(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 47


QUESTION: The Tana'im argue regarding a case in which the Shtei ha'Lechem were brought outside of the Azarah between the Shechitah and Zerikah of the Kevasim with which they were brought. The Zerikah of the blood of the Kevasim was then done with a thought of Chutz l'Zemano, with intention to eat the Kevasim after their allotted time period, and the Kevasim therefore became Pigul. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Shtei ha'Lechem do not become Pigul. Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Shtei ha'Lechem do become Pigul.

The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#4) questions the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. Our Gemara implies that the only question is whether or not the Shtei ha'Lechem become Pigul. The Gemara assumes that the Kevasim certainly become Pigul, since their blood was sprinkled with a thought of Pigul. However, there is a rule that Pigul takes effect only when the condition of "Karav ha'Matir k'Mitzvaso" is fulfilled -- when the main procedures that make the Korban valid (such as the Zerikah) are done properly, aside from the improper thought of Chutz l'Zemano. We know that when the Kevasim and Shtei ha'Lechem are both present, the loss of the Shtei ha'Lechem causes the Kevasim to be invalid as well. Consequently, when the blood of the Kevasim is sprinkled, the condition of "Karav ha'Matir k'Mitzvaso" is not fulfilled! Why, then, according to Rebbi Eliezer, should the Kevasim become Pigul?


(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES answers that the Gemara is discussing a case in which the Zerikah was done not only Chutz l'Zemano, but it was also done she'Lo Lishmah, with intent that it is a different Korban. The Gemara later (47b) says that if the Zerikah is not done Lishmah, the Korban is valid even though the Shtei ha'Lechem are not present (see Insights to 46:1 for the reasoning behind this, and for the exact status of the Korban itself). Once the meat of the Korban is able to be eaten (aside from the fact that there was a thought of Chutz l'Zemano when the Zerikah was performed), the condition of "Karav ha'Matir k'Mitzvaso" has been fulfilled.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 17:20) seems to be in doubt about this point. The Rambam writes that when there was a thought of Chutz l'Zemano during the Zerikah (the case of our Gemara), it is "doubtful" whether or not the Kevasim may be eaten. The Rambam does not mention that the Zerikah was done she'Lo Lishmah as well.

The KESEF MISHNEH does not understand the Rambam's doubt. If the Korban was brought Chutz l'Zemano, then what is going to enable the Korban to be eaten? He says that the text of the Rambam should read that "the Zerikah was done with intention for the wrong Korban" (that is, she'Lo Lishmah), and the Rambam was in doubt about the statement of the Shitah Mekubetzes.

However, the Kesef Mishneh says that he still does not understand the doubt of the Rambam. In the Gemara later (47b), we find that Rebbi Yirmeyah asked Rebbi Zeira about whether or not one should do the Zerikah she'Lo Lishmah in case the Shtei ha'Lechem were lost after the Shechitah, in order to permit the meat to be eaten. Rebbi Zeira answered him, "Is there any such Korban that is invalid when done with the correct intention and valid when done with the wrong intention?" The Kesef Mishneh writes that he does not understand why the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi Zeira, who implies that the Korban is Pasul even when the Zerikah is done with the wrong intention. It seems obvious to the Kesef Mishneh that the Korban is Pasul and therefore *cannot* be considered to have fulfilled the condition of "Karav ha'Matir k'Mitzvaso."

(It is not clear why the Kesef Mishneh insists that the Rambam must rule like this opinion. In Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos (18:10), the Kesef Mishneh himself holds that the Rambam rules *against* a similar opinion (that of Rebbi Chilkiyah Bar Tovi, who argues with Rav Huna in Zevachim 114b). The Kesef Mishneh seems to contradict himself. A number of other Acharonim, including the OR SAME'ACH and CHAZON ISH (Likutim 5, DH veha'Ram), argue with the Kesef Mishneh there and maintain that the Rambam *does* rule like this opinion, as the Kesef Mishneh here says.)

1. The MAHARI KURKAS explains that the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi Zeira because the Gemara does not say that this is clearly the Halachah (that is, Rebbi Zeira did not say that this is "Peshita," obvious.).

2. The Kesef Mishneh quotes HA'NAGID RABEINU YEHOSHUA, a descendant of the Rambam, who explains the Rambam differently. He explains that after the Shtei ha'Lechem are lost, there is no purpose at all in slaughtering the Kevasim. It would be as though one was slaughtering Chulin. In a case in which the slaughtering was already done but the Zerikah was not yet done, the Rambam is in doubt whether the Kevasim are now considered like Chulin, and are not Pigul and may be eaten, or whether they are Pigul because they were slaughtered when the Shtei ha'Lechem were still present. This was the doubt of the Rambam. According to this explanation, there is no need to add the words "the Zerikah was done with the wrong intention" into the text of the Rambam.

The KEREN ORAH (47b) is perplexed by this interpretation of the words of the Rambam. Among other difficulties, he asks how one could suggest that something designated, slaughtered, and sprinkled as Kodshim becomes something which is permitted to be eaten like ordinary Chulin food. He therefore supports the Kesef Mishneh's emendation to the Girsa of the Rambam. (Y. Montrose)


OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that if four loaves were prepared instead of two loaves for the Shtei ha'Lechem, two are taken in order to do the Tenufah (waving the loaves together with the Kevasim, both when the Kevasim are alive and after they are slaughtered), and two are "redeemed" and eaten by the Kohanim. The Gemara concludes that the Beraisa can even be according to the view of Rebbi, who maintains that the Shechitah makes the Shtei ha'Lechem become Kadosh.

What, though, does the Beraisa mean, if it is following the view of Rebbi? There are four loaves which were all present in the Azarah when the Kevasim were slaughtered. When the Beraisa says that two loaves become Kadosh and are to be used for the Tenufah, how do we know which two are to be taken? Does the Kohen merely choose any two of the loaves?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Iy) says that according to Rebbi all four of the Chalos should need to be eaten inside the Azarah. This is apparently because each one of the four might be Kadosh, and we cannot determine retroactively which ones were made Kadosh by the Shechitah and which ones remained Chulin. Rashi later (48a, DH Ha Vadai) says that the Gemara concludes that the Beraisa cannot be following the opinion of Rebbi. One of his reasons for saying this is that according to Rebbi all four Chalos would have to go through the Tenufah process, and the Beraisa says that only two are to be taken for Tenufah.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Moshech Shtayim) also asks that the language of the Beraisa, which specifically states that "two" loaves are to be used for Tenufah, does not seem to be consistent with the opinion of Rebbi. Tosfos answers that according to Rebbi *all* of the Chalos must be used for Tenufah. Tosfos expl ains that since we are unsure which of the two Chalos became Kadosh at the time of Shechitah, the Tenufah must be done with every possible combination of the four Chalos, two at a time (the Tenufah cannot simply be done with all four Chalos together, because we must show that the Zerikah is done only because of two of the Chalos). This means that the Tenufah is done six times. According to Rebbi, when the Beraisa which says that Tenufah is to be done with "two" of the Chalos, it means that Tenufah is to be done with *all* of the Chalos, but with *two* at a time.

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 8:12) rules that in this case, one simply takes *two* Chalos for Tenufah, and he may redeem the others when they are inside the Azarah and then eat them outside. The KESEF MISHNEH points out that it is apparent that the Rambam is ruling like Rebbi, since the Gemara later says that according to Rebbi Eliezer (who argues with Rebbi) the Chalos are redeemed *outside* the Beis ha'Mikdash and not inside.

The LECHEM MISHNEH questions the Rambam's ruling. How can the Rambam say that the Kohen may just choose two of the loaves to redeem and eat them outside? The Halachah is that with regard to all matters that are mid'Oraisa, "Ein Bereirah" -- the status of an object cannot be designated retroactively. How, then, can the Kohen designate, after the Shechitah, which loaves are Kadosh and which are not? Moreover, if for some reason the loaves that are Kadosh could be designated retroactively, then why can the loaves not be redeemed outside the Beis ha'Mikdash?

1. The ZEVACH TODAH (DH Moshech) maintains that even though the wording of the Rambam is the same as the wording of the Gemara, the Rambam learns like Tosfos and understands the Beraisa to be saying that one must take "two Chalos *at a time*," and not just two Chalos.

2. The MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH answers that "Bereirah" is not an issue here at all. We find in many similar cases of Korbanos that when there is an extra amount available, we say that the extra is to be relegated as "backup" material in case something happens to the present Korban, and not that the extra is intended to be the Korban itself. "Bereirah" is an issue only when all of the items are intended for one purpose, and not when some are originally intended to be backups (see similar cases in Rashi on 78b, DH Man d'Amar Kadshu, and in the Rambam, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 4:5).

3. The KEREN ORAH explains that the Rambam understands that the redemption of the loaves must take place inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, because at this point all of the loaves have an equal possibility of being the ones that are Kadosh. However, because we know that not all of the loaves are supposed to have Kedushah, an act of redemption removes the doubt about which ones are Kadosh. The Kedushah remains on only two of the loaves once the action of redemption occurs. Only when the loaves are redeemed may they be taken outside and eaten. (The Keren Orah adds that we find a similar logic used by the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos (16:8), where he writes that a blemish in an animal causes another animal to become Kadosh.) (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,