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 101
MENACHOS 101-102 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs.
Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the
merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his
Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
1) WHICH "KODSHIM" MAY BE REDEEMED?
(a) Question: Where is a Ba'al Mum called 'Tamei'?
2) "TUM'AS OCHLIM" OF "ISUREI HANA'AH"
(b) Answer (Beraisa): "V'Im Kol *Behemah Te'meah* Asher Lo
Yakrivu Mimenu Korban la'Sh-m" - this refers to a Ba'al
Mum that was redeemed.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps it truly refers to a Tamei
(species of) Behemah!
(c) Suggestion: Perhaps a Zevach may be redeemed if it has a
Mum Over (temporary Mum!)
2. Rejection: "V'Im ba'Behemah ha'Te'meah u'Fadah
v'Erkecha" discusses a Tamei Behemah - "V'Im Kol
Behemah Te'meah" must refer to a Ba'al Mum that was
(d) Rejection: "Asher Lo Yakrivu Mimenu Korban la'Sh-m" -
something that can never be offered, this excludes a
Ba'al Mum Over, for it may be offered later.
(e) Question (against Shmuel - Rav Huna bar Mano'ach -
Mishnah): Birds, wood, Levonah and Klei Shares cannot be
redeemed [(even) after becoming Tamei],.for redemption
applies only to animals.
1. Question: Granted, birds have Kedushas ha'Guf, they
may not be redeemed - but one should be able to
redeem wood, Levonah and Klei Shares (since they
themselves are not offered, they are merely Hechsher
(f) Answer: Really, normally, Tahor Kodshim can be redeemed -
wood, Levonah and Klei Shares are exceptions, because
they are not common, Chachamim decreed not to redeem them
when they are Tehorim.
2. Answer: We must say, they cannot be redeemed because
(generally) Tahor Kodshim cannot be redeemed, and
these are considered Tehorim even when they are
i. Wood and Levonah are not foods, they are Tamei
only on account of Chibas ha'Kodesh (a
stringency of Kodshim) - before the wood is
smoothed out to be fit for logs, and before the
Levonah is Hukdash in a Kli, they are not
ii. Even a Tamei Kli is considered Tahor, because
it can be immersed (we do not make earthenware
Klei Shares (which cannot be immersed).)
(g) Question: Granted, Levonah and Klei Shares are not common
- however, wood is readily available!
(h) Answer: A Mishnah teaches that if a worm is found in a
log, it is Pasul for the Ma'arachah - therefore, Kosher
wood is rare.
(i) (Rav Papa): Had Shmuel heard the following Beraisa, he
would have retracted (for it refutes him!)
1. (Beraisa): If one is Matfis Temimim (Makdish
unblemished animals) to Bedek ha'Bayis, they are
redeemed only in order to offer them;
(j) Rejection: Shmuel would not retract on account of the
2. Anything (Hukdash and) Kosher for the Mizbe'ach must
be offered, it can never be redeemed.
3. Conclusion: Even though it is only Kedushas Damim,
they cannot be redeemed because they are Tehorim!
1. We said that Chachamim decreed not to redeem things
that are rare when they are Tehorim - also
unblemished Behemos are rare, for even a film in the
eye is a Mum!
(k) (Rav Kahana): All Menachos can be redeemed if they are
Teme'im, not if they are Tehorim.
(l) Version #1: R. Oshaya agrees with Rav Kahana.
(m) Version #2 - (R. Oshiya): They can be redeemed even if
they are Tehorim.
(n) Version #1 - Rashi - (R. Elazar): All can be redeemed
only if they are Teme'im, except for Minchas Chotei, for
it says "Me'Chataso" and "Al Chataso", it may be redeemed
when Tahor. (The verses discuss Oleh v'Yored (a rich
person brings a Seh Chatas, an Oni brings birds or
flour.) "Me'Chataso" teaches that if a rich person was
Makdish money for a Seh, and then became poor, he may use
some of it to buy birds, the rest is Chulin; "Al Chataso"
teaches that if an Oni was Makdish money for birds, and
then became rich, he may add money to it to buy a Seh.)
(o) Version #2 - R. Gershom - (R. Elazar): All can be
redeemed if and only if they are Teme'im, except for
Minchas Chotei, for it says "Al Chataso" instead of
"Me'Chataso", to teach that its law is like Chatas
(Behemah), which may not be redeemed even if it is a
Ba'al Mum (which is called 'Tamei'.)
(a) (R. Oshiya citing R. Shimon): If one was Mefagel a
Minchah, it does not receive Tum'as Ochlim.
3) POTENTIAL "SHE'AS HA'KOSHER"
1. (Beraisa): The following receive Tum'as Ochlim, even
though they are Isurei Hana'ah (it is forbidden to
benefit from them):
(b) Question: Why does R. Shimon say that meat and milk is
Tamei for it had She'as ha'Kosher - it suffices that one
may feed it to others!
i. Orlah, Kilai ha'Kerem, Shor ha'Niskal (an ox
sentenced to be stoned), Eglah Arufah, Tziporei
Metzora (he brings birds to permit him to enter
the city), a firstborn donkey, meat and milk.
2. R. Shimon agrees that meat and milk is Tamei
(receives Tum'as Ochlim), for it had She'as
ha'Kosher (it was once permitted to Yisrael, i.e.
the moment they were mixed together, before they
absorbed from each other.)
ii. R. Shimon says, they do not receive Tum'as
3. (Rav Asi): R. Shimon learns from "Mi'Kol ha'Ochel
Asher Ye'achel" - something is considered food
(regarding Tum'as Ochlim) if and only if it is
permitted to feed it to others (Nochrim - i.e., one
may benefit from it, even if a Yisrael may not eat
4. Conclusion: A Pigul Minchah is Isurei Hana'ah, one
may not feed it to others, therefore it is not
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yehudah citing R. Shimon):
It is forbidden to eat meat and milk, it is
permitted to benefit from it - it says "Ki Am Kodesh
Atah...Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo", similar to
"V'Anshei Kodesh Tihyun Li u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah
(c) Answer: R. Shimon gives a second reason why meat and milk
2. Just like one may benefit from a Treifah but not eat
it, the same applies to meat and milk.
1. Firstly, it is Tamei because it is permitted to feed
it to others;
(d) Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Sometimes, Nosar receives
Tum'as Ochlim, sometimes it does not:
2. Secondly, it is Tamei, for it was once permitted to
1. If the time for eating passed and Zerikah was not
done, it is Tahor; if Zerikah was done in the proper
time, it is Tamei.
(e) Answer: The Beraisa discusses a Pigul Minchah that had
She'as ha'Kosher, R. Oshaya discusses one that was never
2. Pigul, whether of Kodshei ha'Kodoshim or Kodshei
Kalim, is Tahor.
3. A Pigul Minchah is Tamei.
(f) Question: What is the case of a Minchah that was never
permitted? (Surely, before it was Hukdash it was
(g) Answer: Attached wheat was Hukdash for the Minchah (it
was forbidden the entire time it was fitting to receive
Tum'as Ochlim, i.e. from when it was detached.)
(a) Question: It could have been redeemed before it was put
in a Kli Shares (we should say that it had She'as
(b) Answer - part 1: According to Version #1 (Amud A), R.
Oshaya says that Tehorim may not be redeemed (therefore,
there was no She'as ha'Kosher);
1. But according to Version #2, he says that even
Tehorim may be redeemed - if so, there was She'as
(c) Answer - part 2: Since they were not redeemed, it is
considered that there was not She'as ha'Kosher.
(d) Question: But R. Shimon holds that anything ready to be
redeemed is considered as if it was redeemed!
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): Parah Adumah receives Tum'as
Ochlim because there was a time when it was fitting
to be eaten.
(e) Answer: He only considers Parah as if it was redeemed,
for sometimes it is a Mitzvah to redeem it, e.g. if a
nicer Parah was found;
2. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon holds that it may be
redeemed even (after slaughter) at the woodpile
(when it is about to be burned).
1. It is never a Mitzvah to redeem Menachos (from the
beginning, they are brought only from choice flour
(f) Question: It is a Mitzvah to do Zerikah, yet the Beraisa
teaches that if a Korban was Lan (left overnight) without
Zerikah, it is not Tamei (we do not consider it as if
Zerikah was done!)
(g) Answer #1: The case is, it was slaughtered so close to
the end of the day that there was no time to do Zerikah.
(Another answer will be given later.)
(h) Question: This implies that if it was slaughtered earlier
so there was time to do Zerikah, Lan without Zerikah is
1. If so, the Beraisa should have distinguished between
more similar cases!
(i) Answer: Indeed, this is what the Beraisa means! If it was
Lan and there was never time to do Zerikah, it is Tahor;
if it was Lan and there was time for Zerikah, it is
2. It should say, if a Korban was slaughtered without
time left in the day to do Zerikah, it is Tahor; if
time remained in the day for Zerikah, it is Tamei
(and all the more so, if Zerikah was done!)