Menachos 75
Summary
- The text learns מנחות דף ע״ה from the משנה at the bottom of דף ע״ד עמוד ב׳ and explains how oil, mixing, baking, smearing, pouring, and breaking function in different מנחות, with major disputes about when *belilah* is done and which מנחות require *yetzikah*. It derives key rules from pesukim and a גזירה שוה of קרבנך קרבנך between מנחת מחבת and מנחת מרחשת, distinguishes מנחת מאפה תנור from מנחות done in a כלי שרת, and then develops the laws of *petitah* and its exclusions. It ends by connecting the שיעור of *petitah* (כזית) to the ברכות on cooked bread (*chavitzah*) and raises Rav David Soloveitchik’s question about why a ברכת המצוות on אכילת קדשים is not stated, bringing the משנה למלך’s נוסח and a conceptual distinction between the mitzvah of קדשים being eaten and personal חיוב אכילה, alongside the רא״ש that a berachah of “על אכילת” requires a כזית.
- All מנחות that are נעשות בכלי שרת require three placements of oil: מתן שמן בכלי קודם לעשייתן, *belilah*, and *yetzikah*. Rashi explains the order as first placing oil into the כלי שרת, then adding סולת, then adding oil again to fulfill *belilah* by mixing the סולת with the oil, and finally adding oil a third time to fulfill *yetzikah*. The משנה treats the oil as entering the מנחה in three phases learned from pesukim.
- The גמרא asks what “כל המנחות הנעשות בכלי” excludes and Rav Papa answers that it excludes מנחת מאפה because it is prepared in a תנור that is not a כלי שרת. The sugya states that מנחת מאפה has only two placements of oil and lacks *yetzikah*. The text presents this as the practical difference between מנחות prepared in a כלי and the מנחה prepared in the תנור.
- A baraita derives from “ומנחת מרחשת קרבנך סלת בשמן תעשה” that מנחת מרחשת requires placing oil into the כלי before adding the סולת, because the סולת is placed on top of the oil. It connects מנחת מרחשת to מנחת מחבת through the shared word קרבנך, learning that just as מרחשת has מתן שמן בכלי so does מחבת, and just as מחבת has *yetzikah* and *belilah* so does מרחשת. The result is that both מחבת and מרחשת are treated as having all three מתנות.
- The משנה states “חלות בלולות דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים סולת,” and the text frames the question as when *belilah* is done in those מנחות that are baked or fried before קמיצה. The חכמים rely on “סלת בלולה בשמן” to require mixing while the מנחה is still סולת, and רבי relies on “חלות בלולות בשמן” to place *belilah* after it is already חלות. The חכמים lay out a process in which oil is placed in the כלי, סולת is added, more oil is added and mixed as סולת, then it is kneaded and baked or fried, then broken, then oil is poured for *yetzikah*, and then קמיצה is performed, while רבי’s process puts kneading and baking before *belilah* and performs *belilah* after *pesisa*.
- The חכמים argue to רבי that by לחמי תודה it also says חלות and בלולות בשמן, yet “אי אפשר לבוללם משחלו,” so “חלות בלולות” cannot prove that *belilah* happens at the חלה stage. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak explains the impossibility as “רביעית שמן היא היך מתחלקת לכמה חלות,” since לחמי תודה has forty breads and the oil amount cannot be mixed into forty baked loaves, whereas mixing at the סולת stage remains feasible. The sugya uses this as an objective argument that *belilah* is meant at the סולת stage.
- The משנה rules that in מנחת מאפה תנור, חלות require *belilah* while רקיקין require *mishchah*. It states “כיצד מושחן כמין כי והשאר נאכל לכהנים,” and the גמרא explains “כמין כי” as “כמין כי יווני,” a Greek letter form whose exact shape is debated among Rishonim. The text describes this as a decorative or limited smearing rather than saturating the entire מנחה as in *belilah*.
- A baraita presents רבי שמעון’s view that מנחת מאפה תנור may be brought as מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין, requiring a לוג שמן split half for each, with *belilah* for the חלות and *mishchah* for the רקיקין. One version states the רקיק is smeared “על פני כולו” and the remaining oil is returned to the חלות, while רבי שמעון בן יהודה משום רבי שמעון aligns with the משנה that the smearing is “כמין כ״י” and leftover oil is eaten by the כהנים. Another baraita about רקיקין brought alone describes repeated smearing until the entire לוג is used, and the רבי שמעון version again states “כמין כ״י” with leftover oil eaten by the כהנים.
- A further משנה states “כל המנחות הנעשות בכלי טעונות פתיתה,” and Rav Papa explains the exclusion as שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים because they are baked in an oven that is חול and thus not “נעשות בכלי,” so they do not require *petitah*. A baraita derives *petitah* from “פתות אותה פתים ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה היא,” using “מנחה” as a ריבוי to include other מנחות for *petitah* while “אותה” excludes two breads, and it treats מנחת מאפה as included for *petitah* even though it is not prepared in a כלי.
- The same pasuk is used to expand *yetzikah* to “כל המנחות” through “מנחה,” yet it then excludes מנחת מאפה through “עליה שמן” and “היא,” so מנחת מאפה is left without *yetzikah*. The גמרא questions why the exclusion is not מנחת כהנים, and Rava answers that two exclusions are needed because מנחת מאפה has two forms, חלות and רקיקין, while מנחת כהנים would not require two מיעוטים. The text ties this back to the earlier conclusion that מנחת מאפה has two oil placements and lacks the third, *yetzikah*.
- The משנה describes *petitah* for מנחת ישראל as folding one to two, two to four, and then separating, while מנחת כהנים is folded similarly but not separated, and מנחת כהן משיח “לא היו מכפלה.” Rava reconciles a baraita that has folding for כהן משיח by saying it is folded to two but not to four. רבי שמעון states that מנחת כהנים and מנחת כהן משיח have no *petitah* because they have no קמיצה, and it concludes “וכולן פוסמן כזית,” establishing that the pieces remain significant and are not ground back into סולת.
- A baraita reads “פתות” as implying two, “פתים” as implying multiple, and “אותה” as limiting the action so that there is *petitah* but not *petitah* upon *petitah*. It presents מנחת ישראל as folded and then separated, while the כהנים versions are folded without separation. The sugya contrasts this with תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל who holds “מפרך להו עד דמהדר להו לסולת,” which becomes relevant to later discussion of edible pieces and berachot.
- Rav Yosef rules that *chavitzah* with bread pieces of כזית gets המוציא and without כזית gets מזונות, and he supports המוציא for cooked bread from a baraita about a כהן who eats מנחות and says המוציא, aligning this with “וכולן פסיסתן בכזית.” Abaye challenges him from the view that *petitah* can be reduced to סולת and from a baraita where one is “דלקיט מכולן כזית” and still fulfills מצה, implying bread status despite small pieces. Rav Yosef answers with cases of “בשיעורן” and then “בבא מלחם גדול,” and the sugya concludes with Rav Sheshet that even פירורין without כזית can receive המוציא, while Mar bar Rav Ashi limits it to where there is “תוריתא דנהמא עליה.”
- The text cites Rav David Soloveitchik’s question from שיעורים במסכת זבחים that the baraita only lists שהחיינו and המוציא when a כהן brings and eats a מנחה, yet אכילת קדשים is a מצוה and should require a ברכת המצוות like the sugya of קרבן פסח, leaving “צריך עיון” on why it is not mentioned. It brings the משנה למלך, cited by the חינוך in קל״ד, that the נוסח for a כהן is “אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרן וציוונו על אכילת קדשים,” paralleling the נוסח of ברכת כהנים. It then ties in the sugya in יומא דף ל״ט עמוד א׳ about the blessing in the breads during Shimon HaTzaddik’s era and the later curse when each כהן received even less than a כזית and “הצנועים מושכין את ידיהם,” using Acharonim to argue that אכילת קדשים is a mitzvah on the חפצא that the קדשים be eaten rather than a personal חיוב to eat. It adds Rav David’s point that even if the mitzvah side does not require a כזית, a ברכה phrased “על אכילת” would require כזית, invoking the רא״ש in ערבי פסחים סימן כ״ה that מרור needs כזית “משום דמברך על אכילת מרור,” and applying that structure to the ברכת המצוות of אכילת קדשים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions