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 102
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) DO WE CONSIDER IT AS IF "ZERIKAH" WAS DONE?
(a) Question: It is a Mitzvah to do Zerikah with proper
intent, yet the Beraisa teaches that Pigul of Kodshei
Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim is Tahor;
1. Suggestion: This is (even) if Pigul intent was only
during Zerikah (a Kosher Zerikah could (and should)
have been done!
(b) Answer #1: No, the case is, Pigul was during slaughter
(there was never a chance to do a Kosher Zerikah.)
(c) Question: This implies that if Pigul intent was only
during Zerikah, it is Tamei;
1. If so, the Beraisa should have distinguished between
more similar cases!
(d) Answer: It must teach that Pigul of a Minchah is Tamei -
even if he was Mefagel in Kemitzah, which is the analog
of slaughter, it is Tamei, for it had She'as ha'Kosher
before it was Hukdash.
2. Instead of teaching that Pigul of a Minchah is
Tamei, it should say, Pigul of Zevachim is Tahor
only if the bad intent was during slaughter, but if
it was during Zerikah, it is Tamei!
(e) Answer #2 (to Question (c) and Question 3:g on 101B - Rav
Nachman): Here, even if Pigul intent was only during
Zerikah, and (regarding Lan) even if time remained in the
day for Zerikah, it is Tahor;
1. R. Shimon considers something ready to be redeemed
as if it was redeemed, he does not consider blood
ready for (proper) Zerikah as if (proper) Zerikah
was done (since a necessary *action* was not done;
redemption is not considered an action.)
(f) Question (Mishnah - R. Yehoshua): Me'ilah does not apply
to things that had She'as ha'Kosher (were once permitted)
to Kohanim, it applies to anything that did not have
She'as ha'Kosher to Kohanim.
1. Question: What are cases of something that had
(g) Version #1 - Answer #1: No, it means, (Me'ilah does not
apply) if it was Lan at a time when it was fitting to be
Nifsal (only) on account of Yotzei or Tum'ah (i.e. after
2. Answer: It was Lan, Yotzei (left its permitted place
to be eaten), or became Tamei.
3. Question: What are things that did not have She'as
4. Answer: It was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz
li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, Pesulim did Kabalah or
5. Summation of question - suggestion: The Beraisa says
that if it was Lan, Yotzei or became Tamei - Lan
refers to proper Linah (Zerikah was not done);
i. There is no Me'ilah because we consider it as
if Zerikah was done!
(h) Version #2 - Answer #1: No, it means, if it was fitting
to be Nifsal on account of Linah, Yotzei or Tum'ah (i.e.
after Zerikah). (End of Version #2)
(i) Objection: This implies that if there was proper Linah
(i.e. Zerikah was not done), Me'ilah applies;
1. If so, it should not say that Me'ilah does not (or
does) apply to things that (potentially) had (or did
not have) She'as ha'Kosher, rather, things that
(truly) *have* (or do not have) She'as ha'Kosher!
(j) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Me'ilah is different than Tum'as
Ochlim, Me'ilah depends on Kedushah - once the Kedushah
vanished (because Zerikah may be done, permitting it), it
does not return;
1. Tum'as Ochlim depends on whether or not it is a food
- as long as Zerikah was not done, it is not
(k) Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): (One who is unsure whether
or not he transgressed a Lav of Kares brings an Asham
Taluy.) If Ploni brought an Asham Taluy and then found
out that he did not transgress:
1. If he found out before slaughter, the animal is
returned to the herd (it is Chulin);
2. Chachamim say, it is Ro'eh (grazes) until it gets a
Mum, then it is redeemed, the money goes to Nedavah
2) A VOW TO BRING A SPECIFIC "KORBAN"
3. R. Eliezer says, it is offered - even though he did
not sin in this matter, perhaps he sinned in another
(l) Question (Rav Ashi): Since R. Shimon considers blood
ready for Zerikah as if it was thrown, he should also
consider something that must be burned as if it was
burned - why do Nosar and Parah Adumah have Tum'as
Ochlim, they are like dust!?
4. If he found out after slaughter (it is Pasul), the
blood is spilled, the meat is burned (in Beis
ha'Sereifah); if the Zerikah was done, the meat may
5. R. Yosi says, even if the blood is still in the Kli,
Zerikah is done, the meat is eaten.
6. (Rava): R. Yosi holds like R. Shimon, who considers
blood ready for Zerikah as if it was thrown.
7. Question: Is that really R. Yosi's reason?!
8. Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): R. Yosi holds that
Klei Shares are Mekadesh Pesulim to be offered
(m) Answer (Rav Kahana): Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir them to
(n) Question (Ravina): (Saying that Nosar and Parah Adumah
have Tum'as Ochlim implies that they can become Teme'im
like a Rishon (l'Tum'ah) to Metamei others (make them a
Sheni). Why do they become Rishonim -) granted, Chibas
ha'Kodesh is Machshir to become Pasul (if touched by
Tum'ah) - does it Machshir to be a Rishon?!
1. If so, this should resolve Reish Lakish's question!
(o) Answer: They become a Rishon, at least mid'Rabanan; Reish
Lakish asks whether or not this is mid'Oraisa
2. Question (Reish Lakish): (Tzerid of a Minchah (a
part that was not mixed with oil, it was not
Huchshar) can become Tamei, on account of Chibas
ha'Kodesh.) Does Tzerid only become Pasul, or is it
like a Rishon, to Metamei other foods, making them a
(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven vowed to bring (Minchas) Marcheshes
and he brought Machavas or vice-versa, it is Kosher, he
did not fulfill his vow.
(b) If he said 'Alai to bring (a Minchah of) two Esronim in
one Kli' and he brought them in two Kelim, or vice-versa,
it is Kosher, he did not fulfill his obligation.
(c) If he said 'Alai to bring *these* two Esronim of flour in
one Kli' and he brought them in two Kelim, or vice-versa,
it is Pasul (we cannot say that it is a Nedavah, nor is
it Kosher for his vow, for each Kli is lacking; and only
one Kometz will be separated, whereas his vow requires
two - Rashi. Shitah Mekubetzes - he vowed to bring two
Lugim of oil with the flour, but only one Log accompanies
the Minchah, for it is in one Kli - this is like R.
Eliezer ben Yakov.)
(d) If he said 'Alai to bring two Esronim in one Kli' and he
brought them in two Kelim, and people told him 'You vowed
to bring in one Kli':
1. If he then brought them in two Kelim, it is Pasul
(if he brings it for Nedavah, he would have told
them - rather, it is for his vow), if he brought
them in one Kli, it is Kosher.
(e) If he said 'Alai to bring two Esronim in two Kelim' and
he brought them in one Kli, and people told him 'You
vowed to bring in two Kelim':
1. If he then brought them in two Kelim, it is Kosher;
if he brought them in one Kli, it is like two
Menachos that became mixed together (they are
Kesherim if and only if he can take a Kometz from
each of them by itself. The Mishnah did not make
this distinction above, it simply said 'Pasul' - the
case was, it was impossible to take a Kometz from
each by itself.)
(f) (Gemara): We must teach all these cases:
1. If we only taught the first case, one might have
thought that he was not Yotzei (did not fulfill his
obligation) because he brought it in a different
kind of Kli, but when he brought it in the same kind
(but wrong number) of Kelim that he vowed, he was
(g) (Beraisa): What he brought is Kosher, he was not Yotzei;
2. If we only taught the second case, one might have
thought that he was not Yotzei because he divided
the Minchah (into smaller amounts), but when he does
not divide it (rather, combines Menachos together)
he was Yotzei (even if he cannot take a Kometz from
each by itself) - the Seifa teaches, this is not so.
(h) R. Shimon says, (in all of these cases) he was Yotzei.
(His 'promise' to bring it in a certain kind or number of
Kelim does not take effect.)
(i) (Mishnah): If he vowed 'I will bring *this* in a
(j) Contradiction (Beraisa): The Kli (that he brings it in)
does not Mekadesh it. (If so, why is it Pasul - he can
put in the proper Kli!)
(k) Answer (Abaye): The Kli does not Mekadesh it to be
Kosher, it is Mekadesh it to be Pasul.
(l) (Abaye and R. Acha bar Chanina): The laws of our Mishnah
are only when he specified the Kelim at the time of his
1. If he did not specify at the time of his vow, only
at the time he was Makdish, it has no effect -
"Ka'asher Nadarta", not like you separated.