Menachos 15 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכת מנחות דף טו, beginning בעזרת השם יתברך on דף יד עמוד ב at the משנה, and it presents the מחלוקת about when one of two public breads becomes טמא and whether the remaining bread is burned or eaten, centering on the rule אין קרבן ציבור נחלק. It attributes to the בריסקר רב a practical halachic concern about burning קדשים that are not inherently חייב שריפה and therefore requiring them to become פסול overnight before burning. It brings the חזון איש’s view that טומאה הותרה בציבור permits הקרבה but not אכילה and that the bread-case differs from a קרבן where even חכמים would burn all when part becomes טמא, and it cites חשוקי חמד applying אין קרבן ציבור נחלק to communal meals with varied מנהגים. The *shiur* then follows the גמרא’s clarification of when the מחלוקת applies, rejects framing it in terms of ציץ מרצה on אכילות in favor of רבי יוחנן’s formulation that רבי יהודה’s position is תלמוד ערוך בפי רב יהודה שאין קרבן ציבור מתחלק, and moves into the דין that a primary offering can be מפגל its associated bread or נסכים while the associated items do not מפגל the primary. It develops this through תודה and כבשי עצרת, discusses combination cases of half-*kezayit* intentions, challenges proposed קל וחומר proofs via כלאי הכרם and *ein adam oser davar she’eino shelo*, and concludes with רבי מאיר’s position that נסכים and לוג שמן של מצורע are liable משום פיגול when they come with the זבח because they are הוקבע בשחיטה, alongside a חשוקי חמד application of אפשר לשנותו to changing a shul’s נוסח when circumstances demand.
- Today's *shiur* opens with the משנה of נתמאת אחת מהחלות regarding the שתי הלחם, and with ואחד מן הסדרים regarding the two rows of לחם הפנים. Rabbi Yehuda rules שניהם יצאו לבית השריפה, so both the טמא and the טהור are burned. The *shiur* explains that the טמא must be burned because קדשים that become טמא are burned, while the burning of the other bread is framed as a גזירה tied to אין קרבן ציבור נחלק. The בריסקר רב objects that one may not destroy קדשים that are still acceptable, and he proposes leaving the second bread overnight so it becomes פסול and only then burning it.
- Chachamim rule הטמא בטומאתו and the טמא is burned, while והטהור יאכל and the טהור is eaten. The חזון איש states that although this is said by שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים, this would not be the ruling in a קרבן where part became טמא, because there חכמים would agree the entire קרבן is burned. The חזון איש asks that since these breads are קרבנות ציבור and טומאה הותרה בציבור, they should be eaten, and he answers that טומאה הותרה בציבור permits הקרבה but not אכילה, so even on רבי Yehuda’s approach it does not create a leniency to eat.
- The *shiur* cites חשוקי חמד about a סיום in a shul where people have different מנהגים and different חומרות about what they eat, including meat versus chicken and differing הכשרים. The question is whether this is appropriate or whether, like the גמרא’s אין קרבן ציבור נחלק, everyone should do the same. The חשוקי חמד stresses the importance of אחדות and getting along, and he rules leniently when it is not done in an obvious way that signals מחלוקת, since making people comfortable includes serving food that each person will personally enjoy.
- Rabbi Elazar limits the מחלוקת between רבי Yehuda and the חכמים to לפני זריקה, where the שתי הלחם becomes טמא before זריקת הדם of the two כבשים and where the לחם הפנים becomes טמא before the בזיכין are burned. He states that אבל אחר זריקה לדברי הכל, the טמא remains טמא and the טהור is eaten, even according to רבי Yehuda. The גמרא asks במאי פליגי regarding the before-זריקה case.
- Rav Pappa explains the מחלוקת as בציץ מרצה על האכילות קמיפלגי, with רבנן holding ציץ מרצה על האכילות and רבי Yehuda holding אין הציץ מרצה על האכילות. The *shiur* states that even when ציץ מרצה is effective, it still does not allow eating; it only allows what is fit to go on the מזבח to go on the מזבח. Tosafot asks why one needs ציץ מרצה on אכילות rather than relying on טומאה הותרה בציבור and answers that ציץ מרצה is stronger because it brings כפרה, while טומאה הותרה בציבור leaves the טומאה intact and merely permits.
- Rav Huna the son of Rav Natan challenges Rav Pappa because the case concerns עולין, where everyone agrees ציץ מרצה על העולין. A ברייתא about נטמאה אחת מן הבזיכין shows רבי Yehuda saying שניהם יעשו בטומאה לפי שאין ציבור מתחלק, while חכמים say הטמא בטומאתו והטהור בטהרתו. Rav Ashi brings a ברייתא about ערב פסח where רבי Yehuda says even one שבט being טמא makes the פסח done בטומאה, because one שבט is called a קהל from the verse קהל עמים, and this is attributed to לפי שאין קרבן ציבור מתחלק; Rav Ashi asks what ציץ מרצה has to do with that. Ravina further argues that the משנה itself explicitly grounds רבי Yehuda’s ruling in לפי שאין קרבן ציבור מתחלק, and therefore the sugya concludes with רבי יוחנן that the decisive framing is תלמוד ערוך בפי רב יהודה שאין קרבן ציבור מתחלק and not ציץ מרצה.
- The משנה states התודה מפגלת את הלחם but הלחם אינו מפגל את התודה, so a מחשבת פיגול in the תודה makes both the תודה and the bread פיגול, but a מחשבת פיגול in the bread makes only the bread פיגול. It gives the example שחט את התודה לאכול ממנו למחר and rules הוא והלחם מפוגלין, while if the מחשבה is לאכול מן הלחם למחר then הלחם מפוגל והתודה אינה מפגלת. It teaches similarly that הכבשים מפגלים את הלחם but הלחם אינו מפגל את הכבשים, so a מחשבת פיגול on the כבשים makes both the כבשים and bread פיגול, while a מחשבת פיגול on the bread makes only the bread פיגול.
- The גמרא considers Rav Kahana’s derivation that לחמי תודה are called תודה from the verse והקריב על זבח התודה חלות, and it answers that לחם אקרי תודה but תודה לא אקרי לחם. The *shiur* attributes to the בריסקר רב a חידוש that if one explicitly intends to make the בשר תודה פיגול then perhaps only the meat becomes פיגול and not the bread, while if he intends to make the תודה p*igul* without specifying בשר then the bread is included because the bread is within “תודה.”
- The גמרא rejects basing the parallel rule for כבשים and bread on a verse because there is no source that bread is called כבשים, and it instead states לחם גלל תודה and אין תודה גלל לחם, and similarly לחם גלל הכבשים and אין כבשים גלל הלחם. The גמרא explains that both cases are needed because by תודה one could say the lack of joint תנופה weakens the connection, while by כבשים and שתי הלחם the תנופה binds them together, so the משנה must teach that even there the bread does not מפגל the animals. The שפת אמת asks why teaching the two-loaf case is not sufficient, and he answers that a verse calling the bread “תודה” could have created a stronger linkage for תודה, so the משנה must still teach both.
- Rav Elazar asks Rav about slaughtering a תודה with intent to eat a half-*kezayit* of the תודה and a half-*kezayit* of the bread למחר. The גמרא says there is no question the תודה is not פיגול, and the question is whether the bread becomes פיגול by combining with the תודה, and Rav answers המלחם מפוגל והתודה אינה מפוגלת. The גמרא proposes a קל וחומר that if the primary factor does not become פיגול then the secondary should not, and it challenges whether such a קל וחומר is valid.
- The גמרא brings a case of one who plants seeds in another’s vineyard when the grapes are סמדר, where חכמים forbid the seeds but not the grapes because אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. It rejects the קל וחומר from that case because only קנבוס ולוף are a Torah-level כלאי הכרם, while other seeds are forbidden מדרבנן, and the seeds are אסור due to a rabbinic קנס on the wrongdoer while the owner of the grapes is not penalized. The *shiur* adds that contemporary פוסקים discuss קיטניות and cottonseed oil in light of this sugya and cites a תשובה of the קלויזנבורגער רב in שאלות ותשובות דברי יציב that cottonseed oil was not present when the מנהג of קיטניות began, so what was included is included and what was not included is not.
- The גמרא presents the same question for the כבשים of שבועות and the שתי הלחם, where the intent is to eat a half-*kezayit* from the animals and a half-*kezayit* from the bread למחר. It states the animals are certainly not פיגול, since even a מחשבה entirely on the bread does not make the animals פיגול, and it asks whether the bread becomes פיגול by combining with the animals; the ruling is again that the bread is פיגול but the animals are not. The same קל וחומר is raised and is met with the same response through the כלאי הכרם case and the distinction between Torah law and rabbinic קנס. The sugya states a view that what works for תודה should work even more for כבשים, and contrasts that the binding of תנופה strengthens the connection for כבשים while תודה lacks that binding.
- Rami bar Chama raises a question where one slaughters one of the two כבשי עצרת intending to eat a *kezayit* “מחבירו” למחר, and the doubt is whether “חבירו” means the other lamb or the bread; the *shiur* attributes to the שיטה that this shows the קרבן becomes פיגול at the moment of the מחשבה and later clarification cannot redefine it. The שפת אמת connects this to whether פיגול is determined by מחשבה or דיבור. The גמרא cites a משנה that defines “חברו” as the other animal, but it answers that perhaps that is when one explicitly specifies, while the unqualified term leaves room for the question.
- A משנה teaches הזבח מפגל את הנסכים משקדשו בכלי, Rabbi Meir’s view, while נסכים אינם מפגלים את הזבחים. It rules that one who slaughters with intent to eat the offering tomorrow makes both the offering and its נסכים פיגול, while intent about the נסכים for tomorrow makes only the נסכים פיגול. A ברייתא states נסכי בהמה חייבין עליהן משום פיגול because דם הזבח מתירן להקריב, Rabbi Meir’s view, and the חכמים challenge that one may bring the offering today and the נסכים up to ten days later. The *shiur* notes a ראשונים dispute whether this is only בדיעבד per Rashi, and Tosafot distinguishes ציבור from יחיד because שירה requires wine, so ציבור brings נסכים together.
- The *shiur* cites פנים יפות asking why נסכים should be brought on שבת if they can be delayed, and it answers in line with Tosafot that קרבן ציבור does not have that option. It then brings a practical question about saying קריאת שמע immediately upon waking versus waiting for טלית תפילין, and it records two approaches: saying it immediately with intention to don תפילין, versus delaying to fulfill it properly with טלית תפילין. Rabbi Meir answers that he speaks only בבאים עם הזבח, and the חכמים argue that even then one could assign the נסכים to a different offering; Rava explains that Rabbi Meir holds הוקבע בשחיטה, just like לחמי תודה, so the designation becomes fixed at slaughter.
- A ברייתא teaches that לוג שמן של מצורע is liable משום פיגול because דם אשם מתירו בבהונות, Rabbi Meir’s view. The same objection is raised that one can bring the אשם today and the oil up to ten days later, and Rabbi Meir again limits his view to when they come together, while the objection is raised that one could change it to a different אשם. Rava again explains that Rabbi Meir holds הוקבע בשחיטה, so the intended oil becomes fixed to that sacrifice at the time of slaughter.
- The *shiur* cites חשוקי חמד using the sugya’s focus on אפשר לשנותו to address whether a shul established with one נוסח תפילה may change when the population changes. He distinguishes details such as changing from ספרד to אשכנז or from אשכנז to ספרד. He states that even when halacha resists change, if refusing to change will cause the shul to close and lose a מקום תפילה, or if changing will create מחלוקת, then under certain conditions אפשר לשנותו and halacha allows and may even encourage adjustment.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions