Menachos 7 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:12 - 6B
08:51 - 7A
23:59 - 7B
38:23 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- Good morning רבותי. לעילוי נשמת סימי בת מרדכי, live from Park City, Utah. The text explains a sugya in מנחות about *kemitzah* in a מנחה, Rav’s ruling that a פסול *kemitzah* can be returned to the original bowl, and a מחלוקת whether that remains true even after the קומץ is placed into a second כלי that gives קדושה. It brings challenges and resolutions about whether *kemitzah* is an עבודה and when a כלי שרת is מקדש, includes רבי יוחנן’s principle that כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת, and distinguishes between קדושה ליקרב and קדושה ליפסל. It then shifts to whether a כלי on the ground can be used for *kemitzah* and קידוש מנחה, proves that it can, and raises a further question about קידוש קומץ and its comparison to קבלת הדם. The sugya continues with proofs about not being מקדש לחצאין in blood and related laws of טבילה and “מן הדם שבעניין,” and it closes with details about wiping the finger in הזאות, including פרה אדומה and cleansing on the vessel’s edge.
- A ישראל who performs *kemitzah* makes the קומץ invalid, but Rav rules that if the קומץ is returned to the bowl it becomes usable again. The משנה lists other פסולים such as אונן, מחוסר כיפורים, and טבול יום, and the initial assumption is that only *smol* would be returnable while other פסולים would remain פסול in the act. A ברייתא states that רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון validate returning “במעשה” for all the פסולים listed. A derashah from “וקמץ משם” teaches that if one did *kemitzah* with the left hand, he returns it and repeats with the right, and the plain פסוק implies no distinction between *smol* and other פסולים.
- Rav teaches that the קומץ may be returned even if it was placed into the second vessel and thereby received קדושה, stated as “קמץ ואפילו קידש.” A competing ברייתא attributes to רבי יוסי בן רבי יוסי בן יסן and רבי יהודה הנחתום the view that this permission applies only when “קמץ ולא קידש,” but once “קידש” it is פסל and cannot be redone. An alternative report presents Rav as saying “קמץ אין קידש לא,” aligning Rav with רבי יוסי בן רבי יוסי בן יסן ורבי יהודה הנחתום and נגד תנא קמא.
- A מנחה is a flour gift brought in the בית המקדש, sometimes with oil and frankincense, לבונה, and sometimes plain. A כהן inserts his hand into the flour and takes three fingers’ worth, which is the *kemitzah* that is placed on the מזבח as the portion being *maktir*. The remainder of the flour is eaten by the כהן afterward. The process includes transferring the קומץ into a smaller vessel, described as a second כלי, and the sugya frames a מחלוקת whether the קומץ can be returned to the first bowl after that transfer.
- Rav נחמן asks what these תנאים hold: if פסול *kemitzah* is an עבודה, then placing it into a second vessel should not matter, and if it is not an עבודה, then placing it into a second vessel should not matter either. Rav נחמן answers that it is an עבודה but not completed until the קומץ is put into the כלי, making the initial act partial and the כלי-placement the completion. The גמרא asks that even without קידש, returning it to the original כלי שרת should sanctify it upon return and make it unusable. Tosafos explains that the קומץ falls atop flour and invokes מין במינו אינו חוצץ so it is treated as contacting the vessel.
- Rabbi יוחנן derives that כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת, so returning the קומץ without intent to sanctify does not confer קדושה. The text asks from ריש לקיש’s question to רבי יוחנן whether a כלי שרת can sanctify a פסול לכתחילה ליקרב, and רבי יוחנן answers “אין מקדשין.” רבי יוחנן distinguishes that אין מקדשין ליקרב אבל מקדשין ליפסל, so a פסול can become sanctified enough to be invalidated even if not fit for הקרבה.
- Rav אדא בר אהבה explains the case as returning the קומץ to a ביסה גדושה, where material above the rim is outside the כלי and thus not sanctified. The גמרא objects that if *kemitzah* was taken from a heap outside the כלי, then the *kemitzah* itself would be invalid, so it establishes a ביסה טפופה where the bowl is full but within the rim. Although the act of *kemitzah* creates a gומא, the returned קומץ is placed on the side above the rim and then shaken so it falls in by itself. The גמרא describes this as דנעשה כמי שהחזירו הקוף, treating the final settling as not his direct placement into the כלי.
- Rabbi ירמיה suggests setting the case as a כלי on the ground, but the sugya infers that קמיצה from a כלי שעל גבי קרקע is קדוש. A digression introduces that רבי אבימי was learning מנחות by רב חסדא because אבימי forgot the entire מסכתא and came to רב חסדא to be reminded, and רב חסדא reports being “כופי טבי בלי” from אבימי over a forgotten halachah about announcing a sale of orphan property on Mondays and Thursdays over 60 days. The גמרא explains that אבימי chose to go to רב חסדא because “הכי מסתייעא מילתא טפי.”
- Rav נחמן asks אבימי how *kometzim* and how sanctifying מנחות is done, and אבימי answers by pointing to a כלי and then clarifying “דמגבי ליה כהן,” requiring a כהן to lift it. Rav נחמן argues that this would require three כהנים, one to hold the big כלי, one to perform *kemitzah*, and one to hold the second כלי, and אבימי answers that a תמיד requires 13 כהנים so three is not excessive. A משנה listing the עבודות relevant to פיגול omits “lifting,” and the answer is that it gives סדר עבודה and not סדר כהנים. A further proof from the סדר of לחם הפנים counts the כהנים involved without mentioning anyone lifting the שולחן, leading to the inference that the עבודה can be done without someone holding the surface.
- Rava states that *kemitzah* from a כלי on the ground is obvious, proven from סידור בזיכין, and he also states that a מנחה can be sanctified in a כלי on the ground for the same reason. Rava raises a doubt about קידוש קומץ, whether the second vessel receiving the קומץ must be held, by comparing it either to מנחה procedures or to דם. Rava concludes that it is learned from blood, viewing placing the קומץ into the small vessel as parallel to קבלת הדם, where the כלי must be held.
- The sugya challenges whether Rava can compare to blood, since Rava elsewhere says a קומץ divided into two vessels is קדוש while Rav נחמן says אינו קדוש. The conclusion is that Rava retracts and agrees that dividing into two vessels is not valid, matching the rule that blood is not sanctified halfway. A teaching about פרה אדומה states קידש פחות מכדי הזיה בכלי זה ופחות מכדי הזיה בכלי זה לא קידש, and the sugya debates whether this is an isolated *halachah* or derived from “ותבל במים,” with a parallel “ותבל בדם” used to extend the rule to blood.
- A report in the name of Rav Elazar states that even with blood, receiving it in two vessels does not sanctify, and Rava supports this with a ברייתא: “וטבל ולא מספג,” requiring that the שיעור טבילה be present in the vessel initially and disallowing scraping from the sides. The derashah explains the need for both “וטבל” and “בדם,” where “בדם” requires sufficient blood in one place and “וטבל” requires actual dipping rather than collecting residue. “מן הדם שבעניין” is explained by Rava as excluding שיריים שבאצבע, so leftover blood on the finger does not count for continued sprinklings. A related דין about blood on garments is interpreted as referring to each individual הזיה, and a comparison to פרה אדומה leads to the rule that when finished one wipes the whole hand on the cow, but when not finished one wipes the finger, with Abaye concluding “בשפת מזרק” as the place to wipe, based on “כפורי זהב.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions