Menachos 11
Summary
- The דף מנחות דף י״א opens with the פסול of a קמיצה that brings up an item that does not belong in the קומץ, including a pebble, salt, or even a קורט לבונה, and it explains why three examples are needed even though they share the same problem. The עמוד then lays out the mechanics of קמיצה as an עבודה with defined finger placement and smoothing, identifies special difficulty when the מנחה comes from מחבת ובמרחשת, and clarifies that this is one of the עבודות קשות שבמקדש. The latter part shifts to פסולים of ריבה שמנה and חסר לבונתה and develops multiple disputes about how much לבונה must remain at שעת הקטרה for a מנחה versus לבונה brought independently or in בזיכין of לחם הפנים, including cases where extra לבונה is set aside and then lost before or after the act that establishes it.
- The משנה rules that if one performs קמיצה and a pebble, a גרגיר מלח, or a קורט לבונה comes up in the hand, the קמיצה is פסול. Rashi explains that a קורט לבונה פסול מפני שהקומץ חסר כדי מקום הקורט because it occupies space that must be filled by the required flour and oil. Rashi answers how one can avoid getting לבונה even though it is placed on the מנחה by stating that the כהן moves the לבונה to one side and takes סולת from the center, and the narrative adds that this procedure appears explicitly in the ברייתא at the beginning of the second פרק of מסכת סוטה. The תורת כהנים states that one places לבונה on only part of the מנחה, and the ספר תורת הקודש reconciles this by allowing either initial placement over part of the מנחה or over the whole, with relocation as needed. Tosafos suggests that a pebble in the שיריים should also create a חסרון in the עשרון, and answers that the measured עשרון is typically taken with some excess so a small חסרון is not decisive, while תפארת ישראל and טהרת הקודש question Tosafos’s premise because the pebble could have fallen in after the flour was already measured and placed.
- The Gemara asks כל הני למה לי and answers that each case teaches a distinct reason one might mistakenly validate. The Gemara says a pebble is פסול because it is not fit for הקרבה at all, while salt might have seemed acceptable משום דבת הקרבה היא because salt is offered on all offerings. The Gemara adds that salt differs because it is not intrinsically fixed to the מנחה at the outset, whereas לבונה is fixed with the מנחה מעיקרא, and therefore the case of לבונה is required to teach that even an ingredient of the מנחה invalidates when it intrudes into the קומץ. The שפת אמת infers from the Gemara’s logic that salt would have been viewed as part of the מנחה itself rather than merely something added afterward to the קומץ.
- The Gemara states that a קומץ that is חסר or יתר is פסול and asks why this is not automatically a פסול of חציצה. רבי ירמיה answers that the foreign object can be מן הצד, so it does not interpose between the hand and the flour. Rashi ties the concern to the broader rule that חציצה invalidates sacred service as in זבחים דף כ״ד, and the בריסקער רב distinguishes between a general פסול חציצה in עבודה and a distinct requirement that קמיצה be performed specifically בידו הימנית without anything separating the קומץ from the כהן’s hand. The בריסקער רב notes נפקא מינא that the ראב״ד requires a sizable חציצה of שלוש על שלוש אצבעות for the general דין, while the קומץ case treats even a tiny foreign particle as disqualifying, and he frames the latter as a חסרון in ידו של כהן rather than a פסול in the עבודה itself. The שפת אמת reads the סוגיא as evidence that חציצה by קדשים is מן התורה even במשהו, while the בריסקער רב maintains that the standard חציצה rules of רובו ומקפיד from מסכת סוכה may still apply to the general דין and that this case is governed by the separate “ידו של כהן” requirement.
- Abaye asks Rava כיצד קומצין and Rava answers כי דקמצי אינשי, which Rashi initially reads as using all fingers, but a ברייתא assigning functions to the five fingers indicates that קמיצה aligns with a specific finger designation and not a simple full-hand grasp. The Gemara resolves that although the core grasp uses three fingers, the other fingers are used להשוות by smoothing off protruding material. Rav Zutra bar Tuvya בשם רב teaches that the כהן bends three fingers until reaching the palm and performs קמיצה, and a ברייתא derives from בקומצו that one may not take a heaping *mevoretz* קומץ, while מלא קומצו excludes taking only with fingertips and yields the method of folding three fingers over the palm. Tosafos notes that בקומצו is later used to exclude making a measuring כלי for קמיצה, and *ha-ketav veha-kabbalah* explains that the letter בית in בקומצו supports two implications: בו ולא באחר and בתוכו ולא חוצו לו. For a מנחה from מחבת ובמרחשת, Rashi says that after baking one breaks the pieces and then takes the קומץ, and because the pieces cannot be ground as fine as flour, the כהן must smooth with the thumb from above and the pinky from below. The Gemara calls this עבודה קשה שבמקדש, Tosafos conditions that on the view that the baked product is not returned fully to flour-fineness, and the Gemara concludes that it means one of the עבודות קשות שבמקדש alongside מליקה and חפינה, with cited explanations among Rishonim for what makes מליקה uniquely difficult.
- Rav Pappa states that מלא קומצו means performing the grasp in the ordinary manner of pressing the sides of the fingers into the flour and closing the hand. Rav Pappa raises unresolved questions if one performs קמיצה in irregular ways such as בראשי אצבעותיו, מן הצדדין, or ממטה למעלה, and the Gemara leaves them as תיקו. Rav Pappa similarly defines מלא חפניו as the ordinary cupping of two hands and poses unresolved variants, including taking with fingertips or taking in two hands separately and then bringing them together, and these too remain תיקו. The Rambam rules that these doubtful cases are הורצה, and the אור שמח explains that the Rambam treats ספק דאורייתא לחומרא as a דין מדרבנן and holds that the רבנן were not מחמיר in these cases of קדשים.
- The Gemara asks about placing the קומץ in an abnormal position in the כלי, such as sticking it to the side or, in a further question, turning the כלי and sticking it to the base, and it frames the ספק as whether the requirement is merely that it be within the כלי’s interior space or that there be a proper הנחה in the כלי or that it be placed כתקנו. The text records multiple explanations among Rishonim for what physical configuration “sticking” entails, including varying readings attributed to Rashi, Tosafos, the שיטה מקובצת’s citation of a manuscript Rashi, and the Rambam’s approach in פסולי המוקדשין פרק יא. The Gemara leaves these כלי-placement questions as תיקו. The narrative adds a comparison from ראש השנה about a שופר מצופה זהב and presents the אבני נזר’s distinction between ordinary חציצה rules and a requirement of נגיעה ממש, then brings the כוכב מיעקב citing the ברכי יוסף and contrasts that with Tosafos on an earlier מנחות point that מין במינו is not a חציצה when returning the קומץ into the original כלי despite intervening שיריים.
- The משנה states that the כהן performs קמיצה by bending fingers over the palm and that a מנחה becomes פסול if one has ריבה שמנה, חסר שמנה, or חסר לבונתה. רבי אלעזר defines ריבה שמנה as designating two לוגין of oil for the מנחה, and the Gemara challenges why the case is not merely mixing in חולין oil or oil of another מנחה. רבי אלעזר is presented as saying that mixing foreign oil is certainly פסול, and the חידוש is that even oil designated for this מנחה in excess still invalidates. Rava explains רבי אלעזר’s inference from the משנה’s wording ריבה שמנה rather than ריבה שמן, indicating the oil is designated for this offering and still פסול.
- A ברייתא rules that if the לבונה is reduced until only one כורת remains it is פסול, and if two כורות remain it is כשר according to רבי יהודה, while רבי שמעון says one כורת is כשר and פחות מכאן is פסול. Another teaching that קומץ ולבונה שחסרו כל שהוא פסול is reconciled either by reading it as “קרט לבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול” or by distinguishing between לבונה הבאה עם המנחה and לבונה הבאה בפני עצמה, where independent לבונה requires a full קומץ. רבי יוחנן teaches that there are שלש מחלוקת בדבר: רבי מאיר requires קומץ בתחלה and קומץ בסוף, רבי יהודה requires קומץ בתחלה and שני קרטין בסוף, and רבי שמעון requires קומץ בתחלה and קרט אחד בסוף. The Gemara states that all three derive from the single verse ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה with differing דרשות, including רבי שמעון’s refusal to דרש the extra את. רבי יוחנן limits this dispute to לבונה that comes with a מנחה and states that for לבונה הבאה בפני עצמה all agree to קומץ בתחלה and קומץ בסוף, and he further states that for לבונה הבאה בבזיכין of לחם הפנים all agree to שני קמצים בתחלה and שני קמצים בסוף, rejecting an assumption that association with bread makes it like אשר על המנחה. The Gemara records a dispute between רבי אמי and רבי יצחק נפחא whether the same מחלוקת extends to independent לבונה or not.
- The משנה’s implication that היתיר כשרה is contrasted with a ברייתא stating היתיר פסולה, and רמי בר חמא explains that the פסול refers to one who set aside two full קמצים of לבונה. רמי בר חמא rules that if one set aside two קמצים and one was lost קודם קמיצה then לא הוקבעו and the offering remains valid, but if it was lost אחר קמיצה then הוקבעו and the offering is פסול. He applies the same structure to לחם הפנים by stating that one who set aside ארבעה קמצים לשני בזיכין and lost two of them is unaffected if the loss occurred קודם סילוק בזיכין but is invalidated if it occurred לאחר סילוק בזיכין. The Gemara explains that this parallel case is needed to reject the thought that once the זמן arrives it is as if the establishing act already occurred, and it concludes that actual performance of the establishing act is required.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions