Menachos 15 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:09 - 14B
04:08 - 15A
18:21 - 15B
32:28 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Summary
- The text presents Mishnayot and Gemara about how *tum’ah* and *pigul* spread within interconnected parts of public and associated offerings, contrasting רבי יהודה’s rule that a *korban tzibbur* cannot be divided with חכמים’s rule that only the defiled portion is treated as defiled. It frames the dispute around לחם הפנים, its לבונה in בזיכין, and the timing relative to the מתיר, then rejects an explanation centered on the ציץ and grounds רבי יהודה in the tradition of שאין קרבן ציבור נחלק. It then turns to תודה and שבועות offerings to show that *pigul* transfers from the primary sacrifice to its accompanying items (bread, *nesakhim*), but not the reverse, and explores whether partial measures can combine to create *pigul* while challenging an attempted קל וחומר. It concludes with רבי מאיר’s view that accompanying items like *nesakhim* and לוג שמן של מצורע become fixed to the sacrifice at שחיטה like לחמי תודה, enabling transfer of *pigul* when they come together.
- The משנה rules that if one of the חלות or one of the סדרים of לחם הפנים becomes טמא, רבי יהודה says both סדרים are taken out to בית השריפה, treating all twelve חלות as טמא because the offering is a single ציבור entity. The חכמים say the טמא remains in its טומאה while the טהור is eaten, so the untouched row stays טהור. The text describes the burning as done in designated places, with a view among some ראשונים that burning occurs inside because the טומאה occurred inside.
- רבי אלעזר states that the dispute between רבי יהודה and חכמים applies לפני זריקה, before the מתיר occurs, such as before the לבונה in the בזיכין is offered for לחם הפנים. רבי אלעזר says that after the מתיר, דברי הכל treat the touched part as טמא and the untouched part as טהור and eaten. The text equates offering the בזיכין for לחם הפנים with זריקת הדם that serves as the מתיר for eating associated items in other cases.
- רב פפא attributes the pre-מתיר dispute to whether הציץ מרצה על האכילות, presenting רבנן as holding that the ציץ accomplishes ריצוי while רבי יהודה holds אין הציץ מרצה על האכילות. The text cites the פסוק “והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל” to assert that actual eating of טמא meat is forbidden even if the offering is otherwise effective. The Gemara challenges the ציץ framing with cases about items that go on the מזבח and with parallel disputes, and it concludes through רבי יוחנן that the reason for רבי יהודה’s position here is the received principle שאין קרבן ציבור נחלק.
- A ברייתא about נטמאת אחת מן הבזיכין presents רבי יהודה as treating both בזיכין together and proceeding, while חכמים maintain that the טמא remains טמא and the טהור remains טהור. רב אשי brings רבי יהודה’s rule that even if only one שבט is טמא and all other שבטים are טהורים, they do the קרבן פסח בטומאה because communal offerings are not split, and the Gemara notes this line of reasoning does not depend on the ציץ. רבינא returns to the משנה of נטמאת אחת מן החלות and highlights that its stated rationale is לפי שאין קרבן ציבור נחלק, reinforcing רבי יוחנן’s conclusion.
- The משנה states התודה מפגלת את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את התודה, so a מחשבת פיגול on the תודה transfers to the bread but a מחשבה on the bread does not transfer to the animal. The case is that שחט את התודה לאכול ממנה למחר makes both the תודה and the לחם מפוגלים with חיוב כרת upon eating, while intending to eat the לחם למחר makes only the bread מפוגל. The Gemara explores a possible reason based on the verse “והקריב על זבח התודה חלות,” then concludes that לחם איקרי תודה but תודה לא איקרי לחם, so the transfer works only in that direction. רש״י explains the underlying structure as תודה עיקר ולחם טפל, with שחיטת תודה מקדש ללחם, so the bread’s status follows from the sacrifice.
- The משנה states הכבשים מפגלים את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את הכבשים, so *pigul* transfers from the two sheep of שבועות to the breads but not from breads to sheep. The Gemara explains this with the same “עיקר וטפל” model, stating לחם גלל דכבשים ואין כבשים גלל דלחם. The text introduces the *hava amina* that since the breads and animals are joined by תנופה, one might think *pigul* on bread could transfer to the sheep, and it says וצריכא to justify why both תודה and שבועות cases are needed.
- ר׳ אלעזר asks רב about one who slaughters with intent to eat a half כזית from the animal and a half כזית from its bread למחר, and the Gemara says the question is not about making the animal *pigul* but about whether the bread becomes *pigul* through combination. רב answers that the bread becomes מפוגל while the animal does not. The Gemara challenges this with a proposed קל וחומר and rejects relying on such a קל וחומר by citing the case of one who plants seeds in another’s vineyard, where חכמים penalize the seeds but permit the vines because the planter is fined and the owner is not. The same שאלות and קל וחומר structure is repeated regarding the כבשי שבועות and their breads, and the text distinguishes the vineyard case as involving Torah-prohibited species like קנבוס ולוף versus other seeds that are אסור מדרבנן with a קנס.
- רב אשי reframes the question as whether “חבירו” in a case of slaughtering one of the כבשים refers to the other sheep or to the bread. רב answers from a משנה that השוחט אחד מן הכבשים לאכול ממנו למחר makes it פיגול while חברו כשר, and the text infers that “חבירו” means the other sheep. The Gemara suggests the proof may fail if the speaker explicitly said “חברו כבש.”
- The משנה states הזבח מפגל את הנסכים משיקדשו בכלי דברי רבי מאיר, while the נסכים do not make the זבח *pigul* when the מחשבה is on the wine. The case is that slaughtering the זבח with intent to eat it later makes both it and its נסכים מפוגלים, while intending to offer the נסכים later makes only the נסכים מפוגלים and leaves the זבח not מפוגל. A ברייתא states that נסכי בהמה carry liability for *pigul* because דם הזבח מתירן ליקרב according to רבי מאיר, and the חכמים object that one can bring the זבח today and the נסכים after ten days, so the connection is not inherent. רבי מאיר answers that he refers only to נסכים that come with the זבח, and the Gemara adds the objection that they could still be reassigned, to which רבא responds that רבי מאיר holds הוקבעו בשחיטה כלחמי תודה so they become fixed at שחיטה.
- A parallel ברייתא applies רבי מאיר’s model to לוג שמן של מצורע, stating that *pigul* can apply because דם אשם מתיר לבהונות. The חכמים argue that one can bring the אשם today and the לוג up to ten days later, and רבי מאיר again limits his claim to cases where the oil comes with the אשם. The Gemara records the same reassignment concern and resolves it through רבא’s statement that רבי מאיר holds הוקבעו בשחיטה כלחמי תודה, making the oil and sacrifice a single fixed unit for these purposes.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions