Menachos 50 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:10 - 50A
17:36 - 50B
32:14 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- The text presents a *Gemara* and *Mishnah* framework that distinguishes between the daily *korban tamid* and the daily *ketoret*, explains how the *chinuch* of the *mizbe’ach* and other *keilim* functions, and clarifies when missed services can be made up and when they cannot. It adopts רבי שמעון’s approach that *ketoret* missed in the morning can be brought later, even doubled in the afternoon, while the *tamid* has stricter rules tied to inauguration and to whether the lapse was *b’ones* or *b’shogeg* versus *b’mezid*. It then moves through *beraitot* about prohibitions on voluntary *ketoret*, describes exceptional history as *hora’at sha’ah*, and concludes with detailed halachot of חביתי כהן גדול, including how the flour is brought and divided, how replacement works after death or loss, how *ivur tzurah* affects burning, how the baking/frying process is done, and why the service overrides Shabbat.
- Good morning רבותי. לעילוי נשמת סימי מרות בת מרדכי.
- Rabbi Shimon states that if the morning *ketoret* is not brought, the afternoon service brings it all together, bringing both the morning and afternoon *ketoret* at once. The text contrasts this with *korbanot* such as the *tamid*, where if the morning *tamid* is not brought and it is already afternoon, the morning one is not brought then. The *Mishnah* is understood as teaching how the *mizbe’ach hazahav* is inaugurated, with *chinuch* meaning the first moment it becomes sanctified through its service, and the text locates the *mizbe’ach hazahav* in the *heichal* where *ketoret* is placed twice daily.
- The *Gemara* explains the *Mishnah* with חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני and establishes that if לא הקריבו כבש בבוקר then לא הקריבו בין הערביים under the condition that the altar has not yet been inaugurated. The *pasuk* את הכבש האחד תעשה בבוקר ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים is read to require the morning *tamid* as the prerequisite for the evening one on the first day of operation. The text then states that once the altar is already inaugurated, יקריבו בין הערביים even if the morning was missed.
- Rabbi Shimon limits the allowance to make up the evening *tamid* to cases of אונסים או שוגגים, while in cases of מזידים the missed morning prevents the evening. The text states that *ketoret* differs because לא הקטירו קטורת בבוקר יקטירו בין הערביים, and it portrays this as the absence of a punitive fine for *ketoret* even where there is one for *tamid*.
- The derivation uses ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים to formulate שני בין הערבים ולא ראשון בין הערבים, meaning the “second” is designated for afternoon and not the “first.” The text then applies this to the case of inauguration and states that after inauguration even the “first” can be brought in the afternoon. It explains that a verse that speaks directly of the “second” indicates that the “first” is not always *me’akev* once the system is functioning, and it reiterates Rabbi Shimon’s distinction between אונסים/שוגגים and מזידים regarding whether the evening offering is permitted.
- The text challenges the idea that “if the priests sinned the altar is canceled,” asking וכי כהנים חטאו מזבח בטל. Rava answers that לא יקריבו הן means the offending group does not bring it, but others do, and the text entertains that this can mean the entire משמר is penalized even if not all *kohanim* are. The resolution leaves room for the missed service to be performed by a different watch rather than canceling the communal obligation entirely.
- The text explains that *ketoret* is treated differently because it is not שכיח and cites the teaching from *Yoma* that a *kohen* never brings *ketoret* twice in his lifetime. It adds that *ketoret* is associated with wealth, described as ומעטרא, so it is precious to the *kohanim* and they are not careless, stated as חביבי להו ולא פשעי. The absence of concern for negligence removes the rationale for imposing a *k’nas* that would block make-up *ketoret*.
- Rabbi Shimon ties the combined afternoon *ketoret* to the principle that the *mizbe’ach hazahav* is inaugurated only through *ketoret*, phrased as שאין מחנכין את מזבח הזהב אלא בקטורת הסמים. The *Gemara* raises a contradiction between sources that locate the inaugural *ketoret* in the evening versus in the morning, and it labels the dispute as תנאי. Abaye argues that the inauguration occurs in the evening and supports this from the verses linking *ketoret* to the lighting of the *menorah*, using the idea that morning cleaning implies nighttime lighting and that ובהעלות אהרן את הנרות בין הערבים is the time of lighting, so *ketoret* aligns with evening.
- The opposing view is presented as deriving from the *mizbe’ach ha’olah*, asserting that just as the outside altar’s *tamid shel shachar* inaugurates it, so too the *ketoret* inauguration is in the morning. The text presents these as two legitimate tracks of derivation that yield different conclusions about whether the first *ketoret* is של שחר or של בין הערבים.
- The text states that the שׁולחן is inaugurated only with לחם הפנים on Shabbat, phrased as ולא את השולחן אלא בלחם הפנים בשבת. It concludes that this is exactly the point the *Mishnah* teaches, that the *chinuch* and the *kedushah* of the שׁולחן are bound to Shabbat because the לחם הפנים is placed then, so weekday placement is not an option. The text parallels this with the *menorah*, stating ולא את המנורה אלא בשבע נרותיה בין הערבים, so the *chinuch* is synchronized with the full lighting in the evening.
- The text records a *beraita* that there was a unique instance when *ketoret* was offered by an individual on the *mizbe’ach hachitzon*, and it defines it as הוראת שעה. Rav Pappa identifies the event as the offerings of the נשיאים, where each brought *ketoret* as part of that exceptional dedication moment.
- The text then analyzes misleading implications that might suggest a *yachid* could bring *ketoret* on the inner altar or that the ציבור could bring *ketoret* on the outer altar, and it rejects both via a *beraita* using לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה and שמן המשחה וקטורת הסמים לקודש ככל אשר צויתיך יעשו. It concludes that אין לך אלא מה שאמור בעניין, allowing only the commanded daily *ketoret* and forbidding extra voluntary *ketoret* whether by individual or community. Rav Pappa reframes the earlier line as לא מיבעיא קאמר and concludes that even the case that has precedent with the נשיאים is rejected for later generations because it was exclusively הוראת שעה הייתה.
- The text states that חביתי כהן גדול לא היו באים חצאין, so the *kohen gadol* brings a full עשרון and divides it, offering half in the morning and half in the afternoon. It rules that if a *kohen* offered the morning half and died and a replacement is appointed, the replacement does not bring a half-measure from home combined with the prior half; instead he brings a full עשרון, divides it, offers one half, and the other half is destroyed. It summarizes the result as נמצאו שני חצאין קרבים ושני חצאין אובדים.
- A *beraita* derives this from the verse מחציתה בבוקר ומחציתה בערב, interpreting “from it” to require beginning with a whole unit and then halving it. The text applies the same rule when the evening half becomes טמא or is lost, requiring the *kohen* to bring a full עשרון again, offer the needed half, and burn the remaining half, again yielding two halves offered and two halves lost. It repeats the rule for the case of a *kohen gadol* who dies after the morning half, deriving again that the evening half must come from a newly brought full measure.
- The text records a teaching before Rav Nachman that both halves require עיבור צורתן and then are taken to the בית השריפה. Rav Nachman questions why the second half needs עיבור צורה if it is destined for destruction from the outset, and the text answers that this follows the view of תנא דבי רבי אבא בר אבוה that even פיגול טעון עיבור צורה. The speaker corrects himself midstream to clarify that the overnight waiting is in order to burn it, not to place it on the altar.
- Rav Ashi answers that even according to the רבנן the second half requires waiting because at the moment of division either half could have been offered, making both halves initially fit, stated as מחזי חזו, so they only become eligible for burning after the passage that produces the requisite status for burning.
- The text presents a contradiction in the verses and terms: על מחבת, מורבכת תביאנה, and תופייני, and it frames the question as which processing step comes first. רבי חייא בר אבא בשם רבי יוחנן rules אופה ואחר כך מטגן, while Rav Ashi בשם רבי חנינא rules מטגן ואחר כך אופה. The *Gemara* then aligns the dispute with תנאים through readings of תופייני תאפינה נא, with רבי reading it as תאפינה נאה and רבי יוסי teaching תופנהו רבה, yielding a third method of bake, fry, bake, described as having both נא and נאה.
- The text rules that kneading, shaping, and baking of חביתי כהן גדול all occur in the עזרה, phrased as לישתן ועריכתן ואפייתן בפנים. It states that the service is דוחה את השבת, allowing baking on Shabbat. Abaye supports this with the need for freshness implied by תופני, תופנהו נאה, arguing that baking it the day before ruins it, while Rav Yosef challenges that it could be preserved, answered by the teaching of דבי ר' ישמעאל that תעשה means אפילו בשבת and even אפילו בטומאה.
- רבותי, בשורות טובות. Have a wonderful day and a meaningful fast. א גוטן פורים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions