Menachos 45
Summary
- A new משנה in מנחות דף מ״ה states that the מוסף bulls, rams, and lambs do not prevent each other, and רבי שמעון rules that when there are many bulls but insufficient *nesakhim*, one brings a single bull with its *nesakhim* rather than offering the rest without them. The גמרא identifies which offerings the משנה addresses, resolves apparent contradictions between the שבועות offerings in במדבר and ויקרא, and uses פסוקים in יחזקאל for דרשות about bringing fewer animals when full numbers are unavailable while still pursuing the maximum possible. The sugya highlights passages in יחזקאל that seem to conflict with תורה law, records approaches that defer resolution to אליהו versus explanations grounded in historical practice in the days of עזרא, and credits חנינא בן חזקיה with preserving ספר יחזקאל by reconciling its difficulties. The משנה then turns to שבועות: the relationship between the שתי הלחם and the כבשים and other קרבנות, the dispute between ר׳ עקיבא and ר׳ שמעון בן ננס about which element is מעכב, and ר׳ שמעון’s ruling like בן ננס with a different rationale grounded in what is *matir* what, followed by גמרא analysis of the דרשות from “יהיו/תהיינה” and the phrase “קדש יהיו להשם לכהן.”
- A new משנה teaches that *ha-parim ve-ha-eilim ve-ha-kevasim* do not prevent each other, so offering some without the others still works. Rabbi Shimon says that when there are many bulls but insufficient *nesakhim*, one brings one bull together with its *nesakhim* and does not offer the rest without *nesakhim*. The text frames these animals as the מוסף offerings brought on ראש חודש and יום טוב.
- The גמרא asks which bulls and lambs the משנה means and rejects חג הסוכות because “כמשפט כמשפטם” implies עיכוב. The גמרא then considers ראש חודש and עצרת in חומש פקודים and challenges the plural “אילים” because that context has only one ram. The גמרא rejects identifying it with עצרת in תורת כהנים because “הוויה/יהיו” implies עיכוב, and then establishes that the issue is the interplay between the ram(s) in חומש פקודים and the rams in תורת כהנים, so each set does not prevent the other set. The text explains that the “אילים” of תורת כהנים relate to the שתי הלחם framework rather than the מוסף, yielding two different שבועות groupings that do not prevent each other.
- The גמרא challenges an inconsistency by reading the משנה as permitting partial fulfillment among bulls even within a single set while limiting the “אילים” leniency only to separate sets. The גמרא answers that the תנא teaches separate matters, so the phrase “הפרים והאילים והכבשים” does not impose one uniform rule across all cases. The text presents that bulls can be non-preventing within their own grouping, while rams can be preventing within a single grouping and only non-preventing across distinct groupings.
- A פסוק in יחזקאל states a single bull and six lambs for ראש חודש, and the דרשה uses “פר” to show that when the תורה says “פרים” one may bring one if two are unavailable. The דרשה similarly uses “ששה” to show that when seven lambs are unavailable one may bring six, and then “ולכבשים כאשר תשיג ידו” teaches a descending scale down to even one. The text asks why “ששה כבשים” is needed once “כאשר תשיג ידו” allows even one, and answers that one brings as many as possible, “דכמה דאפשר להדורי מהדרינן.” The text then states that “יהיו” teaches עיכוב.
- Another פסוק in יחזקאל commands taking a bull on ראש חודש ניסן and says “וחטאת את המקדש,” which yields the question how this could be a חטאת when the ראש חודש bull is an עולה. רבי יוחנן says “פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדרשה,” placing its resolution with אליהו הנביא. Rashi explains that the פסוק refers to *miluim* offerings brought in the days of עזרא, analogous to those in the days of משה, where a bull was brought as an עולה rather than as a חטאת. A ברייתא records רבי יהודה repeating that אליהו will explain the passage and רבי יוסי answering with the עזרא-*miluim* explanation, followed by the response “תנוח דעתך שהנחת דעתי.”
- A פסוק in יחזקאל says that kohanim do not eat *nevelah* and *terefah*, and the גמרא asks whether that implies ישראלים may eat them. רבי יוחנן again says “פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדרשה.” Ravina explains that the חידוש targets kohanim because one might think that since *melikah* is permitted for them and resembles *nevelah/terefah*, ordinary *nevelah* and *terefah* might be permitted to kohanim, and the פסוק teaches otherwise.
- A פסוק says “וכן תעשה בשבעה בחדש… מאיש שוגה ומפתי וכפרתם את הבית,” and the גמרא asks what offering exists on the seventh of ניסן. רבי יוחנן explains it as פר העלם דבר של ציבור and reads “אלו שבעה שבטים שחטאו,” so seven tribes count as the majority of tribes even if not the majority of the population. The text reads “חודש” as “אם חידשו” and gives the example “ואמרו דחלב מותר.” The text derives from “מאיש שוגה ומפתי” that liability requires “העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה.”
- Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says “זכור אותו איש לטוב וחנינא בן חזקיה שמו,” and states that without him ספר יחזקאל would have been hidden because its words seemed to contradict the תורה. The text says he brought “שלוש מאות גרבי שמן” and sat in an attic and expounded the book, using the oil for light to work through the contradictions.
- A ברייתא cites יחזקאל’s “ואיפה לפר ואיפה לאיל,” and רבי שמעון asks how the מנחה measures for bull and ram could be the same when the known תורה measures differ. Rabbi Shimon interprets the verse as teaching that when there are many bulls but insufficient *nesakhim*, one brings one bull with its *nesakhim* rather than offering all without *nesakhim*. He likewise rules that when there are many rams but insufficient flour measures, one brings one ram with its “איפה,” and does not offer all without “איפות.”
- The text enumerates the שבועות system with the שתי הלחם, two lambs as שלמים requiring תנופה, and additional עולות of one bull, two rams, and seven lambs, plus a שעיר as a חטאת. The משנה rules that the bull, rams, lambs, and the goat do not prevent the bread, and the bread does not prevent them. Rabbi Akiva says the bread prevents the lambs and the lambs do not prevent the bread, while Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas says the lambs prevent the bread and the bread does not prevent the lambs. Ben Nanas supports his position with the claim that in the wilderness the lambs were offered without the bread because the bread depended on grain from ארץ ישראל.
- Rabbi Shimon rules “הלכה כדברי בן ננס” but says the reason is not ben Nanas’s reason. He states that what is written in חומש הפקודים was offered in the wilderness, and what is written in תורת כהנים was not offered in the wilderness, and once Israel entered the land both were offered. He explains that lambs can be offered without bread because “הכבשים מתירים את עצמם,” while the bread cannot be offered without lambs because “אין לו מי יתירנו,” since the lambs’ עבודה is what permits the bread for kohanim.
- A ברייתא reads “והקרבתם על הלחם” as an obligation with bread but reads “שבעת כבשים” as allowing lambs even without bread, and resolves this as teaching that lambs were not obligatory before bread was obligatory, which is attributed to ר׳ טרפון. Rabbi Akiva says one might equate the lambs here with those in חומש פקודים, but the differing counts and contexts of bulls and rams show two distinct sets, so the במדבר animals come “בגלל עצמן” as מוסף while the ויקרא lambs come “בגלל לחם.” The גמרא rejects the idea that only the bulls and rams differ while the lambs are the same, and it rejects reading the differing bull/ram counts as optional configurations, deriving distinct offerings from the changed order of presentation.
- The גמרא explains ר׳ עקיבא’s reason as learning “יהיו” from “תהיינה,” deriving that the עיכוב attaches to the bread. Ben Nanas learns “יהיו” from “יהיו,” and the גמרא justifies preferring identical terms when available, distinguishing from the בית מדרש of רבי ישמעאל’s צרעת example where only differing terms exist. The גמרא explains why ר׳ עקיבא does not use ben Nanas’s linkage by preferring a derivation from a matter that is a gift to a כהן to another such matter, excluding עולות, and alternatively locates the dispute within the verse “קדש יהיו להשם לכהן.” Rabbi Akiva reads it as referring to something wholly for the כהן, identifying it as the bread, while ben Nanas reads it as something partly for Hashem and partly for the כהן, identifying it as the lambs, and Rabbi Akiva answers by reading “להשם לכהן” as Hashem acquiring and then giving it to the כהן in the manner of Rav Huna.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions