(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 24


(a) What does the Mishnah in Chagigah mean when it says 'K'li Metzaref Mah she'be'Socho'?

(b) What She'eilah did Rav Kahana find the sons of Rebbi Chiya asking upon his arrival in Eretz Yisrael, regarding an Isaron that was halved and placed in a Bisa? What is a 'Bisa'?

(c) How did he resolve their She'eilah from the Lashon 'Metzaref'?

(d) Why did they discuss particularly a T'vul Yom?

(a) What She'eilah did they then ask concerning a case where a T'vul-Yom touched a third half-Isaron that was placed in between the first two?

(b) What did Rav Kahana have to say about that? Why do all three half-Isarons remain Tahor?

(c) And what did he say 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?

(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.
What is the basis of his She'eilah? Why might this not be effective?

(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 was not yet taken, became mixed.
What do they try to prove from the fact that if it is possible to take a Kemitzah from each one, then that is what the Kohen must do?

(c) How does Rava refute their proof? How may the Mishnah be speaking?

(a) Rava himself tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Kemitzah) "Ve'heirim Mimenu" ('min ha'Mechubar')?

(b) What does Rava extrapolate from there?

(c) Abaye refutes Rava's proof by suggesting that the Beraisa might be speaking about a case of 'Kepiza be'Kaba'.
What does he mean by that?

(d) What will then be the equivalent case of 'one K'li that is like two', which is Kasher? How will that cause Rava's proof to fall away?

(a) Abaye compares the latter case to 'Arivta shel Tarnegolim'.
What is that?

(b) What is Abaye's final word on the subject?

(a) What will be the Din if two half-Isaron piles of flour are connected by a stream of water, and a Tamei person touches one of them?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be if one of those half-Isaron 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. What exactly, is his She'eilah? Why might the half-Isaron pile that is outside the Bisa not become Tamei?

(c) He then asks what the Din will be in the reverse case 'Chibur Mayim ve'Tziruf K'li'.
What is the case?

(d) What is the She'eilah? Why might 'Chibur Mayim ve'Tziruf K'li' be any worse than 'Tziruf K'li ve'Chibur Mayim'?

(e) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

Answers to questions



(a) What will be the Din 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?

(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if a T'vul-Yom then touches the half-Isaron that is already Tamei.
What is the She'eilah? Why might the second half-Isaron not become Tamei?

(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, but that it is Tamei Maga Medras.
What is the difference between Medras and Maga Medras?

(d) On what grounds is it no longer Tamei Medras?

(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama, seeing as the sheet did not actually touch anything (other than itself).
In which case does he concede that the sheet is Tamei Maga Medras?

(b) What does Abaye try to prove from here?

(c) How does Rava refute Abaye's proof by inverting the order of the two Tum'os?

(a) Finally, Abaye cites the Seifa of the Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Yossi say in a case where a Zav sat on one folded sheet that was lying on top of another folded sheet (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3)?

(b) How can the bottom sheet become Tamei Medras, seeing as the top sheet interrupts between the Zav and itself?

(c) Once again, Abaye tries to prove from here that we do not say 'Sava Lah Tum'ah'.
How does Rava refute this proof too? What is the difference between the Mishnah in Keilim, and his case of the two half-Isarons?

(a) What does Rava say about 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, if all three were then placed in a Bisa, and ...
  1. ... the Avud became Tamei?
  2. ... the Mufrash became Tamei? What is the reason for these two rulings?
  3. ... the original half-Isaron became Tamei?
(b) Abaye disagrees. He maintains 'Kulhu B'nei Biksa de'Hadadi Ninhu'.
What does this mean?

(c) What does he therefore rule?

(d) Rava adds 've'Chein le'Inyan Kemitzah'.
What are the ramifications of this statement with regards to where the Kohen took Kemitzah from ...

  1. ... the Avud?
  2. ... the Mufrash?
  3. ... the first half-Isaron? Why is that?
(a) Abaye disagrees with Rava.
What does he say regarding a case where the Kohen took a Kemitzah from one of the half-Isarons?

(b) What problem does Rav Papa have 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?

(c) What additional problem does Rav Mesharshaya have with Rava's ruling?

(d) How does Rav Ashi solve the problem? What criterion fixes the Kometz?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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