Menachos 6
Summary
- A teaching on מנחות דף ו explains why the פסוק “אם עולה קרבנו מן הבקר” is needed to exclude a טריפה from being brought as a קרבן, even though an initial קל וחומר from a בעל מום seems to suffice, because multiple attempted פירכות and הצד השוה arguments create plausible refutations until the גמרא concludes that טריפה is different since אין מומן ניכר, so a specific קרא is required. Another set of פסוקים, “ממשקה ישראל” and “כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט,” is brought to exclude טריפה as well, and the גמרא explains why all three פסוקים are necessary due to cases of שעת הכושר and the timing of הקדשה relative to becoming טריפה. A משנה then lists many פסולים that invalidate קמיצה, records רבי בן בתירא’s view that a left-handed קמיצה can be returned and redone, and details פסולים of יתר וחסר in קמיצה. The גמרא explains why the משנה explicitly includes מנחת חוטא along with all other מנחות, engages רבי שמעון’s reasoning about not making a sinner’s קרבן מהודר, and then analyzes רב’s ruling about a זר who performed קמיצה, ultimately clarifying the scope of בן בתירא’s הכשר and the novelty that even if the קומץ was already sanctified it can still be returned and redone.
- A sponsorship is given לעילוי נשמת מרדכי מאיר בן יצחק משה, and the learning begins at the top of the דף with the words of רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר.
- A ברייתא derives from “אם מן הבקר” that a טריפה is not brought as a קרבן, and it initially frames this as a קל וחומר from a בעל מום that is permitted to a הדיוט yet invalid for the מזבח. A challenge from חלב ודם and from מליקה is answered by distinguishing partial איסור and קדושה-related איסור from the total inherent איסור of טריפה. The גמרא reports earlier attempted פירכות from עומר, קטורת, שבת, and שעטנז, each rejected because those מצוות are defined as being done that way whereas טריפה is never a מצוה to bring.
- Rav Sheisha proposes refuting the קל וחומר via a צד using מליקה and חלב ודם in a circular וחזר הדין structure, concluding with a הצד השוה that their איסור is to a הדיוט while they are permitted לגבוה, which would imply טריפה should be permitted לגבוה as well. The גמרא rejects this by stating that the צד השוה is limited to cases where מצותן בכך, while טריפה is never meant to be offered.
- Rav Ashi challenges the קל וחומר at its root by distinguishing a בעל מום, where מקריבין are treated like קרבין in that a כהן בעל מום is פסול for עבודה just as an animal בעל מום is פסול for קרבן, unlike טריפה where a כהן “טריפה” is allowed to do עבודה. Rav Acha Sava counters with יוצא דופן, where a כהן born by C-section is not פסול for עבודה while a יוצא דופן animal is פסול for קרבן, and the גמרא responds that יוצא דופן is excluded because it is not קדוש בבכורה. The argument cycles back to בעל מום, returns again to the מקריבין כקרבין distinction, and then again to יוצא דופן, forming another וחזר הדין and yielding a צד השוה that what is permitted להדיוט and forbidden לגבוה implies that טריפה, which is forbidden להדיוט, is certainly forbidden לגבוה.
- The גמרא rejects the attempted צד השוה by saying those cases have no general היתר at all, while טרפה is described as having a form of היתר, and Rav Acha bar Ravah asks what that היתר is. The suggestion of מליקה דעולת העוף is answered by noting that birds also have leniencies in בעל מום because תמימות וזכרות apply to בהמה but not to עופות, and the suggestion of מליקה דחטאת העוף לכהנים is answered by stating that כהנים משולחן גבוה קזכו. The גמרא then reframes the פירכא by stating that the צד השוה in בעל מום and יוצא דופן involves מומן ניכר, while טריפה typically has אין מומן ניכר, and therefore the קרא “מן הבקר” is needed to exclude טריפה from קרבן.
- The גמרא asks whether טריפה is really learned from “מן הבקר” when it can be derived from “ממשקה ישראל,” meaning מן המותר לישראל, and also from “כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט,” which excludes a טריפה from מעשר בהמה as one that is not considered to pass under the staff. The גמרא states צריכא because “ממשקה ישראל” would only exclude items with no שעת הכושר, likened to ערלה וכלאי הכרם, and “כל אשר יעבור” would exclude where the animal became טריפה before הקדשה, דומיא דמעשר. The פסוק “מן הבקר” is needed for the case where it was fit at the time of הקדשה and only later became טריפה, so the three פסוקים jointly establish the full exclusion.
- The משנה rules that whether it is מנחת חוטא or any מנחה, קמיצה done by a זר, אונן, טבול יום, מחוסר בגדים, מחוסר כפורים, one who did not wash ידיים ורגליים, ערל, טמא, or done while sitting or standing on כלים, on a בהמה, or on another’s feet is פסול. The משנה adds that קמיצה with the left hand is פסול, and רבי בן בתירא says the קומץ is returned and redone with the right hand. The משנה invalidates a קומץ that includes a pebble, salt, or a piece of לבונה, links this to the rule that הקומץ היתר והחסר פסול, defines יתר as flour overflowing, and defines חסר as taking only with the fingertips.
- The גמרא questions why מנחת חוטא is singled out rather than simply stating all מנחות, and it initially ties this to רבי שמעון, who says מנחת חוטא should logically require שמן ולבונה so the sinner does not gain, yet it does not in order that his קרבן not be מהודר. Rabbi Shimon similarly says a חטאת חלב should logically require נסכים so the sinner does not gain, yet it does not so his קרבן not be מהודר, and the גמרא explains a הוה אמינא that פסולי קמיצה might be “acceptable” there as a lack of הידור, which the משנה rejects. The גמרא compares this to a formulation in זבחים and then concludes that the wording here is still needed because one might have assumed the מסכת’s earlier framing excludes רבי שמעון, while this phrasing teaches that this משנה aligns with רבי שמעון.
- Rav rules that if a זר performed קמיצה, the קומץ is returned and a כשר כהן repeats the קמיצה, and the גמרא explains that “פסול” means פסול עד שיחזיר. The גמרא analyzes whether this merely restates רבי בן בתירא and distinguishes a case where the קומץ still exists from a case where it is missing, initially proposing a מחלוקת about whether one may bring more flour due to whether קדושת כלי or קמיצה establishes the מנחה, and then rejects this as inconsistent with the משנה’s wording. The gمרא reinterprets Rav as stating the דין specifically according to בן בתירא and explains the novelty as extending beyond שמאל to other פסולים, while clarifying that זר being valid for שחיטה is not a proof because שחיטה לאו עבודה היא, and it addresses פרה אדומה by attributing its requirement of כהונה to אלעזר וחוקה and by comparing it to נגעים as requiring כהונה without being עבודה. The discussion considers learning from במה and rejects it by stating that the תנא relies on “זאת תורת העולה” rather than learning from במה as a true source.
- The גמרא cites a ברייתא stating that בן בתירא is מכשיר in all the פסולים and derives בן בתירא’s rule from “וקמץ משם” as permitting taking again ממקום שקמץ כבר, which applies broadly because the קרא is written סתמא. The גמרא concludes that Rav’s distinct חידוש is that if a פסול person performed קמיצה and even sanctified it, קמץ ואפילו קידש, it can still be returned and the process redone by a כשר כהן.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions