Menachos 14 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף י״ד begins on דף י״ג עמוד ב׳ and explains how a *machshava* of eating *chutz lizmano* creates פיגול, how that פיגול can extend (or not extend) to other parts of the same offering, and how this plays out in cases like שתי הלחם, לחם הפנים, and other korban-related procedures. Rabbi Yosei and the Chachamim disagree whether a פסול created by improper intent affects only the specific item intended for late eating or spreads to the whole unit, and later sugyos bring proofs that challenge Rav Huna’s limitation of פיגול to only one limb. The narrative also traces how Rishonim define the “time” for לחם הפנים, explores special applications to פרים ושעירים הנשרפים, and clarifies when multiple avodos or partial quantities combine to create פיגול, including disputes among רבי, רבנן, and רבי מאיר about מפגל בחצי מתיר and combining halves across different acts.
- Every שבועות a קרבן called the שתי הלחם is brought as two loaves from the new תבואה, and after that קרבן the הלכה permits bringing קרבנות in the בית המקדש from the חדש that took root from פסח and on of the prior year. Along with the two loaves they bring two כבשים as a קרבן שלמים, the כהן waves everything together, and through bringing the כבשים the כהנים can eat the שתי הלחם.
- The משנה states that if the two כבשי עצרת are slaughtered with intent to eat אחת מהחלות למחר, the improper timing makes the matter one of חוץ לזמנו that can create פיגול. The same pattern is applied to לחם הפנים where one who is מקטיר the שני בזיכין with intent to eat אחד מהסדרים למחר creates a חוץ לזמנו problem because the bread is only eaten on שבת. Rabbi Yosei rules that the specific חלה or סדר he intended becomes פיגול וחייב עליו כרת, while the other becomes פסול ואין בו כרת, and the Chachamim rule that both become פיגול וחייב עליו כרת.
- The מפרשים offer two readings of Rabbi Yosei’s פסול ואין בו כרת: one view treats the extra פסול as only פסול מדרבנן so people not eat the non-פיגול portion lest they come to eat real פיגול, and another view treats it as אסור מדאורייתא but not categorized as פיגול and therefore without כרת. The Chachamim treat the unit as one such that if part becomes פיגול the entire unit becomes פיגול.
- The ראשונים ask how Rabbi Yosei applies his approach to שתי הלחם when the improper intent is only on one חלה. The question becomes whether only the targeted חלה is פיגול while everything else is merely פסול ואין בו כרת, or whether at least the row or broader grouping attached to that חלה becomes פיגול even if the other loaf does not.
- A simple understanding treats לחם הפנים like other קדשי קדשים so it may be eaten יום ולילה, and a מחשבת “tomorrow” is the classic חוץ לזמנו. Many ראשונים argue that לחם הפנים is not treated like standard קדשי קדשים and that it must be eaten by the end of שבת, so חוץ לזמנו begins already at מוצאי שבת, and this is attributed here to the opinion of the אבן עזרא. One repercussion offered is that a כהן may not fast on שבת because he must be able to eat the לחם הפנים, creating a further ראיה that one may not fast on שבת.
- If שבת coincides with יום כיפור, eating לחם הפנים on שבת is impossible. Some suggest the לחם הפנים would not be eaten that week, while others suggest an exception allowing eating at מוצאי שבת, and the presentation concludes that everyone agrees it cannot be eaten past מוצאי שבת.
- Rav Huna says in the name of Rabbi Yosei that if one had improper intent regarding the ירך של ימין, it does not make the ירך של שמאל פיגול. The גמרא gives two bases: a *sevara* that *machshava* is not stronger than actual טומאה so one limb’s impurity does not automatically spread, and a פסוק of והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא, reading ממנו as limiting liability to the item directly targeted by the improper intent.
- Rav נחמן בר הונא challenges from a ברייתא about כבשי עצרת and שתי הלחם that says there is no כרת until he is מפגל בשניהם בכזית, implying that one loaf alone does not generate פיגול. The גמרא rejects attributing this to רבנן because the משנה says even one loaf’s improper intent makes all פיגול, and it concludes the ברייתא follows רבי. רבי rules that if one slaughters one כבש with intent to eat חצי כזית from one loaf and the other כבש with intent to eat חצי כזית from the other loaf, the offering remains כשר because the intent is only on חצי כזית and also on חצי מתיר since each loaf’s permissibility depends on both animals. רבי indicates that if one intended to eat כזית משתיהם, the מחשבה becomes a full כזית and would create פיגול.
- The גמרא asks whether רבי aligns with רבנן or Rabbi Yosei and resolves that רבי is understood אליבא דרבנן, but the condition is reframed from “עד שיפגל בשתיהם” to “עד שיפגל בשניהם,” meaning the decisive requirement is improper intent during the two animals that serve as the מתיר, not that the intent must be stated on both loaves. This is positioned as excluding רבי מאיר who holds דמפגל בחצי מתיר, where one animal’s improper intent could suffice.
- A ברייתא cited by Rav Ashi in the name of רבי אלעזר בשם רבי יוסי distinguishes between מחשבה tied to עבודה done בחוץ versus עבודה done בפנים for the class of פרים ושעירים הנשרפים, where blood applications occur on the פרוכת and burning אימורים occurs on the מזבח החיצון. The rule presented is that מחשבה in a context matching the location of the later act can create פיגול, while מחשבה in a mismatched inside/outside framework does not. The text brings interpretations from שפת אמת about cases where slaughter is performed בפנים despite normally being done בחוץ, and from רב אריה לייב מאלין about defining what counts as עבודת פנים in the sequence of inner sprinklings.
- The גמרא asks what becomes פיגול when one has improper intent about לשפוך שיריים למחר, since that concerns דם, and דם is already אסור בכרת so the question of אין איסור חל על איסור arises. The ראשונים suggest an *issur mosif* framework because דם is initially אסור to people but מותר לגבוה, whereas פיגול would also remove permissibility לגבוה. The גמרא then cites a משנה in זבחים מ״ב that lists items with no חיוב פיגול, including the הקומץ, לבונה, קטורת, מנחת כהנים, מנחת נסכים, מנחת כהן משיח, and the דם, and it explains that פיגול applies to items that become מותר through another act, modeled on שלמים where זריקת הדם permits both meat for people and אימורים for the מזבח.
- The גמרא concludes that the שפיכת שיריים case must mean the מחשבה renders the בשר פיגול, not the דם, and it reasons that if thinking about the timing of שיריים affects the בשר even without thinking about the meat itself, then a מחשבה on ירך ימין should certainly affect ירך שמאל. This line of reasoning is reinforced by another proof involving a מנחה where a מחשבה to eat שיריה למחר or to burn קומצו למחר creates פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת, and the גמרא explains that the מחשבה about the קומץ affects the שיריים even though the קומץ itself is not subject to חיוב פיגול.
- Rashi asks how one can even contemplate פיגול with the קומץ since eating it instead of burning it would mean the עבודה was not completed and פיגול requires the rest of the עבודה to be properly done. Rashi answers that the case is where the קומץ was placed on the fire and the fire took hold before it was removed and eaten, so the עבודה is treated as completed. The Brisker Rav instead links the matter to an earlier sugya that for רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון, a minimum remainder of לבונה can suffice, so the עבודה can be completed with the required measure while remaining לבונה could still be subject to the later issue described.
- The גמרא concludes with רבי יוחנן that improper intent on one thigh affects the other, against Rav Huna’s initial statement. It then frames the two loaves of שתי הלחם as a paradoxical structure where the Torah treats them as both one body and two bodies: one body because they are mutually essential as indicated by the פסוק ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרונים סולת תהיינה חמץ תאפינה בכורים לה', and two bodies because each loaf has its own חובה of preparation, with mixing creating unity while separateness of intention preserves separateness.
- Rabbi Yochanan asks about פיגול in לחם תודה with forty loaves divided into חמץ and various מצה forms, and about מנחת מאפה תנור where רבי שמעון allows a mix of רקיקין and חלות. Rav תחליפא בר מערבא teaches that Rabbi Yosei’s rule applies here as well, so what one thought about becomes פיגול and what one did not think about does not become פיגול.
- A ברייתא teaches that if one thought at שחיטה to eat חצי כזית למחר and at זריקה also thought to eat חצי כזית למחר, the result is פיגול because שחיטה וזריקה מצטרפין. The sugya records competing versions about whether only major מתיר actions combine or whether adjacent steps like קבלה והולכה combine all the more. A challenge from לוי states that the four עבודות do not combine for פיגול, and Ravא resolves this by attributing non-combination to רבי and combination to רבנן, tying it back to רבי’s stance in the כבשי עצרת case.
- Abaye argues that רבי’s non-combination was stated specifically in a case of חצי מתיר and may not apply when the מחשבה is on a whole מתיר even if only about חצי אכילה. רבה בר חנה then asks why, if Rabbi would treat כולי מתיר וחצי אכילה as פיגול, he would not decree against חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה, and the sugya compares this to decrees found in Rabbi Yosei’s פסול stance and in the Rabbanan’s treatment where something is פסול even without כרת. The answer distinguishes cases where a real דאורייתא confusion could arise, such as mixing rules about קומץ with מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות where the קומץ is the only מתיר, from a case like חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה that is presented here as not leading to an actual דאורייתא פיגול scenario and therefore not motivating a גזירה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions