Menachos 12 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:12 - Introduction
04:57 - 11B
07:43- 12A
25:17 - 12B
32:45 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - http://Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A מנחה is presented as a gift to the *Ribono shel Olam* made from flour, where the כהן performs four עבודות—קמיצה, placing the קומץ into a second כלי שרת, הולכה to the מזבח, and הקטרה—and the קומץ serves as the מתיר that allows the כהנים to eat the שיריים. A כהן can invalidate the מנחה through מחשבה during any one of these עבודות, with חוץ למקומו making it פסול without כרת and חוץ לזמנו creating פיגול with כרת if eaten. The text applies these principles to combinations of מחשבות, to cases of שלא לשמן (especially regarding מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות), and to questions about when הקטרה or זריקה can still have legal effects when parts are missing or have gone outside. It advances and challenges proofs about whether a remaining כזית can generate the relevant halachic outcomes, then reframes the issue through רבי אלעזר, רבי עקיבא, and the role of the ציץ in cases of טומאה.
- A מנחה is described as a flour offering that functions as a gift, sometimes optional and sometimes obligatory, and the כהן takes a three-fingerful קמיצה that goes onto the מזבח while the remaining שיריים are eaten by the כהנים. A second כלי שרת, described as an important gold vessel that is anointed to receive קדושה, receives the קומץ, after which the כהן performs הולכה by carrying it to the מזבח and then הקטרה by burning it. The act of הקטרה is framed as a kind of eating because the מזבח “eats,” and the קומץ is presented as the מתיר that enables consumption of the remainder.
- A מנחה is treated like קדשי קדשים and is eaten for one day, so a מחשבה to eat it tomorrow is defined as חוץ לזמנו and constitutes פיגול, which leads to כרת if it is eaten. A מחשבה to eat it outside the permitted place, such as in קרית יואל or other locations listed, is defined as חוץ למקומו and makes the מנחה פסול without כרת. The rule is stated that מחשבה during any of the four עבודות—קמיצה, נותן בכלי, הולכה, and הקטרה—creates these outcomes when directed to eating something normally eaten or burning something normally burned.
- The text explains that a single מחשבה in any one of the four עבודות is sufficient to determine the status, whether the other עבודות are done בשתיקה or not. A valid פיגול מחשבה must be “perfect,” meaning it cannot be combined with additional מחשבות such as adding חוץ למקומו to חוץ לזמנו, because two מחשבות together remove the כרת outcome. A sequence is given where initiating with חוץ למקומו and later adding חוץ לזמנו, or initiating with חוץ לזמנו and later adding חוץ למקומו, results in פסול without כרת as presented in the משנה’s framing of “זו שלא קרב כמתנתו.”
- A parallel is drawn to the rule in זבחים that a mistaken identity thought during service makes most offerings not count for the owner but does not invalidate them, while מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות are exceptions that are discarded when performed שלא לשמן. מנחת קנאות is identified as the מנחה brought by a סוטה, with the description that the process includes erasing השם's name. When שלא לשמן is combined with חוץ לזמנו across the עבודות, the result is framed as “זו שלא קרב כמתנתו,” reinforcing that multiple מחשבות undermine the classic פיגול structure.
- The משנה’s repeated inclusion of כזית is emphasized, including scenarios of intending to eat or burn only a כזית outside or tomorrow, and the outcome is given as פסול without כרת for חוץ למקומו and פיגול with כרת for חוץ לזמנו. רבי יהודה states the rule that if מחשבת הזמן precedes מחשבת המקום, the status is פיגול with כרת, while if מחשבת המקום precedes מחשבת הזמן, it is פסול without כרת. The חכמים state that in either ordering, the result is פסול without כרת.
- A case is posed where שיריים are missing between קמיצה and הקטרה, such as a mouse eating from the bowl, making the remaining שיריים אסור to eat before the קומץ is burned. The question is raised whether הקטרה can still “help” by establishing פיגול when the כהן has a חוץ לזמנו thought about eating something that is already אסור, and whether the act removes the איסור of מעילה from the remaining material even though it remains forbidden for eating. This inquiry is framed “לדברי האומר שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה מקטיר קומץ עליהם,” and the issue is set as whether הקטרה can both “למקבעינהו בפיגול” and “ולאפקינהו מידי מעילה.”
- Rav Huna compares the question to the dispute about whether זריקה מועלת ליוצא, attributing the position that זריקה can still have an effect in such a case to רבי עקיבא. Rav Huna distinguishes יוצא as a פסול where the item still exists intact “דאיתיה בעיניה” and is פסול “מחמת דבר אחר,” while חסרון is “הפסול דגופיה” and therefore suggests that הקטרה may not help. Rava argues the opposite logic, asserting that יוצא fails because “דליתיה בפנים,” whereas חסרון is still “דאיתיה בפנים” and therefore “מהני ליה הקטרה,” and he seeks to ground this in the משנה’s language.
- Rava attempts to infer from the omission of כזית in the ברייתא of רבי חייא that the case concerns a physical remaining כזית and still yields the later דין of “פיגול וחייבים עליו כרת,” treating it as evidence that הקטרה establishes effects even when little remains. Abaye rejects the inference by attributing רבי חייא’s omission to רבי אלעזר’s view that a כזית does not suffice and that liability requires offering the entirety, as expressed “רבי אלעזר פוטר עד שיקריב את כולו.” The text then presses that if so, it should require both קומץ and לבונה, and it answers that the case is “לקומץ מנחת חוטא,” where there is no לבונה, and it supports this attribution with “וכן כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי אלעזר קומץ מנחת חוטא ורבי אלעזר היא.”
- Rava retracts his earlier approach, citing a teaching that if one of the לחם הפנים loaves breaks, all become פסולות, and a proposed inference distinguishes breakage from יציאה. Abaye reframes the correct parallel as “היוצאת דומיא דנטמאת,” grounding the allowance in cases of טומאה in the כוח of the ציץ as “דמרצה ציץ,” while maintaining that יוצא is not validated in that way. The passage then contrasts רבי אלעזר, who holds “אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא,” with רבי עקיבא, who holds “זריקה מועלת ליוצא,” and it concludes that the selection of “נפרסה” teaches that even when the pieces are “דאיתא בפנים,” הקטרה of the בזיכין does not help under one framing, while under רבי עקיבא’s approach the logic extends so that “אפילו חסור נמי מהניא לה הקטרה.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions