Menachos 23 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* learns מסכת מנחות דף כג, starting דף כג עמוד א, and applies the rules of מנחת חוטא, תערובות, and ביטול to cases involving oil, *levonah*, *kometz*, and *shirayim*, including how רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש argue about adding oil to a *kometz* of מנחת חוטא. The *Gemara* tests that dispute through cases of mixing *minchot* and through a broader question about whether something absorbed into wood is still considered halachically connected, and it leaves a related question as a תיקו. Later, the *Gemara* turns to mixtures of נבילה and שחוטה and frames a dispute between רב חסדא and רב חנינא about whether “possible to become like the other” is judged from the majority or minority, then it aligns these views with רבי חייא’s understanding of רבי יהודה. The *Mishnah* rules that mixed *minchot* are valid only when separate *kemitzot* remain possible, and it sets rules for when a mixed *kometz* may not be burned but still counts *bediavad* for one owner, explaining why this is not מצוה הבאה בעבירה. The *Gemara* also teaches that spiced *matzah* can be valid, while later *poskim* and customs are stringent about additives because they may hasten חמץ, leading into practical discussion of מצה שמורה and guarding flour and water.
- A person who commits certain עבירות brings a קרבן עולה ויורד that changes with finances: an animal if he can afford it, two birds if he cannot, and a קרבן מנחה if he cannot afford birds. A typical מנחה has flour and oil, but מנחת חוטא is flour with no oil. A *Gemara* case states: קומץ של מנחת חוטא ששמו בשמן, and רבי יוחנן rules פסול because the prohibition of oil applies to the *kometz* as well. ריש לקיש rules that not only is it not פסול, but הוא עצמו משכשכו בשלשה לוג, implying oil is appropriate.
- The בריסקער רב asks whether ריש לקיש’s rule about oil on the *kometz* also applies to the *levonah*. The חפץ חיים in ספר לקוטי הלכות suggests that whatever the הלכה is for the *kometz* according to ריש לקיש applies to the *levonah* as well. The *Gemara* challenges from the פסוק לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן עליה לבונה, and answers that it means he should not apply oil in the standard מנחה procedure, כחבירתה, while still allowing some oil according to ריש לקיש.
- Rashi holds that according to ריש לקיש, oil may be placed only after *kemitzah* is done. Others argue that Rashi is not definitive and that oil may be placed even before *kemitzah* as long as it is not done in the same fashion as a regular מנחת נדבה.
- A *baraita* teaches חרבה שנתערב בבלול and rules יקריב even though the dry מנחה will absorb oil, and this is tied to the view that עולים אין מבטלין זה את זה. רבי יהודה rules לא יקריב because he rejects עולים אין מבטלין זה את זה. רבי יוחנן challenges ריש לקיש by reading רבי יהודה’s concern as מנחת חוטא mixed with קומץ דמנחת נדבה, but the *Gemara* rejects that and reinterprets the case as מנחת פר ואיל mixed with מנחת כבשים, where differing oil ratios change the batter consistency. The *Gemara* resolves the apparent double listing by saying פירושא קא מפרש לה, so “חריבה ובולה” explains the issue within the נסכים mixture.
- Rava asks about a *kometz* of a regular מנחה whose oil is squeezed onto the wood, and whether this counts as lacking the required oil and becomes פסול. The underlying question is framed as חיבורי עולים כעולים דמי or not, with multiple *Rishonim* interpretations: whether the *kometz* is missing oil, whether the wood must be burned along with the *kometz*, and whether absorbed oil must be retrieved. Ravina suggests it parallels the dispute of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about המעלה אבר שאין בו כזית ועצם השלים לכזית, where רבי יוחנן holds חיבור עולם כעולם דמי and ריש לקיש holds חיבור עולם לאו כעולם דמי. The *Gemara* says the questions are not necessarily identical and analyzes why each side might differ for bone versus oil, ending with a תיקו.
- חשוקי חמד raises a שבת application about שיעורי בישול when meat alone is below the שיעור but meat plus bone reaches it, and whether the bone combines. Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Elyashiv hold it does combine, while Rav Moshe is more lenient and holds it does not combine. חשוקי חמד suggests there is no fundamental dispute and the rule depends on whether the bone is typically eaten, with ישראל possibly treating chicken bones as edible and other places not.
- The *Mishnah* rules that if two מנחות שלא נקמצו get mixed, they are כשרות only if one can still take a *kometz* from each separately, and otherwise they are פסולות. The פסוק וקמץ משם מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה yields מסלתה ולא מסולת חבירו, requiring each offering to remain distinct for *kemitzah*. The text explains that if a mixture prevents two distinct *kemitzot*, the procedure cannot satisfy the Torah’s requirement.
- If a *kometz* mixes into a מנחה שלא נקמצה, the rule is לא יקטיר, because the non-*kometz* portion is not meant for the מזבח. If one did burn it, the offering that had its *kometz* taken is עולה לבעלים, while the other is not. The later question asks why this is not מצוה הבאה בעבירה, and the answer given is that the *kometz* itself is valid and the עבירה lies in burning it together with what is not meant to be burned, so the valid *kometz* still fulfills its owner’s obligation.
- If a *kometz* mixes into its own *shirayim* or into *shirayim* of another מנחה, the rule remains לא יקטיר because *shirayim* are not to be burned, as indicated by לא תקטיר ממנו אשה לה' and the principle כל שממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטיר. If it was burned anyway, the *Mishnah* rules the owner of the מנחה that had a proper *kometz* is credited, even though the burning was improper.
- Rav Kahana states נבלה בטל בשחיטה when one נבילה mixes with two שחוטות, so touching one piece is treated by רוב as non-טמא, though touching all makes one טמא because ביטול does not make נבילה כשר. Rav חסדא says the reason נבילה is בטל is שאי אפשר לשחוטה שתעשה נבלה, so it is treated like מין בשאינו מינו, while שחוטה is not בטל in נבילה because נבילה can become “like שחוטה” when it decomposes past ראוי לאכילת כלב, based on the verse לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה as explained from בכורות דף כג עמוד ב. Rav חנינא reverses the axis and says the classification depends on whether the מיעוט can become like the רוב, so the minority’s potential controls whether it is מין במינו or מין בשאינו מינו.
- The *Gemara* asks whose view these approaches follow and concludes they align with רבי חייא who teaches נבלה ושחוטה המבטלות זו בזו under certain circumstances. The *Gemara* then asks רבי חייא אליבא דמאן and answers that רבי חייא is אליבא דרבי יהודה, but he limits רבי יהודה’s rule of מין במינו לא בטל to cases היכא דאפשר ליהוו כוותיה, while admitting ביטול when one cannot become like the other. רב חסדא and רב חנינא then differ in whether to examine the majority (מבטל) or the minority (בטל) for that “possible to become like” criterion.
- The *Gemara* reads the *Mishnah* of two mixed un-kamatzed *minchot* as involving a moment where one side becomes *shirayim* and the other remains טבל, and it challenges why *shirayim* do not nullify the טבל. The analysis tests whether the *Mishnah* matches Rav חסדא or Rav חנינא and whether it fits רבי חייא, then concludes it can follow רבנן because of Rav Zeira’s principle. Rav Zeira derives from the Torah’s use of הקטרה regarding both *kometz* and *shirayim* that just as *kometzim* do not nullify each other, *shirayim* do not nullify *kometz*, granting *shirayim* a category-like connection to עולים for this purpose.
- The *Gemara* brings cases of קומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה and קומץ שנתערב בשיריים של חברתה, and repeatedly asks מני, attempting to prove which ביטול theory is correct. Each time, it answers with the same conceptual move that the language of הקטרה creates a framework where these elements are treated as עולים for non-nullification. Abaye states the rule explicitly by linking the two הקטרה terms: what is true for the *kometz* as עולים extends to *shirayim* in the sense that *shirayim* do not nullify the *kometz*.
- A *baraita* rules that dough for מצה mixed with *ketsach*, sesame, or spices is כשרה and remains מצה, though it is called מצה מתובלת. The *Gemara* initially assumes a case where spices exceed flour and then answers the case is where spices are not the majority, supported by the phrase מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת. The שולחן ערוך in סימן תנ"ה rules spiced מצה is כשרה if it has the taste of מצה, while the רמ"א warns that spices can hasten חמץ and treats pepper-spiced dough as חמץ, leading to a practice not to add spices or salt. The ספר מעדני זמנים quotes the טשעבינער רב’s concern about chemicals in modern water possibly hastening חמץ, and the narrative closes by describing the care taken with ingredients and the concept of מצה שמורה, guarded from at least milling and for some from harvest.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions