Menachos 21
Summary
- The text learns from “וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח” that a *mincha* requires salting and extends the salting requirement to other קרבנות while excluding blood from salting through the דרשה “ולא מעל דמך.” It explains why salting blood would seemingly remove its status as blood for זריקה and for liability when eaten, and it resolves that the פסוק excludes even adding a minimal amount of salt as a mere מצוה. It then analyzes when cooked or congealed blood remains considered blood for liability, distinguishes חטאת חיצוניות from חטאת פנימיות, and applies the principle of “הואיל וכנגדו ראוי” to broader cases such as donkey blood. It further rules on blood as a חציצה in מקוה depending on whether it is sticky, clarifies the Torah’s emphasis in “במלח תמלח” and “ולא תשבית מלח,” and defines acceptable sources of salt including מלח סדומית and מלח אסטרוקנית. It concludes with laws of מעילה in salt on limbs versus salt on the כבש or המזבח, the Temple’s three salt locations and their functions, and a debate about כהנים benefiting from Temple salt for קדשים versus חולין, including a link to the מחצית השקל dispute associated with בן בוכרי and רבן יוחנן בן זכאי.
- Hello to all introduces the learning as מנחות דף 21a starting about the 11th line with the words אלא טעמא. Today's דף is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה הירש, and her נשמה should have an עליה.
- A ברייתא teaches that the requirement of salt on a מנחה applies to other קרבנות as well. A דרשה from מעל מנחתך yields “ולא מעל דמך,” and it establishes that the blood of a קרבן does not require salt. The גמרא asks whether the only reason blood does not require salt is the פסוק’s מיעוט, since salting would seem to remove blood’s status and prevent זריקה. The answer states that without the פסוק one might have thought to add a very small amount of salt as a מצוה בעלמא that would not פסול the blood, and the פסוק teaches that no salt at all is placed into the blood.
- זעירי בשם רבי חנינא says that דם שבשלו has no liability for eating because it no longer has the דין of blood. רבי יהודה בשם זעירי says that דם שמלחו likewise has no liability because it is not considered blood. רבי יהודה says that אברים שצלאן והעלן lack משום ריח ניחוח. אביי challenges רבא from a ברייתא that one who hardens blood by heat and eats it, or melts forbidden חלב and drinks it, is חייב, and רבא answers by distinguishing הקפה באור from הקפה בחמה, since באור לא הדר while בחמה הדר and could return to a state fit for זריקה.
- אביי argues that even blood hardened by the sun should be treated as permanently rejected under “הואיל ונדחה ידחה,” citing that רמוני asked רבי יוחנן about דם שקרש ואכלו and רבי יוחנן answered “הואיל ונדחה ידחה” with פטור. רבא falls silent, and אביי proposes that the apparent contradiction depends on whether the blood is from חטאת חיצוניות or חטאת פנימיות. רבא recalls רב חסדא’s rule that congealed blood of a חטאת החיצוניות eaten is חייב because the Torah says “ולקח ונתן” and it is still בר לקיחה ונתינה, while congealed blood of a חטאת פנימיות eaten is פטור because it requires “וטבל והזה” and is not בר טבילה והזיה.
- רבא himself rules that even congealed blood of a חטאת פנימיות eaten is חייב because “הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאת החיצוניות.” רב פפא concludes that therefore דם חמור שקרש ואכלו is חייב as well on the same basis that something comparable is relevant in חטאת חיצוניות.
- רב גידל אמר זעירי rules that blood on a person’s body, whether moist or dry, is a חציצה for טבילה. A ברייתא states that blood, ink, honey, and milk are חוצצין when dry but not when moist. The גמרא answers that there is no contradiction because one case is דסריך where it is sticky and attached, and the other case is דלא סריך where it is not sticky.
- The word תמלח in “וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח” is explained through a ברייתא that balances competing possibilities, excluding forms like מי מלח and requiring actual מלח. “ולא תשבית מלח” is expounded as “הביא מלח שאינה שובתת,” identified as מלח סדומית, and it is described as coming from the sea that continually yields salt. If one cannot find מלח סדומית, the ברייתא allows מלח אסטרוקנית, learned from תקריב as permitting salt of any kind, from any place, even from חוץ לארץ, and even “אפילו בשבת” and “אפילו בטומאה.”
- Raba bar Ulla interprets תבנאיהו as meaning to salt like תבן בטיט in thick bricklike fashion, and אביי rejects the wording implication. אביי suggests it means to make the salt like a בנין in layered construction, and רבא objects that the wording would then be יבננו. רבא concludes through רב אשי that תבנאיהו means giving salt as a flavor like בינה, and the פסוק’s תמלח teaches it requires real salting, not a minimal sprinkle. The practical method is to bring the limb, put salt on it, turn it, put salt on the other side, and then place it on the מזבח, and אביי says וכן לקדירה for kashering meat.
- A ברייתא states that salt on the limb is subject to מעילה, while salt on the כבש or on the top of the מזבח is not subject to מעילה because it is no longer ראוי for salting. רב מתנא cites the פסוק “ותקריבם לפני ה', והשליכו הכהנים עליהם מלח, והעלו אותם עולה לה'” to show that salt on the limb is treated as part of what is offered.
- A משנה in שקלים includes a תנאי about salt and wood that כהנים may benefit from them, and שמואל limits this to “לקרבנם” and not “לאכילה.” The text rejects an initial reading that forbids salting even אכילת קדשים, since a ברייתא establishes that the Temple salt is used to salt עורות קדשים in לשכת המלח, to salt אברים on the כבש, and to salt הקומץ, לבונה, הקטרת, מנחת כהנים, מנחת כהן משיח, מנחת נסכים, and עולת העוף on the top of the מזבח. The conclusion defines “קרבנם” as allowing salt for eating קדשים, while “אכילה” forbids using Temple salt for אכילה דחולין, even though חולין and תרומה may be eaten alongside certain קדשים “כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע.”
- רבינא argues to רב אשי that if the permission depended only on תנאי בית דין for salting offerings, it would imply כהנים would otherwise be barred, which is untenable because a ברייתא teaches that salt for a private מנחה comes from the ציבור through the לימוד of “ברית מלח עולם הוא” aligned with “מאת בני ישראל ברית עולם.” רב מרדכי בשם רב שישי בריה דרב אידי answers that the תנאי בית דין is needed specifically for בן בוכרי’s position about whether כהנים must give מחצית השקל. A משנה records that רבי יהודה says בן בוכרי testified in יבנה that a כהן who contributes does not sin, while רבן יוחנן בן זכאי says the sinner is the כהן who does not contribute and reports that כהנים justify exemption through a דרשה from “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל” regarding שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים. The text explains that even according to בן בוכרי, a כהן who gives can avoid introducing חולין into the עזרה because he gives it over to the ציבור, and it concludes that one might have thought only ישראל with a לשכה-funded share are entitled to Temple salt while כהנים without a לשכה are not, and the חידוש is that they are entitled.
- The text ends with stopping here for the day and continuing tomorrow. For now everyone should have a wonderful day.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions