POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Menachos 7
MENACHOS 6-7 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel
Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.
1) RETURNING THE "KEMITZAH" TO THE VESSEL
(a) Question: If so, even before the Kometz was put in
another Kli it cannot be fixed, for when it is returned
to the first Kli, that is Mekadesh it, this completes the
2) "KEMITZAH" FROM A "KLI" ON THE GROUND
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): (These Tana'im allow returning
it -) this teaches that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh what is
put inside it only if the person intended for this.
(c) Question: But R. Yochanan holds that a Kli Shares is not
Mekadesh what is put inside, even if the person intended
1. Question (Reish Lakish): Do Klei Shares Mekadesh
Pesulim to be offered on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah?
(d) Answer: R. Yochanan answered that Klei Shares do not
Mekadesh Pesulim to be offered l'Chatchilah, they do
Mekadesh them to become (irrevocably) Pesulim.
2. Answer (R. Yochanan): They are not Mekadesh Pesulim.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Amram): The Kometz must be returned to an
overflowing Kli (it rests on the Minchah, it does not
reenter the interior of the Kli, therefore the Kli is not
Mekadesh it), and repeats Kemitzah.
(f) Question: Kemitzah must be taken from the interior of the
Kli (even the first Kemitzah would not be from an
(g) Answer: The Kli was full but not overflowing.
(h) Question: Removal of the Kometz left a pit - when the
Kometz is returned, it reenters the pit, in the interior
of the Kli!
(i) Answer: The Kometz is not returned to the pit, rather, to
the side; the Kli is shaken, and the Kometz reenters the
pit by itself, as if a monkey put it in (therefore, the
Kli is not Mekadesh it.)
(j) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Why didn't Rav Amram say that it
was returned to a Kli on the ground?
(k) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): This shows that Kemitzah from a Kli
on the ground is valid.
(a) R. Zeira: Rav Nachman already asked about this:
1. Avimi was learning Menachos by Rav Chisda...
(b) Question (Mishnah): The general rule is, if any of the
following Avodos was done with intent to eat something
2. Interjection: How can that be, Rav Chisda was a
Talmid of Avimi! (The following episode proves
i. Rav Chisda: Avimi struck (or embarrassed) me
greatly for forgetting the resolution of the
auction of Beis Din;
3. Answer: Avimi had forgotten Maseches Menachos, he
went to Rav Chisda, who helped him recover it.
ii. (The Mishnah says, Beis Din announces orphans'
property for 30 days before selling it; the
Beraisa says, for 60 days!)
iii. Resolution: If Beis Din announces the property
for sale every weekday, they wait 30 days
(before selling it); if they announce it only
on Mondays and Thursdays, they wait 60 days.
4. Question: He could have told his Talmid to come to
5. Answer: Avimi went, so the exertion (and
embarrassment of going to his Talmid) would be a
merit to succeed.
6. On the way, Rav Nachman saw him and asked 'How is
7. Avimi: From this Kli that is in front of us.
8. Rav Nachman: May Kemitzah be done from a Kli on the
9. Avimi: No, the Kohen lifts it up.
10. Rav Nachman: How do we Mekadesh the Minchah (Rashi -
11. Avimi: We put it in this Kli that is in front of us.
12. Rav Nachman: May it be put in a Kli on the ground?!
13. Avimi: No, the Kohen lifts it up.
14. Rav Nachman: If so, three Kohanim are needed for
Kemitzah - one to lift the Kli holding the Minchah,
one to do Kemitzah, and one to Mekadesh the Minchah
(R. Gershom; based on our text; Rashi - to lift the
Kli the Kometz will be put into).
15. Avimi: That is not difficult - the Tamid requires 13
1. Kemitzah, putting the Kometz in a Kli, Holachah, and
(c) Answer: The Mishnah lists the Avodos (in which Pigul
2. The Mishnah does not mention lifting the Kli!
applies), not all the Kohanim involved in the Avodos.
(d) Question: May Kemitzah be done from a Kli on the ground?
(e) Answer (Rav Sheshes): We learn (that it may) from what is
done inside (the Heichal):
1. (Mishnah): Four Kohanim enter, two are holding
Lechem ha'Panim (each holds a stack of six loaves),
each of the other two holds a spoon of Levonah;
2. Four Kohanim enter before them, two of them remove
(last week's) Lechem ha'Panim from the Shulchan, the
other two remove the two spoons of Levonah.
3) "KIDUSH L'CHATZA'IM"
3. The Mishnah does not mention Kohanim that lift the
Shulchan! (Lechem ha'Panim may be removed and placed
on it when it is on the ground - likewise, Kemitzah
may be done from a Kli on the ground.)
(f) Question: Just as we said above (the Mishnah lists the
Avodos, it does not list all the Kohanim involved), we
can answer here!
(g) Answer: That is wrong - that Mishnah did not count the
Kohanim involved, our Mishnah does - if Kohanim must lift
the Shulchan, it would count them!
(h) Conclusion: Kemitzah may be done from a Kli on the
(i) (Rava): Surely, Kemitzah may be done from a Kli on the
ground, just like removal of Levonah from the Shulchan;
1. Surely, the Minchah may be put in a Kli Shares (to
Mekadesh it on the ground, just like placing of
Levonah on the Shulchan);
(j) Question (Rava): May the Kometz be put in a Kli Shares on
1. Do we learn from a Minchah (that it may), or from
blood (a Kohen must hold the Kli for Kabalah off the
(k) Answer (Rava): We learn from blood.
(a) Question: Rava contradicts what he said elsewhere!
4) BLOOD LEFT ON THE FINGER
1. (Rav Nachman): If a Kometz was put into two Kelim
(part in each), it is not Mekudash;
(b) Answer: Rava retracted from this latter law, we learn
from blood, it is not Mekudash.
2. (Rava): It is Mekudash.
3. Rava should learn from blood (that it is not
Mekudash, we will explain how we know this), like he
did to settle the previous question!
(c) Question: (Rava was sure that) if blood was put into two
Kelim, it is not Mekudash - what is the source of this?
(d) Answer: He learns from the following:
1. (Rav Tachlifa ben Sha'ul): If Kidush Mei Chatas
(putting ashes of the Parah Adumah on water) was
done l'Chetz'aim (it was done in two vessels,
neither had the Shi'ur needed for Haza'ah), the
water is not Kadosh (even if he puts it together and
now has a Shi'ur,).
2. Question: What is the law regarding blood (if less
than the amount needed for the Haza'os of Metzora or
inner Chata'os was put in the Kli)?
i. If a tradition from Sinai teaches that Kidush
Mei Chatas cannot be done l'Chetz'aim, we do
not learn to other places;
3. Answer (R. Zerika citing R. Elazar): Even blood is
not Mekudash l'Chatza'im.
ii. If we learn from "V'Toval *ba'Mayim* (there
must be the proper Shi'ur of water to immerse
the branches and sprinkle), we should learn
similarly from "V'Toval...ba'Dam"!
4. Support (Rava - Beraisa): "V'Toval" - he immerses
(his finger in blood), he does not soak up blood
from the wall of the vessel;
5. "Ba'Dam" - there must be enough blood for Tevilah
from the beginning.
6. "Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are dealing with
(this will be explained).
7. The Torah must teach both "V'Toval" and "Ba'Dam":
i. If it only said "V'Toval", one might have
thought we do not require enough blood for all
seven Tevilos from the beginning;
ii. If it only said "Ba'Dam", one might have
thought that he may soak up blood.
(a) Question (Beraisa): '"Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are
dealing with' - what does this exclude?
(b) Answer (Rava): This excludes blood left on his finger
after every Haza'ah;
1. This supports R. Elazar, who says that blood left on
his finger is Pasul.
(c) Question (Ravin bar Rav Ada - Beraisa): If blood splashed
onto a garment from a Kohen's hand before he was Mazeh,
it must be washed (in the Mikdash);
1. If blood splashed from his hand after Haza'ah, it
need not be washed.
(d) Answer (Rava): No, it distinguishes between before a
Haza'ah, and (blood left on his finger) after Haza'ah.
2. Suggestion: The Beraisa distinguishes between before
and after finishing all the Haza'os - this teaches
that until then, blood left on his finger is Kosher
for remaining Haza'os!
(e) Question (Abaye - Mishnah): After finishing Haza'ah (of
blood of the Parah Adumah), the Kohen would wipe his hand
on the Parah itself.
1. Inference: He would not wipe it until completing the
Haza'os (but before this, blood left on his finger
is Kosher for remaining Haza'os!)
(f) Answer (Rava): No - after completing the Haza'os, he
would wipe his *hand*, after each Haza'ah, he would wipe
(g) Question: We understand, after completing the Haza'os, he
would wipe his hand on the Parah itself - "V'Saraf Es
ha'Parah l'Einav" (Rashi - for he is by it when it is
burned; Tosfos - the end of this verse requires burning
all the blood with the Parah);
1. Between Haza'os, what would he wipe his finger on?
(Rashi - he was on top of Har ha'Mishchah, the Parah
was below, surely he did not descend between
Haza'os! Tosfos - he could not wipe it on the Parah,
lest hairs stick to his finger, this would
disqualify future Haza'os.)
(h) Answer (Abaye): He would wipe his hand on the edge of the
bucket (of blood) - the buckets are called "*Kefori*
Zahav" (the root of this word also connotes cleaning).