Menachos 45 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:10 - 44B
05:24 - 45A
21:09 - 45B
29:58 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A speaker opens with encouragement to learn the daf and a dedication לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת מרדכי, then explains that the blood applications on the outer altar do not prevent atonement if done incompletely, grounding this in the דרשה from *yishafech* as a singular act. A משנה teaches that the bulls, rams, and sheep of communal offerings are not mutually preventing, and רבי שמעון adds that when funds are limited it is better to bring one complete unit with its נסכים than many animals without their required accompaniments. The גמרא identifies the context as שבועות with two separate systems, חומש הפקודים for the מוסף and תורת כהנים for the שתי הלחם, and rules that one set does not prevent the other even though each set itself is fixed by terms like יהיו. The sugya then turns to יחזקאל, explains apparent contradictions as halakhic instruction about bringing as much as one can obtain while still requiring bringing the full amount one has, and records traditions about unresolved passages awaiting אליהו as well as חנניה בן חזקיה saving יחזקאל from being suppressed. The final section returns to שבועות, clarifies the relationship between the bread and the sheep through the dispute of רבי עקיבא and בן ננס with רבי שמעון’s ruling, and concludes from שינוי סדרים that the two sets of seven sheep are distinct and total fourteen.
- A speaker states המתנות שעל מזבח החיצון אין מעכבות זו את זו and illustrates a case where blood is applied on only one corner of the altar and still achieves כפרה. A ברייתא derives this from the verse ודם זבחיך ישפך, reading *yishafech* as singular to teach that one application on the altar suffices. A speaker frames פרק התכלת as centered on items that are not *me’akev* and says that even partial performance can effect atonement.
- A משנה states הפרים והאילים והכבשים אינן מעכבים זה את זה and is explained to mean that if one type is missing, the available type is offered, and even within a required count such as seven כבשים, a smaller available number is still brought. A speaker emphasizes two novelties: the different species do not prevent each other, and individuals within the same species do not prevent each other when only part is available. Rabbi Shimon says that if there are many bulls but no funds for נסכים, one brings one bull with its נסכיו and does not offer all without נסך, because one complete offering is preferable to many incomplete ones.
- The גמרא rejects סוכות as the referent because כמשפטם implies fixed numbers that are preventing. The גמרא considers ראש חודש and explains the phrase ראש חודש ועצרת דחומש הפקודים, identifying “פקודים” as the מוסף section in במדבר and “תורת כהנים” in ויקרא as the two-loaves system. A speaker lays out that both systems require seven sheep, but the bulls and rams are reversed, with two bulls and one ram in the מוסף and one bull and two rams with the שתי הלחם. The גמרא resolves the משנה’s plural language by saying it refers to the אילים of תורת כהנים and the איל of חומש הפקודים as two separate groups that do not prevent each other, and likewise the rest of one system does not prevent the other system.
- The גמרא notes that within the bulls the statement implies even the two bulls do not prevent each other, while for rams the point is cross-system non-prevention between the two rams of the loaves and the single ram of the מוסף. The text flags that these are different senses of non-prevention and answers that the משנה lists separate teachings, expressed as תנא מילי מילי קתני. The sugya then transitions into פסוקים and interpretations from יחזקאל.
- The sugya cites יחזקאל’s וביום החודש פר בן בקר and ששה כבשים as not matching the תורה’s two bulls and seven sheep for ראש חודש. The text explains that יחזקאל teaches that if two bulls are unavailable one brings one, and if seven sheep are unavailable one brings six and continues downward even to one, based on ולכבשים אשר תשיג ידו. The question asks why six is written if any number down to one is valid, and the answer says that one seeks to maximize what is possible, expressed as דכמה דאפשר להדורי מהדרינן. The sugya then asks how the animals can be “preventing,” and answers that the word יהיו teaches that whatever number one has available obligates bringing that full amount, so the system rejects “all or nothing” but also demands doing the best one can with what one has.
- The text quotes יחזקאל about taking a bull on the first of the month and calls it וחטאת את המקדש, and the גמרא objects that it is an עולה, leading רבי יוחנן to say פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדורשה. The text records the רש״ש’s question about why one waits for אליהו rather than asking יחזקאל, and it also raises why unresolved *teyku* questions are not asked when אליהו appears, answering that אליהו comes to a תנא as a מלאך and תורה is *lo bashamayim hi*, while future answers are expected when he comes in human form. A ברייתא brings רבי יהודה repeating that this passage awaits אליהו, while רבי יוסי explains it as referring to the מילואים offerings brought in Ezra’s days as in Moshe’s days, and רבי יהודה responds תנוח דעתך שהנחת דעתי. Another יחזקאל verse says כהנים may not eat נבלה or טרפה, and the גמרא asks why this targets כהנים, with רבי יוחנן again deferring to אליהו, while רבינא explains the need to exclude an assumption that since מליקה is permitted for them they might be permitted other טרפות. A further verse about “seven in the month” is interpreted by רבי יוחנן as seven tribes sinning in a פר העלם דבר framework, where majority can be defined by tribes even without numeric רובא דקהל, and חודש is read as renewal in the sense of a new erroneous ruling about חלב. The text states that חנניה בן חזקיה is remembered for good because without him ספר יחזקאל would have been suppressed for seeming to contradict תורה, and it describes that he was brought שלש מאות גרבי שמן and sat in an attic to expound and reconcile the text, identifying this attic with the famous attic in מסכת שבת.
- A ברייתא cites verses implying one ephah for a bull and one for a ram and asks how this fits known measures, and רבי שמעון says the תורה does not mean the measures are identical. A teaching applies רבי שמעון’s principle that when there are many animals but missing נסכים or flour measures, one brings a single animal with its complete accompaniment rather than offering many without, repeating the preference for an intact offering-unit.
- A משנה says הפר והאילים והכבשים והשעיר אין מעכבים את הלחם and is explained as allowing the bread to be brought even if those offerings are absent. The text then presents the apparent contradiction where הלחם מעכב את הכבשים but also ואין הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם, and a speaker resolves that the earlier כבשים are עולות in the שבועות category with פר and אילים, while the later כבשים are the שלמים that accompany the שתי הלחם. Rabbi Akiva holds that bread prevents the sheep but sheep do not prevent the bread. Ben Nanas holds the opposite, claiming sheep prevent the bread and bread does not prevent the sheep, and he argues from the במדבר period where כבשים were brought without bread because there was מן and the bread obligation depends on produce of ארץ ישראל. Rabbi Shimon rules הלכה כדברי בן ננס אבל אין הטעם כדבריו, explaining that offerings of חומש הפקודים were brought in the wilderness while those of תורת כהנים were not, and that sheep can permit themselves while bread without sheep lacks a permitting factor.
- A ברייתא reads והקרבתם על הלחם as creating an obligation tied to the bread, yet reads שבעת כבשים תמימים as standing even without bread, and concludes that the community was not obligated in the sheep before being obligated in the bread. Rabbi Tarfon suggests that the sheep in both contexts might be the same single set of seven rather than fourteen, but the text rejects this by pointing to the differing bull and ram counts between the two systems and concludes that the sheep are also distinct: אלו באים בגלל עצמם ואלו באים בגלל הלחם. The גמרא raises a further possibility that the bull and ram differences indicate interchangeability of “two and one,” but it rejects this by observing that the תורה reverses the order of the items between the two passages, and it infers from this שינוי סדרים that the offerings are different, yielding separate sheep sets totaling fourteen.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions