Menachos 20
Summary
- The shiur learns מנחות דף כ, beginning from דף י״ט עמוד ב׳, and frames the sugya around רב’s rule that whenever the תורה repeats a detail about קרבן מנחה it is מעכב, then tests that rule against the cases of הגשה and מליחה. The sugya first resolves why the repeated פסוקים about הגשה teach location rather than מעכב, and then turns to a lengthy analysis of מליחה, why it is מעכב, what items require it and what items do not, and how the דרשות from the פסוקים include and exclude specific cases. The shiur also brings interpretive approaches from משמרות כהונה, Brisk, Rashi, שפת אמת, רבינו בחיי, Rambam, Ramban, ספר החינוך, and *Halakhos Ketanot*, and connects מליחה on the מזבח to the practice of having salt on the table, including the question of whether honey or sugar can substitute.
- Beryl Eckstein sponsors the shiur לזכר נשמת his father הרב שמעון אריה ליב בן יחזקאל חיים, whose יארצייט is this coming שבת on כ״א אלול. Henry Orlinsky, Beryl’s מחותן, also sponsors לזכר נשמת Milton Kramer יחיאל מיכל בן חיים שניאור זלמן הלוי זכרונו לברכה. Both נשמות should have an עליה from the זכות of the learning.
- Rav states that whenever there is a repetition in the תורה about a detail of קרבן מנחה, that detail is מעכב. The משנה says הגשה is not מעכב even though הגשה appears twice in the פסוק, so the repetition is explained as teaching where the הגשה is done, with one phrase indicating צד דרום and the other indicating צד מערב. The sugya gives explanations for reconciling the two פסוקים so that they teach placement rather than an מעכב requirement.
- The ברייתא presents that “לפני ה׳” indicates the מערב side of the מזבח and “על פני המזבח” indicates the דרום side, and תנא קמא places the הגשה at the southwest corner. רבי אלעזר rules that when two מקראות exist, one reading fulfills both while another fulfills itself but negates the other, the choice is the reading that fulfills both, and he prefers placing the הגשה on the דרום in a way that still counts as “לפני ה׳.” The גמרא explains this by Rav Ashi that the תנא holds כולי מזבח בצפון קאי, so even the דרום side remains opposite the היכל and is still “לפני ה׳.”
- The *Mishmeros Kehunah* asks why a פסוק needs to state “לפני ה׳” if being “על פני המזבח” on the דרום automatically places one opposite the פתח היכל. The *Mishmeros Kehunah* answers that “לפני ה׳” limits how far one may be מרחיק from the קרן and requires being as close as possible to the פתח היכל even while standing on the south side.
- The Brisker Rav stencil asks how to understand “לפני ה׳” according to the view in זבחים דף נח that כולה בדרום, since then the southwest corner is not directly כנגד היכל. The shiur suggests that on that view the entire western side of the מזבח is called “לפני ה׳” even when not directly opposite the פתח היכל, allowing the southwest corner to satisfy both “לפני ה׳” and “על פני המזבח.”
- Rav Huna challenges Rav that מלח is מעכב even though it seems דלא תנא ביה קרא. A ברייתא brings רבי יהודה, who derives from “ברית מלח עולם היא” that two covenants are stated regarding salt, and רבי שמעון, who compares “ברית מלח עולם היא” to “ברית כהונת עולם” to say that just as there is no קרבן without כהונה, there is no קרבן without מלח. Rashi says there is no practical dispute and the difference is only in the style of derivation, while the shiur cites a possible נפקא מינה from *Mishmeros* and *Meshekh Ḥokhmah* about whether מליחה would be required בשעת היתר במות where there is a קרבן without כהונה.
- Rav Yosef answers that Rav holds like the תנא of the משנה that says לא מלח כשר, so Rav can maintain his rule because מליחה is not מעכב. Abaye rejects reading the משנה as permitting no מליחה at all and proposes it means לא מלח כהן אלא זר, but the gמרא answers that a זר cannot do מליחה because it is done על ראש המזבח where a זר cannot serve, so Rav Yosef maintains that Rav reads the משנה as saying מליחה is not מעכב. A second answer says that since the פסוק uses the word ברית, it is כמאן דתנא בקרא דמיא, so it functions like repetition to make it מעכב.
- The gמרא notes that the Torah does repeat the salt requirement within the same פסוק, first saying “במלח תמלח” and then “על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח,” but answers that this repetition is needed for a separate ברייתא. The ברייתא teaches that if the verse had only said “קרבן,” one would include even עצים and דם that are called קרבן, so it says “מנחה” and derives that only items like מנחה that require others brought as an obligation for them, namely עצים, require salt. The ברייתא then considers including דם as a מתיר and excludes it with “מעל מנחתך ולא מעל דמך,” limits salt to the קומץ by “קרבן,” includes לבונה because it comes with the קומץ in one כלי, and then expands broadly to לבונה הבאה בפני עצמה, לבונה הבאה בבזיכין, הקטרת מנחת כהנים, מנחת כהן משיח, מנחת נסכים, various אימורים, איברי עולה, and עלת העוף from “על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח.”
- The *Sefas Emes* cites Rambam that one who is מקטיר בלא מלח violates a לאו and is לוקה, implying an איסור on the act of הקטרה without salt rather than merely ביטול עשה. The *Sefas Emes* questions why the עבודה would not be פסול under the principle in תמורה דף ד that כל דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד אי עביד לא מהני, and uses this to argue that not every איסור in קדשים creates a פסול unless the תורה marks it as לעכב by repetition.
- The *Keter Shem Tov* quotes Rabbeinu Baḥye that it is not דרך כבוד for a קרבן ה׳ to be bland, likened to “הקריבהו נא לפחתך,” so salt is required for honor. Rambam in *Moreh Nevukhim* says idolaters distanced salt from offerings to preserve blood due to beliefs about blood, so Israel brings salt to show difference from עובדי כוכבים. Ramban strongly objects to framing Torah as a reaction to idolaters, asserting תורת השם precedes creation and is not an answer to anything. *Sefer HaḤinukh* in מצוה קיט says salt preserves, and it is a רמז that the קרבן preserves the existence of כלל ישראל and their ability to continue עבודת השם.
- *Halakhos Ketanot* חלק א סימן ריח asserts the *Sefer HaḤinukh* reason is correct and argues that since sugar also preserves it could substitute for salt, presenting a major חידוש. Later פוסקים reject sugar for מליחה of חולין meat because salt draws blood in a way sugar does not, while the shiur suggests קרבנות might differ if the purpose is preservation or flavor rather than blood removal. The shiur ties this to the practice of having salt on the table because שולחן דומה למזבח, cites the teaching that ברית מלח protects those waiting after washing when they are שרויים בלא מצוות and the שטן is מקטרג, and notes the Rema in סימן קס״ז requires salt on the table before בציעת הפת. The shiur raises whether honey used from ראש השנה for שנה טובה ומתוקה could also serve in place of salt, and suggests that if sugar could count for קרבנות then sugar might explain replacing salt, while noting honey is not presented as a קרבן substitute and the practice is not being changed.
- The gמרא analyzes why לבונה is included and dם excluded, and frames the פסוקים as קרבן כלל ומנחה פרט and then “על כל קרבנך” as חזר וכלל, producing a כלל ופרט וכלל where inclusion is כעין הפרט. The gמרא identifies “אחרים באין חובה לה” as עצים and distinguishes לבונה because it comes with the קומץ in the same כלי, unlike נסכים. The gמרא considers requiring two criteria, that the פרט both needs others and is מתיר, and rejects this because the need for “מעל מנחתך ולא מעל דמיך” shows that sharing one צד would have been enough to include dם absent the explicit exclusion.
- The gמרא asks why “מעל מנחתך ולא מעל דמיך” excludes dם rather than איברים, and concludes it is מסתבר to include איברים because they share many features with מנחה: others accompany them, they are אישים, they are done in the עזרה, they are subject to נותר, טומאה, and מעילה. The gמרא notes dם shares that it is a מתיר and is נפסל בשקיעת החמה like מנחה, but rules the similarities of איברים are more numerous so איברים are included for salt and dם is excluded.
- The ברייתא’s earlier assumption included עצים because they are called קרבן, and the gמרא asks who holds that עצים are called קרבן and answers רבי. A separate ברייתא teaches from “קרבן” that one may donate עצים, specifies two גזרין, and cites “והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים,” and רבי states that עצים are קרבן מנחה and therefore require מלח and require הגשה to the קרן דרומית מזרחית. Rava adds that according to רבי עצים require קמיצה, and Rav Pappa adds that according to רבי עצים require other עצים to burn them, so the gמרא concludes סמי מכאן עצים from the earlier ברייתא’s framing and leaves the continuation to determine what the פסוק excludes if not עצים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions