Menachos 22 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:13 - Introduction
01:46 - 21B
10:45 - 22A
22:21 - 22B
29:14 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- The text learns a *tenai beis din* that allows *kohanim* to use the Beis HaMikdash salt, first framing it as salt for a korban rather than private eating, and then testing whether the allowance must be a special enactment at all. The Gemara proves that salt for korbanos comes *mishel tzibbur* through competing comparisons to *levonah* and to *eitzim*, and it settles the issue through a *gezeirah shavah* of *bris bris*. The sugya then explains why a *kohen* might have been excluded from salt based on participation in *terumas halishkah*, bringing in the dispute of Ben Bukri and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai about whether *kohanim* must give *machatzis hashekel* and the *kohanim*’s *derashah* of “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל.” The text continues by deriving that wood is also from the community and explores a dispute about whether the wood must be new, then moves into Mishnayos about mixtures in *menachos* and about blood mixed with water, wine, or other blood, culminating in a debate whether the source verse teaches *olin* not canceling each other or the rule that *min b’mino* is not *batel*, and it closes by explaining Rabbi Yehudah’s invalidation of certain mixed *menachos* through the principle that when there is *min b’mino* plus a third substance, the third substance can be *mevatel*.
- The text opens with “ישמח משה במתנת חלקו” and declares “ט"ו בשבט רבותי!” The learning is “לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רוזה בת מרדכי.”
- The text places the learning in the middle of כ"א עמוד ב' at “אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי” and presents a *tenai beis din* that a *kohen* may use the salt of the Beis HaMikdash. The text states that the salt use is already established for a *kohen*’s own korban that he is permitted to eat from, and it excludes using the salt for ordinary food “to fill himself up.” The text raises the challenge that it is illogical for a *Yisrael* to be able to use Mikdash salt while a *kohen* cannot, and it offers a *sevara* that a *kohen* might be excluded because he has no partnership if he does not pay into the communal funds.
- The text cites a *beraisa* that one might think a person bringing a *minchah* must bring salt from home just as he brings *levonah* from home, and it also offers the alternate comparison that just as wood is communal, salt should be communal. The text weighs the similarities by saying salt is “דבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים” like wood, while *levonah* is not, and it also notes the competing similarity that salt and *levonah* come “בכלי אחד,” unlike wood. The text concludes that a verse resolves the ambiguity with “ברית מלח עולם הוא” and a *gezeirah shavah* to “מאת בני ישראל ברית עולם,” yielding “מה להלן משל ציבור אף כאן משל ציבור,” so salt is provided for free for korbanos in the Beis HaMikdash.
- The text proposes that since a *Yisrael* can use salt for his korban, a *kohen* certainly should, so the *tenai beis din* must be a *chidush* permitting salt even for a *kohen*’s private steak. The text then rejects that conclusion and says the *tenai beis din* can be needed specifically “לבין בוכרי,” because Ben Bukri testifies in Yavneh that “כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא,” while Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai responds “אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא,” and he adds that the *kohanim* rely on an incorrect *derashah* “שלא כהלכה.” The text states the *kohanim*’s argument from “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל,” claiming that if *shtei halechem* and *lechem hapanim* were funded by *kohanim* they would have to be entirely burned and could not be eaten, so they infer those are not “ours” and use that as a basis to avoid the *machatzis hashekel*. The Gemara challenges Ben Bukri by asking why a *kohen* who is not obligated is not sinning by bringing *chullin* into the *azarah*, and it answers that he gives and hands it over to the community. The text then explains the *hava amina* that the Torah grants salt to *Yisraelim* because they have a *lishkah*, but *kohanim* “דלא אית להו לשכה” might not be granted salt, and it concludes “קא משמע לן” that they do get salt, leaving open that the *tenai beis din* could be needed to allow *kohanim* salt even for what goes on the *mizbeach*.
- The text asks on דף כב עמוד א why it is obvious to the *tanna* that wood is communal and brings a *beraisa* that one might think a person bringing an *olah* must bring wood from home as he brings *nesachim* from home. The text derives communal wood from “עלי העצים אשר על האש אשר על המזבח,” with Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon learning that just as the *mizbeach* is communal so are the wood and fire, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua learning that just as the *mizbeach* was not used by a layman so the wood and fire must not have been used. The text defines the practical difference as whether the wood must be “חדתתא,” and it challenges the requirement of new wood from the episode of Arunah offering David “המוריגים וכלי הבקר לעצים.” The text answers that this too refers to new items, defines “מוריגים” through Ulla and Rav Yehudah as a threshing implement, and supports it with “מורג חרוץ חדש בעל פיפיות.”
- The text quotes a Mishnah that if a *kometz* becomes mixed with another *kometz* or with *minchas kohanim*, *minchas kohen mashiach*, or *minchas nesachim*, the offering is valid, while Rabbi Yehudah says it is invalid when mixed with *minchas kohen mashiach* or *minchas nesachim*. The text attributes Rabbi Yehudah’s reason to the difference between “בלילתה עבה” and “בלילתה רכה,” because the thicker and thinner mixtures absorb from each other, causing one to have too much oil and the other too little, which invalidates them. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehudah by asserting that this is *min b’mino*, and the text answers in Rava’s name that Rabbi Yehudah holds “כל שהוא מין במינו ודבר אחר סלק את המין כמי שאינו,” so the third element, the flour, is treated as overpowering and being *mevatel* the introduced oil, producing the imbalance that Rabbi Yehudah treats as disqualifying.
- The text brings the case of “דם שנתערב במים” and rules “אם יש בו מראה דם כשר,” then rules that if blood mixes with wine or with animal or wild-animal blood it is evaluated “רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים.” The text cites Rabbi Yehudah’s dissent “אין דם מבטל דם,” describing the implication that even a tiny amount of valid blood in a huge amount of other blood would allow use of the whole mixture. The text attributes to Rabbi Yochanan that both sides expound one verse, “ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר,” and it frames the interpretive dispute as Ravanan learning “מכאן לעולין שאין מבטלין זה את זה” while Rabbi Yehudah learns “מכאן למין במינו שאינו בטל.” The text challenges each side with the alternative reading and ends both lines of questioning with “קשיא,” leaving tension as to whether the verse requires one factor or both.
- The text ends with “רבותי have a wonderful day, א פרייליכען ט"ו בשבט if it's such a thing.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions