Menachos 50 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכת מנחות דף נ, beginning on דף נ עמוד א, and explains the Mishnah and Gemara about when missed daily עבודות may be made up, how inauguration of the מזבחות and כלים works, and how קטורת differs from תמיד. The Gemara reframes the Mishnah with חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני, brings a דרשה from the פסוק “את הכבש האחד תעשה בבוקר ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים,” and clarifies רבי שמעון’s limitation that skipping deliberately affects who may offer the afternoon תמיד. The *shiur* also develops the idea that קטורת is *ma’asheret* and ties it to the מנהג about not repeating *sandek* honors, with positions of רבינו פרץ, רמ״א, נודע ביהודה, חתם סופר, גר״א, רב חיים קרויזווארט זצ״ל, רב חיים קניבסקי זצ״ל, and רב אלישיב. The later part moves to מנחת חביתין of the כהן גדול, debates whether it is קרבן יחיד or קרבן ציבור, presents the Rambam–Raavad dispute about the twelve חלות, rules what happens when a כהן גדול dies mid-day, and closes with a three-way תנאים dispute about the baking/frying order from “תופיני מנחת פתים.”
- A rabbinic view states that if they did not offer the morning lamb, they offer the afternoon lamb, and רבי שמעון limits this to a case of אנוסים, not where the omission is deliberate. A Gemara question challenges why “חינוך” is introduced, with רש״י reading the question as aimed at “ולא מזבח עולה בתמיד של שחר,” and תוספות reading it as challenging all the Mishnah’s inauguration statements. A reconstructed text reads that if they did not offer the morning lamb they do not offer the afternoon lamb when the מזבח was not yet inaugurated, because the first use of the מזבח העולה must be the תמיד של שחר, but once inaugurated they may offer the day’s first תמיד in the afternoon. A further רבי שמעון clause permits the afternoon offering only when the morning omission is אנוסים or שוגגים, and bars it when the omission is מזידים.
- A ruling states that if they did not offer the morning קטורת they offer it in the afternoon, and רבי שמעון teaches that in such a case the entire מנה is offered between the evenings because אין מחנכין את מזבח הזהב אלא בקטורת הסמים. A distinction is made that unlike קטורת, a missed morning תמיד is not made up by adding an extra offering later, because the two תמידים are two separate mitzvot and “עבר זמנו בטל קרבנו,” while the morning and afternoon קטורת are framed as one mitzvah by רב ירוחם פישל פרלא. A question asks “וכהנים חטאו,” and the answer reads “לא יקריבו הן,” meaning the afternoon תמיד may still be brought but not by the same כהנים who deliberately skipped the morning offering. A rationale explains that skipping קטורת is uncommon because it is less frequent and because *ketoret ma’asheret*, so “חביבה ולא פשי,” and the principle “דבר שלא שכיח לא גזרו רבנן” is applied.
- A link is drawn from מסכת יומא that since קטורת makes one wealthy, a כהן is not given קטורת twice so others can receive the opportunity, and מדרשים compare *sandek* to ketoret. A ruling from רבינו פרץ, cited by the רמ״א, says one should not ask the same person to be a *sandek* for more than one child in order to spread the opportunity. A challenge from the נודע ביהודה notes communities where the רב is *sandek* at all *bris* celebrations, showing it is not universally accepted. A reconciliation from the חתם סופר compares the רב to the כהן גדול who “נוטל חלק בראש” and may perform any עבודה, including ketoret, whenever he wishes, so repeated *sandek* honors for the רב fit that model. A question from the גר״א asks why many *sandek* recipients do not become wealthy, and an answer from the חתם סופר says the blessing may manifest as forgiveness of עבירות, called the greatest עשירות, while another approach attributed to רב חיים קרויזווארט זצ״ל and also stated by רב חיים קניבסקי זצ״ל limits the segulah to a case where one receives all the *kibbudim*. A further question asks about a father serving as *sandek* for all his children, and רב אלישיב rules that since the father controls the decision of *sandek* he is comparable to a כהן גדול and may do so without violating the מנהג.
- A תנאic dispute is stated about whether the inaugural ketoret is in the afternoon or morning, depending on whether morning and afternoon ketoret are one mitzvah or two. Abaye supports the view that the first ketoret is between the evenings based on “והקטיר עליו אהרן קטורת סמים בבוקר בבוקר בהיטיבו את הנרות יקטירנה,” arguing that morning cleaning presumes prior evening lighting, so the initial מנורה lighting is in the afternoon and the ketoret tied to it is likewise. The opposing view derives from מזבח העולה, reasoning that just as its inauguration is with the תמיד של שחר, so too the מזבח הקטורת is inaugurated with the morning ketoret.
- A rule states that the שולחן is inaugurated only with לחם הפנים on שבת, because the לחם attains its קדושה only on שבת as taught later on דף ק עמוד א. The Gemara reads the Mishnah as teaching that both inauguration and sanctification of the שולחן occur on שבת, paralleling that the מנורה is inaugurated by performing its mitzvah with seven lamps lit between the evenings. A דרוש explanation interprets the שולחן as the שבת table and frames its “inauguration” as sitting at it with דברי תורה and זמירות.
- A baraita states that there was an instance of ketoret offered by an individual, placed on the outer altar, and that event is a הוראת שעה. Rav Pappa identifies it as the נשיאים in פרשת נשא who brought “כף אחת מלאה קטורת” during the משכן inauguration. A further baraita rejects the idea of either a יחיד or ציבור bringing ketoret as a voluntary offering, deriving from “לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה” that any non-prescribed ketoret is forbidden, and from “ושמן המשחה וקטורת הסמים לקודש ככל אשר צויתיך יעשו” that ketoret is only as commanded. Rav Pappa explains the earlier formulation as “לא מיבעיא קאמר,” concluding that even the one precedent of a יחיד on the outer altar is only the one-time הוראת שעה and cannot recur.
- The Torah commands the כהן גדול to bring מנחת חביתין daily, “עשירית האיפה סולת מנחה תמיד מחציתה בבוקר ומחציתה בערב,” and the *shiur* introduces a debate whether this is a קרבן יחיד or קרבן ציבור with a נפקא מינה about a במה, citing the משנה למלך that it is ציבור and cannot be brought on a במה, and the אור שמח that it may be a Gemara dispute. The שיעור states that the חביתין are baked into twelve חלות and presents a Rambam–Raavad dispute: the Rambam says all twelve are baked and each is halved so twelve half-portions are offered in the morning and twelve half-portions in the afternoon, while the Raavad says six whole חלות are offered in the morning and six in the afternoon. The Mishnah rules that the חביתין do not “come in halves” in the sense of bringing only a half-עשירית from the outset, but rather one full עשירית is brought and then divided for morning and afternoon.
- A case states that if the כהן גדול offers the morning half and dies, the replacement כהן גדול may not bring only a half-עשירית from his own funds nor use the remaining half of the first כהן גדול, but must bring a full עשירון, divide it, offer half, and let the other half be lost. A baraita extends the same rule to a case where the reserved afternoon half became טמא or was lost, requiring a new full עשירון so that “מחצה משלם הוא מביא,” leaving two halves offered and two halves wasted. A teaching before Rav Nachman says the unused halves “תעבור צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה,” and Rav Nachman questions why the second כהן’s unused half needs עיבור צורה when it is מראש destined for loss. An answer attributes the ruling to תנא דבי רבה בר אבוה who requires עיבור צורה even for פיגול, and Rav Ashi answers that even according to רבנן both halves were potentially fit because the כהן could choose either half to offer.
- The *shiur* cites ספר החינוך מצוה קל״ו that the כהן גדול brings this offering because he is the שליח between ישראל and “אביהם שבשמים,” and through his תפילה and קרבנות ישראל receive כפרה, so he is given a special twice-daily offering like the תמידים. A practical question from חשוקי חמד asks whether a רב in a large shul should receive an עליה only monthly to leave more opportunities for congregants. A conclusion reports that רב חיים קנייבסקי agrees that the special כבוד due to a כהן גדול analogically supports maintaining the רב’s weekly עליה and not diminishing כבוד הרב for logistical convenience.
- Amoraim debate the order of preparation: רב חייא בר אבא and רבי יוחנן say first baking then frying, while רב אסי בשם רבי חנינא says first frying then baking. Each side derives from “תופיני מנחת פתים” as “תאפנה נאה,” with one reading that frying first blackens and prevents “nice” baking, and the other reading that “nice” baking means it is not fully baked because it was pre-cooked by frying. A baraita frames it as a תנאic dispute, with one opinion saying “תאפנה נאה” means it is already partially baked before baking, with רבי saying “תאפנה נאה” means it can be baked nicely without blackening from frying, and with רבי יוסי saying “תאפנה רבה” by baking, frying, and baking again because “כי איתא נאה ואיתא נאה.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions