Menachos 64 - Cycle 14
Summary
- A שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף סד opens from דף סג עמוד ב with Rav Asha’s effort to identify whose principles match רבי ישמעאל’s view that when טז ניסן falls on שבת the עומר should be prepared with reduced חילול שבת, and it tests several proposed parallels while repeatedly distinguishing cases based on ביזוי קדשים, פרסומי מילתא, צורך גבוה, and future consequences. The סוגיא then shifts to liability for extra public קרבנות slaughtered on שבת, the role of *machshavah* versus *ma’aseh* in חיוב, and related cases of saving a drowning child and feeding a חולה, including the problem of doing one larger act versus multiple smaller acts. The משנה’s rule to bring the עומר from near ירושלים is explained via *karmel* and *ein ma’avirin al hamitzvot*, and the גמרא closes with the siege of the חשמונאים, the חזיר episode, and מרדכי/פתחיה’s unique interpretive-linguistic ability to “open” unclear speech and identify sources like גגות צריפין and בקעת עין סוכר.
- A Rava states that רבי ישמעאל, who in the משנה allows קצירת העומר on שבת when טז ניסן falls on שבת, still limits חילול שבת by taking only three סאה rather than five. A comparison is made to רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה regarding ערב פסח שחל להיות בשבת, where he permits skinning the קרבן פסח only עד החזה while חכמים permit עד שיפשיט כולו, framed as a dispute between minimizing permitted שבת labor versus treating it as fully permitted once allowed. A challenge argues the cases differ because skinning may involve ביזוי קדשים, and another distinction argues his stringency there is only because the act is צורך גבוה until the required אימורים are reached, unlike the עומר’s flour-quality concern.
- A suggestion links רבי ישמעאל’s three סאה to רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים, who says that on שבת the עומר is harvested ביחיד, במגל אחד, ובקופה אחת, while on חול it is done by three people with three מגלות and three קופות, whereas חכמים say שבת and חול are identical. A rejection proposes that staffing and tools affect פרסומי מילתא, and the public nature of קצירת העומר matters because of the צדוקים, so רבי חנינא’s limitation cannot be assumed to match רבי ישמעאל’s flour-measure limitation. Another rejection argues רבי חנינא may limit only where both methods satisfy צורך גבוה equally, while three סאה versus five might reduce quality and thus not be comparable.
- A Rav Asha suggests רבי ישמעאל aligns with רבי יוסי from מסכת ראש השנה, where the משנה rules that whether the new moon is clearly visible or not, witnesses may be מחלל שבת to testify, but רבי יוסי says that if it is נראה בעליל then אין מחללים עליו את השבת. A rebuttal distinguishes the cases by concern for *נמצא אתה מכשילן לעתיד לבוא* in the moon-witness system, which could require always allowing witnesses even when visibility is obvious. Another rebuttal distinguishes by צורך גבוה, asserting רבי יוסי’s restriction fits a case without an immediate קרבן need, unlike the עומר which is a צורך גבוה that is דוחה שבת.
- An *itmar* states that one who slaughters two חטאות של ציבור on שבת when only one is needed is חייב for the second and פטור for the first, even if ultimately כפרה occurs with the second or the first is found כחושה. The קרן אורה asserts that although the second שחיטה is a חילול שבת, since it is done בשוגג the קרבן remains valid, and the שפת אמת questions whether it is a מצוה הבאה בעבירה, with answers given that שוגג excludes מצוה הבאה בעבירה or that a time-bound עבירה differs from an inherent עבירה. A dispute is recorded between קרן אורה and עולת שלמה about whether, if the first blood remains usable, the second blood may be used, and רש״י is cited in connection with choosing the better animal when the first is כחושה.
- The פסוק הקריבהו נא לפחתך is treated as a powerful driver to bring the best קרבן, with the מהר״ם שיק and אבני נזר presenting it as a *sevara* strong enough to function like a דאורייתא standard despite being in נ״ך. Applications include rejecting a מחוסר איבר bird as a קרבן, excluding a טריפה, avoiding מים מגולים for מקדש use, and requiring a dignified basket for a קרבן מנחה, all grounded in הקריבהו נא לפחתך. A question is raised whether one who deliberately violates הקריבהו נא לפחתך is יוצא, and then Rav A’s attributed teaching of Rava is challenged by Rava’s own ruling: if two חטאות are before him, one שמנה and one כחושה, slaughtering the שמנה then the כחושה makes him חייב חטאת, but slaughtering the כחושה then the שמנה makes him פטור, and they even tell him to bring the שמנה to slaughter. The שיעור derives from this the force of מצוה מן המובחר and הידור מצוה, including the example that burning אימורים on שבת is allowed as the better way of doing the מצוה.
- A famous case is raised of two אתרוגים, one certainly כשר but less nice and one nicer but ספק כשר, and Rav חיים בריסקער’s position is presented that one should first bless on the ספק because *if there is no מצוה, there is no הידור מצוה*. Others disagree based on the קרבן model, asserting that even after fulfilling the baseline, one still pursues הקריבהו נא לפחתך by bringing better. The חיד״א is cited about one who made קידוש with wine later discovered to be possibly מגולה, and he says to make קידוש again by analogy to replacing the initial weaker offering, while others distinguish between the essential הידור structure of קרבנות and the broader rule of זה א-לי ואנוהו, treated here as דרבנן and not equally stringent.
- The גמרא answers the contradiction by saying either to remove the clause about “even if the first is found כחושה,” limiting it as רבי’s view, or to attribute the liability statement only to רב אמי. A question is posed to Rav Asha about a first animal found כחושה only in the intestines after slaughter, asking whether liability follows *machshavah* or *ma’aseh* when the second slaughter was done without knowing the first was deficient. The שיטה מקובצת answers that the first animal is still acceptable בדיעבד, so the second act cannot be dismissed as purely necessary after the fact.
- The parallel case is brought of one who hears a child is drowning and spreads a net intending to catch fish, and he catches fish, or he catches both fish and the child, generating a dispute between רבה and רבא about חיוב. One version limits רבה’s exemption to where he heard about the child and can be presumed to intend rescue too, but if he did not hear then even רבה would agree he is חייב; another version presents the core dispute as whether to follow his *ma’aseh* that includes rescue or his *machshavah* to catch fish. The כלי חמדה limits the debate to שוגג for purposes of חטאת and claims that in מזיד everyone agrees he is a מחלל שבת, while others dispute that and argue the rescue result changes the classification even with intent.
- A related question is raised about someone who cooked on שבת with prohibited intent but the food ended up being used for a חולה, contrasting it with the rule that food cooked for a חולה is permitted after שבת. The issue is framed as whether the intent-driven wrongdoing affects benefit from the outcome when the eventual use is permitted.
- Rava rules that if a חולה is assessed to need one גרוגרת and ten people bring ten גרוגרות, all are פטורין, even if brought one after another and even if he recovered from the first, because they act under permitted urgency to save him. Rava asks about a case where he needs two גרוגרות and there are two on two stems versus three on one stem, weighing taking exactly what is needed against reducing acts of קצירה by taking three in one cut. The גמרא concludes that one brings the three on one stem, grounding it in the distinction that רבי ישמעאל’s three סאה works because it reduces both consumption and קצירה, whereas taking “two” on separate stems increases קצירה.
- The ר״ן is cited as reading the סוגיא’s constant search to minimize חילול שבת as evidence of a דחויה framework, where שבת is overridden but still to be minimized. The בית הלוי is quoted as claiming that a מחלל שבת doctor treating a Jewish patient on שבת still performs an act classified as חילול שבת because he acts without שבת-conscious motive, while others reject this because the action meets halachic necessity. שמירת שבת כהלכתה is cited as concluding that according to the בית הלוי one should prefer a שומר שבת doctor over a non-observant doctor when both are available.
- The משנה states that the מצוה is to bring the עומר from near ירושלים, but if the nearby grain is not ripe they bring it from anywhere, and it records that the עומר once came from מקום גגות צריפין and the שתי הלחם from בקעת עין סוכר. The גמרא gives two reasons: the פסוק’s requirement of כרמל, understood as moist grain more likely near ירושלים, and the rule of אין מעבירין על המצוות, which forbids passing a nearer opportunity for a farther one. The Brisker Rav’s נפקא מינא is that if the agents are already far from ירושלים, אין מעבירין may not apply while כרמל still does, and many מפרשים treat both reasons as simultaneously true.
- A story from מסכת סוטה is cited where an אלמנה walks daily to רבי יוחנן’s בית מדרש despite having a local בית הכנסת, explaining that she gains שכר פסיעות, and the מגן אברהם derives that one should choose the farther shul to gain reward. The question is raised from אין מעבירין על המצוות, and answers include that bringing nearer grain enables earlier performance, that the widow did not literally pass the nearer shul, and the מהרל’s view that walking to shul is part of תפילה’s goal of drawing closer to השם and therefore is itself תפילה-like service. The conclusion offered is that when the closer מקום enables better תפילה, one chooses it, and when the farther מקום enables better תפילה or is where one learns, that factor governs.
- A ברייתא describes the civil conflict where הורקנוס is outside ירושלים and אריסטובלוס is inside, with ירושלים lowering דינרים and receiving animals for תמידים each day. A זקן skilled in חכמה יוונית advises the opposing side that as long as ישראל are engaged in עבודה they will not be defeated, and the next day a חזיר is sent up instead of offerings; it jams its nails into the wall and ארץ ישראל trembles ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה in a חילול השם. At that time the enactments are stated: ארור שיגדל חזיר and ארור מי שילמד בנו חכמה יוונית, and this crisis is linked to the need to source the עומר from גגות צריפין and the שתי הלחם from בקעת עין סוכר.
- When the עומר arrived and people did not know its origin, an announcement is made and a חרש signals by placing one hand on a roof and one on a hut, leading מרדכי to infer the place-name גגות צריפין or צריפין גגות, which is then confirmed. A similar episode occurs for the שתי הלחם, where the חרש places one hand on his eye and one on a lock, and מרדכי infers עין סוכר or סוכר עין and they find it.
- Three women bring three קינים and state intentions: לזיבתי, לימתי, ולעונתי, and people initially interpret these as literal זיבה/flow/period requiring חטאת ועולה in each case. מרדכי explains they refer instead to dangers and illnesses, interpreting them as בזוב סיכנה, במימא סיכנה, and בעין סיכנה, making all the offerings עולות as נדבות, and verification confirms it. The משנה in מסכת שקלים is invoked that פתחיה is מרדכי, and he is called פתחיה because he “פותח דברים ודורשן” and knows שבעים לשון.
- The גמרא asks why knowing שבעים לשון is unique when סנהדרין members must also know seventy languages so they do not hear testimony via an interpreter, as stated by רבי יוחנן with criteria including חכמה, appearance, stature, age, and knowledge of כשפים. The conclusion is that מרדכי is distinguished as a בלשן who can parse and interpret language precisely, matching the פסוק’s description of him as בלשן and explaining how he resolved ambiguous speech and place-identification.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions