ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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, who rules that if someone 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 - the lambs are Kasher (because this
constitutes only a half a Machshavah on half a Matir).
(b) We can infer from the Shochet's words - that if he were to say 'one
k'Zayis from the two loaves', it would be Pigul.
(c) Bearing in mind the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, the
problem with Rebbi's statement is 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - if Rebbi holds like
the Rabbanan, then even a Machshavah on one of the loaves ought to suffice,
whereas if he holds Like Rebbi Yossi, back comes the Kashya on Rav Huna
(that we are currently trying to circumvent)?
(d) We answer by establishing Rebbi like the Rabbanan, and amending the
wording (from 'Eino Chayav ad she'Yefagel *bi'Sheteihen*') to ' ... ad
she'Yefagel bi'Sheneihem' - meaning, that the word 'both of them' refers,
not to the loaves (where a Machshavah on one of them would indeed suffice),
but to the lambs, because the Rabbanan hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.
(a) And the Beraisa comes to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who
holds - 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir'.
(b) According to the Rabbanan (who hold 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir')
Pigul is applicable to a case of 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah', even though it
is not applicable to ...
1. ... 'ha'Maktir es ha'Kometz' - because whereas Haktarah pertains to the
Levonah too (rendering the Kometz a Chatzi Matir), Kemitzah does not.
(c) The current Beraisa opens with the word 'Le'olam' - implying that the
Tana is coming to teach us a big Chidush, one which precludes from various
2. ... 'ha'Shochet Echad min ha'Kevasim' - because whereas the former is a
complete Avodah (seeing as Kometz does not apply to the Levonah, as we just
explained), the latter is only half an Avodah, seeing as both lambs require
(d) In that case, the problem in establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan
is - that the only Chidush lies in the word 'bi'Sheneihem', which comes to
preclude from Rebbi Meir; whereas if we were to leave the Beraisa intact,
and establish it like Rebbi Yossi (a Kashya on Rav Huna), then it would be
coming to preclude from both Rebbi Meir (regarding 'Chatzi Matir') and the
Rabbanan (regarding 'Sh'nei ha'Lechem').
(a) Furthermore, Rav Ashi queries our interpretation of the Beraisa (to
accommodate Rav Huna), from another Beraisa, which discusses Parim u'Se'irim
1. Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are Shechted - in the Azarah.
(b) Rebbi Elazar Mishum Rebbi Yossi rules 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 - that the
Korban is Pigul (because a Machsheves Chutz by an Avodas Chutz is valid).
2. Their leftover blood is poured - on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.
(c) If on the other hand, the Kohen ...
1. ... Shechts Parim u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin
with the intention of sprinkling their blood on the following day - the
Korban will be Kasher, and the same will apply if he ...
(d) In the very first case, it cannot be the blood that becomes Pigul,
because of a Mishnah in Zevachim - which states that only something that has
a Matir (such as the Sheyarei Minchah, or the Eimurei and the Basar of
Zevachim is subject to Pigul, but not something that is a Matir itself (such
as the Dam of a Zevach).
2. ... sprinkles the blood of the same with the intention of pouring the
Sheyarei ha'Dam on to the Yesod on the following day - because he does not
consider a Machsheves P'nim during an Avodas Chutz and a Machsheves Chutz
during an Avodas P'nim, to be valid.
(a) If, in the previous case, it is not the Dam that becomes Pigul, it is -
(b) Bearing in mind that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi, the
Kashya on Rav Huna is - that if Pigul on the Dam extends to the Basar, then
how much more so will it extend from one thigh to the other?
(a) Ravina asks a similar Kashya on Rav Huna from another Beraisa, where
Rebbi Yossi concedes that if a Kohen performs Kemitzah on a Minchah, having
in mind to eat the Shirayim or to sacrifice the Kometz on the following
day - then it is Pigul, and whoever eats it is Chayav Kareis.
(b) This cannot refer to a person who eats the Kometz - because the same
Mishnah in Zevachim, which precludes Dam from the Chiyuv of Pigul, also
precludes the Kometz (which is also a Matir).
(c) It must therefore refer to the Shirayim.
(d) This proves - that two components of the same Korban, such as the Kometz
and the Shirayim, the Dam and the Basar and certainly the two thighs, are
considered one entity regarding Pigul.
(a) Having proved Rav Huna wrong, Rebbi Yochanan now explains 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 entity - by Darshening from two Pesukim that they do indeed
contain both specifications: they are one entity, inasmuch as they are both
crucial and that, by means of Machshavah, they combine to make a Shiur
k'Zayis as regards Pigul, and they are two entities, in that without a
Machshavah, one is not Mefagel the other.
(b) Rebbi Yossi learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah" - that the two loaves are one entity (see
Tosfos DH 'ha'Kasuv').
(c) Rebbi Yochanan learns to make the same distinction by the two rows of
Lechem ha'Panim - from the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (because of their similarity).
2. ... "Shetayim, Sh'nei Esronim" - that they are two entities.
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan asks ...
1. ... 'Pigal be'Lachmei Todah Mahu', he means to ask - whether, seeing as
the Lachmei Todah too, contain four different kinds of loaves, Rebbi Yossi
will also argue with the Rabbanan, and confine Pigul to the one which the
Kohen specifically had in mind, or whether here he will concede to the
Rabbanan that it is all considered one Korban. And will explain his
(b) In response, Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael quoted Rebbi Yochanan a
Beraisa, which states - 've'Chein Atah Omer be'Lachmei Todah, ve'Chein Atah
Omer be'Minchas Ma'afeh'.
2. ... 'be'Ma'afeh Sanur Mahu', which contains two different kinds of
loaves - in the same way.
(a) The Beraisa rules that if a Kohen thought during the Shechitah to eat
half a k'Zayis of Basar, and during the Zerikah, to eat another half - the
Korban is Pigul, because Shechitah and Zerikah combine.
(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 - because it is only
Shechitah and Zerikah, which are both Matirin, that combine, but not Kabalah
and Holachah, which are not.
(c) Others say - that Kabalah and Holachah combine too.
(a) We query all this from a Beraisa, quoted by Levi. The Tana states there
the four Avodos, Shechitah, Zerikah, Kabalah and Holachah - do not combine
to create Pigul.
(b) Rava establishes the first Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and the second,
like Rebbi, who says - that if someone 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 - they do
(c) Abaye claims however, that Rebbi's ruling differs from the case in
question - in that whereas the latter is a case of 'Kulo Matir va'Chatzi
Zayis', Rebbi's is one of 'Chatzi Matir and Chatzi Zayis'.
(d) What makes Shechitah and Zerikah a complete Matir, more than each of the
two lambs is - the fact that Shechitah is Matir the Dam, and Zerikah the
(a) Rava bar Rav Chanan attempts to answer this question on the grounds -
that if Rebbi would hold Pigul by Kulo Matir, then he would decree a P'sul
by Chatzi Matir.
(b) And he bases this on rulings by Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan - both of
whom issue similar decrees, rendering Pasul cases that resemble those of
(c) He proves from the opening Mishnah in the Perek ...
1. ... 'Lehaktir Levonasah le'Machar, Rebbi Yossi Omer Pasul ve'Ein Bo
Kareis' - that Rebbi Yossi decrees Lehaktir Kometz di'Levonah on account of
Lehaktir Kometz de'Minchah.
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' (implying
that there is no Pigul, but that it is Pasul) - that the Rabbanan decree
Kometz de'Minchah on account of Kometz de'Minchas Chotei, and Levonah
de'Minchah on account of Levonah de'Bazichin.
(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. The Rabbanan, in a Mishnah
later, will issue a decree rendering 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 - on account of the second Keves and the second
(b) There is no reason though, for Rebbi to similarly decree in the case of
Keves Echad and Chatzi Zayis - since there is no other case of Chatzi Matir
and Chatzi Achilah which is subject to Pigul, on whose account he might
(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. The problem
with this statement is - that, seeing as there is no other Matir, it seems
obvious that this is a standard case of Pigul, so why does the Tana find it
necessary to mention it?
(d) However, the fact that the Tana deemed fit to mention it - proves that
the Rabbanan's reason for rendering Pasul 'Pigal be'Kometz ve'Lo bi'Levonah'
in the Reisha is due to a decree on account of a Minchas Chotei, as we just
(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 - because he holds 'Ein Korban Tzibur Chaluk' a
Korban Tzibur cannot be divided into two; either the loaves are all eaten or
they are all burned).
(b) The Chachamim - permit the Kohanim to eat the second loaf.
(c) Rebbi Elazar qualifies the Machlokes - Rebbi Yehudah will concede, he
says, that in the event that the loaf became Tamei after the Zerikas ha'Dam,
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). This means -
that, according to the Rabbanan, the Tzitz worn by the Kohen Gadol atones
for the Korban that became Pasul through Tum'ah, permitting the Kohanim to
eat it, but not the loaf which is actually Tamei, since the Tzitz does not
have the power to remove the La'av of Tum'ah.