Menachos 17 - CAN
1) CAN "HAKTARAH" BE "MEFAGEL" ANOTHER "HAKTARAH"?
(a) (The sharp Chachamim of Pumbadisa, i.e. Eifah and Avimi): Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah (e.g. if Haktaras Kometz was with intent Lehaktir the Levonah Chutz li'Zmano);
1. Even Chachamim only say that intent during only part of the Matirim is not Mefagel, e.g. intent in the Kometz for the Shirayim, there was no improper intent for the Levonah, but when the intent is for the Levonah, it is as if he intended for all the Matirim, they agree that there is Pigul. (Clearly, this is not according to R. Yosi (at the beginning of our Perek).)
(b) Support (Rava - Mishnah): The general rule regarding Kemitzah, Nesinah, Holachah or Haktarah done with intent (Chutz) to eat something that is normally eaten, or Lehaktir something that is normally Huktar:
1. If he intended Chutz li'Mkomo, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no Kares;
2. If he intended Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, there is Kares.
3. Suggestion: Haktarah is like the other Avodos, it is Mefagel whether the intent was to eat or Lehaktir.
(c) Rejection: No, the other Avodos are Mefagel whether the intent was to eat or Lehaktir, Haktarah is Mefagel only if the intent was (during the entire Haktarah) to eat.
(d) (Rav Menasiya bar Gada citing Rav Chisda): Haktarah is not Mefagel Haktarah;
1. Even R. Meir only says that intent during part of the Matirim is Mefagel when he intends for the Shirayim, for the Kometz permits them, but not when he intends for the Levonah, for the Kometz does not permit it.
(e) Abaye: Did Rav Chisda say that in Rav's name?
(f) Rav Menasiya: Yes.
1. (Rav Chisda citing Rav): Haktarah is not Mefagel Haktarah.
(g) Support (R. Yakov bar Idi - Mishnah): If he slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat it tomorrow, it is Pigul, the other lamb is Kosher;
1. If he slaughtered it with intent to eat a k'Zayis of the other lamb tomorrow, both are Kesherim.
2. Suggestion: One lamb does not permit the other, this is why one does not Mefagel the other.
(h) Rejection: One lamb does not Mefagel the other because they were not in a Kli together;
1. Kometz and Levonah were in a Kli together, they are like one, (perhaps) Kometz can Mefagel Levonah.
(i) (Rav Hamnuna): R. Chanina taught the following to me, it is as dear to me as all my learning:
1. If Haktaras Kometz was with intent Lehaktir the Levonah with intent to eat the Shirayim tomorrow, it is Pigul.
(j) Question: What is the Chidush?
1. If it teaches that Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah, it should merely say 'If Haktaras Kometz was with intent Lehaktir the Levonah (tomorrow, it should not mention eating the Shirayim!)'
2. If it teaches that intent for part of the Matirim is Mefagel, it should merely say 'If Haktaras Kometz was with intent to eat the Shirayim (without mentioning the Levonah!)'
3. If it teaches that Haktarah is Mefagel Haktarah *and* that intent for part of the Matirim is Mefagel, it should say 'If Haktaras Kometz was with intent Lehaktir the Levonah *or* to eat the Shirayim (it is Pigul)!'
(k) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Really, Haktarah is not Mefagel Haktarah, intent for part of the Matirim is not Mefagel;
1. This case is different, for all of the Minchah is involved in the intent Chutz li'Zmano.
(l) (A reciter of Beraisos): If Haktaras Kometz was with intent to eat the Shirayim (tomorrow), all agree that it is Pigul.
(m) Objection: Tana'im argue about this!
(n) Correction: Rather, all agree that it is Pasul (at least, some say that it is even Pigul.)
(o) Question: Why not amend the Beraisa to say that R. Meir says that it is Pigul?
(p) Answer: It is reasonable to say that the reciter heard 'All agree that it is Pasul', and mistakenly thought that he heard '...it is Pigul';
1. It is unlikely that he heard 'R. Meir says that...' and mistakenly thought that he heard 'All agree that.'
***** PEREK HA'KOMETZ RABAH ****
2) INTENT FOR ABNORMAL EATING OR "HAKTARAH"
(a) (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;
(b) R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
(c) If he intended to eat less than a k'Zayis of something normally eaten, or Lehaktir less than a k'Zayis of something normally Huktar, it is Kosher;
(d) If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis and Lehaktir half a k'Zayis, it is Kosher, because eating and Haktarah do not join.
(e) (Gemara - Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer learns from "V'Im He'achel Ye'achel..." - the verse discusses two kinds of eating, of people and of the Mizbe'ach;
1. Just as intent (Chutz) for people to eat is Posel, also intent for the Mizbe'ach to 'eat' (Haktarah);
2. Just as intent for people to eat what is fit for people (e.g. Shirayim), or for the Mizbe'ach to 'eat' what is fit for the Mizbe'ach (Kometz), intent for people to eat what is fit for the Mizbe'ach or vice-versa is also Posel.
3. Question: What is the source of this?
4. Answer: The Torah refers to Haktarah as 'eating' to teach this.
5. Chachamim (argue, they) learn from this that intent (Chutz) Lehaktir is Posel whether the intent was said using an expression of 'eating' or 'Haktarah'.
6. Alternatively, they learn from this that the Shi'ur for Haktarah (that improper intent is Posel) is a k'Zayis, the Shi'ur for eating;
i. However, the intent must be for what is normally eaten (by the person or Mizbe'ach);
7. R. Eliezer says, the Torah could have said 'He'achel He'achel' or 'Ye'achel Ye'achel', and this would teach these two laws (the latter follows from the former);
i. Rather, it used two different words "He'achel Ye'achel" to also teach that intent for abnormal eating also makes Pigul.
(f) Question (R. Zeira): If R. Eliezer learns from the verse, he should Mechayev Kares!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!
2. Rejection: You yourself (Rav Asi) cited R. Yochanan to say that R. Eliezer agrees that there is no Kares!
(g) Answer: (Rashba - R. Yochanan contradicted himself to teach that) Tana'im argue about R. Eliezer's opinion;
1. Some say that he is Posel (and is Mechayev Kares) mid'Oraisa, others say that he is Posel mid'Rabanan.
2. (Beraisa): If one slaughtered a Korban with any of the following intents (Chutz li'Zmano), it is Kosher:
i. To drink the blood, Lehaktir the meat, to eat the Eimurim.
3. R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
4. R. Yehudah says, if he intended to leave some of the blood until tomorrow, it is Pasul;
5. R. Elazar (ben Shamu'a) says, even in this case, R. Eliezer is Posel, Chachamim Machshir.
(h) Question: According to whom is R. Yehudah Posel?
1. Suggestion: This is according to Chachamim.
2. Rejection: They Machshir even when he intended for the Mizbe'ach to eat (tomorrow, what is fit for people), all the more so in this case!
(i) Answer: It is according to R. Eliezer.
(j) Question: Also R. Elazar says that R. Eliezer is Posel and Chachamim Machshir (what do R. Elazar and R. Yehudah argue about?)!
(k) Answer #1: They argue whether or not R. Eliezer is Mechayev Kares;
1. The first Tana (R. Yehudah) holds that intent to leave over is only Posel, but intent for improper consumption is Mefagel;
2. R. Elazar holds that both of these are only Posel, there is no Kares.
(l) Rejection: No, all agree that improper consumption is not Mefagel;