Menachos 24 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:10 - Introduction
03:32 - 23B
11:38 - 24A
29:06 - 24B
34:28 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A שיעור לעילוי נשמת ציבי בת רוסי ויוסף מרדכי reviews *min b’mino* and the rules of *bitul*, presenting רבי יהודה that *min b’mino* is not nullified and רבנן that it is nullified by majority, and then frames רב חייא as holding that nullification works only in one direction with a dispute whether to evaluate the *mevatel* or the *batel*. The גמרא brings proofs from a משנה about *kemitzah* mixing back into *shirayim* and answers with a גזירת הכתוב that neither nullifies the other, then tests the framework with a case of *matzah* coated in spices and resolves it by saying the *matzah* remains the majority. The sugya then moves to *tziruf kli* in קדשים through רב כהנא and בני רבי חייא, asking how a כלי combines separated portions, how an intervening piece or a finger in between changes the law, and how *nitzok* (a stream connection) might extend *tziruf* beyond the vessel, leaving key questions as תיקו. It concludes with רבא’s question about whether re-touching an already פסול piece can spread פסול through חיבור, and analyzes “שבע ליה טומאה” through cases of זב, מדרס, and simultaneous versus sequential tumah.
- A case of *min b’mino* treats items that look the same as the same family even if one piece is טרייף and one is not, and a difference like נבלה versus שחוטה complicates the comparison. A view of רבי יהודה holds *min b’mino* is not בטל, so a prohibited or טמא element makes the whole mixture prohibited or טמא. A view of רבנן holds *min b’mino* is בטל, so the רוב overcomes the minority and the mixture remains כשר.
- A statement of רב חייא says one element can nullify the other only in one direction, and the direction becomes a מחלוקת. A position of רב חסדא always evaluates the *mevatel* as the majority and says that if the *mevatel* cannot change its own status then nothing changes, so the majority drives the halachic outcome. A position of רב חנינא focuses on the *batel* and asks whether the minority can become like the majority, so if the minority can change—such as טמא meat becoming non-טמא through *sirchon* (rotting)—the mixture becomes *min b’mino* and then the rules of non-*bitul* apply within the שיטה ד’רב חייא.
- A proof attempt from the משנה addresses *net’arev komtzo bashirayim* or in another bowl of מנחה, where *shirayim* may not be placed on the מזבח after *kemitzah*. A mistaken act of placing the mixture on the מזבח is taught as “המקטיר עלה לבעלים,” and the sugya challenges this because *shirayim* as the larger component should be the *mevatel* and should eliminate the *kometz* under normal rules of majority. A resolution from רב זירא derives a גזירת הכתוב from parallel language of “הקטרה” in *kometz* and in *shirayim*, concluding that just as one *kometz* does not nullify another, *shirayim* do not nullify the *kometz*.
- A case of *tivla b’ketzach b’shumshmin v’chol minei tavlin* rules the *matzah* כשרה and defines it as “מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת.” An attempted inference assumes the spices outnumber the *matzah* and tries to align the דין with the approach of going after the *batel*, where eventual spoiling (*afisha*) could turn the *matzah* into spices and produce *min b’mino*. A correction reads the case as one where the spices are not more than the *matzah*, so the *matzah* remains the רוב and is not בטלה, matching the wording “מצה היא.”
- A narrative of רב כהנא meeting יהודה וחזקיה בני רבי חייא frames a case of an עשרון divided into two parts in one container, where a טבול יום touches one part and the question is whether פסול spreads to the other through “כלי מצרף מה שבתוכו לקודש.” An assumption limits *tziruf* to cases where the portions touch each other, but רב כהנא answers that the משנה says “כלי מצרף” rather than “כלי מחבר,” so the כלי combines even without direct contact.
- A follow-up asks about inserting a third, unrelated piece between the two portions, and the response distinguishes between items that “need the vessel” where “כלי מצרפן” and an item that does not, where “אין כלי מצרפן.” A further question asks about a טבול יום inserting a finger into the airspace between them, and the answer states that nothing is מטמא through its airspace except כלי חרס alone.
- A question asks “מהו לקמוץ מזה על זה,” whether taking *kemitzah* from one side can work for the other side, and the concern becomes whether *tziruf* is strong enough even for a קולא. An answer says “זו לא שמענו כיוצא בה שמענו” and brings a משנה of “שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו זו בזו” where each מנחה can be taken with its own *kemitzah* if it is possible to perform *kemitzah* from each one separately. A suggestion of רבא limits the case to a “comb-like” mixture where there is no isolated island, and a ברייתא from “והרים ממנה” infers “מן המחובר” so one may not bring an עשרון from two separate כלים and perform *kemitzah*, while indicating that one כלי can allow *kemitzah* even when divided.
- An explanation of “שני כלים” is given as “כגון קפיזא בקבא,” where an inner partition creates true separation so that even if material meets above the rim it is not considered connected within the כלי. A contrasting model for “בכלי אחד דומייא דשני כלים” is “כגון ארבתא דניגלא,” where an internal wall is lower and the material touches on top within the כלי, so the contact counts as connection.
- A question is posed to רמי בר חמא: “צירוף כלי וחיבור מים מהו,” where a stream connection (*nitzok*) might transmit פסול from what is inside the כלי to what is outside. A second question reverses the direction, asking about “חיבור מים וצירוף כלי ונגע טבול יום בחוץ מהו,” whether touching outside can spread inward through the stream and then through *tziruf*, and both questions remain תיקו.
- A later question of רבא tests whether if one portion became פסול by a טבול יום and was then placed into a bowl with another portion, a subsequent re-touching of the already פסול portion can now transmit פסול through חיבור, or whether “שבע ליה טומאה” blocks further effect. אביי challenges the notion from a משנה of “שק טמא מדרס ועשאו וילון” that becomes טהור מן המדרס but remains טמאה מגע מדרס, and רבי יוסי’s framing that if the זב touches it it is טמאה מגע הזב. A rebuttal answers that the touch could have occurred before the מדרס so that a טומאה חמורה is added onto a טומאה קלה, while the מנחה case involves the same level of טומאה where no new force is added. A final proof from רבי יוסי’s admission about “שני סדינים המקופלים” establishes that the lower sheet can become both מדרס and מגע מדרס because “חדא בבת אחת,” distinguishing that simultaneous acquisition differs from בזה אחר זה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions