Menachos 59 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* on Maseches Menachos Daf נ"ט opens with the משנה that classifies different *minachos* by whether they require *shemen* and *levonah*, only *shemen*, only *levonah*, or neither, and it stresses a fundamental distinction that *shemen* is absorbed as part of the *korban minchah* while *levonah* accompanies the *minchah* without becoming part of it. The text lists which offerings fall into each category, explains why even unusual cases like *Minchas Kohanim* and *Minchas haOmer* require both, and derives key exceptions like *Minchas Nesachim*, *Lechem haPanim*, and *Shtei haLechem* from specific words in the פסוקים. It then turns to *Minchas Chotei* and *Minchas Kenaos*, establishing liability for adding *shemen* or *levonah*, distinguishing between disqualifying *shemen* and removable *levonah*, and analyzing how the ability to correct the problem affects פסול, מחשבת פסול, and the concept of *dichui*.
- The משנה states that some *korban minchah* offerings require both *shemen* and *levonah*, some require only *shemen*, some require only *levonah*, and some require neither. The רש משאנץ says *shemen* is part of the *minchah* because it is absorbed into it, while *levonah* is not part of the *minchah* and is instead a separate requirement brought along with it. The רשב"א asks whether *levonah* becomes part of the *korban minchah* or whether the halachah merely requires bringing it alongside without integrating it into the offering. The רש משאנץ illustrates the distinction with the rule that a *minchah* of sixty עשרונים requires sixty לוגי *shemen* but only one קומץ *levonah*, because each עשרון needs its own absorbed oil while *levonah* remains a single accompanying requirement regardless of size.
- The משנה lists the *minachos* that require both *shemen* and *levonah*: *Minchas Solet*, *Machavas*, *Marcheshes*, *Chalos* and *Rekikin*, *Minchas Kohanim*, *Minchas Kohen Mashiach* (the daily *Minchas Chavitin* of the כהן גדול), *Minchas Ovdei Kochavim*, *Minchas Nashim*, and *Minchas haOmer*. Rashi identifies the default unspecified *minchah* as *Minchas Solet* from “נפש כי תקריב ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה,” and the רש"ש notes this aligns with רבי יהודה on דף ק"ד עמוד ב' even though the רש"ש says the halachah is not like רבי יהודה, while the זבח תודה says Rashi holds the halachah is like רבי יהודה. The explanation includes that *Machavas* is a fried *minchah* on a pan while *Marcheshes* is a deep fryer, and that *Chalos* are mixed with oil while *Rekikin* are wafers smeared with oil. The text emphasizes that *Minchas Kohanim* is entirely burned on the מזבח unlike a ישראל’s *minchah* where the קומץ is burned and the שיריים are eaten, and the קרן אורה says the משנה must teach that *Minchas Kohanim* still requires *shemen* and *levonah* despite being fully burned. The text also notes that *Minchas haOmer* is a ציבור offering yet still requires *shemen* and *levonah*, and it brings the debate about *Minchas Ovdei Kochavim* where some hold a נכרי can only bring an עולה, making the משנה’s inclusion evidence that a נכרי can bring a *minchah* and it is treated like a ישראל’s.
- The משנה states that *Minchas Nesachim* requires *shemen* but not *levonah*. The משנה states that *Lechem haPanim* requires *levonah* but not *shemen*, with the two בזיכי *levonah* burned each שבת, and it presents this as further proof that *Lechem haPanim* is considered a type of *minchah*. The משנה states that *Shtei haLechem*, *Minchas Chotei*, and *Minchas Kenaos* require neither *shemen* nor *levonah*, and it explains that *Minchas Chotei* is the flour offering of a קרבן עולה ויורד for certain עבירות. The גמרא later explains that the prohibition of embellishing the sinner’s offering is expressed as “שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר.”
- Rav Papa states that wherever the משנה requires *chalos*, the number is ten, and Rashi understands this as a rule that the offering brings ten of the same type. Others interpret Rav Papa as asserting there are ten types of *minchos*, and the גמרא says this excludes Rav Shimon who holds there are eleven because one type can be brought as מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין. The text presents the dispute as whether one must bring ten uniform units or may combine five *chalos* and five *rekikin*, which in turn affects whether one counts ten or eleven categories.
- The ברייתא derives that “ונתת עליה שמן” by *Minchas haOmer* teaches *shemen* applies “עליה” and not to *Lechem haPanim*, even though logic might suggest that if *Minchas Nesachim* lacks *levonah* yet has *shemen*, then *Lechem haPanim* with *levonah* should also have *shemen*. The ברייתא derives that “ושמת עליה לבונה” teaches *levonah* applies “עליה” and not to *Minchas Nesachim*, even though logic might suggest that if *Lechem haPanim* lacks *shemen* yet has *levonah*, then *Minchas Nesachim* with *shemen* should also have *levonah*. The phrase “מנחה היא” is treated as extra and is expounded as “מנחה לרבות מנחת שמיני ללבונה,” requiring *levonah* for the eighth day of the *miluim*, while “היא” is used “להוציא שתי הלחם” so that *Shtei haLechem* do not receive *shemen* or *levonah*. Tosafos asks why one would have thought *Shtei haLechem* needs *shemen* and *levonah*, and answers that one might have learned it from *Minchas haOmer* because both relate to *chadash*, with the עומר permitting eating *chadash* and *Shtei haLechem* permitting bringing offerings from *chadash*, while the קרן אורה questions the comparison because *Shtei haLechem* is only eaten and not burned.
- The גמרא challenges whether “עליה שמן” should exclude *Minchas Kohen* rather than *Lechem haPanim*, and answers that *Minchas Kohen* is more similar to *Minchas haOmer* because both use an עשרון, involve a כלי שרת, are קדשי קדשים, have similar זמן, require הגשה, and have something burned on the מזבח, while *Lechem haPanim* stays on the שולחן all week and is not burned in its bread form. The גמרא counters that *Lechem haPanim* shares ציבור, חובה, דחיית טומאה, אכילה, פיגול via a מתיר, and שבת with *Minchas haOmer*, and the resolution invokes “נפש” from “נפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה וצק עליה שמן” to align the rule with a *minchas yachid*, matching *Minchas Kohanim* rather than *Lechem haPanim*. A parallel analysis is done for “עליה לבונה,” where the גמרא again considers excluding *Minchas Kohanim* but concludes inclusion is more fitting because both are עשרון בלול בלוג, both have הגשה, and both come independently unlike *Minchas Nesachim* which accompanies another offering, and it again uses “נפש” to prefer the individual-offering framework. The text cites the חזון איש question about whether a קרבן ציבור can be subject to פיגול and reports that רב דב לנדו שליט"א brings a ראיה from the גמרא’s statement that *Minchas haOmer* is ציבור and still subject to פיגול.
- The משנה states that one is חייב for adding *shemen* by itself and חייב for adding *levonah* by itself, based on the separate לאווין of “לא ישים עליה שמן” and “לא יתן עליה לבונה,” and the קרן אורה says the חידוש is that מלקות does not require violating both together. The מראי כוסכוס explains the משנה as teaching that liability does not depend on which prohibition was violated first. The משנה states that adding *shemen* פסלוה irreversibly, while adding *levonah* allows correction because ילקטנה. The משנה adds that putting *shemen* on the שיריים is not a violation of the לא תעשה, and that placing one כלי with oil atop another כלי containing the *minchah* does not render it פסול.
- The מנחת חינוך interprets the משנה’s “אינו עובר בלא תעשה” about oil on שיריים as meaning the specific לאו does not apply but it remains אסור. The שפת אמת ties this to the reason the *minchah* lacks *shemen* and *levonah*, “שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר,” and applies it to the שיריים as part of the כפרה. Another explanation argues it is inappropriate for the מזבח portion to be בלי שמן while the כהנים’s portion has שמן. The זבח תודה disagrees and says the משנה means one is allowed to put *shemen* on the שיריים, and the text links this dispute to whether the דין of *lemashcha* applies to *korban minchah* or only to animal offerings.
- The ברייתא expounds “לא ישים עליה שמן ואם שם פסול,” and then uses “כי חטאת” to allow that even if one placed *levonah* it can still be considered a proper *Minchas Chotei*, while “חטאת היא” teaches that *shemen* does disqualify. The ברייתא explains the distinction by saying *shemen* disqualifies because it is absorbed and cannot be removed, while *levonah* can be removed. The text states that one violates the לאו immediately upon placing *levonah*, and the only difference is that removal can save the *korban*, while *shemen* cannot be undone. The מלבים holds that if *levonah* was present at the time of קמיצה but later removed, the *minchah* remains כשר, while טהרת הקודש and לקוטי הלכות hold that presence at קמיצה renders it פסול even if removed later. The גמרא raises the case of *levonah* שחוקה, ground *levonah* that cannot be picked off, and questions whether permissibility depends on removability or on the fact that *levonah* is not absorbed, and it suggests the language “ילקטנה” can be read as חדא ועוד קאמר until a later ברייתא clarifies practical דין.
- Rav Nachman Yitzchak brings a ברייתא that *Minchas Chotei* and *Minchas Kenaos* with *levonah* are fixed by removing the *levonah* and then are כשרות. The ברייתא rules that if one had מחשבת פסול before removing the *levonah*, the offering becomes פסול ואין בו כרת, because another פסול prevents full פיגול, while after removal a חוץ לזמנו thought makes it פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת and חוץ למקומו remains פסול ואין בו כרת. The גמרא asks why מחשבה should work at all if the offering is currently disqualified, and Abaye answers “חטאת קריה רחמנא” so it retains the status to become פסול by מחשבה. Rava attributes the ברייתא to חנן המצרי who “לית ליה דחוי,” citing the Yom Kippur case where a replacement goat is paired without a new הגרלה, while Rav Ashi says that even those who accept *dichui* agree that “כל שבידו” to fix is not considered *dichui*. Abaye supports Rav Ashi from רבי יהודה, who holds *dichui* in the Yom Kippur goat cases yet allows correcting a פסח blood-spill situation by collecting דם התערובת and doing זריקה אחת כנגד היסוד, showing that when correction is in one’s control, *dichui* does not apply.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions