(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 57



(a) We just discussed Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's ruling 'Hini'ach Basar al-gabei Gechalim; Hipach bo, Chayav, Lo Hipach bo Patur'. Rebbi Yochanan cannot be speaking when it would ...
1. ... not have cooked without stoking - because then it is obvious that in the Reisha, he would be Patur.
2. ... it would have cooked anyway (even on one side and) even without being stoked - because he then ought to be Chayav in the Reisha too.
(b) We therefore establish the case - when if it had not been stoked, it would have reached the stage of being one third cooked (Ma'achal ben-D'rusa'i) on one side, and now, due to the stoking, it reached that stage on both sides.

(c) And Rebbi Yochanan is coming to teach us - that one is not Chayav for cooking up to the stage of Ma'achal ben D'rusa'i on one side only.

(d) Rava gives the Shi'ur to be Chayav on Shabbos there where the meat reaches the stage of fully cooked, as - one G'rogeres, but in one location, to the stage of Ma'achal ben-D'rusa'i, even if it is only on one side.

(a) Ravina queries Rava's statement from the Mishnah in Shabbos, where the Tana rules that someone who bores a tiny hole in a piece of wood, say - is Chayav.

(b) We think that the Tana must be referring to boring two or three holes, and not just one - because of what use is one tiny hole?

(c) Two or three holes are more Chayav than one - because they can be joined and made into one larger one.

(d) This poses a Kashya on Rava - who requires the Shi'ur Ma'achal ben D'rusa'i to be in one place, without taking into account the possibility of joining the parts that are cooked.

(a) Rav Ashi replies that the Mishnah speaks even about boring a hole in one spot. And he resolves the objection that we just raised concerning the uselessness of one tiny hole - by pointing out that a tiny hole in a piece of wood is fit to insert the pin of a key.

(b) According to the second Lashon - Rava permitted the Shi'ur of Ma'achal ben D'rusa'i, even in two or three places.

(c) Ravina tries to prove Rava right from the same Mishnah in Shabbos - which he thinks, must be speaking about two or three holes (as we explained in the first Lashon).

(d) But Rav Ashi refutes Ravina's proof - by establishing the Mishnah when he bores only one hole, which is fit for the pin of a key (as we explained there).

(a) In the Pasuk "Kol ha'Minchah Asher Takrivu la'Hashem", the Beraisa learns from ...
1. ... "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem" - that one is Chayav for being Machmitz the Kometz.
2. ... "Kol ha'*Minchah*" - that one is Chayav for being Machmitz the entire Minchas Marcheshes (before the Kemitzah has been taken).
3. ... "*Kol* ha'Minchah" - that this Din extends to all other Menachos, too.
(b) We learn that the prohibition is confined to a Kasher Minchah, and does not pertain to a Pasul one - from "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem" which implies that automatically).

(c) Rava Papa asks whether one is Chayav for taking a Minchah that one made Chametz and that then became Yotzei, and making it Chametz again. He might be ...

1. ... Patur - because one can only be Chayav for being Mechametz a Kasher Minchah, not a Pasul one (as we just learned).
2. ... Chayav - because the P'sul of Yotzei cannot take effect on a Chametz Minchah, rendering it a straightforward case of 'Mechametz Achar Mechametz'.
(d) The outcome of Rav Papa's She'eilah is -Teiku.
(a) Rav Mari asks about being Machmitz a Minchah on top of the Mizbe'ach (before it has been placed on the Ma'arachah). In spite of the fact that he has already brought the Minchah on the Mizbe'ach, it might nevertheless be subject to "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem" (in which case the Kohen will nevertheless be Chayav) - because the fact that it has yet to placed on the Ma'arachah to be burned is considered as if "Lo Takrivu ... " has not yet been fulfilled.

(b) The outcome of this She'eilah too, is - Teiku.




(a) The problem with the current Limud from "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem" is - that having taught us the prohibition by the entire Minchah from "Kol ha'Minchah", why is it necessary to specifically mention the La'av in connection with the Kometz alone.

(b) We cite a Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili includes Minchas Nesachim in the Din of Chimutz. We might have thought otherwise, because, unlike the category of Nesachim referred to in the Pasuk - none of the Minchas Nesachim is eaten.

(c) Based on what we just said, Minchas Nesachim incorporates - Minchas Kohanim and Minchas Kohen ha'Mashi'ach, since they too, are entirely burned.

(d) The reason that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili only mentions Minchas Nesachim is - because of his dispute with Rebbi Akiva, which does not extend to the other cases.

(e) According to Rebbi Akiva, "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem" comes - to include Lechem ha'Panim.

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is that - seeing as the Minchas Nesachim is kneaded with oil, and oil is Mei Peiros, based on the principle 'Mei Peiros Ein Machmitzin', it ought not to be subject to Chimutz.

(b) This Kashya does not pertain to other Menachos - because other Menachos, which contain only one Lug of oil, require water to make up for the liquid deficiency (whereas the Minchas Nesachim which contain three Lugin), do not.

(c) To answer the Kashya, Resh Lakish explains - that according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (despite the large amount of oil) they actually mix water into the Minchas Nesachim.

(a) The problem with Rebbi Akiva, is that according to his own opinion in Sh'tei Midos, where he says the Midas ha'Yavesh was not sanctified (and the Lechem ha'Panim only became sanctified when they were placed on the Shulchan) - the Lechem ha'Panim should not be subject to Chimutz.

(b) To circumvent this Kashya, Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, amends the Beraisa - by switching the opinions of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (so that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is the one to include the Lechem ha'Panim in the prohibition of Chimutz).

(c) This conforms with another statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who said - that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and a Talmid of Rebbi Yishmael said one and the same thing.

(a) If, according to Rebbi Yashiyah there, the Midas ha'Lach in the Beis-Hamikdash, was anointed both on the inside and on the outside, the Midas ha'Yavesh - was anointed only on the inside.

(b) According to Rebbi Yonasan, on the other hand, the Midas ha'Lach was anointed only on the inside, whereas the Midas ha'Yavesh - was not sanctified at all.

(c) The Rebbe of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan - was Rebbi Yishmael.

(d) The Talmid of Rebbi Yishmael to whom Rebbi Yochanan was referring was - Rebbi Yashiyah ...

(e) ... who, like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, holds that Midas ha'Yavesh was sanctified.

(a) Rebbi Yonasan proves his opinion from the Pasuk "mi'Moshvoseichem Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah Shetayim Sh'nei Esronim ... Chametz Te'afenah, bi'Kurim la'Hashem" - because it implies that they only become sanctified after they have been baked ...

(b) ... due to the fact that the oven in which they are baked is a K'li Shareis.

(c) Rebbi Yashiyah counters that - Bikurim la'Hashem" refers to before the baking.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan did not also say that Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yonasan say the same thing - because they disagree over the outside of the Midas ha'Lach (which was sanctified according to Rebbi Akiva, but not according to Rebbi Yonasan).

(a) The Machlokes between Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan is based on the Pasuk "Vayimshachem Va'yekadesh *Osam*". According to Rebbi Yashiyah, "Osam" comes to preclude the outside of the ha'Midas Yavesh from Kedushah. Rebbi Yonasan disagree with this - on the grounds that he considers a K'li Yavesh to be a K'li Chol, which does not require a Pasuk to preclude it from Kedushah. The Pasuk must therefore be coming to preclude the outside of Midas ha'Lach.

(b) When Rav Papa queried Rebbi Akiva 've'Ha Ika Bisa be'Lach' he meant - that they had a kneading-vessel called 'Bisa' in the Beis-Hamikdash, which would have sanctified the Lechem ha'Panim. So why does he say that the Lechem ha'Panim was not sanctified until after it was baked?

(c) Abaye replied - that Rebbi Akiva is speaking when they kneaded the dough on a leather mat, and not in the Bisa.

(d) Rebbi Yonasan is nevertheless justified in proving that the Midas ha'Yavesh was not sanctified, from the Pasuk that we just quoted ("mi'Moshvoseichem ... "). Because he knew that it cannot be speaking when they measured the flour in a different K'li (and not the Isaron) - since the Torah specifically mentions the Isaron ("ve'Isaron So'les", in Parshas Metzora), and it is inconceivable that the Kohanim would use a different K'li.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Chol Se'or ve'Chol D'vash Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" - the principle that bringing on the Mizbe'ach, the Shirayim of any Korban, part of which has already gone on the Mizbe'ach constitutes a La'av.

(b) This La'av incorporates all the cases listed in the Beraisa. The parts that needs to go on the Mizbe'ach from ...

1. ... a Chatas, an Asham, Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim are - the Eimurin and the Chalavim.
2. ... the Omer is - the Kometz.
3. ... Sh'tei ha'Lechem are - the Kivsei Atzeres.
4. ... Lechem ha'Panim are - the Bazichin.
5. ... Menachos is - the Kometz.
(c) The Tana precludes the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim from Hagashah (to the south-western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach) - because no part of the Lechem goes on the Mizbe'ach.

(d) Rav Sheishes attributes their insertion in the above list - to the fact even though no part of the intrinsic Korban goes on the Mizbe'ach, an external part of the Korban (the Kivsei Atzeres and the Bazichin, do, as we explained).

(a) In connection with the above list ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "ve'el ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Ya'alu le'Ratzon" - that if one brings any of the above on to the ramp, he is Chayav, as if he actually brought it on to the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk there "Se'or u'Devash Korban Reishis Takrivu *Osam*" - that it is with regard to bringing Se'or and D'vash on the Mizbe'ach that the Torah reckons the Kevesh like the Mizbe'ach, but not with regard to placing any of the above on it.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns from "Osam" like the Beraisa, which learns from ...
1. ... "Korban Reishis *Takrivu*" - that a Yachid is not permitted to bring a Korban consisting of Se'or or D'vash.
2. ... "Osam" - that even a Tzibur may only bring the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shavu'os, but not any other time as a Nedavah.
(c) We would have thought that, if not for ...
1. ... "Takrivu", a Yachid should bring his Nedavah of Se'or or D'vash - in order to fulfill his obligation of "Motzeis Sefasecha Tishmor Ve'asisa".
2. ... "Osam", a Tzibur is permitted to bring Se'or as a Korban Nedavah, even though a Yachid is not - because they at least bring it as a Chovah (in the form of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem).
(d) By a Nidvas Tzibur, we mean - purchasing it with money from the collecting boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,