ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 13
***** Perek ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah *****
(a) According to our Mishnah, Rebbi Yossi concedes, in a case where a Kohen
performed a Kemitzah with the intention of eating the Shirayim or burning
the Kemitzah tomorrow - that it is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav
(b) If however, the Kohen's intention is to eat the Levonah tomorrow, Rebbi
Yossi holds 'Pasul ve'Ein Bo Kareis'. The Rabbanan maintain - 'Pigul,
ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'.
(c) When the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Yossi 'Mai Shanah Zeh min ha'Zevach' - they
are asking why the current Halachah should differ from the case of a Kohen
who Shechts a Korban with the intention of burning the Eimurin tomorrow,
where we rule 'Pigul ve'Chayavin Alav Kareis'.
(d) Rebbi Yossi answered - that whereas the Dam, the Basar and the Eimurin
are all considered an intrinsic part of the same Korban, the Levonah is not
an intrinsic part of the Minchah.
(a) The Tana says 'Modeh Rebbi Yossi ba'Zeh ... ', based on his ruling in
the Seifa. If the Tana had not said it, we might have thought - that Rebbi
Yossi's reason is 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir', a reason which applies to
the Reisha too (since the Levonah is as much a Matir, as the Kometz).
(b) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because one Matir
cannot render another Matir, Pigul.
(c) Similarly, said Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yossi said that one of the Bazichei
Levonah cannot render the other one Pigul, either. He needed to say that,
because we might otherwise have thought - that Rebbi Yossi's reason is
because the Levonah is not of the same species as the Minchah, whereas the
two Bazichin, which are of the same kind, can render each other Pigul.
(d) The problem with this is from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yossi explicitly
said 'ha'Zevach Damo, u'Vesaro ve'Eimurav Echad, u'Levonah Einah min
ha'Minchah' - which seems to be the very reason that we just rejected (i.e.
the components of the Korban are all part of the animal, whereas the Levonah
is of a different species than the Minchah).
(a) Rebbi Yossi is not saying what we just suggested. What he is saying is -
that, seeing as (unlike the Eimurin, which can only be brought after the
Dam, or the Shirayim, after the Kometz), the Levonah can be brought even
before the Kometz, in which case it is a Matir, and a Machshavah on one
Matir cannot render another Matir, Pigul (just as Resh Lakish said).
(b) Even though on principle, the Rabbanan agree that 'Ein Matir Mefagel
Matir', that is only when the two Matirin are brought in two Keilim, but
they will argue with Rebbi Yossi - there where the two Matirin are brought
in one K'li.
(c) The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yossi - there where the Kohen Shechted one
of the Kivsei Atzeres (the lambs of Shavu'os) with a Machshavah to bring the
other one Chutz li'Zemano, in which case both lambs will remain Kasher.
(a) 'Likut Levonah' is - skimming the Levonah from off the Minchah, to burn
on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) Rebbi Yanai rules 'Likut Levonah be'Zar, Pasul'. Considering that Likut
Levonah itself is not an Avodah, Rebbi Yirmiyah explains - that he is Chayav
because of 'Holachah' ...
(c) ... and Rebbi Yanai holds - 'Holachah she'Lo be'Regel Sh'mah Holachah'
(see Shitah Mekubetzes 7)
(a) Rav Mari proves that Likut Levonah is indeed an Avodah, from the Mishnah
in the first Perek which lists the four Avodos of a Minchah. Kometz, we
learned, is equivalent to the Shechitah of a Zevach, Molich, to Molich, and
Maktir to Zorek, the link between ...
1. ... Kometz and Shechitah is - the fact that both designate the portion of
Hashem (the Kometz and the Dam respectively).
(b) Initially, we reject the suggestion that Nosen (Kometz) bi'Cheli is an
Avodah because it is similar to Kabalah - since the former entails an act,
whereas the latter is automatic.
2. ... Haktarah and Zerikah is - that both constitute actually giving that
portion to Hashem.
(c) So we think, that what turns ...
1. ... Nesinas K'li into an Avodah - is the fact that it is indispensible,
and that is why we compare it to Kabalah.
(d) We reinstate our original suggestion (that Nosen bi'Cheli is an Avodah
because it is similar to Kabalah) - on the grounds that the Pircha that we
asked is unacceptable, since, seeing as both entail Kedushas K'li, what
difference does it make whether there is an act or not?
2. ... Likut Levonah into an Avodah is - because it too, is indispensable,
and is therefore compared to Holachah.
(a) Rebbi Yossi rules that - if a Kohen Shechted the two Kivsei Atzeres
having in mind to eat one of the loaves on the following day - that loaf is
Pigul, whereas the second loaf is Pasul (but there is no Chiyuv Kareis for
(b) The parallel case he discusses is - if the Kohen sacrificed the two
Bazichin with the intention of eating one of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim on
the next day (on Sunday).
(c) According to the Rabbanan - both loaves are subject to Pigul (and
(d) The Tana'im do not contend with the other Korbanos that are brought at
the same time as the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (i.e. seven lambs, one bull and two
rams) - because the Kedushah of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem depends on the
Shechitah of the two lambs exclusively (as we will learn in Perek
(a) Rav Huna rules that if the Kohen is Mefagel a Korban, having in mind to
eat one of the thighs after the allotted time - the second thigh is not
(b) He bases this on a S'vara and on a Pasuk. The S'vara is - that,
presumably, Machshavah is no better than Ma'aseh, and if one thigh becomes
Tamei, the other remains unaffected; likewise Machshavah.
(c) And he learns it from the Pasuk's use of the singular "ve'ha'Nefesh
ha'Ocheles *Mimenu* Avonah Tisa" - "Mimenu", 've'Lo me'Chaveiro'.
(a) Rav Nachman queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa. He extrapolates from the
Beraisa (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) 'Le'olam Ein Bo Kareis ad
she'Yefagel bi'Sheteihen bi'k'Zayis' - 'bi'Sheteihen In, be'Achas Lo'.
(b) The author cannot be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi - because according to
them, even if the Kohen is Mefagel only one loaf, it would cause both loaves
to become Pigul.
(c) If the author is Rebbi Yossi, the problem with Rav Huna's statement is -
that if even the two thighs are two totally separate entities, then
certainly, the two loaves are, in which case, they could not possibly
(d) On the other hand, even if the two loaves are able to combine, based on
the fact that the two thighs are considered one entity, Rebbi Yossi in our
Mishnah, is justified in ruling that if the Kohen is Mefagel the one loaf,
the other one is not Pigul - since unlike the case in the Beraisa, the Kohen
did not combine them.