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 13
1) JOINING INTENTS
(a) Question: This is not a Chidush - the previous Mishnah
teaches this explicitly!
***** PEREK HA'KOMETZ ES HA'MINCHAH ****
1. (Mishnah): If he intended to eat a k'Zayis b'Chutz
and a k'Zayis tomorrow, or vice-versa; or, for half
a k'Zayis tomorrow and half a k'Zayis outside, or
vice-versa, it is Pasul, there is no Kares.
(b) Answer: Indeed, it teaches that intent to eat and
Lehaktir do not join;
2. Suggestion: The Chidush of our Mishnah is the
inference that intents to eat join for Pigul, even
for things not normally eaten.
3. Rejection: The previous Mishnah contradicts this!
4. Suggestion: Our Mishnah teaches that intent to eat
and Lehaktir do not join.
5. Rejection: We infer this from the previous Mishnah!
i. Two intents to eat do not join if one is for
something not normally eaten - surely, intent
to eat and Lehaktir do not join!
1. One might have thought, those two intents to eat do
not join because one of them is abnormal, but intent
to eat and Lehaktir join, for both are normal.
2) INTENT FOR A "MATIR"
(a) (Mishnah): R. Yosi admits that if Kemitzah was done with
intent to eat the Shirayim tomorrow or Lehaktir the
Kometz tomorrow, the Minchah is Pigul, there is Kares;
(b) R. Yosi says, if he intended to Lehaktir the Levonah
tomorrow, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no Kares;
(c) Chachamim say, it is Pigul, there is Kares.
1. Chachamim: This is no different than a Zevach
(intent Lehaktir Eimurim is Mefagel!)
(d) R. Yosi: That is different, for blood, meat and Chelev
are all the same Min (all are from the animal), but
Levonah is not from the Min of (the Kometz, i.e. of) the
(e) (Gemara) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that R.
Yosi admits in the first case?
(f) Answer: In the Seifa, R. Yosi exempts (from Kares)
regarding intent for Levonah - one might have thought, he
holds that intent for *part* of the Matirim does not make
Pigul, and he exempts also in the first case.
(g) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): If he intended to Lehaktir the
Levonah tomorrow, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no
3) REMOVING THE "LEVONAH"
(h) (Reish Lakish): R. Yosi holds that one Matir is not
Mefagel another Matir;
(i) The same applies to the two Bazichei (spoons of) Levonah
that permit Lechem ha'Panim, one is not Mefagel the
(j) Question: What is the Chidush?
(k) Answer: One might have thought that R. Yosi exempts from
Kares in the Mishnah because Levonah is a different Min
than the Minchah, but Levonah can Mefagel Levonah, for
they are the same Min;
1. Reish Lakish teaches that this is not true.
(l) Question: But the Mishnah says that R. Yosi exempts
because Levonah is not from (the Min of) the Minchah!
(m) Answer: No, it means that Levonah is not a part of the
Minchah that is Me'ukav (by Haktaras ha'Kometz), i.e.
Levonah can be offered before the Kometz, whereas
Shirayim may not be eaten before this;
1. The Kometz or Levonah may be offered first.
2. Chachamim say that one Matir is not Mefagel another
Matir when they were never in one Kli together -
Kometz and Levonah were in one Kli together, they
are Hukve'u (they become like one), either is
Mefagel the other.
(a) (R. Yanai): If a Zar took the Levonah off a Minchah, it
4) PARTIAL "PIGUL"
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Taking it off is (partial) Holachah
(he brings it closer to the Mizbe'ach);
1. He holds that Holachah done without walking is
considered Holachah, a Zar may not do Holachah.
(d) Support (Rav Mari - Mishnah): The general rule regarding
Kemitzah, Nesinah in another Kli, Holachah or Haktarah
(when they make Pigul...).
1. (The four Avodos that can Mefagel a Minchah
correspond to the four Avodos of Zevachim.)
(e) Rejection: No, (indispensability does not cause something
to be considered an Avodah -) Nesinah indeed resembles
Kabalah, the essence of both is Kedushas Kli;
2. Question: We understand three of these - Kemitzah
corresponds to slaughter (separating the part to be
offered to Hash-m), Holachah corresponds Holachah,
Haktarah corresponds to Zerikah;
i. Can we say that Nesinah in a Kli resembles
Kabalah?! Kabalah happens by itself (the blood
falls into the bucket!)
3. Answer: We must say, since Nesinah is indispensable,
even though it does not resemble Kabalah, it is
considered an Avodah - the same applies to taking
Levonah off a Minchah.
1. The fact that one is active and the other passive is
(a) (Mishnah): If the two lambs (Shalmei Tzibur of Shavu'os)
were slaughtered with intent to eat one of the loaves (of
Shtei ha'Lechem) tomorrow, or if Haktarah of the two
Bazichei Levonah was with intent to eat one of the two
Sedarim (sets of six loaves of Lechem ha'Panim) tomorrow:
1. R. Yosi says, the loaf or Seder intended for is
Pigul, there is Kares for (eating) it, the other is
only Pasul, there is no Kares for it;
(b) (Gemara - Rav Huna): R. Yosi would hold that if one was
Mefagel in the right thigh, the left thigh is not Pigul.
2. Chachamim say, both are Pigul, there is Kares for
(c) Question: What is the reason?
(d) Answer: We can learn from reasoning or from a verse:
1. From reasoning - intent does not forbid more than
Tum'ah, if one limb became Tamei, it would not
Metamei others (unless it was still connected);
(e) Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): There is never Kares
unless he was Mefagel (intended to eat Chutz li'Zmano) a
(total of a) k'Zayis b'Shteihem (from both loaves).
2. From a verse - "Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles *Mimenu*
Avono Tisa" - from it, not from other Kodesh (for
which there was no intent.)
1. Inference: If he intended to eat only from one,
there would be no Pigul!
2. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
3. Answer #1: It is Chachamim.
4. Rejection: They say that intent for one makes Pigul!
5. Answer #2: It is R. Yosi.
6. If both thighs are considered like one entity
(because they come from the same Korban, the same
applies to Shtei ha'Lechem), we understand why
intents (for half a k'Zayis from each loaf) join;
i. But if the thighs are considered like two
entities, intents for the two loaves should not