Chesed Club World Wide Center & Discussion Groups
Kitzurdaf

Back

03-31-2011
Title:
Menachos 13 - JOINING INTENTS

Message:
1) JOINING INTENTS

(a) Question: This is not a Chidush - the previous Mishnah teaches this explicitly!
1. (Mishnah): If he intended to eat a k'Zayis b'Chutz and a k'Zayis tomorrow, or vice-versa; or, for half a k'Zayis tomorrow and half a k'Zayis outside, or vice-versa, it is Pasul, there is no Kares.
2. Suggestion: The Chidush of our Mishnah is the inference that intents to eat join for Pigul, even for things not normally eaten.
3. Rejection: The previous Mishnah contradicts this!
4. Suggestion: Our Mishnah teaches that intent to eat and Lehaktir do not join.
5. Rejection: We infer this from the previous Mishnah!
i. Two intents to eat do not join if one is for something not normally eaten - surely, intent to eat and Lehaktir do not join!
(b) Answer: Indeed, it teaches that intent to eat and Lehaktir do not join;
1. One might have thought, those two intents to eat do not join because one of them is abnormal, but intent to eat and Lehaktir join, for both are normal.
***** PEREK HA'KOMETZ ES HA'MINCHAH ****
2) INTENT FOR A "MATIR"

(a) (Mishnah): R. Yosi admits that if Kemitzah was done with intent to eat the Shirayim tomorrow or Lehaktir the Kometz tomorrow, the Minchah is Pigul, there is Kares;
(b) R. Yosi says, if he intended to Lehaktir the Levonah tomorrow, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no Kares;
(c) Chachamim say, it is Pigul, there is Kares.
1. Chachamim: This is no different than a Zevach (intent Lehaktir Eimurim is Mefagel!)
(d) R. Yosi: That is different, for blood, meat and Chelev are all the same Min (all are from the animal), but Levonah is not from the Min of (the Kometz, i.e. of) the Minchah.
(e) (Gemara) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that R. Yosi admits in the first case?
(f) Answer: In the Seifa, R. Yosi exempts (from Kares) regarding intent for Levonah - one might have thought, he holds that intent for *part* of the Matirim does not make Pigul, and he exempts also in the first case.
13b---------------------------------------13b

(g) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): If he intended to Lehaktir the Levonah tomorrow, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no Kares.
(h) (Reish Lakish): R. Yosi holds that one Matir is not Mefagel another Matir;
(i) The same applies to the two Bazichei (spoons of) Levonah that permit Lechem ha'Panim, one is not Mefagel the other.
(j) Question: What is the Chidush?
(k) Answer: One might have thought that R. Yosi exempts from Kares in the Mishnah because Levonah is a different Min than the Minchah, but Levonah can Mefagel Levonah, for they are the same Min;
1. Reish Lakish teaches that this is not true.
(l) Question: But the Mishnah says that R. Yosi exempts because Levonah is not from (the Min of) the Minchah!
(m) Answer: No, it means that Levonah is not a part of the Minchah that is Me'ukav (by Haktaras ha'Kometz), i.e. Levonah can be offered before the Kometz, whereas Shirayim may not be eaten before this;
1. The Kometz or Levonah may be offered first.
2. Chachamim say that one Matir is not Mefagel another Matir when they were never in one Kli together - Kometz and Levonah were in one Kli together, they are Hukve'u (they become like one), either is Mefagel the other.
3) REMOVING THE "LEVONAH"
(a) (R. Yanai): If a Zar took the Levonah off a Minchah, it is Pasul.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Taking it off is (partial) Holachah (he brings it closer to the Mizbe'ach);
1. He holds that Holachah done without walking is considered Holachah, a Zar may not do Holachah.
(d) Support (Rav Mari - Mishnah): The general rule regarding Kemitzah, Nesinah in another Kli, Holachah or Haktarah (when they make Pigul...).
1. (The four Avodos that can Mefagel a Minchah correspond to the four Avodos of Zevachim.)
2. Question: We understand three of these - Kemitzah corresponds to slaughter (separating the part to be offered to Hash-m), Holachah corresponds Holachah, Haktarah corresponds to Zerikah;
i. Can we say that Nesinah in a Kli resembles Kabalah?! Kabalah happens by itself (the blood falls into the bucket!)
3. Answer: We must say, since Nesinah is indispensable, even though it does not resemble Kabalah, it is considered an Avodah - the same applies to taking Levonah off a Minchah.
(e) Rejection: No, (indispensability does not cause something to be considered an Avodah -) Nesinah indeed resembles Kabalah, the essence of both is Kedushas Kli;
1. The fact that one is active and the other passive is irrelevant.
4) PARTIAL "PIGUL"
(a) (Mishnah): If the two lambs (Shalmei Tzibur of Shavu'os) were slaughtered with intent to eat one of the loaves (of Shtei ha'Lechem) tomorrow, or if Haktarah of the two Bazichei Levonah was with intent to eat one of the two Sedarim (sets of six loaves of Lechem ha'Panim) tomorrow:
1. R. Yosi says, the loaf or Seder intended for is Pigul, there is Kares for (eating) it, the other is only Pasul, there is no Kares for it;
2. Chachamim say, both are Pigul, there is Kares for them.
(b) (Gemara - Rav Huna): R. Yosi would hold that if one was Mefagel in the right thigh, the left thigh is not Pigul.
(c) Question: What is the reason?
(d) Answer: We can learn from reasoning or from a verse:
1. From reasoning - intent does not forbid more than Tum'ah, if one limb became Tamei, it would not Metamei others (unless it was still connected);
2. From a verse - "Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles *Mimenu* Avono Tisa" - from it, not from other Kodesh (for which there was no intent.)
(e) Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): There is never Kares unless he was Mefagel (intended to eat Chutz li'Zmano) a (total of a) k'Zayis b'Shteihem (from both loaves).
1. Inference: If he intended to eat only from one, there would be no Pigul!
2. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
3. Answer #1: It is Chachamim.
4. Rejection: They say that intent for one makes Pigul!
5. Answer #2: It is R. Yosi.
6. If both thighs are considered like one entity (because they come from the same Korban, the same applies to Shtei ha'Lechem), we understand why intents (for half a k'Zayis from each loaf) join;
i. But if the thighs are considered like two entities, intents for the two loaves should not join!

Back