Menachos 54
Summary
- Today's *daf* is Menachot 54, beginning on the last line of Menachot 53b, and it opens with the *halacha* that all *menachot* come as *matzah*, with the exceptions of the *chametz* in some of the breads of *lachmei todah* and the *shtei halechem* of Shavuot. The *Gemara* presents a *baraita* about whether these required-*chametz* offerings may be leavened with apples, connects that dispute to a *Mishnah* in Terumot about an apple of *terumah* that causes dough to rise, and resolves that even if apple-leavening is not full *chametz* it still creates *chametz nuksheh* sufficient to make the mixture forbidden. The *Gemara* then shifts to the difficulty of *kemitzah* in *minchat chotei* and the question of adding water, introduces the broader question of measuring changing *shiurim* as *kemot shehen* or *lechmot shehayu*, and tests it through *tum’at ochlin* cases from Uktzin and through separating from figs and dried figs in the laws of *terumah* and *terumat ma’aser*. The sugya reframes part of the debate as a question of *dichuy* in prohibitions, rejects *yesh dichuy ba’isura* with a *tiyuvta*, and concludes that *gerogerot* are treated differently because they can be restored to their earlier state.
- Today's learning begins with the fifth *perek* of Menachot stating that all *menachot* must be *matzah*, and a *minchah* that is *chametz* is invalid because the *chametz* is *me’akev*. The text gives two exceptions where *chametz* is required: the *chametz* breads of *lachmei todah* and the *shtei halechem* brought on Shavuot.
- A *baraita* teaches *ein machmitzin betapuchin*, that one may not make the *lachmei todah* and *shtei halechem* *chametz* using apples, and instead they must be leavened in a conventional way such as with yeast or sourdough. The text records that *mishum* Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel it is said *machmitzin*, permitting apple-leavening, and Rav Kahana reports the teaching in the name of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon. The *Gemara* asks which view fits the *Mishnah* in Terumot, “תפוח שריסקו ונתנו בתוך עיסה והחמיצה הרי זו אסורה,” where a crushed apple of *terumah* placed into dough that then rises makes the mixture forbidden even with enough *chullin* for *bittul* because the apple’s effect is *nikar*. The *Gemara* answers that even according to the *Rabbanan* who disallow apple-leavening for those offerings, the dough becomes *chametz nuksheh* rather than full *chametz*, so the apple’s impact still prevents *bittul* even though it is not “perfect” *chametz* for *menachot* and does not create a *karet* liability on Pesach.
- Rav Ila states, “אין לך הקשה לקמיצה יותר ממנחת חוטא,” because *minchat chotei* has no oil and no *levonah*, making it dry and making a precise *kemitzah*—neither lacking nor excessive—especially difficult. The text explains that the *kohen* must fill the three middle fingers perfectly and smooth protrusions with the thumb and pinky, which is harder when the flour is dry. רבי יצחק בר אבדימי says *minchat chotei* may be kneaded with water and is valid, reading “לא יתן עליה שמן” as a prohibition only against oil, not against adding other liquid such as water. The text cites Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning that oil is withheld “שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר,” while water does not create that kind of adornment.
- The *Gemara* initially proposes that the dispute about adding water reflects a general question of measuring *shiurim* according to the object’s current state or its prior state, and it frames this as *kemot shehen mesha’arin* versus *lechmot shehayu mesha’arin*. The text then rejects that as the basis for the water dispute and states that everyone measures *kemot shehen*, while the disagreement is whether “dry” means dry only from oil or dry from anything at all. The sugya nevertheless digresses to test the *girsa* and meaning of the Uktzin formulation about meat that expands or contracts, presenting major Amoraim on each side regarding whether the correct reading is *kemot shehen* or *lechmot shehayu*.
- A *Mishnah* in Uktzin about calf meat that swells and old meat that shrinks is used to probe whether *tum’at ochlin* depends on a current *k’beitzah* or the prior measure, and the text notes the *shiur* for *tum’at ochlin* is *k’beitzah*. A *baraita* rules that calf meat that lacked the measure and then expanded is *tahor* retroactively and *tamei* from then on, and the *Gemara* initially answers that the forward *tum’ah* could be only *derabbanan* for those who measure by the prior state. The continuation “וכן בפיגול וכן בנותר” is reinterpreted as “וכן בטומאת פיגול וכן בטומאת נותר,” based on the rabbinic decree of *tum’ah* on *notar* and *pigul*, and the text explains the novelty that the rabbis still apply their *tum’ah* even in this compounded *derabbanan* setting. A second case in the *baraita* states that meat which had the measure and then shrank is *tamei* in the past and *tahor* from then on, and Rava narrows the dispute to a case where it had the measure, shrank, and then expanded again. Rava defines the split as *yesh dichuy ba’isura* versus *ein dichuy ba’isura*, and the *Gemara* challenges the existence of *dichuy* in prohibitions with a *baraita* that rules items that shrink below the measure and later re-expand become *tamei* again and re-trigger liabilities of *pigul*, *notar*, and *chelev*. The text concludes: “תיובתא למאן דאמר יש דיחוי באיסורין תיובתא.”
- The *Gemara* brings a *tosefta* teaching “תורמין תאנים על הגרוגרות” only *b’minyan*, explaining that dried figs shrink and create distortion if one separates by measurement or weight. The text applies the broader *shiur* question by arguing that if one measures by prior state, separating by count makes sense, while if one measures by current state, separating by count can become *marbeh b’ma’asrot*, and it cites the *baraita* that “המרבה במעשרות פירותיו מתוקנים ומה שריבה מקולקל” because the excess portion taken becomes *mekulkal* and remains mixed with *tevel*. The *Gemara* then points to the *seifa* that permits “גרוגרות על תאנים במידה,” and it resolves the tension by saying the case is not *ma’aser* but *terumah gedolah*, where the amount is governed by *ayin yafeh* rather than a fixed tenth. The text challenges that with the *seifa* statement of Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yosi, “אבא היה נוטל עשר גרוגרות שבמקצוע על תשעים שבכלכלה,” and answers that it refers to *terumat ma’aser*, which is compared to *terumah gedolah* through “ונחשב לכם תרומתכם כדגן מן הגורן וכמלאה מן היקב,” making it separable by estimation and thought and associated with *ayin yafeh*. The *Gemara* still treats the practice of taking ten by count as evidence for measuring by prior state, but Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Elazar answers: “שאני גרוגרות הואיל ויכול לשולקן ולהחזירן לכמו שהן,” making dried figs a special case because they can be returned to their earlier form.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions