Menachos 50
Summary
- A משנה on דף נ״ה teaches that when the תמיד של שחר is not brought, תנא קמא still allows the תמיד של בין הערביים, while רבי שמעון prohibits it in certain cases, yet both agree that missing the morning קטורת does not prevent offering the afternoon קטורת. The גמרא explains that the משנה omits a key condition about whether the מזבח has already been inaugurated, derives rules from pesukim and ברייתות, and clarifies that penalties for deliberate neglect apply to the offending כהנים rather than canceling the עבודה entirely. The sugya then resolves a dispute about whether חנוכת מזבח הזהב is with morning or afternoon קטורת, establishes that the שולחן is inaugurated and is מקדש its לחם specifically on שבת, and explains that the נשיאים’ קטורת offering on the outer מזבח was a הוראת שעה. The discussion concludes with detailed halachot of חביתי כהן גדול, including what happens if the כהן גדול dies mid-day, when leftover halves require עיבור צורה, the correct order of baking and frying implied by “תופיני,” and proofs that the חביתין are prepared even on שבת.
- A משנה states that if the תמיד של שחר was not brought, תנא קמא still brings the תמיד של בין הערביים, and רבי שמעון says it is not brought, while both agree that if the morning קטורת was not brought the afternoon קטורת is brought. A missing line is supplied so that רבי שמעון’s rule applies when the מזבח was not yet inaugurated, but once the מזבח was already inaugurated the afternoon תמיד may be brought. A ברייתא learns from “ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים” that the afternoon offering is “שני בין הערביים ולא ראשון בין הערביים,” unless the מזבח was already inaugurated, in which case even the first תמיד of that day may be in the afternoon. A ברייתא adds in רבי שמעון’s name that this leniency applies when they were אנוסים או שוגגים, but if they were מזידין and did not bring the morning תמיד, they may not bring the afternoon one.
- A question challenges why כהנים sinning would make the מזבח “בטיל,” and רבא explains that “לא יקריבו הן” means the negligent כהנים may not offer the afternoon תמיד, but other כהנים may. A ברייתא keeps the rule that even if the morning קטורת was not offered, the afternoon קטורת is offered. A reason is given that קטורת is “לא שכיח” relative to offerings generally and “ומעשרא,” so it is “חביב להו” and they are “לא פשעי,” making a punitive enactment unnecessary, unlike the תמיד which is “שכיח” and creates concern of continued negligence.
- A statement attributes to רבי שמעון that “וכולה היתה קריבה בין הערביים” and that מזבח הזהב is inaugurated only with “קטורת הסמים של בין הערביים,” but a ברייתא states the opposite that inauguration is with “קטורת הסמים של שחר.” A resolution says this is a תנאי dispute, and אביי argues it is more logical that inauguration is with the afternoon קטורת from “בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות יקטירנה,” since “הטבה בצפרא” presupposes “הדלקה מאורתא,” implying the first lighting is at night and the first קטורת aligns with that. The other view learns by analogy from “מזבח העולה,” that just as its inauguration is with “תמיד של שחר,” so מזבח הזהב is inaugurated with “קטורת סם של שחר.”
- A משנה states “ולא היה שולחן אלא בלחם הפנים בשבת,” and a suggested inference that weekday placement could still be מקדש is rejected. A clarification says the משנה teaches that both “חינוך וקידוש דשולחן” occur on שבת. A support comes from the end of the משנה, “ולא היה מנורה אלא בשבעה נרות בין הערביים,” which is understood as the actual lighting in the afternoon, and the שולחן clause is read similarly as referring to placement and קידוש on שבת.
- A ברייתא teaches “זו היא קטורת שקרבה ליחיד על מזבח החיצון והוראת שעה היתה,” and רב פפא identifies it as the נשיאים’ offerings in פרשת נשא, including “כף אחת עשר זהב מלאה קטורת.” Proposed inferences that a יחיד could offer on the inner מזבח or that a ציבור could offer on the outer מזבח are rejected by a second ברייתא that forbids נדבת קטורת from “לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה,” extends the prohibition even to ציבור from “לא תעלו,” and limits practice by “אין לך אלא מה שאמור בענין” from “את שמן המשחה ואת קטורת הסמים לקודש ככל אשר צויתיך יעשו.” רב פפא explains the first ברייתא as “לאו מיבעיא,” excluding both ציבור on the outer and יחיד on the inner because they are never found, and adding that even the one case that appears with יחיד on the outer by the נשיאים remains forbidden in general because it was “הוראת שעה.”
- A משנה teaches that חביתי כהן גדול are not brought as two separate halves from home, but as “עשרון שלם” which is split, with “מחצה בבוקר ומחצה בין הערביים.” A case states that if the כהן גדול brought the morning half and died, and another is appointed that day, the successor does not bring the remaining half of the first nor a half-measure, but brings a new full עשרון, splits it, offers half, and the other half is destroyed, so “נמצאו שני חצאין קרבין ושני חצאין אובדין.” A ברייתא derives this from “מחציתה בבוקר ומחציתה בערב,” teaching “מחצה משלם הוא מקריב,” and applies the same rule when the afternoon half became טמא or was lost, requiring a new full עשרון with one half offered and one destroyed. The ברייתא also derives from “ומחציתה בערב” that even a newly appointed כהן גדול must bring “מחצה משלם” for the evening.
- A תנא before רב נחמן teaches that “מחצה ראשון ומחצה שני” require “תעובר צורתן” and then “יצא לבית השרפה.” רב נחמן accepts that the first כהן גדול’s remaining half was initially ראוי להקרבה, but asks why the second כהן גדול’s extra half needs עיבור צורה when it was “מעיקרא לאיבוד קאתי.” A resolution ties the teaching to a view from דבי רב בר אבוהו that “אפילו פיגול טעון עיבור צורה.” רב אשי alternatively explains that even according to רבנן the extra half was not inherently פסול because at the moment of splitting “אי בעי האי מקריב אי בעי האי מקריב,” so the remaining half was “מחזי כחזו” and therefore requires עיבור צורה.
- An amoraic dispute states that רב חייא בר אבא אמר רב יוחנן holds “אופיה ואחר כך מטגנה,” while רב אסי אמר רב חנינא holds “מטגנה ואחר כך אופיה.” רב חייא בר אבא reads “תופיני” as “תאפינה נאה,” requiring baking first so it bakes nicely, while רב אסי reads it as “תאפינה נא,” meaning partially raw, requiring frying first and then baking. A תנאי dispute matches these readings, with תנא קמא saying “תאפינה נא,” רבי saying “תאפינה נאה,” and רבי יוסי saying “תאפינה רבה,” holding both “נא” and “נאה” so it is baked, then fried, then baked again.
- A משנה elsewhere states “חביתי כהן גדול לישתן ועריכתן ואפייתן בפנים” and that they are “דוחה את השבת.” רב הונא derives this from “תופיני” as “תאפינה נאה,” arguing that baking before שבת would cause swelling and staleness and would not be “נאה,” but רב יוסף challenges that one could wrap it “בירקא” to preserve it. A teaching from דבי רבי ישמעאל derives from “תעשה” that it is made “ואפילו בשבת” and “ואפילו בטומאה.” אביי derives from “סולת מנחה תמיד” that it is like “מנחת תמידין,” and just as the תמיד and its מנחה are brought on שבת, so too the מנחת חביתין is brought on שבת.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions