Asher Takrivu" does not apply, for it was already
brought on the Mizbe'ach;
(e) This question is not resolved.
2. Or, since it was not Huktar yet, it is as if
Hakravah was not yet done?
(f) Question: Since we learn (liability for the whole
Minchah) from "Kol ha'Minchah", what do we learn from
"Asher Takrivu (la'Sh-m)"?
(g) Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "Asher Takrivu" -
this includes Minchas Nesachim (it is forbidden to
(h) R. Akiva says, it (Tosfos - also) includes Lechem
(i) Question: Minchas Nesachim is kneaded only with oil -
flour with fruit juice (without water) will never
(j) Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Yosi ha'Galili holds that
Minchas Nesachim kneaded (also) with water is Kosher.
3) ARE MEASURING DISHES "MEKADESH"?
(a) Question: The Soles for Lechem ha'Panim is measured in a
Kli for dry measures, R. Akiva holds that dry measures
were not Niskadshu, they do not Mekadesh their contents!
(So how can one be liable for Mechametz, Lechem ha'Panim
is not Kodesh until it is baked, then it is already
Matzah, it cannot become Chametz!)
4) FORBIDDEN "HAKTARAH"
(b) Answer (Ravin citing R. Yochanan): The opinions must be
switched, R. Akiva includes Minchas Nesachim, R. Yosi
(also) includes Lechem ha'Panim.
(c) This is as R. Yochanan holds elsewhere.
1. (R. Yochanan): R. Yosi ha'Galili and a Talmid of R.
Yishmael (R. Yoshiyah) agree with each other.
(d) Question: What do R. Yoshiyah and R. Yonason argue about?
2. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "Va'Yimshachem va'Ykadesh
Osam" - the wet measures were anointed with oil on
the inside and outside, (they Mekadesh whatever
touches them from either side), the dry measures
were anointed only on the inside;
3. R. Yonason says, the wet measures were anointed only
on the inside, the dry measures were not anointed at
4. Support (R. Yonason, for himself): Regarding Shtei
ha'Lechem it says "Chametz Te'afenah Bikurim
la'Sh-m" - they are "la'Sh-m" (fully Kodesh) only
after they are baked - this shows that the dry
measure did not Mekadesh them.
(e) Answer: They argue about how to expound "Osam":
1. R. Yoshiyah says that "Osam" excludes the outside of
(f) Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan also say that R. Akiva
and a Talmid of R. Yishmael (R. Yonason) agree with each
other (dry measures were not Niskadshos)?
2. R. Yonason says that dry measures are Chulin, we do
not need a verse to exclude them - the verse
excludes the outside of wet measures.
(g) Answer: R. Akiva and R. Yonason do not agree about wet
measures (R. Yonason says that only the inside is
Mekudash, R. Akiva holds that also the outside is
(h) Question (Rav Papa): Why are Shtei ha'Lechem not Kodesh
until they are baked - they are kneaded in a Bisa (a wet
(i) Answer (Abaye): The verse discusses when they were
kneaded on a hide.
(j) Question: If so, R. Yonason has no proof that dry
measures are not Mekadesh - perhaps the verse discusses
when the Soles was measured in a Chulin Isaron!
(k) Answer: No - the Torah did not command to make a Bisa, it
is reasonable that the verse discusses when a Bisa was
1. The Torah commands to make an Isaron measure, surely
it does not discuss when a Chulin Kli was used in
place of Kodesh!
(a) (Beraisa): Question: What is the source that one is
liable for Haktarah of any of the following:
1. Meat of Chatas, Asham, other Kodshei Kodoshim (that
are eaten, i.e. Shalmei Tzibur), or Kodshim Kalim;
(b) Answer: "Ki Chol Se'or v'Chol Devash Lo Saktiru *Mimenu*
Korban *Isheh* la'Sh-m"- anything that is partially
Huktar, it is forbidden Lehaktir the rest.
2. The Shirayim of the Omer, Shirei Shtei ha'Lechem
(this will be explained), Lechem ha'Panim, Shirei
(c) Question: No part of Shtei ha'Lechem or Lechem ha'Panim
1. (Beraisa): Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are
excluded (from Hagashah) because no part of them is
(d) Answer (Rav Sheshes): No part of them themselves is
offered (but the Lav of Haktaras 'Mimenu l'Ishim' applies
to them, for they have Matirim that are offered (Kivsei
Atzeres and Bazichei Levonah.)
(e) (R. Yochanan): If one brought any of these (Shirayim that
it is forbidden Lehaktir) onto the ramp, he is liable;
(f) (R. Elazar): He is exempt.
(g) R. Yochanan learns from the following Beraisa:
1. (Beraisa): "Ha'Mizbe'ach" teaches that one is liable
for bringing these onto the Mizbe'ach;
(h) R. Elazar learns from "Ki Chol *Se'or* v'Chol
*Devash*...Korban Reishis Taktiru Osam la'Sh-m" - only
regarding Se'or and Devash, the ramp is like the
2. Question: What is the source to Mechayev for
bringing onto the ramp?
3. Answer: "*V*'El ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu l'Re'ach
Nicho'ach" (our text, 'l'Ratzon' is mistaken.)