Menachos 57
Summary
- A slightly abbreviated שיעור on מנחות דף נז continues from דף נו עמוד ב and builds from the יסוד that there is an איסור of מחמיץ אחר מחמיץ, alongside parallels to מסרס אחר מסרס and a מחלוקת ר׳ מאיר והרבנן about מטיל מום בבעל מום. A major thread explains when passive-looking actions count as a מעשה that generates חיוב מלקות, comparing חימוץ מנחה to מלאכת שבת while refining what שבת actually requires. The narrative then derives the scope of “לא תעשה חמץ” across the whole מנחה, limits it to כשרה ולא פסולה with nuanced exceptions, raises multiple תיקו cases, and closes with תנאים and אמוראים reorganizing which קרבנות are included by “אשר תקריבו,” tied to disputes about whether מידת יבש becomes מקודש.
- The שיעור assumes הכל מודו that מחמיץ אחר מחמיץ creates חיוב, and it treats מסרס אחר מסרס as similarly מחייב. The discussion of מטיל מום בבעל מום is framed as a מחלוקת ר׳ מאיר והרבנן, where ר׳ מאיר מחייב and הרבנן פוטר. The speaker suggests it is intuitive to extend the איסור of מטיל מום בקדשים to בזמן הזה despite the inability to bring קרבנות, but cites עבודה זרה דף יג עמוד ב as implying the איסור depends on redemption leading to a replacement קרבן, which is not possible בזמן הזה. The speaker notes a problematic שיטת הרמב״ם regarding that conclusion.
- Rabbi Ami rules that one who places שאור on top of dough and walks away, and it becomes חמץ on its own, is חייב ולוקה כמעשה שבת. Rashi explains this through a שבת model where placing meat on coals so it cooks on its own can still create liability, because placing it where it will cook is enough. The שפת אמת extends Rabbi Ami beyond שאור by stating that even merely kneading flour and water and leaving it until it becomes חמץ, such as over eighteen minutes, makes one חייב מלקות because setting up the rising is itself the actionable איסור. The שפת אמת explains the specific example of placing שאור on top as a חידוש about an unusual method that is not כדרך חימוץ השאור, since normal practice is mixing שאור before kneading.
- The speaker cites אחרונים who infer from the case of הנחת שאור that an act whose effect is delayed still counts as a מעשה. The *Aglei Tal* uses this to reject the *Noda BiYehuda* and *Netiv Chaim* approach that certain שבת processes are only *grama* but still חייב because they were performed that way in the משכן. The *Aglei Tal* argues that the comparison from מלאכת שבת to חימוץ מנחה shows the act is not *grama*, because חימוץ מנחה is not anchored in משכן-performance but in the standalone definition of being מחמיץ.
- The Rambam in הלכות חמץ ומצה פרק א says there is no מלקות for בל יראה ובל ימצא without a מעשה, and he gives examples of a qualifying act as buying חמץ on פסח or being מחמיץ. The שפת אמת holds that kneading dough and leaving it until it becomes חמץ is also called being מחמיץ, even if the Rambam does not list it explicitly. The שפת אמת explains that Rabbi Ami states the rule in מנחות rather than פסח because it is a bigger חידוש where the איסור is the act of making the מנחה חמץ, rather than mere ownership that lacks an inherent מעשה.
- The Gemara challenges whether שבת liability really exists in the passive case by citing רבי יוחנן through רבה בר בר חנה that one who places meat on coals is חייב only if he flips it, and is פטור if he does not. Rava answers that Rabbi Ami’s “כמעשה שבת” is aligned with the case of צלי where an active act like flipping occurs, and Rashi frames the מנחה placement as equivalent to the שבת act that completes roasting. The Gemara defines the case as one where without flipping the meat reaches מאכל בן דרוסאי on one side, while flipping brings both sides to מאכל בן דרוסאי, and it teaches that cooking only one side to מאכל בן דרוסאי is not a שבת violation. The שיעור records a dispute over how much מאכל בן דרוסאי is, with Rashi and a reading in Yoreh De’ah indicating one third cooked, and the Rambam and Raavad indicating half cooked, alongside a note that Shulchan Aruch appears to reflect both in different places and that משנה ברורה recommends stringency in both directions. The חזון איש is cited as explaining the fractions as time-based relative to reaching מבושל כל צורכו, and the Brisker Rav frames the “both sides” requirement as a דין in מלאכת שבת rather than a redefinition of בישול for other איסורים like קרבן פסח or בשר בחלב.
- Rava states that if a גרוגרת worth is fully roasted on one side in one place, one is חייב even if the rest remains raw, distinguishing full cooking from the earlier מאכל בן דרוסאי framework. Ravina questions whether combining half-גרוגרת portions across two or three places should also count, and the Gemara compares to a משנה about הקודח כל שהוא חייב. The Gemara ultimately explains the drilling case as useful even in one tiny spot because it serves as a keyhole, described as דחזי לבבא דאקלידא, and it rejects using that משנה as either a conclusive קשיא or ראיה for the roasting aggregation question. An alternative נוסח is presented where Rava explicitly allows joining across two or three places, and the same drilling משנה is again raised and again deflected by the keyhole answer.
- A ברייתא derives that “לא תעשה חמץ” would have been limited to the קומץ if only “אשר תקריבו לה'” were present, and it uses “מנחה” to include the entire מנחה even before קמיצה. The phrase “כל המנחה” expands the rule to other מנחות beyond מנחת מרחשת. The words “אשר תקריבו לה'” are then used to teach כשרה ולא פסולה, yielding the rule that one who is מחמיץ a כשרה is חייב, while one who is מחמיץ a פסולה is פטור, with the qualification that a פסול whose nature is חמץ still interfaces with מחמיץ אחר מחמיץ. Rav Papa asks about a case where it first became חמץ, then became פסול by יוצא, and then was מחמיץ again, and the question turns on whether the later פסול יוצא blocks liability or cannot meaningfully take effect once it is already פסול from חמץ. The Gemara leaves the question as תיקו, and the שיעור contrasts Rashi’s explanation of why פסול יוצא might not apply with the Rambam’s framing that once it is already פסול, the new פסול should not remove further איסור exposure.
- Rami asks whether making it חמץ on the ראשו של מזבח creates liability, since the Torah says “אשר תקריבו” and it is already “אקריב.” The alternative is that as long as it is מחוסר הקטרה it remains like מחוסר מעשה, and the Gemara also leaves this as תיקו. The Brisker Rav infers from Rashi that once the קומץ is placed on the fire it is already “קרב” for this purpose even if not fully consumed, while Tosafos suggests the ספק persists so long as the fire has not fully taken hold. The חזון איש notes that a case of making it חמץ below, bringing it up, and then being מחמיץ again would be פשוטly חייב משום חימוץ אחר חימוץ because it was not “מעלה בכשרות.”
- The Gemara asks why “אשר תקריבו” is needed once “כל המנחה” already expands the scope, and it answers with a תנאִי dispute about what additional offering it includes. רבי יוסי הגלילי initially uses it to include מנחת נסכים לחימוץ, and רבי עקיבא uses it to include לחם הפנים לחימוץ, framing them as opposite extremes where one is entirely offered and the other is not offered on the מזבח. The Gemara challenges מנחת נסכים because מי פירות אין מחמיצין, and Reish Lakish explains רבי יוסי הגלילי holds the מנחת נסכים is kneaded with water and remains כשרה. The Gemara challenges רבי עקיבא because לחם הפנים is measured with מידת יבש and רבי עקיבא is presented as holding מידת יבש לא נתקדשה, and a message in the name of רבי יוחנן resolves this by reversing the attributions: רבי יוסי הגלילי includes לחם הפנים and רבי עקיבא includes מנחת נסכים. The switch is tied to רבי יוחנן’s claim that רבי יוסי הגלילי and a תלמיד of רבי ישמעאל, identified as רבי יאשיה, share a view.
- A ברייתא presents רבי יאשיה as holding that מידת הלח is anointed both inside and outside, while מידת יבש is anointed inside but not outside. רבי יונתן holds that מידת הלח is anointed inside but not outside, and מידת יבש is not anointed at all, with a proof that they do not sanctify drawn from the פסוק about the שתי הלחם that they become “להשם” only after baking. The Gemara locates the dispute in the word “אותם,” with רבי יאשיה reading it to exclude מידות יבש מבחוץ, while רבי יוחנן asserts מידות יבש are חול and need no פסוק to exclude, and the פסוק is instead needed to exclude מידות לח מבחוץ. The Gemara explains why the parallel alignment is emphasized for רבי יוסי הגלילי with רבי יאשיה but not for רבי עקיבא with רבי יונתן, stating that they do not match regarding מידות לח.
- Rav Papa asks Abaye about a ביסא דלח and whether it could create sanctification concerns relevant to לחם הפנים and חימוץ. Abaye answers with a case like kneading on a קטבליא, and the Gemara then asks why רבי יונתן’s proof could not be deflected by saying the measuring was done with an עיסרון דחול. The Gemara answers that the Torah never mandates using a ביסא for kneading, so using something else is not a problem, but once the Torah mandates an עיסרון, it is not plausible to set aside an עיסרון דקודש and measure with an עיסרון דחול. The שיעור ends with the intent to continue with the ברייתא the next day, אם ירצה השם.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions