Menachos 46 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:13 - Introduction
03:27 - 45B
08:11 - 46A
19:05 - 46B
26:33 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A shiur opens with a dedication and locates the sugya seventeen lines from the bottom of מ״ה עמוד ב׳ at הלחם מעכב, framing the משנה’s מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and בן ננס over whether the שתי הלחם or the two כבשים are the essential מעכב element of the Shavuos service. A reading of the pesukim sets up two competing *gezeirah shavah* tracks, *yihyu* to *yihyu* versus *yihyu* to *tihyenah*, and the Gemara weighs exact verbal matching against standard *gezeirah shavah* practice like ושב הכהן ובא הכהן, concluding that when an exact match exists it is preferred, while רבי עקיבא prioritizes conceptual similarity such as gifts to the כהן. The sugya then moves to *zikah* between bread and animals, clarifying that once the bond is created each can prevent the other, probing whether *tenufah* creates the bond or only *shechitah*, and leaving several branches as תיקו. It distinguishes the unique status of the two Shavuos sheep as שלמים that sanctify and hold back the bread, compares this to תודה and נזיר models for which offerings sanctify accompanying bread, and ends with a ruling that two breads brought without sheep are waved and then left for *ibur tzurah* and burning due to a *gezeirah* to prevent confusion in a future year when sheep are available.
- Good morning רבותי is followed by לעלוי נשמת סימי ממרשה בת מרדכי. A location is given as seventeen lines from the bottom of מ״ה עמוד ב׳ at הלחם מעכב. A משנה is recalled with a מחלוקת between רבי עקיבא and בן ננס about what is more important, the two breads of שבועות or the two כבשים, meaning which element is מעכב the other. A working assumption is stated that one cannot eat the bread until the שלמים are slaughtered, with a note that a difference will appear.
- The Torah is described as speaking about שתי הלחם along with a bull, two rams, and seven sheep, even though the learning has focused on two sheep. The Gemara is presented as validating that focus because those two are special and in a different category. The two sheep and the two rolls are pictured as going together, as previously shown in the מסכת.
- Ben Nanas is presented as arguing that sheep are more important, citing that in the מדבר they did sheep and did not have bread because bread requires growth in ארץ ישראל, and the response is that they never slaughtered sheep in the מדבר yet the הלכה is nevertheless like him. The core dispute is tied to whether פסוק כ׳ aligns with פסוק י״ז about bread or פסוק י״ח about sheep, since פסוק כ׳ includes יהיו as a term of *ikuv*. Ben Nanas aligns פסוק כ׳ with פסוק י״ח because both say יהיו, while רבי עקיבא aligns it with פסוק י״ז because תהיינה is close to יהיו.
- The Gemara is quoted as הלחם מעכב את הכבשים and asks מאי טעמא דרבי עקיבא, answering that רבי עקיבא learns יהיו from תהיינה and concludes מה להלן לחם אף כאן לחם. The Gemara states that בן ננס learns יהיו יהיו and concludes מה להלן כבשים אף כאן כבשים. The challenge is raised ובן ננס נמי ליגמר מתהיינה, and the answer is that he prefers the exact match, stated as ואין דון יהיו מתהיינה.
- The Gemara asks מאי נפקא מינה and brings תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ושב הכהן ובא הכהן to show that a *gezeirah shavah* can work without a perfect verbal match. The rule is then qualified as הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה אלפינן. The Gemara asks why רבי עקיבא does not learn יהיו מיהיו, and answers that he learns a דבר שמתנה לכהן from a דבר שמתנה לכהן, excluding פסוק י״ח as referring to עולות, so the conceptual category drives his pairing even with a less exact word match.
- An alternative is presented as איבעית אימא בקרא גופיה קמיפלגי about the phrase קדש יהיו לה׳ לכהן and the question of how to read the relationship between לה׳ and לכהן. רבי עקיבא reads the key as איזהו דבר שכולו לכהן and identifies it as the bread, since the bread goes entirely to the כהן. בן ננס answers that the pasuk does not say קדש יהיו לכהן alone but קדש יהיו לה׳ לכהן, and he reads it as איזהו דבר שמקצתו לה׳ ומקצתו לכהן, identifying it as the sheep because some goes on the מזבח and some goes to the כהן.
- The Gemara challenges רבי עקיבא that it does not say קדש יהיו לה׳ ולכהן but rather לה׳ לכהן, and answers כדידרב הונא from גזל הגר: דאמר רב הונא קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן. The reading makes the item belong first to Hashem and then be transferred wholly to the כהן, aligning the pasuk with the bread as entirely the כהן’s portion.
- A teaching is brought: אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שאם הוזקקו זה לזה שמעכבין זה את זה. זיקה is explained through a parallel to יבום, where a bond exists even without marriage, and the bread and two sheep are said to have such a bond at a certain stage. The Gemara identifies the stage as שחיטה, stating that once the bond exists, losing one prevents use of the other.
- A question from מערבא is brought: תנופה עושה זיקה או אין עושה זיקה. A proposed proof from רבי יוחנן’s statement that שחיטה עושה זיקה suggests that תנופה does not, but the Gemara rejects this as not decisive and says רבי יוחנן גופא קמיבעיא ליה, leaving the issue as תיקו. A follow-up challenge cites קודש יהיו לה׳ לכהן as written after תנופה, yet the Gemara answers that the pasuk is treated as מעיקרא קא חשיב and that קודש יהיו לה׳ means דבר שסופו לכהן, so it does not establish when the *zikah* begins.
- A contradiction is raised with cases where the bread is damaged or disqualified. The baraisa rules that if before שחיטה the bread breaks, יביא לחם אחר וישחוט. If after שחיטה the bread breaks, הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל, the offering proceeds like שלמים, yet ידי נדרו לא יצא and והלחם פסול. A case of bread going outside ירושלים is treated similarly, with the meat eaten after זריקת הדם but the vow not fulfilled and the bread פסול, and after זריקת הדם תורמין מן שבפנים על שבחוץ. For טומאה, if the bread becomes טמא before שחיטה one brings new bread, but if it becomes טמא after שחיטה then הדם נזרק והבשר נאכל and ידי נדרו יצא because שהציץ מרצה על הטמא, while the bread remains פסול and after זריקה תורמין מן הטהור על הטמא.
- The Gemara asks that if שחיטה creates *zikah*, then פסול הלחם should make the תודה פסול as well. The answer is that תודה is different because רחמנא קרייה שלמים, and just as שלמים can be offered without bread, so too תודה can be offered without bread.
- רבי ירמיה sets out a conditional: if תנופה עושה זיקה, then if the bread is lost after תנופה the sheep are lost to the process, and if sheep are lost the bread is lost. If תנופה does not create *zikah*, then after tenufah if the bread is lost, one can bring other bread, and the unresolved question is whether the replacement bread requires another tenufah. The question is stated as applying not to replacement sheep, which certainly require tenufah, but to the bread, and it is framed according to רבי עקיבא, balancing לחם עיקר against the fact that the כבשים are the מתירין and already had tenufah. The Gemara leaves this as תיקו.
- אביי asks רבא why the שני כבשים are the ones that מקדשי לחם and are מעכבי while the seven sheep, bull, and rams do not sanctify the bread and are not mutually preventing. An answer is given that the two sheep are bound to the bread through תנופה, but this is challenged from תודה where there is no such tenufah bond and yet the offering sanctifies and holds back bread. The resolution moves to comparison: two Shavuos sheep are like תודה in being שלמים, but the presence of other offerings leads to learning instead from נזיר, where despite additional offerings, the שלמים offering is what sanctifies the bread while other offerings do not. A proof is brought from the pasuk ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה׳ על סל המצות, teaching that the basket is obligatory to the ram and that the ram’s שחיטה sanctifies the breads, so if it is slaughtered שלא לשמו the bread is not sanctified.
- A baraisa rules that two breads brought by themselves are waved and then left for ותעובר צורתן, after which they go to the בית השריפה. The Gemara challenges that if they are fit for eating they should be eaten, and if they are fit for burning they should be burned immediately without waiting overnight. רבה answers that they are fit for eating, but a גזירה is imposed lest sheep become available the next year and people infer from the prior year that bread may be eaten without sheep even when sheep are present, not realizing that last year the breads were their own מתיר because there were no sheep, whereas when sheep exist the כבשים are the מתיר.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions