Menachos 60
Summary
- A new משנה in מנחות דף ס"ח classifies different מנחות by whether they require הגשה, תנופה, both, or neither, and it lists the מנחות that require הגשה without תנופה while recording רבי שמעון’s dissent that מנחת כהנים and מנחת כהן משיח lack הגשה because they lack קמיצה. Rav Pappa explains that the list totals ten and teaches that a מנחת נדבה cannot be brought as a mix of half חלות and half רקיקין, contrary to רבי שמעון. A long ברייתא then derives, through verses and layered קל וחומר structures with repeated פירכות and “וחזר הדין” reasoning, which מנחות are included in הגשה and which are excluded, and it concludes with a derivation that קמיצה is taken by hand rather than with a כלי.
- A sponsorship is stated לעילוי נשמת Mars Miriam Sarah בת Rav Yaakov Moshe, with the hope that her נשמה should have an עליה. A new משנה begins about a third of the way into the דף, continuing the theme from two משניות earlier.
- A fourfold framework is stated: some מנחות require הגשה without תנופה, some require both הגשה ותנופה, some require תנופה without הגשה, and some require neither. The משנה explains only the first category at this point, leaving later משניות to explain the other categories.
- A list is given of מנחות that require הגשה and not תנופה: מנחת הסולת, המחבת, מרחשת, החלות, והרקיקין, identified as the five forms of מנחת נדבה, along with מנחת כהנים, מנחת כהן משיח, מנחת נכרים, מנחת נשים, ומנחת חוטא. Rabbi Shimon rules that מנחת כהנים and מנחת כהן משיח do not require הגשה because they have no קמיצה and anything without קמיצה has no הגשה.
- Rav Pappa states that whenever a list is taught it is taught as ten, applying this to the ten מנחות in the opening list. The חידוש is framed as excluding רבי שמעון’s view that one may bring מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין, and it is established that one may not mix them and must bring either all חלות or all רקיקין.
- A brייתא is introduced as running until the next משנה, anchored in the verse והבאת את המנחה אשר יעשה מאלה לה' והקריבה אל הכהן והגישה אל המזבח. A reading is proposed that without “מנחה” one might think only the קומץ requires הגשה, and “מנחה” teaches that the whole מנחה requires הגשה. A further inclusion is derived for מנחת חוטא from את המנחה, with an attempted logical derivation from מנחת נדבה rejected because נדבה has שמן ולבונה, and an attempted proof from מנחת סוטה rejected because סוטה has תנופה; a הצד השוה argument is then raised and rejected because נדבה and סוטה are the same for עשיר and עני while מנחת חוטא varies with קרבן עולה ויורד, leaving the פסוק as necessary.
- Rabbi Shimon derives that ויקריבה refers to giving it to the כהן and includes מנחת סוטה for הגשה by linking vicarious “ויקריבה” with “והקריב אותה אל המזבח.” Rabbi Shimon’s attempted דין from מנחת חוטא to מנחת סוטה is challenged because חוטא is חטין while סוטה is שעורים, and a chain involving מנחת העומר is built and then rejected because העומר has שמן ולבונה and because the הצד השוה between חוטא and עומר excludes סוטה since סוטה can be brought as קמח, so the פסוק remains needed. Rabbi Yehuda also includes מנחת סוטה for הגשה from והבאת, connecting it to והביא את קרבנו עליה, and the גמרא presents that according to רבי יהודה מנחת העומר does not need a פסוק because it is derived by קל וחומר from מנחת חוטא with a reinforcement using מנחת סוטה despite a פירכא that סוטה comes לברר עון דמזכרת עון היא; רבי שמעון rejects this by arguing the הצד השוה is “מצויין” and excludes עומר as once-a-year, while רבי יהודה answers that עומר is more מצוי because it is brought every year regardless of whether a חוטא or סוטה situation arises.
- A proposal is raised that והבאת might allow a מתנדב to bring a new מנחה outside those in the passage, supported by a קל וחומר from ציבור bringing both חיטים (שתי הלחם) and שעורים (עומר) as חובה, implying a יחיד should bring שעורים as נדבה. The verse אלה limits this so that only the wheat forms in the passage are allowed for that נדבה framework, and then מאלה teaches that one who says הרי עלי מנחה may bring either one of the five or all five, but is not obligated to bring all five.
- Rabbi Shimon uses את המנחה to include other מנחות for הגשה, including מנחת נכרים and מנחת נשים. A possibility to include שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים is rejected by מאלה, and the rationale is that other מנחות have something placed on the fire, whereas שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים have nothing placed on the fire. A challenge is raised from מנחת נסכים being entirely burned, and it is excluded by והקריבה, with the gמרא resolving that the extra form והקריבה rather than והקריב enables the additional דרשה despite prior use for מנחת סוטה. A further rationale distinguishes that included מנחות come בגלל עצמן while מנחת נסכים does not; then מנחת כהנים and מנחת כהן משיח are excluded from הגשה by והגישה, resolved by the extra form והגישה rather than והגיש, and the final rationale combines criteria: included מנחות have something for the fire, come because of themselves, and have a portion for כהנים, while exclusions are mapped to lacking something for the fire (שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים), not coming because of themselves (מנחת נסכים), or lacking a portion for כהנים (מנחת כהנים and מנחת כהן משיח).
- A final derivation links והרים in פרשת ויקרא to the act of separating the קומץ and rejects the thought that it is done with a כלי. A verse in פרשת צו, והרים ממנו בקומצו, establishes that the כהן removes it with his קומץ, and a גזירה שוה style comparison sets that both instances of הרמה are performed by hand.
- A stopping point is stated with an intention to continue tomorrow with the next משנה, extending the classification of מנחות regarding תנופה and הגשה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions