Menachos Daf 57 - Issur Chimutz of Mincha
Summary
- A *daf* on Menachos 57 opens with Rav Ami ruling that even passive leavening of a *mincha* creates liability, analogized to Shabbos cooking, and the Gemara clarifies what level and form of cooking creates *chiyuv* when only one side or scattered areas are cooked. A *beraisa* derives from “כל המנחה אשר תקריבו להשם לא תעשה חמץ” that the leavening prohibition applies to the entire *mincha* before *kemitzah* and only to a kosher *mincha*, while two later questions about leavening after *yotzei* and on the top of the *mizbe’ach* remain *teiku*. The phrase “אשר תקריבו” becomes the basis for competing *derashos* that lead into a major dispute whether *kelei yavesh* have *kedushas klei shares*, and the *sugya* ends with an apparently unrelated *beraisa* deriving a *lav* for burning parts of korbanos that are not designated “לאשים,” including applications to *Shtei HaLechem* and *Lechem HaPanim* via their *matirim*.
- A *daf yomi shiur* on Menachos 57 is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and *לעילוי נשמת* his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, נשמתה שתהיה בעליה.
- A *beraisa* quotes Rav Ami: “הניח שאור על גבי עיסה והלך וישב לו ונתחמצה מאליה, חייב עליה כמעשה שבת,” and he treats placing *se’or* as sufficient action to violate the *lav* of making a *mincha* into *chametz*, like placing meat on coals that cooks. Tosafos explains the novelty despite “לא תעשה” and “לא תאפה,” and, based on *dibur hamaschil* מוסב, frames Rav Ami’s case as *se’or* placed on one side where the dough does not leaven proportionally. The *Sfas Emes* describes this as leavening that develops only slightly on one side before baking, yet it still creates liability.
- The Gemara challenges the analogy from Rabbi Yochanan: “הניח בשר על גבי גחלים היפך בו חייב לא היפך בו פטור,” and Rava explains Rav Ami’s comparison as referring to liability in the manner of Shabbos roasting when one actively flips. The case is defined where without flipping the meat reaches *kema’achal ben Drusai* on only one side, while flipping brings both sides to *kema’achal ben Drusai*, and the Gemara concludes that one-side *kema’achal ben Drusai* is “לאו כלום הוא,” though “פטור” in Shabbos typically means *patur aval asur*. The *Eglei Tal* suggests that where it lacks potential to reach *kema’achal ben Drusai* on the other side, “פטור” may be *mutar*, and Rav Shlomo Zalman (מנחת שלמה חלק א' סימן י״א) explains this is not *chatzi shiur* but “חצי מלאכה,” treated as nothing.
- Rava adds that if a *gerogerres*-sized amount becomes fully roasted on one side in one place, one is liable, and the *Chidushei haRashba* identifies the novelty as liability only when the *shiur* is in one place rather than combined from two or three spots. Ravina challenges this from the Mishnah “הקודח כל שהוא חייב,” and the Gemara answers that even one tiny hole can be functional “דחזי לבבא דאקלידא.” An alternate version states Rava holds liability “אפילו בשנים ושלשה מקומות,” and Ravina attempts to support it from the drilling case, but the Gemara still resolves the drilling Mishnah as “לעולם במקום אחד” because it can be independently functional.
- A *beraisa* derives from “כל המנחה אשר תקריבו להשם לא תעשה חמץ” that without “מנחה” one might have limited the prohibition to the *kometz*, and “מנחה” includes the whole offering before *kemitzah*. The word “כל” expands the prohibition to other *menachos*, and “אשר תקריבו להשם” limits it to “כשרה ולא פסולה,” producing the rule “המחמיץ את הכשרה חייב ואת הפסולה פטור.” Tosafos (cited on דף ס' עמוד א') explains the exclusion from “להשם,” while the כסף משנה (הלכות מעשה הקרבנות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ט) explains it from the phrasing “כל המנחה” as referring to the known valid *mincha*.
- Rav Papa asks about a case of leavening followed by *yotzei* and return with further leavening, questioning whether once it becomes *pasul* by *yotzei* there is no further liability, or whether prior *chametz* status changes the impact of *yotzei* for subsequent stages; the Gemara concludes *teiku*. Rav Mari asks whether leavening “בראשו של מזבח” is included, weighing “אשר תקריבו” against the idea that “מחוסר קטר כמחוסר מעשה דמי,” and this question also remains *teiku*.
- After deriving the broad prohibition from “כל המנחה,” the Gemara asks what “אשר תקריבו” teaches and brings two views: Rabbi Yosi HaGelili includes *Minchas Nesachim* in the leavening prohibition, while Rabbi Akiva includes *Lechem HaPanim*. The Gemara challenges *Minchas Nesachim* because it is *mei peiros* and “מי פירות אינם מחמיצין,” and Reish Lakish explains that Rabbi Yosi HaGelili holds “מנחת נסכים מגבלה במים וכשרה,” while Rabbi Akiva holds it is not kneaded with water and therefore is not subject to leavening in that way. Tosafos cites Rabbeinu Tam using this to argue that without water there is no leavening at all, while Tosafos responds that the Gemara could be assuming a view that *chametz nuksheh* is permitted for *menachos*.
- The Gemara challenges Rabbi Akiva’s inclusion of *Lechem HaPanim* because it is measured with “מידת יבש,” and Rabbi Akiva holds “מידת יבש לא נתקדשה,” implying it lacks sanctification until the *shulchan* when it is already baked. Tosafos answers that sanctification can occur in the oven “משעה שקרמו פני הפת בתנור,” and it infers that from that stage the bread also can no longer become *chametz*, paralleling the פסח standard later codified for when baked dough is no longer subject to leavening. A message in the name of Rabbi Yochanan reverses the attributions, making Rabbi Yosi HaGelili include *Lechem HaPanim* and Rabbi Akiva include *Minchas Nesachim*, aligning Rabbi Yosi HaGelili with the view that *kelei yavesh* do have sanctifying status.
- Rabbi Yochanan states that Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and a תלמיד of Rabbi Yishmael—Rabbi Yoshiyah—say the same thing, based on the *beraisa* on anointing the *mishkan* utensils: Rabbi Yoshiyah holds *midah shel lach* is anointed inside and outside and *midah shel yavesh* is anointed inside only, while Rabbi Yonasan holds *midah shel lach* is anointed inside only and *midah shel yavesh* is not anointed at all. Rabbi Yonasan proves his view from “חמץ תאפינה בכורים לה',” reading “בכורים לה'” as taking effect only after baking because before that the first *kli shares* is the oven, and the Gemara explains their dispute as a reading of “אותם” in “וימשחם ויקדש אותם.” The Gemara does not pair Rabbi Akiva with Rabbi Yonasan because they differ regarding *midah shel lach*, and it answers a further question by stating kneading could occur “על גבי קתבוליא,” while measuring with an *issaron* is Torah-designated and therefore not replaced with a חול utensil.
- A *beraisa* derives a *lav* for burning edible portions of korbanos—bodies of *Chatas*, *Asham*, *Kodshei Kodashim*, *Kodshim Kalim*, leftovers of the *Omer*, leftovers of *Shtei HaLechem*, *Lechem HaPanim*, and *Shiyarei Menachos*—from “כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה',” formulating the rule “כל שממנו לאשים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו.” The Gemara challenges inclusion of *Shtei HaLechem* and *Lechem HaPanim* because another *beraisa* says they are excluded as “שאין מהן לאשים,” and Rav Sheshes answers that while none of their own substance is burned, their *matirim* are burned, namely the *bazichei levonah* for *Lechem HaPanim* and the *kivsei atzeres* for *Shtei HaLechem*, which brings them under “כל שממנו לאשים.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions