Menachos 8 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:10 - 7B
02:55 - 8A
24:54 - 8B
31:35 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A speaker learning Menachos near the end of ז עמוד ב moves into ח עמוד א–ב and frames the sugya around whether *kedushah* and *avodah* steps can be split, such as receiving Yom Kippur blood in two vessels and sanctifying the Kohen Gadol’s daily *chavitin* offering in halves. The Gemara tests positions attributed to רבי אלעזר and רבי יוחנן by comparing cases across *kodashim*, sometimes accepting and sometimes rejecting derivations with the recurring principle of מילתא ממילתא לא גמר. The narrative brings in לחם הפנים and the בזיכין as a *matir*, debates what happens when bread breaks at different stages, and returns to textual proofs like מנחה מחציתה and חוק עולם, including a חזון איש explanation via Artscroll. The sugya then shifts to whether a *minchah* becomes קדוש without oil or frankincense, introduces רבי חנינא’s stricter requirement that all components be together, and ends with כלי שרת rules about liquid vs. dry measures and שמואל’s teaching that מזרקות can sanctify dry contents, qualified by how *minchah* compares to blood.
- A case is raised about the Kohen on יום כיפור sprinkling חטאת blood in the סדר of אחת אחת ואחת אחת ושתיים and whether he can receive the blood in two different vessels. A position is attributed to רבי אלעזר that receiving four drops in one vessel and three in another is no good, and the Gemara challenges with ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי.
- A daily Kohen Gadol offering is described as a מנחת מחבת brought twice a day, with the flour supplied from his home and divided half in the morning and half in the evening. רבי יוחנן rules אינה קדושה לחצאין and requires the full עשרון to be placed into the vessel so the sanctification occurs in one act, explained through the idea that whatever hits the כלי becomes קדוש. רבי אלעזר argues מתוך שקרבה לחצאין קדושה לחצאין and permits making it קדוש in two stages because it is offered in two stages.
- A challenge is posed that if רבי אלעזר disqualifies splitting blood into two vessels, the same should apply to flour, and the answer proposes that רבי אלעזר מילתא ממילתא לא גמר. A proof is offered that רבי אלעזר does derive by stating מנחה שקמצה בהיכל כשרה, justifying it from שכן מצינו בסידור בזיכין because the שולחן with לחם הפנים and its בזיכין sits in the היכל. The Gemara answers that this is מנחה ממנחה יילף because לחם הפנים is treated as a type of מנחה, while מנחה מדם לא יילף.
- A ברייתא rules that if the bread breaks before removing the בזיכין, הלחם פסול ואין מקטיר עליו את הבזיכין, but if it breaks after removal, הלחם פסול yet ומקטיר עליו את הבזיכין. רבי אלעזר interprets לא פרקו ממש to mean that once the time to remove arrives, even without physical removal, כמי שפרקו דמי. The Gemara asks why this is not like a מנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה and answers that in a standard מנחה the קומץ is not yet determined, while by לחם הפנים the “kometz-like” element is already designated as the spoonfuls, so once the time arrives it is treated as separated. The Gemara further compares the post-removal breakage to שיריים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה and resolves that it depends on a מחלוקת, with רבי אלעזר aligned with the view that מקטירין קומץ עליהם even if the remainder diminished.
- The sugya returns to חביתי כהן גדול and gives רבי יוחנן’s reason from מנחה מחציתה, read as הוי מנחה ואחר כך מחציתה so it becomes a full מנחה before being halved. A challenge from a teaching that חביתי כהן גדול לא היו באות לחצאים is answered with למצוה, presenting the full-bringing procedure as the preferred mode. A further objection cites והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אותה חוק עולם לה' כליל תקטר and claims חוק blocks alternatives, and the answer limits the חוק to להביאה שלם מביתו. The speaker cites the חזון איש via Artscroll that the “whole from home” requirement means establishing an initial stage of sanctification as one unit, while later stages may allow separating halves.
- A statement is cited that when someone has half an איסרון with intent to add, רב says אינו קדוש and רבי יוחנן says קדוש, and this is stated to refer to a regular מנחה rather than חביתין. The Gemara asks why רבי יוחנן does not learn the regular case from חביתין and again raises מילתא ממילתא לא יליף, then brings proof that רבי יוחנן does derive by ruling שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשרים from ושחטו פתח אהל מועד and the logic שלא יטפל חמור מעיקר. The Gemara resolves that דעתו להוסיף שאני, treating the intent to complete as making the first portion קדוש.
- A verse is invoked with שניהם מלאים and a gloss appears in parentheses, כלומר שאינו קודש עד שיהיה עשרון שלם. A teaching in the name of רב יוסי limits the “must be full” requirement to when there is no intent to add, but when there is intent, ראשון ראשון קדוש and each portion becomes קדוש as it is added.
- The Gemara asks what רב holds regarding חביתין and suggests aligning him with רבי אלעזר, then challenges why רב does not learn a regular מנחה from חביתין. The answer again raises רב מילתא ממילתא לא יליף, but then shows רב does derive by teaching that a מנחה becomes קדוש without oil, without frankincense, or without both, each supported by parallels to לחם הפנים, מנחת נסכים, and מנחת חוטא. The conclusion drawn is that רב must align with רבי יוחנן, implying no splitting for חביתין and thus no splitting for the regular case as well.
- Rav states מנחה קדושה בלא שמן and grounds it in לחם הפנים, then extends to בלא לבונה from מנחת נסכים and to בלא שמן ובלא לבונה from מנחת חוטא. Rav further asserts that שמן becomes קדוש without לבונה and לבונה becomes קדוש without שמן, proving oil from בלוג שמן של מצורע and frankincense from לבונה הבאה בבזיכין. רבי חנינא disagrees and holds לא זו קדושה בלא זו ולא זו קדושה בלא זו, requiring all components together for sanctification.
- A question is asked that if רבי חנינא requires all ingredients together, עשרון למה נמשח, since the issaron vessel measures only flour. The Gemara answers למנחת חוטא because that offering is flour alone and still needs קדושה. A parallel question asks ולוג למה נמשח, and the answer is לכשמצורע because the metzora’s oil is sanctified on its own.
- A Mishnah is cited that כלי לח מקדשים את הלח and מידת היבש מקדשת את היבש, while each does not sanctify the other’s category. Shmuel qualifies that this limitation is about measuring vessels, but מזרקות מקדשות את היבש, supported by שניהם מלאים סולת בלולה בשמן למנחה. An objection argues that מנחה is not truly dry, and the answer says the verse is needed for the dry parts within the mixture and alternatively that מנחה לגבי דם כי יבש דמיא because compared to blood it is treated as dry.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions