Menachos 52 - Cycle 14
Summary
- The shiur begins מסכת מנחות דף נ ב from דף נ א עמוד ב and moves from the earlier sugyah about funding the מנחת חביתין after a כהן גדול is נפטר into additional תקנות recorded in מסכת שקלים, then into the funding of פר העלם דבר של ציבור and שעיר עבודת כוכבים, and finally into detailed halachic questions about how the מנחת חביתין is offered when there is no appointed כהן גדול, including how much is brought in the morning and afternoon and how the לבונה and שמן are handled. The shiur presents תוספות and other ראשונים on why special pesukim are needed for מעילה in פרה אדומה and its אפר, explains why חז״ל temporarily imposed and then withdrew extra מעילה restrictions due to זלזול and fear of misuse, and develops how רבי שמעון’s concern for פשיעה applies differently to offerings with כפרה versus without כפרה. The shiur also connects these sugyot to broader questions such as why halacha matters in קדשים today, the חפץ חיים’s framework for learning קדשים, the possibility of bringing קרבנות בזמן הזה, and an application to the ברכה on seeing a place of miracles depending on whether an event is considered a נס for כלל ישראל or only a שבט. The shiur concludes with the completion of הדרן עלך התכלת.
- The גמרא states a תקנה that one who uses the אפר of the פרה אדומה does not bring a קרבן מעילה, and it challenges this because the exemption from מעילה on the אפר is presented as דאורייתא. The ברייתא derives from the words חטאת היא that there is מעילה in the פרה אדומה itself, and תוספות explains that the chiddush is יש מעילה אחר מעילה because ordinarily an object loses its קדושה after מעילה, while the פרה אדומה remains subject to further מעילה. The גמרא then states ואפרה לא מעלן, and תוספות explains that despite the general rule that ashes do not have מעילה, the אפר פרה could have been different because the entire purpose of the פרה אדומה is to produce אפר, so a פסוק is needed to establish that its אפר still has no מעילה.
- The גמרא explains that although מדאורייתא only the פרה has מעילה and the אפר does not, חז״ל imposed מעילה because people were מזלזל and used the אפר therapeutically for wounds. The גמרא then says people began avoiding sprinkling in cases of ספק הזאה out of fear of מעילה, and because the ציבור was especially concerned about the איסור מעילה, חז״ל reverted to the דאורייתא framework. The shiur presents two explanations of the reversion, one that the imposed מעילה was only מדרבנן and was removed, and another that חז״ל temporarily gave the אפר a קדושת דמים so it would become subject to full מעילה.
- The ספר עולת שלמה asks how a ספק טמא scenario can be unresolved given the rules ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים טהור and ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד טמא. The answer given is a case where טומאה was thrown into an area and it is uncertain whether it touched someone, leaving the status as a ספק regardless of domain. The עולת שלמה then asks why ספק דרבנן לקולא does not resolve it if the טומאה is only due to a חז״ל stringency, and he answers that ספק דרבנן לקולא is not applied where there is a חזקת איסור, so the ספק remains one that requires stringency.
- The shiur quotes the פסוקים about a בית דין’s erroneous ruling in עבודה זרה leading to a פר בן בקר אחד לעולה and a שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת, and the גמרא brings a ברייתא about funding פר העלם דבר של ציבור and שעיר עבודת כוכבים. רבי יהודה says that initially the ציבור is assessed directly to pay for them, and רבי שמעון says they come from תרומת הלשכה. The שאלות ותשובות זרע אברהם links this מחלוקת to whether the פר העלם דבר של ציבור is brought by each שבט or by כלל ישראל as a whole, asserting that תרומת הלשכה fits only if it is a single כלל ישראל offering rather than tribal offerings.
- The shiur states that the בריסקער רב holds that even with a special collection the offering remains a קרבן ציבור, while the מנחת חינוך and the אור שמח disagree with the בריסקער רב as presented. The גמרא challenges with a second ברייתא reversing the attributions between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון and asks which ברייתא is later and therefore authoritative. The רבנן suggest that the first is later because רבי שמעון is known to worry about פשיעה and would therefore prefer תרומת הלשכה to avoid noncompliance, but רב אשי answers that רבי שמעון’s worry about פשיעה applies to a matter without כפרה, while offerings with כפרה such as פר העלם דבר של ציבור and פר עבודה זרה are taken seriously and do not raise that concern.
- The גמרא seeks the halacha and brings a derivation from קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחוחי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו to include פר העלם דבר של ציבור and שעיר עבודת כוכבים as funded like the תמיד from תרומת הלשכה. The shiur asks why this halacha is needed given that קרבנות are not brought בזמן הזה, and it answers that determining halacha still matters. The חפץ חיים’s rationale in ליקוטי הלכות is presented as following the רמב״ם’s model and relying on the idea that כל העוסק בתורת עולה כאילו הקריב עולה, so correct הלכות enable a form of fulfillment through learning.
- The shiur also raises the separate possibility that certain קרבנות might be brought בזמן הזה if the מקום המזבח could be identified and a מזבח established. The shiur connects the earlier question of whether offerings are tribal or fully communal to the halacha of making a ברכה on seeing a place where a נס occurred, citing שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן ריח סעיף א and סעיף ב that the ברכה is made only for a נס to כל כלל ישראל or רוב כלל ישראל. The shiur frames the unresolved question as whether a נס that happened to an entire שבט is considered like a נס to כלל ישראל or only to that שבט, and it ties that conceptual issue to the way one understands the communal status of פר העלם דבר של ציבור.
- The משנה teaches ושלמה היתה קריבה regarding the מנחת חביתין after the כהן גדול is נפטר, and רבי יוחנן asks whether this means the full עשירית האיפה is brought both in the morning and afternoon or only in the morning with cancellation in the afternoon. רבא initially tries to prove from the משנה in מסכת תמיד פרק ד משנה ג that the eighth כהן is assigned to חביתין, implying the afternoon offering continues, but רבי ירמיה rejects the argument and calls the Babylonians בבלאי טפשאי משום דיתבי בארעא דחשוכא. רבי ירמיה counters that the תמיד mishmar assignments also include סולת and יין for נסכים, yet these can be offered later, including at night or even later days, so the existence of an assigned כהן does not prove the offering must occur at its usual time.
- The shiur notes that this supports the view that delaying מנחת נסכים applies even to a מנחת ציבור like the תמיד. When this exchange is reported to רבא, he says that when they say something incorrect they embarrass him and when they say something good they do not praise him, and he then affirms that the continuation of חביתין is correct. רבא derives from סולת מנחה תמיד that the חביתין continue like the תמיד under all circumstances. The גמרא then concludes with a ברייתא that when there is no כהן גדול they bring שלמה בשחרית ושלמה בין הערבים, meaning a full עשרון in the morning and a full עשרון in the afternoon.
- The גמרא presents a מחלוקת between אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי and רבנן about the לבונה of the כהן גדול’s חביתין, where אבא יוסי requires two kmitzos, one for שחרית and one for בין הערביים, and רבנן require one קומץ split into two halves. The g’mara explains that אבא יוסי rejects a חצי קומץ being offered, while רבנן reject the idea that a single עשרון should require two kmitzos. The shiur offers an interpretive framework that the underlying issue can be whether the morning and afternoon are treated as two separate קרבנות or one קרבן divided, which yields two kmitzos versus one divided kometz.
- רבי יוחנן raises a question according to רבנן when the כהן גדול is נפטר and the flour is doubled to a full עשרון morning and afternoon, asking whether the לבונה is doubled as well or whether only what the Torah explicitly revealed is doubled. The g’mara also asks about the שמן, noting that ordinarily three lugin are brought total, split as לוג ומחצה for each half, and it asks whether in the doubled-flour scenario the oil is doubled or remains split. After attempted proofs and rejections, a ברייתא states that in the no-כהן-גדול case they bring a full עשרון morning and afternoon, they separate two kmitzos for לבונה, and they separate three lugin of oil split as לוג ומחצה for morning and לוג ומחצה for afternoon.
- The g’mara identifies this as aligning with אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי, because he always requires שני קמצים for the חביתין, and it derives from the oil’s not being doubled there that according to רבנן the לבונה also should not be doubled. רב יוסף בשם רב יוחנן rules הלכה כאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי. The g’mara challenges this with רב יוחנן’s principle הלכה כסתם משנה and the s’tem משנה listing חמשה קמצין, but it resolves that there is a dispute among אמוראים about רב יוחנן’s position, with one attributing to him the rule of following a סתם משנה and another attributing to him the ruling like אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי. הדרן עלך התכלת, הדרן עלך התכלת, הדרן עלך התכלת.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions