Menachos 57 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:12 - 56B
01:27 - 57A
17:19 - 57B
29:55 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A שיעור on דף נ״ו עמוד ב׳ frames liability around initiating a process that completes on its own, compares חימוץ of a מנחה to roasting on שבת, and then derives the Torah’s scope for the איסור of making a מנחה חמץ from “כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה׳.” The narrative moves through how partial actions count, when quantities combine, how the איסור applies only to a כשרה and not a פסולה, and then explores unresolved questions about repeated חימוץ and the effect of פסול יוצא. The closing sugya reassigns a מחלוקת between רבי יוסי הגלילי and רבי עקיבא about whether “אשר תקריבו” includes מנחת נסכים or לחם הפנים, and ties that to a broader מחלוקת about which measuring vessels are מקודש, where their קדושה resides, and whether alternative kneading setups can avoid קדושת כלי שרת.
- A statement of רבי אמי rules that if someone places שאור on dough and leaves, and the dough becomes חמץ on its own, he is חייב. A comparison is drawn to שבת, where placing meat on coals and walking away is treated as a liability model. A challenge from the report of רבה בר בר חנה בשם רבי יוחנן says liability on שבת depends on turning the meat, because הפך בו חייב and לא הפך בו פטור. Rava explains that “חייב” in the comparison means liability for the part accomplished by the initial placement, while turning is required only because roasting a steak requires both sides to become edible, whereas leavening completes from the initial placement without further action.
- The repeated teaching of רבה בר בר חנה בשם רבי יוחנן is analyzed to define the case as meat that becomes cooked on one side to כמאכל בן דרוסאי, and turning produces כמאכל בן דרוסאי on both sides. The conclusion is that one side at כמאכל בן דרוסאי is considered “לא כלום,” and the threshold is defined by what counts as edible cooking. Rava adds that if one roasts the amount of a גרוגרת on one side in one spot, he is חייב. Ravina questions why the גרוגרת must be in one place and argues for צירוף across multiple places.
- A proof is attempted from the משנה that הקודח כל שהוא חייב, suggesting that small acts in multiple places can combine into a meaningful result. The Gemara rejects the proof by insisting the drilling case can be in one place because even a small hole can be useful, so it does not demonstrate צירוף for roasted amounts. An alternative version states that Rava holds even in two or three places the total of a גרוגרת counts, and Ravina again brings the drilling משנה, which is again answered as a single-hole case serving a specific use, דחזי לבבא דאקלידתא.
- A ברייתא derives multiple לימודים from the phrase “כל המנחה,” establishing that the לאו applies not only to the קומץ but to the entire מנחה including the שירים. The word “כל” expands the rule to all מנחות beyond the immediate context. The phrase “אשר תקריבו לה׳” limits the prohibition to a מנחה that is כשירה and not פסולה, and therefore “המחמץ את הכשירה חייב את הפסולה פטור.” A Brisker Rav point is cited that ציץ מרצה resolves טומאה at the stage of placing on the מזבח, while the חמץ violation can occur earlier when the item is still in a pre-הקטרה stage.
- Rav Pappa asks about a case of חמצו ויצא וחזר וחמצו, where the מנחה is made חמץ, then goes outside, then returns, and is made חמץ again. One side assumes once it left it became פסול יוצא, and further חימוץ would not create liability because the item is already פסול and “אשר תקריבו” requires כשרות. Another side frames the issue as “חמץ אחר חמץ,” questioning whether a second liability can apply, while a further approach (attributed to Rashi) suggests that once it is already פסול through חימוץ it lacks “קדושה גמורה,” so פסול יוצא may not take effect on it, leaving room for additional חימוץ liabilities. The sugya leaves this question as תיקו and then asks another תיקו: Rav Mari queries whether חימצה בראש המזבח is already too late because “אקריבה” has occurred, or whether being מחוסר הקטרה is still like being מחוסר מעשה and remains within the איסור.
- After using “כל המנחה” to cover the broader prohibition, the Gemara assigns “אשר תקריבו” to include another offering category in the חמץ prohibition. A dispute is presented: Rabbi Yosi haGelili includes מנחת נסכים for חימוץ, while Rabbi Akiva includes לחם הפנים. The Gemara challenges the מנחת נסכים inclusion because it is described as מי פירות with much oil and no water, and “מי פירות אין מחמיצין,” with a note that Tosafos distinguishes full חמץ from חמץ נוקשה. Reish Lakish answers that Rabbi Yosi haGelili holds מנחת נסכים may be kneaded with water and remains כשרה, creating a real setting for חימוץ.
- A difficulty is raised against attributing לחם הפנים to Rabbi Akiva because לחם הפנים is measured with מידת יבש, and Rabbi Akiva is described as holding מידת יבש לא נתקדשה, which would remove the קדושה framework needed for an איסור חימוץ at that stage. The sugya therefore flips the attributions: “ואיפוך,” assigning Rabbi Yosi haGelili to include לחם הפנים for חימוץ and Rabbi Akiva to include מנחת נסכים. This is tied to Rabbi Yochanan’s view that Rabbi Yosi haGelili aligns with a תלמיד מתלמידי רבי ישמעאל, identified as Rabbi Yoshiyah, regarding how vessels are anointed and sanctified.
- A ברייתא from “ומשחתם וקדשת אותם” yields a three-way structure about sanctification of measuring vessels. Rabbi Yoshiyah holds מידת הלח is anointed both inside and outside, while מידת יבש is anointed only inside and not outside. Rabbi Yonasan holds מידת הלח is anointed only inside, and מידת יבש is not anointed at all. The dispute is framed around the word “אותם,” with Rabbi Yoshiyah reading it to exclude the outside sanctity of מידת יבש, while Rabbi Yonasan reads it to exclude outside sanctity of מידת הלח because he already treats מידת יבש as חול entirely.
- The Gemara considers whether Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yonasan “אמרו דבר אחד” because both treat מידת יבש as having no קדושה. The Gemara rejects this equivalence because they differ on מידת הלח: Rabbi Akiva treats it as sanctified inside and outside, while Rabbi Yonasan limits sanctity to the inside only. The sugya thus preserves a distinct position for Rabbi Akiva even while acknowledging overlap on dry measures.
- Rav Pappa challenges the vessel-based argument by noting that dough is kneaded in a mixing bowl, which is a כלי שרת with קדושה, so לחם הפנים can become subject to the חמץ prohibition even if the dry measuring vessel lacks קדושה. The answer proposes a case where kneading is done on a כתבוליא, avoiding a sanctified bowl. The Gemara distinguishes this workaround from the שתי הלחם prooftext, because the Torah explicitly mandates measuring an עשרון, so one cannot simply substitute an unconsecrated כלי, whereas kneading location is not explicitly mandated as a כלי שרת requirement.
- The שיעור opens with “Good morning רבותי” and a dedication “לעילוי נשמת שמעון בן רפאל ויוסף בן מרדכי.” The session ends with encouragement to merit spreading תורה, and a call to sponsor a שיעור via MDYsponsor.com or mdy.co.com.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions