Menachos 11
Summary
- Today’s learning in *Menachos* 11a continues the *Gemara*’s conclusion of the *Mishnah* on 6a about invalid *kemitzah*, focusing on cases where the *kohen*’s handful is deficient because it contains a foreign item like a rock, a grain of salt, or a small amount of frankincense, and it then moves into a precise, practice-based description of how *kemitzah* is performed and why it is considered one of the hardest Temple services. The *Gemara* then analyzes additional invalidations in a *minchah* involving too much or too little oil and too little *levonah*, presents a three-way *machlokes* about the minimum remaining amount of *levonah* needed at the time of burning, and distinguishes between *levonah* that accompanies a *minchah*, *levonah* offered alone, and the *levonah* in the *bezichin* of *lechem hapanim*. It closes with a discussion of excessive *levonah*, when loss of the excess prevents invalidation, and concludes with an extended note bringing the *Minchas Chinuch* and a *Chavatzeles HaSharon* explanation tied to a יסוד from the Rogatchover Gaon about whether *shechitah* becomes an *avodah* when performed by a *kohen*.
- The *Mishnah* rules that if a *kohen* performs *kemitzah* and a צרור or a גרגר מלח or a קורט של לבונה comes up in his hand, the *kemitzah* is פסול because הקומץ היתר והחסר פסול and the presence of the foreign item makes the שיעור of *solet* and oil deficient. The *Gemara* explains that each example is needed because a rock is not fit for offering, salt is fit for offering due to על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח, and *levonah* is established together with the *minchah* in the original vessel, yet all three still invalidate due to חסר. The *Gemara* challenges that the invalidation could instead be due to חציצה, and Rabbi Yirmiyah answers that the case is מן הצד so it does not constitute a barrier.
- Abaye asks Rava כיצד קומצין, and Rava answers כדקמצי אינשי, with Rashi understanding that all the fingers are involved. A *beraisa* from *Kesubos* identifies the finger next to the pinky as “זו קמיצה” because ממנה מתחלת הקמיצה, creating a tension with the implication that all five fingers are used. The *Gemara* resolves that the main grasp is with three fingers but the thumb and pinky are used להשוות, smoothing the edges so that the *kometz* is neither overflowing nor lacking.
- A *beraisa* derives from ומלא קומצו and בקומצו that *kemitzah* is neither מבורץ nor merely at the fingertips. The standard method is described as חופה שלוש אצבעותיו עד שמגיע על פס ידו וקומץ, establishing the grasp with the three middle fingers positioned onto the palm. This framing maintains a full required measure while preventing protrusion that would create a פסול of יתר.
- For *minchas machavas* and *minchas marcheshet*, where the *kemitzah* is taken from baked pieces, the *kohen* must be מוחק בגודלו מלמעלה ובאצבעו קטנה מלמטה to achieve precision. The *beraisa* declares וזו היא עבודה קשה שבמקדש, and the *Gemara* challenges with מליקה and חפינה as other candidates for that title. The conclusion is that *kemitzah* is אחת מעבודות קשות שבמקדש alongside *melikah* and *chafinah*.
- Rav Pappa states that the ideal reading of כדרך שקומצין אינשי is the hand oriented so the sides of the fingers face downward when entering the vessel. He raises unresolved questions about a *kometz* taken בראשי אצבעותיו, מן הצדדין, or ממטה למעלה, and the *Gemara* leaves them as תיקו. Rav Pappa similarly defines מלא חפניו of the *kohengadol*’s *ketores* on *Yom Kippur* as כדחפני אינשי and asks parallel questions about unusual modes of scooping and combining handfuls, which also remain תיקו.
- Rav Pappa asks whether placing the *kometz* by sticking it to the walls of the vessel counts as proper placement, with the ספק framed as whether merely being within the interior suffices or whether a conventional הנחה בתוך כלי is required, and it remains תיקו. Mar bar Rav Ashi asks whether placing it into a receptacle on the underside of an overturned vessel is valid, weighing whether “inside” alone suffices or whether placement must be כסדר, and it remains תיקו.
- The *Mishnah* summarizes the method as פושט את אצבעותיו על פס ידו and rules that ריבה שמנה, חיסר שמנה, and חיסר לבונתה are פסול. Rabbi Elazar explains ריבה שמנה as separating שני לוגין, and the *Gemara* asks why not define it as mixing in oil from חולין or from another person’s offering. Rav Yosef bar Tovya challenges that such a reading would undermine the פסול of oil in *minchas chotei*, where any oil is foreign, so the *Gemara* concludes Rabbi Elazar is stating a greater novelty that even two *logim* separated for the offering invalidates despite each *log* being ראוי in principle.
- The *Gemara* explains Rabbi Elazar’s basis from the *Mishnah*’s phrase ריבה שמנה rather than ריבה שמן. The wording implies “her oil,” teaching that even if two *logim* are designated as the offering’s oil, it is still an invalid ריבוי.
- A *beraisa* states that if the *levonah* is reduced to קורט אחד it is פסולה, while two קורטין make it כשרה according to Rabbi Yehudah, and Rabbi Shimon holds that even one קורט is כשרה and only פחות מכאן is פסולה. A further *beraisa* reading קומץ ולבונה שחסר כלשהו פסול conflicts with Rabbi Shimon’s leniency, and the *Gemara* resolves by emending it to כורט לבונה שחסר כלשהו פסול or by distinguishing between לבונה הבאה עם מנחה and לבונה הבאה בפני עצמה.
- Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that there are three positions: Rabbi Meir requires קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף, Rabbi Yehudah requires קומץ בתחילה ושני קורטין בסוף, and Rabbi Shimon requires קומץ בתחילה וכורט אחד בסוף. All three derive from the same verse, especially the phrase ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה, with Rabbi Meir requiring that the full original *levonah* remain through burning, Rabbi Yehudah deriving two *kurtin* via כל and an added ריבוי from את, and Rabbi Shimon not expounding את and thus requiring only one.
- Rabbi Yochanan limits the *machlokes* to לבונה הבאה עם מנחה, but holds that for לבונה הבאה בפני עצמה everyone requires קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף. Rabbi Yochanan also states that for לבונה הבאה בבזיכין, everyone requires שני קמצים בתחילה ושני קמצים בסוף. The *Gemara* explains that one might have equated the *bezichin* case to the leniencies of *minchah*-*levonah*, but the ruling rejects that comparison.
- A dispute between Rav Ami and Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha presents two views: one holds the *machlokes* exists only for לבונה הבאה עם המנחה and not for לבונה offered alone, while the other holds כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו, extending the dispute to standalone *levonah* as well.
- A *diqduq* from the *Mishnah* suggests that only deficient *levonah* is invalid while excess might be valid, but a *beraisa* states יתירה פסולה. Rami bar Chama explains the פסול as when one set aside שני קמצים, and he rules that if one is lost before *kemitzah* the excess never becomes fixed and the offering is not invalidated, but if it is lost after *kemitzah* it is already הוקבעו and remains פסול.
- Rami bar Chama extends the principle to *lechem hapanim* by ruling that if one set aside ארבעה קמצים לשני בזיכים and two are lost, the result depends on whether the loss occurred before or after סילוק בזיכין, which functions as the equivalent of *kemitzah*. The *Gemara* asks why this is not identical to the earlier case and answers that one might have thought the *bezichin* are already “selected” earlier so that arrival of the removal time is כמאן דפריקה דמי, and the statement teaches that the fixing still depends on the actual act of removal.
- The text returns to a prior point from the *Minchas Chinuch* in מצוה קפד on Rabbi Yochanan’s statement שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשר, explaining that it is only *bedieved* because entering the *heichal* without an *avodah* violates ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש as a ביאה ריקנית. The *Minchas Chinuch* grounds this in the principle שחיטה לאו עבודה היא, making *shechitah* insufficient to justify entry.
- The text cites *Berachos* 31b where Shmuel rules that שחיטה כשרה בזר and is treated as a מורה הלכה בפני רבו situation with liability of death. The Chasam Sofer asks why this ruling is not permitted as להפרישו מאיסורה, since requiring a *kohen* would lead to wearing bigdei kehuna containing שעטנז, while the Rambam holds a *kohen* may not wear bigdei kehuna שלא בשעת עבודה.
- The text presents a *Chavatzeles HaSharon* answer based on a יסוד attributed to the Rogatchover Gaon, tied to *Sotah* 14b’s claim that the blood is sanctified first by the knife at slaughter and then again by a vessel at reception. The approach asserts that although *shechitah* can be non-*avodah* and need not use a *kli shares*, when a *kohen* performs *shechitah* it becomes an *avodah* requiring *kli shares* and bigdei kehuna. The text then notes that this framework challenges the *Minchas Chinuch*’s explanation of why *shechitah* in the *heichal* cannot be done *lechatchilah*, because if a *kohen*’s *shechitah* is an *avodah*, the entry would no longer be a ביאה ריקנית and the original difficulty returns.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions