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 55
1) TAKING MOIST OR DRY DATES TO BE "TERUMAH"
(a) Question: The Seifa is difficult for Rav
2) "MENACHOS" MAY NOT BE MADE "CHAMETZ"
1. (Seifa - R. Elazar): R. Yosi would take 10 dry dates
to exempt 90 moist dates.
(b) Answer (Rav Dimi): Dry dates are different (than meat),
they can be returned to their original state through
i. According to Shmuel, who says that we follow
the original volume, this is a tenth;
ii. But according to Rav, we follow the current
volume - this is less than a tenth!
(c) (Beraisa): Dates may be made Terumah on (Rashi - an equal
number of) dry dates, in a place where people normally
make dry dates;
1. Dry dates may not be made Terumah on (Rashi - an
equal number of) dates, even in a place where people
normally make dry dates.
(d) Inference: The Beraisa permits tithing dates on dry dates
in a place where people normally make dry dates -
elsewhere it is forbidden.
(e) Question: What is the case?
(f) Answer #1: There is a Kohen in the area that can eat
(g) Rejection: If so, it is permitted even where people do
not normally make dry dates!
1. (Mishnah): In a place where there is a Kohen, we
take the nicest produce to be Terumah (even if it
does not last so long.)
(h) Answer #2: There is no Kohen in the area.
(i) Question: The Seifa forbids making dry dates Terumah on
dates, even where people normally make dry dates;
1. If there is no Kohen, this is permitted!
(j) Answer: We must say that the Seifa discusses a place
where there is a Kohen.
2. (Mishnah): In a place where there is no Kohen, we
make Terumah produce that will last a long time.
(k) (Rav Papa): This answer shows it is better to establish a
Beraisa in a difficult way (e.g. different clauses
discuss different situations) than to say that different
Tana'im taught the clauses.
(a) (Mishnah): All Menachos are kneaded with lukewarm water
(Tif'eres Yisrael - this is best for bread, but it speeds
up Chimutz, therefore) we must Shomer them from becoming
Chametz - "Kol ha'Minchah Asher Takrivu la'Sh-m Lo
(b) If one makes Shirayim Chametz, he transgresses a Lav;
1. He is liable for (every step, for) kneading,
arranging the loaves and for baking.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of the second law?
(d) Answer (Reish Lakish): "Lo Se'afeh Chametz Chelkam" -
even the Kohanim's portion (Shirayim) may not be made
(e) Question: We use this verse to teach a different law!
3) "KLAL" AND "PRAT" THAT ARE SEPARATED
1. (Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Lo
Se'afeh Chametz Chelkam" - it already says "Lo
(f) Answer: Reish Lakish learns from "Chelkam" (the Beraisa
learns from "Lo Se'afeh Chametz".)
2. Answer: If it only said "Lo Se'aseh Chametz", one
might have thought that one is lashed only once for
all steps of making a Minchah Chametz - therefore,
it says "Lo Se'afeh";
i. Baking was already forbidden, for it is part of
making Chametz - it was singled out to equate
all steps of making Chametz to it:
ii. Just like baking is a single step in making
Chametz and one is liable for it by itself, one
is liable for kneading, arranging and for
*every single step*;
iii. These extra words allude to Kituf (Rashi -
smoothing out the surface of the dough with
water; R. Gershom - taking pieces for
individual loaves from the (big) dough), one is
liable for it.
(g) Question: Perhaps the verse only teaches Reish Lakish's
(h) Answer: If so, it should have said 'Chelkam Lo Se'afeh
1. Rather, it says "Lo Se'afeh Chametz Chelkam", to
(i) Suggestion: We should say that "Lo Se'afeh Chametz"
teaches that one is liable for baking alone, and also one
Chatas for all the other steps!
(j) Answer: Baking is 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Chlal v'Yatza' (a
matter that was part of a Klal (general rule), and
received a new law) - the new law applies to the whole
Klal (i.e. every step is just like baking.)
(k) Question: We should say that "Lo Se'aseh" is a Klal, "Lo
Se'afeh" is a Prat - from a Klal and Prat we only learn
the Prat (baking!)
(l) Answer (R. Aftoriki): Because the Klal and Prat are
written in different places, we do not expound Klal and
(a) Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We do expound Klal and
Prat that are separated!
1. (Beraisa): "V'Shochat Oso (Chatas Nasi) bi'Mkom
Asher Yishchat Es ha'Olah Lifnei Hash-m Chatas Hi" -
just like Olah is slaughtered in the north, also
(b) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 6 - Rav Ashi): Rather,
the Tana thought to learn from "Oso" that Se'ir Nasi is
the only Chatas that must be slaughtered in the north.
2. Question: We learn this from "Bi'Mkom Asher
Tishachet ha'Olah Tishachet ha'Chatas"!
3. Answer: "V'Shochat Oso" teaches that this is
Me'akev, if it was slaughtered in the south it is
4. Question: Perhaps this rather teaches that a Nasi's
Chatas requires (slaughter in) the north, other
Chata'os do not!
5. Answer: "V'Shochat Es ha'Chatas Bi'Mkom ha'Olah" is
a Binyan Av teaching that all Chata'os are
slaughtered in the north.
6. Question: Why would we have thought (without this
verse) that only Se'ir Nasi requires the north?
7. Answer #1: Even though the Klal and Prat are
distanced, we expound Klal u'Prat! (This culminates
8. Rejection: (Rav Ashi): The Prat precedes the Klal,
we should rather expound Prat u'Klal, the Klal
expands the Prat to include everything!
(c) Question: In conclusion, "V'Shochat Es ha'Chatas..."
teaches that all Chata'os are slaughtered in the north -
what do we learn from "Oso"?
(d) Answer (Beraisa): "Oso" - an obligatory Chatas requires
Tzafon, the Chatas of Nachshon (or any other Nasi during
Chanukas ha'Mishkan) did not require Tzafon;
1. Since Se'ir Nachshon required Semichah, one might
have thought that it also required Tzafon - "Oso"
teaches that this is not so.
2. Question: What is the source that it required
3. Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Samach Yado Al
Rosh ha'Sa'ir" - this includes the Se'ir Nachshon
(that it required Semichah).
4. R. Shimon says, it includes Se'irim (for He'elam
Davar) of idolatry.