Menachos 2 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:14 - 2A
14:49 - 2B
24:07 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- The הייליגע משנה states that כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמה כשרות but do not count for the owner’s obligation, so the owner must bring another *mincha* even though the current one continues through the service. The speaker explains that mistaken intent can invalidate outcomes depending on the case, with two *mincha* exceptions paralleling *zevachim*, and he frames a practical יסוד that a mistake does not justify continuing the mistake. The *gemara* probes why the משנה uses the word אלא, develops the rule that the offering remains valid but one must not persist in the wrong designation, and brings Rava’s analogy from an *olah*. The sugya then contrasts the משנה with רבי שמעון, introduces the principle that מעשיו מוכיחים when the action itself reveals the true designation, and resolves an internal contradiction in רבי שמעון by distinguishing between *shinuy kodesh* and *shinuy baalim* using Rabbi Shimon’s approach of דורש טעמא דקרא.
- The משנה says כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמה כשרות אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה, so the offering proceeds but the owner is not *yotzei* and must bring another. The speaker illustrates that if the כהן intends a מנחת מחבת while it is really a מנחת מרחשת, the owner must replace it, yet the mistaken *mincha* itself is brought *weiter* like parallel cases in *zevachim*. The text treats the word אלא as difficult and anticipates the *gemara*’s clarification that the intended meaning is that the owner does not fulfill the obligation even though the offering remains valid.
- The speaker describes מנחת מרחשת and מנחת מחבת as having the same ingredients but differing in texture because one is made in a deeper vessel and stays softer while the flatter one loses oil faster and becomes harder. The sugya later uses this to say שקומץ מחבת לשום מרחשת מעשיו מוכיחים, so speech cannot override the physical reality of what is being produced. The text applies this idea also to “dry versus mixed” formulations, stating that the observable result determines what the act signifies.
- The משנה sets two exceptions: חוץ ממנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות. The speaker identifies the “שבט” mnemonic as שין for שמיעת קול, בית for שבועת ביטוי, and טית for טומאה, and he explains that a poor person can bring a flour-based offering instead of an expensive animal. The speaker states that מנחת חוטא has no oil, recalling the line חוטא נשכר? and presenting the lack of oil as a built-in reduction of honor to the offering due to the sin. The speaker explains מנחת קנאות as part of the סוטה process when a husband warns his wife against *yichud* and she disregards the warning, leading to a required *mincha*.
- The text aligns four עבודות of animal offerings—שחיטה, קבלה, הולכה, זריקה—with four corresponding steps for a *mincha*, stating that *shechitah* corresponds to *kemitzah*, and קבלה corresponds to placing the *kometz* into a second gold כלי שרת. The משנה lists cases where wrong intent occurs at any of these stages—שלא לשמן, לשמן ושלא לשמן, and שלא לשמן ולשמן—and declares them פסולות in the context presented. Rashi asks what is novel about “starting bad then ending good,” and answers that one might have thought תפס לשון אחרון would validate it, so the משנה teaches that it remains invalid despite the later correction. The text gives concrete examples of “good then bad” and “bad then good” using designations like מנחת חוטא and מנחה נדבה.
- The *gemara* asks למה לי למתני אלא and proposes that the phrase should read ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה. The *gemara* answers that the word teaches a rule: לבעלים דלא עלו לשם חובה, המנחה גופא כשירה, and it adds that it is אסור לשנויה, meaning that once the mistake is realized one must revert to the correct designation rather than continue the wrong one. The text ties this to Rava’s statement that an עולה slaughtered שלא לשמה must not have its blood sprinkled שלא לשמה, so a mistake at one stage does not license continuing the mistake at later stages.
- Rava supports the rule either by סברא or by קרא, stating that common sense rejects continuing the error merely because an error occurred. The speaker applies this as a מוסר יסוד, saying that a person who stumbled once should stop rather than extend the wrongdoing, and he frames it as guidance for personal *taavah* and online behavior. The *gemara* also cites the pasuk מוצא שפתיך תשמר ועשית כאשר נדרת לה' אלהיך נדבה and raises the difficulty of pairing נדר and נדבה in one verse. The text defines נדר as הרי עלי and נדבה as הרי זו, gives a memory device about ד״ו as a דב and “in a זו,” and reads the verse to mean that if one fulfills it properly it is treated like a נדר and if not it becomes נדבה requiring a new obligation.
- The *gemara* challenges the משנה from רבי שמעון, who says כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשרות ועלו לבעלים לשם חובה, directly opposing the משנה’s claim that the owner is not *yotzei*. The text explains that a *mincha* differs from animal offerings because in *menachot* the action reveals the designation, while in *zevachim* שחיטה אחת לכולן וזריקה אחת לכולן and likewise for קבלה and הולכה, so the act itself does not disclose intent. The sugya explores resolutions such as distinguishing between saying “מחבת/מרחשת” versus saying “מנחת מחבת/מנחת מרחשת,” and it considers other distinctions attributed to רבה and רבא, but it concludes for רבה ורבא that משנתינו דלא כרבי שמעון.
- A ברייתא states that a *mincha* is קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם, explaining that מנחת חוטא is like חטאת and therefore קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה כחטאת, while מנחת נדבה is like אשם and therefore קמצה שלא לשמה כשרה. The text notes the contradiction between this and Rabbi Shimon’s earlier claim that *menachot* done שלא לשמן still count for the owner. Rava resolves it by distinguishing כאן בשינוי קודש כאן בשינוי בעלים, saying that mislabeling the type is *kasher* because מעשה מוכיח, while misidentifying the owner is *pasul* because the intent is not externally verifiable. Abaye objects that once the Torah invalidates through מחשבה the distinction should not matter, and the response grounds Rabbi Shimon’s view in סברא because דרבי שמעון דורש טעמא דקרא, concluding that מחשבה דלא מינכרא פסלה רחמנא while מחשבה דמינכרא לא פסלה רחמנא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions