Menachos 24 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s שיעור learns מסכת מנחות דף כ״ו starting on דף כ״ג עמוד ב׳ with רב כהנא arriving from בבל to ארץ ישראל and finding בני רבי חייא analyzing whether a טבול יום who touches one half of an עשרון מנחה in a כלי שרת renders the other half פסול through the rule הכלי מצרף את מה שבתוכו לקודש. The sugya frames צירוף כלי as combining items in one כלי even without direct contact, tests limits such as extra flour that is not צורך כלי and airspace contact, and then extends the concept to קמיצה and the requirement of ממנו מן המחובר. The שיעור brings major explanations and disputes among רש״י ותוספות, ראשונים on whether צירוף כלי is דאורייתא or דרבנן, and later אמוראים (רבא ואביי) on how multiple half-עשרונים interact for טומאה and for שיריים after קמיצה, concluding with רב אשי that the כהן’s intent determines which halves combine into the operative עשרון.
- Rab כהנא finds בני רבי חייא learning the case of an עשרון of flour divided into two halves in a כלי שרת for a קרבן מנחה, where a טבול יום touches one half and the question becomes whether the other half becomes פסול. The משנה in מסכת חגיגה דף כ׳ עמוד ב׳ states הכלי מצרף את מה שבתוכו לקודש so that separate pieces of קודש in one כלי become one unit for טומאה. The sugya asks whether this applies only when the halves touch each other or whether it applies even when they do not touch, and אהל שלמה explains that טומאת טבול יום is so low that even touching does not necessarily transmit to the other half, making צירוף כלי the relevant mechanism. רב כהנא answers that חז״ל said הכלי מצרף rather than הכלי מחבר, so the combination applies even without contact.
- The שיעור cites a מחלוקת רש״י and תוספות about whether צירוף כלי extends beyond טומאה itself to הכשר אוכלין, so that if one food item in the כלי becomes מוכשר לקבל טומאה it makes the rest of the foods in the same כלי מוכשר. תוספות holds that צירוף כלי applies so the הכשר spreads to all the food in the כלי, while רש״י disagrees. The שיעור also brings the discussion among ראשונים about whether צירוף כלי requires a שיעור כביצה for the joined items or applies even without כביצה, while noting that everyone agrees that to spread טומאה you need כביצה.
- The rule of צירוף כלי is learned from the פסוק about the נשיאים: כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטורת, where the דרשה is הכתוב עשאו כל מה שבכף אחת. The שיעור raises the objection that the נשיאים’ offerings were a one-time event and yet the law is applied לדורות, and the ראשונים answer that the Torah’s repeated presentation in פרשת נשא shows that the law is meant for all generations. A major מחלוקת ראשונים is presented on whether צירוף כלי is דאורייתא or מדרבנן, with the רשב״א holding it is מדרבנן and other ראשונים holding it is דאורייתא.
- The משך חכמה asks why the law is derived from כף אחת rather than earlier פסוקים such as קערת כסף אחת מזרק אחד כסף. The משך חכמה answers that the contents of the מזרק and קערה become קודש when placed into them, whereas the קטורת placed into the כף is already קודש, so the כף is the correct source for a law about combining קדשים already in a כלי.
- רבי אריה לייב מאלין זצ״ל analyzes whether צירוף כלי is a דין in the כלי, making everything in the כלי one, or a דין in the food, making the foods one unit. The נפקא מינה is posed using the מקדש דוד and מנחת דוד: when the two halves are identical parts of one מנחה, the combination is intuitive, but when two different foods share one כלי the question becomes whether צירוף applies. The explanation follows that if it is a דין in the כלי then different foods still combine, while if it is a דין in the food then perhaps only the same kind of food combines.
- Bני רבי חייא ask what happens if someone adds another חצי עשרון into the כלי beyond the two halves needed for the מנחה and a טבול יום touches that extra half. רב כהנא answers that צירוף applies only to צורך כלי, but an extraneous half is אין צורך כלי and אין כלי מצרפו. The תורת אבן explains this as depending on the fact that placing the מנחה in the כלי is a vital step in forming the קרבן, so only what is used for the מנחה is subject to צירוף. The יפה עיניים suggests that if the extra flour “needs the כלי” for preservation it can fall under צורך כלי, and he further suggests that the entire question of extraneous contents applies only if צירוף כלי is דרבנן, whereas if it is דאורייתא then everything in the כלי combines.
- Bני רבי חייא ask what happens if a טבול יום inserts a finger into the אויר of the כלי between the halves without touching either half. רב כהנא rules that there is no rule of מטמא באויר except for כלי חרס בלבד, so this does not transmit טומאה in the case at hand.
- רב כהנא then asks whether two halves of a מנחה in one כלי, even without touching, can be treated as combined for קמיצה so that one can be מקמץ “מזה על זה.” The sugya links this to whether צירוף is דאורייתא or דרבנן, and the שיעור adds the סטייפלר’s question why טומאה and קמיצה should differ if צירוף defines oneness. The שיעור gives two approaches: חז״ל apply חומרות for טומאה but do not apply them לקולא for validating קמיצה, or the definition of “one” for טומאה differs from what is required for one קרבן מנחה for קמיצה.
- Bני רבי חייא respond that they do not know this case but cite a similar משנה: שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו זו בזו, where if one can take a separate קמיצה from each it is כשרה, and if not it is פסולה. The gemara challenges why it is כשרה when the place of the קומץ is not touching the rest, and רבא answers that the case is בגושים המחולקים עשויין כמסרק, partly separated yet still connected like a comb.
- The gemara brings a ברייתא on והרים ממנו בקומצו, deriving מן המחובר to require connectedness at the time of קמיצה and to exclude bringing the עשרון in two separate כלים and then being קומץ. The inference is that as long as it is in one כלי, even if not touching, it is acceptable, so כלי אחד דמי לשני כלים for purposes of disqualifying separation while one כלי supports validity. The מקור ברוך quotes רב יצחק אלחנן (זכר יצחק) that without all ingredients in one כלי the remainder cannot be designated as שיריים, and רבי אריה לייב מאלין adds that קמיצה is defined as removing a קומץ only after the full מנחה exists, which cannot happen if the ingredients are not all in the same כלי.
- אביי challenges רבא by defining a two-kelim scenario as כפיזה בקבא, where a small receptacle is carved within a larger one so a bottom partition creates functional separation even if the top appears connected. אביי defines a “one-kli like two” case as עריבת תרנגולים, where a low partition separates water and bran only at the bottom but not up to the top, creating partial connection within the כלי. The sugya contrasts cases where the only “connection” is above the כלי versus a connection within the interior of the כלי.
- The שיעור notes that פוסקים discuss a practical parallel in taking חלה, especially in מצה bakeries, by placing baked matzos into one כלי and separating them only if there are partitions. The caution is stated that partitions can prevent the contents from being considered one כלי, which affects whether one can take חלה in that manner.
- The gemara asks about a half-עשרון that becomes טמא via צירוף כלי and another half outside the כלי connected via liquid, questioning whether טומאה extends outward through that חיבור. The gemara then asks a second layered case: when a טבול יום touches the outside half, making the inside half טמא via חיבור מים, can צירוף כלי then spread that טומאה from the inside half to the other half inside the כלי, or does צירוף require that the initiating contact be from within the כלי.
- The שיעור cites פוסקים’ comparisons about what counts as a sufficient חיבור to treat an item as whole, such as joining two halves of a חלה for לחם משנה or for an עירוב, and reattaching a פיטם to an אתרוג. The שיעור states that on the first day of סוכות an אתרוג that is חסר is not fixed by artificial reconnection, and that many פוסקים extend this to יום טוב שני בחוץ לארץ. The שערי תשובה is quoted bringing a תשובה from the שבות יעקב חלק א סימן ל״ה distinguishing a חלה’s wholeness as a matter of כבוד so appearance can suffice, while an אתרוג’s חסר is not removed by artificial attachment; the שיעור also notes an approach that during the rest of יום טוב the requirement may be primarily that it look whole. The שיעור adds that many פוסקים, including references to רב משה and הר צבי, address whether תפילין must be objectively square or merely appear square, and it presents that most פוסקים require only that they look square.
- The gemara presents רבא’s question of an עשרון divided in two where one half is already טמא, then both halves are placed into a vessel, and then a טבול יום touches the already-tamei half again, asking whether this new touch can create צירוף or whether a concept of שוויה לטומאה blocks a second tumah from taking effect. רבי אלחנן (קובץ שיעורים) relates שוויה לטומאה to אין איסור חל על איסור, while the קרן אורה and שפת אמת argue the analogy fails because אין איסור חל on איסור can still “hover” to apply if the first falls away, whereas שוויה לטומאה would mean the second tumah never applies at all.
- אביי challenges whether שוויה לטומאה exists by citing a משנה in מסכת כלים about a סדן that is טמא מדרס and then is made into a curtain, losing the status of מדרס while retaining טמא מגע מדרס, with רבי יוסי questioning how מגע applies as מגע בית הסתרים and the משנה answering that if it was נגע בזב it is טמא מגע זב even if the touch occurs later. The gemara asks why this does not violate שוויה לטומאה since מדרס is more severe, and רבא answers that the case can be where the touch precedes the מדרס so the two statuses are acquired in a different sequence.
- From the סיפא, רבי יוסי concedes that with two folded sheets stacked and a זב sits on them, the upper is טמא מדרס and the lower is both טמא מדרס and טמא מגע מדרס, and the gemara asks again why this is not barred by שוויה לטומאה. The gemara answers that there it happens בבת אחת, so both tumot apply simultaneously, whereas the case under discussion is בזה אחר זה, leaving room to maintain שוויה לטומאה for sequential acquisition.
- Rava rules in a case where an עשרון is split, one half is lost, a replacement half is separated, and then the original is found so all three are in one כלי, that which halves combine for טומאה depends on which half became טמא: if the אבוד becomes טמא then אבוד and ראשון combine while the מופרש does not, if the מופרש becomes טמא then מופרש and ראשון combine while the אבוד does not, and if the ראשון becomes טמא then both other halves combine with it since each was at some point meant to pair with it. Abיי disagrees and holds that even if any one becomes טמא then both others combine because כולהו בני בקתא דהדדי נינהו. The gemara states וכן לענין קמיצה, applying the same dispute to which שיריים are eaten depending on which half the קומץ is taken from, with Rava allowing the relevant paired halves to be eaten and excluding the unpaired half, while Abיי rules that if the קומץ is taken from any one, the other two are not eaten because all are treated as one uncertain unit.
- Rav פפא challenges the outcome where taking the קומץ from the original half leads to inedible leftovers by asking which שיריים are being treated as excluded and how the קומץ can be valid if it does not correspond to the full intended measure. Rav יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא further challenges how the קומץ itself can be offered when the remaining halves are uncertain and appear like חולין with respect to defining שיריים. Rav אשי answers that קומץ בדעתיה דכהנא תליא מילתא, because the כהן determines which additional half combines with the half being קומץ from, and the remaining half does not combine, so the קומץ is treated as a קומץ from a full עשרון and the related problems fall away.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions