Menachot 21aמנחות כ״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 21a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
21aכ״א א

אפיק עצים ועייל נסכים דתניא אבל היין והדם והעצים והקטרת אין טעונין מלח

The Gemara responds: Wood is removed from the baraita, and insert in its place wine libations, teaching that they do not require the addition of salt. As it is taught in a baraita: But the wine libations and the blood, and the wood and the incense, do not require salt.

מני אי רבי קשיא עצים אי רבנן קשיא קטרת

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the ruling of the baraita concerning wood is difficult, as the baraita rules that wood does not require salt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood does require salt. If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling of the baraita concerning incense is difficult, as they taught in the baraita on 20a that any item for which another item is necessary requires salt, and this includes the incense, which is burned with wood.

האי תנא הוא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר שמקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון אף כל דבר המקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון

The Gemara suggests: The baraita is in accordance with this following tanna, who explains the verse that was interpreted in the baraita in a different manner. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: The verse states: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13). Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar, so too, any item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar requires salting.

יצאו עצים שאין מקבלין טומאה יצאו דם ויין שאין עולים לאשים יצאה קטרת שאינה על מזבח החיצון

Therefore, wood is excluded, as it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Wine and blood are excluded, as they are not brought on the fire of the altar but rather are sprinkled on the corner of the altar. The incense is excluded, as it is sacrificed not on the external altar but rather on the inner altar.

אלא טעמא דמעטיה קרא לדם הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא דם ליבעי מלח כיון דמלחיה נפיק ליה מתורת דם דאמר זעירי א"ר חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו ורב יהודה אמר זעירי דם שמלחו אינו עובר עליו

The Gemara asks: But how can it be that according to all opinions, the reason that blood does not require salting is that the verse excluded blood, indicating that if not for that, I would say that blood requires salt? Once one salts the blood, it exits the category of blood, as Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress the prohibition against consuming blood by drinking it, since it no longer has the status of blood that is fit to be presented on the altar. And Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: With regard to blood that one salted, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it, since salted blood has the status of cooked blood.

ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אברים שצלאן והעלן אין בהם משום לריח ניחוח

And similarly, Rav Yehuda himself says: With regard to the limbs of a burnt offering that one first roasted and afterward brought them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement of the verse that an offering be “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Exodus 29:25).

מהו דתימא מישדא בה משהו למצוה בעלמא קמ"ל:

The Gemara answers: It is still necessary to derive that blood does not require salt, lest you say that the priest should sprinkle any amount of salt, even a minute quantity, on the blood, merely for the fulfillment of the mitzva, as such an amount would not render the blood as cooked. To counter this, the verse teaches us that blood requires no application of salt.

גופא אמר זעירי א"ר חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו יתיב רבא וקא אמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה אביי הקפה את הדם ואכלו או שהמחה את החלב וגמעו חייב

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it. Rava was sitting and saying this halakha. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita (Tosefta, Karetot 2:19): If one curdled blood and consumed it, or in a case where one melted forbidden fat and swallowed it, even though he changed its form, he is liable. This demonstrates that even after its form is changed, the blood’s status remains unchanged.

לא קשיא כאן שהקפה באור כאן שהקפה בחמה באור לא הדר בחמה הדר

Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Ze’eiri’s statement relates to a case where he curdled the blood by means of the fire, whereas there, in the case of the baraita, he curdled the blood by means of the sun. Blood curdled by means of a fire cannot return to its former state, so one is not liable, whereas blood curdled by means of the sun can return to its former state, so one is liable.

בחמה נמי לימא הואיל ואידחי אידחי דהא בעא מיניה רבי מני מר' יוחנן דם שקרש ואכלו מהו אמר ליה הואיל ונדחה ידחה אישתיק

Abaye objected: But even when blood is curdled by means of the sun, let us say that since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it was disqualified, i.e., excluded, from the prohibition against consuming blood; as Rabbi Mani inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan responded: He is not liable; since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it shall be disqualified from the prohibition against consuming blood. Rava was silent and had no answer.

אמר ליה דלמא ודאי כאן בחטאות החיצוניות (החיצונות) כאן בחטאות הפנימיות

Abaye said to him: Perhaps here the baraita is certainly referring to the blood of the external sin offerings, which is sprinkled on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, whereas there Ze’eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.

אמר אדכרתן מילתא דאמר רב חסדא דם שקרש בחטאות ואכלו חייב (ויקרא ה, טז) ולקח ונתן אמר רחמנא [והאי] בר לקיחה ונתינה הוא בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו פטור וטבל והזה אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר טבילה והזאה הוא

Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rabbi Ḥisda says: With regard to blood that became congealed, if it is blood of the external sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:25), and congealed blood is suitable for taking and placing, as one can take the congealed blood and place it upon the altar. By contrast, if it is blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is exempt, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.

ורבא דידיה אמר אפילו בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות אמר רב פפא הלכך דם חמור שקרש ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות

And Rava himself says: Even if there was blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings. Rav Pappa says: Therefore, according to the same reasoning, in the case of the blood of a donkey that became congealed and one ate it, he is liable, despite the fact that a donkey’s blood is not fit to be brought as an offering, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings.

אמר רב גידל אמר זעירי דם בין לח בין יבש חוצץ מיתיבי הדם והדיו והדבש והחלב יבשין חוצצין לחין אינן חוצצין לא קשיא הא דסריך הא דלא סריך:

In the context of the halakhot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Ze’eiri says: Blood, whether moist or dry, interposes during ritual immersion. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 6:9): With regard to blood, ink, honey, or milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; but when they are moist, they do not interpose. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; this statement of Rav Giddel is referring to a case where the blood adheres to the skin, as it has begun to congeal and therefore interposes. That baraita is referring to a case where the blood did not adhere and therefore does not interpose.

תמלח למאי אתא לכדתניא במלח יכול תבונהו ת"ל תמלח אי תמלח יכול במי מלח ת"ל במלח

§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13), and asks: For what purpose does the expression “you shall season” come? The Gemara answers: It is written for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every meal offering of yours shall be with salt, one might have thought that the halakha is tevonehu, a term that will be explained in the Gemara. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall season.” Conversely, had the verse stated only: “You shall season,” one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states “with salt.”

(ויקרא ב, יג) ולא תשבית מלח הבא מלח שאינה שובתת ואיזו זו מלח סדומית ומנין שאם לא מצא מלח סדומית שמביא מלח איסתרוקנית ת"ל תקריב תקריב כל שהוא תקריב מכל מקום תקריב ואפילו בשבת תקריב ואפילו בטומאה

The continuation of the verse: “And you shall not omit [tashbit] salt from your meal offering,” teaches that one should bring salt that never rests [shovetet], i.e., it is found continuously. And what type of salt is this? This is referring to salt of Sodom. And from where is it derived that if one did not find salt of Sodom that he should bring salt of istrokanit, which is quarried from rock? The verse states immediately afterward: “With all your offerings you shall sacrifice salt” (Leviticus 2:13), in order to emphasize that you should sacrifice any type of salt; you should sacrifice salt from any place, even from a location outside of Eretz Yisrael; you should sacrifice salt even on Shabbat; and you should sacrifice salt even in a state of ritual impurity.

מאי תבונהו אמר רבה בר עולא הכי קאמר יכול יתבוננו כתבן בטיט אמר ליה אביי אי הכי יתבוננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר אביי יכול יעשנו כבנין אמר ליה רבא אי הכי יבננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבא יכול תבונהו

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term tevonehu? Rabba bar Ulla said: This is what the baraita is saying: One might have thought that one should mix into it [yitabonenu] large quantities of salt, just as one mixes straw [teven] into clay. Abaye said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: Yitabonenu, and not tevonehu. Rather, Abaye said: The baraita is saying that one might have thought one should form the addition of salt just as one builds a building [binyan], by adding layer upon layer. Rava said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: He should build it [yivnenu] and not tevonehu. Rather, Rava said: The baraita states: One might have thought tevonehu.

מאי תבונהו אמר רב אשי יכול יתן בו טעם כבינה תלמוד לומר תמלח כיצד הוא עושה מביא האבר ונותן עליו מלח וחוזר והופכו ונותן עליו מלח ומעלהו

The Gemara asks: What is meant by tevonehu? Rav Ashi said: One might have thought that one should infuse the entire offering with the taste of salt, just as understanding [bina] infuses a person with wisdom. To counter this, the verse states: “You shall season.” How does he act? He brings the limb that is to be sacrificed on the altar and applies salt, and then turns it over and again applies salt, and brings it up to the altar.

אמר אביי וכן לקדירה

Abaye says: And one acts similarly before placing meat into a pot. If one wishes to cook meat and needs to salt it in order to extract its blood, it is sufficient to apply salt to both sides and let it sit until the blood drains. Then, after it is washed, the meat is ready to be cooked and eaten.