Menahot 55: The Grain-Offering Cookbook

0:00Hello and welcome back to Talking Talmud. I'm Ann Gordon, here with my friend Ann Ghevr to your Dana Asband, our Duff of the Day. Massachemannachot. Duff nun. Hey. Page 55. So, the first part of Amidala really continues the discussion about Truman and the things and the fresh things and the dried things. We're going to move to the mission that's towards the bottom of Amidala. Call him an Achoat, Nilo Shot before Shrin, Mishamran Chaloyach Mitsu. So, this is really now your Dana, we're getting the recipe book, right? Like, all of the grain offerings, they come that are supposed to be Matsu, right? They're supposed to be unleavened. They're needed with water that's lukewarm, so that the dough will actually bake. It will be a good, you know, as far as the baking experience, it should be good and presumably tasty, at least to some degree.

1:01There's only a little bit of oil that's added, but you have to watch it. They had to watch it to make sure they don't become leavened, not during the kneading, not during the shaping, we aim Hmitsu Shereha or Verbalo Tase. And if it were to become leavening, leavened rather, then the person making this loaf, this mincha offering, violates a negative prohibition. The verse for that is Neymar, call mincha Shereha Krivoulasham, Lothasa Khamits, it's very straightforward, right? Although when you make these grain offerings, none of them should be made with leavening. So, you know, you violate the prohibition against having Khamits or making your grain offering with Khamits if it were to become Khamits. And then the person is liable, liable meaning here, a punishment of lashes. It's not a, hurry prohibition, for example.

2:03It's not as bad as it could be, but it's still a violation of a negative prohibition. You get lashes for kneading the offering or for shaping it or for baking it, if indeed it becomes leavened. Now, I find this, you know, as someone who has not every week, but often enough, baked khala, right? And where you specifically do want, achmits, right? You want the dough to become leavening, leavened for sure. I find it really tricky to think about exactly what moment would that be in the kneading process where you've just gone too far. And how do you learn that? I imagine that there must have been, and I'm making this up wholesale, but I just didn't think about how it must have been done. There must be like training for it when it's not a real offering where they must have done some kind of element of teaching the next generation or the next, you know, up and coming Kohanam, how to do the kneading and the shaping and so on, quickly enough so that leavening doesn't become an issue when it's real.

3:08Not that they're offering real, real grain offerings as a trial, but just you could learn how to make loaves needing, you know, without having it be prohibition of khamis, because it's not really going to be offered ever. Minah anemilani. So the Gamer is going to ask exactly about this in terms of what happens if the remainder of the meal offering, you offer the whole thing, what happens then if there is some that does become leavening and you're violating leavened and you violate this prohibition. I'm racelucky. So the Gamer explains that racelucky says that the verse itself says it should not be baked with khamis. Meaning it goes further and then saying don't offer any khamis, don't bake it with any leaven either. And the idea here is that this is the process, I suppose, of giving the offering where it says, I've given it to their portion of God's offerings made by fire.

4:11The whole idea here is that this can be perceived as one long sentence that again, a philohel kham, loza fechamates, even a portion of the meal offerings. The part that could be by the kwanim after you've taken that Kimsa, the handful that's going to be burned on the altar, nonetheless, there shouldn't be any leavening in it. These kohanim are not having leaven bread in their daily way. Vahailahafi hadaata. So then the Gamer says does this verse really come to teach this? Is that really the point of what it's coming to teach? I may buy in lay like in Titania. So the Gamer answer is, it can't really, because you need that verse for a different halacha, namely that which is taught in the bright to where it says loza fechamates. Because it won't be baked, it cannot, do not bake it with khamates. This is verse, the verses from Leviticus, Vajikra, chapter six, matzol mudlamar, vallok

5:13varnema alota asachamates. What does it mean don't bake it with khamates when we already have the previous verse that we first, that the mystery really, first quoted, it says, it should not be baked with khamates. That should not be made with khamates. Leviticus namah alota asachamates, yachol loye hechayyav, elah alachat akulam, elah alachat akulam, khamudlamar alota fe. So the fact that you have the verses, it says don't make khamates, don't make leavening. You might think that you would not be obligated, you know, you violate the prohibition any more than just the one time over all of the process of kneading and shaping and so on. So the verse comes to teach low tafsah, therefore it says it will not be baked with leaven, which means that each stage is liable separately, right, namely kneading and shaping and baking. I think the matter goes on and brings a bright explain exactly how this baking comes to extend

6:18to a general prohibition, your Dan will turn it over to you for more gammar. What if what the gammar starts to do right after the mission is a quote a very lengthy brisa that gives sort of the source material for what's in the mishnah and one of the things that the brisa talks about is it uses this phrase of low tafsah, right, it should not be baked is there well it shouldn't be baked leaven that there is a your liable, right, there's a prohibition for leavening at any stage of the minachas preparation. So the gammar is going to challenge that interpretation. Wa'amai'a fi'at'a prat'a'a'a'a'amana, but say that for baking, which the Torah specifies in the Pasuch, lecha'yevchadah, let the preparer be liable for one meaning for one set of lashes, inach and those other acts that they do such as kneading, smoothing, shaping lecha'yevchadah

7:18a'kuhuhu, let him be liable only for one set of lashes for all of them together. In other words, why do you have to say that baking is the source for separate lashes for every single act and preparing the minachas? It may be it would seem to be that it's only the act of baking that you would be liable for or it's sort of your chai of one time for doing it making it leaven, but not for each individual act. You should have a dvarsha'yevchadah. So it is because baking is something that was included in a generalization, right? So meaning the general prohibition involving all preparations, right? It shall not be prepared leaven. The yatsamina kla'lala made and then it leads the generalization to teach something specific by saying it shall not be baked leaven. Lola'lala made a'latsam'l yatsa. In those types of cases, the specified thing doesn't leave the generalization to teach only about itself. Lola'lala made a'latsam'l yatsa. Rather, it's love to teach about the entire generalization.

8:21In other words, they're giving us a lesson here at the Gamara on how this works with, you know, when you have a general statement and then a specific statement. And so the idea here is if a general kla'l followed by Prat, the Prat is not there to be the exception. The Prat is there to explain something about the kla'l. So when the Torah singles out baking, it's to teach not only that it carries you get Ma'lqas for it, but any preparatory act in that category, right, has individual Ma'lqas. Now the Gamara is going to give a different way of understanding the verse. Vama'i, Lota'sa'a kla'l. Maybe we could say it should not be prepared. Levin is the generalization. Lota'fa'i Prat. It shall not be baked. It's the specification. Kla'l-u Prat. And where you have a generalization and then a specification, and Kla'l-a Masha'i Prat, then we usually say the rules that the generalization only contains what is specified a'fi'a'an. So in this case, we would say that levining while baking is

9:24what's prohibited, mi-da'a'fi'in al-o. But levining for any other preparatory act is not prohibited. So in other words, what they're basically trying to say is I can do Kla'l-u Prat differently. The first way of understanding Kla'l Prat is that if you have a generalization then with a specification, the specification is there to elaborate on the generalization. The other way of understanding it is saying no. If you have a generalization and then a specification, it means the generalization is really only the specification. So the gammara answer is, I'm a ravi app-tu-riki. So ravi app-tu-riki says, you should have a Kla'l-u Prat, ha-muh-ha-keen-zami-zab. When what you suggest isn't true, because in this case of a generalization and then a specification that are they're distant from each other, right? And so what they mean by that is that one appears in Parch's Vayikra, right? It appears in Vayikra chapter two. And the other one appears, the specification about being

10:25big appears in Parch's sub in Vayikra the sixth pair. So it's not, they're not actually next to each other. But Kla'l-u Prat, ha-muh-ha-keen-zami-zab, whenever you have a generalization and specification that are distant from each other, it means that you know it's on the Kla'l-u Prat. We don't use the general rule of a generalization and specification that the specification is there to really inform how to understand the generalization. Now they're going to challenge this idea of ravi app-tu-riki. Matsui vrabhata vrabhata vrabhata vrabhata vrabhata vrabhata says, right? Without attribution, right? In other words, we're going to, we have a statement that seems to challenges, who Kla'l-u Prat-ma-ha-keen-zami-zab. When you have a case of a generalization and in the specification that are far away from each other in the Torah. Ainsanino tambuchal Prat, we do not expand the verses as generalization specification. Right? Is that really true? Bahataniah. It was taught in Abaisa.

11:26Feshachatotobamakomashir Yishchat, Ola Lifnaya Shem Khatatruh. The Torah says, this is due to the personal Khatat of a Nasi. Right? He shall slaughter it in the place he would slaughter the Ola before Shem. It is a Khatas. Heihan Ola, Nishchat, Nishchat. Now where is an Ola slaughtered? It's a phone in the north of the temple courtyard, okay? So this first puzzle is from Vayikra, chapter 4 of verse 24. And the puzzle that tells us where the Ola is offered is actually from Vayikra, chapter 1 verse 11. So they're not near each other. Observe, it's a phone. So we also know that this Khatas has to be ruled in the north. So then the verse says, Vahe Anumikhan Lamehd, do we really need to learn to log the ruler's Khatas from here, from the Nasi's Khatas from here, Vahelok Varnemar, Bimakama Shartish Khatal, Lati's Khatachat, right? The puzzle it already said, and this is from Vayikra, chapter 6 verse 18, which talks about Khatas offerings in general, right?

12:26It says, this is the law of the Khatas and the place where the Ola is slaughtered, that's where the Khatas should be slaughtered. So the second verse that states the north requirement for the Khatas offering in general, and the Nasi's Khatas is certainly included in it, right? You don't need to do what the first half of the verse it does. So the verse explains why do you need the specific, the specific, this, the first understanding of how to get to the Khatas, Halam Azabiyatza, why then was the Nasi's Khatas singled out, right? In Vayikra, chapter 4, Likvo, to establish it in the north, she enlists the Khatas to tell, but it's a phone that if you didn't slaughter it in the north, so low, right? You would have invalidated it. So the voice that now says, at Halam Azabiyatza, you say that the Nasi's Khatas was singled out in Vayikra, chapter 4, for this purpose, to make sure that it's slaughtered in the north, right? Oh, Eino, Elisha, Zeta, and Sepho, or maybe it was singled out in the verse to teach that only this Khatas needs to be in the north, right?

13:27That it requires to be, that the requires north, but it's non-essential, the Eina Khatas and Sepho, and no other Khatas needs north at all, Samud Lamar. So the two are teachers with the third verse of the Khatas to Khatas in my comb, I sure use Khatas to tell, he shall slaughter the Khatas in the place of the law, Zet, Bana, Abla, Khatas to Od. So this establishes basically a prototype, right? Okay. So how is the challenging rub off to reeky? Tom and Dutra Vrakman of the Khatas to Khatas, when the braces says that the only reason the north requirement applies to every Khatas is that the puss of root, the Torah writes this passage, right, of the regular Khatas, he shall slaughter the Khatas in the place of the law. Ha, la, ha, this implies that without this first hava, Amina, I would have thought, Shazeta and Sepho, that the Nassiz Khatas requires in north, Bana Khatas and Sepho, and no other Khatas requires north. My time of, what's the reason I would conclude this? Is it not because of this case of generalization and specification, but Afghat, Mughur, Keen, Zabazet?

14:34Even though this would be an example, where we would assume generalization and specification, where the specification, whatever's true, the specifications, the only thing that's true, the generalization, even though those psookim appear very far from each other. Zanino, Tom, the Khatas, we would normally explain them as Khatas, and therefore we need this third person to tell us that actually all of them, all the Khatas, have to be slaughtered in the north. So, again, the Gammar is going to try to say this isn't a good challenge, Mughur, Keen, Flave, Ravashi, Ravashi objected to Ravadhavar hava interpretation, Haiklal Pratu, is this really a case of generalization and specification? Prat, Oqlal Ho. No, it is specification and then generalization, but Nassiz Khlal Moseef, Alaprak, and so in that case, the generalization expands this specification, the Thrabi-Luku-Komili, and therefore all Khatas-Ode offerings are included in the north requirement. Now, I'm going to stop from here. They're going to continue this on for the rest of the doth, but I think here what's interesting

15:38is that we're seeing that there's different ways to understand Khlal Hoopratt, and one of the things that's a determining factor here, that the Gammar is trying to sort of us out here is, how close to those Psukeem have to appear to each other to understand what type of Khlal Hoopratt it is. So I think here we're seeing a very, it's not just a detailed reading of the Psukeem, it's also talking about the proximity of the Psukeem as well. I've find it always tricky to apply Khlal Hoopratt to Khlal, meaning we've seen this come up over the years, right? And then making sure to understand like this term in the verse is the Khlal, the general idea, and this is the specific, and then here's the general again. And sometimes it's only Khlal Hoopratt, right? So I thank you for, you know, elaborating on it, spelling it out so clearly. That's our depth discussion for the day, we're going to review this on our major podcast. Thank you to Revenue Michelle Farber, for hosting us on our website. Let us know what you thought about this stuff and our talking time and Facebook page, and until tomorrow, go and learn.