Menachos 44 - Cycle 14
Summary
- A beraisa in מסכת מנחות teaches in the name of רבי מאיר that a person is obligated to recite one hundred ברכות daily, derived from the פסוק ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך with *mah* read as מאה, and the גמרא explains how to complete the count on שבת and יום טוב through additional ברכות on items like food and בשמים. The share brings Midrashic and halachic attributions for this institution, including דוד המלך during a מגפה and the רמב"ם calling it a חיוב מדרבנן, alongside views like שדי חמד that treat the דרשה from a פסוק as implying a חיוב דאורייתא, and multiple explanations that connect ברכות to יראת שמים and to ongoing recognition of Hashem’s gifts. The text then moves through further sugyos on daily ברכות and their נוסח, the חלזון and תכלת, the reward and protective power of ציצית via a narrative of a תלמיד and a זונה leading to sincere גירות, practical halacha about borrowed ציצית and מזוזה timing in ארץ ישראל and חוץ לארץ, the independence of תפילין של יד and תפילין של ראש and the severity of neglecting mitzvos like תפילין, ציצית, and מזוזה, and finally the laws of מנחת נסכים and נסכים ordering as well as the rule that missing some blood applications on the מזבח החיצון does not prevent כפרה if at least one מתנה is given.
- A beraisa states that רבי מאיר says a person is obligated to recite מאה ברכות every day, deriving it from ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך by reading *mah* as מאה. A statement attributed to רב חייא בריה דרב אויה says that on שבת and יום טוב, when the weekday שמנה עשרה of nineteen ברכות is replaced by a seven-ברכה תפילה, one completes the missing ברכות through additional ברכות on items such as fruits, delicacies, and בשמים. A מדרש applies אני הגבר הוקם על with על as a *gematria* of one hundred and says דוד המלך instituted one hundred daily ברכות during a מגפה in כלל ישראל. A ruling attributed to the רמב"ם defines the daily hundred ברכות requirement as a חיוב מדרבנן, while the שדי חמד cites opinions that the derivation from a פסוק suggests a חיוב דאורייתא.
- One explanation ties the מאה ברכות to the מאה אדנים, the hundred sockets under the קרשים of the משכן, equating the hundred physical foundations with the hundred daily ברכות. Another explanation links the דרשה אל תקרי מה אלא מאה to האדם’s sense of *mah*, with ברכות forming the practical path by which a person recognizes insignificance and acknowledges that everything comes from הקדוש ברוך הוא. The ספר אך פרי תבואה says that *al tikrei* indicates a difficulty in the פסוק’s implication that what Hashem asks is easy, and answers that while attaining high יראת שמים may be difficult, consistently reciting daily ברכות is accessible and becomes the means to attain יראת שמים. The ספר קרן אורה connects the idea to the teaching in מסכת חגיגה that learning something מאה times is not comparable to learning it מאה ואחת times, presenting the daily count of one hundred ברכות as a repeated practice that brings a person to יראת שמים.
- A מחלוקת is reported between רב וואזנער זצ"ל and רב אלישיב זצ"ל regarding whether the obligation of מאה ברכות applies only to men or to women as well. רב וואזנער is presented as indicating it does not apply to women, while רב אלישיב זצ"ל is presented as indicating it applies to women as well.
- A דרשה brought from the שפת אמת quoting the חידושי הרי"ם reads בשנה ההיא מאה שערים ויברכהו השם as referring to one hundred “gates” through which ברכה comes into the world. The explanation states that a person becomes זוכה to those מאה שערים through ויברכהו השם by saying ברכות, with constant thanksgiving and awareness of הקדוש ברוך הוא bringing ברכה. The text concludes that through ברכות one becomes זוכה to ברכה בגשמיות and also to יראת שמיים.
- The סאטמאר רב in דברי יואל explains that reaching מאה ברכות means making a ברכה on everything that arises in life, treating each situation as an opportunity to recognize it comes from השם and to thank Hashem. The approach frames proper living as continual connection of every aspect of life to הקדוש ברוך הוא, and presents this constant recognition as the path to יראת שמיים.
- A question is raised about when one begins counting the מאה ברכות, given that in הלכה the day begins at night. Most פוסקים are stated as holding that the count follows the standard halachic day, from night to the next night.
- A continuation of רבי מאיר’s teaching states that one should recite three daily ברכות: שעשני ישראל, שלא עשני אשה, and שלא עשני בור, described as general thanks to הקדוש ברוך הוא unlike situational ברכות. The גמרא’s version is given as שעשני ישראל, while the טור is stated as having the נוסח שלא עשני גוי, and an explanation is offered that נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא prevents phrasing that implies creation was definitively worthwhile. A story reports that רב אחא בר יעקב hears his son recite שלא עשני בור and objects to the presumption, instructing him instead to say שלא עשני עבד. The גמרא then explains that עבד is on a lower level than אשה, and a practical halachic consequence is stated that if one mistakenly recited שלא עשני עבד before שלא עשני אשה, many פוסקים hold he can no longer recite שלא עשני אשה.
- A beraisa describes the חלזון used for תכלת as having a body like the sea, a form like a fish, emerging once every seventy years, with its blood used to dye תכלת, making it expensive. A passage from מגילה is cited where זבולון complains about receiving seas and rivers instead of fields and vineyards, and הקדוש ברוך הוא responds that everyone needs זבולון because the חלזון is found in his portion, linked to the פסוק עמים הר יקראו שפוני טמוני חול with שפוני identified as the חלזון. The share notes long-standing controversy over identifying the חלזון, describes the רדזינער רבי as the first to attempt to find it and determine the source of the blue dye, and reports that רב הרצוג identified another candidate. The text describes differing communal practices, with some wearing תכלת based on these identifications and others continuing a מסורה not to wear it due to uncertainty.
- רבי נתן teaches that even a מצוה קלה yields reward in this world, while the reward in the next world is unfathomable, and he points to מצות ציצית as the example, explained as “קלה” because it lacks punishments like כרת or מיתת בית דין or because it is not very expensive. A narrative tells of a man scrupulous in ציצית who pays four hundred זוזים to meet a זונה, climbs toward her on ornate beds, and is stopped when his ארבע ציציות strike his face and he retreats to the floor, prompting her to join him there and demand an explanation. He swears he never saw a woman as beautiful but says ציצית is commanded by Hashem and that אני ה' אלהיכם appears twice to teach that Hashem both punishes עבירות and rewards מצוות, and he describes the ציציות as four witnesses. She demands his name, city, רבי, and בית מדרש, he writes it, and she then divides her wealth, giving a third to the government to enable גירות, a third to the poor, and keeping a third aside from the beds. She comes to the בית מדרש of רבי חייא seeking conversion, רבי חייא questions her sincerity due to possible marriage motives, she produces the written account, and רבי חייא accepts her גירות and permits her to marry the תלמיד, turning the same beds from an intended איסור to a permitted marriage, described as מתן שכר בעולם הזה with immeasurable reward in עולם הבא.
- The share cites מפרשים who connect ציצית to תמר and יהודה’s guarantee of חותמך ופתילך, presenting ציצית as an ערבות and a powerful שמירה in this world and the next. The ספר ארון עדות is quoted on שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך as a personal mandate to set protective “judges and officers,” identified here as ציצית preventing עבירות, as illustrated by the narrative where ציצית protects the תלמיד.
- A דין is cited in the name of שמואל that one who borrows a טלית is פטור מן הציצית for thirty days, and afterward the garment becomes obligated, with the share explaining that even then the חיוב is מדרבנן because דאורייתא obligation requires ownership. Practical implications are raised for someone borrowing a טלית for an עליה or as a בעל תפילה, distinguishing a privately borrowed טלית from a טלית הקהל owned by the ציבור, where membership affects obligation. The משנה ברורה is cited as suggesting leniencies such as intending not to acquire the garment or viewing the wearing as לשם כבוד הציבור, affecting whether a ברכה is recited.
- A ברייתא teaches that one staying in a hotel in ארץ ישראל or renting a house in חוץ לארץ is פטור מן המזוזה for thirty days and becomes obligated afterward, while one renting a house in ארץ ישראל must affix a מזוזה immediately משום ישוב דארץ ישראל. One explanation offered for ישוב ארץ ישראל is that because מזוזות cannot be removed once affixed, immediate installation encourages stability and continuity. Another explanation states that living in חוץ לארץ is inherently עראי, while living in ארץ ישראל is never considered temporary, making immediate obligation apply even for short stays. רב וואזנר is cited as suggesting that where it is clear the stay in ארץ ישראל is temporary, such as a hotel room with no intent to settle, one should not affix a מזוזה if staying less than thirty days. A נימוקי יוסף is cited that if a rental in חוץ לארץ is clearly for more than thirty days, such as a signed lease, the מזוזה should be affixed immediately, and רב משה זצ"ל is cited as ruling to affix it right away but delay the ברכה until after thirty days.
- The share states that the חיוב מזוזה is not truly on a borrowed dwelling, and presents an idea attributed to פוסקים that buying a house is commendable because it creates a חיוב מזוזה מדאורייתא. The text frames purchasing with that intent as a praiseworthy way to fulfill מזוזה “properly.”
- A משנה is cited that תפילין של יד does not prevent תפילין של ראש, and the גמרא attributes to רב חסדא that this applies when a person has both, while if he lacks one he should still do what he can rather than refrain entirely. The gמרא’s earlier concern is explained as a גזרה שמא לא יעשה, fearing that permitting one might lead someone to deliberately neglect the other.
- A statement attributed to רב חסדא says that one who does not wear תפילין violates eight עשה, one without ציצית in his garment violates five עשה, a כהן who does not go up לדוכן violates three עשה, and one without a מזוזה violates two עשה based on וכתבתם וכתבתם, with a qualification noted that some limit the דאורייתא aspect of כהנים to cases with two כהנים. A statement of ריש לקיש says that one who wears תפילין merits אריכות ימים, supported by the פסוק ה' עליהם יחיו ולכל בהן חיי רוחי ותחלימני ותחייני.
- The text summarizes that עולה, שלמים, and תודה require מנחת נסכים, while חטאת, אשם, פסח, בכור, and מעשר do not. It describes מנחת נסכים as consisting of סולת and שמן burned on the מזבח and יין poured on the מזבח, with quantities depending on the animal: for כבש an עשרון סולת with three לוגין שמן and three לוגין יין, for איל two עשרונים with four לוגים שמן and four לוגים יין, and for בקר three עשרונים with six לוגים שמן and six לוגים יין. A משנה teaches that סולת ושמן do not prevent the יין and the יין does not prevent them, while implying that סולת and שמן are מעכב each other.
- A משנה is cited that the applications of דם on the מזבח החיצון do not prevent one another, meaning incomplete performance does not block fulfillment. The share notes an אחרונים’ question about whether missing applications require later completion or whether a minimal performance, described here as one זריקה, suffices without making up the rest.
- A ברייתא on the קרבנות of סוכות cites ומנחתם ונסכיהם לפרים לאילים ולכבשים במספרם כמשפט and derives that one offers the מנחה and afterward the נסכים. רבי derives from עולה ומנחה זבח ונסכים דבר ביומו that one offers the זבח and afterward the נסכים, creating a dispute framed here as the ordering of מנחה versus נסכים. רבי uses ומנחתם ונסכיהם to teach that the מנחה and נסכים may be brought בלילה and even למחר, with תוספות יום טוב limiting “למחר” to a case where they were not yet placed in a כלי שרת. The חכמים use זבח ונסכים to support זעירי’s teaching that נסכים are not sanctified until after שחיטת הזבח, and the sugyah concludes that when מנחה ונסכים come with the זבח, all agree that מנחה precedes נסכים, while the dispute concerns cases where they come בפני עצמן, explained as either being brought later than the קרבן or as an independent donation. רבי’s preference for נסכים first in the independent case is attributed to the special quality of wine that דאמרי שירה עליהם, with a further note that some מפרשים limit שירה to נסכים of קרבן ציבור and present resulting implications for how the ordering applies to קרבן יחיד.
- A ברייתא derives from ועשית עלותיך הבשר והדם על מזבח ה' אלהיך ודם זבחיך ישפך על מזבח ה' אלהיך that for blood given on the מזבח החיצון, one מתנה can achieve כפרה, with ישפך read as a single שפיכה sufficient for effectiveness.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions