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


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'.
2. ... 'Chutz li'Zemano' - Pigul, ve'Yesh 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.

(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 that effect.

(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 ... '.
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'.
(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.
(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 Rabbanan,

(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 ... ').

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah *****

***** 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 eating ...

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'.
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.
(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.
(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 le'Mizbe'ach, effective.

(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 'Hanachah'.

(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 mi'de'Rabbanan.

(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).

(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).

12) 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 Pasul.

Next daf


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