Menachos 48
Summary
- Hello to all, today’s דף is מנחות דף מ"ח beginning from מ"ז עמוד ב' near the end at תנו רבנן, and it is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים בת ר' יעקב משה. The sugya applies the earlier dispute about when the שתי הלחם receive קדושת הגוף, with רבי holding from the שחיטה and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון holding only after the זריקה, and it tests how פדיון works when extra loaves exist. The sugya then challenges and refines the principle of עמוד וחטא בשביל שתזכה through cases of mixed קרבנות, שבת זריקה, and תרומה flowing into טמא חולין. The sugya continues with disputes about כבשי עצרת slaughtered שלא כמצוותן, whether they become פסול like חטאת or remain כשרים like שלמים, and it analyzes how and when to construct היקשים and general rules for פסולים such as age requirements and שלא לשמה.
- A Baraita teaches that if one slaughtered two כבשים for four חלות, he pulls two loaves for the waving and redeems the remaining loaves so their קדושה transfers to money and the loaves become חולין. The רבנן tell רב חסדא that this does not fit רבי, because if שחיטה is מקדש the לחם then redeeming creates a dilemma of either פסול יוצא if done outside the עזרה due to לפני ה', or הכנסת חולין לעזרה if done inside. Rav חסדא answers that it can fit רבי because the redemption is done inside the עזרה and the loaves become חולין ממילא, so it is not considered bringing חולין into the עזרה. Ravina challenges Rav Ashi with a Baraita that says redemption is done only outside, and the גמרא concludes that Baraita must be רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון because under רבי taking them outside would already invalidate the loaves with קדושת הגוף as יוצא.
- Acha the son of Rav suggests the earlier discussion refutes רבי יוחנן regarding תודה slaughtered on eighty חלות, where חזקיה says forty become קדוש and רבי יוחנן says they do not. The גמרא cites רבי זירא that all agree that when one explicitly stipulates to sanctify forty out of eighty, they become קדוש, and it applies the same framing to two out of four for שתי הלחם. The sugya states that רבי יוחנן can be understood in a case lacking a clear stipulation, so the earlier case does not undermine him.
- Chanina Teirza teaches before רבי יוחנן that if one slaughtered four כבשים for two חלות, he pulls two and does זריקת דמן שלא לשמן, and then the remaining two are used properly for כבשי עצרת. The teaching says that reversing the order would cause the latter animals to be lost due to the rule that once something was fit and then pushed away, it cannot be restored for use לשמה. The sugya then questions whether one ever says to act improperly first in order to preserve a later outcome.
- A Mishnah about איברי חטאת mixed with איברי עולה records רבי אלעזר placing everything on the מזבח while treating the חטאת meat as wood, while חכמים require עיבור צורה and burning. The sugya asks why חכמים do not apply the logic of עמוד וחטא בשביל שתזכה by putting the חטאת up so the עולה can be offered, and it answers that one may say עמוד וחטא with חטאת to benefit חטאת, but not to benefit an עולה. The sugya then challenges whether the principle applies even within a single topic by citing a Baraita about כבשי עצרת slaughtered שלא לשמן or out of time, which generally allows זריקה and eating, but on שבת says not to perform זריקה לכתחילה; the answer distinguishes between gaining on שבת versus gaining only for חול.
- A Mishnah describes a barrel of תרומה breaking in the upper winepress while טמא חולין stands below, and רבי אליעזר and רבי יהושע agree that if one can save a רביעית בטהרה he must. The Mishnah says that if only טמא vessels are available, the first view allows the תרומה to flow down and become טמא rather than actively being מטמא it by hand, while רבי יהושע permits actively catching it in טמא vessels to prevent loss of the חולין. The גמרא answers that this is different because the תרומה is going to טומאה regardless, so choosing the method that saves the חולין does not create the usual model of doing an עבירה to gain elsewhere.
- Rav Yitzchak bar Yitzchak teaches that כבשי עצרת slaughtered שלא כמצוותן are פסולין, require עיבור צורה, and are burned, with Rashi explaining שלא כמצוותן as שלא לשמה. Rav Nachman says this depends on whether one compares them by היקש to חטאת and teaches פסול, or whether one learns obligatory שלמים from voluntary שלמים and teaches כשרים. Levi’s Baraita about שלמי נזיר slaughtered שלא כמצוותן says they are eaten for a day and a night and do not require לחם or זרוע, establishing that they are not credited as נזיר offerings but remain valid as שלמים.
- A Baraita rules that an אשם brought at the wrong age is פסול and burned, while an עולת נזיר, עולת יולדת, and עולת מצורע brought at age two are כשרים, and it states the rule that anything כשר for עולת נדבה is כשר for עולת חובה. The same Baraita states that anything פסול in חטאת is פסול in אשם except שלא לשמה, where חטאת is פסול but אשם remains כשר. The גמרא identifies this approach as the תנא דבי לוי, so it does not challenge the view that compares כבשי עצרת to חטאת.
- A Baraita from Levi teaches that אשם נזיר and אשם מצורע slaughtered שלא לשמן are כשרים but do not count for the owner’s חובה, while those slaughtered מחוסר זמן בבעלים or brought at age two are פסולים. The sugya asks why one should not learn these אשמות from other categories that would allow age two, and it answers that one learns שלמים from שלמים but does not learn אשם from שלמים. The sugya then asks why one does not learn אשם from אשם across different types, and Rav Shimi bar Ashi answers with the rule that one does not derive something done שלא בהכשירו from something done בהכשירו, and one does not derive between cases that do not share the same status of הכשר.
- A Baraita derives that יוצא, if placed on the מזבח, is not taken down, and it initially frames this through the idea that יוצא is כשר בבמה. The גמרא answers through Rav Pappa that the real basis is the verse זאת תורת העולה, which extends the rule, so it is not a proof that one derives improper cases from proper ones by comparison alone. The presentation ends with stopping here and continuing tomorrow with further discussion of כבשי עצרת.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions