ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 17
(a) When Charifi de'Pumbedisa (Eifah and Avimi, b'nei Rachbah) said 'Hatarah
Mefageles Haktarah', they meant - that if the Kohen burned the Kometz having
in mind to burn the Levonah the next day, the Pigul is effective.
(b) This ties up with ...
1. ... the principle 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' - because the latter
pertains specifically to a Machshavah to eat *the Shirayim*, whereas a
Machshavah on the Levonah is like a Machshavah on the Kometz itself.
2. ... the ruling in the previous Mishnah 'Shachat Echad min ha'Kevasim
Le'echol me'Chaveiro le'Machar, Sheneihem Kesheirim' - inasmuch as whereas
there, the two lambs were not sanctified together in the same K'li, the
Kometz and the Levonah were.
(a) The Tana in the first Perek rules that 'Kol ha'Kometz, Nosen bi'Cheli,
Molich u'Maktir Le'echol Davar she'Darko Le'echol, u'Lehaktir Davar
she'Darko Lehaktir', if the Kohen had in mind ...
1. ... 'Chutz li'Mekomo' - Pasul, ve'Ein bo Kareis'.
(b) Rava attempts to prove Charifi de'Pumbedisi right from there - by
assuming that 'Maktir', like 'Kometz, Nosen bi'Cheli and Molich' speaks both
in a case where he intended to eat the Shirayim, and where he intended to
burn the Levonah.
2. ... 'Chutz li'Zemano' - Pigul, ve'Yesh bo Kareis'.
(c) To refute Rava's proof however, we establish Maktir - by a Machshavah to
eat the Shirayim, exclusively.
(a) Rav Menashya bar Gada disputes Charifi de'Pumbedisi's ruling. Quoting
Rav Chisda, he maintains 'Ein Haktarah Mefageles Haktarah', even according
to Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' - because whereas the
Kometz is the Matir of the Shirayim, it is not the Matir of the Levonah.
(b) When Abaye asked Rav Menashya bar Gada whether Rav Chisda said this in
the name of Rav, he replied - that indeed he did.
(c) We corroborate this - by quoting a statement of Rav Chisda Amar Rav to
(a) Rav Ya'akov bar Aba tries to prove Rav Chisda Amar Rav right, from our
Mishnah 'Shachat Echad min ha'Kevasim Le'echol ... me'Chaveiro le'Machar,
Sheneihem Kesheirim' - which he ascribes to the fact that the one lamb is
not the Matir of the other one.
(b) We reject this proof however - by attributing the ineffectiveness of the
Pigul to the fact that they were not sanctified together in the same K'li,
whereas the Kometz and the Levonah were.
(c) All this will only go according to Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, but not
according to Rebbi Yossi earlier in the Perek, who rules - 'Ein Matir
Mefagel Matir, ve'Lo Haktaras Kometz le'Haktaras Levonah'.
(a) Rebbi Chanina taught Rav Hamnuna 'Hiktir Kometz Lehaktir Levonah
Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar, Pigul', on which Rav Hamnuna commented - that
it was equal to all his other learning.
(b) We query this however, because it is unclear what it is coming to teach
us. The Chidush cannot be that ...
1. ... 'Haktarah Mefageles Haktarah' - because then all the Tana needed to
have said was 'Hiktir Kometz Lehaktir Levonah le'Machar ... '.
(c) Therefore Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains - that even though the Tana holds
'Ein Haktarah Mefageles Haktarah' and 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir', in
this case, the Pigul is effective on account of the dual Machshavah, which
causes both of them to take effect.
2. ... 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' - because then, he needed only to write
'Hiktir Kometz Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar ... '.
3. ... both - because then he ought to have written 'Hiktir Kometz Lehaktir
Levonah *ve*'Le'echol Shirayim le'Machar, Pigul'.
(a) When a Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa 'Hiktir Kometz Le'echol Shirayim
le'Machar le'Divrei ha'Kol Pigul', Rav Yitzchak bar Aba objected - on the
grounds that this is subject to a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah *****
(b) He therefore amended the Beraisa to - 'Pasul', instead of 'Pigul'.
(c) He preferred to amend it this way, rather than to leave the ruling
intact and simply change the author to Rebbi Meir - because whoever erred
would have been more likely to confuse 'Pigul' and 'Pasul' than 'Harei Zeh'
and 'Divrei ha'Kol' (i.e. had he learned 'Harei Zeh Pigul', he would have
been unlikely to have than stated 'Divrei ha'Kol ... ').
***** Perek ha'Kometz Rabah *****
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah rules that if the Kohen performed Kemitzah
with the intention of eating part of the Minchah that is not meant to be eat
en, or burned part of it that was not meant to be burnt - it is Pasul.
(b) In a case where the Kohen performed the Kemitzah with the intention of
1. ... or burning the next day, less than a k'Zayis of a part that is meant
to be eaten or burnt - our Mishnah rules 'Kasher'.
(c) In spite of having already taught this Halachah in the first Perek, the
Tana nevertheless saw fit to repeat it here - to teach us that Rebbi Eliezer
does not dispute it (because although he decrees a Machshavah she'Lo
ke'Darko on account of ke'Darko, he does not likewise decree a Machshavah of
half a k'Zayis on account of a k'Zayis.
2. ... half a k'Zayis and burning half a k'Zayis the next day - the Tana
also rules 'Kasher' too, because Achilah and Haktarah do not combine.
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites the Pasuk (in connection with Pigul)
"ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav ... " - the source of
Rebbi Eliezer's opinion that Achilas Adam is compared to Achilas Mizbe'ach
(as we shall now see).
(b) Based on the fact that the Torah is clearly comparing Achilas Adam and
Achilas Mizbe'ach, Rebbi Eliezer derives from there - that a. Achilas
Mizbe'ach makes Pigul, just like Achilas Adam, and b. just as a Machshavah
of Achilas Mizbe'ach le'Mizbe'ach and Achilas Adam le'Adam is effective, so
too, is a Machshavah of Achilas Mizbe'ach le'Adam and Achilas Adam
(c) The Rabbanan learn from the fact that the Torah uses a Lashon of
Achilah - that even if the Kohen intends to burn the Kometz using a Lashon
of Achilah, his Machshavah is effective, or that the Shi'ur Haktarah, like
the Shi'ur Achilah, is a k'Zayis.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer will learn that - from the fact that the Torah writes
"He'achol Ye'achel" (instead of "He'achol 'He'achol" (or "Ye'achel
Ye'achel"), leaving us with an extra D'rashah.
(a) Rebbi Zeira reminded Rebbi Asi that he himself in the name of Rebbi
Yochanan, had said that Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah concedes that there is
no Kareis - because it clashes with the source that he just quoted. If Rebbi
Eliezer learns his Din from "He'achol Ye'achel", why should it not be Pigul?
Why should the person who eats it not be Chayav Kareis?
(b) Rebbi Asi replied - that Rebbi Eliezer's opinion is subject to a
Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall see shortly.
(c) According to those who say that there is no Kareis - Rebbi Eliezer holds
that it is only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan.
(d) In the Beraisa that Rebbi Asi cites, the Tana Kama rules that if someone
who Shechts a Korban with the intention of drinking its blood or burning its
flesh the next day, the Korban is Kasher. Rebbi Eliezer rules - Pasul.
(a) In a case where the Kohen Shechted the Korban, having in mind to leave
its blood until the next day, Rebbi Yehudah says 'Pasul'. He must be
referring to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - because, seeing as even when the
Kohen thinks using a Lashon of 'Achilah', the Rabbanan say Kasher, it is
obvious that they will hold Kasher when he thinks using only a Lashon of
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar, this latter case is subject to the same
Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan as the Reisha. Our initial
problem with this is that this is what Rebbi Yehudah seems to say.
(c) Rebbi Asi therefore explains their Machlokes with regard to the Reisha.
According to Rebbi Yehudah, only 'Lehani'ach' is mi'de'Rabbanan (as will
soon be explained), but in the Reisha (by 'Le'echol Davar she'Ein Darko
Le'echol and Lehaktir Davar she'Ein Darko Lehaktir'), one is even Chayav
Kareis. Whereas in the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, both cases are only
(a) We refute Rebbi Asi's explanation, concluding that according to
everyone, there is no Kareis in the Reisha. The Machlokes between Rebbi
Eliezer and the Rabbanan there is whether it is Kasher (the Rabbanan) or
Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (Rebbi Eliezer).
Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa proves to the Rabbanan that a Machshavah to leave
over all the blood for the next day is Pasul d'Oraysa - by virtue of the
fact that if the blood was actually left over for the next day it would be
(b) The three Tana'im argue over - 'Lehani'ach'.
(c) According to the Tana Kama, 'Lehani'ach' is unanimously Kasher; whereas
Rebbi Yehudah maintains that 'Lehani'ach' is unanimously Pasul - because the
Chachamim issued a decree (some of the blood on account of all it).
(d) According to Rebbi Elazar - the Tana'im argue over whether the Rabbanan
decreed by Lehani'ach (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).