Menachos 20
Summary
- Today's learning in *Menachos* דף כ centers on when actions in the *korban minchah* are *me’akev* versus when they are not, and it tests Rav’s rule that repetition in the Torah signals *ikuv* by challenging it from *melichah*. The *Gemara* brings a *baraisa* in which Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon treat salt as indispensable based on “ברית מלח עולם,” then answers either by aligning Rav with the *Tanna* of the *Mishnah* who validates a *minchah* even without salt or by redefining “ברית” as the equivalent of repetition. The sugya then re-reads the long verse in Vayikra about salt through a detailed *baraisa* that derives which items require salt and which are excluded, using *klal u’prat u’klal* and repeated limiting phrases. The piece closes with *Rishonim* and *Baalei Tosafos* offering reasons for salting offerings, and with a *mashal* attributed to the Dubna Maggid about how despair can become a tool of the *yetzer hara*, contrasted with the preserving, future-oriented effect of *kaparah* symbolized by salt.
- The *Mishnah* teaches that if one did not pour, mix, break, salt, wave, bring near, or anoint the *minchah*, the *halachah* is that it is *kesheirah*. The statement appears as a list of ancillary actions described in the Torah in detail yet not treated as indispensable in this framing. The *Mishnah* is read as establishing a baseline that multiple missing procedures do not invalidate the offering.
- Rav states: כל מקום שהחזיר לך הכתוב בתורת המנחה אינו אלא לעכב, meaning that whenever the Torah repeats an element in the context of *toras ha-minchah*, the repetition makes it *me’akev*. The *Gemara* initially infers that where the Torah does not repeat, the element is not *me’akev*. The sugya assumes this as the working rule until it is challenged.
- Rav Huna challenges Rav from salt, asserting that *melichah* is not repeated and yet is *me’akev*. A *baraisa* derives *ikuv* from the phrase “ברית מלח עולם הוא,” with Rabbi Yehudah saying it establishes a binding *bris* regarding salt, and Rabbi Shimon deriving it by analogy from “ברית כהונת עולם,” concluding that just as offerings cannot exist without *kehuna*, so too they cannot exist without salt. The challenge presses that salt is treated as indispensable even without the kind of repetition Rav appears to require.
- Rav Yosef answers that Rav follows the *Tanna* of the *Mishnah*, since the *Mishnah* says “לא מלח כשר,” implying salt is not *me’akev*. Abaye contests whether “לא מלח כשר” means no salting at all, arguing by parallel to “לא יצק” that the wording can mean the act is valid if performed by a non-*kohen*, so “לא יצק” means “לא יצק כהן אלא זר,” and “לא מלח” could likewise mean “לא מלח כהן אלא זר.” The *Gemara* rejects this for salting by reasoning that a *zar* cannot approach the *mizbe’ach* to perform *melichah*, so “לא מלח” must mean omission entirely, leaving the *Mishnah* at odds with Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon and leaving Rav aligned with the *Mishnah*. The *Gemara* also offers an alternative answer that even without literal repetition, since the Torah writes “ברית,” it is “כמאן דתנא בקרא דמי,” treating “ברית” as the functional equivalent of repetition for *ikuv*.
- The *Gemara* challenges the claim that salt is not repeated by citing the verse “וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח,” and the fuller verse is presented as including “ולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיך מעל מנחתך” and again “על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח.” The *Gemara* answers that repetition only signals *ikuv* when it is fully extra, and here the apparent repetitions are needed for multiple *derashos*. The sugya therefore turns to a technical *baraisa* that assigns distinct legal outcomes to the verse’s multiple terms.
- The *baraisa* says that if the Torah had written “קרבן במלח,” one would include even *etzim* and *dam* because they are called *korban*, and it therefore teaches “מנחה” to restrict the requirement to items like a *minchah*, defined as cases where “אחרים באים חובתה.” The *baraisa* raises an alternative that *minchah* is unique because it is *matir* and could then include *dam* as *matir*, and it uses “מעל מנחתך” to exclude “ולא מעל דמך.” It then says one might think the entire *minchah* requires salt, and it teaches “קרבן” to limit salting to what is actually brought on the *mizbe’ach*, not the whole *minchah*. It includes the *levonah* that comes with the *minchah* because it comes “בכלי אחד,” and it includes *levonah* that comes independently, *shnei bezichei levonah*, *ketores*, *minchas kohanim*, *minchas kohen mashiach*, *minchas nesachim*, the *imurim* of multiple offerings, *ivrei olah*, and *olas ha-of*, from “על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח.” The practical outcome of the *baraisa* is that many *mizbe’ach* items require salt while *dam* and certain other cases are excluded, and within *minchah* the obligation is limited to the portion actually offered.
- The *Gemara* asks why the *baraisa* starts by sounding inclusive and excluding only a couple of items, yet ends by needing “על כל קרבנך” to include many more categories. The *Gemara* explains that without the ending phrase, the verse would be “קרבן כלל ומנחה פרט,” yielding “אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט,” so only *minchah* would be included; the ending “על כל קרבנך” creates “כלל ופרט וכלל” so inclusion extends to “כעין הפרט.” The *Gemara* identifies “אחרים דבאים חובה” as *etzim* and then tests whether *dam* should qualify because it has *nesachim*, but it answers that *nesachim* come with *imurim* as “אכילה ושתיה,” and then refines the similarity to *minchah* through “לבונה באה עמה בכלי אחד” and through the enabling function of *etzim* for burning, distinguishing this from the relationship between *dam* and *nesachim*. The sugya then probes whether the model should require both “אחרים באין בו לחובה” and being a *matir*, potentially narrowing inclusion to *levonah* in the *bezichin* that is *matir* the bread, and it rejects that by arguing from the need for the separate exclusion “ממנחתך ולא דמך” that the inclusion is broader than that narrow case.
- The *Gemara* questions why “ממנחתך” excludes *dam* rather than excluding *eivarim*. Rami bar Ḥama responds “חס ושלום דלא לימטי ליה לרבי הכי,” and the *Gemara* argues it is more reasonable to include *eivarim* because of multiple similarities to *minchah*: “אחרים באים מחמתה,” “אשה,” “בחוץ,” “נותר,” “טומאה,” and “מעילה.” The *Gemara* entertains including *dam* because it is *matir* and becomes disqualified at sunset like *minchah*, but it resolves that the greater similarity lies with *eivarim*, so *dam* is excluded.
- The *Gemara* asks who holds that *etzim* are called *korban* and answers that it is Rabbi, citing a *baraisa* that “קרבן” teaches one can donate wood, supported by the verse “קרבן העץ” in Nechemiah. Rabbi says donated wood is a *korban minchah* and requires salt and *hagashah*, and later statements attribute to Rabbi that wood would require *kemitzah* and would itself need wood. Because Rabbi would not exclude *etzim* from salt, the *Gemara* concludes “סמי מכאן עצים,” removing *etzim* from the earlier exclusion framework. The *Gemara* then asks what the verse excludes besides *dam*, and it answers “אפיק עצים ועייל נסכים,” substituting *nesachim* as the additional excluded category.
- A separate *baraisa* states “אבל היין והדם והעצים והקטרת אין טעונין מלח,” creating tension whether it follows Rabbi or the *Rabbanan*. The *Gemara* says if it is Rabbi there is a problem with *etzim*, and if it is the *Rabbanan* there is a problem with *ketores* because the earlier list included it. The *Gemara* resolves by bringing the view of Rabbi Yishmael b’no shel Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Broka, who defines “כעין הפרט” as something that “מקבל טומאה” and “עולה לאישים” and is on the “מזבח החיצון,” excluding *etzim* for not being *mekabel tumah*, excluding *dam* and *yayin* for not “עולה לאישים,” and excluding *ketores* for not being on the “מזבח החיצון.”
- Rashi in Parshas Vayikra brings a *midrash* that the “מים התחתונים” complained when the waters were split, and Hashem promised closeness through two applications on the *mizbe’ach*: *nisuch ha-mayim* on Sukkos and salt from the sea accompanying offerings. Ramban cites Rashi and says it is a *midrash* rather than *pshat*, and he explains that it is not respectful for “לחם השם” to be bland without salt, adding that this explains why *etzim* and *dam* are excluded because they do not fit the honor-based food framing. Daas Zekeinim mi’Baalei Tosafos says salt is “דבר המתקיים” and signals that “הקרבנות ברית עולם,” with *kaparah* giving ongoing preservation, and it explains that knowing one is “נקי מחטאו” leads a person to be careful not to sin again, while lack of cleansing can lead to continued sin in line with “כיוון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה נעשית לו כהיתר.” Daas Zekeinim frames this with the *mashal* of dirty versus clean clothing and the verse “בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים,” tying the “ברית” of salt to sustaining future behavior rather than only rectifying the past.
- A verse in Koheles is quoted: “שמח בחור בילדותך... ודע כי על כל אלה יביאך האלוקים במשפט,” and a teaching in Shabbos 63a is cited that “עד כאן דברי יצר הרע מכאן ואילך דברי יצר טוב.” The Dubna Maggid’s reading treats even “ודע כי על כל אלה יביאך האלוקים במשפט” as the *yetzer hara* persuading a person that since the bill is unpayable, he should indulge further, illustrated by a poor traveler lured into a luxurious hotel and confronted with an impossible invoice. The conclusion rejects resignation and aligns with “בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים,” presenting *kaparah* and the symbolic “דבר המתקיים” of salt as enabling renewed cleanliness and future vigilance.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions