Menachos Daf 25 - Ritzuy Tzitz
Summary
- A morning shiur on Menachos 25a opens with sponsorship dedications and then presents the Mishnah’s ruling that the *tzitz* effects *ratzon* for *tumah* in a *kometz* that was offered, but does not effect *ratzon* for a *kometz* that became *yotzei* and was offered. A *baraisa* derives from “ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים” that the *tzitz* carries only the *avon tumah*, rejecting other possible *pesulim* such as *pigul* and *notar*, and the Gemara further rejects *yotzei*, *smol*, and *baal mum* as candidates for *ratzui tzitz* with specific *pesukim* and distinctions. The sugya then raises a contradiction between two *baraisos* about whether a *yachid* who knowingly sprinkles *dam tamei* achieves *hutzah*, and it develops four proposed reconciliations, including a major detour into whether the *tzitz* is *meratzeh* on *achilos* and how Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosi align with that question.
- A morning shiur on Menachos 25a is sponsored by Dr. David Landerer in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, by Morris Tobin לזכר נשמת גד בן יהודה whose יארצייט is שבת, נשמה שתהיה לעליה, and by Yanky Schiffman לעילוי נשמת his father רב ישעיה בן רב יחיאל עליו השלום whose fiftieth יארצייט is today, נשמה שתהיה לעליה. A זכות רפואה שלימה is requested for יעקב ישראל בן צביה, that he should have רפואה שלימה בתוך שאר חולי ישראל.
- A case of נטמא קומץ והקריבו is ruled valid because הציץ מרצה, and the owner is יוצא and the שיריים may be eaten. A dispute from Yoma is cited between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon whether the *tzitz* is *meratzeh* only while on the Kohen Gadol’s forehead or even when not on his forehead, and the psak is given like Rabbi Yehudah as codified by the Rambam in הלכות ביאת מקדש פרק ד' הלכה ח'. A further question is raised whether the requirement of being on the forehead is בשעת הטומאה as Rashi holds or בשעת הקרבה as the Yad Ramah holds, while maintaining that in any event the *tzitz* is *meratzeh* for *tumah*. A case of יצא קומץ והקריבו is ruled invalid because אין הציץ מרצה, stated explicitly as שהציץ מרצה על הטמא ואינו מרצה על היוצא.
- A *baraisa* expounds “ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים” and asks which *avon* is borne by Aharon through the *tzitz*. A proposal that it refers to *pigul* is rejected from the verse “לא יחשב,” and a proposal that it refers to *notar* is rejected from “לא ירצה.” The conclusion is stated as האינו נושא אלא עון טומאה, and a rationale is offered that *tumah* is lighter because הותרה מכללה אצל ציבור, since communal offerings proceed even *betumah*, with Rashi tying *ratzui tzitz* to the existence of such a heter elsewhere. Tosafos objects that the *pesukim* already exclude *pigul* and *notar* without needing הותרה מכללה, and Rabbeinu Tam emphasizes the verse “והיה על מצחו תמיד לרצון להם לפני ה׳” as indicating that *ratzui tzitz* attaches to something that has full *ratzon* elsewhere, leading Tosafos to account for why *pigul* and *notar* were even candidates.
- Rav Zeira proposes that the *tzitz* might bear עון יוצא because *yotzei* is also הותרה מכללה בבמה, but Abaye rejects this from “לפני ה׳,” limiting *ratzui tzitz* to an *avon* that is *lifnei Hashem* and not to *yotzei*. Rav Ila proposes עוון שמאל, arguing הותר מכללו on Yom Kippur when the Kohen Gadol holds the כף of ketores in his left hand, and Abaye rejects it by reading “עון הקדשים” as an *avon* that applies generally and is only permitted in a special circumstance, whereas the Yom Kippur left-hand procedure is the proper method and not an *avon*. Rav Ashi offers that “עון הקדשים” excludes “עון המקדישים,” making the *tzitz* effective only for a flaw in the offering itself and not a flaw in the officiant, with *smol* treated as a *din* in the person. Rav Simy raises עוון בעל מום because *baal mum* is permitted in birds, citing “תמימות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמימות וזכרות בעופות,” and Rav Ashi rejects it from explicit verses of “לא ירצה” and “כי לא לרצון יהיה לכם” regarding בעלי מום.
- A *baraisa* rules that if דם שנטמא was sprinkled, then בשוגג הורצה and במזיד לא הורצה, limits this to ביחיד, validates ציבור בין בשוגג בין במזיד, and invalidates an עובד כוכבים’s offering in all cases including באונס and ברצון. A second *baraisa* states that the *tzitz* is *meratzeh* על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא in all circumstances, including בין בשוגג בין במזיד and between ביחיד and בציבור, creating a direct contradiction. Tosafos rejects resolving it as דאורייתא versus a rabbinic *knas* because the formulation “הורצה” sounds like the operative halachah rather than a theoretical baseline.
- Rav Yosef proposes הא רבי יוסי הא רבנן, tying the *mezid* *knas* model to the dispute in תרומה where אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור, with the rule that בשוגג תרומתו תרומה and במזיד אין תרומתו תרומה, while Rabbi Yosi says בין בשוגג בין במזיד תרומתו תרומה. The Gemara challenges that attributing the universal *ratzui* baraisa to Rabbi Yosi would require Rabbi Yosi to hold that the *tzitz* is *meratzeh* on *achilos*, but a *baraisa* records Rabbi Eliezer as saying ציץ מרצה על אכילות and Rabbi Yosi as saying אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות. The Gemara answers by proposing איפוך, switching the attributions so that Rabbi Yosi says the *tzitz* is *meratzeh* on *achilos*, and Rav Sheshes objects that the switch is untenable in light of another *baraisa* that links liability for eating *kodshim* in *tumas haguf* to whether the meat is “הניתר לטהורים.” The *baraisa* uses “אשר לה'” as a *ribuy* and “מזבח השלמים” as a *miut* to include cases with שעת הכושר such as לן and יוצא and exclude פיגול as lacking שעת הכושר, and it explains liability for meat that became *tamei* before זריקה but was eaten after זריקה as “מפני שהציץ מרצה.” The Gemara infers that Rabbi Eliezer is the one who holds אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא yet also holds דמרצה ציץ על אכילות, so Rabbi Eliezer cannot be reassigned to deny *ratzui* on *achilos*, and the initial Rav Yosef reconciliation is rejected.
- Rav Chisda proposes הא רבי אליעזר הא רבנן, attributing the baraisa that validates even *mezid* to Rabbi Eliezer on the basis that he holds ציץ מרצה על אכילות, while the baraisa that invalidates *mezid* aligns with the Rabbanan who impose a *knas*. The Gemara challenges whether Rabbi Eliezer is known to reject *knas* in *kodshim*, and it answers that Rabbi Eliezer also says in the תרומה case that בין בשוגג בין במזיד תרומתו תרומה, though the Gemara still questions whether his leniency in תרומה extends to the greater severity of קדשים and notes that otherwise no author remains for the validating baraisa. Ravina distinguishes between טומאתו and זריקתו, reading one baraisa as addressing whether the becoming-*tamei* occurred in *shogeg* or *mezid* and the other as addressing whether the sprinkling occurred in *shogeg* or *mezid*. Rav Sheila offers the opposite mapping, construes the language of “שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד” as meaning נטמא בשוגג וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד, and then reinterprets an apparently explicit prooftext “דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה” as intending that the decisive split is whether נטמא בשוגג or נטמא במזיד rather than whether the זריקה was *shogeg* or *mezid*. The shiur ends with a plan to continue tomorrow with the Mishnah on כ"ו עמוד א'.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions