Menachot 57

Sugya Map

• Issue: Liability for a second leavening (machmitz achar machmitz) of a meal offering (mincha) that was initially leavened and subsequently disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard (yotzei).
• Nafka Mina: Does psul yotzei entirely remove the mincha from the category of a sacred offering such that further chimutz carries no chiyuv?
• Primary Sources: Menachot 57a; Vayikra 2:11 ("כל מחמצת וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה'").

Text Snapshot

"בעי רב פפא: חימצה, ויצאת, וחזר וחימצה, מהו? מי אמרינן: כיון דיצאת איפסילה לה ביוצא, וכי הדר ומחמיץ לה לא מיחייב עלה משום מחמץ אחר מחמץ? או דלמא: כיון דחימצה לא מהני ליה בה פסול יוצא, וכי הדר ומחמיץ לה מיחייב עלה משום מחמץ אחר מחמץ? תיקו." (Menachot 57a) Dikduk/Leshon: "חימצה" implies completion of the leavening melacha (Rashi, Menachot 57a s.v. וחזר וחימצה). "איפסילה לה ביוצא" underscores the definitive nature of this disqualification.

Readings

• Rashi: Argues that the initial chimutz already rendered the mincha pasul. Yotzei is merely another disqualification that doesn't fundamentally change the prior chiyuv's applicability for chimutz, potentially allowing for a machmitz achar machmitz (Rashi, Menachot 57a s.v. או דלמא כיון דחימצה לא מהני ליה בה פסול יוצא).
• Steinsaltz (first side): Posits that psul yotzei is so absolute it severs the mincha's status as an offering "to the Lord," thereby removing it from the scope of issurei korbanot like chimutz (Steinsaltz, Menachot 57a s.v. בעי רב פפא).

Friction

• Kushya: Rav Pappa's safek is the kushya itself: Does psul yotzei so fundamentally alter the mincha's status that it precludes further chiyuvim for chimutz?
• Terutz (two sides): One view asserts that yotzei removes the item from its sacrificial context entirely, rendering it a non-korban. The other suggests that once an issur (initial chimutz) has been transgressed, the item's pasul status is established, and subsequent psulim (like yotzei) don't alleviate the potential for further chiyuvim related to its initial form.

Intertext

• Me'ilah: One is liable for me'ilah even on kodshim pasulim (e.g., yotzei, tamei), provided they retain some kedusha (Me'ilah 2a). This supports the idea that psul doesn't always nullify all kedusha-related chiyuvim.

Psak/Practice

The Gemara leaves Rav Pappa's safek unresolved with "תיקו" (Menachot 57a). In halacha, particularly concerning malkot (lashes), an unresolved safek typically results in leku'llah (leniency). Therefore, one would not be liable for the second chimutz.

Takeaway

Rav Pappa's safek illuminates the complex interplay between different psulim and chiyuvim, questioning whether a fundamental disqualification can overwrite existing or potential liabilities on a sacred object.