Menachos 24
Summary
- Today’s learning begins on מנחות דף כד, two lines from the bottom of דף כג עמוד ב, and frames the sugya as the point where מנחות meets טומאה וטהרה. The גמרא presents רב כהנא’s ascent from בבל to ארץ ישראל and his encounter with בני רב חייא, where he answers a series of questions about whether a כלי שרת can be מצרף separated portions of a מנחה for טומאה, when צירוף applies only to what “needs” the כלי, and whether טומאה can be transmitted through אויר. רב כהנא then questions בני רב חייא about performing קמיצה from separated portions, leading into a debate over whether צירוף כלי is דאורייתא or a חומרא דרבנן, and the sugya proceeds through further unresolved questions and a later dispute between רב and אביי about three related portions created by loss and replacement, including parallel rules for טומאה and for קמיצה. The text then adds extended למדנישע הערות tying the earlier תערובות sugyos to the מחלוקת רבי יהודה וחכמים on מין במינו, citing the ר״ן’s framework and raising difficulties from the prior daf, and finally recounts “hashtag rest of the story” about רב כהנא’s move to ארץ ישראל from בבא קמא and a יד מלאכי about סיני versus עוקר הרים and why halacha often follows the בקי rather than the sharper dialectician.
- A case arises of an עשרון שחלקו, where the two halves are placed in a כלי and are not touching. A טבול יום touches one half and the question is whether the other half becomes טמא as well, and רש״י explains why the scenario uses a טבול יום rather than an ordinary טמא, because an ordinary טמא would create a chain through the כלי that is not available to a טבול יום. בני רב חייא cite the משנה דתנן כלי מצרף מה שבתוכו לקודש and wonder whether this requires the contents to touch, and רב כהנא answers by insisting on the לשון: the משנה says כלי מצרף rather than כלי מחבר, so the צירוף applies even when the parts are not touching.
- Bני רב חייא ask what happens if someone inserts an additional portion into the same כלי שרת that is not part of the measured מנחה. רב כהנא rules that צירוף applies only to what is צריך לכלי, and what is not צריך לכלי has no צירוף, because the כלי’s power to be מצרף depends on the halakhic need of those contents to be in that כלי for the avodah.
- Bני רב חייא then ask whether a טבול יום who inserts his finger into the airspace between the two halves, without touching them, transmits טומאה as if the halves were joined by צירוף. רב כהנא responds that only כלי חרס מטמא מאויר, and since the case involves a כלי שרת and not כלי חרס, the airspace does not transmit טומאה.
- After answering three questions, רב כהנא asks בני רב חייא whether one may perform קמיצה מזה על זה, taking the קומץ from one separated half when the full עשרון is present in one כלי but not physically connected. The question turns on whether צירוף כלי is דאורייתא, which would allow it even לקולא for קמיצה, or merely a חומרא דרבנן for טומאה in קדשים. בני רב חייא respond זו לא שמענו but attempt to infer from a משנה about שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו שנתערבו, where the ruling depends on whether one can still take a proper קמיצה from each.
- רבא rejects the proposed proof by suggesting the mixture case may involve גושין המחולקין העשויין כמסרק, where contact exists in a limited way, so the inference to non-touching is not compelled. רבא then brings a ברייתא from the word “ממנו” in והרים ממנו בקומצו, teaching מן המחובר שלא יביא איסרון בשני כלים ויקמוץ, and the sugya considers whether this implies that one כלי, even without touching, would be acceptable. אביי counters that “two כלים” could still involve contact, such as כפיזא בגו כבא, and the sugya also describes a one-כלי analogue with a partition like עריבותה של תרנגולים where the two sides still touch, leaving the non-touching case unresolved.
- רב ירמיה asks צירוף כלי וחיבור מים מהו, where מנחה portions inside the כלי are joined by צירוף while one of them is joined through water to flour outside the כלי, and he asks whether the chain extends outward. He then asks the reverse case, חיבור מים וצירוף כלי ונגע טבול יום בחוץ מהו, where the טומאה begins outside and would need to pass inward through the water-connection and then through צירוף כלי. The גמרא leaves both questions as תיקו.
- רבא asks about a case where one half of a split עשרון was already טמא before being placed into the כלי, and then a טבול יום touches that already טמא half inside the כלי, questioning whether the other half becomes טמא via כלי מצרף or whether the touched half is “saturated” and cannot become טמא again to trigger צירוף. אביי challenges the premise by seeking proof that טומאה can accrue upon existing טומאה, citing a משנה in מסכת כלים about סדין טמא טומאת מדרס that was made into a וילון, becoming טהור מן המדרס but טמא מגע מדרס, alongside רבי יוסי’s view that the מגע requires direct touching by the זב. The sugya attempts to derive from the cases of sequential and simultaneous טומאות, including מודה רבי יוסי בשני סדינין המקופלים, but distinguishes b’vat achat from בזה אחר זה and concludes that no decisive proof emerges.
- רבא presents a scenario where one half was lost, a replacement was designated, and then the lost piece was found so that all three are now in the same ביסה, and he rules for טומאה that whichever of אבוד or מופרש becomes טמא is מצטרף with ראשון, while the other does not, and if ראשון becomes טמא then both join it. אביי argues that regardless of which becomes טמא, all three become טמא because כולהו בני בקתא דהדדי נינהו, treating the three as mutually belonging to the same conceptual unit. A parallel set of rules is stated for קמיצה: according to רב, taking the קומץ from אבוד permits eating the שיריים of אבוד and ראשון but not מופרש, and taking from מופרש permits מופרש and ראשון but not אבוד, while taking from ראשון leaves both others not eaten due to uncertainty; אביי says that even if one performs קמיצה from any of them, שניהם אינם נאכלין because the entanglement prevents clarity of what is being permitted. רב פפא questions whether אביי would at least allow the actor’s own שיריים, and רב יצחק בריה דרב משארשיא questions how the קומץ itself can be offered amid the ספק of חולין, and רב אשי answers that קומץ בדעתו דכהן תליא מלתא and that the כהן’s intent to take an עשרון governs the act.
- The notes return to earlier dapim of תערובות in מנחות and the מחלוקת רבי יהודה וחכמים on מין במינו בטל or לא בטל, with רבי יהודה deriving מין במינו לא בטל from ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר, and the חכמים deriving instead that עולים אינם מבטלים זה את זה. The ר״ן in מסכת נדרים דף נב עמוד א explains that ביטול ברוב arises when two elements are fundamentally opposed and force a decision, while similar elements do not compel ביטול and instead “strengthen” each other, and he frames the dispute as רבי יהודה following דמיון העצם and the חכמים following דמיון ההיתר. The text then challenges this as an oversimplification in light of the prior daf’s depiction that even within רבי יהודה’s orbit one needs not only physical sameness but also a halakhic bridge between the items, and it states that further analysis is needed to align the ר״ן with the sugya. The ר״ן’s central application is then given: דבר שיש לו מתירין is not בטל because its future permissibility weakens the oppositional contrast required for ביטול, contrasted with רש״י’s formulation עד שתאכלנו באיסור תאכלנו בהיתר, and the notes raise questions about how this logic plays in יבש ביבש and why רש״י calls present consumption “באיסור” when ביטול is a דין.
- The text supplies the narrative background from בבא קמא דף קיז עמוד א: a would-be מוסר threatens to inform, רב forbids him, the man persists, and רב כהנא kills him, after which רב instructs רב כהנא to go to ארץ ישראל and accept not to challenge רבי יוחנן for seven years. רב כהנא arrives, first interacts with ריש לקיש, and is described as ארי עלה מבבל, but in רבי יוחנן’s shiur he remains silent due to his acceptance and is repeatedly moved back rows until he prays that the embarrassment substitute for the seven years. He then asks רבי יוחנן to repeat the shiur, challenges and answers until restored to the front, and רבי יוחנן misreads his facial expression as mocking, causing חלישות הדעת and רב כהנא’s death; רבי יוחנן later learns the misunderstanding and revives רב כהנא, after which רב כהנא declines to return.
- A יד מלאכי in כלל ר׳ is cited around the theme of סיני ואוקר הרים and the tendency for halacha to follow the בקי rather than the sharpest dialectician, drawing on the sugya in הוריות and related patterns. The text connects this to תוספות on עירובין about הלכתא כרב ששת over רב חסדא due to סיני עדיף, and it cites רבי מאיר as an עוקר הרי הרים for whom the halacha is not established because שלא יכלו חבריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו. It adds ריש לקיש versus רבי יוחנן as another case where the halacha generally follows רבי יוחנן, and it includes בית שמאי ובית הלל as a major example where sharper תלמידים do not determine halacha. The story of רב כהנא and רבי יוחנן is presented as another support for the claim that even when a Babylonian dialectician appears stronger, halacha can still follow the established סיני model.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions