Menachso 23 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:09 - 23A
26:24 - 23B
37:05 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A *minchat chotei* is brought as flour without oil or frankincense, and the sugya opens with a case where oil is added to its *kometz*, with Rabbi Yochanan ruling it פסול and Reish Lakish defending it based on the practice of using a vessel with residual oil and limiting the prohibition of “לא ישים עליה שמן” to the pre-*kemitzah* stage. The Gemara challenges Reish Lakish from a *baraita* about a dry *minchah* mixed with an oily one, rejects the assumption that “חרב” means *minchat chotei*, and interprets it as יחסית “dry” *minchot* (such as those with less oil per *issaron*) and reads the *baraita* as explanatory rather than a second case. A further question of Rava about oil squeezed out of a *kometz* and then recombined remains unresolved (תיקו), and the Mishnah then lays out rules for mixtures of *menachot*, *kometz* and *sheyareiha*, leading into a broader analysis of ביטול and whether one follows the מבטל or the בטל, framed by Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina and tested against the Mishnah, with Rabbi Zeira’s derivation invoked to explain why certain anticipated ביטולים do not apply.
- A *minchat chotei* comes as flour alone because the sinner cannot afford a regular offering, and the Torah prohibits adding שמן ולבונה. A case arises where the Kohen performs *kemitzah* and then adds oil to the *kometz*, and Rabbi Yochanan rules it פסול because “no oil” is absolute. Reish Lakish answers that the service is done in a bowl that has שירי הלוג and requires *shikshucha*, so the presence of oil residue is built into the procedure, and he reads “לא ישים עליה שמן” as forbidding adding oil like other *menachot* before *kemitzah* rather than barring oil contact afterward.
- Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from the *baraita* “חרב שנתערב בבלול יקריב, רבי יהודה אומר לא יקריב,” and the Gemara first entertains reading “חרב” as *kometz minchat chotei* mixed with a voluntary *kometz*. The Gemara rejects that and explains “חרב” as relative dryness, such as *minchot* with a lower oil ratio compared to others, describing a mix like מנחת פרים ואילים with מנחת כבשים where the oil amounts per *issaron* differ and absorption would distort the required measures. The Gemara asks how this fits when the *baraita* already states “מנחת פרים ואילים במנחת כבשים,” and answers that “וחרב שנתערב בבלולה” is פירוש קמפרש לה, restating the same case by labeling which is “חרב” and which is “בלולה.”
- Rava asks about a *kometz* whose oil is squeezed out onto wood or a surface and then the flour mass is placed back onto that oil, and he frames it as whether חיבורי עולין כעולין דמי or not. Rav Pappi links it to the earlier dispute of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about offering a limb without a כזית where the bone completes it, with Rabbi Yochanan obligating because חיבורי עולין כעולין דמי and Reish Lakish exempting because it is not. The Gemara distinguishes the cases because bone is מיניה דבשרא while separated oil may be דלאו מיניה דקומץ, and it also considers whether Reish Lakish’s view depends on עצם being דבר מפרש versus oil being דלאו בר מפרש. The question remains unresolved as תיקו.
- The Mishnah rules that two *menachot* not yet *nikmetzu* that became mixed are כשרה if one can perform *kemitzah* from each one separately, and פסולה if one cannot, based on taking “מלא קומצו מסלתה” from each offering itself. The Mishnah rules that a *kometz* that became mixed into a *minchah* that was not yet *nikmetzah* should not be burned, but if it was burned then the one that had been properly *nikmetzah* counts for its owner while the un-*nikmetzah* offering does not. The Mishnah also rules that if a *kometz* became mixed into its own *sheyarim* or into another’s *sheyarim*, it should not be burned due to “לא תקטירו,” but if it was burned then it nevertheless counts for the owners.
- The sugya defines מבטל as the majority and בטל as the minority and sets out a core dispute between Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina about whether one evaluates mixtures based on the מבטל or the בטל. The shiur models it through נבלה and שחוטה, where שחוטה cannot become נבלה while נבלה can lose its טומאה when it decomposes, expressed as “דלכי מסרחה פרחה טומאתו.” Rav Chisda states “נבלה בטלה בשחוטה” because “שאי אפשר לשחוטה שתעשה נבלה,” and he states “ושחוטה אינה בטילה בנבלה” because “שאפשר לנבלה שתעשה שחוטה,” making it effectively מין במינו in his frame. Rabbi Chanina formulates the rule “כל שאפשר להיות כמוהו אינו בטל וכל שאי אפשר להיות כמוהו בטל,” tying ביטול to whether the referenced side can become like the other.
- The Gemara tests the rules against positions about מין במינו and notes that attributing the model broadly is difficult because Rabbanan hold “עולין הן דלא מבטלי אהדדי” while allowing מין במינו ביטול, and Rabbi Yehuda is associated with “מין במינו לא בטל” and with “רבי יהודה בתר חזותא אזיל.” The Gemara introduces “אלא אליבא דרבי חייא” with “דתני רבי חייא נבלה ושחוטה בטלו זו בזו,” and then asks “רבי חייא אליבא דמאן,” rejecting simple alignment with Rabbanan or with an absolute reading of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes “לעולם אליבא דרבי יהודה” by limiting Rabbi Yehuda’s “מין במינו לא בטל” to where “אפשר ליה למהוי כוותיה,” and it then states explicitly “ובא קמיפלגי דרב חסדא סבר בתר מבטל אזלינן ורבי חנינא סבר בתר בטל אזלינן.”
- The Gemara tries to infer from “שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו” that once one side is *nikmetzah* it becomes שיריים while the other remains טבל, and it asks why שיריים would not be מבטל the טבל, concluding that the case is read under רבי יהודה and then probing whether the logic supports Rav Chisda or Rabbi Chanina. The Gemara answers “התם כדרבי זירא” and derives a rule by analogy: “נאמר הקטרה בקומץ ונאמר הקטרה בשיריים,” concluding that just as “אין הקומץ מבטל את חבירו,” so too “אין שיריים מבטל את הקומץ.” The Gemara then brings the Mishnah’s case “הקומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה” and repeats the same structural test in reverse, again concluding “הא נמי כרבי זירא,” treating these outcomes as driven by a גזירת הכתוב rather than standard ביטול mechanics.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions