Menachos Daf 47 - Kedusha of Shtei Halechem
Summary
- A Daf Yomi shiur on Menachos 47 continues the question of why the *shtei halechem* brought without *kivsei atzeres* is burned only after delay, and it presents multiple explanations rooted in Yom Tov restrictions and rabbinic decrees. A beraisa then frames a dispute about whether *shechitah* or *zerikah* of the *kivsei atzeres* gives *kedushah* to the bread, and it analyzes Rebbi’s phrase קדוש ואינו קדוש through Abaye and Rava with practical differences. The Gemara struggles to define Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s question about eating the bread after *zerikah* שלא לשמה by linking it to disputes about whether *zerikah* affects items that went out of the *azarah* and to the status of *piggul*. The daf ends with a question about salvaging *kivsei atzeres* whose bread was lost by redirecting the *zerikah* to make them *shelamim*, and it distinguishes that possibility from cases like *Pesach* and *Todah*.
- A shiur on מנחות דף מ"ז begins from מנחות דף מ"ו עמוד ב', nine lines before the end at רב יוסף אמר. A sponsorship is stated by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, the נשמה שתהא לה עליה.
- A case is assumed where the *shtei halechem* is brought without the accompanying *kivsei atzeres* and is ultimately burned, yet not burned immediately. A *mimah nafshach* challenge is raised that if it is destined for burning it should be burned the same day, and if not it should be eaten.
- A first approach of Rav Yosef says the bread truly comes for burning, and it is delayed because אין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב. A proof is brought from שבת דף כ"ד based on the פסוק about קרבן פסח, ולא תותירו ממנו עד בוקר והנותר ממנו עד בוקר באש תשרפו, with the double עד בוקר teaching בוקר שני לשריפה. A link is made that the *shtei halechem* on שבועות likewise cannot be burned on Yom Tov and is therefore burned after.
- An objection of Abaye says the comparison fails because there the primary mitzvah is not burning but eating, while here דמצוותן בכך and it should be burned on Yom Tov like the פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים. A second approach of Rav Yosef keeps that it is meant for burning but delays it מדרבנן as a גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן, because later-arriving sheep could have enabled pairing with *kivsei atzeres* and eating. A further challenge asks why not burn on מוצאי שבועות, and the answer reads תעובר צורתה as waiting until the time of offering is over rather than necessarily until the next morning.
- A different approach of Rava says לאכילה אתיין and the burning is only a גזירה so people will not conclude in a future year that the bread may be eaten without the sheep. A פסוק proof is given from ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה, ביכורים לה׳, establishing a comparison to *bikkurim* so that just as *bikkurim* come independently and are for eating, so too the *shtei halechem* can come independently and is for eating on a דאורייתא level.
- A beraisa states that כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה, and it gives cases where *shechitah* and *zerikah* לשמן sanctify the bread, while *shechitah* and *zerikah* שלא לשמן do not sanctify it beyond קדושת תרומת הלשכה. A middle case of *shechitah* לשמן and *zerikah* שלא לשמן yields Rebbi’s ruling הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש. רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון says the bread is never holy unless both *shechitah* and *zerikah* are done לשמן.
- Rebbi’s basis is taken from ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים להשם על סל המצות, reading זבח as teaching that *shechitah* sanctifies. רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון reads יעשה as requiring completion of all *asiyos*, including *zerikah*, to sanctify. The word זבח is used by רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון to support Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that הכל מודים שצריך שיהיה לחם בשעת שחיטה, so even the view that *zerikah* sanctifies requires the bread to exist at the time of *shechitah*.
- Abaye defines קדוש ואינו קדוש as קדוש ואינו גמור, a partial sanctity. Rava defines it as קדוש ואינו ניתר, full sanctity that nevertheless does not permit eating. A *nafka minah* is stated as whether the bread is תופס פדיונו: Abaye holds it does not, while Rava holds it does, with Rava implying the bread goes out לחולין through redemption.
- The Gemara explains that under Rava there is a clear dispute between Rebbi and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון about whether redemption takes effect because Rebbi grants full sanctity after *shechitah* even when *zerikah* is שלא לשמה, while רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון does not. Under Abaye, the Gemara identifies a different dispute: whether the bread becomes נפסל ביוצא after *shechitah*, with Rebbi’s partial *kedushah* creating פסול יוצא and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון’s view not doing so.
- A question is asked whether bread may be eaten when *kivsei atzeres* were slaughtered לשמן and their blood was sprinkled שלא לשמן, and the Gemara finds it unclear under Rebbi and under רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. The Gemara links the question to a teaching from דבי רבי ירמיה בר אבא about *shtei halechem* that went out between *shechitah* and *zerikah* and a later *zerikah* חוץ לזמנן, with רבי אלעזר saying אין בלחם משום פיגול and רבי עקיבא saying יש בלחם משום פיגול. Rav Sheshet explains both תנאים assume like Rebbi that *shechitah* sanctifies, and the dispute follows their positions on whether זריקה מועלת ליוצא, supported by a משנה in מעילה about אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דם where רבי אלעזר denies and רבי עקיבא affirms liability for מעילה, פיגול, נותר, and טמא.
- Rav Pappa challenges that the dispute may instead be when the bread is brought back inside before *zerikah*, aligning רבי אלעזר with Rebbi and רבי עקיבא with רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. The Gemara rejects that alignment by arguing that if רבי עקיבא followed רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון and *zerikah* creates sanctity, then *zerikah* with *piggul* intent could not both sanctify and create *piggul*, invoking Rav Gidel amar Rav that זריקת פיגול אינה מביאה לידי מעילה ואינה מוציאה מידי מעילה. The Gemara responds that Rav Gidel amar Rav was rejected in מעילה, and it concludes that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s ספק remains not understood.
- A question is asked by רבי ירמיה to רבי זירא whether *kivsei atzeres* slaughtered לשמן whose bread was lost can have their blood sprinkled שלא לשמן to permit the meat as *shelamim*. רבי זירא rejects the notion of something being invalid לשמו yet valid שלא לשמו, and the Gemara counters with פסח קודם חצות as an example of that phenomenon. The question is reframed to cases where it was once fit לשמו and then was rejected, and the Gemara counters with פסח אחר זמנו and then with תודה where the bread became invalid and the offering can proceed as *shelamim*. The Gemara distinguishes תודה because שאני תודה דרחמנא קריה שלמים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions