Menachos 51
Summary
- The text explains the procedure for preparing the חביתי כהן גדול and frames it as a dispute about whether the baking precedes the frying or the frying precedes the baking, with the word תופיני serving as the key textual anchor and with רבי יוסי offering a third תנאitic approach of תאפנה רבה with multiple interpretive possibilities in רש"י. It then derives why the kneading, arranging, and baking are done בפנים and are דוחה שבת, presenting four דרשות and integrating later analyses from the בריסקער רב, מקדש דוד, אור שמח, and others about whether one must minimize חילול שבת and about what the true פסוק-source is. A supporting ברייתא for רבא expands into a detailed derivation of how much שמן the חביתין require, comparing it to other מנחות and then resolving internal tension in the ברייתא through three different attributions. The text then returns to the case of a כהן גדול who dies without an immediate replacement, records the משנה’s מחלוקת whether the offering comes משל ציבור or משל יורשין and whether it is brought שלמה, and traces the associated פסוקים, דרשות, and later שאלות about who counts as יורשין and what the Ramb"ם means by “עבור כפרתו,” concluding with the apparent tension between רבי שמעון’s פסוקים and a later משנה calling it a תנאי בית דין and resolving it as two stages of תקנה.
- Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the חביתי כהן גדול are baked first and then fried, and Rav Asi says in the name of Rabbi Chanina that they are fried first and then baked. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba reads תופיני as תאפנה נאה and argues that the product must be נאה at the time of oven-baking, which is compromised if it was already saturated by prior frying. Rav Asi reads תופיני as תאפנה נא and, following Rashi’s explanation of נא as partially cooked, requires the dough to be partially cooked before baking, identifying that partial cooking with frying.
- The Gemara presents the issue as a תנאים-dispute: תופיני תאפנה נא, רבי אומר תאפנה נאה, and רבי יוסי אומר תאפנה רבה. Rashi gives three readings of תאפנה רבה, including baking-frying-baking, or making it large/thin, or making it soft through much oil so it is both נא and נאה, and he records “שלוש שמעתי.” Rabbi Yosi treats his method as satisfying both readings, “אית לה נא ואית לה נאה.”
- A משנה states that לישתן ועריכתן ואפייתן of the חביתי כהן גדול are done בפנים and are דוחות את השבת. Rav Huna derives דוחה שבת from תופיני תאפנה נאה because baking from the previous day would make it אינשפא and no longer נאה, and Rav Yosef challenges that it could be protected, “אימא דכבש לה בירקא.” The text cites the בריסקער רב’s question why one “נאה” implication would be non-מעכב while the other order-rule is treated as מעכב, and he re-anchors the מחלוקת in the word מרבכת rather than in נאה, explaining the Ramb"ם’s extension of the rule to לחם תודה because that context also has מרבכת. The text quotes *Hagahot Maimoniyot* using the “נאה” idea to recommend fresh מצות close to eating, and it quotes תורה תמימה rejecting this extension because מצה is לחם עוני and not a קרבן ideal of נוי.
- The text cites מקדש דוד as inferring from Rav Yosef’s proposed workaround that even when שבת-desecration is permitted for a זמן-קבוע קרבן, one still attempts to avoid חילול שבת. It contrasts this with not requiring שנים שוחטין during שבת-shchitah despite the principle “שנים שעשו פטורין,” and resolves the tension by distinguishing מכשירי קרבן from the הקרבה עצמה. The אור שמח applies this to pre-boiling whatever is needed for רבוכה before שבת and compares it to not heating water on שבת for מילה when it could be prepared קודם שבת.
- A בית רבי ישמעאל דרשה reads תעשה as a גזירת הכתוב allowing it even on שבת and even בטומאה. Abaye derives it from סולת מנחה תמיד, equating it to מנחת תמידין which is דוחה שבת. Rava derives it from על המחבת as teaching that it requires a כלי שרת, making it subject to פסול בלינה if prepared earlier, so it must be done on שבת when needed.
- The text raises the question why one cannot place it in a כלי שרת without דעת if “אין כלי שרת מקדשים אלא מדעת,” and it quotes שיטה מקובצת answering that על המחבת teaches that here it becomes קדוש even שלא מדעת and that התורה’s insistence on a כלי implies insistence on קדושה. The קרן אורה distinguishes between mere placement in a כלי versus using a כלי in an act like baking or frying, asserting that in the latter case קדושה is automatic without דעת. The מקדש דוד suggests that a מחבת like a סכין lacks a בית קיבול and is מקדש even שלא מדעת.
- A ברייתא supports רבא with “על המחבת מלמד שטעונה כלי,” and then interprets בשמן as requiring added שמן and seeks the שיעור by analogy. It first compares to מנחת נסכים for ג' לוג לעשרון and to מנחת נדבה for לוג אחד, weighing similarities via תש"ט (תדיר, דוחה שבת, דוחה טומאה) versus יג"ל (יחיד, בגלל עצמה, ולבונה). Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka resolves it through סולת מנחה תמיד as כמנחת תמידין, yielding ג' לוגין לעישרון, and Rabbi Shimon compares it to מנחת כבשים for ג' לוגין or alternatively to מנחת פרים ואילים for ב' לוגין לעישרון, then prefers learning an עישרון-based מנחה from another עישרון-based מנחה.
- The Gemara challenges the ברייתא for calling בשמן “להוסיף” while still entertaining strict analogies, and it offers three resolutions. Abaye attributes “בשמן להוסיף” to Rabbi Shimon and the comparative reasoning to Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka as separate voices in the ברייתא. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua reads the entire ברייתא as Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka unfolding a reasoning process that ends with ג' לוגין from סולת מנחה תמיד. Rava reads the entire ברייתא as Rabbi Shimon framing the comparisons as what would have been inferred “אילו לא נאמר,” arriving at the final comparative conclusion through exclusion.
- The משנה states that if no כהן is appointed immediately after the כהן גדול dies, Rabbi Shimon rules the offering comes משל ציבור and Rabbi Yehuda rules it comes משל יורשין, with the text citing Rashi that when it is from ציבור it is brought as an עישרון שלם in the morning and an עישרון שלם between the evenings. The אור שמח reads Rabbi Shimon as indicating the מנחת חביתין can function sometimes as קרבן יחיד and sometimes as קרבן ציבור depending on whether there is a כהן גדול, while he reads Rabbi Yehuda as keeping it קרבן יחיד via יורשים. Rav Chaim reads the dispute as only about who pays, while the חיוב remains on a יחיד.
- The Ramb"ם in הלכות כלי המקדש פרק ג' הלכה כ"ב says the heirs bring an עשרון שלם “עבור כפרתו,” and the מקדש דוד explains that appointment to כהן גדול carries responsibility for חביתין until a successor is appointed, making continued funding after death part of that responsibility. The זכר יצחק, as quoted, treats the חיוב as renewed daily, limiting “עבור כפרתו” to finishing that day’s obligation if he died mid-day, and not beyond the next morning.
- The שפת אמת raises whether “יורשין” means only a son or any heir. The חזון איש limits the heirs’ obligation to a בן who is ראוי to be כהן גדול and stand תחתיו, transferring the obligation to ציבור if no such son exists, while the מקדש דוד assigns responsibility to other כהנים rather than a daughter. The מנחת חינוך reads the משנה’s לשון “יורשין” as including any heir, including daughters or brothers.
- A ברייתא derives Rabbi Yehuda’s heir-funding from “והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אותה,” and it derives that it is not brought לחצאין from “אותה כולה ולא חציה.” Rabbi Shimon derives “חוק עולם” as “משל עולם,” meaning from the ציבור, and derives “כליל תקטיר” as requiring it to be entirely burnt, with Rashi recording an alternative that “כולה בהקטרה” means burning it שלימה ולא לחצאין. The Gemara challenges using “הכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו” for heirs because the same פסוק is needed to define “בניו” in “זה קרבן אהרן ובניו” as כהנים הדיוטות rather than כהנים גדולים, and it answers that “מבניו” is extra and teaches two דברים.
- Rabbi Shimon uses “אותה” to teach the case where a new כהן גדול is appointed after the first dies, requiring the replacement to bring an עשרון שלם מביתו and not combine halves from two owners, and he does not דרש the extra ו in “ומחציתה.” Rabbi Yehuda uses “חוק עולם” to teach that the obligation is לדורות. Rabbi Yehuda uses “כליל תקטיר” for a ברייתא establishing a גזירה שוה of כליל to apply both “כליל תקטר” and the לאו of eating to both מנחת כהן גדול and מנחת כהן הדיוט.
- The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon’s “משל ציבור” as a פסוק-derived דין by citing a משנה in which Rabbi Shimon lists seven בית דין enactments and includes “כהן גדול שמת ולא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו שתהא מנחתו קריבה משל ציבור” as a תנאי בית דין. Rabbi Abahu answers that there were two תקנות: the דאורייתא baseline is משל ציבור, then a תקנה shifted collection to heirs because the לשכה was strained, and then a later תקנה reverted to the דאורייתא model when the heirs were פושע.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions