Menachos 20
Summary
- Today’s learning begins on Menachos דף כ, starting from י״ט עמוד ב at מתקיף לה רב הונא, and the דף is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרס מרים שרה בת יעקב משה. The Gemara challenges Rav’s rule that a repeated phrase in the פסוק indicates *le’akev*, by raising מלח as a case that seems *me’akev* without repetition, and it answers through readings of the משנה and through the idea that the word ברית functions like repetition. The sugya then develops a long ברייתא from וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח and על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח to define what requires salt, using rules of כלל ופרט וכלל and additional פסוקים to exclude דם and limit salting within מנחה to the קומץ and related items. The Gemara clarifies why איברים are included rather than דם, examines whether עצים are called קרבן and whether they require salt, and resolves contradictions by reidentifying which תנא holds a view that excludes יין, דם, עצים, and קטורת from requiring salt.
- Today’s דף is מנחות דף כ, beginning from י״ט עמוד ב near the second-to-last line at מתקיף לה רב הונא. Today’s דף sponsor is לעילוי נשמת מרס מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, and her נשמה should have an עליה.
- Rav says that whenever the פסוק by מנחה repeats itself, that indicates *le’akev*, meaning it must be done and without it the מנחה is not okay. Rav says that if there is no repetition in the פסוק, it is not *le’akev*.
- Rav Huna challenges Rav by asking about מלח, since the פסוק does not repeat itself, yet salting is *me’akev*. A ברייתא derives from ברית מלח עולם הוא that there are two covenants stated regarding salt, establishing that קרבנות may not be without salt. Rabbi Shimon agrees to the basic requirement but derives it from the comparison between ברית מלח עולם הוא and ברית כהונת עולם, learning that just as קרבנות are impossible without כהונה, they are impossible without מלח.
- Rav Yosef answers that Rav holds like the תנא of the משנה that says לא מלח כשר, so salt is not *me’akev*. Abaye responds that this would force the משנה’s לא יצק to mean no oil was poured at all, which is untenable, and therefore לא יצק means a זר poured rather than a כהן; Abaye then applies the same reading to salt as לא מלח כהן אלא זר.
- The response rejects Abaye’s approach by asking whether a זר can come near the מזבח, since salting is done by the מזבח and a non-כהן cannot access that area. The conclusion is that לא מלח in the משנה refers to no salt being placed at all, not to a זר doing the מליחה.
- An alternative answer states that since the פסוק uses the word ברית regarding salt, it is treated כמאן דתניא ביה קרא דמי, as though it is repeated, so it does not challenge Rav.
- The Gemara asks why salt is said to lack repetition when the פסוק states וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח. The Gemara answers that this פסוק is needed for a separate ברייתא with multiple derivations that will be explained later in the Gemara and even in tomorrow’s Gemara.
- The ברייתא teaches that if the פסוק had only said קרבן במלח, one would think even עצים and דם require salt because they are called קרבן. The פסוק therefore says מנחה, teaching that just as מנחה is unique in that others come as a חובה for it, so too anything for which others come as a חובה requires salt, and עצים and דם are excluded because they do not have wood brought for them.
- A further suggestion would include anything that is a מתיר, which would bring in דם, so the פסוק says מעל מנחתך ולא מעל דמך to exclude blood. The ברייתא then teaches that one might think the entire מנחה requires salt, so it says קרבן to teach that the קרבן part requires salt but not the entire מנחה. The ברייתא states that this yields salt for the קומץ and then extends to לבונה because it comes with it in one כלי.
- The ברייתא includes לבונה brought alone, לבונה in בזיכין, קטורת, מנחת כהנים, מנחת כהן משיח, מנחת נסכים, אימורי חטאת, אימורי אשם, אימורי קדשי קדשים, אימורי קדשים קלים, איברי עולה, and עולת העוף by the פסוק על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח.
- The Gemara asks why multiple rationales and פסוקים are needed if the initial criterion of “others come as a חובה” already applies. The Gemara explains that without the continuation, one could read קרבן as כלל and מנחה as פרט, producing כלל ופרט שאין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט and limiting salting to מנחות alone. The phrase על כל קרבנך reintroduces a כלל, creating כלל ופרט וכלל, and the included items are כעין הפרט, defined as those for which others come as a חובה, identified as עצים.
- The Gemara asks why others could not refer to לבונה, which accompanies the קומץ, and thereby include דם through נסכים that come due to the blood. The Gemara answers that נסכים come because of אמורין as אכילה ושתייה, then challenges that it could be כפרה ושמחה linking to blood, and resolves that לבונה comes in the same כלי while נסכים do not, so blood still does not enter.
- The Gemara suggests redefining the פרט to require both others coming as a חובה and being a מתיר, which would mainly yield לבונה הבאה בבזיכין that permits the לחם to be eaten. The Gemara rejects this by arguing from the need for מעל מנחתך ולא מעל דמך that the exclusion of blood shows the comparison is built on a single criterion rather than a double requirement.
- The Gemara asks why the exclusion is not read as מעל מנחתך ולא מעל איבריך. The Gemara includes איברים because they match מנחה in many ways, marked by אשבנ תמ״י סימן: others come as a חובה (wood), אשים, בחוץ, נותר, טומאה, and מעילה. On כ עמוד ב the Gemara argues that דם also matches as a מתיר and is נפסל בשקיעת החמה, but it concludes הני נפישן, that the multiple parallels between מנחה and איברים outweigh the fewer parallels to דם, so blood is excluded.
- The Gemara asks who holds that עצים are called קרבן and answers רבי. A ברייתא teaches that קרבן indicates one may donate wood, specifically two logs, and it cites והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים. רבי says עצים קרבן מנחה הן and therefore require salt and הגשה, and Rava says that according to Rabbi they also require קמיצה, while Rav Papa says that according to Rabbi עצים צריכים עצים.
- The Gemara resolves the contradiction by saying סמי מכאן עצים, removing עצים from the earlier inference that would have required salting them. The Gemara then asks what is excluded if not wood, rejects דם because it is excluded from מעל מנחתך ולא מעל דמך, and answers אפיק עצים ועייל נסכים, replacing wood with נסכים, supported by a ברייתא stating אבל היין והדם והעצים והקטורת אין טעונין מלח.
- The Gemara asks who authored the ברייתא excluding יין, דם, עצים, and קטורת, since attributing it to רבי conflicts about עצים, and attributing it to רבנן conflicts about קטורת because the earlier large ברייתא included קטורת. The Gemara attributes it to רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, who derives that salting applies only to something that is מקבל טומאה, עולה לאישים, and is on מזבח החיצון, excluding עצים for not being מקבל טומאה, excluding דם and יין for not going onto the fire, and excluding קטורת for not being on the outer מזבח. The learning stops here with the plan to continue tomorrow.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions