Menachos 55
Summary
- Today's learning in Menachos 55a continues the earlier question of whether halachic measurements are evaluated *kemos she’hen* or *lo kemos she’hen*, and it applies that question to separating *terumas ma’aser* from figs in different processed states. The *Gemara* brings a *beraisa* that permits separating *te’enim* for *gerogeros* only where it is customary to turn figs into pressed figs, forbids separating *gerogeros* for *te’enim* even in such a place, and resolves the tension by establishing that the *reisha* assumes no *kohen* is present while the *seifa* assumes a *kohen* is present. The sugya then emphasizes the Torah requirement to give *terumas ma’aser* *min hayafeh* and expands it, through the Rambam, into a broader principle that anything done for Hashem should be done with the best. The *Mishnah* then shifts back to *menachos* as *matzah*, requiring careful guarding against *chametz* throughout the process and teaching multiple *malkos* for distinct stages, and the *Gemara* derives these laws from the pesukim while clarifying when to use *davar shehayah b’klal v’yatza min haklal* versus *klal u’prat*. The section closes with the Baal HaTurim and Rabbeinu Bachyei explaining why *se’or* and *devash* are excluded from *menachos* as symbols of the *yetzer hara*, with a supporting line from Berachos 17a about *se’or sheb’isa*.
- Today's *daf* begins with a *beraisa* stating that one may separate *te’enim* for *gerogeros* only *b’makom sher’gilin la’asos te’enim gerogeros*, because the figs are expected to be converted into pressed figs there. The same *beraisa* rules that one may not separate *gerogeros* for *te’enim* even in a place where that conversion is customary. The *Gemara* frames the background values as giving *min hamuvchar* on the one hand and giving a *davar hamiskayem* on the other, since *te’enim* are more *chashuv* while *gerogeros* last longer.
- The *Gemara* infers from the *beraisa* that the permission depends on local practice and asks why it should matter if a *kohen* is present, citing the rule that *b’makom sheyesh kohen torem min hayafeh*. The *Gemara* answers that the *reisha* must be *d’leika kohen*, so the concern is spoilage before delivery and the local ability to process figs into *gerogeros* makes the separation workable. The *Gemara* then challenges the *seifa*, since *b’makom she’ein kohen torem min hamiskayem* would seem to favor *gerogeros*, and it concludes that the *seifa* is *d’ika kohen*. The *Gemara* accepts the split reading that the *reisha* is without a *kohen* and the *seifa* is with a *kohen*.
- Rav Pappa derives a methodological rule that the *Gemara* prefers forcing a single *beraisa* into two contextual readings over attributing it to two different *tannaim*, phrased as דחקינן ואוקימנא מתניתין בתרי טעמי ולא אוקימנא בתרי תנאי. Tosafos explains the alternative that was available: the entire *beraisa* could be established as *d’leika kohen*, with the *reisha* following the *Rabbanan* and the *seifa* following רבי יהודה who holds *l’olam torem min hayafeh*.
- The sugya states that when a *kohen* is present one must give *min hayafeh*, applying it to the choice between *te’enim* and *gerogeros*. The Torah’s language at the end of Parshas Korach is quoted to anchor this, including the pesukim about *terumas ma’aser* and the command to take it *מכל חלבו*, with Targum Onkelos rendering חלבו as שופרי. The Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos מצוה קכט, citing the Sifri, reads the phrase ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו as implying sin if the Levi fails to separate from the best even when he separates properly. The Rambam at the end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe’ach extends the principle beyond offerings, teaching that one who wants to merit should bring the most choice of that type, proving it from Hevel’s offering being *ומחלביהן* and concluding *והוא הדין לכל דבר שהוא לשם הא-ל הטוב* with examples such as building a *beis tefillah*, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and dedicating property, ending with כל חלב לה'. The *Chasam Sofer* is brought on Avos, interpreting יהי ביתך פתוח לרווחה ויהיו עניים בני ביתך as a call to open one’s home and give expansively even if it leaves one’s own household living more humbly.
- The *Mishnah* states that all *menachos* are kneaded with *poshrin* and are guarded so they do not become *chametz*, and it rules that if they become *chametz* one violates a *lo ta’aseh*. The *Mishnah* adds that one is liable for separate stages such as kneading, arranging, and baking, implying distinct *malkos* for each significant act. The *Gemara* derives the inclusion of the *shiurei ha’minchah* in the *issur chametz* from the phrase לא תיאפה חמץ חלקם, with Reish Lakish reading *chelkam* as extending the prohibition even to the portion eaten by *kohanim*.
- A *beraisa* asks why the Torah needs לא תיאפה חמץ when it already says לא תיעשה חמץ, and it explains that singling out baking teaches that each discrete act in the process generates its own liability. The *Gemara* answers that it still learns two points from the same pasuk: לא תיאפה teaches separate liabilities for stages, and חלקם teaches the prohibition applies to the *kohanim’s* share as well. The *Gemara* argues that the word order indicates two teachings, reasoning that if only the *shiurim* point were intended the Torah could have written חלקם לא תיאפה חמץ.
- The *Gemara* asks why לא תעשה and לא תאפה are not treated as *klal u’prat* that would limit the prohibition to baking alone, and it answers in the name of Rav Aftoriki that *klal u’prat ham’ruḥakim zeh mi’zeh* are not judged as *klal u’prat*. A challenge is raised from a *beraisa* about the *chatas nasi* being slaughtered in the north, where a *hava amina* suggests only that offering requires *tzafon*, which seems to assume a distant *klal u’prat* structure. Rav Ashi rejects that framing, stating it is not *klal u’prat* but rather a *prat u’klal*, and he explains that the *hava amina* to exclude other *chata’os* from *tzafon* comes from the limiting word אותו rather than from *klal u’prat* logic, with the continuation deferred to the next *daf*.
- The Baal HaTurim explains the exclusion of *se’or* because the *yetzer hara* is like *se’or*, and he adds that *devash* is also warned against because the *yetzer hara* is sweet like honey. The text cites Berachos 17a where Rav Alexandri’s post-*Shemoneh Esrei* prayer identifies the obstacle to doing Hashem’s will as שאור שבעיסה ושיעבוד מלכויות, with Rashi defining *se’or sheb’isa* as the *yetzer hara* that ferments a person. Rabbeinu Bachyei expands the symbolism by tying korbanos to *kapparah* and *teshuvah* and asking how symbols of the *yetzer hara* could belong in a korban, adding that דבש and אשה share the same *gematria* and associating *se’or* with the *yetzer hara* of *avodah zarah* and *devash* with the *yetzer hara* of *arayos*. The Na’am HaTorah is cited distinguishing that *se’or* is excluded entirely while *devash* can apply to the leftovers, linking this to the idea that *arayos* has a permitted framework while *avodah zarah* does not.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions