Menachos 102a

מנחות ק״ב ע״א

Menachot 102a

Learn Menachos 102a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 102a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Does 'he could have sprinkled' count as sprinkling, for פיגול and טומאת אוכלין according to רבי שמעון, and why do מעילה and טומאה differ?

Overview

The גמרא tests whether רבי שמעון's idea that 'if he wanted, he could redeem it' also works for sprinkling blood. If it did, a sacrifice made פיגול during the זריקה would count as having been fit to eat beforehand, so it should be susceptible to טומאת אוכלין. Yet the ברייתא says פיגול is not susceptible. The first answer limits the ברייתא to פיגול during שחיטה. It then explains that the ברייתא needed the מנחה case to teach that a מנחה is susceptible even when made פיגול at the קמיצה, because the flour was fit to eat before it became holy. רב אשי gives a different answer: רבי שמעון uses 'if he wanted' only for redeeming, never for sprinkling. The גמרא challenges him from רבי יהושע's rule about מעילה, whose wording suggests that blood which could have been sprinkled counts as a time of being permitted. רב אשי answers that מעילה and טומאה work differently. Holiness that has left never returns, but food status depends on whether the blood can still be sprinkled. The גמרא then begins a new challenge from a משנה about an אשם תלוי, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (17)

1. ChallengeIf the blood could have been sprinkled, why is the meat not susceptible?
2. ResolutionThe ברייתא is talking about פיגול during slaughtering
3. QuestionSo what if it was made פיגול during sprinkling?
4. ChallengeThen the ברייתא should have made the distinction within the animal case
5. ResolutionThe מנחה case teaches a new point
6. Resolutionרב אשי: we say 'he could redeem,' but not 'he could sprinkle'
7. ChallengeA challenge from רבי יהושע's rule about מעילה
8. Challengeרבי יהושע's examples of a permitted time: left overnight, impure, or taken out
9. ChallengeOfferings that never had a time permitted to the כהנים
10. ChallengeLeft overnight before sprinkling still has no מעילה
11. ResolutionThe cases happened after the blood was sprinkled
12. ChallengeThen what about a real overnight case, and why such general wording?
13. ChallengeThe wording the משנה should have used
14. Resolutionרב אשי: you cannot compare מעילה to impurity
15. Resolutionמעילה depends on holiness, which cannot return
16. ResolutionFood impurity depends on whether it is food right now
17. ChallengeOpening a challenge from the case of an uncertain guilt offering