Menachos 9 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:11 - Introduction
02:01 - 8B
10:35 - 9A
23:42 - 9B
34:14 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A live שיעור from Lakewood on דף ח עמוד ב explains that a מנחה becomes valid even if its *kemitzah* is done in the *Heikhal*, builds the underlying קל וחומר and related proofs from the שולחן and בזיכין, and then challenges and refines the דרשה of “וקמץ משם” until it yields practical halakhic boundaries for where *kemitzah* may be done. The שיעור then shifts to רבי יוחנן’s ruling that שלמים slaughtered in the *Heikhal* are valid and distinguishes between doing עבודה in a more קדוש place and eating in such a place, which requires a פסוק when danger forces כהנים inside. The latter half presents a sequence of מחלוקות between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about *belilah* outside the wall, about a מנחה that became חסרה before *kemitzah*, and about שיריים that became חסרים between *kemitzah* and הקטרה, tying these disputes to רבי אליעזר versus רבי יהושע, to the model of זריקת הדם when meat remains, and to proofs from לחם הפנים, ציבור, and the concept that חיסרון is like *ba’al mum*, before concluding with how two פסוקים about חיסרון are reconciled and how missing שיריים affects permissibility of אכילה.
- A מנחה is a flour gift to הקדוש ברוך הוא, and *kemitzah* is when the כהן takes three fingers’ worth of flour as the קומץ, places it into a כלי שרת, and later brings it to the מזבח. A ruling of רבי אלעזר states that a מנחה whose *kemitzah* is done in the *Heikhal* is כשרה, and the גמרא supports this with a קל וחומר that if it is valid in the less-kadosh עזרה it is certainly valid in the *Heikhal*. A proof is drawn from the שולחן in the *Heikhal*, where the בזיכין of לבונה are removed and burned, and that עבודה is treated as parallel to *kemitzah* because burning the לבונה enables the כהנים to eat the לחם הפנים.
- A challenge from רבי ירמיה cites “וקמץ משם” as requiring *kemitzah* “from over there,” initially framed as the place where ישראל stand in עזרת ישראל. בן בתירא uses “וקמץ משם” to teach that if a כהן mistakenly performed *kemitzah* with the left hand he returns and does *kemitzah* again with the right, reading “משם” as from the same bowl he already used rather than a geographic location. Another approach explains that “וקמץ משם” comes to validate *kemitzah* anywhere in the entire עזרה, rejecting an assumption that because מנחה is קדשי קדשים it must be limited to צפון like עולה, חטאת, or אשם. A further צורך for the פסוק arises from הגשה, since the vessel is brought to the southwest corner of the מזבח, and without “וקמץ משם” one could have assumed that *kemitzah* itself must also be performed specifically at that corner.
- A new גופא cites רבי יוחנן that שלמים slaughtered in the *Heikhal* are כשרים, derived from “ושחטו פתח אהל מועד” and the principle “ולא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר,” because a more קדוש place cannot be more restrictive than the primary required place. רבי יהודה בן בתירא provides a case of siege conditions where כהנים enter the *Heikhal* and eat קדשי קדשים and שירי מנחות, learned from “בקדש הקדשים תאכלנה,” even though the baseline rule is “בחצר אהל מועד יאכלוה.” The גמרא answers that the קל וחומר of “טפל ועיקר” is applied to עבודה, because a servant can perform service in front of his master, but eating in front of one’s master is not assumed and therefore needs an explicit פסוק.
- A מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש addresses *belilah* done outside the wall of the עזרה, where רבי יוחנן rules it פסול and ריש לקיש rules it כשר. ריש לקיש derives from “ונתן עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה והדר והביאה אל בני אהרן הכהנים וקמץ” that יציקה and *belilah* are כשר in a זר, and he extends this to say that פנים is also not required. רבי יוחנן argues that since the act is done in a כלי שרת, the קדושת כלי makes it part of the avodah framework requiring it to be done inside, and a ברייתא supports him explicitly that *belilah* by a זר is כשרה but outside the wall is פסולה.
- A second מחלוקת asks what happens if a מנחה became חסרה before *kemitzah*, where רבי יוחנן says יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה and ריש לקיש says לא יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה. רבי יוחנן grounds his view in the idea that *kemitzah* is what fixes the status of “מנחה,” so the prohibition of lacking applies once it is a מנחה, and he reads “והנותרת מן המנחה” as requiring wholeness once the מנחה-status has been set by *kemitzah*. ריש לקיש holds that קדושת כלי sets it earlier, so once placed in a כלי שרת it becomes locked in and cannot be replenished. רבי יוחנן challenges from the case of חסר הלוג of a מצורע, where oil in a כלי שרת can still be filled before the process begins, and the exchange concludes with a תיובתא against ריש לקיש’s framing.
- A third dispute asks about שיריים that became חסרים between *kemitzah* and הקטרה, where רבי יוחנן permits being מקטיר the קומץ and ריש לקיש forbids it because additional flour cannot be added after *kemitzah* since no *kemitzah* would have been taken from the added portion. The גמרא ties the dispute to רבי אליעזר versus רבי יהושע in a משנה about שיריים that became טמא, burnt, or lost, where רבי אליעזר validates continuing and רבי יהושע invalidates when nothing remains. A ברייתא in רבי יהושע’s name establishes that if כזית בשר or כזית חלב remains one may still do זריקת הדם, but two half-measures of different “eatings” do not combine, while in עולה they do combine because it is כולה כליל. The line “ובמנחה אף על פי שכולה קיימת לא יזרוק” is explained as referring to מנחת נסכים, teaching that even though it accompanies a זבח it is not treated as the body of the זבח for permitting זריקה when the זבח itself is missing.
- ריש לקיש supports פסול by reading “והרים ממנה בקומצו ממנחתה” to require that the entire מנחה be present at the time of הקטרה, while רבי יוחנן reads “מן המנחה” as “מנחה שנעשית כבר,” so completeness at the time of *kemitzah* suffices even if later it is not whole. רבי יוחנן challenges from the דין of לחם הפנים that if the bread breaks before פריקת בזיכין the bread is פסול and the בזיכין are not offered, but if it breaks after the time of פריקה the bread is still פסול yet the בזיכין are offered. Rav אלעזר interprets “פרקה” as reaching the time for removal even if not physically removed, and the attempt to attribute the דין to רבי אליעזר is rejected as too narrow and too small a חידוש, leaving silence in the exchange. The possibility that ציבור would be lenient is raised and countered by רב אשי’s claim that חיסרון is like *ba’al mum*, and the discussion notes that the very מחלוקת of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש can apply even to מנחת העומר which is ציבור.
- Two teachings cite “מסלתה” and “משמנה” to disqualify any חסרון in flour or oil, and another teaching from “והותרת מן המנחה” excludes a מנחה that is חסרה, whose קומץ is חסר, or from which no לבונה was offered, generating a question why two פסוקים about חסרון are needed. The proposed use of the two פסוקים to refute רבי יוחנן in both earlier cases is rejected, and רבי יוחנן explains that in a מנחה חסרה קודם קמיצה one must bring and refill, and the other פסוק teaches that even though one may be מקטיר the קומץ when שיריים became חסרים between *kemitzah* and הקטרה, those שיריים become אסורין באכילה. The resolution is tied to the phrasing “ונותרת” and “ונותרת מן הנותרת,” distinguishing ordinary leftover after *kemitzah* from a leftover that later suffered loss, and רבי ינאי states “מן המנחה” means a מנחה that was already properly made at the crucial earlier stage.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions