Menachot 26

Sugya Map

• Issue: The sugya on Menachot 26a grapples with several intricate aspects of Temple service, primarily:
  • The conditions for an offering's validity based on the status of its shiyurim (remainder), especially concerning animal offerings (meat, fat, other emurim) and meal offerings.
  • The takanat kli sharet (sanctification in a service vessel) for the kometz (handful) of a meal offering, including debates on its necessity and proper execution.
  • The precise moment when the burning of the kometz renders the shiyurim permissible for consumption by the kohanim.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • When is an offering horatza (accepted) or pasul (disqualified) if its shiyurim are partially lost, burned, or impure? This impacts whether blood can be sprinkled or the kometz burned.
  • The proper procedure for handling the kometz (e.g., hand vs. vessel, right vs. left hand), determining its validity and avoiding piggul.
  • The exact timing for hechsher shiyurim (permission for the remainder), which dictates when kohanim may consume their portion without incurring karet.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah, Menachot 26a
  • Gemara, Menachot 26a
  • Baraitot (e.g., Tosefta Zevachim 1:11, 4:15, and others cited implicitly)
  • Tanakh: Leviticus 1:8, 2:2, 6:2-3, 6:10, 17:6; Genesis 19:28

Text Snapshot

The sugya on Menachot 26a, after an initial discussion about tum'ah and zarikah of blood, delves into the Mishnah concerning the kometz and shiyurim of a meal offering. A pivotal baraita is introduced:

• "ובמנחה אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק" (Menachot 26a)
  • This line presents an initial conundrum. It states that regarding a meal offering, even if it is entirely intact ("אפילו כולה קיימת"), the priest should not sprinkle the blood. The nuance here is "כולה קיימת" (its entirety remains) – implying that despite full physical integrity, there's a halakhic impediment. This stands out because meal offerings don't involve blood sprinkling, making the statement seem misplaced or paradoxical. The Gemara's resolution of this (as minchat nesachim) is a central interpretive move.

Later, the Gemara explores the source for sprinkling blood if only certain emurim remain:

• "ואשכחן חלב, יותרת ושתי כליות מנלן?" (Menachot 26a)
  • This question, "We found (a source for) fat, from where do we know about the lobe (of the liver) and the two kidneys?", highlights the specificity of halakha. The Gemara had just derived that fat alone is sufficient from Leviticus 17:6 ("והקטיר חלב"), but other sacrificial organs (the emurim) require a further source. The subsequent derivation from "לריח ניחוח" (for a pleasing aroma) is a key interpretive principle.

The sugya then shifts to the requirement of a service vessel for the kometz:

• "והרבנן אומרים: החומץ צריך כלי שרת. כיצד? נוטל בכלי שרת, ומקדש בכלי שרת, ומעלה ובו בכלי שרת." (Menachot 26a)
  • This baraita clearly outlines the Rabbis' view that the kometz requires kli sharet (service vessel) at three distinct stages: netilah (taking), kidush (sanctification), and ha'ala'ah (bringing up to the altar). The repetition of "בכלי שרת" (in a service vessel) emphasizes the comprehensive nature of this requirement. The Gemara's subsequent discussion centers on whether Rabbi Shimon agrees with this full scope or only partially.

Finally, the sugya addresses the hechsher for the shiyurim:

• "מאימתי מותרים השיירים? רבי חנינא אומר: משיאחז בהן האור. רבי יוחנן אומר: משיאכל רובו של קומץ." (Menachot 26a)
  • This direct dispute between R' Chanina and R' Yochanan concerning "From when are the shiyurim permitted?" is critical. R' Chanina holds mish'ya'achaz bahen ha'esh (when the fire takes hold of it), while R' Yochanan requires mish'ya'achel rubo shel kometz (when the majority of the handful is consumed). The precise timing here determines when the kohanim can partake of the shiyurim without karet. The debate itself is about the minyan (threshold) of the pe'ulah (action) of burning to achieve hechsher.

Readings

Rashi: Reconciling Rav Sheila and the Baraita

Rashi, in his commentary on the opening discussion of our daf, explains the Gemara's terutz to a kushya against Rav Sheila. The baraita states: "דם שנטמא וזרקו, בשוגג – הורצה, במזיד – לא הורצה" (Menachot 26a s.v. "תא שמע דם שנטמא"). This seemingly contradicts Rav Sheila, who held that even if the priest sprinkled the blood b'mezid (intentionally) after it became tamei (impure), the offering is still horatza (accepted).

Rashi clarifies the Gemara's re-interpretation: "הכי קאמר: דם שנטמא וזרקו, כי זרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד, אם נטמא בשוגג – הורצה, אבל אם נטמא במזיד – לא הורצה." (Menachot 26a s.v. "הכי קאמר"). The chiddush here is Rashi's elucidation of the Gemara's dochek (strained interpretation) to save Rav Sheila's opinion. The baraita is not discussing the kavanah (intention) during the act of sprinkling (zerikah), but rather the kavanah at the time the blood became impure. Thus, if the blood became impure b'shogeg (unwittingly), the offering is accepted regardless of the intent during sprinkling. However, if the blood became impure b'mezid, it is not accepted. This distinction shifts the focus from the mezid of zerikah to the mezid of tum'ah, thereby aligning the baraita with Rav Sheila's view that tum'at dam b'shogeg is mutar (permitted) through tzibbur (communal) offerings, a concept known as tum'ah hutra b'tzibbur. This highlights a key rabbinic methodology of re-reading seemingly contradictory baraitot to maintain the consistency of an Amora's position, rather than immediately dismissing it.

Tosafot: Distinguishing Basar and Emurim

Tosafot, in their comments on "אשכחן חלב, יותרת ושתי כליות מנלן" (Menachot 26a s.v. "אשכחן חלב"), contribute to our understanding of the specific categories of sacrificial parts. The Gemara explicitly asks for a source for yoteret (lobe of the liver) and kilyot (kidneys) being sufficient to sprinkle blood, even after finding a source for chelev (fat). Tosafot adds a crucial parenthetical: "ובשר נפקא לן מקרא בפרק כיצד צולין (פסחים דף פ.)" (Menachot 26a s.v. "אשכחן חלב").

The chiddush from Tosafot is a subtle but significant one. While the sugya focuses on chelev and emurim (like yoteret and kilyot) because they are burned on the altar, Tosafot reminds us that basar (meat, which is eaten by kohanim) also has a shiur (minimum quantity) that permits blood sprinkling. By referencing Pesachim 80a, Tosafot implicitly notes that the source for meat's sufficiency is distinct from that of fat or other emurim. This underscores the meticulous nature of halakhic derivation: basar is for akhlilah (eating), chelev is for haktarah (burning), and other emurim like the lobe and kidneys, while burned, are not "fat" in the strict sense. Each requires its specific drasha (derivation), preventing a blanket rule. This precision in categorizing sacrificial components is vital for understanding the underlying logic of korbanot.

Rashba: The Nuance of "L'rei'ach Nichoach"

The Rashba (attributed to him on Sefaria, though the text is often found in other Rishonim like R' Gershom) further elaborates on the question of yoteret and kilyot. He notes the Gemara's question, "יותרת ושני כליות מנלן, דאם לא נשתייר אלא הן דזורק" (Menachot 26a s.v. "יותרת ושני כליות מנלן"), and then provides an important rationale: "ויש לומר דלכך צריך לרבויי נהו דלא בשר הוא דאינה עומדת לאכילה ולא חלב נמי הוא" (Menachot 26a s.v. "יותרת ושני כליות מנלן").

The chiddush here is the Rashba's explicit articulation of why yoteret and kilyot cannot be subsumed under either "meat" or "fat." They are not basar because they are not meant for consumption by kohanim. They are not chelev in the specific sense derived from the verse "והקטיר חלב" (Leviticus 17:6), which refers to the distinct fatty portions. Therefore, these emurim necessitate the broader interpretive principle of "לריח ניחוח" (for a pleasing aroma), which encompasses "anything that you offer up on the altar for a pleasing aroma" (Menachot 26a). This chiddush illuminates the Gemara's iterative process of seeking ever-broader principles. First, chelev is derived specifically; then, the need for a general principle for all emurim is recognized, leading to "לריח ניחוח." This demonstrates the Gemara's meticulousness in ensuring that every sacrificial component has a clear textual basis for its halakhic status.

Friction

The most potent kushya in the sugya concerns the baraita's statement: "ובמנחה אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק" (Menachot 26a). This line is problematic on multiple fronts. First, meal offerings (מנחות) do not involve the sprinkling of blood (זריקת דם) at all; that is a rite specific to animal offerings. Second, the Mishnah itself states that if the shiyurim of a meal offering become impure, are lost, or burned, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the offering is pasul (unfit). This implies that a mincha can be accepted, and its kometz burned, provided its shiyurim are valid. Why, then, would a mincha that is "entirely intact" (אפילו כולה קיימת) prevent blood sprinkling, especially when sprinkling isn't even part of its ritual? The statement seems fundamentally confused and contradictory to the context.

The Gemara's terutz, articulated by Rav Pappa, is a masterstroke of interpretive clarity: "מנחה זו מנחת נסכים היא" (Menachot 26a). Rav Pappa explains that the baraita is not referring to an independent meal offering (מנחה עצמאית) but rather to the meal offering of libations (מנחת נסכים) that accompanies an animal offering. The logical progression is as follows: "הוה אמינא: הואיל וגוררת היא את הזבח, הויא לה כזבח" (Menachot 26a). One might have thought that since this mincha is gorreret (accompanies) the animal offering, it is comparable to the offering itself. Thus, if the animal offering itself became impure or was lost, one might think that the pure minchat nesachim could act as the "remainder" (שיירים) that allows the blood of the animal to be sprinkled. To counter this misconception, the baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha: "אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק" – meaning, even if the minchat nesachim is entirely pure, it cannot serve as shiyurim for the animal offering, and therefore, the blood of the animal is not sprinkled.

This terutz brilliantly resolves the kushya by fundamentally recontextualizing the subject of the baraita. It clarifies that the "meal offering" is not an offering for which its own blood is sprinkled (an absurdity), but an ancillary item that might mistakenly be considered a substitute for the shiyurim of the main animal offering. The baraita thus teaches a critical distinction between primary sacrificial components and their accompanying libations, reinforcing that only parts inherent to the animal (or specific to the mincha itself) can validate its ritual. This demonstrates the Gemara's deep textual sensitivity and its ability to resolve apparent contradictions by identifying subtle shifts in reference.

Intertext

Genesis 19:28 and the Principle of Rov Isur

The sugya provides a striking example of midrash halakha drawing from narrative texts to establish precise legal shiurim (measurements or thresholds). In the dispute between Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan regarding "מאימתי מותרים השיירים?" (Menachot 26a) – from when are the shiyurim of a meal offering permitted for consumption by the kohanim – Rabbi Yochanan holds that it's only "משיאכל רובו של קומץ" (when the majority of the handful is consumed by the fire). His reasoning, as explained by Rav Yehuda to Rabba bar Rav Yitzchak, is derived from the verse: "והנה עלה קיטור הארץ כקיטור הכבשן" (Genesis 19:28). The Gemara explains: "אין כבשן מעלה קיטור עד שיאחז האור ברובו" (Menachot 26a). Just as a furnace does not produce smoke until fire consumes the majority of its fuel, similarly, the kometz (which is described as being "made to smoke" – "והקטיר... לזכרונה," Leviticus 2:2) does not achieve its full pe'ulah (effect) of permitting the shiyurim until the majority of it is consumed by fire.

This intertextual link is profound. It demonstrates the rabbinic method of deriving halakha from seemingly disparate sources. A verse describing the destruction of Sodom is repurposed to establish a practical halakha in Temple service. This isn't mere analogy; it reflects a belief in the inherent unity and interconnectedness of the Torah, where even descriptive passages contain latent legal principles. The concept of rov isur (majority consumption for hechsher) is thus rooted in a foundational biblical image of complete combustion and smoke production.

"לריח ניחוח" – A Principle of Inclusivity

Another powerful intertextual derivation in the sugya comes from the phrase "לריח ניחוח" (for a pleasing aroma). After establishing that fat alone can permit blood sprinkling from Leviticus 17:6 ("והקטיר חלב לריח ניחוח"), the Gemara questions the source for yoteret (lobe of the liver) and kilyot (kidneys) having the same effect ("יותרת ושתי כליות מנלן?" Menachot 26a). Rabbi Yochanan answers with a broader principle: "כל דבר שאתה מעלה לריח ניחוח" (Menachot 26a). Anything that is offered up on the altar "for a pleasing aroma" is sufficient to permit the blood.

The Gemara then highlights the necessity of both derivations: "וצריכא למכתב חלב וצריכא למכתב לריח ניחוח" (Menachot 26a). If only "fat" was written, one might exclude the lobe and kidneys as they are not "fat." If only "for a pleasing aroma" was written, one might include minchat nesachim (meal offerings accompanying libations) as they also bring a pleasing aroma. Therefore, the Torah needs both: "fat" to limit it to sacrificial parts of the animal (excluding minchat nesachim), and "for a pleasing aroma" to include all such sacrificial parts (fat, lobe, kidneys, etc.). This demonstrates a finely tuned exegetical method, where seemingly redundant phrases in the Torah are shown to be essential for defining the precise scope and limitations of halakha. The drasha from "לריח ניחוח" serves as a foundational principle for including various emurim under the rubric of valid sacrificial components.

Psak/Practice

The sugya in Menachot 26a lays crucial groundwork for several halakhot related to korbanot that resonate in later halakhic codes, particularly Rambam's Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot.

Firstly, the principle of sheyarei zevach (remainder of the animal offering) and sheyarei mincha (remainder of the meal offering) is foundational. The requirement of a kezayit (olive-bulk) of basar (meat) or chelev (fat) or other emurim for the blood to be sprinkled (as per Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion, accepted as halakha) is codified. Rambam rules: "אין הדם נזרק אלא אם נשתייר מן הבשר כזית או מן החלב כזית או מן האמורים כזית" (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:11). This directly reflects the sugya's discussion and derivations from "לריח ניחוח." The distinction between mincha atzmait and minchat nesachim also impacts the psak, affirming that nesachim cannot validate the main offering.

Secondly, the takanat kli sharet (sanctification in a service vessel) for the kometz is a critical procedural halakha. The Gemara's conclusion that "החומץ צריך כלי שרת" at all three stages (taking, sanctifying, bringing up) for the Rabbis, and that Rabbi Shimon also requires it for taking and sanctifying, establishes the importance of the kli sharet. This is also codified by Rambam: "הקומץ צריך כלי שרת בשעת קמיצה וקידוש והעלאה" (Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:14), aligning with the Rabbis' view. The implication for piggul (disqualification due to improper intent) for a kometz handled improperly also stems from this sugya.

Lastly, the debate regarding hechsher shiyurim (permitting the remainder) – whether it occurs mish'ya'achaz bahen ha'esh or mish'ya'achel rubo shel kometz – has direct ramifications. While the Gemara doesn't explicitly conclude on R' Yochanan's position of rov isur in this specific context, the general principle of rov (majority) is widely applied in halakha. The need for the kometz to be fully consumed (or mostly so) before the kohanim can partake of the shiyurim is a crucial meta-psak heuristic, emphasizing the completeness of the sacrificial act.

Takeaway

This sugya meticulously delineates the conditions for an offering's validity based on its residual parts, emphasizing the centrality of emurim and the kometz in Temple ritual. It showcases rabbinic methodology in re-interpreting baraitot to align with Amoraim, distinguishing between different types of meal offerings, and deriving nuanced halakhot from precise textual readings, often from seemingly disparate biblical verses.

---

Footnotes:

• Rashi, Menachot 26a s.v. "תא שמע דם שנטמא וזרקו כו'".
• Rashi, Menachot 26a s.v. "הכי קאמר".
• Tosafot, Menachot 26a s.v. "אשכחן חלב כו'".
• Pesachim 80a.
• Rashba (Attributed), Menachot 26a s.v. "יותרת ושני כליות מנלן".
• Menachot 26a.
• Leviticus 17:6.
• Menachot 26a.
• Menachot 26a.
• Menachot 26a.
• Menachot 26a.
• Leviticus 2:2.
• Menachot 26a.
• Leviticus 17:6.
• Menachot 26a.
• Menachot 26a.
• Menachot 26a.
• Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:11.
• Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:14.