Menachos 15b

מנחות ט״ו ע״ב

Menachot 15b

Learn Menachos 15b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 15b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Combined פיגול intent on an offering and its bread, other versions of רבי אלעזר's question, and רבי מאיר's rule that a זבח makes its נסכים and the מצורע's oil פיגול

Overview

Earlier on the daf, רב ruled that if someone slaughters an offering intending to eat a כזית the next day, half from the offering and half from its bread, the bread becomes פיגול but the offering does not. The גמרא asks why we don't use a קל וחומר to keep the bread from becoming פיגול too. It tests this against a ברייתא about seeds planted in another person's vineyard, where the חכמים forbade the seeds but permitted the vines. It then rejects that comparison: the vineyard ruling was only a rabbinic penalty on the wrongdoer, but פיגול is a Torah law. Next the גמרא brings other versions of רבי אלעזר's question. One version is about the two כבשים of שבועות and their שתי הלחם. In it רבי אלעזר explains that his doubt is only about the bread, and the same קל וחומר discussion is repeated. The גמרא also explains how this version relates to the תודה version, based on the waving that ties the כבשים to their bread. A third version, from רבי אבא זוטי, asks whether 'its fellow' means the other lamb or the bread; רב's proof from a משנה is pushed aside. Finally a new משנה teaches, in the name of רבי מאיר, that a זבח can make its נסכים פיגול but not the reverse. The גמרא explains this with ברייתות about נסכים and about the מצורע's לוג of oil. In both, רבא says that רבי מאיר holds they become fixed to the offering at the שחיטה, like the לחמי תודה.

Opening lines

The steps (23)

1. ChallengeThe vineyard case: why didn't the חכמים use the קל וחומר there?
2. RejectionThe vineyard case was only a rabbinic penalty, so פיגול is different
3. QuestionAnother version: רבי אלעזר asked about the lambs of עצרת
4. Questionרבי אלעזר explains: his doubt is only about the bread
5. ResponseIn the lambs case too, the bread is פיגול and the lambs are not
6. ChallengeA קל וחומר says the bread should not be פיגול
7. ChallengeThe vineyard case shows this kind of קל וחומר is not used
8. RejectionThe vineyard case was a rabbinic penalty, so it proves nothing
9. ConclusionHow the two versions of רבי אלעזר's question relate
10. QuestionA third version of רבי אלעזר's question
11. Responseרב proves from a משנה that 'its fellow' means the other lamb
12. RejectionMaybe the משנה is about someone who said 'the other lamb' clearly
13. StatementThe משנה: a זבח can make its נסכים פיגול, but not the other way around
14. StatementA ברייתא gives רבי מאיר's reason: the blood permits the נסכים
15. ChallengeThe חכמים: נסכים can come ten days later
16. Resolutionרבי מאיר: only נסכים brought together with the זבח
17. ChallengeThe חכמים: the נסכים could be moved to another זבח
18. Resolutionרבא: they become fixed at the שחיטה, like the לחמי תודה
19. StatementThe לוג of oil of a מצורע can become פיגול
20. ChallengeThe חכמים: the לוג can come ten days later
21. Resolutionרבי מאיר: only a לוג brought with the אשם
22. ChallengeThe oil could be moved to another אשם
23. Resolutionרבא: the oil is fixed at the שחיטה, like the לחמי תודה