Menachos 26
Summary
- The דף opens on מנחות כ״ו עמוד א׳ with the משנה about whether the קומץ may be offered when the שיריים of a מנחה are ruined, and it ties this to the מחלוקת in פסחים ע״ז between רבי יהושע’s rule of *im ein basar ein dam* and רבי אלעזר’s rule of *dam af al pi she’ein basar*. Rav limits the פסול of missing שיריים to a case where all the שיריים are gone, while the גמרא clarifies that partial loss, טומאה, or burning still leaves enough שיריים to justify הקטרה. The דף then analyzes רבי שמעון’s view that קמיצה done שלא בכלי שרת can be כשר, presents three ways to define his position, and rejects רב נחמן’s interpretation through three challenges. On עמוד ב׳ the גמרא debates whether the קומץ may be burned in more than two parts and when exactly הקטרת הקומץ permits the שיריים for אכילה, and it ends with unresolved questions that remain תיקו.
- Today's דף is מנחות דף כ״ו, and the learning is held at the top of כ״ו עמוד א׳ at the משנה. The שיעור is sponsored by Henry Orlinsky לזכר נשמת Milton Kramer זכרונו לברכה, יחיאל מיכל בן חיים שניאור זלמן הלוי, and Milty's נשמה should have an עליה from the זכות of our learning.
- The משנה rules that if the שיריים became טמא, were burned, or were lost, the מנחה is כשרה according to רבי אלעזר and פסולה according to רבי יהושע, paralleling רבי אלעזר’s position that זריקת הדם works even without בשר and רבי יהושע’s position that without בשר there is no זריקת הדם. Rav states that the מחלוקת applies only when all the שיריים are gone, but if only some of the שיריים are ruined then everyone agrees the קומץ may be offered. The גמרא initially considers limiting Rav’s statement to טומאה, rejects the idea that the היתר depends on ריצוי ציץ, and concludes that Rav’s wording of נטמא is shorthand that includes אבדו and נשרפו as well.
- A ברייתא supports Rav’s approach by stating in the name of רבי יהושע that for all זבחים, if a כזית of בשר or a כזית of חלב remains one may still do זריקת הדם, while if only half a כזית of each remains one does not. The ברייתא adds that for an עולה even half a כזית of בשר plus half a כזית of חלב combines because it is entirely burned, and it then states that “ובמנחה, אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק.” Rav Pappa explains that this refers to מנחת נסכים accompanying a זבח, teaching that even if the מנחת נסכים remains intact it does not allow זריקת הדם when the animal’s בשר and חלב are gone, because the מנחה is not considered כגופא דזבח.
- Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and some transmit it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, derives from “והקטיר החלב לריח ניחוח לה׳” that חלב permits זריקת הדם even when there is no בשר. Rabbi Yochanan further derives from “לריח ניחוח” that any part that is offered on the מזבח, including יותרת ושתי כליות, can justify זריקת הדם. The גמרא explains that both “חלב” and “לריח ניחוח” are necessary, because “חלב” alone would exclude יותרת ושתי כליות, while “לריח ניחוח” alone would mistakenly include מנחת נסכים.
- The משנה states that doing the קמיצה process שלא בכלי שרת is פסול, while רבי שמעון מכשיר, and it also states that if one burns the קומץ in two installments the מנחה remains כשרה. Rav Yehuda brei d’Rabbi Chiya explains רבי שמעון through the היקש “קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם,” defining a track of עבודה ביד modeled on חטאת and a track of עבודה בכלי modeled on אשם. Rabbi Yanai explains that once the קומץ is taken from a כלי שרת, it may be brought up and burned even in one’s garment or even in a כלי חרס, without requiring a second כלי שרת. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that everyone agrees the קומץ requires קידוש, and רבי שמעון only allows taking it out of the sanctifying vessel and then carrying it by hand afterward.
- A ברייתא states that bringing up חלבים, איברים, and עצים is כשר whether by hand or vessel and whether with the right or left hand, and it also states that קומץ, קטורת, and לבונה are likewise כשרים whether by hand or vessel and whether with the right or left hand. Rav Yehuda brei d’Rabbi Chiya defends his view by reinterpreting the ברייתא as meaning ביד בימין and בכלי בין בימין בין בשמאל, rather than permitting ביד שמאל. The גמרא brings three challenges to Rav Nachman’s reading of רבי שמעון and repeatedly forces strained emendations until the third challenge yields “תיובתא דרב נחמן תיובתא,” because the inference from the dispute about placing the קומץ into the left hand implies that רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון do not require מתן כלי for קידוש in the way Rav Nachman claimed.
- The גמרא notes that the same source supports Rav Yehuda brei d’Rabbi Chiya, and it asks why it is not also a refutation of Rabbi Yanai, since Rabbi Yanai allows carrying the קומץ in any manner. Rabbi Yanai answers that he follows the תנא of הקטרה and reads the earlier ברייתא literally as permitting between ביד and כלי and between ימין and שמאל without צדדין, matching his claim that רבי שמעון allows maximal flexibility after the קמיצה was taken from a כלי שרת.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets “פעמיים” as permitting two installments but not three or more, while Rabbi Yochanan permits even more divisions. Rabbi Zeira explains that they differ on whether there is a קומץ less than two כזיתים and whether there can be an הקטרה less than a כזית. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds there is no קומץ less than two כזיתים and that there is no הקטרה less than a כזית, while Rabbi Yochanan holds there can be a קומץ less than two כזיתים and therefore an הקטרה less than a כזית.
- A dispute arises about when the קומץ begins to permit the שיריים for אכילה: Rabbi Chanina says from when the fire takes hold of it, and Rabbi Yochanan says only from when the fire has taken hold of most of it. Rabbi Yehuda explains Rabbi Yochanan by comparing “והנה עלה קיטור הארץ כקיטור הכבשן” to an oven that does not produce significant smoke until the fire has grasped the majority. A ברייתא about offering daytime items at the very end of the day creates a difficulty for Rabbi Yochanan’s requirement of רוב, and the גמרא resolves it by distinguishing between the standard needed for continuing to burn versus the standard needed to permit the שיריים.
- Rabbi אלעזר proposes that the case can be established as *poke’in*, returning items that fell off the מזבח, and Rav Dimi reports Rabbi Yanai establishing it that way as well. The גמרא challenges this by citing Rabbi Yanai’s statement that קטורת that fell off, even intact pieces, is not returned, and by citing a teaching from the בית of רבי אלעזר בן יעקב that one returns עיכולי עולה but not עיכולי קטורת. The גמרא therefore concludes “סמי מכאן קטורת,” removing קטורת from the ברייתא while retaining the framework for other offerings such as the קומץ.
- The end of the דף presents three questions about קמיצה and burning on the מערכה and on the עצי מערכה, and all three remain unanswered as תיקו. The learning concludes with the plan to continue with אמר רבי אסי on the next day.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions