Menachos 47 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:10 - Introduction
03:28 - 46B
12:42 - 47A
27:19 - 47B
34:59 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A case arises where כלל ישראל has no sheep for כבשי עצרת, and the ruling is to bring the שתי הלחם but not eat them; they are left until תעובר צורתן and then burned. Rבא explains that although the breads could be eaten when there are no sheep, they are not eaten because of a גזירה that people will confuse future years and eat before שחיטת הכבשים, since the כבשים function as the מתיר when they exist. The sugya brings a chain of proofs and objections involving the כהנים’s דרשה about מחצית השקל and the status of שתי הלחם as מנחה, then returns to whether the breads are primarily for eating or burning and why burning is delayed. The text then develops detailed rules about how the כבשים sanctify the bread through שחיטה and/or זריקה, disputes between רבי and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון, the meaning of “קדוש ואינו קדוש,” and resulting differences involving פדיון and פסולי יוצא, and it extends to whether זריקה can affect items that went out and to parallels in פיגול, מעילה, and the effect of זריקה שלא לשמה.
- A case is presented where there are no sheep in כלל ישראל, and the question is whether the two breads are brought and whether they are eaten. The ruling learned is that the שתי הלחם are brought but not eaten, and they are left overnight for תעובר צורתן and then burned. Rבא asks why they must wait and not burn immediately, and he answers that the breads are fundamentally edible in that situation, but they are not eaten because next year people may mistakenly eat the breads without first slaughtering the sheep. Rבא frames the principle that when sheep exist, the sheep are the מתיר that permits eating the breads, but when sheep do not exist, the “מתיר” shifts and the breads become their own מתיר, which could create confusion in a later year when the normal order returns.
- A proof attempt is brought from a teaching of רבי יהודה that בן בוכרי testified in Yavne that any כהן who gives מחצית השקל is not a sinner, and רבן יוחנן בן זכאי responds that the opposite is true and that a כהן who does not give is a sinner. The כהנים’s rationale is presented as a דרשה from “וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל,” claiming that if they would contribute to public מנחות through the shekel then the מנחה would be “theirs” and they could not eat it, yet they do eat לחם הפנים, the עומר, and the שתי הלחם. The text formulates this as “ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו הן היאך נאכלין?” and uses it to argue that their eating indicates they did not pay.
- The גמרא analyzes what case the ברייתא assumes for שתי הלחם, questioning whether it refers to breads that come with the זבח or breads brought בפני עצמן. An initial argument says that if the breads come with the זבח there is no novelty because תודה and its breads are eaten, and it suggests that only when breads come alone are they called a מנחה and thus create the question. אביי counters that even when they come with the זבח, שתי הלחם are called מנחה, citing “בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה’,” so the כהנים can claim a proof even in an ordinary year. רבא later rejects relying on this כהנים-based reasoning as the primary proof and instead uses a פסוק-based derivation.
- רב יוסף states that the breads are destined for burning, which re-raises the question why they are not burned immediately. He answers that they are not burned because “לפי שאין שורפים קדשים ביום טוב,” analogizing to the restriction against burning items like bread for disposal on a festival. אביי challenges this by arguing that here “מצותן בכך לשורפם,” comparing it to the burning of פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים, and presses that this would justify burning even on יום טוב.
- רב יוסף reinterprets the delay as a גזירה “שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן,” because a sheep might appear later that same day and allow fulfillment of the mitzvah in full, so the breads should not be rushed to burning. אביי asks why one must wait the entire night if after שקיעה it is already too late to bring the sheep, and the resolution is that “תעובר צורתן” refers to the proper timing of their burning, meaning after their time passes rather than necessarily until the next morning, expressed as “צורת הקרבתן.”
- רבא says “לאכילה שנו” and grounds the edibility of breads brought without sheep in a פסוק rather than in the כהנים’s argument. He derives from “ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה בכורים לה’” a comparison to ביכורים: “מה בכורים בפני עצמן אף שתי הלחם בפני עצמן,” and “מה בכורים לאכילה אף שתי הלחם נמי לאכילה.” This establishes that the breads can be brought independently and are intended for eating, while still maintaining the earlier גזירה concern about confusion in future years.
- A ברייתא states that “כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה,” and the text explains the bread’s movement from קדושת דמים to קדושת הגוף through the service of the sheep. The process is given as “שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קדש הלחם,” while “שחט שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם.” A mixed case is presented: “שחט לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן,” where רבי rules “הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש,” and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון rules that it is never קדוש until both שחיטה and זריקה are לשמן.
- The text explains that the dispute turns on a פסוק from נזיר, “ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה’ על סל המצות,” where רבי reads “זבח” to indicate שחיטה as the מקדש, and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון reads “יעשה” as requiring completion of all עשיות, aligned with the sequence “שחיטה, קבלה, הולכה, זריקה.” רבי answers that the phrasing “יעשה זבח” limits the requirement to the act of slaughter, while רבי אלעזר accounts for “זבח” by citing רבי יוחנן that everyone agrees bread must be present at the time of שחיטה.
- The phrase “קדוש ואינו קדוש” is explained with two interpretations: אביי says it is קדוש but “אינו גמור,” and רבא says it is fully קדוש but “אינו ניתר,” meaning it cannot be eaten. The stated נפקא מינה is “למצות פדיון,” where the ability to transfer קדושה to money depends on whether the bread is treated as קדושת דמים or קדושת הגוף. A textual issue in the wording is noted via רש״י, who calls the placement of “לא” a “שיבוש גמור הוא זה,” and the correction aligns the positions so that one view yields תפס פדיונו and the other yields “לא תפס פדיונו.”
- The גמרא challenges how this difference fits the dispute between רבי and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון and then offers an alternative נפקא מינה: “דפסולי ביוצא.” The rule is stated that if an item has only קדושת דמים, taking it outside and bringing it back does not invalidate it, but once it has קדושת הגוף, taking it out renders it פסול.
- A question is raised through רב שמואל בר רב יצחק to רבי חייא בר אבא about the status of the bread when the כבשי עצרת are slaughtered לשמן but the blood is thrown שלא לשמן, and the sugya clarifies that the question is framed under a different תנא. The relevant teaching is attributed to אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא about “שתי הלחם שיצאו בין שחיטה לזריקה” where the blood is then thrown “חוץ לזמנם,” producing a פיגול-type intent. רבי אליעזר says “אין בלחם משום פיגול,” and רבי עקיבא says “יש בלחם משום פיגול.”
- רב ששת explains that these תנאים align with רבי’s view that “שחיטה מקדשא,” so the bread already has קדושה at שחיטה, making יוצא meaningful. The dispute is framed as whether “זריקה מועלת ליוצא,” with רבי אליעזר holding it does not and רבי עקיבא holding it does.
- A parallel משנה is brought about “אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דמם,” where רבי אליעזר says “אין מועלין בהם ואין חייבין עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא,” and רבי עקיבא says “מועלין בהם וחייב עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וטמא.” The sugya formulates an inference that just as “זריקת פיגול” can fix the status of the bread in relation to פיגול when it went out, so too “זריקה שלא לשמה” might permit the bread if the analogous meat outcome is כשר, invoking the rule articulated as “כשר אלא שלא עלו לבעלים.” The text then raises the counter-possibility that the comparison may apply only “לחומרא” and not “לקולא.”
- רב פפא challenges the assumption about the scope of the dispute, suggesting that perhaps everyone agrees זריקה does not help something still outside, and the dispute is about a case where the breads went out and were brought back in. The sugya tests this by aligning רבי אליעזר with רבי (שחיטה מקדשה and פסלה ביוצא) and רבי עקיבא with רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון (שחיטה לא מקדשה), and then rejects this alignment by arguing that if רבי עקיבא held שחיטה does not sanctify, then “זריקת פיגול” would not be able to create the relevant liabilities. The text cites רב גידל אמר רב that “זריקת פיגול אינה מביאה לידי מעילה ואינה מוציאה מידי מעילה,” and it ends by noting the challenge “לאו איתותב דרב גידל אמר רב?” and concluding the session with “א גוטן שבת” and scheduling “מוצאי שבת at 8:30!” along with the sponsorship message “MDYsponsor.com or sponsor at mdy.org.il.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions