Menachos 22 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכת מנחות דף כב starting from דף כא עמוד ב and explains שמואל’s statement that the salt in the בית המקדש “לא שנו אלא לקרבנם אבל אכילה לא” through the framework of a תנאי בית דין and the dispute about whether כהנים contribute מחצית השקל. The narrative moves from the כהנים’s דרשה on “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל” and its ramifications for ציבור מנחות, to the sourcing of עצים for the מזבח and whether they must be unused, and then to the משנה of קמצים that become mixed and רבי יהודה’s objection based on different oil ratios. The *shiur* then ties this to the זבחים cases of blood mixtures and the core dispute between רבנן and רבי יהודה about whether מין במינו is בטל or whether עולים do not nullify each other, while also bringing several later halachic and homiletic applications and leaving a “קשיא” about whether both conditions are required.
- Amar Rav Matna to Rav Ashi בשם רב ששת בריה דרב אידי that the משנה in מסכת שקלים teaches a special תנאי בית דין permitting כהנים to use the ציבור salt, including for eating קדשים, and that this תנאי is needed specifically according to בן בוכרי. Amar רבי יהודה that בן בוכרי testified in יבנה “כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא,” implying that a כהן who does not give does not sin, while רבי יוחנן בן זכאי responds “לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא,” requiring כהנים to give מחצית השקל. The כהנים base their exemption claim on their דרשה from “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל,” arguing that if they are contributors to ציבור מנחות like עומר, שתי הלחם, and לחם הפנים, those would need to be wholly burnt, so they avoid participating in מחצית השקל to avoid that consequence. The גמרא answers that even if they are not obligated they may still give because “דמסרו להו,” meaning they hand it over fully as a donation rather than introducing חולין into the עזרה.
- Rashi explains that the Torah teaches that despite the general rule that a כהן’s מנחה is entirely burnt, this ציבור מנחה situation is treated differently, with two understandings presented: it is an exception to מנחת כהנים, or it follows רוב because most contributors are not כהנים. Rabbi Akiva Eiger suggests a major חידוש that women would not need to daven *Musaf* because *Musaf* corresponds to the קרבן מוסף that comes from שקלים and women do not contribute מחצית השקל. Many אחרונים disagree and maintain that even those not obligated in the giving are still covered because the קרבן is a קרבן ציבור brought on behalf of every member of כלל ישראל, with a distinction between who must pay and who is nonetheless included. The *shiur* also raises a related preference question about a potential בעל תפילה being someone above twenty who both is covered and also contributed.
- The גמרא explains that without the תנאי בית דין one might think the Torah grants use of public resources specifically to ישראל “דאית ליה לשכה” who participated in the מחצית השקל, but not to כהנים who did not give to the לשכה. The conclusion is that the תנאי בית דין establishes that כהנים may also use the public salt for their own קרבנות. This is framed as the clarification of what שמואל is teaching with “קמשמע לן.”
- The גמרא asks why it is obvious that עצים are funded משל ציבור and seeks a source, because one could have compared עצים to לבונה just as an individual brings his own לבונה with a מנחה. Tosafos suggests that עצים might be like לבונה because both are integral to the קרבן and both can be brought as an independent commitment, such as “הרי עלי לבונה” and similarly bringing עצים, unlike salt which is not a standalone offering. The גמרא brings a ברייתא: one might think one who says “הרי עלי עולה” must bring wood from his house like נסכים, but the פסוק “וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים… על העצים אשר על האש אשר על המזבח” teaches otherwise. Rabbi אלעזר ברבי שמעון learns from “מה מזבח של ציבור” that the עצים and אש are also משל ציבור, while רבי אלעזר בן שמוע learns that just as the מזבח was never used by a הדיוט, so too the עצים and אש must never have been used.
- The גמרא defines the practical difference as “חדתי,” whether the wood must be unused, with רבי אלעזר בן שמוע requiring it and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון not requiring it. The פסוק about ארונה offering “המוריגים וכלי הבקר לעצים” is challenged as implying prior use, and the answer is that it is “בחדתא,” intended for use but not yet used. The גמרא asks “מאי מוריגים,” and עולא says “מיטה של טרבל,” with רב יהודה explaining it as “היזא דקורקמי,” a toothed threshing board dragged over grain, and רב יוסף brings the פסוק “הנה שמתיך למורג חרוץ חדש בעל פיפיות תדוש הרים” as proof. The *shiur* states the resulting halachic direction that anything previously used cannot be used for הקדש.
- A story is brought about Napoleon during the French-Russian war giving his coat to רב יוסף לוריא, and the לוריא family sending it to ירושלים to be made into a פרוכת in the מנחם ציון שול, raising the question of using something used by a הדיוט for a דבר שבקדושה. The מהרי״ל בשם ספר האגודה rules “אין לקנות מעיל שנשתמש בו הדיוט להשתמש בו לקדושה,” and this is cited by the רמ״א in אורח חיים סימן קמז סעיף א and סימן קנג סעיף כא. The מגן אברהם answers that if a physical change is made to the object it becomes permitted, bringing proof from “מראות הצובאות” used for the כיור וכנו. The משנה ברורה records that “אף שיש מחמירים גם בזה,” the world’s practice is to be lenient, and the *shiur* differentiates between a דבר מצווה and a תשמיש לקדושה, such as ספר תורה or תפילין versus a תפילין bag or a פרוכת.
- The טור asks how יעקב אבינו could use a stone first as a personal headrest and then set it up as a מצבה with oil, and he answers that there is a difference between using it for a מזבח versus a במה. Another explanation says the stones had already been used by אדם הראשון as a מזבח and thus already possessed קדושה, which raises the counter-question of how יעקב could place his head on them. A further answer states that יעקב did not rest his head on them but placed them around his head for protection, so they were not used as a headrest in the problematic way.
- The *shiur* notes that questions arise today about bringing a קרבן פסח and suggests that one obstacle is that the מזבח would need to be built משל ציבור. It adds that there is uncertainty about how to execute a proper transfer from an individual’s donation so it truly becomes ציבור property, and that this contributes to why a מזבח is not built and a קרבן פסח is not brought in that manner.
- The משנה teaches that if a קומץ is burned and becomes mixed with the קומץ of another מנחה, or with מנחת כהנים, or with מנחת כהן משיח, or with מנחת נסכים, the mixture is כשרה because all are destined to be burnt on the מזבח. The Rambam is cited that the mixture should be placed on the מזבח at the same time so the process is correctly executed given the oil mixtures. רבי יהודה rules that mixtures involving מנחת כהן משיח and מנחת נסכים are פסולה, and Rashi explains the משנה’s singular phrasing as style. The גמרא explains that the disqualification is because the recipes differ: a standard מנחה has “בלילתה עבה” with one לוג שמן per עשרון, while those have “בלילתה רכה” with three לוגין, and “אין בוללות זו מזו” because their absorption will distort the required oil ratios.
- The גמרא cites a משנה in זבחים that blood mixed with water is כשר if it retains “מראית דם,” while the earlier analysis adds that if blood drips in drop by drop it becomes “קמא קמא בטיל,” making it פסול even if the final appearance is red. Tosafos limits “קמא קמא בטיל” to incremental mixing and not when all the blood falls in at once. The שפת אמת adds that appearance governs: even with more water, if it looks like blood it has the דין of blood, and even with more blood, if it looks like water it is not usable. If blood mixes with wine, the rule is “רואין אותו כאילו מים” to determine whether the blood’s appearance would remain, and the same is said for mixing with דם בהמה or דם חיה.
- רבי יהודה’s leniency in mixed blood is grounded in his position that “מין במינו אינו בטל.” Rabbi Yochanan states that both רבי יהודה and רבנן derive from the same פסוק about mixing “מדם הפר ומדם השעיר” on יום כיפור, and the גמרא notes it is obvious that the פר has more blood than the שעיר, yet the שעיר blood is still treated as such. רבנן learn from here “לעולם שאין מבטלין זה את זה” specifically for items that go on the מזבח, establishing “אין עולין מבטלים זה את זה,” while רבי יהודה learns from here that מין במינו never becomes בטל. The גמרא challenges each side that perhaps both conditions are necessary, and it concludes “קשיא” against both formulations as exclusive explanations.
- The *shiur* cites the נועם אלימלך’s prayer “שנשתכל במעלת חברינו ולא חסרונם” and applies “אין מבטלין זה את זה” as an ethic of valuing other people’s greatness. Two explanations are given for why מין במינו might not be בטל: either identical items cannot nullify but instead strengthen one another, or the definition of “same type” depends on whether one looks at the substance itself or at its halachic role as איסור versus היתר. The קלויזנבורגר רבי in שפע חיים interprets the brothers’ use of “שעיר עזים” blood on Yosef’s coat against the backdrop of Yosef’s report that they ate אבר מן החי, proposing they relied on ביטול while Yosef held like רבי יהודה that מין במינו אינו בטל, and Yosef’s punishment is linked to the conclusion that the הלכה follows רבנן. A Belz-based teaching is brought that the כהן גדול mixes דם פר ודם שעיר with שמחה because even a Jew likened to a שעיר never becomes בטל, and the *shiur* connects this to “וערב לפניך עתירתנו כעולה וכקרבן” said before ברכת כהנים as a request that prayers be accepted like עולים that do not become בטל.
- The גמרא returns to רבי יהודה’s פסול in mixed מנחות and asks why absorption should matter if it is still מין במינו. Rava answers that רבי יהודה holds that when there is “מין במינו ודבר אחר,” one treats the identical element as if it were absent, “סלק את מינו כשאינו מינו,” so the remaining אינו מינו component can be “רבה עליו ומבטלו.” The resulting mixture is treated like מין בשאינו מינו because oil and flour components interact across offerings, so רבי יהודה’s rule of מין במינו אינו בטל no longer applies in that blended scenario.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions