Menachos Daf 60 - Hagasha
Summary
- A shiur on מנחות דף ס begins from דף נט עמוד ב and moves through the sugya of מנחת חוטא being invalidated by adding שמן or לבונה, the textual derivations for multiple לאווין and for cases where שמן is only in a כלי, and then the Mishnah’s classification of which מנחות require הגשה and/or תנופה, with the primary focus on the sources and structure of the חיוב הגשה for מנחת חוטא, מנחת סוטה, and מנחת העומר, plus a related derivation that a מנחת נדבה of a יחיד cannot come from שעורים.
- A sponsorship is made by Dr. David Landman in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother, גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, with the wish that the הנשמה should have an עליה. A sponsorship is made by Daniel Goldstein in honor of the 12th יארצייט of his mother, June Goldstein, שרה חנה בת מרדכי אריה עליה השלום, with the wish that the יארצייט is today and the הנשמה should have an עליה. A sponsorship is made by Jeremy Lustman in honor of his son, רננ's גיוס to צה״ל today, wishing him a גיוס קל and safe and meaningful service, and that he should be מצליח along with all of the other חיילי צה״ל.
- A framework is set to determine how much שמן or לבונה invalidates a מנחת חוטא, which has neither שמן nor לבונה, and to locate the sources for the Mishnah’s laws that one כהן can violate two לאווין by adding both שמן and לבונה and that placing שמן in a כלי on the מנחה does not render it פסול. A transition is made to the next Mishnah’s four-way classification of מנחות that require הגשה without תנופה, both, only תנופה, or neither, and most of the daf is presented as centered on the דין of הגשה, especially how מנחת חוטא, מנחת סוטה, and the עומר are known to require it. A further point is tied in that a מנחת נדבה cannot be brought from שעורים and must come from חטים.
- A statement is brought in the name of רבי יוחנן that adding a משהו of שמן on top of a כזית of מנחה renders the מנחת חוטא פסול because the verse uses the expression “לא ישים,” and *shima* implies any amount, while “עליה” requires a minimum שיעור in the מנחה, defined as a כזית. A note is cited from זבח תודה that questions whether the שמן must be absorbed into the כזית of קמח or whether it suffices that a כלי contains both a כזית and a משהו of שמן without absorption.
- A second statement in the name of רבי יוחנן says that adding a כזית of לבונה even onto a משהו of מנחה renders the מנחת חוטא פסול because the verse uses “לא יתן,” and *netina* implies a substantial act, learned as a כזית by linking “ונתן” to “אכילה” in the verse “ואיש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה” and “ונתן לכהן את הקדש,” since אכילה is a כזית. A further derasha uses “עליה” as a *ribui achar ribui* that functions as a *miut*, yielding that a כזית לבונה invalidates even the smallest amount of the מנחה.
- A rule is attributed to the כללי הגמרא of רבי יוסף קארו that *ribui achar ribui ela le-ma’et* is נמסר מסיני and is a מידה given from הר סיני without a logical rationale. A statement of the של״ה הקדוש in the כללי התלמוד says that although it is הלכה למשה מסיני, one who finds a “טעם הגון” and makes it הלכתא בטעמא is praised.
- An *icha de-amrei* reports that רבי יוחנן raises a ספק whether adding a משהו of שמן onto a כזית of מנחה invalidates, depending on whether *shima* must match *netina* in required measure or whether *shima* remains minimal while *netina* requires a כזית. A *teiku* leaves this unresolved while establishing clearly that *shima* implies a minimal amount and *netina* implies a substantive act.
- A view cited by the כלי יקר interprets “המקום אשר יבחר ה׳ לשום את שמו שם” as a hint to משכן שילה, arguing that *shima* signals impermanence because it implies only a small measure, and the כלי יקר rejects this approach by pointing to “ולמדת את בני ישראל שימה בפיהם” and to רש״י on “אשר תשים לפניהם” as meaning orderly presentation “כשולחן ערוך,” not minimality. The חיד״א in פתח עינים answers that *shima* sometimes means a minimal amount and sometimes means ordering and arranging, and both apply to דברי תורה because משה רבינו provides the initial *shima* while כלל ישראל must do ongoing חזרה or the learning will be lost.
- A teaching of the אדר״ת interprets the נוסח in על הצדיקים, “ותן שכר טוב... ושים חלקנו עמהם,” as reflecting that *netina* asks for abundant reward for the righteous while *shima* asks only for a modest portion for oneself, aligning with the idea not to over-ask in תפילה. A further claim says that for רוחניות one should ask expansively, and therefore in קדושה דסידרא ובא לציון the phrase “וישם בלבנו אהבתו ויראתו” should be changed to “ויתן בלבנו אהבתו ויראתו,” since *shima* implies too small a measure for such requests.
- A point from תוספות is presented that *netina* is certainly a כזית in the sugya’s context, even though in other places in Shas *netina* is measured by monetary worth such as a פרוטה, sometimes even less. A ruling from שו״ת בית יצחק applies תוספות’s principle “אין נתינה פחות משוה פרוטה” to צדקה from “נתון תתן לו,” concluding that giving less than שוה פרוטה may not fulfill the mitzvah, and it advises giving at least a sum equivalent to שוה פרוטה.
- A law is stated that placing שמן on the שיריים of מנחת חוטא is not a violation of a לאו, and placing a כלי of שמן atop a כלי containing the מנחה does not invalidate. A ברייתא derives from “לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן עליה לבונה” that “עליה” refers to the גוף המנחה rather than the כהן, so one כהן who adds both שמן and לבונה violates שני לאווין because the prohibitions attach to the מנחה’s status. A further derivation says “עליה” requires direct contact with the מנחה itself, so a כלי interposed means no חיוב and no פסול.
- A Mishnah establishes four categories: מנחות requiring הגשה without תנופה, both, only תנופה, or neither, and defines הגשה as bringing the מנחה before קמיצה to the southwestern corner of the מזבח, based on the verse in מנחת מרחשת “והבאת... והקריבה אל הכהן והגישה.” A definition of תנופה is given as the כהן and בעלים waving the מנחה together, with a later Mishnah promised for the details.
- The list of מנחות requiring הגשה but not תנופה includes מנחת סולת, מחבת, מרחשת, חלות, רקיקין of מנחת מאפה, מנחת כהנים, מנחת כהן משיח, מנחת נכרים, מנחת נשים, and מנחת חוטא. רבי שמעון rules that מנחת כהנים and מנחת כהן משיח have no הגשה because they have no קמיצה, stating “כל שאין בה קמיצה אין בה הגשה,” since these offerings are entirely burnt.
- A later ברייתא is previewed as giving a different reason for excluding certain מנחות from הגשה, tying it to whether any חלק is eaten by כהנים, and it is noted that תוספות identifies a נפקא מינא between the reasons. A position attributed to רבי שמעון on דף עב says that a מנחת חוטא of a כהן is נקמצת, yet both the קומץ and the שיריים are burnt, so the criterion of “no קמיצה” would require הגשה while the criterion of “entirely burnt and not eaten” would not. A resulting tension is stated between the Mishnah’s linkage of הגשה to קמיצה and the ברייתא’s linkage to אכילה.
- A statement of רב פפא says that wherever the Mishnah lists the baked מנחות it assumes ten loaves. A contrast is drawn to רבי שמעון’s view that one may bring half חלות and half רקיקין, and רב פפא is taken to rule that this is not allowed and one must bring ten of one type.
- A ברייתא derives the general requirement of הגשה from the verse in מנחת מרחשת, explaining that without “את המנחה” one might limit הגשה to the קומץ, and “מנחה” teaches that the whole offering is brought before קמיצה. The ברייתא uses “את המנחה” to include מנחת חוטא in the requirement of הגשה.
- A reinterpretation from משך חכמה in פרשת ויקרא says the derasha does not depend on דרשת “את,” but on “אשר יעשה מאלה,” meaning that even a מנחה made only from some of the listed components, such as מנחת חוטא which lacks שמן and לבונה, still requires הגשה.
- A suggested derivation tries to learn מנחת חובה from מנחת נדבה via shared לשון of הובאה, but a challenge says מנחת נדבה is distinctive because it has שמן ולבונה. A counterpoint introduces מנחת סוטה, which lacks שמן ולבונה yet requires הגשה, and a further pushback says מנחת סוטה is distinctive because it requires תנופה, answered by pointing back to מנחת נדבה which requires הגשה without תנופה.
- A *tzad ha-shaveh* is constructed that מנחת נדבה and מנחת סוטה both require קמיצה and הגשה, suggesting מנחת חוטא should as well. A פירכא rejects this by noting the *tzad ha-shaveh* includes offerings “שהוכשרו לבוא בעשיר כבעני,” while מנחת חוטא is only for the poor, so a פסוק is required to include it.
- רבי שמעון derives הגשה for מנחת העומר from “והבאת” in the מרחשת passage, supported by “והבאתם את עומר ראשית קצירכם אל הכהן.” רבי שמעון derives הגשה for מנחת סוטה from “והקריבה,” supported by “והקריב אותה אל המזבח,” treating הבאה and הקרבה as implying הגשה.
- A proposed קל וחומר derives that if מנחת חוטא lacks תנופה yet requires הגשה, then מנחת סוטה which has תנופה should require הגשה, and it is challenged because מנחת חוטא comes from חטין while מנחת סוטה comes from שעורים. A response uses מנחת העומר to show that a שעורים-offering can require הגשה, and a further challenge says the עומר has שמן ולבונה while סוטה does not, answered by returning to מנחת חוטא which lacks שמן ולבונה yet requires הגשה.
- A combined *tzad ha-shaveh* from מנחת חוטא and מנחת העומר is proposed, but it is rejected because both are “שהוכשרו לבא סולת,” while מנחת סוטה may be brought as קמח rather than סולת. A conclusion says “תלמוד לומר ויקריבה” is needed to establish that מנחת סוטה requires הגשה.
- רבי יהודה assigns “והביאה” to include מנחת סוטה in הגשה, supported by “והביא את קרבנה עליה.” רבי יהודה says מנחת העומר does not need a פסוק because it comes from logic: if מנחת חוטא lacks תנופה yet requires הגשה, then the עומר which has תנופה should require הגשה.
- A challenge says מנחת חוטא is from חטין and the עומר from שעורים, answered by using מנחת סוטה as evidence that a שעורים-offering can require הגשה. A new challenge says מנחת סוטה is unique because it comes to לברר עון, and the response returns to מנחת חוטא which requires הגשה without that feature, building a *tzad ha-shaveh* from חוטא and סוטה that since both require קמיצה and הגשה, the עומר should too.
- A rejection is attributed to רבי שמעון that learning the עומר from the *tzad ha-shaveh* fails because the shared factor is that חוטא and סוטה are “שכן מצוין,” occurring whenever circumstances arise, whereas the עומר is only once a year. A counterclaim by רבי יהודה says the עומר is more reliably common because it is fixed annually while the others may not occur at all, and the passage is presented as a key source for how תדירות is evaluated, whether by practical frequency or mandated occurrence, with an application cited from the רמ״א about performing a ברית on Purim before קריאת המגילה and the question of *tadir ve-she’eino tadir* in that setting.
- A possibility is raised that “והביאה” might teach that a יחיד may volunteer a מנחה from שעורים beyond the standard forms, supported by a *din* that ציבור brings obligatory מנחות from both חיטין and שעורים so a יחיד should as well for נדבה. A פסוק-based exclusion is made from “אלה,” limiting a יחיד’s נדבה to the explicitly listed types, and “מאלה” teaches that one may bring one type or all five, leaving “אלה” to block שעורים for נדבה. A conclusion follows that “והביאה” remains available to teach the דין of הגשה as used by רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions