Menachot 113

אמר רבי יוחנן הניח בשר על גבי גחלים היפך בו חייב לא היפך בו פטור

in the name of R'Johanan, If a man placed meat on coals [on the Sabbath] and also turned it over, he is liable, but if he did not turn it over he is not liable? - Raba answered; He meant to say, He is liable for it just as t act of roasting on the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the placing of leaven on dough, which is the whole act of leavening, is equivalent to placing meat on coals and turning it over for the other side to roast, which two acts together constitute the act of roasting.');">¹</span> The text [above stated]: 'Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in the name of R'Johanan, If a man placed meat on coals [on the Sabbath] and also turned it over, he is liable, but if he did not turn it over he is not liable'.

אמר רבא מאי חייב נמי דקאמר כמעשה צלי של שבת

is this to be understood? If I say that the meat would not have been roasted if he had not turned it over, then obviously [he is not liable if he did not turn it over]; and if it would have been roasted even though he had not turned it over, why then is he not liable [where he did not turn it over]? - It is necessary to be stated only for the circumstance where, had he not turned it over, it would have been roasted on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The name of a bandit who used to eat his food slightly done; gen. a third done.');">²</span>

גופא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הניח בשר על גבי גחלים היפך בו חייב לא היפך בו פטור היכי דמי אילימא דאי לא היפך ביה לא בשיל פשיטא אלא דאי לא מהפיך ליה נמי הוה בשיל אמאי לא מיחייב

but with turning it over it would have been roasted on both sides to that extent. Now we are here taught that whatsoever is done on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai is insignificant.

לא צריכא דאי לא היפך ביה הוה בשיל מצד אחד כמאכל בן דרוסאי וכי מהפיך ביה בשיל משני צדדין כמאכל בן דרוסאי וקמ"ל דכל מצד אחד כמאכל בן דרוסאי לא כלום הוא

Raba said, If it had been [well] roasted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. add here: 'on one side'. This is not found in MS.M. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.');">³</span> in one place the size of a dried fig, one would be liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it had not been turned over.');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא ואם נצלה בו כגרוגרת מצד אחד במקום אחד חייב א"ל רבינא לרב אשי במקום אחד אין בשנים או ג' מקומות לא והתנן הקודח כל שהוא חייב

Rabina said to R'Ashi, Is it then that only [if roasted] in one place [to the size of a dried fig] one is [liable], bu roasted] in two or three places?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which together make up the size of a dried fig.');">⁵</span> But we have learnt: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 102b.');">⁶</span>

היכי דמי אילימא במקום אחד כל שהוא למאי חזי אלא לאו בשנים או שלשה מקומות דחזו לצירוף לא לעולם במקום אחד דחזו לבבא דאקלידא

Now what can this mean? Will you say it means [a hole] in one place?

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבא אפילו בשנים וג' מקומות אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא הקודח כל שהוא חייב היכי דמי אילימא במקום אחד כל שהוא למאי חזי אלא לאו בשנים ושלשה מקומות דחזי לצירוף לא לעולם במקום אחד דחזו לבבא דאקלידא

But of what use can a tiny hole be? Obviously then it means [holes] in two or three places, [no matter how small], since they can be joined together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make one large hole. Similarly here, the parts roasted should be reckoned together so as to make up the size of a dried fig.');">⁷</span>

תנו רבנן אילו נאמר (ויקרא ב, יא) אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ הייתי אומר אין לי (אלא) בלא תעשה חמץ אלא קומץ בלבד

- No, I still say it means a hole in one place, for it can serve as a keyhole. Another version states: Raba said, Even if it had been roasted in two or three places [together making up the size of a dried fig, one would be liable].

מנחה מנין ת"ל מנחה שאר מנחות מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ב, יא) כל המנחה

Rabina said to R'Ashi, We have learnt in a Mishnah to the same effect: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable. Now what can this mean?

אשר תקריבו לה' כשרה ולא פסולה מכאן אמרו המחמיץ את הכשירה חייב ואת הפסולה פטור

Will you say it means a hole in one place? But of what use can a tiny hole be?

בעי רב פפא חימצה ויצאת וחזר וחימצה מהו כיון דיצאת איפסילה לה ביוצא וכי הדר מחמיץ לה לא מיחייב עלה משום מחמיץ אחר מחמיץ

It must mean [holes] in two or three places, [no matter how small,] since they can be joined together! - No, I still say it means a hole in one place, for it can serve as a keyhole. Our Rabbis taught: Had Scripture only stated, Which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall not be made leavened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">⁸</span>

או דילמא כיון דחימצה פסול יוצא לא מהני ביה וכי הדר מחמיץ לה מיחייב עלה משום מחמיץ אחר מחמיץ תיקו

I should have said that only the handful shall not be made leavened, but whence would I know [that this prohibition applies to] the whole meal-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the handful was taken out.');">⁹</span> The text therefore added, 'Meal-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">⁸</span>

בעי רב מרי חימצה בראשו של מזבח מהו אשר תקריבו אמר רחמנא והא אקרבה

And whence would I know that this applies to other meal-offerings too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the prohibition is expressly stated in connection with a meal-offering prepared in a pan.');">¹⁰</span> The text therefore stated, 'Every meal-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">⁸</span>

או דלמא מחוסר הקטרה כמחוסר מעשה דמי תיקו:

'Which ye shall bring unto the Lord' signifies what is valid, but not what is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the meal-offering was taken out of the Sanctuary and thereby had become invalid or if it had become unclean.');">¹¹</span> hence they said, He who leavens a valid meal-offering is liable, but he who leavens what is invalid is not liable.

והשתא דנפקא ליה מכל המנחה אשר תקריבו (לה') למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אשר תקריבו לרבות מנחת נסכים לחימוץ דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר לרבות לחם הפנים לחימוץ

R'Papa enquired, What is the law if a man leavened the meal-offering and it was then taken out [of the Sanctuary], and afterwards he again leavened it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he performed another work with this dough which had already been leavened, e.g. he baked it.');">¹²</span> [Shall I say,] since it has been taken out it has thereby become invalid, and consequently by leavening it thereafter he cannot be held liable for leavening what was already leavened; or perhaps I should say, since it has been leavened it cannot be affected by being taken out, and consequently by leavening it again he would be liable for leavening what was already leavened?

מנחת נסכים מי פירות הם

This question remains undecided. R'Mari enquired, What is the law if he leavened [the handful] at the head of the altar? Does not the Divine Law say, 'Which ye shall bring', and this has already been brought up;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the head of the altar before it was leavened.');">¹³</span> or perhaps I should say, since it still requires to be burnt it is as though the act [of bringing] has not been completed? This question remains undecided. And now that the general prohibition has been derived from 'every meal-offering', wherefore is the expression 'which ye shall bring'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which refers specifically to the handful only.');">¹⁴</span> stated? - It is required for the following which was taught: Which ye shall bring includes the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this meal-offering is different in that no part thereof is eaten but it is wholly burnt upon the altar; it was therefore necessary for this to be expressly included within the prohibition of leavening. On the other hand, the Shewbread does not come within this prohibition according to R. Jose, for he is of the opinion that the Shewbread was hallowed only when set upon the table and not before when the flour was measured out, for the measuring vessels for dry goods were not consecrated as vessels of ministry.');">¹⁵</span> So R'Jose the Galilean. R'Akiba says, It includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba maintains that the measuring vessels for dry goods were consecrated and so the flour was hallowed for a meal-offering (for such is the Shewbread) as soon as it was measured out; hence it comes within the prohibition of leavening.');">¹⁶</span> But is not the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings prepared with fruit juice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings required a large quantity of oil, three logs to the tenth, and presumably no water was added to it; accordingly it cannot possibly become leavened.');">¹⁷</span>