Menachos 26 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on Maseches Menachos 26a opens by aligning the Mishnah’s rule about a *korban minchah* with the classic dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in Pesachim 77a about whether *zerikas hadam* can be done when the meat is lost or *tamei*, with Rabbi Yehoshua deriving *im ein basar ein dam* from “ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם,” while Rabbi Eliezer reads “ודם זבחיך ישפך” to allow *zerikah* even without meat. The Mishnah applies this to *shirayim* of a *minchah* that became *tamei*, were burned, or were lost, and the Gemara clarifies that even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees the *kometz* may be burned if some *shirayim* remain, while later sugyos analyze when a *kometz* requires a *kli shares*, which hand is valid, and how various *beraisos* support or refute Amoraic readings, including a conclusive refutation of Rav Nachman on universal *kiddush b’kli*. The *shiur* then moves to the Mishnah’s validation of burning the *kometz* in multiple installments and the Amoraic dispute whether *haktarah* less than a *kezayis* is valid, followed by the question of when the *kometz*’s burning permits eating the *shirayim* and how “עם בוא השמש” works for day-offerings that continue burning at night. The end raises unresolved questions about the correct physical arrangement of *kometz*, limbs, and wood on the *mizbe’ach*, including whether “על” means directly on top or even alongside, with later Acharonim and prooftexts brought to frame these *bedieved* possibilities.
- Rabbi Yehoshua holds *im ein basar ein dam* and the Gemara in Pesachim derives it from “ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם,” which connects *basar* and *dam* to teach that *zerikas hadam* depends on the presence of meat. The Malbim explains that the verse’s unusual order, placing *basar* before *dam*, teaches Rabbi Yehoshua’s rule that without *basar* there is no *dam*. Rabbi Eliezer reads the continuation “ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם ודם זבחיך ישפך” as teaching that *zerikah* is done under all circumstances even when no meat remains, because the Torah does not parallel it with “בשר זבחיך יאכל.”
- The Mishnah rules that when the *shirayim* of a *korban minchah* became *tamei*, were burned, or were lost, the law follows Rabbi Eliezer that burning the *kometz* is still valid and the *minchah* is *kesheirah*. The Mishnah implies that *nitme’u*, *nisrefu*, and *ne’evdu* are treated alike, so absence or unusability of *shirayim* parallels the meat-loss case for *zerikas hadam*. Some suggest that *nitme’u* could differ from loss or burning because of the earlier concept of *tzitz meratzeh al achilos*, which could allow proceeding when the issue is *tum’ah*.
- The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua’s disqualification applies only when all the *shirayim* are *tamei*, but if only some became *tamei* then the *kometz* may still be burned because *shirayim* remain. The Sfas Emes notes that even when burning the *kometz* is allowed due to remaining *shirayim*, the law of eating does not change, because *shirayim* are eaten only when all of them are present, and if not all remain they are not eaten. The Gemara initially assumes Rav’s statement might apply only to *nitme’u* and not to *ne’evdu* or *nisrefu*, but then concludes Rav holds *shirayim milsa hi* and the same rule applies to loss and burning as well, with Rav citing *nitme’u* only because it is the first case in the Mishnah.
- The Chafetz Chaim in Likkutei Halachos distinguishes *nitme’u* from *ne’evdu* or *nisrefu* by invoking *tzitz meratzeh al achilos* in a way that could, under certain circumstances, allow eating remaining *shirayim* when the issue is *tum’ah*. The same reasoning does not apply to loss or burning, where no such *svara* exists.
- A beraisa states in Rabbi Yehoshua’s name that for all *zevachim*, if a *kezayis* of *basar* or a *kezayis* of *cheilev* remains, one performs *zerikas hadam*, but if only half a *kezayis* of each remains one does not. The beraisa adds that for an *olah*, even half a *kezayis* of *basar* and half a *kezayis* of *cheilev* combine to allow *zerikah* because the entire offering is burned and becomes *kalil*. It then states “ובמנחה אפילו קיימת לא יזרק,” which the Gemara later interprets as referring to *minchas nesachim* and not a standard *minchah*’s *kometz* and *shirayim* framework.
- Rav Pappa explains that “מנחה” in the beraisa refers to *minchas nesachim*, a *minchah* brought with certain *zevachim* that is entirely burned on the *mizbe’ach*. The Gemara’s rejected assumption is that since it comes with the animal it might be *k’gufo shel zevach*, making its presence sufficient to allow *zerikas hadam*. The beraisa teaches that *minchas nesachim* does not count as remaining “meat” or “cheilev” of the animal for Rabbi Yehoshua’s requirement.
- Rabbi Yochanan cites Rabbi Yishmael, and alternatively Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, deriving from “וזרק הכהן את הדם… והקטיר החלב לריח ניחוח” that the presence of *cheilev* alone can justify *zerikah* even without meat. The Gemara seeks a source for permitting *zerikah* when other *imurim* like *hayoseres* and *shtei k’layos* remain, and Rabbi Yochanan derives from “והקטיר החלב לריח ניחוח” that anything offered for *rei’ach nicho’ach* suffices. The Gemara explains why both “חלב” and “ריח ניחוח” must be written, because “חלב” alone would exclude other *imurim*, while “ריח ניחוח” alone might include *minchas nesachim*, and “חלב” limits the rule to parts of the animal, excluding “קומץ לא.”
- The Mishnah rules that if after *kemitzah* the *kometz* is not placed into a *kli shares* it is *pasul*, while Rabbi Shimon deems it *kasher*. The Brisker Rav notes the *minchah* is placed in a *kli shares* twice, once for the ingredients and once when depositing the *kometz*, and Rashi limits Rabbi Shimon’s leniency to the second *kli shares* while still requiring the initial sanctification vessel. The Rambam appears to read Rabbi Shimon as lenient in all *kli shares* scenarios.
- Rav Yehudah בשם Rav Chiya derives Rabbi Shimon from “לא תאפה חמץ… קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם,” teaching that if one performs the *avodah* by hand it must be with the right hand like a *chatas*. The right-hand requirement is connected to the rule that wherever the Torah says *etzba* with *kehuna* it means the right hand, learned from *metzora*, and *minchah* is compared to *chatas*. The Gemara then states that if the *avodah* is done in a *kli shares* it may even be with the left hand like an *asham*, because the Torah does not use both *etzba* and *kehuna* for *asham*, allowing left-handed performance, and *minchah* is compared to *asham* as well.
- The Sfas Emes questions how the comparison to *chatas* proves no need for a *kli shares*, and the Brisker Rav answers that the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon dispute what “right hand” means in *chatas*. The Rabbis hold the right hand itself becomes the *kli shares*, so the comparison to *chatas* supports the need for a sanctifying “vessel function,” not an exemption from vessels. Rabbi Shimon holds that using the right hand removes the need for a *kli shares*, so “בא לעובדה ביד עובדה בימין” means the hand suffices without a vessel.
- Rav Yanai explains that since the *kemitzah* began in a *kli shares*, one may then transport and offer the *kometz* in any manner, even with the *avnet* or even in a clay pot. The Chazon Ish adds that the carrying must avoid *chatzitzah*, so using an *avnet* requires wrapping it around the hand so it becomes connected rather than serving as a barrier.
- A beraisa validates carrying *chalavim*, limbs, wood, *kometz*, *ketores*, and *levonah* “בין ביד בין בכלי, בין בימין ובין בשמאל,” which appears to refute the claim that by hand it must be the right. Rav Yehudah brei d’Rav Chiya answers that the beraisa is *l’tzadadin*, meaning by hand it is valid only with the right, while in a vessel it may be with either hand.
- Another beraisa teaches that if the ingredients were in a *kli shares* but the *kometz* was sanctified and offered not in a *kli shares*, it is *pasul*, while Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon is *machshir* “במתן כלי.” The Gemara reinterprets this as “במתן כלי ואילך,” meaning after the initial placement in a *kli shares*, so only the first stage requires a *kli shares*. The Chazon Ish notes that only Rabbi Shimon’s leniency would accept sanctification in *kli cheres*, while the Rabbis would not.
- Acharonim ask from Tosafos that something sanctified in a *kli shares* is a *g’nai* to move into a *kli chol*, challenging Rabbi Shimon if he requires an initial *kli shares*. The Teras Mordechai answers that because the transfer to a non-*kli shares* is only brief until it reaches the *mizbe’ach*, it is permitted. The Eilas Shlomo explains that the Torah’s allowance to use the hand indicates there is no requirement to continue with *kli shares*, even if there is a general rule against moving sanctified items into *klei chol*.
- A beraisa states that the Rabbis require the *kometz* to be taken from a *kli shares*, sanctified in a *kli shares*, and carried and offered in a *kli shares*. Rabbi Shimon holds that once it was taken from a *kli shares*, one may carry and offer it without a *kli shares*. The Gemara explains Rav Nachman’s approach as requiring that once it was “קמצו וקידשו בכלי שרת,” it need not remain in a *kli shares* thereafter.
- A beraisa rules that if one did *kemitzah* with the right hand and placed it into the left, he returns it to the right. The beraisa adds that if one had a disqualifying thought while the *kometz* is in the left hand, the offering is *pasul* but does not become *piggul* with *kares*, because *piggul* requires the *avodah* to be performed properly. It then states that a thought *chutz limkomo* in the right hand makes it *pasul* without *kares*, while *chutz lizmano* makes it *piggul* with *kares*, according to Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis say that once it was put into the left hand it is permanently disqualified.
- The Gemara explains the Rabbis’ reason as the need for *kedushah b’kli*, so putting the *kometz* into the left hand parallels blood that spilled to the floor, which cannot be fixed by later collection. The Gemara infers that Elazar and Rabbi Shimon do not require *metan kli*, because otherwise left-hand placement would be an unfixable “spill” for them as well. The Gemara concludes “אידי תיובתא דרב נחמן תיובתא,” rejecting Rav Nachman’s claim that all agree the *kometz* requires sanctification in a *kli*.
- Rav Chaim Brisker explains *nishpach* has two elements: *kabbalas hadam* must be directly from the animal, and the blood must never have been in a place it does not belong, including a *kli chol* and not only the floor. The Even HaEzel states that blood that fell on the floor becomes permanently disqualified, but if the *kometz* fell accidentally from the right hand and was returned and then placed into a *kli shares*, it would remain valid. The Even HaEzel limits permanent disqualification to a deliberate placement into the left hand or onto the floor, creating a disqualifying interruption.
- The Gemara challenges Rav Yanai from the beraisa requiring return to the right hand, and Rav Yanai responds that he follows another beraisa validating carrying “בין בימין ובין בשמאל.” Rav Yanai rejects the earlier *l’tzadadin* explanation and reads that beraisa literally as allowing either hand even when done by hand. Rav Yanai treats the conflicting beraisa as not authoritative for his position because he has a supporting text.
- The Mishnah rules that if the *kometz* was burned in two installments it is *kesheirah*. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds the Mishnah’s “פעמיים” is specific and it may not be divided into more than two, while Rabbi Yochanan allows dividing it even “מאה פעמים.” Rav Zeira explains the dispute hinges on whether a *kometz* is always at least two *zeisim* and whether there is valid *haktarah* less than a *kezayis*, with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi requiring the structure that yields at least a *kezayis* per offering-act and Rabbi Yochanan allowing smaller segments.
- The Steipler presents approaches where the disagreement centers either on the required *shiur* of the *kometz* or on whether *haktarah* needs a *kezayis*, and he frames this as distinct *dinim* in act versus measure. The Mishneh LaMelech cites a Yerushalmi that a *kohen* with a small hand cannot perform the *avodah*, because the *kometz* is two *zeisim*, and it extends this to disqualify him from all *avodos*. The Chasam Sofer in Orach Chaim סימן צח states the Bavli disagrees with the Yerushalmi and even if the *kometz* measure is large, it applies to *minchah* and not to all offerings, and the Rambam does not cite the Yerushalmi’s rule. The Steipler in *Shiurei Torah* notes that according to the *Noda B’Yehudah*’s measure of a *kezayis*, no contemporary *kohen* could hold the required amount, raising a question about *kemitzah* in the times of *Mashiach*. The Chashukei Chemed adds that the physical form of the fingers could affect whether flour falls between them, treating narrow fingers that allow material to slip through as a potential problem for a valid *kemitzah*.
- An Amoraic dispute asks when the burning of the *kometz* permits eating the *shirayim*: Rav Chanina says once the fire takes hold, while Rabbi Yochanan requires the fire to catch on most of it. The Even HaEzel asks why the Gemara focuses on eating permission rather than the core fulfillment of the offering, and answers that for the obligation of the *korban* itself, all agree that placing the *kometz* on the fire suffices, while the dispute is strictly about *heter achilah*. Rav Yehudah explains Rabbi Yochanan by citing the verse about Sedom, “והנה עלה קיטור הארץ כקיטור הכבשן,” teaching that a kiln produces smoke only once the fire has taken hold of most of it.
- A beraisa from “זאת תורת העולה… כל הלילה” teaches that items typically offered at night can be placed after sunset and burn all night, and it includes day-offerings like *kometz*, *levonah*, *ketores*, *minchas kohanim*, *minchas kohen mashiach*, *chavitei kohen gadol*, and *minchas nesachim* with the phrase “עם בוא השמש.” The Gemara reinterprets “עם בוא השמש” to mean placing them just before sunset so they continue burning all night, deriving this inclusion from “זאת תורת העולה ריבה.” The Gemara asks how that works with Rabbi Yochanan’s requirement of majority burning for permitting *shirayim*, and it answers that the pre-sunset placement helps only for *kelitah* so the offering avoids *psul linah*, while permitting eating is *l’hatir* and requires the majority burning standard.
- Rabbi Elazar maintains the beraisa’s wording and applies it to *poke’in*, where *kometz* or *levonah* placed before sunset flew off and may be returned after sunset. Rav Dimi reports in Rav Yanai’s name that the beraisa speaks about *poke’in*, prompting the Gemara to challenge this because Rav Yanai elsewhere rules that *ketores* that flew off is not returned even in full pieces. The Gemara cites “אשר תאכל האש את העולה על המזבח” to allow returning pieces of *olah* but not returning pieces of *ketores*, and it removes *ketores* from Rav Yanai’s *poke’in* application while keeping the framework for other items.
- Rav Asi, when explaining Rabbi Elazar on Menachos, asks whether arranging the *kometz* first and then placing the woodpile atop it is a valid *derech haktarah* or not, affecting whether one may eat the *shirayim*. The Gemara leaves this question as *teiku*.
- Chizkiyah asks the parallel case of limbs arranged first with wood placed atop them, weighing “על העצים” from “וערכו… על העצים אשר על האש” against “על המזבח” from “אשר תאכל האש את העולה על המזבח,” and he frames the possibility that one may do it either way. Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha asks whether placing limbs at the side of the woodpile satisfies “על,” paralleling a later dispute about placing the *bazichei levonah* “על המערכה” either directly on top or alongside. The Gemara formulates the issue whether “על העצים” must be *al mamash* like “על המזבח” or can mean *al b’samuch*, and the Minchas Chinuch points to “וישם אותו על המזבח ממעל לעצים” from *Akeidas Yitzchak* as indicating the *lechatchilah* placement is on top while the sugya addresses *bedieved*, with an additional suggestion that the *Akeidah* was *hora’as sha’ah* and not a standard source for these laws.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions