Menachos 2 - Cycle 14
Summary
- We begin learning Menachos with the Torah’s wording “ונפש כי תקריב מנחה לה’,” and Chazal explain that the מנחה is typically brought by an עני, so Hashem views it as if he offered his own נפש. The text lays out the main types of מנחות, their ingredients and procedures, and the halachos that govern their preparation, sanctification in a כלי שרת, קמיצה and הקטרה, salting, and who eats the remainder. It then opens the first משנה about מנחות brought שלא לשמן, defines when such a מנחה is כשר but does not fulfill the owner’s חובה and when it becomes פסול, and develops the sugya through Tosafos, Rishonim, and later authorities, including disputes about which avodos are affected, what counts as “machshavah,” how סתמא לשמה functions, and whether רבי שמעון agrees with the משנה in light of his principle of *maaseh mochiach alav*.
- The Torah calls the bringer of a מנחה “נפש,” unlike עולה where it says “אדם כי יקריב,” and unlike שלמים where it speaks only about the offering. Chazal say in the name of רבי יצחק that the מנחה is different because the one who typically brings it is an עני, and Hashem says “מעלה אני עליו הכתוב כאילו הקריב נפשו לפני.” The Sefer Toras Haminchah explains that the pasuk “והנותרת ממנה תאכל לאהרן ולבניו” uses wording that highlights the significance of the מנחה by naming אהרן ובניו.
- The text distinguishes between a מנחת חובה and a מנחת נדבה and lists the forms of מנחת נדבה: מנחת סולת without baking, מנחת מחבת, מנחת מרחשת, and מנחה מאפה תנור. It defines that מנחה מאפה תנור includes two categories, חלות and רקיקין, and states that a מנחה is brought with ten חלות. It presents a מחלוקת between תנא קמא, who requires all חלות or all רקיקין, and רבי שמעון, who allows any combination.
- Chazal say in the name of רבי יצחק that the מנחה has “חמישה מיני טיגן הללו,” and they give a משל of a king whose poor friend makes him a meal and is embarrassed, so the king tells him to make five inexpensive varieties “כדי שאהנה ממך.” The variety is presented as an accommodation that lets the poor bring something fitting in multiple simple forms.
- The text identifies מנחת קנאות, מנחת חוטא, and the ציבור’s once-yearly מנחת העומר on the second day of פסח. It states that bringing the מנחת העומר permits eating חדש. It describes מנחת קנאות as part of the סוטה process and notes that unlike most מנחות brought from wheat, it is from barley flour. It defines מנחת חוטא as brought when one swore falsely, withheld testimony and then admitted, or violated טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, and it lays out the descending options of animal, two birds, and then a מנחת חוטא for one who cannot afford more.
- The text lists the basic ingredients of a מנחה as עשרון סולת חטין, a לוג שמן זית, and קומץ לבונה, with water added for mixing. It states that מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות, since they come because of an עבירה, have no oil and no לבונה. It cites רב שמעון who says it would be appropriate for a מנחת חוטא to require oil and frankincense “שלא יהא חוטא נשכר,” but it is excluded “שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר.”
- The text says one may increase a מנחה up to sixty עשרונים. It explains that beyond that amount the ingredients cannot be mixed with the oil, and even though “בלילה אינה מעכבת,” the offering must be fit for mixing. It states the rule “כל שראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת,” but if mixing cannot be done at all, the korban is not כשר.
- The text states that for animals and birds, verbal designation makes them a korban, but for a מנחה verbal designation is insufficient and it must be put into a כלי שרת. The ראב״ד explains that a מנחה has many preparatory steps before burning, so it needs sanctification through a כלי שרת. The Brisker Rav explains that while a korban attains קדושת הגוף from “כל אשר יתן ממנו לה’ יהיה קדש,” a מנחה made of multiple ingredients attains קדושת הגוף only through placement in a כלי שרת.
- The text describes three stages of adding oil: pouring oil into the כלי as “מתן שמן בכלי,” adding flour and then oil to mix, forming חלות, and placing leftover oil on top. It adds that for מנחת סולת the leftover oil is placed on the entire dough and then it is crumbled. It states that water is used, that lukewarm water is preferred, and that care is taken not to allow the מנחה to become חמץ. It records differing views about whether the flour and water were mixed before the oil or the oil was placed first.
- The text presents a מחלוקת about whether בלילה and יציקה may be done by a ישראל, with תנא קמא allowing it and רבי שמעון disallowing it. It says the same question applies to putting oil on the pan. It cites Minchas Chinuch that a זר is כשר, while all agree that a נוכרי cannot do it.
- The text states that the prepared מנחה is brought to the קרן מערבית דרומית, but if הגשה did not occur the מנחה remains כשר. The כהן places the לבונה to the side and performs steps corresponding to זבחים: קמיצה with the right hand corresponds to שחיטה, placing the קומץ into a כלי שרת corresponds to קבלת הדם, bringing it to the מזבח corresponds to הולכת הדם, and burning it corresponds to זריקת הדם. It states that the לבונה is also placed on the מזבח to be burned.
- The text cites the pasuk “וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח ולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיך מעל מנחתך.” It rules that if one did not salt the קומץ, the מנחה is disqualified. It states a מחלוקת about failing to salt the לבונה, attributing to the Brisker Rav that the korban remains כשר and to the Chazon Ish that the מנחה becomes disqualified.
- The text states that after burning the קומץ and לבונה, the remainder is divided among the כהנים and treated like קדשי קדשים, eaten only for a day and the next night until חצות, only in the עזרה, and only by male כהנים. It states there is a מצוה to eat it, based on “והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן ובניו מצות.” It distinguishes that when a כהן brings a מנחה there is no קמיצה and the entire offering is burned, as in “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל,” with the other procedures still performed.
- The משנה rules that all מנחות whose קמיצה was done שלא לשמן are כשרות but do not fulfill the owner’s חובה. It rules that מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות are different, and if brought שלא לשמן they are פסול. Tosafos explains that קמיצה is used in the משנה because it is the first of the four main steps, but the same rule applies to other core avodos, while תנופה and הגשה done שלא לשמה do not create the same effect because they do not correspond to the four blood-avodos of zevachim. The Rishonim note that the same disqualification logic applies to improper avodah performed with the לבונה as well.
- Tosafos states that שלא לשמה can mean intending a different korban type or intending different owners. Rashi and Tosafos say that for a מנחה, the דין of שינוי בעלים matters specifically at הקטרת קומץ because it corresponds to זריקת הדם which effects כפרה. The Rambam disagrees and applies שינוי בעלים to any step where שינוי קודש applies, based on the pasuk “זאת התורה לעולה למנחה...” that equates the korbonos to שלמים for machshavah halachos.
- The text records that Rashi, Tosafos, and many Rishonim hold that an improper machshavah is only significant if verbalized, while the Rambam holds that mere thought suffices. It applies this dispute to other halachos requiring לשמה such as writing a גט and producing תפילין, מזוזות, and ספר תורה, stating that according to the Rambam thought is adequate, while according to Rashi and Tosafos the לשמה intent must be articulated.
- The text states the principle from Zevachim that סתמא לשמה makes an unarticulated act presumed valid. Rav Leib Malin explains that explicit שלא לשמה breaks the סתמא, so a later act with לשמה can restore the status when possible. The Brisker Rav explains that שלא לשמה is a new intrinsic פסול, so it cannot be rectified once it occurs. It then cites Taharas Hakodesh and Sefas Emes that when one must bring a replacement korban after a failed attempt, one cannot rely on סתמא לשמה and must bring the new korban with explicit לשמה intent.
- The משנה lists that for מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות, if קמיצה, placing in the כלי, הולכה, or הקטרה are done שלא לשמן, or with mixed intent לשמן ושלא לשמן or the reverse, the korban is פסול. It illustrates that starting with intent for מנחת חוטא and adding intent for מנחת נדבה, or starting with intent for נדבה and then switching to חוטא, still leaves it פסול, and it cites Tiferes Yisrael that the difference lies in the purpose even though the procedure is identical. The Rambam states that the same structural rules of mixed-intent apply to other מנחות as well, with the difference being whether the outcome is פסול or merely not עולה לבעלים לשם חובה.
- The גמרא asks why the משנה adds “אלא” rather than simply saying “לא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה.” The answer is that “אלא” teaches that the owner does not receive credit but the מנחה itself remains כשר, and one must not continue performing the remaining avodos שלא לשמה. It brings רבא’s rule from עולה that if slaughtered שלא לשמה one may not throw its blood שלא לשמה, and the Chafetz Chaim extends this to the other avodos as well.
- The Chafetz Chaim states that after an initial שלא לשמה act one cannot rely on סתמא לשמה for the remaining steps and must have explicit לשמה intent to correct what can still be corrected. The Rashba states that if one realizes during שחיטה that it is being done שלא לשמה, there is no need to try to correct within that same act, and the correction begins with the next avodah. The גמרא offers two bases for the rule to proceed correctly: a סברא that wrongdoing in one step does not justify continuing wrongly, and a פסוק “מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית כאשר נדרת לה’ אלקיך נדבה” interpreted to mean that if performed properly it fulfills the נדר, and if not it is treated as a נדבה so the obligation remains, yet even a נדבה must be performed properly.
- The גמרא considers whether the משנה conflicts with רבי שמעון, who in a ברייתא says all מנחות that were נקמצו שלא לשמן are כשרות and even fulfill the owner’s חובה because “אין המנחות דומות לזבחים.” It explains that for מנחות, differences such as מחבת versus מרחשת, or חריבה versus בלולה, make the act itself reveal the truth, so the contrary statement is discounted as *maaseh mochiach alav*, while zevachim have a unified שחיטה, קבלה, and זריקה so the verbal intent is not contradicted by the action. It presents differing reconciliations of רבי שמעון’s apparent contradiction, including Rav Ashi’s distinction between saying only the כלי-name versus saying “מנחת מחבת לשם מנחת מרחשת,” and it concludes that according to Rava and Rabbah’s alternative explanations the משנה must be “לא כרבי שמעון.”
- The גמרא brings a second ברייתא where רבי שמעון says “קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם,” so מנחת חוטא is like חטאת and is פסול if קמצה שלא לשמן, while מנחת נדבה is like אשם and is כשרה like אשם though it does not appease. Rava answers that the contradiction depends on whether the invalidating intent is discernible, and Abaye challenges that the Torah equates types of פסול-machshavah, so שינוי קודש and שינוי בעלים should not differ. The גמרא grounds רבי שמעון’s approach in his general method of *doresh taam d’kra*, as in his limitation of “לא תחבול בגד אלמנה” to a poor widow, and it concludes that מחשבה that is not outwardly contradicted can פסול, while a מחשבה that is outwardly contradicted is not treated as disqualifying.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions