Menachos 50
Summary
- A requirement of *bikur* for the *korban tamid* is presented like the *korban pesach*, with a dispute among the *Rishonim* whether the animal is checked each of the four days or only once during the four-day period plus once right before *shechita*, and a further dispute whether failure to do *bikur* invalidates the *korban* *bedi’eved*. A reconstruction of the *Mishna* explains that bringing the afternoon *tamid* after missing the morning one depends on whether the *mizbe’ach* has already undergone *chinuch*, and Rabbi Shimon limits the allowance when the omission was *bemeizid*, while *ketoret* differs because its morning portion can be completed later. The *Gemara* clarifies how *chinuch* applies to the *mizbe’ach ha-zahav*, the *shulchan*, and the *menorah*, and it frames a *machloket Tanna’im* whether the *mizbe’ach ha-zahav* is inaugurated with morning or afternoon *ketoret*. The *Gemara* then treats an exceptional case of *ketoret* offered on the outer altar as a *hora’at sha’ah* associated with the *Nesi’im*, and it transitions to the laws of the *chavitei Kohen Gadol*, requiring a full *issaron* to be brought and split, with rules for loss, *tum’ah*, or death of the *Kohen Gadol* and the handling of leftover halves through *ibbur tzurah* and burning.
- A view is cited that Ben Bag Bag requires the *korban tamid* to have *bikur* like the *korban pesach*, meaning a four-day setting-aside with inspection for a *mum*. Rashi in Pesachim 96 requires a full check of the entire animal each of the four days, while the Rambam in Temidin uMusafin 1:9 requires only one check during the four-day period plus one additional check immediately before *shechita*. Tosafot in Sukkah 42a holds that *bikur* is *me’akev*, and the Sha’agat Aryeh in Gevurot Ari on Ta’anit challenges this from the principle of שנה עליו הכתוב לעכב, while the Minchat Chinuch in mitzvah ה' infers from the Rambam’s omission that the Rambam holds *bikur* is not *me’akev*. Rashi in Arachin 13b gives approaches for counting four days, including an approach that allows offering on the fourth day via מקצת היום ככולו and an approach that delays offering until the fifth day, paralleling the *korban pesach* timeline from the tenth of Nisan to the fourteenth.
- A distinction is drawn between missing the morning *tamid* and missing the morning *ketoret*, where the afternoon *tamid* remains only the afternoon offering, but the afternoon *ketoret* can become the full day’s *ketoret* according to Rabbi Shimon. Tosafot explains that by the *tamid* the afternoon offering is only one and not two, since the text does not say ושתים היו קריבות, while by *ketoret* it is considered חדא מילתא. Rav Yerucham Fishel Perla explains that *ketoret* morning-and-afternoon is one *mitzvah*, so the missed portion is not treated as עבר זמנו בטל קרבנו, unlike the *tamid* which has its own time-window and then expires. The Ritva in Yoma 26 is brought to say that “מעולם לא שנה אדם בה” is because *ketoret* is a *segulah* for wealth, yet the Ritva allows the same person to do both morning and afternoon *ketoret* of the same day because it is one entity split across times.
- A contradiction is posed from the משנה למלך in Temidin uMusafin 3, where Rashi in Keritut 6b calls the Torah measure a מנה, yet Rashi in Zevachim 109b calls the half-maneh morning and half-maneh afternoon division *derabbanan*. Rav Yerucham Fishel Perla resolves that *de’oraita* the obligation is a full מנה as one unit without a mandated equal split, while *derabbanan* fixed the requirement that each service be specifically a חצי מנה. The resolution depends on the framing of *ketoret* as one overarching *mitzvah* with two performance times.
- The *Gemara* challenges why the *Mishna* shifts into rules of *chinuch* for the altars, since *chinuch* is a one-time inauguration and not a daily issue. A חסורי מחסרא reconstruction is given: if the morning lamb is not brought, the afternoon one is not brought when the altar has not yet been inaugurated, but if the altar has been inaugurated then the afternoon *tamid* is brought. Rabbi Shimon limits the allowance to cases of *ones* or *shogeg*, and he rules that *meizid* forfeits the right for those priests to continue, while *ketoret* is still offered in the afternoon even when the morning *ketoret* was omitted.
- A *beraita* derives from “ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים” that only the second belongs in the afternoon, and it allows the first-of-the-day offering in the afternoon only when the altar has already had *chinuch*. The Shaftei Emet asks why a special teaching is needed to exclude inaugurating the altar with the afternoon *tamid*, since Pesachim 5 already bars bringing anything before the morning *tamid*. Answers are given that the *tamid* itself is not included in that prohibition the way other offerings are, that the case may involve a repaired altar needing renewed *chinuch*, and that the Brisker Rav limits the pre-*tamid* prohibition to the time-window of the morning *tamid*.
- A moral-legal challenge is raised that the altar should not be left idle because the priests sinned. Rava explains that the disqualification applies to “them,” meaning those priests do not offer, but other priests do. A distinction remains for *ketoret*, where the same group is not treated with the same concern because *ketoret* is not *shachiach* and it is beloved due to its association with wealth, expressed as דכיון דלא שכיחא עותרא חביב להו ולא פשעי. Keren Orah explains this in terms of the separate *payis*, meaning the negligent priest is excluded from the later lottery, and the Rashba suggests a possibility of penalizing the entire *mishmar*.
- Rashi explains that although both *tamid* and *ketoret* occur twice daily, *tamid* is an *olah* and additional voluntary *olot* exist, making *olot* more frequent overall, while *ketoret* has no voluntary counterpart. Tosafot states that calling *ketoret* “מעשרת” is not exact, because the conclusion in Yoma treats the *tamid* as also bringing wealth, while Rashi in Yoma emphasizes *ketoret* as more fitting for that blessing because it is less common. A parallel is drawn to the Rema in Yoreh De’ah citing *sandek* as a *segulah* for wealth, and the text characterizes people as especially eager to pursue *segulot* for wealth.
- A contradiction is presented between a statement that the *mizbe’ach ha-zahav* is inaugurated with afternoon *ketoret* and a *beraita* that says it is inaugurated with morning *ketoret*, and it is resolved as a *machloket Tanna’im*. Abaye prefers the afternoon view by analogy to the *menorah*, using “בבקר בבקר בהטיבו את הנרות יקטירנה” and reasoning that without a nighttime lighting there is no basis for morning *hatavah*. The opposing view derives the inner altar’s inauguration from the outer altar, comparing morning *tamid* to morning *ketoret*. A later note records a major *machloket Rishonim* about *hatavat ha-nerot*, including the Rashba’s view that it includes removing and replacing oil and wicks, the Ramban’s view that only placing the new materials is the *avodah* and removal is merely preparatory, a reading in Rashi in Zevachim 110b implying removal alone, and the Rambam’s unusual view that *hadlakat ha-nerot* is the *mitzvah* of *hatavah*, with the Rashba’s difficulty from the *Gemara* and the Lechem Mishneh’s attempt to explain the Rambam through the need to “repair” a previously lit setup.
- A question is asked whether weekday *lechem ha-panim* would be non-inaugurating yet still sanctifying, and the *Gemara* answers that both *chinuch* and *kidush* of the *shulchan* occur on Shabbat. The parallel is drawn from the *menorah* line that its *chinuch* is with all seven lamps in the evening, indicating that the relevant *chinuch* and *kidush* operate in the specified time.
- A *beraita* states that there was *ketoret* offered by an individual on the outer altar and that it was a *hora’at sha’ah*, and Rav Pappa identifies it as the case of the *Nesi’im*. The Shaftei Emet questions the basis for asserting that the *Nesi’im* offered their *ketoret* on the outer altar rather than the inner altar and leaves it as a צריך עיון. The *Gemara* rejects inferences that an individual could offer *ketoret* on the inner altar or that the community could offer it on the outer altar, and it brings a *beraita* from “לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה” and “אין לך אלא מה שאמור בענין” to restrict *ketoret* to what is commanded. Rav Pappa explains that the wording is in a למה לי בעיא style, with the true novelty being that even the individual-on-outer-altar precedent of the *Nesi’im* is not a model, because it was only *hora’at sha’ah*.
- The *Mishna* rules that the *chavitei Kohen Gadol* are not brought as separate halves from home, but as one full *issaron* that is split, with half offered in the morning and half in the afternoon. The *Mishna* rules that if a *Kohen Gadol* offered the morning half and died, the successor brings a full *issaron*, offers a half, and the other half is destroyed, yielding two halves offered and two halves destroyed. A *beraita* derives this from “מחציתה בבוקר ומחציתה בערב,” teaching that the half offered must come from a complete measure, and it applies the same rule when the afternoon half becomes *tamei* or is lost, requiring a new full *issaron* and the destruction of the unused half. The disposal is explained as waiting for עיבור צורה and then sending the leftovers to the *beit ha-sereifah*, and Rav Nachman questions why the successor’s unused half needs עיבור צורה since it is destined for destruction. The answer is given either by attributing the rule to the Tanna d’bei Rabbah bar Avuah who requires עיבור צורה even for inherently invalid items like *pigul*, or by Rav Ashi who says both halves were potentially fit at the time of division because either half could have been chosen to offer.
- A later note records an *Acharonim* debate whether the *minchat chavitin* is a *korban yachid* or a *korban tzibbur*, with a practical implication for offering on a *bamah* בזמן היתר במות since a *korban tzibbur* is not offered on a *bamah*. The text reports a suggestion that it is essentially a *korban yachid* because it comes מביתו, yet the obligation rests on the community to ensure that this individual offering is brought daily. The section closes with the intent to continue at the Tosafot the next day, אם ירצה השם.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions