(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 14


(a) To answer the Kashya on Rav Huna, we try to establish the Beraisa (neither like either Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah nor like the Rabbanan, but like) Rebbi.
What does Rebbi say about someone who Shechts one of the Kivsei Atzeres with the (verbalized) intention of eating half a k'Zayis of each of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, Chutz li'Zemano?

(b) What can we infer from the Shochet's words?

(c) Bearing in mind the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, what is the problem with Rebbi's statement 'mi'Mah Nafshach'?

(d) We answer by establishing Rebbi like the Rabbanan, and amending the wording (from 'Eino Chayav ad she'Yefagel *bi'Sheteihem*') ' ... ad she'Yefagel bi'Sheneihem'.
What do we mean by that?

(a) And the Beraisa comes to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Meir.
What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b) According to the Rabbanan (who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir') why is Pigul applicable to a case of 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah', even though it is not applicable to ...

  1. ... 'ha'Maktir es ha'Kometz'?
  2. ... 'ha'Shochet Echad min ha'Kevasim'?
(c) The current Beraisa opens with the word 'Le'olam'.
What does that imply?

(d) What problem do we then have in establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir? Why would it be better to establish it like Rebbi Yossi?

(a) Furthermore, Rav Ashi queries our interpretation of the Beraisa (to accommodate Rav Huna), from another Beraisa, which discusses Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin.
Where ...
  1. ... are Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin Shechted?
  2. ... is their leftover blood poured?
(b) What does Rebbi Elazar Mishum Rebbi Yossi rule in the case of a Kohen who Shechts Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin with the intention of pouring their blood on to the Yesod or of burning the Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach next day?

(c) What will be the Din on the other hand, if the Kohen ...

  1. ... Shechts Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin with the intention of sprinkling their blood on the following day?
  2. ... sprinkles the blood of the same with the intention of pouring their blood on to the Yesod on the following day?
(d) In this very first case, it cannot be the blood that becomes Pigul, because of a Mishnah in Zevachim.
What briefly, does the Mishnah in Zevachim say?
(a) If, in the previous case, it is not the Dam that becomes Pigul, what is it?

(b) Bearing in mind that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi, what is now the Kashya on Rav Huna?

(a) Ravina asks a similar Kashya on Rav Huna from another Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Yossi there rule in a case where a Kohen performs Kemitzah on a Minchah, having in mind to eat the Shirayim or to sacrifice the Kometz on the following day?

(b) Why can this last case not refer to a person who eats the Kemitzah?

(c) Then what *does* it refer to?

(d) What have we now categorically proved?

(a) Having proved Rav Huna wrong, how does Rebbi Yochanan now explain the apparent discrepancy between Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who considers the Sh'tei ha'Lechem as two entities, and in the Beraisa, where he combines the two as if they were one?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi learn from the Pasuk in Emor ...

  1. ... "Tavi'u Lechem Tuneful" (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Kasuv')?
  2. ... "Shetayim, Sh'nei Esronim"?
(c) From where does Rebbi Yochanan learn to make the same distinction by the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim?
Answers to questions



(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he asks ...
  1. ... 'Pigal be'Lachmei Todah Mahu'?
  2. ... 'be'Ma'afeh Sanur Mahu'? What causes him to ask such a She'eilah?
(b) In response, Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael, quoted Rebbi Yochanan a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa say?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a Kohen who thought during the Shechitah to eat half a k'Zayis of Basar, and during the Zerikah, to eat another half?

(b) Some say that the same will not apply to a Machshavah of half a k'Zayis by the Kabalas ha'Dam, and half, by the Holachah.
Why is that?

(c) What do others say?

(a) We query all this from a Beraisa, quoted by Levi.
What does the Tana say there about the four Avodos, Shechitah, Zerikah, Kabalah and Holachah?

(b) Rava establishes the first Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and the second, like Rebbi.
What does Rebbi say about a case where one Shechted one of the Kivsei Atzeres, having in mind to eat half a k'Zayis of one of the two loaves, and the other Keves, having in mind to eat a half a k'Zayis of the other loaf?

(c) On what grounds does Abaye query Rava? In what way does Rebbi's ruling differ from the case in question?

(d) What makes Shechitah and Zerikah a complete Matir, more than each of the two lambs?

(a) How does Rava bar Rav Chanan attempt to answer this question? Why in fact, would there be no difference between a Kulo Matir and a Chatzi Matir?

(b) And he bases this on rulings by Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan.
What does he say about them both?

(c) What does he prove from the opening Mishnah in the Perek ...

  1. ... 'Lehaktir Levonasah le'Machar, Rebbi Yossi Omer Pasul ve'Ein Bo Kareis'?
  2. ... 'Pigal be'Kometz ve'Lo bi'Levonah, bi'Levonah ve'Lo be'Kometz ... va'Chachamim Omrim, Ein Bo Kareis ad she'Yefagel be'Chol ha'Matir'? What does this imply?
(a) But Abaye rejects Rava bar Rav Chanan's Kashya. We explained why Rebbi Yossi decreed above in the case of the Kometz di'Levonah, and the Rabbanan in the case of Kometz and Levonah de'Minchah.
On what grounds will the Rabbanan decree in a Mishnah later, to render Pasul a Machshavah on one Keves to eat the two loaves the next day, and on one Bazach, to eat the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim the next day?

(b) Then why should Rebbi not also decree in the case of Keves Echad and Chatzi Zayis?

(c) The Mishnah later concludes that the Rabbanan concede to Rebbi Meir that in the case of a Minchas Chotei and a Minchas Kena'os, Pigal be'Kometz renders the Minchah Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.
What is the problem with this statement?

(d) What do we therefore prove from the fact that the Tana deemed fit to mention it?

(a) If one of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim became Tamei, Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah rules that both loaves and rows must go to the Beis ha'Sereifah.
Why is that?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) How does Rebbi Elazar qualify the Machlokes? In which case will Rebbi Yehudah concede that only the Tamei loaf is burned?

(d) Rav Papa establishes the basis of their Machlokes as to whether the Tzitz atones for Achilos (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).
What does this mean? Why are the Kohanim then not permitted to eat even the loaf that became Tamei?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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