Menachos 6
Summary
- The text explains that a *tereifah* is excluded from being brought as a *korban* even though a *kal vachomer* from *baal mum* seems to make a *pasuk* unnecessary, and it walks through the Gemara’s repeated attempts to show why the *kal vachomer* is flawed and why multiple *pesukim* are still needed. It then moves to the Mishnah on *Menachos* 6a listing many disqualifications for *kemitzah* and presents a dispute between the *Tanna Kamma* and Ben Beteira about whether an invalid *kemitzah* can be fixed by returning the *kometz* and repeating the procedure. The Gemara extends Ben Beteira’s position beyond the one explicit case in the Mishnah, and it introduces Rav’s ruling that when a *zar* performs *kemitzah* the *kometz* is returned and redone, followed by analysis of what novelty Rav adds and why *shechitah* by a *zar* does not prove that *zar* is acceptable for *kemitzah*.
- The Gemara initially treats the exclusion of a *tereifah* from a *korban* as obvious from a *kal vachomer* from *baal mum*, since *baal mum* is *mutar l’hedyot* yet *pasul l’gavoh*, while a *tereifah* is *asur l’hedyot*. The text explains that earlier examples of items *asur l’hedyot* but *mutar l’gavoh* do not individually defeat the *kal vachomer*, so the Gemara tries combining examples into a *mah ha-tzad*. It proposes *melikah* and *chelev v’dam* as a combined model where something is *asur l’hedyot* yet *mutar l’gavoh*, leading to a possibility that a *tereifah* might also be permitted without a *pasuk*. The Gemara rejects the *tzed ha-shaveh* because these cases share *mitzvasan b’kach*, which prevents learning from them to ordinary prohibitions.
- Rav Ashi argues that the *kal vachomer* from *baal mum* is flawed at its root because *baal mum* is unique in that *mokrivin k’kravin*, since a *mum* disqualifies both the animal and the *kohen* offering it. Rashi is cited that *tereifus* does not disqualify *kohanim*, as in *Bechoros* where defects such as *mekabel*, *hachosem*, *tereifah*, and *yotzei dofen* are *kesheirim ba-adam u’psulim b’behemah*. Rav Acha Sava challenges this by using *yotzei dofen* as a counterexample, since it does not disqualify the *kohen* yet is still *mutar l’hedyot* and *asur l’gavoh*. The Gemara attempts to pair *baal mum* with *yotzei dofen* into a *tzed ha-shaveh* that would again yield the *kal vachomer* against *tereifah*, and then it introduces distinctions to block that derivation.
- The Gemara rejects the *tzed ha-shaveh* of *baal mum* and *yotzei dofen* by arguing that they were not *hutru mi’klalan*, whereas a *tereifah* is portrayed as having a category of *heter mi’klal*. Rav Acha b’rei d’Rav Ika challenges what case constitutes *tereifah hutrah mi’klalah*, and the text analyzes *melikah* of *olas ha-of* and then *melikah* of *chatas ha-of* eaten by *kohanim* under the principle that *kohanim mi-shulchan gavoah kazchu*. The Gemara then reframes the *pircha* as *muman nikar*, stating that *baal mum* and *yotzei dofen* have evident defects, while *tereifah* does not, with Rashi explaining that *yotzei dofen* is considered *nikar* because it has a *kol* and is known. The conclusion is that the hidden nature of *tereifah* supplies the need for a *pasuk*.
- The Gemara challenges whether the cited *pasuk* is the true source, and it brings additional sources from *mi-mashkeh Yisrael* and from *kol asher yaavor tachas ha-shevet*. It explains why all three *pesukim* are needed: from *mi-mashkeh Yisrael* one might only exclude a case with *lo haysah lah shaas ha-kosher* like *orlah* and *kil’ei ha-kerem*, while a case that once had *shaas ha-kosher* might be thought acceptable, so *kol asher yaavor* is required. With only those two, one might exclude only where it became a *tereifah* before *hekdesh* (analogous to *maaser*), but allow a case where it was *huktash* while fit and only later became a *tereifah*, so *min ha-bakar* is required to exclude even that. The text summarizes that the three *pesukim* establish the exclusion across these distinct scenarios.
- The Mishnah rules that whether it is *minchas chotei* or any *minchah*, if *kemitzah* is performed by a *zar*, *onen*, *tevul yom*, *mechusar begadim*, *mechusar kippurim*, one who did not wash hands and feet, an *arel*, a *tamei*, one who is sitting, or one standing on vessels, an animal, or another person’s feet, the result is *pasul*. It adds that if one performs *kemitzah* with the left hand it is also *pasul*, and Ben Beteira says *yachzir v’yachzor v’yikmotz b’yamin*. The text presents Rashi’s definition of *arel* as a *kohen* whose brothers died due to *milah*, and it presents Tosafos’ view in *Zevachim* that *arel* refers to a *mumar l’areilus*, with the *Mitzpeh Eisan* explaining *libo la-shamayim* as fear of blood. It explains that the *Gemara* will apply Ben Beteira’s fix across the other disqualifications as well, even though the Mishnah explicitly frames the dispute only by *kamtz b’smol*, and Tosafos explains that *smol* has a special *hava amina* because left-handed service appears on *Yom Kippur*.
- The Mishnah adds that if one performed *kemitzah* and a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of *levonah* rose in the hand, the *kemitzah* is *pasul*, and it clarifies that the *levonah* must be moved aside before *kemitzah* and later placed atop the *kometz*. It states that an overfull *kometz* (*yeseir*) and an underfull *kometz* (*chaseir*) are *pasul*. It defines *yeseir* as taking from a heaped pile (*kamtzo mevoratz*) and *chaseir* as taking only with the fingertips (*b’roshei etzbe’osav*).
- The Gemara asks why the Mishnah opens with “*echad minchas chotei v’echad kol ha-menachos*” rather than simply stating “all *menachos*.” It answers that the emphasis is needed for Rabbi Shimon, who holds that *minchas chotei* should have required oil and frankincense and that *chatas chelev* should have required *nesachim* under “*shelo yehei chotei niskar*,” but they are omitted “*shelo yehei korbanoh mehudar*.” The text explains the *hava amina* that Rabbi Shimon might allow additional degradation, such as allowing invalid performers to do *kemitzah*, and the Mishnah teaches that it must still be *kasher*. The Gemara then questions why a similar emphasis is not used in *Zevachim* and concludes that the special emphasis here prevents assuming the Mishnah follows the earlier stance in the tractate that was read as opposing Rabbi Shimon, thereby clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees here.
- Rav rules that if a *zar* performed *kemitzah*, *yachzir*, and the Gemara challenges this against the Mishnah’s “*pasul*,” answering that it is *pasul ad she-yachzir*. The Gemara asks why this is not simply Ben Beteira’s view, and it answers that where the *kometz* is intact *idi d’isyei l’kometz b’einei* even the Rabbis agree, and the dispute is where the *kometz* is missing and whether one may bring additional material from home to refill (*yavi mi-toch beiso v’yemaleinu*). The text then states that Rav’s point is to teach that Ben Beteira’s remedy applies beyond *smol* to other disqualifications, countering the impression from the Mishnah’s wording.
- The Gemara asks why *smol* might have been treated differently and answers that *smol* is validated in an *avodah* on *Yom Kippur*. It suggests that a *zar* also has a place because *shechitah* is valid by a *zar*, and it rejects this because *shechitah lav avodah hi*. It brings Rav’s statement that *shechitas parah b’zar pesulah* and Rav Elazar’s explanation *v’chukah ksiv bah*, and it distinguishes *parah* as *kodshei bedek ha-bayis*. It answers the resulting *kal vachomer* challenge by citing Rav Shishi b’rei d’Rav Idi that some matters requiring *kehuna* are not *avodah*, as with *mar’os nega’im*, so *shechitah* can be non-*avodah* despite being restricted in certain contexts.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions