Menachos Daf 101

All right, today is Daf Kuf Alef, as we begin the new perek. And let's pick it up on Kuf Mem Beis at the Mishnah. Let's talk about what kinds of carbonos are shiyach to pidyon. So, like the Mishnah, "Hamanochos v'hanisachim shenitmu." So, these manochos and nisachim that now are tamei, you can't use them, ad shelo kishvu b'kli, before they were put into the kli shareis achal l'hem pidyon. Then you could do something about it. Since they have kedushas damim, you can now make them into chulin and redeem their value with money. And you'll buy other yayin and seles to use for other manochos. But once these ingredients were put into a kli shareis, now they have kedushas haguf and it'll be game over. You cannot be podeh them. As the Mishnah says, "Kishvu b'kli, ein l'hem pidyon." "Ha'eifas v'ha'eitzim v'hal'vanim b'kli shareis." These things which they themselves have a kedushas haguf, "Mish shenitmu." Once they become tamei, which is a question whether or not to keep that word "mish shenitmu" as part of the girsa or not, because you can't have an eif become tamei while it's alive, "Al kol panim, these things ein l'hen pidyon." Are not shiyach to pidyon. "Shelo ne'emar pidyon ela b'veheima." What can you be podeh? An animal. That's what the Torah is talking about talks about pidyon. Specifically, an animal that became a bal mum. So, the Torah says, "The animal that's a bal mum, you can go and be podeh it." But things that are not animals, like the eifas, eitzim, l'vanim, kli shareis, are not ever shiyach to pidyon. Zagt Gemara, "Omar Shmuel." Shmuel is a member that we're going to spend a bit of time on today. This that the manochos and the nisachim are shiyach to pidyon kodem putting them into a kli shareis. Zagt Shmuel, "Yafeh lo ein taharin niftin." It has nothing to do with them becoming tamei. Just because our Mishnah said "shenitmu." They don't need to be tamei to have pidyon. Because my tamei kamah d'lei kishvu b'kli, kedushas damim neinu kedushas damim niftin. The point, zagt Shmuel, is the fact that these things are kedushas damim. Kedushas damim has pidyon as an option. The fact that it became tamei is not the nekudah. But the Mishnah picks up on that, "V'hanitmu t'nan." The Mishnah sounds like it's only talking about a case where they became tamei. But if it wasn't tamei, it could not become niftar. Zagt Gemara, "Hu ad d'nafka d'lei nitmu." The eidi d'ka boy misni seifa. It's only because that last part of the Mishnah, "Mish kishvu b'kli, ein l'hen pidyon." That "afilu nitmu nami" like that that even in a case where it was tamei, which I might have thought should make it more of a reason to be niftar. So, "Tanei nami misha shenitmu." But in achnei nami, zagt Shmuel, you can always be podeh your kedushas damim. In other words, before it went into the kli shareis, whether or not it was tamei or not. Frekt Gemara, "We're going to go with the girsa that the sheetah b'kavetz says, 'Mish kishvu b'kli, ein l'hen pidyon is p'shita.'" Obviously, once it becomes hekdesh al yedei the kli shareis, you can't be podeh it even if it's tamei because kedushas haguf neinu. So, what would the chidush of the Mishnah be? Just because it's tamei, I would think that's more of a reason it could become niftar. Which the Gemara says, "Itztarech." No, there really is a chidush. "Kasalka d'ata haminah al bal mum ikri tamei." Since the Torah calls a beheima's bal mum as a tamei, and remember that beheima's bal mum is that source that you could do pidyon. So, "Tamei nami k'bal mum dami." I'll do it the other way. "D'af al gav d'kodesh kedushas haguf." Even though it may actually have kedushas haguf, maybe it was already inside the kli shareis. "B'chein nafal b'mum m'frek." In the same way that when a beheima's bal mum gets a mum, you can go ahead and be podeh it. "So, hani nami lifrei." The manochos, the nisachim that became tamei, which now also have this quote unquote status of a bal mum, should also have a pidyon. "Kamah shmuel lan." Comes our Mishnah and tells us, "D'lav ki hai tamei kari Rachmana bal mum." That's not the kind of bal mum that the Torah is calling it. Moving over to Mem Alef. "D'vei kli shareis lei ashkechan m'frek." Once we never find that the Torah says you could be podeh to something that was already in a kli shareis. So, the fact that we're calling a bal mum animal a tamei, you cannot extrapolate to that that the manochos and the nisachim that are tamei could now have also a pidyon. Now, frekt Gemara just on this hanacha. "U'val mum heichei ikri tamei?" Where does it say in the Torah that a bal mum is called a tamei? "D'itanya." Because the braisa says, "Im kol beheima t'meia asher lo yakrivu mimena korban la Hashem." The Torah says, "If any tamei animal you can't bring as a korban to Hashem, which you can turn around and do pidyon on these things." So, "B'valei mumim sheniftin akas midabra." We're talking about an animal that's a bal mum. "Ato amrei b'valei mumim sheniftin." Are we talking about a bal mum that was redeemed? "Ei ein ela b'beheima t'meia mamash." Maybe we're not talking about an animal that became tamei. But we mean it literally. A not kosher animal. Like Rashi gives the example of a sus, gamal, chamor. Those kind of animals, those are the tamei maybe that the Torah is talking about. But that can't be, zagt Gemara. Because "K'shu eimar d'in ba beheima t'meia upada v'eircha." A different pasuk talks about these tamei animals. Meaning really not kosher animals. "S'va hai beheima t'meia amora s'ma." So, "Hamani m'kaymin kol beheima t'meia avad pasuk b'ein podeh." So, that's talking about "b'valei mumim sheniftin akas midabra." And we're classifying that as tamei. So, you see a bal mum is called a tamei. Now, "Yachol yifdu al mum over." How far can we take the bal mum kite that it's shiyach pidyon? Maybe even a bal mum over that it's going to get better. So, "Talmud lomar no." "Asher lo yakrivu mimena korban la Hashem." "Mish ein akreiv la Hashem kol ikar." You cannot ever bring such an animal as a korban. "Yesh she zeh zu she'ein akreiva yiyu k'reiva l'machar." A mum over is only temporarily a problem. So, the Torah is not including pidyon by something that today has an issue but tomorrow will be okay. Only something that's permanently not shiyach to the mizbei'ach, which is a bal mum kavur. Okay, so Shmuel said his halacha that you could always be podeh to kedushas damim as long as it hasn't gone into kli shareis. You do not need to wait for it to become tamei. But now we're going to ask, "Meisive Rav Huna bar Manoaich." He asks from our Mishnah, "Ha'eifas v'ha'eitzim v'hal'vanim kli shareis shenitmu." All those things have kedushas haguf, "Ein l'hen pidyon." "Shelo ne'emar pidyon ela b'veheima." That's what the Mishnah said. Only pidyon is shiyach to an animal. Okay, so frekt Gemara, "Bishlama eifas kedushas haguf neinu." This kedushas haguf by a bird, I get that. The bird on the mizbei'ach. And from the fact that you don't actually put a bird in a kli shareis, clearly it has kedushas haguf. Otherwise, you couldn't bring it on the mizbei'ach. And its kedushah only comes al yedei kedushas peh. "V'lei ne'emar and the pidyon that the Torah talks about is ela b'veheima." Not eifas. So, that one I get. "Ela eitzim u'l'vanim kli shareis." These things that the Mishnah listed, the fire wood, they don't have a kedushas haguf. Kol z'man they haven't been put into a kli shareis, they're only going to be kedushas damim. As Rashi classifies them, they are machshirei korban. They're not the manochos and the nisachim themselves. So, why can't you be podeh them? "Ela lav." What do you see from the rule in the Mishnah itself? "Ela lav it's clear you can't be podeh them at all. Mishum d'taharin balma ein niftin." It's because the manochos and the nisachim that our Mishnah is talking about are taharin, you cannot be podeh them. Even though there's no kedushas haguf. "U's'va hani nami." So, also the eitzim, the l'vanim, the kli shareis, you can't be podeh to these things. "Af al gav d'nitmu." Doesn't matter what would happen to them because "k'taharin damu." They're going to be like taharin and therefore they can never be niftar. Now, this Rav Huna bar Manoaich says that the eitzim, the l'vanim are like taharin even when they become tamei. What does he mean? He explains, "D'eitzim u'l'vanim lav b'nei ochlin neinu." Because what could become tamei? People, keilim, and food. But these things are none of that. "D'eitzim u'l'vanim lav b'nei ochlin neinu." They're not edible, they're not foods. So, what's the reason that we can even use a expression of tumah for these things? "Ela chibas hakodesh mashvei lohu ochlin." There is this concept of chibas hakodesh, which is a rule breaker. It says that even though this really shouldn't become tamei, because of the extra special chivivus we have for kodshim, we're going to be "mashvei lohu ochlin." We're going to give it the level and the status of ochlin klappei hilchos tumah. And therefore, "D'eitzim kamah d'lei mashvei lohu l'gizirin." Kol z'man these pieces of wood were not sliced into the gizirin, into the blocks that were ready for the mizbei'ach, "lei mishkashrei." They're not going to be "huksharu l'kabalas tumah." So, they're not even going to be up to the point of the chibas hakodesh. And "L'vanim nami kamah d'lei kishvu b'kli shareis." Kol z'man you didn't put the l'vanim into the kli shareis, "lei mishkashrei." It's not going to be shiyach to tumah even with the chibas hakodesh rule breaking. And "Kli shareis nami ho'il d'islu hu taharah b'mikvah." Since you could put it into a mikvah without needing chibas hakodesh, so they really should be tamei. But yet, klappei pidyon, we're going to treat them as taharin. Because you can just put it into a mikvah and get rid of that tumah. So, we'll look at it as if it's a taharin. So, again, the eitzim, l'vanim, kli shareis cannot be niftar because they're treated like taharin and you can't be podeh taharin even when they're not kedushas haguf. This is keneged Shmuel that says that taharin that only have kedushas damim could be niftar. No, that's not the way to learn the Mishnah. "Lei ilei m'malach taharin b'alma niftin." Really, things that are tahar could be niftar like Shmuel said, as long as they're not kedushas haguf. But kedushas damim could be niftar. "V'hani mishum d'lo shchichu." The reason why the eitzim, l'vanim, kli shareis are not niftar is because of a d'din d'Rabbanan since they are not shchiyach and you can't easily replace these things. So, the Beis Hamikdash doesn't want you to go ahead and be podeh to these things even when they're tahar because you can't replace them easily for the avodah in the Beis Hamikdash. But "Min haTorah avad d'eitzim, l'vanim, kli shareis could be niftar." Works out nicely like Shmuel. Just a d'din d'Rabbanan. Now, frekt Gemara, "Bishlama l'vanim, kli shareis lei shchichu." I mean, just as a detail, but come on. I get the l'vanim and the kli shareis, those are things that are hard to come by. But eitzim? Trees? "Mish k'shchichu." You can find wood anywhere. How can you call that so hard to replace? And frekt Gemara, "No, it's not true. Eitzim nami k'eivan d'amar Mar 'Kol eitz shenitmu t'la'as pasul l'gabei mizbei'ach.'" Even a small little t'la'as, a worm that you find in the wood is going to passul that wood for the mizbei'ach. "L'chach lei shchichu." It's takah not shchiyach to find the appropriate wood. And therefore, the d'din d'Rabbanan would still apply. All right, so Shmuel is okay from the Mishnah. "Amar Rav Papa." I'm going to ask on Shmuel though. "Ei Shmuel lei Shmuel chada tanya." Had Shmuel heard the following braisa, he would have certainly had a problem. And I'll tell you what the braisa that Shmuel would have had a problem from. The braisa says, "Hamakdish t'mimim l'Beis Hakabaim." Let's say you makdish a tam l'Beis Hakabaim. I take this nice healthy cow and I say, "All right, I'm giving this as kedushas Beis Hakabaim." Now, you're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to take your t'mimim and bring them as carbonos, kedushas haguf. So, this guy did the wrong thing. He was makdish t'mimim l'Beis Hakabaim. So, the halacha is, "Ein podeh na'aseh el l'mizbei'ach." We do the pidyon and we give this animal itself to someone who could really use it as a korban. Why? "Shekol ha'arayos mizbei'ach ein yotzei mid'mizbei'ach l'chulin." We can't just go ahead and make it chulin again. But once this animal was shiyach to the Beis Hamikdash, even though it was only kedushas damim, can never really go out l'chulin. "Now, af al gav d'kedushas damim neinu, still ein niftin ho'il d'taharin ein." Even though this animal is only kedushas damim, and Shmuel had said that you could be podeh to kedushas damim, but still "ein niftin ho'il d'taharin ein." Since it's shiyach to the mizbei'ach, you cannot be podeh it. So, if Shmuel would have heard this braisa, "Havah hadar bei." Shmuel's zechor would have been chazer and he would have said that you can't be podeh your manochos and nisachim until they became tamei. To which the Gemara says, "V'lo hi, it's not true. Shmi lei, Shmuel takah knew this braisa. V'lo hadar bei." He still wasn't chazer because "Lav amrei chasam." Didn't we already say that l'gabei the eitzim and the l'vanim that "k'eivan d'lo shchichu lei m'farkei." Since it's hard to replace, you can't be podeh it. So, "D'din d'Rabbanan." "So, hani nami." By a tam, by these animals, "k'eivan d'shchichu mum in d'pasul beheima." Since it's so easy to passul an animal al bal mum, "d'afilu b'dukin chibai nami paslei." Even a cataract would also passul the animal. "L'chach lei shchichu." And therefore, the d'din d'Rabbanan that says that makdish t'mimim are going to be "lo yotzei" that you can't go ahead and be podeh them, Shmuel will be fine with that halacha. Okay, so that's the end of Shmuel. Now, we're going to have Rav Kahana who's going to argue with Shmuel. Rav Kahana amar, "Tamei'in niftin, taharin ein niftin." Keneged Shmuel. "D'chein amar Rav Ashi'a, 'Tamei'in niftin, taharin ein niftin.'" As opposed to Shmuel that said you could always be podeh your kedushas Beis Hakabaim even when they are taharin. "Ikdi amrei another lashon of Shitas Rav Ashi'a that amar Rav Ashi'a, 'Afilu taharin niftin.'" You could be podeh a tyrant like Schmoo. "D'lo Those things that are you could be paid but those are you cannot be paid those that are going to be in where it depends on his tax bracket what kind of thing he brings and that situation could change because that will be a situation that you could be paid the even why Shari Al and that Russia teaches us that the USA is an exception to the regular that you can't be paid to hire it for a guy who was poor and then he became rich or rich guy that became poor and he has to switch his carbon in those cases you could be paid that even though it's still tar. Okay, so that's going to be but we had two different over whether was going like or was going more like Schmoo and now we're going to spend quite a bit of time looking at a lengthy memory of to try to figure out which is the correct version of Schmoo one time heard but if a guy had when he had his According to who holds of the idea that things that you cannot get enough from are not called and they're not to so according to this this that you made from your carbon is not to it's the because the third of says turning over to we shall the roof of who all those things that are cool to Island because they're all foods they're just but no they are not to me to me because they are and therefore they're not classified as but she to me I was not intrinsically it's the combination of these two things and cooking them this so they're actually classified as an and therefore it can be fine so we still have a ways to go to bring a riot to what is more still about over here my time why does Schmoo say that it's not to me to me because so we shall you any any food that you have the opportunity to be others then but because in and they will not be Friday the whole thing but I will say so according to the of your carbon also is and therefore it should not be to me to me the if that's true well then the whole thing to me which Schmoo was that it will be because it had a so according to it has that status where it's the because the says this is a different Schmoo that's necessary for this whole thing but that also Schmoo grab a hold that not like the way we he holds it is Schmoo I'm a special Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo so since both are going to talk about we learn also but I can also Schmoo so according to Schmoo since Schmoo it will be that's so according to that requirement of being Schmoo and not be it should be enough to make it to why does the say it had a so that's not the point so in the prices giving you a Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo so therefore it's not really anyway 100% since it had that and therefore it will be to me to me okay okay we're still working through over here before we bring it back home nice ask them the following Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo what are you talking about if there was a problem before this took place and therefore there was never a for its never had its Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo had its Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo because it never had a Schmoo it was always Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo had a Schmoo before it was meaning once you harvested it made it into the grain that's already food so it had a and therefore it's been Schmoo now this is Schmoo who had said that a Schmoo is not going to be Schmoo according to but like it depends on the case the price is talking about where there was a Schmoo before you Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo when can a carbon never have had a Schmoo before it was Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo while they were still attached to the ground because it's not considered a food still attached to the ground it would not be to me to me at that point Schmoo still you could be paid and therefore the itself should allow it to have a Schmoo oh so now this is going to be totally on the two different ways to understand Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo now I can understand never had that because it's not to me Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo according to that that seems to put Schmoo like Schmoo that even the Schmoo Schmoo and therefore it has a Schmoo because you could be paid it and for the Schmoo you could have been paid it but it wasn't paid it so it never had a Schmoo it's a which one of the Schmoo Schmoo is going to work with this Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo if you tell me if you wanted to he could have been paid it so Schmoo Schmoo we have a different over Schmoo that should be here of this right the old idea that if I could be paid it it has a status of being and therefore it should be considered like it had a Schmoo the Schmoo the Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo the Schmoo is to me to me why Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo you can even be paid it the even after it's been and while it's waiting to be burned that's still called a Schmoo so what do you see from that we look at the Schmoo since I could be paid it the Schmoo we treat it as if it was Schmoo Schmoo so in the same way the Schmoo that was had a Schmoo because it could have been before it was put into the so it doesn't help to make a that you weren't paid it it could have been Schmoo Schmoo I get the Schmoo that has a status of Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo we're always looking to see maybe we'll find a better and therefore Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo you're not supposed to be paid your and therefore we don't say it's Schmoo the you could do it same thing as okay but Schmoo Schmoo in the beforehand when there was a before this we said that the will not be to me to me when it had its before this but Schmoo there was a to do this now if you wanted to do this you could have done it so Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo but according to Schmoo it was to become because you could and should have done this so why according to that not called a Schmoo as well the the case Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo it wasn't Schmoo he opted not to do it there wasn't enough time Schmoo but you're saying if there was enough time then why Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo don't tell me the Schmoo that it's whether or not you did this it should be Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo telling you the case of whether or not there was enough time in that day to do this and that would be the bigger to say that if there was enough time it's Schmoo to do it and therefore it had a Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo that is what the price is saying Schmoo Schmoo if there was a before it became possible to do this Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo once it was possible to do this Schmoo Schmoo Schmoo we're going to stop here and pick it up we're still in the middle of this conversation we'll stop here and pick it up tomorrow