Menachos 7
Summary
- A *shiur* on Menachot 7b (about ten lines up from the bottom, starting at “אלא הכא קא משמע לן רב”) explains Rav’s ruling about a *zar* or other *pesulim* performing *kemitzah* and whether the *kometz* can be returned and redone, then analyzes how *klei sharet* sanctifies items only with intent and what level of sanctification results. The narrative moves into whether *kemitzah* may be taken from a vessel on the ground and whether sanctifying the *kometz* requires the vessel to be held, using proofs from *lechem hapanim* and the *bazichin*. The *Gemara* then compares sanctifying a *kometz* to laws of blood, explores whether sanctification can occur in halves across multiple vessels, and ends with back-and-forth over leftover blood on a finger during sprinkling and how it is wiped.
- Today’s *daf* is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרדכי שלמה בן יעקב משה הרי נשמתו שתהא לו עליה.
- Rav teaches that if a *zar* or other *pasul* performs *kemitzah*, the *kometz* can be returned to the original vessel and the *kemitzah* redone by a *kasher kohen*. The *Gemara* first frames this as aligned with Ben Beteira, extending Ben Beteira’s rule from *kemitzah* with the left hand to a *zar* as well. The *Gemara* then explains that Rav’s *chiddush* is “קמץ אפילו קידש,” that even if the *pasul* also placed it into a *kli sharet* and sanctified it, it can still be returned and redone, excluding the view of רבי יוסי בן יאסין and רבי יהודה הנחתום who say the allowance applies only when he “קמץ ולא קידש” but “קידש פסל.” An alternate version states Rav’s *chiddush* is only “קמץ אין קידש לא,” aligning him with those *tannaim* and excluding the *tanna kama* who permits even after placement into a *kli*.
- Rav Nachman challenges the distinction between *kemitzah* by a *pasul* being reversible before placement into a *kli sharet* but irreversible after, asking whether such *kemitzah* is an *avodah* or not. Rav Nachman concludes that it is an *avodah* but not completed until “מתן כלי,” so the act is underway yet incomplete until the *kometz* is placed into a sanctifying vessel. The *Gemara* questions why returning the *kometz* to its place would not itself count as placement into a *kli sharet* and thereby sanctify and disqualify it.
- Reish Lakish answers that this implies “כלי שרת אין מקדש אלא מדעת,” that a *kli sharet* sanctifies only with intent, and returning the *kometz* to enable a redo shows lack of intent to sanctify. The *Gemara* challenges this from Reish Lakish’s question to Rabbi Yochanan about whether a *kli sharet* sanctifies *pesulim* “לכתחילה לקריב,” and Rabbi Yochanan’s answer “אין מקדש.” The resolution states that “אין מקדש לקריב” means it does not sanctify to permit offering, while “מקדש לפסול” means it can sanctify enough to disqualify, and that disqualifying sanctification still depends on “מדעת.”
- Rav Amram explains the return case as one where the *kometz* is returned in a way that avoids being placed “inside” the *kli sharet*. The *Gemara* first suggests “לביסה גדושה,” with flour heaped above the rim so the return is not “בתוכו,” but rejects it because *kemitzah* must be taken from within the vessel. The *Gemara* revises to “לביסא טפופה,” a full bowl still under the rim, and explains that after *kemitzah* creates a depression, the return is placed on the rim and shaken so it falls in by itself, “דהוה ליה כמי שהחזירו קוף,” meaning the person did not directly place it into the vessel’s interior.
- Rabbi Ami asks Rabbi Zeira why the *Gemara* did not answer that the return was into a vessel “המונח על גבי קרקע,” implying a vessel on the ground would not sanctify. The response treats this as touching an unresolved question and introduces the broader issue of whether one may take *kemitzah* from a vessel on the ground.
- The *Gemara* recounts that Avimi learned Menachot in the study hall of Rav Chisda, then challenges this because Rav Chisda reports receiving many “strikes” from Avimi over a forgotten teaching about property-sale announcements: “בא להכריז רצופין ל' יום, ב' וה', ס' יום.” The resolution states that Avimi forgot Menachot and came to Rav Chisda to be reminded, and Avimi chose to go rather than summon Rav Chisda because “הכי מסתייעא מלתא טפי,” valuing the effort and difficulty involved.
- Rav Nachman asks Avimi “כיצד קומצין,” and Avimi points to a vessel, prompting Rav Nachman to ask if one may take *kemitzah* from a vessel on the ground, and Avimi answers that a *kohen* must lift it. Rav Nachman then asks “כיצד מקדשין את הקומץ,” and Avimi again indicates placing it into another vessel, with Rav Nachman asking if sanctification may be done in a vessel on the ground, and Avimi again requiring a *kohen* to lift it. Rav Nachman concludes this would require three *kohanim* for a standard *minchah*—one to hold the first vessel, one to perform *kemitzah*, and one to hold the sanctifying vessel—while Avimi answers that requiring multiple *kohanim* is not surprising, comparing it to the thirteen *kohanim* of the *tamid*. A *Mishnah* listing key actions (*kometz*, placing in a vessel, bringing, burning) is answered by saying it teaches “סדר עבודות” rather than “סדר כהנים.”
- Rav Sheshet asks whether one may take *kemitzah* from a vessel on the ground and is told to see what is done with *lechem hapanim*. A *Mishnah* describes four *kohanim* entering with the two stacks and two *bazichin*, with four others preceding to remove the old stacks and *bazichin*, and it does not include anyone lifting the *shulchan*. The *Gemara* initially answers that this could still be “סדר עבודות,” but then distinguishes that the *Mishnah* explicitly counts *kohanim* there, so if lifting were required it should be stated, concluding “שמע מינה” that *kemitzah* may be taken from a vessel on the ground. Rava states this is obvious to him because of the analogy to “סילוק בזיכין.”
- Rava raises whether one may sanctify a *minchah* in a vessel on the ground, comparing to “סידור בזיכין,” and then asks whether sanctifying the *kometz* is learned from *minchah* procedures or from blood procedures where the receiving vessel must be held. The *Gemara* reports that Rava concludes it is learned from blood, then challenges this from a dispute where Rav Nachman says a *kometz* split into two vessels is not sanctified while Rava says it is sanctified. The *Gemara* responds that Rava retracts from that earlier position.
- The *Gemara* asks how it is known that blood is not sanctified in halves across two vessels and brings a *baraita* from חליפא בן שאול about *mei chatas*: sanctifying less than the sprinkling amount in one vessel and less than the amount in another means “לא קידש.” The *Gemara* considers whether this is a unique *halachah* or derived from the verse “וטבל במים,” and suggests an analogy to blood from “וטבל בדם.” A tradition is cited: אמר זריקא אמר רבי אלעזר “אף בדם לא קידש,” and Rav Ashi supports it with a *baraita* deriving from “בדם” that there must be “שיעור טבילה מעיקרו,” meaning the required amount must exist from the outset.
- The *Gemara* explains that “וטבל” excludes wiping rather than dipping, “בדם” requires enough blood for dipping from the outset, and both words are needed to teach both requirements. The phrase “מן הדם שבעניין” is explained by Rava as excluding “שיריים שבאצבע,” and this supports Rabbi Elazar who holds “שיריים שבאצבע פסולין.” A challenge is brought from a *baraita* about blood that splashes from a hand onto clothing and when it requires washing, but the *Gemara* interprets it as distinguishing whether the sprinkling left the hand, so it does not prove leftover blood is valid.
- Abaye challenges from a *Mishnah* about *parah adumah* stating that after finishing sprinkling, the *kohen* wipes his hand on the body of the *parah*, implying that before finishing he does not wipe because leftover blood remains usable. The answer states that if he finished he wipes on the *parah* due to “ושרף את הפרה לעיניו,” but if he did not finish he wipes his finger elsewhere. Abaye answers that he wipes on the rim of the vessel, “בשפת מזרק,” supported by a verse association, and the *shiur* stops at this point to continue tomorrow.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions