Menachos 4 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:07 - Introduction
02:30 - 3B
07:50 - 4A
21:41 - 4B
32:12 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A מנחה is presented as a flour-based *korban* with multiple forms, including מנחת נדבה and מנחת חוטא, and with technical varieties such as מנחת מרחשת and מנחת מחבת that share ingredients but differ by preparation. The הלכה of incorrect *kavanah* is compared to זבחים, and a contradiction within רבי שמעון בן יוחאי about whether a mistaken designation invalidates the offering is framed through three proposed explanations by רבה, רבא, and רב אשי, each challenged by difficulties. The narrative then shifts to exceptions where a mistaken intent causes disqualification, focusing on מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות, and expands to other offerings whose purpose is to permit something (*matir*) rather than atone (*mechaper*), including מנחת העומר and the אשמות of נזיר and מצורע. The sugya distinguishes which cases the Mishnah lists, how *gezeirah shavah* is limited, why אשם is treated differently due to the placement of “הוא,” and how post-mortem bringing differs between *mechaper* and fixed *machshir* cases.
- A מנחה is defined as a flour-based *korban* brought either as an obligation after sin or as a voluntary gift, including מנחת נדבה and מנחת חוטא. A מנחת מרחשת and a מנחת מחבת use the same ingredients but differ by the כלי, with one resulting in a thicker, harder product and the other remaining softer because the oil burns off differently. A parallel is drawn to the first משנה in זבחים, where incorrect intent about the offering’s identity harms the owner’s fulfillment but does not necessarily invalidate the *korban*, and the Mishnah in מנחות is presented as similarly allowing continuation when a כהן mentally calls one מנחה by the wrong מנחה-type, while still requiring the owner to bring another.
- A contradiction is presented in רבי שמעון בן יוחאי, with one teaching requiring discarding the מנחה when the כהן’s thought assigns it to a different identity, and another teaching declaring it acceptable without requiring a replacement. רבה explains that one case involves thinking it belongs to a different owner, which is פסול and discarded, while the other involves confusing one מנחה-type for another, which remains valid. רבא and רב אשי reject רבה because they hold that an obvious, recognizable mistaken thought is itself disqualifying, expressed as דאדרבה מחשבה דמינכר פסל רחמנא.
- רבא distinguishes between confusion within מנחות and confusion between a מנחה and a זבח, using “וזאת תורת המנחה” to treat all מנחות as one umbrella such that מרחשת and מחבת do not invalidate each other. A challenge is raised from “וזאת תורת החטאת,” since that would imply analogous umbrella-treatment for all חטאות, yet a mistaken intent within חטאת is treated as disqualifying. This difficulty is stated as the reason the others do not accept רבא’s explanation.
- רב אשי distinguishes cases where the כהן merely says “מחבת” or “מרחשת” from cases where he explicitly says “מנחת מחבת,” claiming the explicit formulation creates פסול. This approach is challenged by רב אחא בריה דרבא’s case of a מנחה חריבה being called “בלול,” which still emerges as כשר according to רבי שמעון despite the obvious mismatch. The sugya concludes that each of רבה, רבא, and רב אשי faces a significant problem, leaving uncertainty about reaching “סוף דעתיה דרב שמעון.”
- רב הושעיה is asked what רבי שמעון בן יוחאי holds when a כהן treats a flour מנחה as an עולה, a category reserved for an animal. The question is framed as whether רבי שמעון’s leniency rests on the principle that a blatant מחשבה דמינכרא does not פסל, or whether it rests on “וזאת תורת המנחה,” which would not apply when the mistaken category is זבח rather than מנחה. The response states that the sugya cannot resolve רבי שמעון’s full position because of the unresolved contradiction and the weaknesses in the three proposed reconciliations, and it reiterates the specific objections raised against each reconciliation.
- The Mishnah’s exceptions are presented as מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות, where a mistaken intent leads to discarding rather than continuing. מנחת חוטא is aligned with חטאת because the Torah calls it “חטאת” and emphasizes its degraded form, “לא ישים עליה שמן” and “ולא יתן עליה לבונה” with “כי חטאת היא,” and this parallels the rule that חטאת and פסח are uniquely discarded when performed שלא לשמן. A source is sought for מנחת קנאות, and a תנא before רב נחמן states that “מנחת קנאות מותר לנדבה,” supported by a linkage via “מזכרת עון” and “לשאת את עון העדה,” yielding both that its surplus goes to נדבה and that it would be פסולה שלא לשמה like חטאת.
- The sugya challenges extending the “עון” linkage broadly by asking why an אשם would not then share the חטאת rule of פסול שלא לשמו, since “ונשא עונו” appears by אשם. A distinction is made as דנים עון מעון ואין דנים עונו מעון, followed by the question of why that spelling difference should matter given the principle from תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל and the example where different verbs such as “ושב” and “ובא” can function equivalently for learning. The conclusion is stated as אלא כי גמר גזירה שוה למותר נדבה דגמר, and the sugya explains that the exclusive פסול rule is confined by the מיעוט in חטאת, “ושחט אותה לחטאת,” establishing “אותה לשמה כשירה, שלא לשמה פסולה,” while “כל קדשים, בין לשמה בין שלא לשמה כשרים.”
- The sugya seeks the basis for the פסול of these two מנחות by analogizing to the defining term in חטאת, stating that חטאת’s rule rests on “היא,” and asserting a parallel “הוא היא הוא.” It then notes that אשם also contains “הוא,” yet does not follow the same invalidation rule, and it explains that by אשם the “הוא” is written after הקטרת אימורים, where even failure to offer אימורים still leaves the offering כשר. The “הוא” of אשם is then used for רב הונא אמר רב: “אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו סתם כשר לשם עולה,” while “אבל לא נתק לו” means “הוא בהווייתו יהא,” and it remains an אשם.
- Rav rules that “מנחת העומר שקמצה שלא לשמה פסולה” because it comes “להתיר” and “לא התירו,” making continuation pointless. This creates a conflict with the Mishnah’s claim that only מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות are exceptions, and the sugya answers that the Mishnah’s list is limited, giving explanations that it teaches cases “בבא ביחיד” and not ציבור, or cases “בבא בגלל עצמו” and not those brought with a זבח, or cases without a fixed time, excluding offerings like the עומר that are “קבוע להן זמן.”
- It is stated that “אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע ששחטם שלא לשמה פסולין” because they come “להכשיר” and did not achieve that, paralleling the “מתיר” logic. A contradiction is raised against the Mishnah in זבחים that lists only פסח and חטאת as disqualified by שלא לשמן, and the answer explains that the category אשם is not uniform because אשם גזילות and אשם מעילות come “לכפרה.” The sugya then asks why failure to achieve כפרה does not equally justify discarding those אשמות, since they “באו לכפרה ולא כיפרו,” and it proposes a distinction that Scripture differentiates between *mechaperin* and *machshirin*.
- Rav Yeremiah states that a difference is found because *mechaperin* can come after death, while *machshirin* do not come after death. The example is given of a woman after childbirth: “אשה שהביאה חטאתה ומתה יביאו יורשין עולתה,” while “עולתה ומתה לא יביאו יורשין חטאתה,” and the explanation assigns the עולה to כפרה and the חטאת to permitting eating קדשים. רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון challenges this by bringing the case of “המפריש מעות לנזירותו,” where after death money can go to נדבה, and where מפורשים are divided as דמי חטאת ילכו לים המלח, דמי עולה יביא בהן עולה with מעילה, and דמי שלמים יביא בהן שלמים with “ונאכלות ליום אחד” and “ואין טעונים לחם.” רב פפא resolves Rav Yeremiah’s claim as referring to a “מכשיר קבוע,” while נזיר is treated as an “הכשר שאינו קבוע,” expressed in the rule “גילח על אחת משלשתן יצא.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions