Menachos 58
Summary
- Today’s מנחות דף נח continues from the bottom of נז עמוד ב and defines the boundaries of the איסור to place on the מזבח items that are not meant for burning, including whether the כבש counts like the מזבח. It states that שתי הלחם is never brought as a נדבה, and it develops the laws of שאור and דבש under לא תקטירו, including the distinction that שאור is הותר מכללו in the מקדש while דבש is not. It presents a dispute whether the prohibition depends on ממנו לאישים or on שם קרבן, explores practical differences, and then debates how the word כל expands liability to partial amounts and mixtures, culminating in a קצר discussion of לאו שבכללות and מלקות.
- Rabbi Yoḥanan says one who brings prohibited items onto the כבש is חייב, and he derives inclusion of the כבש from ואל המזבח לא יעלו לרצון. Rabbi Elazar says one who brings them onto the כבש is פטור because the כבש is not the מזבח, and he limits the כבש-equivalence specifically to שאור ודבש from the word אותם in קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם. Rabbi Yoḥanan uses אותם to exclude any נדבה of שתי הלחם, teaching that תקריבו indicates ציבור ולא יחיד and that even a ציבור cannot bring it voluntarily, so only obligatory exceptions allow שאור in שתי הלחם and דבש in ביכורים.
- A baraita explains why the Torah writes כל by both שאור and דבש, since שאור has a צד חמור of הותר מכללו במקדש while דבש does not, and דבש has a צד חמור of being permitted in שירי מנחות while שאור is not permitted there. The Gemara challenges what “הותר מכללו” means for שאור and initially suggests it refers to voluntary שתי הלחם, then rejects that and explains it refers to קרבנות brought together with the חמץ of שתי הלחם, namely the כבשי עצרת. The Gemara challenges this by pointing to ביכורים containing דבש and the birds brought with the baskets, then answers that those birds serve לעיטור בכורים, not as an integral חובה like the כבשי עצרת with שתי הלחם, and it records רש״י’s citation that בכורים טעון קרבן with a ירושלמי-based distinction that the קרבן may be delayed and is not tightly linked enough to define הותר מכללו.
- Rami bar Ḥama asks Rav Ḥisda about one who places בשר חטאת העוף on the מזבח, since חטאת העוף has no portion burned. Rav Ḥisda answers that the rule follows “כל ששמו קרבן,” making it prohibited even without ממנו לאישים. The Gemara frames this as a תנאים dispute: Rabbi Elazar holds כל שממנו לאישים, while Rabbi Akiva holds כל ששמו קרבן. Rav Ḥisda states the practical difference is בשר חטאת העוף, and Rava adds לוג שמן של מצורע, which is called קרבנם in a teaching of Levi, while רש״י distinguishes it from the שתי הלחם model because the לוג can be brought even after many days and is not bound to the אשם as a single unit.
- A baraita derives that שאור triggers בל תקטירו, that כל includes מקצתו, and that כי כל includes עירובו. Abaye interprets “כולו” as a כזית and “מקצתו” as פחות מכזית, while Rava interprets “כולו” as a קומץ and “מקצתו” as חצי קומץ. Their dispute turns on whether יש קומץ פחות משני זיתים, with Abaye allowing a half-kometz to be less than a כזית and Rava insisting אין קומץ פחות משני זיתים, so no הקטרה occurs with less than a כזית. The text brings later halachic and conceptual ramifications, including the Rambam’s requirement that קידוש wine be ראוי לנסך על גבי המזבח and the question whether sweetened wine is disqualified based on whether דבש means any fruit sweetener per Rashi or only דבש תמרים per Ibn Ezra, and it cites the Rambam in מאכלות אסורות that wine with a mixture that makes it not fit for the מזבח may be treated like מבושל regarding drinking with גויים.
- Rava rules that one who offers a mixture of שאור ודבש receives malkot for שאור, for דבש, and additionally for עירובי שאור and עירובי דבש. Abaye rejects the extra lashes on the ground that אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות, with versions reporting either that one still receives a single set of lashes or that even one does not, based on comparison to לא תחסום שור בדישו. The text gives explanations for the no-malkot principle, including the יראים’ reasoning that a bundled לאו indicates lesser severity and the קרית ספר’s reasoning that proper התראה is undermined when the לאו includes multiple prohibitions. It distinguishes two meanings of לאו שבכללות, citing לא תאכלו על הדם as a vague umbrella with many derived prohibitions versus a single explicit לא with multiple listed items like לא תקטירו applying to both שאור and דבש and their mixtures, and it attributes the Abaye–Rava debate primarily to the second type.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions