Menachos 57
Summary
- A shiur on מנחות דף נז opens with dedications and then returns to a שבת case about roasting meat on coals, defining when liability begins based on *Ma’akhal Ben Derosai* and the minimum measure of a *gerogeret*, with an added question about combining separate roasted spots and a parallel from drilling holes. The shiur then shifts to the פרק’s core איסור of making a מנחה חמץ, deriving from verses which parts and which מנחות are included, limiting liability to a כשרה מנחה, and raising unresolved questions about repeated חימוץ after disqualification and about חימוץ atop the מזבח. The sugya uses “אשר תקריבו” to include additional offerings for חימוץ, corrects an attribution by switching רבי יוסי הגלילי and רבי עקיבא, and develops a broader dispute about whether מדת יבש is sanctified, aligning רבי יוסי הגלילי with רבי אושיא. The daf then brings a ברייתא about the לאו of placing edible portions and leftovers on the מזבח, resolves how שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים relate to “מהם לאשים,” and ends with a dispute between רבי יוחנן and רבי אלעזר about liability for placing such items on the כבש, with a note that the continuation will address how רבי יוחנן expounds “אותם.”
- A sponsor dedicates the daf לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה and in honor of the יארצייט of אשר זעליג חי בן ירוחם חנן זלמן פין, with a request that his נשמה should have an עליה and be a מליץ יושר for his family and all of כלל ישראל. A location is set as מנחות דף נז, starting the fourth line with the word גופא.
- Abaye says in the name of רבי יוחנן that if a person places meat on coals on שבת, then if he turns it over he is חייב, and if he does not turn it over he is פטור. The Gemara establishes the case as one where without turning it would cook on one side to *Ma’akhal Ben Derosai*, while turning makes it cook on both sides to *Ma’akhal Ben Derosai*, and it teaches that one-side *Ma’akhal Ben Derosai* is not considered anything for liability. Rava adds that if it roasts on one side in one area the size of a *gerogeret* he is חייב, and Ravina challenges whether separate smaller roasted areas can combine, bringing the משנה of הקודח כל שהוא חייב. The Gemara answers that drilling “כל שהוא” can be in one place because it is fit for דחזי לבבא או לכח דאקלידא, and a second version presents Rava as saying even two or three places combine, yet the same drilling answer rejects the proof.
- A ברייתא derives from the verse that “אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ” would have limited the לאו to the קומץ, and “מנחה” expands it to the מנחה even before קמיצה. The word “כל” in “כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה'” expands the law to all מנחות, and the דרשה yields that liability applies to a כשירה מנחה but not to a פסולה, stated as המחמיץ את הכשירה חייב ואת הפסולה פטור.
- Rav Pappa asks about a case where one was מחמיץ, then the מנחה went out of the עזרה and became פסול as יוצא, and then he further is מחמיץ by baking, asking whether he is liable for מחמץ אחר מחמץ or exempt because the second act occurs when it is פסול. The two sides are framed as either יוצא creates a new פסול that makes the later חימוץ non-liable, or the first חימוץ already פסל it and יוצא changes nothing, making the later act liable like kneading and baking, and the Gemara concludes תיקו. Rav Mari asks whether one who is מחמיץ בראשו של מזבח is liable, weighing “אשר תקריבו” against the idea that מחוסר הקטרה כמחוסר מעשה דמי, and this also ends with תיקו.
- The Gemara asks why “אשר תקריבו” is needed once “כל המנחה” already teaches the broader scope, and it answers that it serves another ברייתא. One view attributes to רבי יוסי הגלילי that “אשר תקריבו” includes מנחת נסכים for חימוץ, while רבי עקיבא says it includes לחם הפנים for חימוץ, and the Gemara challenges both, asking how מנחת נסכים can become חמץ given מי פירות אין מחמיצין and how לחם הפנים can be subject to חימוץ when it uses מידת יבש and רבי עקיבא holds מידת יבש לא נתקדשה. Reish Lakish answers that according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, מנחת נסכים can be kneaded with water and is כשרה, allowing חימוץ.
- Ravin sends in the name of רבי יוחנן that the proper version switches the attributions: רבי יוסי הגלילי includes לחם הפנים for חימוץ and רבי עקיבא includes מנחת נסכים for חימוץ. The sugya explains this by stating that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds מדת יבש is קדוש and thus can confer the status needed for the לאו of חימוץ.
- Rabbi Yochanan states that רבי יוסי הגלילי and one of the תלמידי רבי ישמעאל say the same thing, identifying that תלמיד as רבי אושיא. A ברייתא on “וימשחם ויקדש אותם” records רבי אושיא’s view that מדת הלח is anointed inside and outside, while מדת יבש is anointed inside but not outside, and רבי יונתן’s view that מדת הלח is anointed inside but not outside while מדת יבש is not anointed at all. רבי יונתן brings proof from the פסוק about שתי הלחם, reading that they become “בכורים לה'” only after baking, and the Gemara frames the dispute as how each reads “אותם,” with רבי אושיא limiting only the outside of מדת יבש and רבי יונתן using it to exclude the outside of מדת לח because he holds מדת יבש is חול entirely.
- The Gemara suggests that רבי עקיבא and a תלמיד of רבי ישמעאל, namely רבי יונתן, could also be said to “say the same thing,” but it answers that they do not fully align regarding מדת לח, since רבי יונתן holds only the inside is קדוש while רבי עקיבא holds inside and outside are קדוש. Rav Pappa challenges Abaye from the existence of a moist כלי like a ביצה דלח, and Abaye answers with a case of kneading on a קטבליא, and the Gemara rejects an alternative rebuttal involving an עשרון כלי of חול because the תורה explicitly requires an עשרון and it is not plausible to set aside an עשרון דקודש for an עשרון דחול.
- A ברייתא teaches that one violates a לא תעשה if he places on the מזבח meat of חטאת, אשם, קדשי קדשים, or קדשים קלים meant to be eaten, or leftovers of עומר, שתי הלחם, לחם הפנים, or שירי מנחות. The source is “כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה׳,” expounded as meaning that anything of which some part was already placed on the fire is included in “בל תקטירו” for the remaining edible portions.
- The Gemara objects that שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים have no part that goes on the fire, citing a ברייתא that they are excluded because “אין מהם לאשים.” Rav Sheshet answers that they have nothing from their own גוף placed on the fire, yet the two כבשים associated with שתי הלחם have parts placed on the מזבח and לחם הפנים has בזיכין placed on the מזבח, so they are still within the framework that triggers the לאו when edible portions are put on the fire.
- An amoraic dispute addresses one who places these items on the כבש rather than on the מזבח itself, with רבי יוחנן saying חייב and רבי אלעזר saying פטור. רבי יוחנן derives liability from “ואל המזבח לא יעלו,” taking the repetition to include the כבש as well. רבי אלעזר limits the דרשה through “אותם,” applying the extension only to שאור ודבש, understood as שתי הלחם and בכורים, and not to other items, and the shiur ends by noting that the next session will continue with רבי יוחנן’s use of “אותם.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions