Menachos Daf 24 - Tziruf Kli
Summary
- The shiur learns מנחות דף כד starting from תא שמע four lines before the wide lines on כג עמוד ב, completes the prior debate about whether determining *min b’mino* versus *min b’she’eino mino* follows the מבטל or the בטל within רבי חייא’s caveat, and then moves into the main sugya of צירוף כלי. The Gemara applies צירוף כלי to טומאה and to קמיצה, tests how far that combination extends through partial contact and even through חיבור מים, raises unresolved questions about whether repeated טומאה can later become operative, and ends with a case of a lost and replaced חצי עשרון producing three halves in one כלי and the resulting disputes between רבא and אביי for both טומאה and קמיצה, concluding that the קומץ depends on the דעת הכהן.
- The shiur begins with מנחות דף כד and resumes on דף כג עמוד ב at תא שמע four lines before the wide lines, with the learning framed as a continuation of the prior day’s sugya. The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Landoer in honor of his wife and children לעלוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום and by Morris Tobin לזכר נשמת גד בן יהודה whose יארצייט is שבת נשמה שתהא עליה.
- The Gemara tests the dispute between רב חסדא and רבי חנינא, within רבי חייא’s position that *min b’mino* is not בטל but something without the halachic potential to become like the other is treated as *min b’she’eino mino*, by asking whether “potential” is judged from the majority (המבטל) or the minority (הבטל). The third proof is from the משנה of נתערב קומצו בשיריים של חברתה, where the mixture should not be offered but if it was offered it counts, and the Gemara treats this as showing no ביטול even though neither side can become like the other once one is קומץ and the other is שיריים. The Gemara resolves that anomaly through רבי זירא’s גזירה שוה of הקטרה, learning that just as no קומץ cancels another, so too שיריים do not cancel a קומץ, making this a special rule rather than a general indicator for other mixtures.
- The fourth proof is from the ברייתא that מצה spiced with קצח, שומשמין, or other תבלין is כשרה and remains “מצה” though called מצה מתובלת, with a proposed assumption that even if תבלין is quantitatively greater it would not cancel the מצה. The Gemara explains that the case is דלא אפיש לתבלין and the majority is מצה, with תוספות adding that even the *hava amina* concerns a local clump within a כזית rather than a recipe where seasoning exceeds flour overall. תוספות further notes that unlike the earlier cases where all components share the same taste, here the טעם differs, and תוספות says this sugya disagrees with the statement in זבחים ע״ח that טעם מצה suffices for יוצא.
- When Rav Kahana goes to ארץ ישראל he finds the בני רבי חייא, יהודה וחזקיה, discussing an עשרון divided into two and placed in one כלי so the halves do not touch, and asking whether a טבול יום touching one half makes the other half טמא through צירוף כלי. Rav Kahana answers from the wording כלי מחבר versus צירוף כלי that the הדין is צירוף even without contact, and he explains that what requires the כלי is מצטרף while what does not require the כלי is not מצטרף. He also rejects the idea that inserting a טבול יום’s finger into the airspace between the halves would be מטמא, stating that tumah from airspace applies only to כלי חרס.
- Rav Kahana asks whether one may take a קמיצה from one half to cover the other half when both halves are in the same כלי but not touching, tying the ספק to whether צירוף כלי is דאורייתא and would apply לקולא as well as לחומרא or is only דרבנן. The בני רבי חייא respond that they did not hear this directly but cite the משנה of שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו that mixed, where if one can take a קומץ from each separately they are כשרות, implying a קמיצה can relate to portions not directly adjacent. Rava deflects that proof by suggesting the מנחות may remain physically connected like a forked mass, and he then brings a ברייתא on והרים ממנו מן המחובר that disqualifies an עשרון split into two כלים but implies that within one כלי it can work; Abaye replies that the “two vessels” case may itself be a nested-divider case and that the “one vessel” case may involve a built-in partition like עריבות תרנגולין, leaving the precise case of two fully separate, non-touching piles in one כלי unresolved.
- Rav Yirmiyah asks whether a third חצי עשרון outside the כלי, connected by חיבור מים to an inner half that became טמא only via צירוף כלי, becomes טמא as well, and he frames the question as whether צירוף is limited to מה שבתוכו or extends outward along connection. He then asks the reverse case where a טבול יום touches the outside portion connected by water to the inside, and whether that would render the inside portions טמא through צירוף כלי. The Gemara leaves these questions as תיקו.
- Rava asks about an עשרון split where one half became טמא before being placed into the vessel, then the halves are placed together in one כלי, and later a טבול יום touches the already-טמא half, asking whether that second contact now affects the other half through צירוף כלי or whether one says סבר ליה טומאה. Abaye challenges from the משנה in כלים about a סדין that is טמא מדרס and then made into a וילון, where the first טומאה falls away but a later-relevant טומאה such as מגע could remain, and the give-and-take attempts to prove whether a “second” tumah that seemed redundant can later become operative. The Gemara distinguishes between cases where both statuses arise בת אחת versus cases of בזה אחר זה, and the question remains unresolved for Rava’s scenario.
- Rava rules that when one half was lost, replaced, then found so that three halves are in the vessel, the צירוף relationships depend on which half became טמא: if the אבוד is טמא then אבוד and ראשון join while מופרש does not, if מופרש is טמא then מופרש and ראשון join while אבוד does not, and if ראשון is טמא then both join. Abaye argues that if any one becomes טמא then all are מצטרף because כולהו בני פקיעי דהדדי נינהו.
- Rava applies the same structure to קמיצה: if one takes the קומץ from the אבוד then its שיריים and ראשון are נאכלין while מופרש is not, if one takes from the מופרש then its שיריים and ראשון are נאכלין while אבוד is not, and if one takes from ראשון then neither is נאכל because of uncertainty. Abaye says that even if one takes from any one of them, neither can be eaten because all three are treated as tied together and a single קמיצה cannot permit more than one עשרון. Rav Pappa challenges the assumption that the relevant שיריים can be eaten because the קומץ includes material corresponding to something that will not be offered, and Rav Yitzchak bar Rav Mesharshiya challenges how the קומץ itself can be offered if part of it is חולין; Rav Ashi answers that the קומץ depends on the דעת הכהן, and when the כהן is קומץ he intends it only for one עשרון rather than for one and a half.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions