Menachos 46
Summary
- A mishnah in מנחות מ"ו builds from the מחלוקת רבי עקיבא and רבי שמעון בן ננס about the relationship between the שתי הלחם and the שני כבשים, and the גמרא frames a critical point where both sides agree that once a binding connection is created the remaining item is נדחה and goes to burning. Rabbi Yoḥanan states that שחיטה creates that זיקה, and the sugya probes whether תנופה done מחיים can also create זיקה, leaving that question as תיקו while later explanations (including the Brisker Rav, קרן אורה, and שפת אמת) clarify different readings of how תנופה could matter. The גמרא challenges “שחיטה עושה זיקה” from the laws of קרבן תודה and answers that תודה is unique because the Torah calls it שלמים, allowing it to shift forms when the bread is ruined, unlike the שבועות case where the linkage centers on the שלמים component. The sugya then explains why only the שני כבשים (as שלמים) connect to the bread, deriving the model from איל נזיר. Finally, a ברייתא rules that שתי הלחם brought without כבשים are waved, left for עיבור צורה, and burned, and the אמוראים debate whether that reflects a דאורייתא דין of eating versus burning and why the procedure delays burning.
- A mishnah states that most קרבנות brought with the שתי הלחם are not מעכב the שתי הלחם and the שתי הלחם are not מעכב them, but the שני כבשים have a special connection to the שתי הלחם. Rabbi Akiva holds that the לחם is מעכב the כבשים but the כבשים are not מעכב the לחם, while Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas holds that the כבשים are מעכב the לחם but the לחם is not מעכב the כבשים. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that everyone agrees that once they are הוזקקו זה לזה they are mutually מעכב, and Rashi explains this as a case where they were together and afterward one was lost so the remaining item is נדחה and goes to בית השרפה. Rabbi Yoḥanan identifies שחיטה as the act that creates this זיקה for the כבשי עצרת with the לחם, and the text contrasts Rashi’s implication that this is limited to those כבשים with the Rambam (תמידין ומוספין פרק ח' הלכה י"ט) who extends mutual עיכוב after שחיטה to the other קרבנות brought על הלחם and even to קרבנות מוסף היום.
- A later sugya (on דף מ"ז) presents a מחלוקת רבי and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון about what is מקדש the שתי הלחם. Rabbi holds that שחיטת הכבשים is מקדש the שתי הלחם, while רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון holds that both שחיטה and זריקה are needed to be מקדש the שתי הלחם. Tosafos and the שיטה מקובצת say Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view that שחיטה creates זיקה fits cleanly with Rabbi because שחיטה itself is מקדש the לחם, yet they maintain that even according to רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון שחיטה still creates זיקה even if it is not what is מקדש the לחם.
- Ulla reports that in מערבא they asked whether תנופה creates זיקה, and Rashi defines the question as waving the כבשים עם הלחם מחיים before שחיטה, not the post-שחיטה תנופה. The גמרא initially tries to infer from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement “שחיטה עושה זיקה” that תנופה does not create זיקה, but rejects the proof because Rabbi Yoḥanan himself may have been uncertain about תנופה. The גמרא frames the uncertainty as whether Rabbi Yoḥanan is sure that only שחיטה creates זיקה or whether he is sure that שחיטה creates זיקה while תנופה remains in doubt, and it concludes תיקו.
- The Brisker Rav infers from the Rambam (הלכות תמידין ומוספין פרק ח' הלכה י"א) that only the כבשים are waved מחיים and the לחם is waved with them only after שחיטה, and he explains that the Rambam treats the לחם as having only one חיוב תנופה that can be fulfilled after שחיטה and can count even if done earlier בדיעבד. The Brisker Rav uses this to explain how Rabbi Yoḥanan can be certain that שחיטה makes זיקה while remaining in doubt about a pre-שחיטה תנופה that is not required. The קרן אורה asks how Rabbi Yoḥanan could doubt whether תנופה makes זיקה if he is certain that שחיטה does, and he answers that a זיקת תנופה would exist only when waving them together, whereas separate תנופות could fulfill the obligation without creating זיקה. The שפת אמת suggests the חקירה depends on whether the עיקר is the כבשים or the לחם, so that if the כבשים are עיקר then שחיטה is central and תנופה does not create זיקה, while if the לחם is עיקר then תנופה could be the mechanism of זיקה.
- Rabbi Yehudah bar Ḥanina challenges Rav Huna bar Rav Yehoshua by noting that the verse “קודש יהיו לה' לכהן” is written after תנופה, yet Rabbi Akiva and ben Nanas still dispute what is מעכב what. The גמרא answers that the same issue would arise if the verse were read as after שחיטה, since Rabbi Yoḥanan holds שחיטה makes זיקה, so the verse must be read מעיקרא as referring earlier. The גמרא defines “קודש יהיו לה' לכהן” as “דבר שסופו לכהן,” and it applies that reading to remove the contradiction regarding תנופה as well.
- The גמרא challenges whether שחיטה truly makes זיקה by citing a mishnah about קרבן תודה where bread issues arise before and after שחיטה and after זריקה. The mishnah rules that if the bread is damaged (נפרס), יוצא, or נטמא before שחיטה one replaces the bread and then slaughters, while if it happens after שחיטה the blood is thrown and the meat is eaten but the vow of תודה is not fulfilled and the bread is פסול, and if it happens after זריקה one takes תרומה from proper bread (תרום מן השלם על הפרוס, תרום ממה שבפנים על שבחוץ, תרום מן הטהור על הטמא). Rashi explains the post-שחיטה pre-זריקה case as transforming the animal into a קרבן שלמים with the meat eaten like שלמים for two days and a night, while the שיטה מקובצת says it does not fully transform and therefore does not gain the extended eating time, and רבי עקיבא איגר quotes the מארי אלפנדרי that the meat is eaten כדין שלמים לשני ימים ולילה. The גמרא argues that if שחיטה makes זיקה then פסול לחם should also פסל the תודה, yet the mishnah allows continuing with a שלמים-style offering, and it answers that תודה is different because the Torah calls it שלמים, so it can be offered without bread once it takes on that face: “מה שלמים קרבין בלא לחם אף תודה קרבה בלא לחם.”
- Rabbi Yirmiyah proposes that if תנופה makes זיקה then loss of the לחם ruins the כבשים and loss of the כבשים ruins the לחם. Rabbi Yirmiyah then asks that if תנופה does not make זיקה, and one waved and then the bread was lost and replaced, whether the replacement bread requires תנופה. The גמרא says the question is not about replacing the כבשים, because replacement כבשים certainly require תנופה as the מתיר, and it says the question is specifically about replacing the bread. The גמרא limits the doubt to Rabbi Akiva who treats לחם as עיקר, and it asks whether the new bread requires תנופה because לחם is עיקר or does not require it because its מתיר is the כבשים, and it concludes תיקו.
- Abaye asks Rava why the שני כבשים are מקדשי לחם and מעכבי while the שבעה כבשים and פר ואילים are not. Rava answers that the שני כבשים are linked because they are הוקקשו זה לזה בתנופה, and Abaye challenges from תודה where there is no joint תנופה yet there is a strong linkage. The גמרא tries to learn from תודה that only a שלמים connects to bread, but it rejects the comparison because on שבועות there are other זבחים present that could have been the connector. The גמרא instead derives from איל נזיר that even when multiple offerings are present, only the שלמים element is what connects to the bread, citing the ברייתא on “ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות” that the סל comes as an obligation to the איל and “שחיטת איל מקדשן,” so if it was slaughtered שלא לשמו it does not sanctify the bread.
- A ברייתא states that שתי הלחם brought בפני עצמן are waved, then undergo עיבור צורה, and then are burned. The גמרא challenges this as inconsistent, because if they are fit for eating they should be eaten and if they are fit for burning they should be burned immediately, and it asks why עיבור צורה is needed. Rabbah says they are fit to be eaten מדאורייתא but were decreed to be burned lest in a later year people eat before bringing the כבשים, and he supports this from the testimony of בן בוכרי in יבנה and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s response, interpreting the כהנים’ concern “היכא נאכלין?” as implying two loaves can be eaten even when brought without the זבח. Abaye rejects Rabbah’s proof and says the case there is still with the זבח, explaining that לחמי תודה are not called מנחה while שתי הלחם are called מנחה. Rav Yosef says they are destined for burning and initially explains the delay as “אין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב,” but Abaye challenges from cases where burning is itself a מצוה, so Rav Yosef instead attributes the delay to concern that כבשים may arrive later and then explains that עיבור צורה means waiting until the time for offering passes. Rava says they are fit to be eaten and agrees there is a decree against eating, but he derives their ability to come independently and be eaten from “ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה בכורים לה'” by comparing them to בכורים: “מה בכורים בפני עצמן אף שתי הלחם בפני עצמן” and “מה בכורים לאכילה אף שתי הלחם נמי לאכילה.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions