Menachos 46
Summary
- The text follows the Gemara on Menachos דף מ״ו beginning from *shalom* and the line of אמר רבי יוחנן, records the sponsorship לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה with “her נשמה should have an עליה,” and continues the מחלוקת רבי עקיבא and בן ננס about whether the שתי הלחם and the two כבשים of שבועות are מעכב each other. Rabbi Yochanan sets a baseline that once a binding “זיקה” exists they are mutually מעכב, and the sugya tests whether שחיטה or תנופה creates that זיקה, leaving key points as תיקו. The Gemara then compares related cases such as תודה and נזיר to define what kind of קרבן sanctifies accompanying bread, and it ends with the ברייתא of שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן and multiple explanations why they are waved, require עיבור צורה, and are then burned despite arguments that מדאורייתא they might be eaten.
- A sponsorship is stated לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, with the wish that “her נשמה should have an עליה.” A start point is set at מ״ה עמוד ב׳ on the bottom line at the words אמר רבי יוחנן.
- Rabbi Akiva holds that if there is bread without lambs that is acceptable, but lambs without bread is not acceptable. Ben Nannas holds the opposite, that lambs without bread is acceptable.
- Rabbi Yochanan says הכל מודים שהם זקוקים זה לזה that when the items are bound by an attachment they are mutually מעכב, and he identifies the binding as שחיטה. Ulla reports that in מערבא they ask whether תנופה עושה זיקה או אינה עושה זיקה, and an attempted inference from Rabbi Yochanan is rejected because the question is what רבי יוחנן himself holds, leaving the matter תיקו.
- Rav Yehuda bar Chanina challenges from קדש יהיו לה' לכהן being written after תנופה while רבי עקיבא and בן ננס still argue, implying תנופה אינה עושה זיקה. Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua answers that the verse cannot be restricted to “after תנופה” in a way that excludes “after שחיטה,” and he reinterprets the verse as standing מעיקרא with reference to a תנופה done before שחיטה. Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua explains קדש יהיו לה' לכהן as דבר שסופו לכהן, something that will eventually be given to the כהן after שחיטה, and therefore the verse provides no proof about whether תנופה creates זיקה.
- A ברייתא about קרבן תודה lays out three categories of bread problems—נפרס לחמה, יצא לחמה, and נטמא לחמה—each with stages of עד שלא שחט, מששחט, and נזרק הדם, and it rules that after שחיטה certain bread failures do not invalidate the animal offering, which is eaten as a שלמים rather than as a תודה. The Gemara challenges that if שחיטה עושה זיקה then פסל לחם should also invalidate the תודה, and it answers that תודה is different because רחמנא קרייה שלמים. The answer states that since שלמים can be offered without bread, אף תודה קריבה בלא לחם, so the offering remains כשר as a שלמים even when the bread becomes פסול after שחיטה.
- Rabbi Yirmiyah frames that if תנופה עושה זיקה then loss of either item invalidates the other, and if תנופה אינה עושה זיקה then a narrower question arises. The case is that bread and lambs were brought and waved, the bread was then lost before שחיטה of the lambs, and new bread was brought, and the question is whether the new bread requires תנופה. The Gemara narrows that the question is not about lost lambs, not about בן ננס who says כבשים עיקר, and is only according to רבי עקיבא who says לחם עיקר, and it concludes תיקו.
- Abaye asks Rava why the two lambs sanctify the bread and are מעכב, while the seven lambs, the bull, and the rams are not מקדשי לחם and are not מעכב. Rava first answers that the two lambs and the bread are linked because they are הוקשו זה לזה בתנופה, and he contrasts this with the other offerings that lack תנופה. Rava then challenges from תודה where there is no תנופה yet the bread is מקדש and מעכב, and the sugya moves to explain the sanctification through the status of שלמים rather than through תנופה alone.
- The Gemara rejects a simple comparison to תודה because there is no additional sacrifice alongside תודה, while in שבועות there are other offerings, raising why only the two lambs should sanctify the bread. The sugya answers by comparing to a נזיר, where despite other offerings it is specifically the איל נזיר as a שלמים that is מקדש the bread. A ברייתא derives from ועשה האיל זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות that the סל is a חובה for the איל, that שחיטת איל מקדשן, and that if it was שחטו שלא לשמו the bread is not קדוש.
- A ברייתא rules that שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן are waved, then require ותעובר צורתן, and are taken to burning, and the Gemara asks why this is not decided immediately either for eating or for immediate burning. Rabbah says they are fundamentally for eating but are burned by גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לשנה הבאה and people will mistakenly learn to eat bread without lambs even when lambs are present, and he explains the need for לינה so that they become fully פסול before burning. Rabbah brings a proof from the testimony about מחצית השקל and the כהנים’s דרשה of וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל, arguing that the claim “היאך נאכלים?” implies these loaves can be eaten even when brought alone, while Abaye rejects the proof by saying the case can be with a sacrifice and that לחמי תודה לא איקרו מנחה whereas שתי הלחם אקרו מנחה from והקרבתם מנחה חדשה להשם.
- Rav Yosef first says they are for burning and the delay is because לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב, and Abaye rejects this by saying that when burning is itself the מצוה it is done even on the holy day, like the פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים. Rav Yosef then explains the delay as גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן, and Abaye challenges that after the time for offering has passed they should be burned without waiting overnight. The resolution explains that עיבור צורתן there means צורת הקרבתן, a nonstandard procedure of waiting until it is too late to bring lambs and then burning, rather than the standard overnight disqualification.
- Rava states that the loaves are fundamentally for eating and accepts the גזירה to burn them, but he grounds the דין that they can be brought alone in a verse rather than in Rabbah’s earlier proof. Rava derives from ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה וגו' ביכורים להשם that the loaves are compared to ביכורים, so just as ביכורים come בפני עצמן so do the loaves, and just as ביכורים are for eating so too the loaves are for eating when brought alone. The session ends with the intention to continue discussing כבשי עצרת and the שתי הלחם the next day.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions