Menachos 69
Summary
- A daf in Menחות דף ע opens with the day’s sponsor לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה and then follows a chain of unresolved questions, primarily about what stage or status determines permissibility for offerings and related halachic categories, repeatedly weighing whether something is treated like detached produce in a vessel or as absorbed into the ground, and whether transformation through growth or digestion changes its halachic identity, with many of the issues ending in תיקו.
- A question of רמי בר חמא asks regarding what is permitted by the שתי הלחם whether הנצה שריא or חנטה שריא. A clarification rejects reading this as stages of the fruit itself, since השרשה already suffices, and instead frames it as הנצה דעלה וחנטה דעלה, asking whether leaf development is like השרשה with respect to fruit and ביכורים. A conclusion remains תיקו.
- A series of three questions addresses wheat that was harvested and replanted before the עומר, with the עומר passing over it while it still had not taken root. A first question asks whether the עומר permits taking and eating it, with one side treating it כמאן דשדיא בכדא דמיא and the other side treating it as בטלו להו לגבי ארעא, and it ends תיקו. A second question asks whether there is אונאה, rejecting a case of a precise measured claim because רבא holds that anything sold by measure, weight, or count returns even less than the אונאה threshold, and instead posing a case of “שדי בה כדי באולה,” again hinging on vessel-like status versus land-status, and ending תיקו. A third question asks whether one swears about it, contrasting treating it as מטלטלין with נשבעין on the one hand and treating it as קרקע with אין נשבעין על הקרקעות on the other, and it ends תיקו.
- A third question of רמי בר חמא asks about wheat kernels in cattle dung and barley kernels in animal dung. A framing for טומאת אוכלין is set aside as already taught, distinguishing between mere intent to eat and actually gathering them for eating, and a framing for direct use in מנחות is rejected from the verse הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך. A narrowed case asks about kernels taken from dung, replanted, and then used for מנחות, debating whether the disqualification is משום דמאיסותא and disappears after planting or משום כחישותא and persists, and it ends תיקו.
- A fourth question of רמי בר חמא asks about an elephant that swallowed a כפיפה מצרית and expelled it דרך בית הרעי. A question of whether it loses its טומאה is set aside based on the rule that כל הכלים יורדים לטומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מטומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה, and the real case becomes one where the elephant swallowed strips and inside it a basket formed. A doubt asks whether this is עיכול such that it becomes כלי גללים or כלי אדמה that אינו מקבל טומאה, citing that כלי אבנים כלי גללים וכלי אדמה אינם מקבלים טומאה לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים, or whether it is not considered digestion and remains מקבל טומאה. A proof attempt from עולא משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק about wolves swallowing babies leads to טהרו את הבשר but וטמאו את העצמות, distinguishing softness from hardness and leaving the wicker-basket case unresolved.
- A question of רב זירא asks about wheat that came down in the clouds, explained with רש״י’s case of clouds drawing up a boat of wheat and depositing it on land. The question is not for מנחות, since the wheat is good quality, but for שתי הלחם, weighing whether ממושבותיכם excludes only חוצה לארץ and would allow wheat from clouds, or whether it requires specifically ארץ ישראל and excludes even that. The Gemara affirms the scenario can occur with the report of עדי טייעא that wheat fell in an area of three פרסי and a כזבא high.
- A question of רב שמעון פזי asks about a stalk that brought a third before the עומר, was uprooted and replanted after the עומר, and then added further growth, asking whether permissibility follows the עיקר already permitted by the עומר or follows the תוספת requiring the next עומר. A suggested proof from grafting, where ילדה שסבכה בזקנה with fruits remains אסור even after adding two hundred, and from onions planted in a vineyard where even after the vineyard is uprooted the onion remains אסור even after adding two hundred, is turned back as the very doubt: whether the rabbis clearly rule בתר עיקר both לקולא and לחומרא, or whether they apply it only לחומרא and not לקולא. A conclusion remains תיקו.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions