Menachos Daf 51 - Chavitei Kohein Gadol When There is no Kohein Gadol
Summary
- Good morning, today’s דף is מנחות דף נ״א, beginning at תנן התם near the end of דף נ׳ עמוד ב׳, with the שיעור sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, by Estee and Harold Lunar in memory of the sixth יארצייט of Julian Smith, יהודה בן ישראל, נשמתו שתהא לעילוי, and by Eli and Brina Gantrow in honor of the יארצייט of Eli’s father Dr. Mendy Gantrow, מנחם מענדל יצחק בן הרב משה זלמן, נשמתו שתהא לעילוי. The גמרא continues the laws of *chavitai* Kohen Gadol, brings four שיטות for why their preparation overrides שבת, analyzes how much שמן the offering requires through competing comparisons and mnemonic criteria, and then resolves a ברייתא that contains an internal contradiction about whether בשמן implies “extra” oil. The משנה on נ״א עמוד ב׳ addresses who funds the *chavitai* when there is no Kohen Gadol, the גמרא tests each תנא’s פסוקים against the other’s דרשות, and the discussion extends to רבי שמעון’s statement in שקלים about “תקנות בית דין,” leading to explanations that two enactments were made at different times.
- A later משנה states that the kneading, arranging, and baking of the *chavitai* Kohen Gadol are done in the עזרה and override שבת, and the גמרא asks for the source of this. Rav Huna derives it from תופיני as a requirement of תאפינה נאה, because baking from the previous day would stale and not be “nאה,” and Rav Yosef challenges that it could be preserved. Tana d’bei Rabbi Yishmael derives “תעשה ואפילו בשבת, תעשה ואפילו בטומאה” from על מחבת בשמן תעשה, and Tosafos explains that two equally strong דרשות can both be derived from the same word. Abaye derives it from סלת מנחה תמיד by equating it to מנחת תמידין which overrides שבת, and Rava derives it from על מחבת requiring a כלי שרת, because if done the day before it becomes פסול בלינה once sanctified in the כלי, supported by a ברייתא stating על מחבת מלמד שטעונה כלי.
- The גמרא reads על מחבת בשמן as indicating additional שמן beyond what would otherwise be assumed and searches for the שיעור by comparison. One option compares “שמן” to מנחת נסכים to yield שלושה לוגין לעישרון, while another compares it to מנחת נדבה to yield לוג אחד. The גמרא prefers deriving טב״ש״ת מטב״ש״ת by learning from מנחת נסכים because both are תדיר, דוחה שבת, and דוחה טומאה (with discussion of variants in the acronym), and it rejects learning from מנחת נדבה as lacking those features. A counter-preference proposes learning via יגא״ל מיגא״ל because both are יחיד, בגלל עצמה, and require לבונה, and it rejects learning from נסכים as lacking those features; רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה resolves by using תמיד to equate it to מנחת תמידין at שלשת לוגין לעשרון. רבי שמעון offers a parallel derivation by comparing the “ריבה כאן שמן” of *chavitai* to the increased oil of מנחת כבשים to yield three לוגין per עשרון, and he rejects learning from the increased oil of מנחת פרים ואילים which would yield two לוגין per עשרון, preferring to learn a מנחה הבאה עשרון from another מנחה הבאה בעשרון.
- The גמרא notes an internal difficulty because the ברייתא begins with בשמן implying “להוסיף לה שמן,” yet later entertains learning from מנחת נדבה where there is no “extra” oil. Abaye answers that “בשמן להוסיף” reflects רבי שמעון, while the dialectic about possibly learning from מנחת נדבה is Rabbi Yishmael addressing Rabbi Shimon and challenging whether בשמן proves an addition or merely establishes that oil exists at all, after which רבי שמעון returns to insist that בשמן must mean extra oil. Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua reads the entire ברייתא as a unified presentation that first treats בשמן as adding oil because otherwise על מחבת already implies a standard מנחת מחבת, then entertains the possibility that without בשמן it could have been like מנחת חוטא with no oil, and then concludes that because comparative logic is contestable the פסוק סולת מנחת תמיד fixes the שיעור. Rava reads it all as רבי שמעון using “ואילו לא נאמר” logic, showing that although comparative reasoning might have suggested the result, it is undermined by competing similarities, so בשמן is needed to establish the addition and then the comparison to מנחת כבשים determines three לוגין per עשרון rather than the two לוגין framework of פרים ואילים.
- The משנה rules that if a Kohen Gadol dies and no replacement is appointed, רבי שמעון says the *chavitai* comes משל ציבור and רבי יהודה says it comes משל יורשין, and it is brought whole as two complete *issaron* offerings rather than split halves. A ברייתא supports רבי יהודה from והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אותה, deriving payment from the sons and deriving אותה כולה ולא חציה to require a full offering rather than half-portions. The חידושים המיוחסים לרשב״א suggests a טעמא דקרא that the תורה favors the Kohen Gadol’s finances more than those of יורשים or ציבור, paralleling the theme that the Kohen Gadol is preferred in wealth and independence. רבי שמעון instead derives the funding from חוק עולם as “משל עולם” and derives total burning from כליל תקטר.
- The גמרא challenges רבי יהודה’s use of והכהן המשיח by citing a ברייתא that uses the broader context to distinguish אהרן’s daily offering from the one-time inauguration offering of ordinary כהנים. The resolution holds that מבניו implies two teachings, enabling both the daily Kohen Gadol framework and the inauguration offering for כהנים הדיוטות while also supporting the inheritance obligation. The גמרא then asks what רבי שמעון does with אותה, and he uses it to rule that when a Kohen Gadol dies and a successor is appointed, the successor does not bring half from his own funds nor use the deceased’s remaining half, but brings an עשרון of his own and offers half while the other half is destroyed as previously established. The גמרא notes that this could have been derived from ומחציתה but answers that רבי שמעון does not דרש a standalone ו, while רבי יהודה uses חוק עולם to teach that the mitzvah applies לדורות.
- Rabbi Yehuda uses כליל תקטר for the ברייתא that links מנחת כהן גדול and מנחת כהן הדיוט so that each inherits the other’s דין. The teaching applies כליל תקטר beyond its immediate context and applies לא תאכל beyond its immediate context by means of a כליל כליל גזירה שוה. The result is that both offerings are entirely burned and both carry a לא תעשה prohibiting eating.
- The גמרא questions whether רבי שמעון truly holds that funding the offering משל ציבור is דאורייתא, given that in שקלים Rabbi Shimon lists it among “שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין” and calls it a תנאי בית דין. Rabbi Abahu answers that two enactments occurred: the underlying rule is דאורייתא that it comes from ציבור, but when the לשכה funds were depleted in the era of frequent Kohen Gadol turnover they enacted collection from יורשים, and when they saw the יורשים were negligent they restored the practice to align with the דאורייתא model. The broader list in שקלים includes the rule that if an עובד כוכבים sends an עולה without נסכים the ציבור funds the נסכים, and similarly that if a גר dies without heirs and left offerings without designated נסכים the ציבור funds the נסכים, framing these as בית דין conditions.
- The גמרא also challenges the claim of “תקנה” for “ועל פרה לא ימעלו באפרה” because a ברייתא derives from חטאת היא that there is מעילה in the פרה, and from היא that there is no מעילה in the אפר. Rav Ashi answers that two enactments occurred here as well: the דאורייתא rule exempts the אפר from מעילה, but when people degraded the אפר and used it for healing, Chazal decreed מעילה, and when that decree discouraged people from pursuing purification in cases of ספק הזאות, they reverted to the דאורייתא standard. The שיעור concludes with the plan to continue at the two dots atop נב עמוד א and ends with אשריכם ישראל.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions