Menachos 24
Summary
- A sponsored *amud* on Menachot 24a begins from 23b with Rav Kahana’s ascent from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael and a series of halachic inquiries posed by the sons of Rabbi Chiya about *tziruf kli* for an *isaron* of *minchah* split into parts in a *bisa*. Rav Kahana rules that a *kli* is *metzaref* even when the pieces are not touching, limits *tziruf* to items that “need the *kli*,” and the Gemara probes whether this joining is *de’oraita* or *derabbanan* for purposes of *kemitzah*. The sugya tests proofs from a *mishnah* and a *baraita*, records Abaye and Rava’s back-and-forth on cases of “one *kli* like two *kelim*,” adds unresolved questions about *chibur mayim* with *tziruf kli* ending in *teiku*, and then moves into further disputes about repeated *tumah* and about three half-portions (*avud*, *mufrash*, and *rishon*) in one bowl, including whether they combine for *tumah* and what may be eaten after *kemitzah*, culminating in Rav Ashi’s principle that *kemitzah* depends on the *da’at* of the *kohen*. The sponsorship is stated as לעילוי נשמת מרשא מרים שרה בת יעקב משה Hirsch נשמה שתהא לעילוי.
- A Rav Kahana goes up from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael and finds the sons of Rabbi Chiya sitting and stating a case of an *isaron* split into two and placed in a *bisa*, where a *tevul yom* touches one half and the status of the other half is questioned. A Rav Kahana answers that the *mishnah* says *kli metzaref* and not *kli mechaber*, and he rules that even when the two parts are not touching, being in the same *kli* joins them so that the second becomes *pasul* as well. A They ask about inserting another piece between them from a different *minchah*, and Rav Kahana answers that items that need the *kli* are joined by the *kli*, but something that does not need the *kli* is not joined, so the foreign middle piece does not create *tziruf* for the original two.
- A Rav Kahana then asks whether one may perform *kemitzah* from one half for the other half when the two halves sit in one *bisa* without touching, and he frames it as depending on whether *tziruf* is *de’oraita* or *derabbanan*. A They respond that they did not hear that precise case but cite the *mishnah* of two *menachot* not yet taken for *kemitzah* that became mixed, which are valid if one can take a separate *kemitzah* from each and invalid if not. A Rava rejects the proposed inference by explaining the case as *kegushin hacholkin kimsarah*, where the portions remain connected in a comb-like interweaving, so it does not resolve a case of parts that are not touching.
- A Rava brings a *baraita* from “והרים ממנו” teaching that *kemitzah* must be from what is attached and that one should not bring an *isaron* in two *kelim* and take *kemitzah*, and he infers that in one *kli* that is comparable to two *kelim* one may take *kemitzah*. A Abaye rejects the inference and interprets the invalid “two *kelim*” as a case of a *kefizah* inside a *kaba* with equal rim height where the inner wall separates below even though the flour is joined above, while the valid “one *kli* like two *kelim*” is like *arvata d’tarnegolim* with a short divider where the contents still touch by spilling over. A Abaye maintains that the original case where the two halves do not touch remains an open question.
- A Rav Yirmiyah asks about a chain where part B inside the *kli* becomes *pasul* through *tziruf* with part A, and part B is connected by water to part C outside the *kli*, questioning whether the *pesul* can extend outward through *chibur mayim* or whether *kli metzaref* applies only to what is inside. A He then asks the reverse direction where the outside part becomes *tamei* first and transfers inward through water to part B, and whether that would then extend via *tziruf kli* to part A in the same bowl. A The Gemara leaves these questions as *teiku*.
- A Rava asks about an *isaron* split in half where one half became *tamei* before being placed in the *bisa*, and later a *tevul yom* touches that already-*tamei* half after both halves are in the *kli*, asking whether one says *sava lei tumah* so that the new contact does not generate *pesul* for the other half through *tziruf*. A Abaye challenges this by citing a *mishnah* about a sheet that is *tamei midras* and then made into a curtain, and the debate of Rabbi Yosei about whether it remains *tamei* as *maga zav* only if the zav actually touched it. A Rava answers that the implication may be only where the zav touched it before becoming *midras*, because that is *tumah chamurah al tumah kalah*, while the *minchah* case involves *tumah kalah* on *tumah kalah*. A Abaye presses from the *seifa* where Rabbi Yosei agrees about two folded sheets with a zav sitting on them that the lower is *tamei midras* and *maga midras*, and Rava answers that this can be *b’vat achat* while the *minchah* case is *zeh achar zeh*, leaving the *minchah* question standing.
- A Rava states a case where an *isaron* was split, one half was lost, another half was separated in its place, the original was found, and all three are placed in one *bisa* not touching, defining the three as *rishon*, *avud*, and *mufrash*. A Rava rules that if the *avud* becomes *tamei* then *avud* and *rishon* are joined while *mufrash* is not, if *mufrash* becomes *tamei* then *mufrash* and *rishon* are joined while *avud* is not, and if *rishon* becomes *tamei* then both others join because each could pair with it. A Abaye argues that even if any one becomes *tamei*, two join in all cases because כולהו בני בקתא דהדדי נינהו.
- A Rava applies the same framework to *kemitzah*, ruling that if one took *kemitzah* from the *avud* then its *sheyareiha* and the *rishon* may be eaten while *mufrash* may not, and if one took *kemitzah* from the *mufrash* then its *sheyareiha* and the *rishon* may be eaten while *avud* may not, but if one took *kemitzah* from the *rishon* then neither of the other two may be eaten due to uncertainty which is its partner. A Abaye argues that no matter which one receives *kemitzah*, the other two are not eaten because כולהו נמי בני בקתא דהדדי נינהו. A Rav Papa challenges that even the *sheyarim* of the one from which *kemitzah* was taken should not be eaten because a *danka* of the *kometz* did not go on the *mizbe’ach*, and Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Mesharshiya challenges how the *kometz* itself can be offered because a third is *chullin*. A Rav Ashi answers that *kometz b’da’ata d’kahna talya milta* and that when the *kohen* performs *kemitzah* he intends only the measure of an *isaron* and not an *isaron* and a half, so the *kometz* is valid and the *sheyarim* of the portion from which it was taken may be eaten, while the remaining portions are not eaten because it is unknown which ones were in the *kohen*’s intent.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions