Menachos 101
Summary
- Today's learning on מנחות דף ק״א begins the twelfth פרק and continues the משנה about what is subject to פדיון and what is not, distinguishing between animals and מנחות/נסכים and between items that have entered a כלי שרת and those that have not. The presentation explains the ראב״ד’s reason that בהמה becomes קדושת הגוף immediately because it is immediately fit for הקרבה with minimal further action, while קטורת and מנחות require major preparatory actions and therefore reach קדושת הגוף only through sanctification in a כלי. It adds the מאיר שמחה’s explanation that a כלי creates צירוף for measured flour-based offerings, unlike an animal which is inherently a unified entity. The sugya then develops שמואל’s view that מנחות and נסכים can be redeemed while still טהור before entering a כלי שרת, addresses the משנה’s statement about נטמאו, and works through challenges and defenses involving קדושת הגוף, the comparison to בעל מום, and rabbinic policy about redeeming scarce הקדש items. The text then shifts to disputes among אמוראים about whether only טמאים are redeemable, and it enters a long רבי שמעון framework about טומאת אוכלין hinging on whether an item is permitted for benefit, whether it had שעת הכושר, and how principles like *chibas ha-kodesh* and “כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי” apply.
- The משנה states that once a מנחה or נסכים are placed into a כלי שרת they are not subject to פדיון. The משנה adds that birds and the wood, לבונה, and כלי שרת משנטמאו have no פדיון because פדיון is stated only by בהמות.
- The ראב״ד asks why בהמה becomes קדושת הגוף immediately upon verbal הקדשה, while קטורת and מנחות do not become קדושת הגוף until sanctified in a כלי. The ראב״ד answers that an animal is immediately fit for עבודה and is not *mechusar ma’aseh rabah* beyond שחיטה, while קטורת requires actions like כתישה and a מנחה requires בלילה, so קדושת הגוף is delayed until the כלי sanctifies it. The מאיר שמחה explains that an animal is a single unit upon הקדשה, but measured flour offerings require צירוף, and the כלי creates that צירוף for the required שיעור.
- שמואל rules that מנחה or נסכים can be redeemed even when טהור as long as they have not yet entered a כלי שרת. שמואל reads the משנה’s “נטמאו” as teaching a חידוש that even if they became טמא after entering a כלי שרת, they still cannot be redeemed, rather than limiting redemption only to the case of טומאה.
- The גמרא asks why it is necessary to teach that items sanctified in a כלי שרת cannot be redeemed even if they become טמא, since they are קדושת הגוף. The גמרא answers that one might have equated טמא to בעל מום because בעל מום is called “טמא,” and just as a בעל מום animal can be redeemed even after קדושת הגוף, one might have thought טומאה would allow redemption as well. The גמרא rejects this by saying the תורה’s “טמא” for בעל מום is not the same, and it adds that something sanctified in a כלי שרת is not found to be redeemed, with רש״י adding that even a בעלת מום animal after שחיטה has no פדיון, treating the knife as a כלי שרת.
- A major מחלוקת ראשונים appears about whether שחיטה requires a סכין of כלי שרת, based on the omission of “שחיטתן בכלי שרת” in the opening משנה of *eizehu mekomon* and תוספות’ inference from that omission. תוספות rejects the inference by citing derivations such as “ויקח את המאכלת” that imply עולה טעונה כלי and extending that requirement to other קרבנות, and it explains that the משנה’s mention of כלי by קבלה emphasizes that the כלי itself must be in צפון. The רמב״ם rules that לכתחילה שחיטה is with a סכין מכלי שרת, but בדיעבד slaughter with any implement used for חולין is כשר, including *kromei shel kaneh*.
- The גמרא cites a ברייתא on “ואם כל בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן לה׳” as referring to בעלי מומין שנפדו rather than literal בהמה טמאה, since literal בהמה טמאה is addressed elsewhere. The ברייתא excludes redemption on מום עובר by interpreting “אשר לא יקריבו” as applying to what is not fit to be brought at all, excluding something that is unfit today but fit tomorrow.
- The רמב״ם in איסורי מזבח teaches that just as a קרבן must be תמים ונבחר so too its נסכים must be תמימים ונבחרים, and it disqualifies poor-quality wine, wormy flour, and foul oil, and it requires chosen worm-free wood. The רמב״ם rules that flour, wine, oil, לבונה, birds, wood, and כלי שרת that became פסול or טמא are not redeemed because the verse “והעמיד והעריך” limits redemption to what can be “stood,” and these are not in “העמדה.” The presentation quotes the רמב״ם’s concluding principle that all עבודת השם should be done מן הנאה הטוב, including building a בית תפילה more beautiful than one’s home, feeding the hungry from one’s best food, and dedicating the finest possessions.
- רב הונא בר מנוח challenges שמואל from the משנה’s statement that birds, wood, לבונה, and כלי שרת that became טמא have no פדיון because פדיון was stated only by בהמה, arguing that wood, לבונה, and כלי שרת should be redeemable if not sanctified via כלי שרת. The גמרא introduces *chibas ha-kodesh* as the mechanism by which wood and לבונה can be treated as food for טומאה, but it limits that to a stage of readiness such as wood being prepared as גיזורין and לבונה being sanctified in a כלי, while כלי שרת can be purified in a mikveh. The גמרא then answers that even if on a דאורייתא level טהור items might be redeemable, the משנה’s rule reflects a rabbinic decree because such items are not שכיח, and it extends “not common” even to wood because worm-free wood is required and therefore scarce.
- רב פפא says that if שמואל had heard the ברייתא “המקדיש בהמה תמימה לבדק הבית אין פודין אותם אלא למזבח… שכל הראוי למזבח אינו יוצא מידי מזבח לעולם,” he would have retracted, because it implies that a טהור item fit for the מזבח cannot be redeemed out. The גמרא states that שמואל did hear it and did not retract, explaining that this too can be understood as a rabbinic policy tied to practical frequency, since blemishes that disqualify animals are common and therefore the case of redeeming such designated animals is treated as not שכיח. The רמב״ם rules that dedicating a תם animal to בדק הבית violates an עשה but takes effect, and that redemption is only on condition it be offered on the מזבח, and the משנה למלך raises whether the “cannot leave the מזבח” rule is דאורייתא or דרבנן and points to the sugya’s framing as דרבנן.
- רב כהנא rules that טמאים are redeemed and טהורים are not redeemed, and רבי אושעיא is presented in one version as agreeing and in another version as holding that even טהורים are redeemed. רבי אלעזר rules that all are redeemed only when טמא and not when טהור, except for עשירית האיפה של מנחת חוטא, which is redeemable even when טהור because the תורה says “מחטאתו על חטאתו,” teaching that a person who changes financial status can switch between the flour offering and the animal offering through redemption.
- רב הושעיא reports that פיגול במנחה according to רבי שמעון is not מטמא טומאת אוכלין, applying רבי שמעון’s general rule that food forbidden for benefit is not called אוכל. A ברייתא lists ערלה, כלאי הכרם, שור הנסקל, עגלה ערופה, ציפורי מצורע, פטר חמור, and בשר בחלב as מטמאין טומאת אוכלין according to the תנא קמא, while רבי שמעון says they are not, and רבי שמעון concedes בשר בחלב because it “היתה לו שעת הכושר.” רבי יוחנן explains רבי שמעון’s basis as “מכל האוכל אשר יאכל,” defining אוכל as something one can feed to others, and the גמרא resolves רבי שמעון’s concession in בשר בחלב by citing his view that it is אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה through a גזירה שוה from טרפה.
- A further ברייתא states that for רבי שמעון, some נותר is מטמא טומאת אוכלין and some is not, distinguishing between לן לפני זריקה as lacking שעת הכושר and לן לאחר זריקה as having it. The ברייתא says that פיגול in animal offerings does not מטמא טומאת אוכלין, yet it says פיגול במנחה does מטמא טומאת אוכלין, and the גמרא reconciles this by distinguishing whether the מנחה achieved שעת הכושר. The case of no שעת הכושר is explained as where it was sanctified במחובר, and the sugya tests this against whether redemption is possible and against רבי שמעון’s principle “כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי,” supported by רבי שמעון’s statement that פרה אדומה is מטמא טומאת אוכלין because it had שעת הכושר and by ריש לקיש’s claim that פרה can be redeemed even on the fire. The גמרא limits “עומד לפדות” by distinguishing פרה, where there is a מצוה to redeem if a nicer one is found, from מנחות where there is no מצוה to redeem, and it similarly refines the “לינה before זריקה” case by interpreting it as a situation where there was no practical time in the day for זריקה before sunset.
- The sugya frames *chibas ha-kodesh* as giving קדשים special status such that items not normally susceptible to טומאה can become susceptible, but only when ready for their use. The מנחת חינוך in מצוה קמ״ה defines two dimensions of *chibas ha-kodesh*: it can treat non-food קדשים like wood and לבונה as אוכל for purposes of טומאה, and it can treat otherwise-unprepared food as if it were הוכשר לקבל טומאה. The מנחת חינוך says the first dimension is conceptually understandable as elevating significance, but he leaves the second dimension as צריך עיון because he does not understand why belovedness would make something “as if water came upon it,” and he contrasts this with the possibility that הכשר itself creates the status of אוכל.
- The presentation ends by anticipating a major question raised by תוספות and others about how items obligated to be burned could still be subject to טומאת אוכלין, invoking the idea that “כל העומד לשרוף כשרוף דמי” and the concern of *ketutei michtat shi’urei* affecting the כביצה requirement.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions