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 6
MENACHOS 6-7 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas
Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah by her family.
1) A SOURCE TO PERMIT A "TREIFAH"
(a) Answer #5 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): A Tzad ha'Shavah
would permit a Treifah (therefore, the verse is needed)!
2) "PESULIM" OF "KEMITZAH"
1. We could not learn from Melikah, for the Kedushah
causes the Isur - Chelev and blood counter this
(they are forbidden to people and may be offered,
even though their Kedushah does not cause their
(b) Rejection: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, in
each of them that is the Mitzvah!
2. Question: We could not learn from Chelev and blood,
the rest of what (the animal) they come from is
permitted, whereas a Treifah is totally forbidden!
3. Answer: Melikah counters this (it is Neveilah, which
is totally forbidden to people)!
4. The question against each of these does not apply to
the other; the Tzad ha'Shavah of both is that
forbidden to people and may be offered - we learn
from this to Treifah!
(c) Answer #6 (Rav Ashi): The Kal va'Chomer itself
(forbidding a Treifah to be offered) is faulty!
1. We cannot learn from a Ba'al Mum, for this is a
Pesul even in Kohanim (but Treifah is not)!
(d) Question (Rav Acha Sava): Yotzei Dofen (one born through
Caesarian section) refutes this - such a Kohen is Kosher
for Avodah, yet it is permitted to people and may not be
(e) Answer: We cannot learn from Yotzei Dofen, for a
firstborn Yotzei Dofen animal does not receive Kedushas
Bechor, whereas a firstborn Treifah does!
(f) Question: Ba'al Mum counters this (it receives Kedushas
Bechor, it is permitted to people and may not be
(g) Answer: We cannot learn from Ba'al Mum, it is a Pesul in
(h) Question: The question against each of these does not
apply to the other; the Tzad ha'Shavah of both are
permitted to people and may not be offered - Treifah is
forbidden to people, all the more so it may not be
offered! (So why is a verse needed?)
(i) Answer #1: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah,
neither Ba'al Mum nor Yotzei Dofen is ever permitted (in
Kodshim, where it is forbidden), but Treifah is
1. Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): In which case is
Treifah permitted (but not Ba'al Mum or Yotzei
(j) Rejection: They eat from Hekdesh's table (and regarding
Hekdesh, also Ba'al Mum (of birds) is permitted)!
i. Suggestion: Melikah of Olas ha'Of makes it a
Treifah, yet it is Huktar.
2. Answer: Kohanim eat Melikas Chatas ha'Of, even
though it is Treifah.
ii. Rejection: Regarding birds, also a Ba'al Mum
may be offered - Zevachim must be unblemished
and (sometimes) must be male, in birds we are
never concerned for these!
(k) Answer #2: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for
the sources we learn from are known Pesulim (every Mum is
visible, and people talk about a Yotzei Dofen, but some
Treifos (such as a hole in the intestines) are not known
(to anyone, until after slaughter));
1. Therefore, a verse is needed.
(l) Question: Other verses Posel Treifah!
1. "Mi'Mashke Yisrael" - Kodshim must be from things
that (if they were Chulin would be) permitted to
(m) Answer: All three verses are needed:
2. (Ma'aser Behemah is taken from) "Kol Asher Ya'avor
Tachas ha'Shavet" - this excludes a Treifah, which
does not pass (properly, for it is weak).
1. If it only said "Mi'Mashke Yisrael", one might have
thought to exclude only things which were never
permitted, such as Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem, but
something that was permitted and became forbidden
would be acceptable;
2. If it only said "Kol Asher Ya'avor...", we would say
that one cannot Makdish a Treifah (to be Ma'aser or
any other Korban), but if a Kosher Zevach became
Treifah, it would be acceptable;
3. Therefore, it must also say "Min ha'Bakar".
(a) (Mishnah): Each of the following is Posel Minchas Chotei
or any other Minchah:
1. Kemitzah was done by a Zar, Onen, Tevul Yom,
Mechushar Begadim, Mechushar Kipurim, one who did
not wash his hands and feet, Arel, or Tamei;
(b) If Kemitzah was done with the left hand, it is Pasul;
2. It was done while sitting, or standing on top of a
vessel, Behemah or another Kohen's foot.
(c) Ben Beseira says, he returns the Kometz to the Minchah,
and does Kemitzah again, with his right hand.
(d) If the Kometz included a pebble, grain of salt, or grain
of Levonah (frankincense), it is Pasul;
1. This is because a Kometz that is too big or Chaser
(lacking) is Pasul.
(e) (In Kemitzah, the Kohen inserts his middle three fingers
into the Minchah and bends them back to his palm).
(f) A Kometz that is too big - some of the Minchah sticks out
(to the right or left of the three fingers;
alternatively, some is between the end of one of these
fingers and the palm);
(g) (Another case of) a Kometz that is Chaser - the fingers
were curled, not extended.
(h) (Gemara) Question: The Mishnah could have said 'any
Minchah' - why did it specify Minchas Chotei?
(i) Answer: This is a Chidush according to R. Shimon.
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): It would have been proper
that Minchas Chotei require oil and Levonah, in
order that a sinner will not 'profit' (pay less than
one who bring a normal Minchah);
i. The Torah exempted it, in order that his Korban
not be beautiful.
2. It would have been proper that a Chatas require
Nesachim, in order that a sinner will not 'profit';
2) CAN A "KEMITZAH PESULAH" BE FIXED?
(j) Question: If so, the corresponding Mishnah about Zevachim
should also teach this!
i. The Torah exempted it, in order that his Korban
will not be beautiful.
3. One might have thought, since R. Shimon holds that
the Torah does not want a sinner's Korban to be
beautiful, if a Pasul did Kemitzah, it should be
Kosher - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
1. It should Posel Kabalah of *Chatas Chelev* (or any
other Chatas brought for a transgression) *or any
other* Chatas (e.g. Yoledes or of the Tzibur) done
by a Zar or Onen...;
(k) Answer: Here, the Mishnah must teach that R. Shimon
2. This would be a Chidush according to R. Shimon (even
though the Korban should not be beautiful, we do not
Machshir Avodah of a Pasul!)
3. That Mishnah does not specify Chatas Chelev, it just
says 'any Chatas' - apparently, saying 'any' without
saying 'except for' teaches all cases;
i. The same applies here, since it says 'any' and
does not list exceptions, without saying
'except for' teaches all cases;
1. Since the Reisha (the first Mishnah) is unlike R.
Shimon (according to Rabah and Rava; Shitah
Mekubetzes  - according to everyone, for it is
Posel Lo Lishmah in Holachah), one might have
thought that the Seifa is also unlike R. Shimon -
therefore, it teaches that this is not so.
(a) (Rav): If a Zar did Kemitzah, he returns it (the Minchah
is Kosher, a Kohen will do Kemitzah).
3) WHEN CAN THE "PESUL" BE FIXED?
(b) Question: But the Mishnah said that a Zar is Posel!
(c) Answer: It means, it is Pasul until it is returned.
(d) Question: But R. Yehudah ben Beseira says this (surely,
the first Tana argues!)
(e) Answer #1: All agree when the Kometz is intact that he
returns it, they only argue when it is Chaser:
1. Chachamim say that he may not bring more from his
house to complete the lack, R. Yehudah says that he
(f) Objection (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): He returns
the Kometz and does Kemitzah again...
1. If all agree to this, and the argument is whether or
not he may bring more from his house, R. Yehudah
should say, he returns it, *brings more from his
house* and does Kemitzah again...!
(g) Answer #2: Rav's law is like R. Yehudah.
(h) Objection: R. Yehudah explicitly says that he returns it
(what is Rav's Chidush?)!
(i) Answer: R. Yehudah only said this regarding Kemitzas Smol
(taken with the left hand);
1. One might have thought that other Pesulim cannot be
fixed - Rav teaches, this is not so.
(j) Question: Why is the left hand different, that we would
think that it is the only Pesul that can be fixed?
(k) Answer: Smol is used in the Avodah on Yom Kipur.
(l) Question #1: Also a Zar is Kosher for slaughter!
(m) Answer: Slaughter is not an Avodah. (Rashi - because a
Zar may do it; Tosfos - because a slaughter of Kodshim
*never* requires a Kohen, or because even Chulin requires
1. Question: It is an Avodah!
(n) Question #2: We should learn from a Bamah (that a Zar is
sometimes Kosher for Avodah, so surely Kemitzas Zar can
be fixed, just like Kemitzas Smol!)
i. (R. Zeira citing Rav): If a Zar slaughtered the
Parah Adumah, it is Pasul.
2. Answer: Parah Adumah is different, it is Kodshei
Bedek ha'Bayis (Avodah does not apply to them).
ii. (Rav): (We know this because) it says "Elazar"
(i.e. a Kohen) and "Chukah" (which teaches that
it is Me'akev.)
3. Question: If slaughter of Bedek ha'Bayis requires a
Kohen, all the more so slaughter of Kodshei
Mizbe'ach! (Rashba - the questioner misunderstood
the previous answer to mean that slaughter of Bedek
ha'Bayis is an Avodah that requires Kehunah, but we
do not find this regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach.)
4. Answer (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Slaughter of
Bedek ha'Bayis requires a Kohen just like seeing
Tzara'as (to rule on it), even though neither is an
1. Suggestion: We do not learn from (the fact that
something is Kosher on) a Bamah.
(o) Answer: Really, we do not learn from a Bamah - the Tana
really learns from "Zos Toras ha'Olah" that they are not
2. Rejection (Beraisa) Question: What is the source
that if Yotzei (Eimurim that left the Azarah) came
up on the Mizbe'ach, we do not take them down?
3. Answer: Because Yotzei is Kosher on a Bamah, it is
not taken down from the Mizbe'ach.
(a) Inference: Rav had to teach that R. Yehudah says that
other Pesulim can be fixed, otherwise, we would have
thought that they cannot.
(b) Question #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R.
Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): R. Yehudah ben Beseira says that
all Pesulim can be fixed. (Tosfos - everyone already knew
this Beraisa or the next.)
(c) Question #2 (Beraisa): "V'Komatz mi'Sham" - from where
the Zar stands (Rashi - Ezras Yisrael, i.e. Tzafon is not
required; Tosfos - it need not be where Hagashah is done
(the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach));
1. Question (R. Yehudah ben Beseira): What is the
source that if Kemitzah was done with the left hand,
he returns the Kometz, and does Kemitzah again, with
the right hand?
(d) Version #1 - Answer: Rav's Chidush is that R. Yehudah ben
Beseira allows fixing the Pesul even after the Kometz was
put in a Kli Shares - Tana'im argue about this.
2. Answer: "V'Komatz mi'Sham" - from the place where
Kemitzah was already done.
i. The verse does not specify why Kemitzah was
repeated, surely the same law applies to all
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ben Yosi and R. Yehudah
ha'Nachtom): (R. Yehudah ben Beseira says that) the
Pesul can be fixed only before the Kometz was put in a Kli -
this, it cannot. (Rav holds like Chachamim who argue with
(e) Version #2 - Answer: Rav's Chidush is that R. Yehudah allows
fixing the Pesul only before the Kometz was put in a Kli, like the
following Tana'im, unlike Chachamim.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi and...): The Pesul can be fixed only
the Kometz was put in a Kli Shares.
(f) Objection (Rav Nachman): Either way you say, this is difficult!
1. If these two Tana'im hold that Kemitzah Pesulah is considered
Avodah, even if it was not put in another Kli, it cannot be
(g) Retraction (Rav Nachman): Indeed, it is Avodah - the Avodah is
not finished until it is put in another Kli, (therefore, it can be
2. If they hold that it is not Avodah, even after it was put in
another Kli, it can be fixed!