ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 24
(a) When the Mishnah in Chagigah says 'K'li Metzaref Mah she'be'Socho', it
means - that a K'li Shareis combines whatever is inside it to sanctify the
parts as if they were one.
(b) Upon Rav Kahana's arrival in Eretz Yisrael, he found the sons of Rebbi
Chiya asking -whether, if the two halves of an Isaron were placed in a Bisa
(a K'li Shareis for mixing the Minchah) without touching each other, and a
T'vul-Yom touched one of them, the other one would become Tamei, based on
the Mishnah in Chagigah.
(c) He resolved their She'eilah - by pointing out that 'Metzaref' (the word
employed by the Tana) implies even things that are not touching (as opposed
to 'Mechaber', which would imply that they are).
(d) The reason that they discussed particularly a T'vul Yom is - because a
T'vul-Yom is only a Sheini le'Tum'ah, and does not render the K'li, Tamei.
An Av ha'Tum'ah would have rendered the contents of the Bisa Tamei via the
(a) They then asked what the Din would be in a case where a T'vul-Yom
touched a third half-Isaron that was placed in between the first two -
whether it too, combined with the other two half-Isarons, making all three
Tamei, or not.
(b) Rav Kahana replied - that seeing as there is no need for the third
half-Isaron, the Bisa would not sanctify it (because a K'li Shareis only
sanctifies what is necessary for the Avodah). Consequently, even the third
half-Isaron will remain Tahor (since there is no Shelishi le'Tum'ah in
(c) And when they asked what the Din will be if the T'vul-Yom placed his
finger in between the two half-Isarons without touching either of them, he
replied - that only earthenware vessels are subject to Tum'ah via the air
(and there is no such thing as an earthenware K'li Shareis).
(a) Rav Kahana then asked them whether, in the same case as they began with,
it would be possible to take a Kemitzah from just one of the halves, which
will not be effective - if Tziruf K'li is only mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case
we would only apply it le'Chumra, but not le'Kula).
(b) The B'nei Rebbi Chiya tried to resolve Rav Kahana's She'eilah from the
opening case in our Mishnah where two Menachos from which the Kemitzah as
not yet taken, became mixed. From the fact that if it is possible to take a
Kemitzah from each one, then that is what the Kohen must do, they try to
prove - that Tziruf K'li is d'Oraysa, since the Kemitzah is effective,
despite the fact that the parts of the two Menachos that are mixed, are not
touching the rest of the Minchah from which the Kometz is taken.
(c) Rava refutes their proof however, by suggesting - that the Mishnah may
be speaking in a case where the parts of the Minchah that are mixed are in
the form of teeth of a comb which protrude into the second Minchah, but
which are nevertheless joined to their own Minchah.
(a) Rava himself tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which learns
from the Pasuk (in connection with the Kemitzah) "Ve'heirim Mimenu" ('min
ha'Mechubar') - that, at the time of the Kemitzah, the entire Minchah must
be joined, and that it may not be taken if the Minchah is placed into two
(b) Rava extrapolates from there - that it would be permitted to take the
Kemitzah if the two halves of the Minchah were placed separately inside one
(c) Abaye refutes Rava's proof, by suggesting that the Beraisa might be
speaking about a case of 'Kepiza be'Kaba' - by which he means one K'li,
which is divided into two by means of a partition which is the same height
as the K'li, and on top of which the two halves of the Minchah are joined
(outside the air-space of the K'li).
(d) And the equivalent case of 'one K'li that is like two', which is
Kasher - speaks when the partition is lower than the walls of the K'li, in
which case when the two halves of the Minchah are joined on top of the
partition, they are joined within the air-space of the K'li.
(a) Abaye compares the latter case to 'Arivta shel Tarnegolim' - a
feeding-bowl for chickens, which has a low partition in the middle, to
divide between the water and the grain.
(b) Abaye's final word on the subject is - that since, in our case, the two
half Isarons are not touching at all, the She'eilah (whether Tziruf K'li
combines the two half-Isarons or nor) remains.
(a) If two (half-Isaron) piles of flour are connected by a stream of water,
and a Tamei person touches one of them - the other one becomes Tamei too.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be if one of those piles is placed
in a Bisa together with a second half-Isaron, and, assuming that Tziruf K'li
is effective, a T'vul-Yom touches the other half-Isaron. The half-Isaron
pile that is outside the Bisa might not become Tamei - because Tziruf K'li
is only effective regarding what is inside it, but not with regard to
something that is outside it.
(c) He then asks what the Din will be in the reverse case 'Chibur Mayim
ve'Tziruf K'li' - whether, assuming that in the previous case, we say
'Keivan de'Mechaber, Mechaber', if the T'vul-Yom (or any other Tum'ah)
touches the pile of flour that is outside the Bisa, the second half-Isaron
pile inside the Bisa, will become Tamei on account of Tziruf K'li, or not.
(d) The She'eilah is whether 'Chibur Mayim ve'Tziruf K'li is perhaps worse
than 'Tziruf K'li ve'Chibur Mayim' - since the contact with Tum'ah took
place outside the K'li.
(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.
(a) If the Kohen placed the two halves of a Minchah into a Bisa without them
touching each other, after one of the halves became Tamei - the Tum'ah of
the one will not affect the other, because it occurred before it was placed
inside the Bisa.
(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if a T'vul-Yom then touches the
half-Isaron that is already Tamei. Perhaps the second half-Isaron will not
become Tamei, because, seeing as the first one was already Tamei, contact
with Tum'ah will not affect it ('Sava Lah Tum'ah'), in which case the Din of
Tziruf K'li will not apply.
(c) Abaye queries Rava from a Mishnah in Keilim. The Tana Kama declares that
if a sheet that was Tamei Medras was subsequently hung in a doorway as a
permanent partition, it is no longer Tamei Medras - to be Metamei Adam, but
that it is Tamei Maga Medras - to be Metamei Ochel.
(d) The reason that it is no longer Tamei Medras is - because now that it
has been designated for something that is not for lying or sitting on, it is
no longer considered Medras.
(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama, seeing as the sheet did not
actually touch anything (other than itself). He concedes however - that the
sheet is Tamei Maga Medras if a Zav touched it before it was hung up, in
which case even though the Tum'as Medras departed when it was hung up, the
Maga Medras remains.
(b) Abaye tries to prove from here - that we do not apply the principle
'Sava Lah Tum'ah', because if we did, why would the Tum'ah of Maga Tum'ah
(c) Rava refutes Abaye's proof by inverting the order of the two Tum'os -
meaning that the Zav touched the sheet first, rendering it Maga Medras,
before laying on it and rendering it Tamei Medras (which would take effect
because it is more stringent than Maga Medras, unlike the two Tum'os under
discussion, which are both Tum'as Ochel, which is a lighter form of Tum'ah).
(a) Finally, Abaye cites the Seifa of the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi also
concedes that in a case where a Zav sat on one folded sheet that was lying
on top of another folded sheet (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3) - the top sheet is
Medras, and the bottom one, both Medras and Tamei Medras.
(b) The bottom sheet becomes Tamei Medras, despite the fact that the top
sheet interrupts being the Zav and itself - because even if a Zav lies on
top of ten sheets, one underneath the other, all the sheets that support his
weight are Tamei Medras.
(c) Once again, Abaye tries to prove from here that we do not say 'Sava Lah
Tum'ah'. Rava refutes this proof too however - by pointing out that the two
occurred simultaneously (as his weight and the top sheet descended on to the
bottom sheet at the same moment; whereas in the case of the two
half-Isronos, they occurred one after the other.
(a) In a case where half of a divided Isaron became lost ('Avud'), they
designated another half-Isaron in its place ('Mufrash') and the Avud was
found, Rava ruled that if all three are placed in a Bisa, and ...
1. ... the Avud became Tamei - that the Avud and the first half-Isaron
combine (but not the second).
(b) Abaye disagrees. He maintains 'Kulhu B'nei Biksa de'Hadadi Ninhu' -
which mean literally - that they all belong to the same narrow house (since
they are all connected via the first half-Isaron, and are all placed
together in the Bisa.
2. ... the Mufrash became Tamei - that the Mufrash and the first one combine
(but not the Avud), because, seeing as the Mufrash was designated to replace
the Avud, they were never meant to combine.
3. ... the original half-Isaron becomes Tamei - then it combines with both
the other two.
(c) He therefore rules - that whichever one became Tamei, it combines with
the other two.
(d) Rava adds 've'Chein le'Inyan Kemitzah'. The ramifications of this
statement with regards to where the Kohen took Kemitzah from ...
1. ... the Avud are - that the Kohen may then eat the Shirayim from the Avud
and the original half-Isaron.
2. ... the Mufrash are - that he may eat the Shirayim from the Mufrash and
the original half-Isaron.
3. ... the first half-Isaron are - that he may eat neither the Avud nor the
Mufrash, since we do not know which of the two half-Isronos goes together
with the original half-Isaron, both remain Asur.
(a) Abaye disagrees with Rava. In his opinion, from whichever half-Isaron
the Kohen took a Kemitzah from one of the half-Isronos - the Shirayim of the
other two are forbidden, because he holds 'Kulhu B'nei Biksa de'Hadadi
Ninhu', as we explained above.
(b) The problem Rav Papa has with the implication that according to both
Abaye and Rava, where the Kohen took a Kemitzah from the original
half-Isaron, the Kohanim are allowed to eat the Shirayim of that half-Isaron
is - that seeing as one of the three half-Isronos is Pasul, one third of the
Kometz that was taken on its behalf (see Shitah Mekubetzes 5), is Pasul, in
which case, the Chometz is Chaser and therefore Pasul.
(c) The additional problem Rav Mesharshaya has with Rava's ruling is - the
fact that the Kohen even brings the Kometz, for the same reason as we query
his eating the Shirayim).
(d) Rav Ashi solves the problem - by giving the criterion that fixes the
Kometz (not by the amount of flour in the Bisa, but) by the intention of the
Kohen, and in our case, where the Kohen only intends to include the original
half-Isaron, its Shirayim are Kasher.