Menachos 7
Summary
- The text follows the Gemara on *Menachot* 7 from “ונילף מבמה,” framing Rav’s statement that a *zar* who performed *kemitzah* can return it and redo the *kemitzah* and asking what novelty Rav adds if this is either already rejected by the *Rabbanan* or already explicit in Ben Beteira. It develops successive proposals for Rav’s *chidush*, then confronts how returning the handful to the original *kli sharet* avoids *kiddush* and offers three answers, including the principle that a *kli sharet* sanctifies only *mida’at*. It then broadens into the major sugya of whether a *kli sharet* sanctifies when it is *munach al gabei karka*, bringing a proof from *lechem hapanim* and the *bezichin*, and it transitions to rules of blood and sprinkling, including that splitting the requisite measure between two vessels fails and that leftover blood on the finger is rejected, with a first attempted proof for permissibility rejected.
- A possible assumption is that Ben Beteira allows a redo only for *kemitzah* with the left hand because *smol* is *huterah michlalo* on *Yom HaKippurim*, while other invalid *kemitzot* would not receive a redo, and Rav teaches that even *zar she’kamatz* and thus other invalidities receive a redo. The Gemara challenges this by asking “ונילף מבמה,” arguing that *zar* is also *huterah michlalo* because a *zar* is valid on a *bamah*, and it cites a teaching that “מנין ליוצא שאם עלה לא ירד” because “יוצא כשר בבמה,” implying that one can learn from *bamah*. The Gemara answers that the rule of “אם עלה לא ירד” is anchored in “זאת תורת העולה” and not truly derived from *bamah*, and it treats *bamah* as an unsuitable source because it predates *kehuna*, leaving room for Rav’s contribution.
- A *beraita* states that Rabbi Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon say Ben Beteira validates returning and redoing for all invalidities, and another *beraita* derives Ben Beteira from “וקמץ משם ממקום שקמץ כבר,” which is written *stam* and is not limited to *smol*, making it logical that Ben Beteira applies to all invalid cases. The Gemara therefore proposes a second framing: Rav teaches that one may return and redo even if the *kometz* was already placed into a *kli sharet* and sanctified, and it contrasts this with Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yisyon and Rabbi Yehuda haNachtom, who limit Ben Beteira to a case of “קמץ ולא קידש” and say “אבל קידש פסול.” An alternate report flips the conclusion and presents Rav as aligning with those *tannaim* that once it is *kidesh* it cannot be undone.
- Rav Nachman challenges the logic by asking whether invalid *kemitzah* is an *avodah*, since if it is an *avodah* the act should invalidate even without *matan kli*, and if it is not an *avodah* then placing it in a vessel should add nothing. Rav Nachman then resolves that invalid *kemitzah* is an *avodah* whose completion depends on *matan kli*, so before *matan kli* one can abort and redo, while after *matan kli* the invalid *avodah* is complete.
- The Gemara asks that when the handful is returned to its place, it is being placed into the original *kli*, which is a *kli sharet*, so it should become sanctified and invalidated. Rabbi Yochanan infers that *klei sharet* sanctify only *mida’at*, and he distinguishes that they do not sanctify invalid items “ליקרב” but they do sanctify “לפסול.” Rav Ami explains the case as returning it in a way that is not a direct placement into the vessel, resolving the back-and-forth about *bisah gedushah* versus *bisah tefufah* by describing placing it on the side and letting it fall in so that it is “כמי שהחזירו קוף,” which is not a sanctifying act. Rav Ami also suggests a third answer that returning to a vessel on the ground would avoid *kiddush*, and the Gemara infers from the ensuing discussion that *kemitzah* can be taken from a *kli* even when it is *al gabei karka*.
- The Gemara reports that Avimi learned *Menachot* by Rav Chisda, then questions this because Rav Chisda elsewhere reports receiving a sharp rebuttal from Avimi about the rule of announcing the sale of orphans’ land for thirty continuous days versus sixty days on Mondays and Thursdays, implying Avimi was his teacher. The Gemara answers that Avimi had forgotten a *masechta* and came to Rav Chisda to restore his learning, and it asks why he did not summon Rav Chisda to come teach him. The Gemara explains that Avimi believed the matter would succeed better by going himself, and Rashi explains this as “משום יגעתי ומצאתי.”
- In Avimi’s encounter with Rav Nachman, Rav Nachman asks how one performs *kemitzah* and how one sanctifies the *minchah*, and Avimi answers while pointing to a vessel on the ground, then clarifies that a *kohen* must lift it. Rav Nachman objects that this would require multiple *kohanim*, and the Gemara responds that needing many *kohanim* is not a problem, like the thirteen involved in the *tamid*. A challenge from a rule listing the *avodot* that generate *pigul* is answered by saying it lists the order of *avodot* and not the staffing. Rav Sheshet is asked whether one may do *kemitzah* from a vessel on the ground and tells them to see what is done “לגב,” and a proof is brought from the detailed count of eight *kohanim* handling the *lechem hapanim* and *bezichin* without mentioning lifting the *shulchan*, leading to “שמע מינה קומץ מכלי שעל גבי קרקע.” Rava states it is obvious that *kemitzah* from a ground-standing vessel is valid because of *siluk bezichin* and that sanctifying the *minchah* in a vessel on the ground is valid because of *sidur bezichin*, and he asks whether *kiddush kometz* in the second vessel follows *minchah* or follows *dam*, concluding it follows *dam*.
- A dispute is reported about a handful divided into two vessels, with Rav Nachman saying “אינו קדוש” and Rava saying “קדוש,” and the Gemara resolves that Rava retracted in light of deriving *kiddush kometz* from *dam*. The text then anchors a broader rule by citing Rav T’chalifa ben Shaul that for *mei chatat*, sanctifying less than the sprinkling-measure in each of two vessels “לא קידש,” and it asks whether the same applies to blood, weighing whether the *parah* case is an *halacha* that cannot be extended or whether the language “וטבל במים” implies one unified body of liquid, paralleled by “וטבל בדם.” Rabbi Z’rika in the name of Rabbi Elazar rules that even for blood it is not sanctified when split, and Rava supports this with a teaching expounding “וטבל ולא מספיג” and “בדם” to require a full dipping-measure present in one vessel from the outset.
- Rava interprets “מן הדם” as excluding “שיריים שבאצבע,” supporting Rabbi Elazar that leftover blood on the finger is invalid and must be wiped before the next sprinkling. A proposed proof is brought in the name of Rav Ami from a teaching that blood that splashes from the hand onto a garment requires laundering if it occurred “עד שלא הזה” but not if it occurred “משהזה,” suggesting that remaining blood retains the status of *dam chatat* until all sprinklings are complete. The Gemara rejects this by interpreting “עד שלא יצתה הזאה מידו” versus “משייצתה הזאה מידו,” making the distinction within the same sprinkling so that blood remaining after that sprinkling does not require laundering and is treated as rejected for further use, and the text ends with the intention to continue to a second proof “בעזרת השם” the next day and the closing line, “Oh no. I think I just accidentally erased the whole שיעור.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions