Menachos 9 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on Menachos 9 begins from Menachos 8b and establishes that a *korban shelamim* slaughtered in the *heichal* remains *kasher* because the Torah allows *shechitah* at the entrance of the *Ohel Moed* and the *Gemara* applies the reasoning of לא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר. A *baraisa* about danger in the *azarah* teaches that *kohanim* may eat *kodshei kodashim* and *shirei menachos* in the *heichal* when necessary, but the *Gemara* distinguishes between *avodah* like *shechitah* and eating, which is normally disrespectful in the place of one’s master and therefore needs an explicit *pasuk*. The *Rishonim* and *Acharonim* debate whether בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו means the *heichal* or even the *kodesh hakodashim*, whether the permission is only *bedieved*, and whether the *mitzvah* of eating is fulfilled there. The *sugya* then turns to *menachos*: mixing (*belilah*) outside the *azarah* is disputed between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש, and further disputes address replacing missing flour or oil before *kemitzah* and the validity of burning the *kometz* when *sheyarei haMinchah* are missing between *kemitzah* and *haktarah*, with comparisons to רבי אליעזר and רבי יהושע’s rule of אם אין בשר אין דם and to *lechem hapanim* and *minchas nesachim*, and with practical outcomes about whether remaining *sheyarim* may be eaten.
- A *korban shelamim* is *kodshim kalim* and may be brought as an obligation or as a *nedavah* from cattle or sheep, male or female. A *shelamim* may be slaughtered anywhere in the *azarah* and is not restricted to the north like *kodshei kodashim*. Rabbi Yochanan rules that *shelamim* slaughtered in the *heichal* are *kesheirim*, based on ושחטו פתח אהל מועד and the logic that if it is permitted in the *azarah* then it is not stricter in a place of greater *kedushah*.
- A *baraisa* of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira teaches that if idolaters surround the *azarah* and it is dangerous, *kohanim* enter the *heichal* and eat *kodshei kodashim* and *shirei menachos*. The source is the *pasuk* כהקרבנו ולכל מנחתם ולכל חטאתם ולכל אשמם בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו. The *Olah Sheleimah* teaches that slaughter in the *heichal* and eating there are acceptable only *bedieved* in such pressured circumstances, and the permission to eat applies only when the *azarah* is surrounded and it is dangerous.
- The *Gemara* asks why a special *pasuk* is needed, since והנותר ממנו יאכל אהרן ובניו בחצר אהל מועד יאכלו could combine with לא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר to permit eating in the *heichal*. The *Gemara* answers that the cases differ because *shechitah* is עבודה דאדם עובד במקום רבו while eating is שאין אדם אוכל במקום רבו, so the permissibility of eating in the *heichal* requires the explicit text of בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו. The *Gemara* states that without the *pasuk* the reasoning alone would not allow eating there.
- The Ramban understands בקדש הקדשים literally and allows eating not only in the *kodesh* (*heichal*) but even in the *kodesh hakodashim*. The Ibn Ezra holds that in this context *kodesh hakodashim* refers to the *heichal* and says there was no *hava amina* to allow eating in the actual *kodesh hakodashim*. The Yad David holds that even if the words refer to the *kodesh hakodashim*, they mean the *mitzvah* of eating is fulfilled *bedieved* if eaten there, but they do not permit a *kohen* to enter the *kodesh hakodashim* to eat even when no other safe place exists. The Yad David adds that the *aseh* of eating overrides entering the *heichal* but cannot override entering the *kodesh hakodashim* because it carries מיתה בידי שמים. The Kli Chemda explains that Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira addresses a case where *kohanim* are compelled to enter the *kodesh* or *kodesh hakodashim* to escape danger, since פיקוח נפש overrides, and once they are there due to danger they may eat *kodshim* in the *kodesh* and *kodesh hakodashim*.
- The *Gemara* introduces a dispute: if a *minchah* is mixed with oil outside the wall of the *azarah*, Rabbi Yochanan rules it is *pesulah* and Reish Lakish rules it is *kesheirah*. The *Chazon Ish* explains this is a *bedieved* situation and that even Reish Lakish agrees the proper place for *belilah* is in the *azarah* because it is done in a *kli shareis*. Reish Lakish reasons that since בלילה אינה מעכבת and the *minchah* is *kasher* even without mixing, an improperly done mixing does not invalidate. Reish Lakish cites the verses that *yetzikah* and *belilah* precede והביאה אל בני אהרן הכהנים וקמץ, teaching that from *kemitzah* onward is *mitzvas kehunah*, so *yetzikah* and *belilah* are valid by a *zar* and he extends that to not requiring *pnim*. Rabbi Yochanan responds that although *kehunah* is not required, the act is done in a *kli shareis* and therefore requires the *azarah*, and a *baraisa* supports Rabbi Yochanan that *belilah* by a *zar* is *kesheirah* but outside the wall of the *azarah* is *pesulah*.
- The Meshech Chochmah notes that *pitum haketores* does not require a *kohen* but, according to the Rambam in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash Perek 2 Mishnah 7, must be done *bifnim* and *pitum ketores* in a non-sanctified vessel is invalid, and he asks why Reish Lakish does not apply this to *minchah*. The Meshech Chochmah answers that Reish Lakish aligns with the Yerushalmi Shekalim Perek 4 Halachah 3 quoting Yehoshua ben Levi that *pitum haketores* may be done outside the *azarah*. The Sefer Taharas HaKodesh distinguishes stages of adding oil and says the initial coating of oil on the bottom does not need a *kli shareis* and therefore even Rabbi Yochanan would allow it outside the *azarah*. The Likutei Halachos of the Chafetz Chaim suggests there is no dispute regarding *yetzikah bedieved* and that even Rabbi Yochanan would allow *yetzikah* outside the *azarah*, with the dispute focusing on the oil added after the flour is in the vessel. Tosafos notes that *tenufah* and *hagashah* require *kohanim* even though they are not among the four core *avodos* corresponding to an animal offering.
- Rav Yosef Engel in his sefer Lekach Tov states that even when an act is not essential, if it is done it must be done correctly, and he applies this to *belilah* that is not required yet becomes disqualifying when performed outside the *azarah*. He contrasts this with Zevachim 63b where *mitzui* of *chatas ha’of* done above the *chut hasikra* is *kasher* because skipping *mitzui* entirely would also be *kasher*, so incorrect performance is no worse than omission. He explains the difference by saying *mitzui* was still performed on the *mizbeach*, while *belilah* outside the *azarah* is done in a place without *kedushah* and is therefore worse.
- The *Gemara* rules that a *minchah* missing part of its ingredients before *kemitzah* is disputed: Rabbi Yochanan says יביא מתוך ביתו וימלנו and the added portion requires *yetzikah* because it never received the required *yetzikah*. Reish Lakish says לא יביא מתוך ביתו וימלנו and the offering becomes permanently disqualified. Rabbi Yochanan bases his view on *kemitzah* establishing the offering, so before *kemitzah* it can be corrected, while Reish Lakish bases his view on קדושת כלי establishing it once placed in a *kli shareis*.
- Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from a Mishnah in Nega’im about the *log shemen* of a *metzora*: if it became deficient before pouring, it can be refilled, but afterwards it cannot. The *Gemara* concludes תיובתא against Reish Lakish. Tosafos asks how Reish Lakish could contradict an explicit Mishnah and answers that although Amora’im knew Mishnayos, they did not know the Mishnayos of Seder Taharos. The Sfas Emes suggests the *minchah* and the *log shemen* may differ, and the dispute could turn on whether to compare *minchah* law to the *log shemen*.
- A new dispute is stated: if *sheyarim* are missing between *kemitzah* and *haktarah*, Rabbi Yochanan permits burning the *kometz* and Reish Lakish forbids it. The *Gemara* says all agree according to רבי אליעזר that burning proceeds even when *sheyarim* are missing, and the dispute is according to רבי יהושע. The *Gemara* connects this to the well-known dispute about *zerikas hadam* when the meat is lost or invalid: Rabbi Yehoshua says אם אין בשר אין דם based on ועשית עלותיך הבשר והדם, and Rabbi Eliezer permits based on דם זבחיך ישפך. Rabbi Yehoshua requires a *kezayis* of meat or *chelev* and does not combine half-measures except in an *olah* where all is burned and they combine.
- The *Gemara* cites a teaching of Rabbi Yehoshua that “u’minchah, even though it is entirely intact, lo yizrok,” and asks how *minchah* relates to meat and blood. Rav Papa explains it refers to *minchas nesachim*, and the lesson is that even though it comes with the offering it is not considered the body of the offering for allowing *zerikah* when the meat is gone.
- Reish Lakish forbids *haktaras hakometz* when *sheyarim* are missing even if a *kezayis* remains and derives it from והרים מהמנחה את אזכרתה והקטיר המזבחה, reading המנחה as requiring the entire *minchah* to be present. Rabbi Yochanan reads the same term as teaching למנחה שהייתה כבר, so if it began as a complete *minchah* and some *sheyarim* remain, *haktarah* may proceed.
- Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from a *baraisa* about *lechem hapanim*: if it crumbled before removal from the *shulchan*, the bread is invalid and the *bezichin* are not burned, but if it crumbled after the time of removal, the bread is invalid yet the *bezichin* are burned, and Rabbi Elazar says the decisive point is when the time to remove arrives even if it was not removed. Reish Lakish answers that this follows Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yochanan responds that if it follows Rabbi Eliezer then even more severe loss like burning or total loss should still allow burning the *bezichin*, and Reish Lakish remains silent. Tosafos says this silence indicates Reish Lakish retracts and the ruling follows Rabbi Yochanan, while the Chazon Ish says Reish Lakish could have argued that crumbled bread is treated as missing and silence is not compelling proof of retraction.
- The *Gemara* asks why Reish Lakish did not answer that *lechem hapanim* is a communal offering and טומאה הותרה בציבור, so deficiency might also be permitted. Rav Ada bar Ahavah answers that חסרון is treated like a בעל מום and there is no distinction between communal and individual offerings for *ba’al mum* disqualification. Rav Yosef bar Shemuel challenges Rav Papa by saying the dispute itself involves *minchas ha’omer*, a communal offering, yet Reish Lakish still invalidates when *sheyarim* are missing, showing the ציבור/יחיד distinction is not used here.
- Rav Malkiya derives from the verse וקמץ משם מלא קומצו מסלתה ומשמנה that if any flour is missing it is invalid from מסלתה and if any oil is missing it is invalid from ומשמנה. A separate *baraisa* derives from והנותרת מן המנחה לאהרן ולבניו קדש קדשים מאשי ה' that it excludes a *minchah* that is חסרה, excludes a missing *kometz*, and excludes a case where none of the *levonah* was burned. The *Gemara* asks why two verses are needed and proposes one for deficiency before *kemitzah* and one for deficiency between *kemitzah* and *haktarah*, then asks whether this refutes Rabbi Yochanan.
- The *Gemara* rejects the refutation and explains that the verse about deficiency before *kemitzah* means the offering is invalid only if one does not replace it, but if one brings from home and refills it remains valid, matching Rabbi Yochanan. The verse about *sheyarim* missing between *kemitzah* and *haktarah* teaches that even though one may burn the *kometz*, the remaining *sheyarim* become forbidden to eat. The *Gemara* then asks, according to the view that permits *haktarah* despite missing *sheyarim*, whether those *sheyarim* may be eaten.
- Ze’iri derives from והנשארת מן המנחה לאהרן ולבניו that eating requires the full remainder והיא ולא הנשארת מן הנשארת, so if some *sheyarim* are missing they may not be eaten. Rabbi Yannai derives that as long as the *minchah* was complete at the time of *haktarah*, later loss does not prevent eating. Rashi presents a first interpretation that frames the dispute as turning on whether loss between *kemitzah* and *haktarah* permits eating, and a second interpretation that the *sheyarim* are never eaten and the practical difference is only how to read the verse. The Or Sameach connects this dispute to a case of *minchas chotei* that must be *chareivah* and asks whether adding oil after *kemitzah* before *haktarah* invalidates it, saying Ze’iri focuses on validity at *kemitzah* while Rabbi Yannai requires correctness through *haktarah*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions