Menachos Daf 46 - Connection Between Lechem and Zevach
Summary
- The shiur on מנחות דף מו begins from דף מה עמוד ב and frames the sugya as defining when a binding זיקה forms between the שתי הלחם and the כבשי עצרת, such that damage or loss to one invalidates the other. The Gemara establishes that שחיטה certainly creates זיקה, raises an unresolved ספק whether תנופה also creates זיקה, and contrasts this with קרבן תודה where post-שחיטה פסול of the bread does not invalidate the animal because the תודה can revert to שלמים. The discussion then asks whether replacement bread after a תנופה requires a new תנופה, explains why only the כבשי עצרת (and not the other קרבנות of שבועות) are linked to the שתי הלחם, and concludes with רבי עקיבא’s view that שתי הלחם can be brought without כבשים but are not eaten and instead require הופר צורתם and burning, with debate whether that non-eating is מדרבנן or מדאורייתא.
- The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום. The presentation focuses on the depth of the connection between the breads and animals of certain קרבנות and whether lack or ruin of one element removes the possibility of offering the other.
- The משנה states that the פר, the two אילים, the seven כבשים of עולה, and the שעיר do not prevent bringing the שתי הלחם, and the bread does not prevent bringing those animals. Rabbi Akiva rules that the bread prevents bringing the כבשי עצרת but the כבשים do not prevent bringing the bread, while רבי שמעון בן ננס reverses this and argues that the wilderness precedent shows כבשים could be brought without bread.
- Rabbi Yochanan says that all agree that once the two are הוזקקו זה לזה they mutually prevent each other, and the act that creates that זיקה is שחיטה. The result is that if the שתי הלחם are present at שחיטה of the כבשי עצרת, a later פסול or loss of either element renders the other פסול and destined for burning, and the קרן אורה notes a further חידוש for בן ננס that the זיקה blocks substituting other כבשים for the lost ones.
- Ulla reports that in מערבא they ask whether תנופה עושה זיקה or תנופה אינה עושה זיקה, since the שתי הלחם and the כבשי עצרת are waved together while the animals are alive. The Gemara initially tries to infer from Rabbi Yochanan’s formulation that only שחיטה makes זיקה, but then explains that Rabbi Yochanan’s statement may only mean that שחיטה is certainly sufficient even if תנופה might also create זיקה, and the question remains תיקו.
- A challenge claims that “קדש יהיו לה' לכהן,” written after the mention of תנופה, indicates a post-תנופה binding. The Gemara responds that the phrase also relates to the כהן’s portion that only comes after שחיטה, and therefore the verse can be read as speaking about something whose endpoint is for the כהן, without proving that תנופה itself creates זיקה, leaving the uncertainty intact.
- A lengthy ברייתא teaches that if לחמי תודה become פסול after שחיטה through being broken or through יצא חוץ למחיצתה, the blood is still thrown and the meat is eaten as a שלמים, and the person does not fulfill the נדר of תודה, while if the פסול occurs after זריקה there are rules like “תורם מן השלם על הפרוס” and “תורם ממה שבפנים על שבחוץ.” The ברייתא further states that if the bread becomes טמא after שחיטה, the blood is thrown, the meat is eaten, and the person does fulfill the נדר because “שהציץ מרצה על הטמא,” while the bread remains פסול. The Gemara answers that תודה is different because the תורה itself calls it “זבח תודת שלמיו,” allowing it to function without bread by reverting to שלמים, unlike the כבשי עצרת whose identity as the linked שלמים depends on their specific bond to the שתי הלחם.
- Rabbi Yirmiyah posits that if תנופה does create זיקה then loss of bread or sheep after תנופה invalidates the counterpart and requires replacing both. He then asks that if תנופה does not create זיקה and the bread is lost after a valid תנופה, whether the replacement bread requires a new תנופה, and he limits the ספק to the case of lost bread because replacement sheep certainly require תנופה. He further limits the ספק to Rabbi Akiva who views the bread as עיקר, and the Gemara again concludes תיקו.
- Abaye asks why the two כבשים sanctify and hold back the bread while the seven כבשים, the פר, and the אילים do not. Rava answers that the two כבשים are distinct because they and the loaves are linked through the joint act of תנופה, but the Gemara challenges this from תודה where there is linkage without תנופה. The Gemara then proposes that the linked case must be like תודה in requiring שלמים, rejects the comparison because Shavuos has multiple sacrifices, and finally anchors the rule in an analogy to איל נזיר where despite the presence of other offerings only the שלמים sanctifies the bread, proven from “ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות” and the rule that שחיטה שלא לשמו prevents the bread from becoming קדוש.
- A ברייתא rules that שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן are waved and then left for הופר צורתם and burned, so they are not eaten. The Gemara argues ממה נפשך that either they should be eaten or burned immediately, and Rabbah answers that they are intrinsically for eating but are barred by a גזירה מדרבנן lest future years with available כבשים lead people to permit eating before the כבשים serve as the מתיר. The shiur ends as Rava brings a proof from רבי יהודה’s report about בן בוכרי in יבנה and רבן יוחנן בן זכאי’s response regarding כהנים and מחצית השקל, and Abaye counters that the case can still be שתי הלחם brought with a זבח because לחמי תודה are not called מנחה while שתי הלחם are called מנחה, with the continuation deferred to the next day’s לימוד.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions