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 12
1) DIFFERENT INTENTIONS (cont.)
(a) (Continuation of Mishnah): The general rule regarding
Kemitzah, Nesinah (putting the Kometz) in another Kli,
Holachah or Haktarah (the four Avodos) done with intent
to eat something that is normally eaten, or Lehaktir
something that is normally Huktar:
2) "HAKTARAH" THAT DOES NOT PERMIT THE "SHIRAYIM"
1. If he intended Chutz li'Mkomo, the Minchah is Pasul,
there is no Kares;
(b) Question: When do we say that the Matir was offered
2. If he intended Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, there is
Kares, if the Matir (the Kometz, which permits the
Shirayim) was offered properly (except for intention
of Chutz li'Zmano).
(c) Answer: Some (or all) of the four Avodos were done (with
intent) Chutz li'Zmano and the others were proper.
(d) Question: When do we say that the Matir was not offered
(e) Answer: Some (or all) of the Avodos were done (with
intent) Chutz li'Mkomo and the others were Chutz
1. Alternatively, in Minchas Chotei or Minchas Kena'os,
some Avodos were Lo Lishmah (which is Posel these
Menachos), the others were Chutz li'Zmano.
(f) In the following cases the Minchah is Pasul, there is no
1. He intended (during one Avodah) to eat a k'Zayis
outside (Chutz li'Mkomo) and a k'Zayis tomorrow
(Chutz li'Zmano), or a k'Zayis tomorrow and a
(g) R. Yehudah says, the rule is, if (the intent) Chutz
li'Zmano came before Chutz li'Mkomo, it is Pigul, there
is Kares; if Chutz li'Mkomo came before Chutz li'Zmano,
it is not Pigul, there is no Kares;
2. He intended for half a k'Zayis tomorrow and half a
k'Zayis outside, or half a k'Zayis outside and half
a k'Zayis tomorrow.
(h) Chachamim say, in both cases it is Pasul, there is no
(a) (Gemara) Question: (According to R. Yochanan, who holds
that) if a Minchah became Chaser between Kemitzah and
Haktarah, we Maktir the Kometz, but the Shirayim may not
1. Does this Haktarah (make it considered as if the
Matir was offered properly to) make Pigul (if the
only Pasul intentions were Chutz li'Zmano), and
rescind Me'ilah from the Shirayim?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): Even according to R. Akiva, who
says that Zerikah rescinds Me'ilah from Yotzei (Kodshim
that left the Azarah), only says so regarding Yotzei, for
it is intact, an external cause is Posel it - he would
agree that Zerikah does not help Chaser.
(c) Objection and Answer #2 (Rava): Just the contrary! Even
R. Eliezer, who says that Zerikah does not rescind
Me'ilah from Yotzei, only says so regarding Yotzei, for
it is outside - he would agree that Zerikah helps Chaser,
for it is in the Azarah.
(d) Support (Rava, for himself - Mishnah): If Kemitzah was
done with intent to eat the Shirayim or a k'Zayis of the
1. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): If Kemitzah was done with
intent to eat the Shirayim outside...(the Beraisa
teaches all the cases of the Mishnah, but it omits
'or a k'Zayis'.)
2. Question: Why did R. Chiya omit 'or a k'Zayis of the
3. Suggestion: The Mishnah discusses when the Shirayim
became Chaserim, only a k'Zayis remains;
i. Since the case cannot be taught regarding
Nesinah b'Kli, Holachah or Haktarah (Chisaron
after Kemitzah is Posel, it cannot become
Pigul), it was not taught regarding Kemitzah
3) JOINING HALF-SHIURIM
(e) Rejection (Abaye): No, R. Chiya holds like R. Eliezer.
ii. The Seifa says that there is Kares - this shows
that it is called Haktarah to make Pigul!
1. (Mishnah): If a k'Zayis of any of the following was
offered outside, he is liable:
(f) (R. Chiya's Beraisa was just like the Mishnah, which said
that intent 'Lehaktir its Kometz' causes Pigul.)
i. A Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, the Minchah of a
Kohen, Minchas Chavitim, or Minchas Nesachim;
2. R. Eliezer exempts, unless he offered all of it.
i. R. Chiya could not teach Haktarah of 'a k'Zayis
of a Kometz' (since he holds like R. Eliezer,
that partial Haktarah is not considered
Haktarah), he did not teach this regarding any
of the Avodos.
(g) Question: If the Beraisa is like R. Eliezer, there is no
Pigul unless he intended Lehaktir all the Matitrim, its
Kometz *and* Levonah!
1. (Mishnah): If someone offered Kometz *or* Levonah
outside, he is liable;
(h) Answer: The Beraisa discusses Minchas Chotei (which has
no Levonah, therefore Haktaras ha'Kometz alone makes
2. R. Eliezer exempts, unless he offered both of them.
(i) Question: Did the Tana teach this entire Beraisa only
regarding Minchas Chotei?!
(j) Answer: Yes! Rav Dimi explained that the Beraisa
discusses Minchas Chotei, it is like R. Eliezer.
(k) Retraction (Rava): I was wrong, a Beraisa disproves me.
1. (Beraisa): "Kodesh Kodoshim Hu" - if one of the
Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim became Chaser, they are
(l) Rejection (Abaye): The Beraisa does not disprove you;
2. Inference: In the case of Yotzei (all was intact,
but part left the Azarah), the Chalos remaining
inside would be Kesherim!
3. This is like R. Akiva, who holds that Zerikah takes
effect on Yotzei - but it does not take effect on
1. It does not say that if part was Yotzei, the Chalos
remaining inside would be Kesherim - rather, we
infer that if some became Tamei, the Tahor Chalos
would be Kesherim;
i. Question: Why are the Tehorim Kesherim?
2. Indeed, if part was Yotzei, all the Chalos are
Pesulim - this is like R. Eliezer, who says that
Zerikah does not help for Yotzei.
ii. Answer: The Tzitz is Meratzeh.
3. Really, the Beraisa should have also taught Yotzei -
it taught Chaser, for this is a bigger Chidush, even
though the Chalos are in the Azarah, Haktarah does
not permit them.
i. According to R. Akiva, who says that Zerikah
helps for Yotzei, Haktarah would permit (the
remaining Chalos when some was) Chaser.
(a) (Mishnah): If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis (of
Shirayim, Chutz li'Mkomo or Chutz li'Zmano) and Lehaktir
half a k'Zayis (of Kometz or Levonah, Chutz...), it is
Kosher, because eating and burning do not join.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: In a similar case of eating
(Shirayim) and eating (Kometz or Levonah), they would
join, even though it is not normal to eat the latter!
(c) Contradiction (the previous Mishnah): ...Intent to eat
something normally eaten (makes Pigul.)
(d) Inference: Things not normally eaten do not make (or
join) for Pigul!
(e) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?
(f) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): Our Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who
says that intent for a person to eat something fit for
the Mizbe'ach, or vice-versa, is intent.
1. (Mishnah): If Kemitzah was done with intent to eat
(Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo) something which
is not normally eaten, or Lehaktir something not
normally Huktar, it is Kosher;
(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): Our Mishnah can be like Chachamim;
2. R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
1. Do not infer that intent to eat something not
normally eaten joins for Pigul, rather, two intents
to eat join if both are for something normally