Menachos 46 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף מו presents the rules governing the mutual dependence of the כבשי עצרת and the שתי הלחם, defines what creates their זיקה, and tests those rules against the model of לחמי תודה and the איל נזיר. The גמרא weighs whether זיקה is created by שחיטה or by תנופה, and it develops practical outcomes when one component is lost, becomes פסול, leaves its boundary, or becomes טמא. The sugya then treats the case of שתי הלחם brought בפני עצמן, explaining why they end up requiring תנופה yet are not eaten, and it frames that result through competing explanations of רבא and רב יוסף, including a גזירה rooted in concern for future error.
- Today's text states that everyone agrees that according to רבי עקיבא the כבשים do not prevent bringing the לחם, and according to בן ננס the לחם does not prevent sanctifying the כבשים, so each can proceed without the other. It states that once they הוסקקו זו לזו they become mutually binding, so that after that point they מעכבים זה את זה, and if one is lost or becomes unusable then the other can no longer be brought. It states that even positions that initially separate them, including רבי עקיבא and בן עזאי, concede that after the zika point a later problem in one invalidates proceeding with the other.
- The גמרא first answers ואיזהו זיקה שלהם by saying that the שחיטה makes the זיקה, and the רמב"ם understands the sugya as extending beyond the two כבשים and the לחם to include the other associated sheep offerings that become governed by the same rule once connection occurs. עולא proposes that תנופה makes זיקה and reports the inquiry from ארץ ישראל whether תנופה creates the bond or only שחיטה does. The גמרא considers reading רבי יוחנן as a proof that שחיטה creates זיקה and therefore תנופה does not, but it also entertains that רבי יוחנן himself is uncertain about תנופה even if שחיטה is certain, and it leaves the matter unresolved.
- The קרן אורה challenges how תנופה could make זיקה if שחיטה is said to make זיקה, since תנופה occurs before שחיטה. The קרן אורה answers that even if תנופה makes זika, it does so only when the לחם and כבשים are lifted and waved together, while a תנופה done separately on each can still fulfill the technical requirement of תנופה yet not create זיקה. The text states that this framing preserves the possibility that שחיטה makes זיקה in cases where the תנופה did not combine them, while leaving open whether תנופה ever creates זיקה at all.
- A challenge is raised from the verse והניף הכהן אותם על לחם הבכורים תנופה לפני ה' על שני כבשים קדש יהיו לה' לכהן, arguing that since יהיו appears after תנופה, the בן ננס–רבי עקיבא dispute over יהיו occurs after תנופה, implying תנופה does not create זika. The גמרא replies that by the same logic יהיו also appears after שחיטה, since the כהן receives only after שחיטה, yet the earlier framework treats שחיטה as connecting, so the placement cannot be decisive. The גמרא resolves that the verse can be read as מעיקרא קאי, meaning that although the words appear later, they refer back to an earlier stage, and it reopens the possibility that תנופה could create זika under that interpretive move.
- A lengthy ברייתא teaches that if before שחיטה one of the תודה breads נפרסה, is taken out, or becomes טמא, the remedy is מביא לחם אחר ושוחט, because the לחם becomes קדוש through the שחיטה and not beforehand. It states that after שחיטה, if the bread is ruined or taken out, the דם is still sprinkled and the meat is eaten, but וידי נדרו לא יצא and the לחם is פסול; if the issue occurs only after זריקת הדם, the כהן’s portion is taken from acceptable bread, expressed as תורם מן הטהור על הטמא or ensuring whole bread is given. It states that when the bread becomes טמא after שחיטה, the ציץ מרצה על הטומאה so the קרבן proceeds as תודה and וידי נדרו יצא, though the לחם remains פסול.
- The גמרא asks that if שחיטה creates binding זיקה, then once the connection exists any פסול in the bread should fully invalidate the תודה. The גמרא answers that this rule of total mutual invalidation applies to the שבועות system of כבשי עצרת and שתי הלחם, not to תודה, because תודה קרו שלמים and can revert to a standard שלמים when the לחם fails. It states that since שלמים do not require accompanying bread, the bread’s disqualification does not destroy the underlying sacrifice, whereas the שבועות pair has a stricter linkage once zika occurs.
- רבי ירמיה frames two paths: if תנופה makes זika, then losing the לחם after תנופה invalidates the כבשים and losing the כבשים invalidates the לחם. If תנופה does not make זika, then when a replacement is brought after loss, the question becomes whether the new component requires a new תנופה. The text states that if the כבשים are replaced, תנופה is certainly required because the תורה says והניף הכהן אותם, while the debated case concerns replacing the לחם after an earlier תנופה, and it remains תיקו.
- The text reports a dispute among ראשונים whether, when the animals are replaced, the already-waved bread must be waved again with the new animals. It states that from רש״י it seems the original חלות do not require a second תנופה, while from תוספות it seems the תנופה must be done again together with the new animals. It then limits the question by stating that אליבא דבן ננס there is no doubt because כבשים עיקר and their תנופה anchors the matter, while the core uncertainty is framed אליבא דרבי עקיבא because לחם עיקר and the sugya weighs whether new לחם must be waved or whether the earlier animal תנופה suffices, and it stays תיקו.
- אביי asks why the שני כבשים sanctify and bind the לחם while the seven כבשים and the פר and אילים do not. רבא answers that the two are uniquely linked because they are הוקשו זה לזה בתנופה, since they are waved together. The גמרא objects from תודה where there is no shared תנופה yet שחיטה sanctifies the bread, and it redirects to a principle that the binding is specifically with a שלמים-type offering.
- The גמרא proposes that the שבועות linkage mirrors תודה because תודה is called שלמים in the verse ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו, so the linked offering to bread is the שלמים. It then challenges that comparison because תודה has no other accompanying sacrifices while שבועות includes multiple offerings that could have been candidates. The גמרא then derives the selective linkage from איל נזיר, where despite the presence of other sacrifices, the bread basket is חובה specifically to the איל שלמים, and it cites the ברייתא that ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות teaches that שחיטת איל מקדשם and that if slaughtered שלא לשמו לא קדש הלחם.
- A ברייתא states that שתי הלחם brought בפני עצמן are waved, then תעובר צורתן, then go to בית השריפה. The גמרא asks ממה נפשך: if they are for eating they should be eaten, and if they are for burning they should be burned immediately, so why require עיבור צורה. רבא answers that they are fundamentally fit for eating under רבי עקיבא, but a גזירה forbids eating lest priests generalize from a year without animals to a year with animals and mistakenly eat bread without the permitting כבשים.
- רב המנונא attempts to infer that bread brought alone is edible from the testimony of בן בוכרי in יבנה that a כהן who pays מחצית השקל is not sinning, and from רבי יוחנן בן זכאי’s rebuttal that a כהן who does not pay is the sinner, while explaining that priests tried to exempt themselves by invoking וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל because offerings like the עומר and שתי הלחם would be “theirs,” raising היכן נאכלים. The text cites explanations that the rule of כליל applies only when a כהן is the sole owner, or that we follow the majority of non-כהנים, and it records רבי עקיבא איגר’s חידוש about who would be obligated in מוסף and the סטייפלר’s response that non-payers still belong to the ציבור even without contributing.
- The gמרא proposes that the priests’ concern must be about שתי הלחם brought בפני עצמן, since a כהן’s תודה bread is eaten and therefore cannot support their argument. אביי rejects that proof by saying the case is still bread arriving with its sacrifice, and the gמרא answers that לחמי תודה are not called a מנחה, while שתי הלחם are called a מנחה as stated in בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה' בשבועותיכם, making the priests’ דרשה target the שבועות bread rather than תודה bread.
- רב יוסף states that שתי הלחם brought without the associated sacrifice are destined for burning, and he explains the delay as a rule that one does not burn קדשים on יום טוב. אביי challenges that comparison by distinguishing between an accidental פסול, where burning is not the mitzvah, and this case where burning would be the mitzvah, likening it to the burning of פרים ושעירי יום הכיפורים. רב יוסף then grounds the delay in a different גזירה, שמא יזדמנו כבשים לאחר מכאן, and when pressed about the deadline after the תמיד של בין הערביים, he interprets תעובר צורתו as צורת הקרבה, meaning the time for offering passes and then it is burned immediately.
- רבא returns to the position that שתי הלחם brought alone are fit for eating, and he supports it from the verse ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה… בכורים לה', reading the loaves as linked to ביכורים. The text states that just as ביכורים come independently and are for eating by the כהן, so too שתי הלחם can come independently and be for eating, and the later destruction stems from the gזירה about future confusion. The text adds an אחרונים suggestion that procedural limits such as אין שורפין קדשים בלילה combine with the fact that these loaves are edible מדאורייתא, shaping why waiting for עיבור צורה can be required in practice.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions