3

The top Rashi on Menachos 57:2, if I'm reading it correctly, adds some information as an aside, stating that both Rabi Akiva and Rabi Yose Hag'lili derive from "asher takrivu" that a mincha of a kohen (or perhaps he means specifically the inaugural mincha of a kohen) and the inaugural mincha of the kohen gadol may not be made chametz.

Two questions, of which I'm especially bothered by the second:

  1. How does Rashi know that they learn this halacha from this pasuk?
  2. Why does Rashi mention this fact here? He should, I'd think, have mentioned it, if anywhere, as a comment on the passage just before, where the tanaim were quoted.
Improve this question
2
  • About the first question: I haven't learned that specific place, but I wan to note that rishonim knew plenty of things that were not written down in gemara (don't forget, we are dealing with oral torah).
    – jutky
    Jul 10, 2011 at 21:01
  • Drush? I know it doesn't have a tag-wiki, but I have always veiwed it more in the realm of midreshei aggada not midreshei halacha.
    – Double AA ♦
    Mar 25, 2012 at 4:57

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I didn't spend too much time on this, but off the cuff:

Without the reasoning of "nesachim is fruit juice and cannot come to chimutz", I could have said the R"Y haGelili and R"A are adding only one item- whichever is the lesser chidush to include. The statement of reasoning shows that the machlokes is not over which one is the simplest to include, but rather that R"A holds that nesachim cannot be included practically. However, if it could come to chimutz, R"A would admit that it is included. So from that statement of reasoning, we see that the ribui includes all that is practical.

Admittedly, I probably would not have noticed your point.

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .