(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 15

MENACHOS 15 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in Baltimore, Maryland, formerly of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.



(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan queries Rav Papa, who just established the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ('Sheneihem Yeitz'u le'Beis ha'Sereifah') and the Rabbanan ('ha'Tamei be'Tum'aso') by whether 'Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos' or not. Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa that in a case where one of the Bazichin became Tamei - both Bazichin must be burned.

(b) The Rabbanan rule there too - 'ha'Tamei be'Tum'aso, ve'ha'Tahor be'Taharaso'.

(c) The Machlokes there cannot be whether 'Tzitz Meratzeh' or not - because everyone agrees that 'Tzitz Meratzeh al ha'Olin' ...

(d) ... yet Rebbi Yehudah holds that both Bazichin are burned, a Kashya on Rav Papa.

(a) Furthermore, Rav Ashi asks on Rav Papa from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that if one tribe is Tamei during the bringing of the Korban Pesach - all twelve tribes may bring it be'Tum'ah (without being fussy about touching those who are Tamei), a ruling that has nothing to do with 'Tzitz Meratzeh'.

(b) According to the Rabbanan - the Tamei tribe brings the Pesach Sheini, whereas the other eleven tribes bring the Pesach Rishon be'Taharah.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah permits the Tzibur to bring the Pesach be'Tum'ah, despite the fact that the majority of the tribes are Tahor - because he holds that one tribe is considered a community.

(a) Ravina asks on Rav Papa from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah rules that if one of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or of the rows of Lechem ha'Panim becomes Tamei, both are taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah - specifically because 'Ein Tzibur Chaluk'.

(b) We can now learn from both our Mishnah and the Beraisa (cited by Ravina and Rav Ashi respectively) - that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because of 'Ein Tzitz Meratzeh al Achilos'.

(c) The reason Rebbi Yochanan ascribes to Rebbi Yehudah's rulings is - 'she'Ein Korban Tzibur Chaluk', which Rebbi Yehudah meant seriously when he quoted it, because it was a tradition that he learned from his Rebbes.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that the Todah is Mefagel its Lechem - but not vice-versa?

(b) The time-limit the Torah gives for eating a Todah - is by the end of the night after it is brought.

(c) Consequently, if someone Shechts his Todah with the intention of eating ...

1. ... it the next day - both the Todah and the Lechem become Pigul.
2. ... its loaves the next day - the loaves become Pigul, but not the Todah.
(d) The Tana then rules that if one is Mefagel ...
1. ... the Kevasim (that accompany the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) - both become Pigul.
2. ... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - that the Lechem becomes Pigul, but not the Kevasim.
(a) Rav Kahana learns from the Pasuk in "Ve'hikriv al Zevach ha'Todah, Chalos" - that the Lachmei Todah are also called 'Todah'.

(b) Otherwise, the Torah ought to have written - "Ve'hikriv Chalos al Zevach ha'Todah".

(c) And the reason our Mishnah exempts the Todah from Pigul if one was Mefagel the loaves is - because although the Lechem is called 'Todah', the Todah is not called 'Lechem'.

(d) The Kashya this poses on the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ha'Kevasim Mefaglin es ha'Lechem' - is why this is so, seeing as nowhere do we find the Sh'tei ha'Lechem referred to as 'Kevasim'.

(a) The reason that we finally give to explain why both 'ha'Todah Mefageles es ha'Lechem' and 'ha'Kevasim Mefaglin es ha'Lechem' and not vice-versa - is because both the Todah and the two lambs are brought on account of their respective loaves (in fact, they even permit them to be eaten), but not vice-versa.

(b) Having taught us both sides of the Halachah by Todah, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it with regard to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, because we might otherwise have thought that - since (unlike the loaves of the Todah), the loaves of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are waved together with the Basar, the Lechem will be Mefagel the Todah too, even though the Lechem of the Todah is not.

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if someone Shechted a Todah with the intention of eating half a k'Zayis of the Korban and half of the Lechem. He could not have been asking him about the Minchah becoming Pigul - since the Lechem does not render the Basar Pigul, as we have already learned.

(b) His She'eilah was - whether the Basar combines to render the Lechem Pigul or not.

(c) Rav replied that the Lechem is indeed Pigul. We query this however, with a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - because if the Basar which is Mefagel, does not itself become Pigul, then how can the Lechem, which is not Mefagel, become Pigul?

(a) We query the 'Kal-va'Chomer' however, from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where Reuven sowed seeds in Shimon's vineyard in which the grapes were already recognizable (S'mader). The Chachmim of that time ruled -that the seeds were forbidden, but the grapes were permitted (because of the principle 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'Lo'.

(b) The fact that the grapes were S'mader - is insignificant, other than that it happened to be the case (see also Tosfos DH 'she'Zara ... ').

(c) The Kashya on Rav from there is - that if one Darshen the sort of retroactive 'Kal-va'Chomer' that he Darshened, then why did the Tana not Darshen 'u'Mah ha'Oser (the vines) Eino Ne'esar, ha'Ba Le'esor ve'Lo Asar (the seeds) Eino Din she'Lo Yis'aser'?




(a) We refute the 'Kal-va'Chomer' in the case of Kil'ayim however, based on the fact that seeds in a vineyard are only mi'de'Rabbanan. In fact, Kanvus (hemp) and Lof (a kind of legume) alone constitute an Isur d'Oraysa in a vineyard - since only they have a root and do not therefore decompose before re-growing (or because we Darshen from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sizra Karm'cha Kil'ayim", that only seeds that grow clusters that resemble grapes are subject to Kil'ayim).

(b) Now that the Kil'ayim is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the Chachamim forbade only the one and not the other - because they wanted to penalize the one who sinned (and not the owner of the vineyard [see also Shitah Mekubetzes 4).

(c) Others learned Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah to Rav (not with regard to someone who Shechted the Todah in order to be Mefagel the Lechem, but) - with regard to someone who Shechted the Kivsei Atzeres with the intention of eating the two loaves the next day.

(d) The rest of the Sugya is identical to the initial one. According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar did not deign to ask what the Din will be in the case of 'ha'Shochet es ha'Todah Lefagel es ha'Lechem' - because since (unlike the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) the loaves are not waved together with the Todah, he took for granted that they would not be Mefagel the Korban.

(a) Rebbi Aba Zuti presents a different version of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah. According to him, Rebbi Elazar asked Rav what the Din will be if someone Shechts one of the Kivsei Atzeres in order to eat 'me'Chaveiro' the next day 'me'Chaveiro' - might refer to the other lamb, or it might refer to the Lechem.

(b) If it refers to the other lamb - then the Pigul will be ineffective, since one Matir is not Mefagel the other (as we have already learned); whereas if it refers to the Lechem, that loaf at least, will become Pigul (as we have learned too).

(c) Rav tried to resolve the She'eilah from the Mishnah later, which cites the exact case of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah, concluding 'Sheneihem Kesheirim' - a proof that 'Chaveiro' refers to the Lechem.

(d) Rebbi Elazar refuted Rav's proof however - on the grounds that perhaps the Beraisa speaks where he went on to specify 'Chaveiro Keves'.

(a) A Machshavah on a Zevach will be Mefagel the Nesachim, according to Rebbi Meir - from the moment the latter are sanctified in a K'li Shareis (from which point they permanently adopt Kedushas Mizbe'ach).

(b) Nesachim, he adds - cannot be Mefagel the Zevach?

(c) Consequently, in a case where someone Shechts a Zevach with the intention of eating it the next day - the Nesachin are included in the Pigul; whereas were he to do so with the intention of bringing the Nesachim the next day - the Nesachim would become Pigul, but not the Zevach.

(d) When Rebbi Meir says 'Mefagel es ha'Nesachim', he means that someone who subsequently drinks them is Chayav Kareis.

(a) Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, considers Nesachim subject to Pigul - because the Zerikas ha'Dam is Matir them to be sacrificed.

(b) He counters the Rabbanan's argument that it is possible to bring the Nesachim as much as ten days after the Korban - by pointing out that he was only referring to Nesachim that the owner brought together with his Korban, irrespective of when than is.

(c) According to Rava, Rebbi Meir counters the Rabbanan's argument that one can change the Nesachim from one Korban to another - by stating that, in his opinion, the Shechitah of the Korban fixes them (like the Lachmei Todah), and they can no longer be changed.

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, includes the Log of oil of a Metzora in the Din of Pigul, on the grounds - that it is permitted to the Kohanim through the Shechitah of the Asham Metzora.

(b) When the Chachamim queried him from the fact ...

1. ... that it is possible to bring the Nesachim as much as ten days after the Korban, he replied (like he did a little earlier) - that he was referring exclusively, to Nesachim which the owner brought together with the Korban.
2. ... that it is possible to change the Log of oil to the Asham of another Metzora, he replied (like before) - that in his opinion, it became fixed with the Shechitah of the Asham (like the Lachmei Todah).
Next daf


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