Menachos 16
Summary
- Today’s learning begins on *daf* 15b at the *Mishnah* and moves into *daf* 16a, framing the core question of how *piggul* transfers between a *zevach* and its *nesachim* and, in parallel, between a *metzora*’s *asham* and its *log shemen*. The text presents Rabbi Meir’s view that when these accompaniments come with the main *korban* and become fixed to it at *shechitah*, they can be rendered *piggul* through the main service, while the reverse does not necessarily apply. It then turns to the dispute about *mefaggel* with only half a *matir*, records Rav’s novelty that an initial *machshavat piggul* can carry forward as “*al da’at rishonah hu oseh*,” and challenges and defenses of that claim through *beraitot* and the *avodah* of Yom Kippur. The sugya continues with counts and methods of Yom Kippur blood applications and with whether *holachah* of the *kometz* is treated like *kemitzah* or like *haktarah*, along with the principle that acts that are *mekadesh* can function like acts that are *matir*.
- Today's *shiur* is sponsored by Jeremy and Adina Hershkowitz *le’ilui nishmat* Jeremy's grandfather Marvin Hershkowitz משה יהודה בן יוסף, the *neshamah* should have an *aliyah*.
- A *Mishnah* states that the *zevach* renders the *nesachim* *piggul* once the *nesachim* are sanctified in a *kli*, according to Rabbi Meir. A *nesachim* *piggul* does not render the *zevach* *piggul*, and the *Mishnah* illustrates that a *machshavat piggul* at *shechitah* to eat the *zevach* tomorrow makes both it and its *nesachim* *piggul*, while a *machshavat piggul* to offer the *nesachim* tomorrow makes only the *nesachim* *piggul*. Rashi explains that one who drinks from such *nesachim* is liable to *karet* because once they are sanctified in a *kli* there is no redemption and their sanctity remains.
- A *beraita* states that animal *nesachim* incur liability for *piggul* because the blood of the *zevach* permits them to be offered, and Rabbi Meir grounds *piggul* eligibility in requiring a *matir*. The sages challenge Rabbi Meir from the fact that one may bring his *zevach* today and his *nesachim* up to ten days later, and Rabbi Meir limits his claim to *nesachim* that come with the *zevach*. The sages respond that even then one could assign the *nesachim* to a different *zevach*, and Rava explains that Rabbi Meir holds they become fixed at *shechitah* like the loaves of a *todah*.
- A parallel *beraita* states that a *metzora*’s *log shemen* can incur liability for *piggul* because the blood of the *asham* permits placing the oil on the *behonot*, and this is Rabbi Meir’s view. The sages challenge from the fact that one can bring the *asham* today and the *log* up to ten days later, and Rabbi Meir again limits his claim to a *log* that comes with the *asham*. The sages argue that even when brought together it can be reassigned to another *asham*, and Rava answers that Rabbi Meir holds it becomes fixed at *shechitah* like the loaves of a *todah*.
- A *Mishnah* rules that if one had *piggul* with the *kometz* but not with the *levonah*, or vice versa, Rabbi Meir says it is *piggul* with liability for *karet*, while the sages say there is no *karet* until he is *mefaggel* in the entire *matir*. The sages concede to Rabbi Meir by *minchat chotei* and *minchat k’naot* that *piggul* in the *kometz* alone makes it *piggul* because the *kometz* is the whole *matir*. The *Mishnah* applies the same dispute to slaughtering one of the two lambs with intent to eat the *shtei halechem* tomorrow and to burning one of the two *bezichin* with intent to eat the two rows tomorrow.
- A *Mishnah* states that if one slaughters one of the lambs intending to eat from that same lamb tomorrow, it becomes *piggul* while its companion remains kosher. A *Mishnah* also states that if one slaughters one lamb intending to eat from its companion tomorrow, both remain kosher because one lamb does not permit the other.
- Rav limits the dispute to a case where the *kometz* was done in silence and the *levonah* with *machshavah*, but he claims that if the *kometz* is done with *machshavah* and the *levonah* in silence then everyone agrees it is *piggul* because whoever acts continues on the initial intent. Shmuel says the dispute remains even in that case. A challenge from a *beraita* about *haktarah* treating either order as the standard Rabbi Meir-versus-sages dispute is answered by Rav Chanina by establishing the *beraita* as a case of two different people performing the services, where continuation of the first person’s intent is not assumed.
- A further challenge is brought from a *beraita* distinguishing outer-altar blood where one application already permits, from inner services where each application is indispensable, including “forty-three” of Yom Kippur and “eleven” of *par kohen mashiach* and *par he’elem davar shel tzibbur*. The *beraita* teaches that if one was *mefaggel* in the first, second, or third set, Rabbi Meir says *piggul* with *karet* and the sages say no *karet* until he is *mefaggel* in the entire *matir*. The sugya considers explaining the *beraita* through multiple *kohanim gedolim* depending on whether “*par*” means even with the blood of that bull or requires a new bull, and Rava and Rav Ashi attempt to reinterpret the case, but the text concludes with “*kashya*” due to the wording “*bein bein*.”
- The sugya challenges Rabbi Meir from the principle that *karet* for *piggul* applies only once all *matirin* are offered, derived from “*yirtzeh*” as “*k’hartz’at kasher kach hartz’at pasul*.” It questions how inner blood can count as “all *matirin*” once a *machshavat piggul* inside already renders it *pasul* and subsequent sprinklings appear as *mai d’alma*. Rava answers by constructing a case involving repeated spillage requiring four bulls and four goats, and then presents an alternative that even one bull and one goat suffice because “*lifigulei martzi*,” meaning the service still counts for *piggul* despite being invalid for *kashrut* due to the very *piggul* intent.
- The sugya reconciles counts of “forty-three” versus “forty-seven” by linking the difference to whether the bloods are mixed for the corners, so mixing yields fewer applications and not mixing yields more. It reconciles “forty-eight” by tying the additional count to whether pouring the leftover blood is indispensable, with the view that *shirayim me’akvin* adding one.
- The sugya asks whether *piggul* in *holachah* is effective. Rabbi Yochanan rules *holachah* is like *kemitzah*, while Reish Lakish rules *holachah* is like *haktarah* because there is also *holachah* of *levonah*. Rava explains Rabbi Yochanan as holding that any service that is not itself a permitting act is considered an important independent service for *piggul*, and Abaye challenges from slaughtering one of the two lambs, but Rava answers that the bread is not sanctified in the oven, the slaughter sanctifies it, and coming to sanctify is like coming to permit.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions