Menachos 24
Summary
- The text continues מנחות דף כ״ד from כ״ג עמוד ב׳ at the fourth and final attempted proof about whether halachic classification follows the *batel* or the *mevatel* in a mixture where one type can halachically “become” like the other, and it concludes that the מצה-with-spices case does not prove the point because the case is where the מצה is the majority. The text then moves to an extended treatment of *tziruf keli*, defining how a כלי combines קדשים for טומאה and for קמיצה, raising multiple uncertainty cases about separation, intervening items, airspace, and combining *tziruf* with water-connection, with several questions left as *teiku*. The closing sugya addresses a מנחה where half an עשרון was lost, replaced, and then found, establishing different pairing rules for צירוף and for אכילת שיירים depending on which portion became טמא or was used for קמיצה, and it concludes that the validity of the קומץ depends on the כהן’s דעת to be קמץ from a single עשרון.
- The text states that today’s שיעור is sponsored by Henry Orlinsky לזכר נשמת Milton Kramer, יחיאל מיכל בן חיים שניאור זלמן הלוי, and it adds: הנשמה של עליה from the זכות of our learning.
- The גמרא brings a proof from the דין that if dough for מצה is spiced with קצח, שומשמין, or other תבלין, the מצה is כשרה and remains “מצה,” called מצה מתובלת. The attempted proof assumes even where תבלין are more than the מצה, and it frames the implication that if one follows the *batel* this fits because the flour can become unfit like תבלין regarding מצה, but if one follows the *mevatel* it is difficult because תבלין never become מצה and would create מין בשאינו מינו with ביטול. The גמרא rejects the proof by establishing that the case is where the spices cannot become the majority and the רוב is מצה, and it supports this from the phrase מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת.
- Tosafos states that the case of more seasoning than bread is not the normal way, and it proposes that seasoning can clump so that in a particular spot the תבלין become the רוב even if one eats a כזית from that spot. Tosafos also distinguishes this proof from prior proofs because here the tastes differ, and it says this sugya disagrees with זבחים דף ע״ח about טעם מצה being the קובע, asserting that this sugya does not follow taste as the determinant for the mixture.
- The text cites the Magen Avraham in סימן קס״ח on the second opinion in שולחן ערוך סעיף ז׳ about dough baked with honey, oil, milk, or spices where the מי פירות taste is noticeable and the דין of פת הבאה בכיסנין. The Magen Avraham brings proofs that the מצה used for פסח must be something whose עיקר ברכה is *haMotzi* and that one can say ברכת המזון on it, and he supports this from a Rambam rule that one is יוצא with what is eligible for ברכת המזון and not יוצא where ברכת המזון is not said. The text states the Magen Avraham’s inference that since spiced מצה is כשר, it implies that adding מי פירות along with water does not remove *haMotzi* status, and it notes that פוסקים debate whether this is a valid proof while reporting the practice to keep “pure” טעם מצה due to concern that other flavors are מבטל the required טעם מצה.
- When רב כהנא comes to ארץ ישראל, he finds the בני רבי חייא learning and they ask about an עשרון split into two and placed in a mixing vessel where the halves do not touch, and a טבול יום touches one half. Rav Kahana answers that the משנה says כלי מצרף rather than כלי מחבר, so even without contact the vessel combines them and the untouched half becomes פסול as well. The בני רבי חייא then ask about placing an unrelated half עשרון between the two halves of the מנחה and a טבול יום touching that intervening portion, and Rav Kahana rules that only what “needs” the vessel is combined by it while what does not need the vessel is not combined.
- Tosafos notes that in חגיגה, ריש לקיש בשם בר קפרא says חכמים decreed that even what is not צריך לכלי is combined by the vessel, and it asks why the sugya assumes otherwise. Tosafos answers that Rav Kahana holds differently, interpreting the דין as extending צירוף to a vessel without a בית קיבול rather than to items that never needed the vessel, and it offers another answer that the decree applies where the item once required a vessel, not where it never required one.
- The בני רבי חייא ask whether a טבול יום inserting a finger between the two halves without touching them renders them טמא, and they answer that nothing becomes טמא from airspace except כלי חרס. The text adds that this הוה אמינא is difficult because it is basic that non-חרס vessels do not contract airspace טומאה, and it reports an אחרונים-style explanation that the question treats צירוף כלי as potentially making insertion between the parts akin to touching due to the contents being treated as joined.
- Rav Kahana asks whether one may take קמיצה from one of two non-touching halves in one vessel, framing the issue as whether צירוף is דאורייתא from כף אחת and thus works לקולא as well as לחומרא, or דרבנן and thus only supports stringency. The בני רבי חייא respond from the משנה of שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו שנתערבו, where if each can be קמץ separately they are כשרות and otherwise פסולות, and the inference is that separation without touching can still be validated via צירוף כלי. רבא rejects the inference by suggesting the arrangement may still be physically connected in a fork-like configuration, so it does not prove a case of non-touching.
- Ravא brings a ברייתא expounding והרים ממנו as requiring ממנו מן המחובר and excluding bringing an עשרון in two vessels and doing קמיצה, and he attempts to infer that one vessel even if like two would still allow קמיצה. אביי answers that “two vessels” can mean a configuration like כפיזה בקבא where a dividing wall separates the contents below even if they mix above, while “one vessel like two” can mean an עריבת תרנגולים where an interior divider exists but the contents touch above the divider within the vessel’s walls. The sugya leaves unresolved the original question of two piles in a regular vessel not touching at all.
- רמי בר חמא asks whether tumah created via צירוף כלי can extend to an item outside the vessel through a water connection, questioning whether כלי מצרף is limited to what is inside or whether once there is חיבור it extends outward. He further asks the reverse direction where a טבול יום touches the outside portion connected by water to the inside portion, and whether that triggers צירוף inside the vessel for the other half, and the גמרא leaves these questions as *teiku*.
- Rava asks about an עשרון split where one half became טמא outside the vessel and only afterward both halves were placed in a vessel, and then a טבול יום touches the already-tamei half while both are in the vessel. Abaye challenges the idea of סבע ליה טומאה by citing a משנה in כלים about a סדין טמא מדרס turned into a וילון that becomes טהור from מדרס yet remains טמא מגע מדרס, and רבי יוסי’s question and the explanation that if the זב touched it it becomes טמא מגע הזב. Abaye argues this shows additional טומאה can be present even when the item was already טמא, while the response suggests the case could be that the זב touch preceded the מדרס so a חמורה טומאה comes after a קלה one, and it raises that in the מנחה case both are טומאה קלה; the גמרא then brings from the סיפא that רבי יוסי agrees by two folded sheets that the lower becomes both מדרס and מגע מדרס, and it distinguishes that as simultaneous versus sequential.
- Rava states a case where an עשרון was split, one half was lost, another half was brought in its place, and the original was found so three half-עשרons are placed in one vessel. Rava rules that if the lost one becomes טמא then the lost and its original counterpart join while the replacement does not, and if the replacement becomes טמא then it and the original join while the lost does not, and if the original becomes טמא then both of the others join; Abaye says that if any one becomes טמא then both others join because כולהו בני בקתא דהדדי נינהו. Rava applies the same structure to קמיצה, allowing eating of שיירים for the portion paired with the part from which the קומץ is taken while excluding the third, and he rules that if קמיצה is taken from the original then neither other portion is eaten due to ספק, while Abaye says any קמיצה results in neither being eaten because all are בני בקתא and the קומץ only permits one עשרון out of an עשרון and a half.
- Rav Papa challenges Abaye by asking whether the שיירים of the portion from which the קומץ was taken can be eaten given that there is a missing sixth of a קומץ that was not offered. Idi בריה דרב משארשיא further challenges how the קומץ itself can be offered since a third of it is חולין. Rav Ashi resolves that the status of the קומץ depends on the כהן’s דעת, and the כהן intends his קמיצה to be from a single עשרון, making the קומץ כשר and allowing the relevant שיירים to be eaten as normal.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions