Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 15

1) "PIGUL" OF A "KORBAN TODAH" AND ITS LOAVES

QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that when one slaughters a Korban Todah with intention to eat the Korban Chutz l'Zemano, the Lechem and the Korban become Pigul. When one slaughters the Korban with intention to eat its accompanying Lechem, the Lachmei Todah, Chutz l'Zemano, the Lechem becomes Pigul, but not the Korban. The Gemara asks what the Halachah will be in a case in which a person slaughters a Todah with intention to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, half of a k'Zayis of the meat and half of a k'Zayis of the Lechem. Will the Lechem become Pigul in such a case? Rav rules that the Lechem does become Pigul.

The Gemara asks why should the Lechem become Pigul? It should not become Pigul due to the following Kal v'Chomer. If we find that something that causes Pigul ("Mefagel") does not become prohibited itself as Pigul, then something that attempts to make cause Pigul but fails to do so certainly should not become Pigul itself.

RASHI explains that the Gemara is referring to the half of a k'Zayis of Todah as the item that is *making* the Pigul, the Mefagel, since the thought to eat the Todah Chutz l'Zemano is going to make the Lechem become Pigul, while the Todah itself does not become Pigul. From this we learn the Kal v'Chomer that since the thought to eat half a k'Zayis of Lechem Chutz l'Zemano is *not* able to make the Todah become Pigul, then certainly the Lechem itself should not become Pigul.

Why is the half of k'Zayis of the Todah referred to as something that creates Pigul any more than the Chatzi k'Zayis of Lechem? Both of them create Pigul in the Lechem and do not create Pigul in the Todah! Both should be called items that create Pigul, or both should be called items that do not create Pigul! (PERUSH HA'MEYUCHAS LA'RASHBA)

ANSWER: The PERUSH HA'MEYUCHAS LA'RASHBA answers that the thought to eat the Chatzi k'Zayis of Todah Chutz l'Zemano makes the Lechem become Pigul, because with regard to causing the Lechem to become Pigul, it is considered as though the Todah itself became Pigul. Even though the Todah itself is not actually Pigul, nevertheless the thought to eat a half of a k'Zayis of the Todah at the wrong time causes us to consider the Todah to be Pigul, at least with regard to the Lechem, which is subordinate to the Todah. This is why the thought about the half of k'Zayis of Todah is called a thought that creates Pigul, since it creates Pigul in both the Todah and the Lechem, with regard to the Lechem. On the other hand, a thought to eat a half of k'Zayis of Lechem at the wrong time does not affect the Todah itself in any way. Therefore, the thought is called a thought that does not create Pigul, since it does not cause the Lechem and the Todah together to become Pigul. (A similar logic may be said with regard to the Gefanim and Zer'aim discussed in the Gemara here.)

15b

QUESTION: The Gemara relates an incident involving a person who sowed the vineyard of another person with seeds, transgressing the Isur of Kil'ayim. The Chachamim ruled that the seeds he sowed are prohibited, but the vines in the vineyard itself are permitted. The Gemara asks why the seeds should be prohibited. If they cannot prohibit the vines, then they themselves should be permitted! The Gemara answers that the Isur of Kil'ayim in this case is mid'Rabanan, and the Rabanan chose to penalize the person who attempts to prohibit someone else's vineyard by prohibiting the seeds even though the vines remain permitted. The Gemara explains that the Kil'ayim in this case is only Asur mid'Rabanan, since the only Kil'ayim d'Oraisa is "Kanvus" and "Luf." ("Kanvus" is hemp (cannabis), a tall Asiatic herb with tough fiber that is used for making cloth, floor covering, and cords. "Luf" is a type of onion, similar to colocasia, with edible leaves, roots and beans.)

Based on this Gemara, we may ask the following question. With regard to which plants may we conclude that the Isur Kil'ayim applies only mid'Rabanan? Does the Gemara mean to say that planting ordinary types of grain (wheat and barley) in a vineyard do not prohibit the vineyard mid'Oraisa?

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU CHAIM KOHEN (cited by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES #2, #4) explains that the Gemara is not making a statement but rather is asking a rhetorical question. The Gemara is asking, "Do you think that only Kanvus and Luf are prohibited by the Torah, and nothing else? Rather, all Zera'im prohibit a vineyard mid'Oraisa, and the reason why the vineyard is permitted in this case is because of the rule that 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino Shelo,' a person cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him."

According to Rabeinu Chaim, the Gemara is not limiting the Isur of Kil'ayim to any particular plant or plants. Rather, it is saying that all plants are included in the Isur d'Oraisa of Kil'ayim.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Hitiru) writes that the Gemara does not mean to say that wheat, barley, and the other types of grain do not create Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa. Rather, the Gemara means that aside from grain, the only other plants that create an Isur of Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa are Kanvus and Luf. (See also RABEINU TAM in SEFER HA'YASHAR #495, and YERE'IM HA'SHALEM #76 and #389.)

(c) The RA'AVAN (#53) and the RAN in Chulin (cited by the TAZ YD 296:1) maintain that the five types of grain, and any other edible produce, are subject to the Isur of Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa. The Gemara here is referring to seeds of plants that generally are not eaten, such as Kanvus and Luf. The Gemara means that the only inedible plants that create Kil'ayim mid'Oraisa are Kanvus and Luf, as the Mishnah in Kil'ayim (5:8) teaches. This might be the intention of the RASH there as well.

(d) The RAMBAN (cited by the TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA (1:448), and in Chulin 82a) explains that any plant can prohibit a vineyard if it is sown in a pre-existing vineyard. However, the Gemara in Chulin (116a) teaches that it is possible to create an Isur Kil'ayim by bringing a plant that is fully grown into a vineyard, such as when the seeds were planted in an Atzitz Nakuv (a perforated pot), and after they grew the pot was placed inside a vineyard (or the contents of the pot were planted in the vineyard). The Gemara tells us that such a plant prohibits the vineyard only if the plant grows, while in the vineyard, an amount equivalent to one part of 200 of its total present volume. The Ramban explains that the case of our Gemara involved such a situation, where a fully-grown plant was placed into the vineyard. It is in such a case that the Chachamim said that only Kanvus and Luf can prohibit the vineyard mid'Oraisa, since they are large plants and they become difficult to distinguish from the vines in the vineyard. Other plants, though, that were imported into the vineyard, including even wheat, do not prohibit the vineyard through additional growth there. They prohibit the vineyard only when they are originally planted from seed in the vineyard.

(e) The RA'AVAD (cited by the Ramban and Rashba, loc. cit.) suggests that mid'Oraisa any plant is prohibited to be planted in a vineyard. The Gemara here is referring not to the prohibition of planting Kil'ayim; there certainly is a prohibition to plant it. Rather, the Gemara is referring to the Halachah that when a field is planted with Kil'ayim, the vines and produce become prohibited to be eaten. The Gemara is saying that only Kanvus and Luf, and not other plants, cause a vineyard to become prohibited to be eaten.