Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 87

1) USING WHITE WINE FOR "NESACHIM"

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the argument in the Mishnah between Rebbi and the Chachamim regarding whether or not one may use old wine for Nesachim. Rebbi maintains that such wine may not be used for Nesachim. Rava explains that Rebbi's source is the verse that says, "Do not look upon wine when it is red" (Mishlei 23:31), which teaches that only red wine is considered to be wine, as RASHI explains. During the first year after its production, wine is extremely red. After the first year, its color begins to fade (although it remains red). Rebbi learns from this verse that, l'Chatchilah, one should not use wine that has aged for more than one year.

What is the Halachah regarding the use of white wine for Nesachim?

The Gemara in Bava Basra (97b) quotes a Beraisa that says that "Yayin Borek" should not be used for Nesachim, but if it is used it is valid. The Gemara there relates that Rava was asked about white wine, and he answered by quoting the verse, "Do not look upon wine when it is red." (According to most opinions, the question there was whether or not white wine may be used for Nesachim. The RAN in Pesachim (22b of the pages of the Rif) and others, however, explain that the question was not necessarily regarding Nesachim.) It seems from Rava's response that he is arguing with the Beraisa, which states that white wine may be used b'Di'eved. What is the Halachah?

(a) The RASHBAM in Bava Basra (DH Chamar Chivaryan) writes that Rava indeed argues with the Beraisa and maintains that that white wine is Pasul, even b'Di'eved. Rava was not aware of the Beraisa, and he therefore ruled differently. It seems that, according to the Rashbam, we should rely on the rule that an Amora may not argue with a Tana, and the Halachah should follow the Beraisa that says that white wine is valid b'Di'eved for Nesachim.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Chamar Chivaryan) quotes the RI who explains that "Yayin Borek" is white wine that has a reddish tinge, and therefore it is valid b'Di'eved. Rava, in contrast, was discussing "Chivaryan," which is white wine with no resemblance at all to the color red. This wine, Rava ruled, is not included in the category of wine mentioned in the verse in Mishlei, and therefore it is Pasul for Nesachim.

(c) The RAMBAN says that the Halachah follows the view of Rava who says that white wine is Pasul for Nesachim. He understands that if this type of wine is not included in the verse, then it cannot be considered to be valid b'Di'eved. If, on the other hand, it is included in the verse, then it is valid l'Chatchilah.

How does the Ramban reconcile this logic with the Beraisa that says that "Yayin Borek" is valid b'Di'eved? The Ramban has a different text of the Beraisa that reads, "Yayin *Bodek*," referring to strong wine, and not white wine. (See SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 272:4, who quotes the opinion of the Ramban regarding the use of white wine for Kidush, and says that according to the Ramban white wine may not be used even b'Di'eved for Kidush. However, the Shulchan Aruch says that others rule differently, and the custom is to follow their opinion.)

However, the Gemara here seems to contradict the position of the Ramban. In our Gemara, Rava explains the logic of Rebbi by citing the verse from Mishlei, "Do not look upon wine when it is red." The Gemara explicitly states that Rebbi holds that *old* wine is valid b'Di'eved, even though it does not fit the criteria of the verse. According to the Ramban's logic, something does not fit the criteria of the verse should not be valid at all!

The YAD BINYAMIN answers for the Ramban and says that old red wine, although not as red as it was during its first year, is still red. It therefore fits the description of the verse and is called "wine" according to Rebbi. However, since it is not the best type of wine, one should try to bring wine which is at the peak of its redness (meaning within its first year) for Nesachim.

(d) The RAMBAM makes no mention of the Halachah of white wine at all, neither in Hilchos Kidush (Hilchos Shabbos 29) nor in Hilchos Nesachim (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 6). The BEIS YOSEF (OC 272) suggests that the Rambam holds that white wine is valid, and that the Rambam has an entirely different approach to understanding the Gemara in Bava Basra. According to the Rambam, when Rava answers the inquiry about white wine with the verse from Mishlei, he meant to say that white wine is *valid* for Nesachim. Rava interprets the verse to be saying, "Do not look at wine becoming red." This implies that wine is considered wine even *before* it becomes red. (Y. Montrose)

87b

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the Mishnah's statement that the half-Isaron measurement cup was used to measure the flour of the Chavitei Kohen Gadol. The Chavitei Kohen Gadol was comprised of one Isaron of flour that was divided in two equal parts. Half of it was brought in the morning, and half was brought in the afternoon. Exactly how was the Chavitei Kohen Gadol brought?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:4) writes that after the Isaron was divided into two parts, each half was used to bake six Chalos. After all twelve Chalos were baked, each Chalah was cut in half, with twelve halves offered in the morning and twelve at night. This also seems to be the opinion of RASHI (DH Chavitei).

(b) The RA'AVAD argues and says that there is no source to say that the Chavitei Kohen Gadol was brought in this manner, nor is there any source in the Gemara that says that the Chalos themselves were cut in half. Rather, each of the two portions of flour was baked into six Chalos, and the six whole Chalos from one portion of flour were brought in the morning, and the six whole Chalos from the other portion of flour were brought in the afternoon. This seems to be the opinion of RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH ba'Meh m'Chalkah) as well.

What is the source for the Rambam's ruling?

1. The MAHARI KURKAS explains as follows. In our Gemara, Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda a question: "Regarding the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, how does one divide the *Chalos* -- with his hand or with a vessel?" It is obvious that according to this text, the Gemara is asking how one divides the already baked Chalos, and not the Isaron of flour before the baking. This text is a source for the ruling of the Rambam, and it is likely that this was his text in the Gemara. (The EIZEHU MEKOMAN points out that it is possible to learn the Gemara differently than the Rambam by merely reading the word "l'Chalos" with a "Sheva" beneath the "Lamed." This would make the question be, "How does one divide [the flour] *for the purpose of* [making] the Chalos?")

However, many texts of the Gemara do not include the word "Chalos" in the question. According to those texts, the question merely was, "How should one divide them, with one's hand or with a vessel?" Can this text still be a source for the Rambam's ruling?

2. The KESEF MISHNEH and the RADVAZ (in one of his explanations) says that the Gemara here is still a valid source for the Rambam. The Gemara continues and says that the reason the Chavitei Kohen Gadol must have been divided by hand is that it would be a "Siman Kelalah" (a bad omen) to weigh the amounts with a vessel. Why would this be a bad omen? RASHI (DH Kivan) explains that among the curses of the Tochechah, the verse states, "v'Heshivu Lachmechem b'Mishkal" -- "And they will bring back your bread by weight" (Vayikra 26:26). The Kesef Mishneh explains that this is the source for the Rambam's understanding of how the Chavitei Kohen Gadol were brought. The only thing in the verse that is a "Siman Kelalah" is weighing *bread*. The Gemara cannot be referring to measuring flour, since there is no source that weighing flour is a bad omen. It must be that the Chalos were cut in half, and the Gemara is discussing whether they could be measured by a vessel or only by hand.

The CHESHEK SHLOMO uses this proof for the Rambam's explanation to answer another question. The Gemara asks this question only with regard to the Chavitei Kohen Gadol. Why does the Gemara not ask this question with regard to all Menachos in general? According to the above approach, the question is only applicable to the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, since this is the only Minchah which has *Chalos* which are split in half. The Gemara was unsure whether or not this constitutes a "Siman Kelalah" or not. It does not ask whether or not the other Menachos are split by hand or by vessel, since there is no reason to say that either one should be unfit. (Y. Montrose)