Gemara Clarity

Menachos 12b

מנחות י״ב ע״ב

Menachot 12b

Learn Menachos 12b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 12b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether burning the קומץ creates פיגול for lacking שיריים, and when wrong intentions of half a כזית combine.

Overview

The amud opens as רבא finishes a proof from the ברייתא of רבי חייא: burning the קומץ makes even שיריים that became lacking into פיגול. אביי rejects the proof by saying the ברייתא follows רבי אלעזר. The גמרא defends this reading by saying the ברייתא is about a מנחת חוטא, and רב דימי's report backs this up. רבא then takes back his own claim, using a ברייתא about a broken loaf of לחם הפנים that he says follows רבי עקיבא. אביי answers that the ברייתא may follow רבי אליעזר instead, so for רבי עקיבא burning could work even when something is missing. A new משנה then teaches that half a כזית of intent to eat and half a כזית of intent to burn do not combine. The גמרא infers from it that two eating intents do combine. It asks how this fits the earlier clause, and רבי ירמיה says the later clause follows רבי אליעזר. אביי offers a different reading that fits the רבנן, and the גמרא challenges it because an earlier משנה already teaches that point.

Opening lines

״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״ אַשִּׁירַיִם,

[Since he could not teach] 'or an olive-bulk' about the remainder,

בִּקְמִיצָה נָמֵי לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם

in the handful-removal case too, 'to eat the remainder,'

לָא תָּנֵי ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״,

he did not teach 'or an olive-bulk.'

וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא:

And the last clause teaches:

The steps (20)

  1. Proofרבא finishes his proof that burning works even for lacking remainder
  2. Rejectionאביי says the ברייתא follows רבי אלעזר
  3. Rejectionאביי explains why 'or an olive-bulk' is left out
  4. ChallengeIf it follows רבי אלעזר, the frankincense should be mentioned
  5. ResolutionThe ברייתא is talking about a sinner's מנחה
  6. ChallengeWould the תנא go to such trouble for one narrow case?
  7. ResolutionYes, and רב דימי reports the same reading
  8. Rejectionרבא takes back his own idea because of לחם הפנים
  9. ProofEven רבי עקיבא agrees a broken item is not helped
  10. Rejectionאביי: maybe the ברייתא implies something else
  11. RejectionWhy impurity is different: the ציץ
  12. ResolutionWhy the ברייתא mentions a broken loaf
  13. ConclusionFor רבי עקיבא, burning helps even when something is missing
  14. StatementNew משנה: half a זית of eating and half a זית of burning do not combine
  15. StatementReading the משנה closely: two eatings do combine
  16. ChallengeThe first clause counts only items normally eaten
  17. Resolutionרבי ירמיה: this follows רבי אליעזר
  18. ProofThe source: רבי אליעזר disqualifies the מנחה
  19. Resolutionאביי: The Later Clause Can Follow the רבנן
  20. ChallengeWhy Teach This? An Earlier משנה Already Says It