Menachos 21 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* learns *Maseches Menachos* 21a beginning from 20b and builds the laws of *melichah* for *korbanos* from the Torah’s phrases “מנחתך” and “על מנחתך,” concluding that some items are excluded from *melichah* and identifying the view that excludes *etzim*, *dam*, *yayin* of *nesachim*, and *ketores* based on criteria of *tumah*-susceptibility, being burned on the fire, and being placed on the *mizbe’ach hachitzon*. The *Gemara* then analyzes why a verse is needed to exclude *dam* from *melichah* given that salting is like cooking and can remove blood’s halachic status, brings side rulings about pre-roasted limbs lacking “ריח ניחוח,” and records disputes among later authorities about the practical implications. The *Gemara* continues with cooked or congealed blood and liability for eating it, distinguishes *chatas chitzonah* from *chatas penimis* by “לקיחה ונתינה” versus “טבילה והזאה,” and debates “הואיל ונדחה ידחה” and “הואיל וכנגדו ראוי.” It also addresses blood as a *chatzitzah* for *tevilah*, derives multiple details from “במלח תמלח” including what kind of salt and when salting is done, and concludes with the status of Temple salt regarding *me’ilah*, Beis Din’s stipulations, the three storage locations for salt, and the derivation that salt is provided *mishel tzibbur* through a *gezeirah shavah* of “ברית.”
- Today's learning states that the Torah’s requirement of *melichah* is explicit by *korban minchah* and is extended only to items similar to it, so “מנחתך” serves to exclude something from *melichah* while “על מנחתך” already excludes *dam*. The *Gemara* initially proposes excluding *etzim* and including *nesachim*, setting *minchas nesachim* as not requiring *melichah* because it is not similar to regular *minchah*, including that the *kometz* of a *minchah* permits the remainder to be eaten but this is not the case by *minchas nesachim*. The *beraisa* teaches “אבל היין, והדם, ועצים וקטורת אין טעונים מליחה,” and the *Gemara* asks which *tanna* this follows because it conflicts either with רבי regarding *etzim* or with the רבנן regarding *ketores*.
- The *Gemara* attributes the *beraisa* to רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא, who derives *melichah* from the explicit *minchah* case as applying only to something that “מקבל טומאה,” “עולה לאשה,” and “ישנו על המזבח החיצון.” The text excludes *etzim* because they do not “מקבל טומאה,” excludes *dam* and *yayin* of *nesachim* because they are not “עולים לאישים,” and excludes *ketores* because it is not on the *mizbe’ach hachitzon* but on the *mizbe’ach hapanimi*. The מקדש דוד states that the *ketores* of all year does not require *melichah* and that the special *ketores* of יום כיפור also does not require *melichah* because it is not brought on the *mizbe’ach hachitzon*, while the מנחת חינוך disagrees and is uncertain and suggests maybe the *ketores* of יום כיפור does require *melichah*.
- The *Gemara* says the reason *dam* does not require *melichah* is “מיעטה קרא לדם,” and without that verse there would be a *hava amina* that *dam* requires salt. The *Gemara* challenges this because salting would remove it “מתורת דם,” making it invalid for *zerikah*, supported by זעירי אמר רב חנינא that “דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו” and by רב יהודה אמר זירי that “דם שמלחו אינו עובר עליו” because “רותח כמבושל.” The *Gemara* answers that *melichah* might have been only “משהו… למצוה בעלמא” and not enough to become like cooked blood, so a verse is still needed to exclude *dam* from *melichah*.
- Rav Yehuda teaches that if someone roasted *eivarim* and only then placed them on the *mizbe’ach*, it is not “משום ריח ניחוח.” The שאלת תשב״ץ understands this as a *pesul* that cannot be placed on the *mizbe’ach*, while the חזון איש holds the limbs should still be placed and the point is only that they lack “ריח ניחוח.” The מנחת חינוך warns that in *melichah* one must be careful with salt because salting is like cooking and cooking would undermine “ריח ניחוח,” and the חתם סופר disagrees and distinguishes salting from roasting, saying the rule of exclusion from “ריח ניחוח” is specifically roasting before placement, not salting.
- The *Gemara* returns to “דם שבישלו אין עובר עליו,” and אביי challenges from a *beraisa* that “הקפה את הדם ואכלו… חייב,” implying congealed blood remains subject to the prohibition. Rava distinguishes congealing by fire from congealing by sun, saying by fire it does not revert (“לא הדר”) and by sun it reverts (“הדר”), and the מפרשים explain that sun-heating is treated as cooking for the period but reversibility affects the outcome. The *Gemara* asks why “הואיל ואידחי אידחי” should not apply, citing a question to רבי יוחנן about “דם שקרש,” and the קרן אורה explains “הואיל ונדחה ידחה” as a law in *dam* tied to its role in *kaparah* through *zerikah*.
- Rava suggests resolving by distinguishing “בחטאת חיצונית” from “בחטאת פנימית,” and then recalls רב חסדא’s teaching that congealed blood of a *chatas* eaten is *chayav* because the verse for *chatas chitzonah* uses “ולקח… ונתן,” making congealed blood fit for “לקיחה ונתינה.” The *Gemara* contrasts this with *chatas penimis* where the verse says “וטבל… והזה,” and congealed blood is “לאו בר טבילה והזאה,” leading to *patur* per that framing. Rava then says even by *chatas penimis* one is *chayav* because it is “ראוי בחטאת חיצונית,” and Rav Papa challenges this by extending it to “דם חמור שקרש,” highlighting the limits of the principle. The text states that even though cooked blood is not subject to *kares*, it remains forbidden, and it records the broader *Acharonim* question whether loss of original status through cooking is unique to *dam* or applies to other prohibitions with significant ramifications.
- Rav Gidel אמר זעירי rules that blood “בין לח ובין יבש, חוצץ,” and a *beraisa* challenges that dry substances like blood, ink, honey, and milk are *chotzetz* while moist ones are not. The ראשונים give two reasons for moist not being a *chatzitzah*: water can reach underneath, or the criterion of *makpid* since people are not bothered when it is moist. The *Gemara* resolves that when it is “סריך” and sticking it is a *chatzitzah*, and when it is “לא סריך” it is not.
- The *Gemara* asks what “תמלח” adds in “וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח,” with the ראשונים explaining that “במלח” alone is unclear and “תמלח” seems redundant since salting is with salt. The *beraisa* teaches that “תמלח” excludes piling a huge heap, and “במלח” excludes using *mei melach* and requires actual salt. “ולא תשבית מלח” is read as salt that is always available, and Rashi explains this as מלח סדומית being very thin and easy to apply, while other sources note Rashi in *Bava Basra* describing it as thick, with the ערוך השולחן reconciling that it is hard thick salt that becomes thin when ground. The *Gemara* derives that if one cannot find מלח סדומית he brings מלח אסטרוקנית, and the בריסקער רב explains מלח סדומית as a *mitzvah* of *min hamuvchar*.
- The *Gemara* derives from “תקריב” that salt may be brought from anywhere including *chutz la’aretz*, and that salting is done “אפילו בשבת” and “אפילו בטומאה,” treating salting as an *avodah* parallel to other Temple services that override Shabbos and follow “טומאה הותרה בציבור.” The text offers multiple explanations for why “אפילו בשבת” needs a special derivation, including the possibility that salting for a fully-burned offering differs from salting for eating, that it resembles *tikkun ochalim*, that issues of skin or other prohibited salting might arise, that carrying salt through *reshus harabim* might be needed, that salting is like cooking, and that salting on Shabbos extracts blood. The text also records a *midrash* that salting stems from the division of upper and lower waters and that salt on offerings creates *shalom*, creating a *hava amina* that Shabbos as “שבת שלום” might not need it, and the *Gemara* teaches it is still done.
- The *Gemara* asks “מאי תבנהו,” with suggestions that it means piling salt like straw in clay or building a pile like construction, and the סמ״ג ties this to the familiar *kashrus* practice of heaping salt to extract blood and the question whether Temple salting follows that model. Rav Ashi interprets “תבנהו” as placing enough salt to “יתן בו טעם כבינה,” linking salt consumption to intelligence, and “תמלח” teaches that a small amount suffices. The *Gemara* then defines the method as turning the limb: “מביא אבר ונותן עליו מלח וחוזר והופכו ונותן לו מלח ומעלהו,” and Abaye says “וכן לקדרה,” that the same approach applies to salting meat for cooking.
- The *beraisa* states that “מלח שעל גבי אבר” has the same status as the offering, implying *me’ilah* where applicable, while salt found “על גבי הכבש ושבראשו של מזבח” has no *me’ilah*. Rashi explains that salt used and then fallen off loses *me’ilah*, while the Brisker Rav suggests the reverse framing that salt becomes part of the *korban* once placed on it, whereas unused salt has not yet entered *me’ilah*. Rav Ashi brings a verse calling the salt “עולה” in “והשליכו הכהנים עליהם מלח והעלו אותם עולה לה׳” as the scriptural basis for salt being treated as part of the offering.
- The *Gemara* cites a *Mishnah* in *Shekalim* (פרק ז׳ משנה ז׳) that Beis Din instituted rules allowing *kohanim* to benefit from “המלח ועל העצים,” and Shmuel limits this to “לקרבנם” but not “לאכילה.” The *Gemara* first assumes “לקרבנם” means salting their offerings and “לאכילה” means salting for eating *kodshim*, but it challenges this from the teaching that salt is placed in three locations and is used for multiple Temple needs including salting hides, limbs, *kometz*, *levonah*, *ketores*, *minchas kohanim*, *minchas kohen mashiach*, *minchas nesachim*, and *olas ha’of*. The *Gemara* redefines Shmuel that “לקרבנם” means for eating their offerings and “לאכילה” means for *chullin*, and it explains that even though one eats *shirayim* with *chullin* and *terumah* “כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע,” one still may not use Temple salt to salt that accompanying non-sacred food.
- The *beraisa* states “בשלושה מקומות המלח נתונה,” listing לשכת המלח for salting *oros kodshim*, the ramp for salting *eivarim*, and the top of the *mizbe’ach* for salting *kometz*, *levonah*, *ketores*, *minchas kohanim*, *minchas kohen mashiach* “מחציתה בבקר ומחציתה בין הערבים,” *minchas nesachim*, and *olas ha’of*. The בעל הטורים in *Parshas Vayikra* notes that “מלח” appears three times in “וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח ולא תשבית מלח ברית א-לקיך,” corresponding to these three salt locations.
- A *beraisa* raises whether one who pledges “הרי עלי מנחה” must bring salt from home like *levonah* or may use communal salt like *etzim*, offering parallel derivations in both directions and then weighing which comparison is stronger. The *Gemara* argues to compare salt to wood because both apply “בכל הזבחים,” and also presents an alternate comparison to *levonah* because both come “בכלי אחד,” unlike wood. The final derivation comes from “ברית מלח עולם היא לפני השם לך ולזרעך אתך” linked to “ברית עולם” by *lechem hapanim*, concluding “מה להלן… משל ציבור, אף כאן… משל ציבור.” The text records an *Acharonim* debate whether this means one may use public funds or must use them, and whether using one’s own funds could still be preferable even though communal salt is available.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions