Menachos 12
Summary
- A new משנה in Menachos דף י"ב establishes the two central פסולים of *chutz li-zmano* and *chutz li-mkomo* in a מנחה, defining *chutz li-zmano* as פיגול with כרת when eaten and *chutz li-mkomo* as פסול without כרת. The משנה applies these rules across the four core עבודות of קמיצה, נתינה בכלי, הולכה, and הקטרה, and conditions פיגול on *ובלבד שיקריב המתיר כמצותו* so that the permitting service proceeds properly. The גמרא then probes whether הקטרה can “work” for שיריים that became חסר between קמיצה and הקטרה, bringing a dispute between Rav Huna and Rava and ultimately revising Rava’s position while Abaye challenges the proof structure. The closing משנה teaches that half-כזית thoughts of אכילה and half-כזית thoughts of הקטרה do not combine, and the גמרא clarifies why that rule must be stated explicitly even though other inferences seem possible, concluding the פרק with הדרן עלך כל המנחות.
- A sponsor is given לעילוי נשמת מרת מירל שרה בת יעקב משה, with the hope that her נשמה should have an עליה. A parallel is drawn to זבחים as a place where these issues will be treated extensively, and the sugya begins from י״א עמוד ב׳ at the start of the new משנה.
- A מנחה is eaten only on the day it is brought and that night, and beyond that time it becomes נותר and is *chutz li-zmano*. A כהן’s מחשבה during the processing of the מנחה to eat it *chutz li-zmano* makes it פיגול, the מנחה becomes פסול, and one who eats it is חייב כרת. A מנחה as קודש קדשים is eaten only in the עזרה, and eating it outside is *chutz li-mkomo*, which makes it פסול without כרת.
- A מחשבה to eat the שיריים outside, to eat a כזית of the שיריים outside, to be מקטיר the קומץ outside, to be מקטיר a כזית of the קומץ outside, or to be מקטיר the לבונה outside renders the מנחה פסול ואין בו כרת. A מחשבה to eat the שיריים tomorrow, to eat a כזית of the שיריים tomorrow, to be מקטיר the קומץ tomorrow, to be מקטיר a כזית of the קומץ tomorrow, or to be מקטיר the לבונה tomorrow renders it פיגול וחייבים עליו כרת.
- A general rule applies to anyone who is קומץ, נותן בכלי, מוליך, or מקטיר with a מחשבה to eat what is normally eaten or to be מקטיר what is normally burned: *chutz li-mkomo* makes it פסול ואין בו כרת, while *chutz li-zmano* makes it פיגול וחייבים עליו כרת. The rule of *ובלבד שיקריב המתיר כמצותו* requires that after the מחשבה, the rest of the עבודה proceeds properly so that the permitter is completed in its standard manner; only then does the status of פיגול attach.
- A case of קרב המתיר כמצותו occurs when קמיצה is done silently and later stages have *chutz li-zmano*, or when קמיצה has *chutz li-zmano* and later stages are silent, or when all stages have *chutz li-zmano*. A case of לא קרב המתיר כמצותו occurs when *chutz li-mkomo* and *chutz li-zmano* are mixed across stages in either order, or when all stages are *chutz li-mkomo*, yielding פסול but not פיגול.
- For מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות, which are singled out because earlier learning establishes that only these are פסול שלא לשמן, mixing שלא לשמן with *chutz li-zmano* across the stages produces the category of לא קרב המתיר כמצותו. These cases are פסול and do not become פיגול.
- When the מחשבה assigns a כזית to *chutz li-mkomo* and a כזית to *chutz li-zmano*, or does so in the opposite order, or splits into two half-כזיתים between place and time in either order, the result is פסול ואין בו כרת. Rabbi Yehuda states the rule that if the time-thought precedes the place-thought then it is פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת, whereas if the place-thought precedes the time-thought it is פסול ואין בו כרת, and the חכמים treat both orderings as פסול without כרת because כרת applies only when the sole פסול מחשבה is the one that creates פיגול.
- A question is raised according to Rabbi Yochanan that when שיריים became חסר between קמיצה and הקטרה, one still is מקטיר קומץ עליהן, and those שיריים are אסורין באכילה. The doubt is whether the הקטרה can nevertheless fix them as פיגול, and Rashi adds *אינמי* whether it can remove them from מעילה.
- Rav Huna says that even according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds זריקה מועלת ליוצא, that leniency applies only when the item is still intact and פסול due to another factor, whereas חסרון is an inherent פסול and הקטרה does not help for פיגול or for removing מעילה. Rava argues the reverse, claiming that even according to Rabbi Eliezer who holds אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא, the factor of being inside (*איתיה בפנים*) makes חסרון more amenable to being helped by הקטרה.
- Rava attempts to prove his view from the wording of the משנה that includes “או כזית משיריה,” and from a ברייתא of Rabbi Chiya that omits “או כזית,” reading the omission as reflecting a case where the שיריים are reduced to a כזית and yet the Mishnah’s concluding rule still yields פיגול. The argument infers that הקטרה is effective even when the שיריים are חסר.
- Abaye answers that Rabbi Chiya’s ברייתא can follow Rabbi Eliezer, who requires offering the whole and does not treat a mere כזית as effective for liability when offered outside. The גמרא challenges this by noting that under Rabbi Eliezer one would expect mention of both קומץ and לבונה, and then answers that the case is קומץ מנחת חוטא, which lacks לבונה, and supports this with the report of Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Elazar that the ברייתא is קומץ מנחת חוטא and follows Rabbi Eliezer.
- Rava retracts, stating that his earlier claim is not correct, and brings a ברייתא about the בזיכי לבונה of לחם הפנים derived from “קודש קודשים היא,” teaching that if one חלה is broken then all are פסולות. A further inference is drawn that an item that goes out would leave those inside כשרות, linking to Rabbi Akiva’s principle of זריקה מועלת ליוצא, yet the explicit ruling that breakage invalidates all supports that חסרון is not helped by the permitting act, and thus הקטרה would not make חסר שיריים into פיגול.
- Abaye challenges whether the ברייתא ever states the case of יוצאת and suggests the inference can instead be about one חלה becoming טמא while the rest remain כשרות because of דמרצי ציץ. The reading allows the ברייתא to align with Rabbi Eliezer and still teach that even when the broken piece remains inside, הקטרה does not help, leaving open that Rabbi Akiva might hold that even in חסרון the permitting act could help.
- A מחשבה to eat a half-כזית and to be מקטיר a half-כזית, whether in time or place, leaves the מנחה כשר because אכילה and הקטרה do not combine. The גמרא considers possible inferences about combining normal eating with eating something not normally eaten, contrasts that with the earlier rule requiring intent about what is normally eaten or normally burned, and identifies Rabbi Eliezer as a תנא who holds מחשבין מאכילת אדם לאכילת מזבח ומאכילת מזבח לאכילת אדם, opposing a חכמים position that would keep such מחשבות ineffective.
- Abaye explains that the Mishnah’s intended inference should be redirected so it does not contradict the earlier Mishnah, and the גמרא asks what new information remains. The conclusion is that the explicit teaching is necessary because one might have thought that since both halves are “כארחיה” in their respective domains—eating the שיריים and burning the קומץ—they would combine, and the Mishnah teaches that they still do not because אכילה והקטרה are not מצטרף.
- The text closes with הדרן עלך כל המנחות and marks the completion of the first פרק of מסכת מנחות with the hope to complete the מסכת and all of ש״ס, and it previews that the next פרק continues the discussion of *chutz li-zmano* and *chutz li-mkomo* and related מחשבות.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions