Menachos Daf 21 - Salt
Summary
- The shiur on מנחות דף כ״א analyzes which תנא holds that neither דם nor קטורת requires מלח, resolves the issue by identifying a view that limits מליחה to items that are מקבל טומאה, עולה לאישים, and placed on the מזבח החיצון, and then explores how cooking, salting, and congealing affect the halachic status of דם for כפרה and for the איסור אכילת דם. The Gemara briefly addresses whether דם is a חציצה for טבילה, returns to דרשות about how and with what kind of salt a קרבן is salted, and then clarifies what benefit כהנים may derive from הקדש salt, including two interpretations of שמואל and a possible need for a תקנת בית דין in light of בן בוכרי and the question of whether כהנים contribute to communal funds.
- The Gemara rejects רבי as the author of the earlier ברייתא because רבי treats עצים as a קרבן requiring הגשה and מליחה, and רב even says it requires קמיצה. The Gemara also rejects the רבנן as the author because their rule that anything that אחרים באים חובה לו requires מליחה would include קטורת, since קטורת needs עצים for הקטרה. The Gemara identifies the author as רבי שאול משמיה דרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא, who limits מליחה to items that are מקבל טומאה, עולה לאישים, and placed on the מזבח החיצון, thereby excluding עצים for lacking קבלת טומאה, excluding דם ויין for not being עולה לאישים, and excluding קטורת for being on the מזבח הפנימי and not on the מזבח החיצון.
- Rashi challenges the Gemara’s exclusion of עצים as not מקבל טומאה by citing פסחים דף ל״ה, where the דרשה of “והבשר” teaches that עצי מערכה and לבונה are מקבל טומאה כבשר. Rashi answers that the דרשה there is only an אסמכתא and that מדאורייתא עצים are not מקבל טומאה, with the דין being only מדרבנן. Tosafos rejects this and holds the דרשה is גמורה, so he explains that the Gemara means ordinary עצי חולין are not מקבל טומאה, while עצי מערכה have a special דין, and that this difference suffices to distinguish עצים from מנחה, since flour is מקבל טומאה in all contexts.
- The ספר ישר וטוב asks why the ברייתא excludes קטורת because it is not on the מזבח החיצון if it is excluded anyway for not being מקבל טומאה. The יופי שלמה answers that קטורת is not מקבל טומאה when it stands alone, but it can become מקבל טומאה through צירוף when mixed into a תבשיל, like spices that become edible as part of food. The exclusion of קטורת is therefore framed as due to its placement on the מזבח הפנימי rather than solely its baseline טומאה status.
- The Gemara infers from the מיעוט that without a פסוק one might have thought דם requires מלח, and it challenges this because salting would remove דם’s halachic status and invalidate it for זריקה. Ze’iri בשם רבי חנינא rules that דם שבישלו is not subject to the איסור אכילת דם because the Torah’s חיוב is on דם הראוי לכפרה, and cooked blood is not ראוי לכפרה; רבי יהודה reports similarly that דם שמלחו is like cooked due to מליח כרותח. The Gemara answers that the הוה אמינא is that one might add only something minimal “למצוה בעלמא,” and the פסוק teaches that even this is not required.
- Tosafos notes that the Gemara’s assumption that ordinary salting would render דם no longer דם shows that סתם מליחה דקדשים is treated as salting at a level of אינו נאכל מחמת מלחו. Tosafos ties this to the operative principle of מליח כרותח, which implies a salting intensity comparable to cooking for the relevant halachic consequences.
- Rava repeats Ze’iri’s teaching that cooked blood is not subject to אכילת דם, and Abaye challenges it from a ברייתא that one who congeals blood and eats it is חייב, and one who liquefies חלב and drinks it is חייב. The Gemara initially distinguishes congealing by fire versus by sun, asserting that congealing by fire is irreversible while congealing by sun can revert, but it then challenges this with רבי מני’s question to רבי יוחנן, who answered הועיל ונדחה ידחה. Rava is silent, and Abaye suggests a new resolution that distinguishes חטאות החיצוניות from חטאות הפנימיות.
- Rava supports the distinction by citing רב חסדא: congealed דם of חטאות eaten incurs חיוב because the Torah’s requirement is ולקח ונתן, which can still be done with congealed blood, so it remains ראוי לכפרה. רב חסדא rules that for חטאות הפנימיות the eater is פטור because the עבודה requires וטבל והזה, which congealed blood cannot fulfill, making it not ראוי לכפרה. Rava disagrees and holds that even congealed דם of חטאות הפנימיות makes the eater חייב because its physical state is considered דם in cases where it is usable, namely חטאות החיצוניות.
- Rav Papa states that according to Rava, congealed דם חמור eaten incurs liability even though it can never be ראוי לקרבן, because its physical condition is “כנגדו ראוי” in the context of חטאות החיצוניות. The Gemara thus treats the definitional status of “דם” for the איסור as tied to whether that state of blood is generally a form that can be ראוי לכפרה in some korban context.
- Rav Gidel בשם Ze’iri says דם בין לח בין יבש חוצץ, with Rashi framing it for טבילה and the שיטה מקובצת adding it applies to נטילת ידים as well. A ברייתא contradicts this by stating that blood and similar substances are חוצצין when dry but not when moist, and the Gemara resolves by distinguishing between דם that is סריך and דם that is not. Tosafos in זבחים דף ע״ח explains that a moist layer does not obstruct because the mikveh water permeates and contacts the skin, while the מרדכי בשם רא״ם connects חציצה to whether one is מקפיד, with a category of חציצה מדרבנן.
- The Gemara derives from the doubled language that one should not “over-salt” and also that salting must be done with actual salt and not merely “מי מלח.” The phrase ולא תשבית מלח yields a requirement for “מלח שאינה שובתת,” identified as מלח סדומית, and a further דרשה from תקריב teaches that if one cannot find it one may bring מלח אסטרוקנית, with salt acceptable from any place including חוץ לארץ. The Gemara derives from תקריב that מליחה is treated as an עבודה that is דוחה שבת and דוחה טומאה.
- The מהר״ם מרוטנבורג asks why a דרשה is needed to permit salting on שבת, since molach as עיבוד does not apply to food because אין עיבוד באוכלים. He answers that while the act of salting itself is not the שבת issue, the subsequent placement on the fire entails הבערת המלח, so the heter is needed for the process that leads to burning the salted offering on שבת.
- The Gemara analyzes what “תבנהו” means in the ברייתא’s hypothetical of excessive salting, with Rava bar Ulla interpreting it as using salt like straw in cement and Abaye challenging the language. Abaye interprets it as making it like a building with layers, Rava challenges the wording again, and Rav Ashi interprets “טיבוננו” as giving an immediately noticeable taste “כבינה,” which the פסוק rejects by saying תמלח. The Gemara then gives the method: one salts the limb, flips it, salts the other side, and then offers it, and Abaye says the same method applies “וכן לקדרה” for ordinary meat salting.
- 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. Rav Ashi derives the דין from the פסוק describing the kohanim casting salt and then offering them as an עולה, implying the salt on the offering is included in the sanctified עולה unit that carries מעילה.
- A משנה in שקלים states that בית דין instituted that כהנים may benefit from the salt and wood of הקדש. Shmuel qualifies that this is only לקרבנם and not לאכילה, and the Gemara presents two readings. The first reading treats לקרבנם as salting their offerings and not using the salt to season קדשים for eating, but the Gemara rejects this because kohanim are allowed to use the salt even for salting hides that become חולין, so it is illogical to forbid it for eating קדשים.
- The Gemara’s second interpretation reads לקרבנם as permitting use of הקדש salt for eating their korban portions, while not permitting using it for אכילת חולין. The Gemara asks why חולין is even relevant, with Rashi explaining that חולין cannot be brought into the עזרה, while the שיטה מקובצת cites תוספות חיצוניות that the prohibition is only to bring חולין for הקרבה, not to bring חולין items into the עזרה generally. The Gemara answers that kohanim may eat חולין and תרומה in connection with eating קדשים “כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע,” yet even then they do not receive הקדש salt for the חולין accompaniment.
- Ravina tells Rav Ashi it is מסתברא that Shmuel’s point is about eating and not about salting korbanos, because salting offerings with communal salt would not require a special תקנה when even ישראלים do so. A ברייתא establishes that one might have thought a מנחה-bringer supplies salt from home like לבונה, or alternatively that salt comes from the ציבור like עצים, and it resolves via a גזירה שוה from “ברית מלח עולם” to the ציבור-funded לחם הפנים, concluding that the salt is משל ציבור. The Gemara therefore argues that a תנאי בית דין is more plausible for permitting kohanim to benefit when eating than for the basic act of salting offerings.
- Rav Mordechai בשם Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi answers that the תקנה could still be needed according to בן בוכרי, who holds kohanim are not obligated in מחצית השקל. A משנה records בן בוכרי’s testimony that a kohen who pays is not a sinner, and רבן יוחנן בן זכאי’s rebuttal that one who does not pay is the sinner, with the claim that kohanim exempted themselves by interpreting “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל” to avoid funding offerings like לחם הפנים that they eat. The Gemara considers that without rights in the לשכה a kohen might be excluded from benefiting from communal salt, and it concludes that the תקנה teaches that kohanim may use הקדש salt even under that assumption, with the shiur ending with the plan to continue from ועצים on the third line.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions