Menachos 18 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* on Maseches Menachos Daf 18 begins on Daf 17b and frames two core questions around *machshavah* in *korbanos*: whether misusing terms like *akhilah* and *haktarah* creates *pigul* with *chiyuvei kares* or only a rabbinic *pesul*, and whether *machshavas lehaniach*—intending to leave over blood past its time—invalidates the offering. The *Gemara* explains a *beraisa* as reflecting three views, develops the logic of when Chazal make *gezeiros*, and brings a story with Yosef HaBavli and רבי אלעזר בן שמוע that highlights how deeply *divrei Torah* are cherished. The *Mishnah* then rules that several missing steps in preparing a *minchah* still leave it *kasher*, and the *Gemara* clarifies which steps must be done by a *kohen* versus a *zar*, before comparing this to רבי שמעון’s rule about a *kohen* who is *eino modeh ba’avodah* and applying the concept to questions like *pidyon haben* with a חילל שבת *kohen*.
- The *Gemara* presents a *machlokes* between Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbanan when a person uses the wrong wording in his *machshavah*, saying *akhilah* about something destined for the *mizbe’ach* or *haktarah* about something meant to be eaten. Rabbi Elazar holds the *korban* becomes *pasul*, while the Rabbanan say *akhilah* applies only to what is meant to be eaten. The *Gemara* questions whether Rabbi Elazar’s *pesul* is *pigul de’oraisa* with *chiyuvei kares* or only *pasul derabbanan*, and it also asks what the halachah is when someone has a *machshavah lehaniach* to leave over *dam* past its proper time.
- The *Gemara* rejects the claim that the dispute is about *chiyuvei kares* and states לא, that everyone agrees there is no *kares* in the case of misused *akhilah* terminology. The *Gemara* explains that the *beraisa* reflects three positions: the *tanna kama* limits the dispute of Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbanan to misuse of terms and says that by *lehaniach* everybody agrees the *korban* is *kasher* because Chazal only decree where confusion could lead to an actual *issur de’oraisa*. The *tanna kama* attributes Rabbi Elazar’s *pesul* in the misuse case to a rabbinic decree meant to prevent people from mistakenly permitting real *pigul de’oraisa* when the term is used correctly.
- Rabbi Yehudah holds the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Chachamim is only in the misuse of *akhilah* terms, while by *lehaniach* some of the blood for the next day everyone agrees it is *pasul*. Rabbi Yehudah explains this as a *gezeirah* משום דמו אטו כל דמו, because a thought about leaving over some blood could lead to leaving over all the blood, and Rabbi Yehudah holds that leaving over all the blood is *pasul de’oraisa*. A *beraisa* from Zevachim 36 has Rabbi Yehudah arguing that just as actually leaving all the blood without *zerikah* past one *shki’ah* makes it irreparably *pasul*, so too intending to leave all the blood for tomorrow should render the *korban pasul*, which supports making a rabbinic decree even on leaving some blood.
- The *Gemara* says that Rabbi Elazar comes to say אף בזו, that even in the case of *machshavah lehaniach* some blood for tomorrow, it remains a *machlokes* with Rabbi Elazar invalidating and the Chachamim validating. The *Gemara* then challenges whether Rabbi Yehudah indeed holds that by *lehaniach* blood for tomorrow everyone agrees it is *pasul*, and it brings a narrative *beraisa* to clarify how Rabbi Yehudah’s teaching was transmitted and understood.
- A *beraisa* recounts that רבי went to learn by רבי אלעזר בן שמוע “כשנפניתי למצות מדותיי,” explained as drawing out every last drop of learning like oil being fully drained by leaving a vessel inverted overnight, and he found Yosef HaBavli sitting before him and beloved “והיה חביב לו לאחת,” with Rashi offering explanations and other interpretations describing a deep connection. Yosef HaBavli repeatedly asks Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua the halachah about one who slaughters with intent to leave over blood for tomorrow, and he is told multiple times that it is *kasher* until Rabbi Elazar adds that Rabbi Elazar (the Tanna) invalidates. Yosef HaBavli’s face glows because he had learned that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates and could not find anyone to confirm it, and now Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua’s teaching restores what he felt he had lost, leading Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua to cry and say “אשריכם תלמידי חכמים שדברי תורה חביבין עליכם ביותר” and to recite the pasuk “מה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי.”
- The *Gemara* says הא מני יהודה בריה דר' אילעאי, explaining that יהודה בריה דר' אילעאי, a תלמיד of Rabbi Elazar, taught Yosef HaBavli the teaching of Rabbi Elazar even though it was not the accepted halachah. The *Gemara* probes that if Yosef HaBavli had learned that “everyone agrees it is *pasul*,” then hearing that it is merely a *machlokes* would not literally be “returning” what was lost, and it resolves that what was returned was at least the existence of a view that renders it *pasul*, “דהדרא ליה פסולא דבי עלמא,” even if it was not exactly his original formulation.
- The בית אברהם explains that the story demonstrates אהבת התורה, that every word of Torah is precious to Yosef HaBavli, and that reaching such a level of אהבת התורה ultimately brings a person to a high level of אהבת השם. The בן יהוידע explains the phrase חביבין עליכם ביותר by comparing Torah to finding great spoils, and he explains why the pasuk “מה אהבתי תורתך” is chosen because it reflects love even for one *dvar Torah*, even one word.
- The text reviews the preparation of a *korban minchah*, including oil placed in the *kli shares*, flour and oil mixed, baking or frying, making ten *chalos*, pouring remaining oil, *tenufah*, *hagashah* to the southwest corner of the *mizbe’ach*, *kemitzah*, placing the *kometz* into a *kli shares*, salting, and burning on the *mizbe’ach*. The *Mishnah* rules that if one did not perform *yetzikah*, did not do *belilah*, did not do *petisah*, did not do *melichah*, did not do *tenufah*, did not do *hagashah*, made too many or improperly sized pieces, or did not smear the *rekikin* with oil, the *minchah* is nevertheless *kasher*. The text notes that the *Mishnah* lists *yetzikah* before *belilah* though the order in practice is reversed, and it notes that the *Mishnah* omits the initial oil used to grease the vessel, which leads some Rishonim to suggest that this first oil may be *me’akev*.
- The Minchas Chinuch asks why a *korban* without salt is still *kasher* when the Torah says “על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח,” and the Acharonim answer that *mitzvah haba’ah be’aveirah* applies when the *aveirah* is integral to the mitzvah itself, while *melichah* is external to the essence of the *minchah*. The Acharonim also debate whether the requirement of salting applies only to the *kometz* placed on the *mizbe’ach* or to the entire *minchah*.
- The *Gemara* asks what “לא יצק” means and rejects the idea that *yetzikah* was entirely omitted because the Torah makes it obligatory. The *Gemara* explains “לא יצק” as meaning it was not done by a *kohen* but by a *zar*, which remains *kasher*. The *Gemara* then asks whether “לא בלל” similarly means done by a *zar*, and it brings the later sugya of “שישים נבללים, שישים ואחד אין נבללים” with Rav Zeira’s rule “כל הראוי לבילה” to show that *belilah* need not be performed as long as the *minchah* is inherently fit to be mixed, while what is not fit makes mixing *me’akev*. The *Gemara* answers “מידי איריא” and distinguishes that *yetzikah* must be done but is *kasher* by a *zar*, while *belilah* need not be done at all, though the Halachos Gedolos, the Ramban, and the Rambam still say *lechatchilah* *yetzikah* should be done by a *kohen*.
- The *Gemara* asks why making improper *petisah* should be worse than not doing *petisah* at all when the *Mishnah* already says omission is *kasher*. The *Gemara* explains one approach that “מרובות” means too many pieces, and the *chidush* is that even this does not invalidate. The *Gemara* offers another approach that “מרובות” means pieces that are too large, and it teaches that even if they are neither properly *chalos* nor properly *petitin*, the *minchah* is still *kasher*.
- The *Gemara* suggests the *Mishnah* may not follow Rabbi Shimon, since Rabbi Shimon lists *yetzikah* among fifteen *avodos* tied to a *kohen* receiving a share, stating that “כל כהן שאינו מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכהונה” and deriving inclusion of many *avodos* from “מבני אהרן.” The text presents multiple explanations of “אינו מודה בעבודה,” including rejecting the Torah’s system of *avodah*, rejecting the binding obligation of *korbanos*, or refusing the practical burden of service. The *Gemara* answers via Rav Nachman that there is a distinction between *minchas Yisrael* and *minchas kohanim*, or alternatively between *minachos* that are subject to *kemitzah* and those that are not, and it states that where the *avodah* of *kehuna* begins with *kemitzah*, earlier steps like *yetzikah* and *belilah* can be *kasher* by a *zar*, while other *minachos* may require *kehuna* from the outset. Rava challenges the distinction by arguing that requirements of *yetzikah* are learned from standard *minachos* and should therefore share the same rule of being *kasher* by a *zar*, leaving the tension with Rabbi Shimon’s inclusion of *yetzikah* as an *avodah* requiring *kehuna*.
- The text cites a תשובה of Rav Wosner about a *pidyon haben* performed with a מחלל שבת *kohen* and connects it to the category of *kohen she’eino modeh ba’avodah*, concluding that the *pidyon* should be repeated and questioning whether the *berachah* is repeated. The text reports that some poskim invoke the concept of תינוק שנשבה and suggest distinctions between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz LaAretz based on exposure to *shomrei Shabbos*. The חזון איש, based on the מלמד להועיל, is presented as more lenient, treating such individuals as תינוק שנשבה due to “מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם,” and the ספר מראשת משה quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as holding that the *pidyon haben* should be repeated because the *kohen* fits the category of a *kohen she’eino modeh ba’avodah*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions