Q&A: Notes on Menachot
Notes on Menachot
Question
In honor of the great Rabbi, Rabbi Michi, may he live long and well,
Greetings and blessings,
1) Menachot 35. Rashi, s.v. “And another explanation” — “lest people say he had relations with his menstruant wife and was stained with blood.” This seems somewhat puzzling, to worry about such a far-fetched concern, and it requires further consideration. 2) Menachot 45. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: “May that man be remembered for good, and Hananiah ben Hezekiah was his name, for were it not for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden away, because its words contradicted the Torah. What did he do? He brought up three hundred jars of oil and sat in the upper chamber and expounded it.” And Rashi explains: “its words contradicted the Torah” — “for example, all those cases mentioned above,” that it calls the New Moon bull a sin-offering, “and likewise those above” (see the Talmudic discussion in Menachot). This requires clarification regarding Rashi’s intent in writing “for example, all those cases we mentioned above” and “and likewise those above”; the wording seems repetitive and unclear. I saw in the manuscript Rashi that at the end of the comment it says: “and likewise the other one above,” which resolves it somewhat, but it still requires further clarification. [And see Rashi on Chagigah 13, s.v. “the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden away” — “for at its end there are matters regarding sacrifices that contradict the Torah.” And see Rashi on Shabbat 13, s.v. “the Torah” — “for example, ‘that which dies of itself or is torn … the priests shall not eat’ — implying that Israelites may eat them; and for example, ‘and so you shall do on the seventh of the month’ — where is this offering hinted at in the Torah?” (see Maharsha on Chagigah). Also see the book Marbeh Nefesh on tractate Chagigah, which explained the distinction between the Talmud in Chagigah and the Talmud in Shabbat.] I would be happy for a resolution of Rashi’s wording in Menachot. Signed with great respect,
Answer
1) One has to consider: if a person comes with red dye, where did it really come from? Presumably from blood (they did not have the variety of dyes we have today). If so, maybe it is not so far-fetched that it came from his menstruant wife. In any case, it really does require further consideration.
2) I did not understand the difficulty. He says that the contradictions between Ezekiel and the Torah are that it calls the New Moon bull a sin-offering, and also the other things discussed above (such as the prohibition of carcasses and torn animals applying only to priests, and everything else mentioned there).
Discussion on Answer
I do not see this as a major difficulty. He mentioned one of the two. Beyond that, this view regarding a gentile’s tithe is associated with Rabbi Shimon in several places (see Kiddushin 41b and elsewhere), and perhaps that is why he specifically mentions him.
In honor of my teacher and rabbi, the great Rabbi Michi, may he live long and well, greetings,
Menachot 66b
“It is a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught: One may separate from produce of Israelites for produce of Israelites, and from produce of gentiles for produce of gentiles, and from produce of Samaritans for produce of Samaritans, and from any of these for any of these — these are the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: One may separate from produce of Israelites for produce of Israelites, and from produce of gentiles for produce of Samaritans, and from produce of Samaritans for produce of gentiles, but not from produce of Israelites for produce of gentiles or Samaritans, and not from produce of gentiles or Samaritans for produce of Israelites.”
Rashi, s.v. “but not from produce of Israelites, etc.” — “for Rabbi Shimon holds that smoothing performed by a gentile exempts it, and it therefore comes out as exempt produce for obligated produce, and obligated produce for exempt produce.”
This requires clarification: why did he not write Rabbi Yosei?
Signed with great respect,