Menachos 11
Summary
- The text explains why a *kometz* becomes *pasul* when non-flour items enter the handful, clarifies that these cases hinge on deficiency rather than *chatzitzah*, and details the precise hand-technique for *kemitzah* including why it is considered one of the difficult Temple services. The narration then parallels unresolved procedural questions in *kemitzah* with similar unresolved questions in the *chafinah* of *ketoret* on Yom Kippur, and raises further *teiku* cases about how the *kometz* is placed in a *kli sharet*. It then moves to a new Mishnah about invalid changes in oil and *levonah*, develops how “extra oil” is defined, and presents multiple *machloket* frameworks about how much *levonah* must remain—distinguishing *levonah* brought with a *minchah*, *levonah* brought alone, and the *levonah* of the *bezichin* for *lechem hapanim*. It concludes with Rav Hamnuna’s rules about designating extra *levonah* and when loss before or after the critical avodah moment “sets” the status as invalid.
- The Mishnah rules that if, during *kemitzah*, a pebble, a grain of salt, or a piece of *levonah* comes up in the hand together with the *kometz*, the *kometz* is *pasul* because it is lacking flour. The Gemara explains that each example is necessary because a pebble might be invalid only because it is not fit for offering, salt might be thought valid because it is offered on the *mizbeach*, and *levonah* might be thought valid because it begins as part of the *minchah* before being shifted aside. The conclusion is that even salt and *levonah* in the handful invalidate the *kometz*.
- The Mishnah’s reason is framed as “the deficient or excessive *kometz* is *pasul*,” and the Gemara questions why invalidity is not instead attributed to *chatzitzah*. Rav Yirmiyah answers that the case is where the foreign item is on the side, so it does not constitute a *chatzitzah* between the hand and the flour. The invalidity therefore remains a problem of *chaser* in the measured handful.
- Abaye asks Rava how one performs *kemitzah*, and Rava answers *k’dekamtzei inshi*, like ordinary scooping. A baraita identifies the fingers by function and calls the ring finger “*kemitzah*,” implying that the act is not a four-finger scoop but centers on the three middle fingers. The Gemara resolves that the fourth finger is used to level off protruding material, while the *kemitzah* itself is taken with three fingers.
- Rav Zutra bar Tuvyah בשם Rav states that the kohen folds his three middle fingers over the palm until reaching the *pas yad* and takes the *kometz* that way. A baraita derives from “*melo komtzo*” and “*b’komtzo*” that the handful must be full yet not taken merely with fingertips, yielding the defined technique of folding three fingers over the palm. For *machavat* and *marcheshet*, he smooths with the thumb from above and with the pinky from below to ensure nothing protrudes from the *kometz*.
- The text states that this smoothing-required *kemitzah* is “*avodah kashah she’bamikdash*.” The Gemara challenges whether it is the only difficult service, and answers that *melikah* and *chafinah* are also difficult. The corrected formulation is that *kemitzah* is one of the difficult Temple services.
- Rava states that “*melo komtzo*” teaches a normal scooping motion *k’dekamtzei inshi*. Rava asks whether *kemitzah* done with fingertips, from the sides, or from below upward is valid. The Gemara leaves these questions as *teiku*.
- Rava similarly rules that “*melo chofnav*” is done *k’dechafnei inshi*, by a normal double-handful scoop. He asks about *chafinah* with fingertips, from the sides, or by scooping each hand separately and then bringing them together. These questions are also left as *teiku*.
- Rav Pappa asks whether placing the *kometz* stuck to the wall of the vessel counts as valid placement, weighing whether mere presence “inside” suffices or whether it must rest in proper *hanachah* within. Mar bar Rav Ashi asks whether flipping the vessel and placing the *kometz* in the indentation on its underside is valid, weighing whether it must be “inside” versus “*k’tikuno*,” in the normal orientation. Both cases conclude *teiku*.
- The Mishnah rules that increasing the oil, lacking oil, or lacking *levonah* renders the *minchah* *pesulah*. Rav Elazar defines “increased oil” as designating two *login* instead of one. The Gemara explains that Rav Elazar’s statement is structured as *lo miba’ya*: not only does foreign oil or oil from another *minchah* invalidate, but even designating two valid *login* for the same offering still invalidates.
- A baraita states that if *levonah* is missing even a small amount and only one *kort* remains, the offering is *pesulah*, while two *kortin* suffice, according to Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon holds that one *kort* suffices and less is *pasul*. A second baraita says that *kometz* and *levonah* missing even a small amount are *pasul*, and the Gemara resolves this either by reading it as “a *kort levonah* that is missing even a small part is *pasul*,” or by distinguishing *levonah* brought with a *minchah* from *levonah* brought by itself.
- Rabbi Yochanan reports a three-way dispute: Rabbi Meir requires a full *kometz* of *levonah* at the beginning and at the end, Rabbi Yehudah requires a *kometz* at the beginning and two *kortin* at the end, and Rabbi Shimon requires a *kometz* at the beginning and one *kort* at the end. All derive from “*ve’et kol halevonah asher al haminchah*,” with Rabbi Meir reading “*kol*” as requiring all original *levonah* throughout, Rabbi Yehudah reading “*kol*” as even one piece and “*et*” to add another, and Rabbi Shimon not deriving from “*et*” and allowing one piece. Rabbi Yochanan limits this dispute to *levonah* brought with a *minchah*, while *levonah* brought alone requires a *kometz* at the beginning and end according to all, and “*asher al haminchah*” marks that limitation.
- Rabbi Yochanan states that for *levonah* in the *bezichin* of *lechem hapanim*, everyone agrees that two *ketzitzot*—two *kometz* measures, one per spoon—must be present at the beginning and at the end. The Gemara explains that one might have compared it to *levonah* that comes with a *minchah* because it accompanies bread, and it teaches that the comparison is rejected and full preservation is required.
- Rav Ami and Rav Yitzchak Nafcha argue whether the dispute applies only to *levonah* that comes with a *minchah*, with unanimous agreement for *levonah* brought alone, or whether the same dispute applies even to *levonah* brought by itself. The text presents both positions as alternative attributions.
- The Gemara infers from the Mishnah’s wording that extra *levonah* might be valid, but a baraita states that extra *levonah* is *pesulah*, and Rav Hamnuna explains this as where two full *k’matzim* were designated. Rav Hamnuna rules that if two *k’matzim* were designated and one was lost before *kemitzah*, the extra was not established and the offering remains valid, but if it was lost after *kemitzah*, the status was established and it is invalid. He further rules that if four *k’matzim* were designated for two *bezichin* and two were lost before removal of the *bezichin*, they were not established, but if lost after removal they were established and the *lechem hapanim* is invalid. The Gemara explains that the second case teaches that even when the required *kometz* is already clearly defined in the *bezichin*, mere arrival of the time for removal does not count as removal until it is actually done.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions