Menachos 86
Summary
- Today’s learning is מנחות דף פ״ו, continuing from the bottom of דף פ״ה עמוד ב׳ with the mishnayot and gemara about how the בית המקדש sourced and processed supplies, especially oil. The sugya sets standards for which oils are acceptable and preferred for the מנורה versus מנחות, ranks oils produced from three harvest times and three pressings each, and explains why שמן זית זך is required *l’ma’or* but not mandated for מנחות because התורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל. The gemara also states that הקדוש ברוך הוא does not need the light of the מנורה, and frames the מנורה as *edut* that the שכינה rests among ישראל, highlighted by the נס of the נר מערבי.
- A mishnah states that one should not bring אנפקטון, but if it is brought it is כשר, while a beraita says one should not bring it and if it is brought it is פסול because it is שרף and not true oil. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by attributing the rulings to different authorities, identifying it as a dispute between רבי חייא, who discards it, and רבי שמעון ברבי, who uses it for dipping. A mnemonic ties רבי שמעון ברבי’s practice to “עשירים מקמצין,” and his wealth is linked to being the son of רבי יהודה הנשיא as described in מסכת קידושין.
- The gemara asks what “שמן המור” in מגילת אסתר means and records two views: Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says it is סטכסא, identified as שמן אפרסמון, while רבי ירמיה בר אבא says it is olive oil from olives that have not reached one-third growth. A beraita cites רבי יהודה defining אנפיקנון as שמן זית שלא הביא שליש and explains its use for anointing because it removes hair and softens skin.
- A beraita rules that olive oil that is כבוש, שלוק, שרוי, from שמרים, or with ריח רע should not be brought and if brought is פסול. The דרשה from “בלולה בשמן כתית” excludes oil from cooked olives for מנחות, and ריח רע is treated as a defect akin to a *ba’al mum*. Rava asks whether consecrating such oil incurs lashes משום בעל מום or whether *ba’al mum* applies only to animals, and the gemara leaves the question as תיקו.
- A mishnah describes three times of collecting olives and three grades of oil from each collection. The first harvest takes olives from the top of the tree, crushes them, and places them in a basket, with רבי יהודה requiring placement along the sides of the basket; the oil that drips out is first-grade, then pressing produces second-grade, and grinding and pressing again produces third-grade. The first oil is for the מנורה and the remainder is for מנחות, and the same pattern applies to the second harvest from mid-level olives and the third harvest where olives are stored in the *ma’atan* until they soften, then dried on a roof before processing, with the first oil again assigned to the מנורה and the rest to מנחות.
- The gemara questions whether the mishnah’s wording is מגרגרו or מגלגלו and brings a long beraita that explicitly reads “זית ראשון מגלגלו בראש הזית,” establishing that the olives are gathered once fully ripened. The beraita describes grinding in a mill and later records רבי יהודה’s positions that one crushes in a mortar rather than grinding and presses with stones rather than a beam and places the olives along the basket’s sides rather than its bottom. The gemara notes that the mishnah combines elements that align with רבי יהודה in one respect and with the רבנן in another, and concludes the mishnah reflects a different tanna who agrees with רבי יהודה on one point and disagrees on another.
- The mishnah ranks the nine oils by combining harvest number and pressing number, declaring first-of-first best and third-of-third worst, with intermediate equivalences such as second-of-first equaling first-of-second. The gemara challenges this against the rule that only first oil from each harvest is for the מנורה, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains that the equivalences apply to menachot quality, meaning they are equally “מן המובחר” for a מנחה even if they differ for the מנורה. The Rambam in הלכות איסורי מזבח פרק ז הלכה יא frames this grading as guidance for one who wants to compel his inclination and bring a קרבן “מן היפה ומן המשובח,” and the narrative contrasts קין’s approach with הבל’s “מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן.”
- The mishnah presents a קל וחומר that menachot should require the purest oil because they are eaten, but the verse limits the requirement by stating “זך כתית למאור” and not for menachot. The gemara explains that the התורה avoids imposing unnecessary expense, asks “מאי חיסרון,” and answers with רבי אלעזר’s rule that התורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל. Rashi’s comparison to the דין of clearing a הבית before a כהן declares נגעים highlights התורה’s protection even of cheap כלי חרס.
- A beraita defines זך as נקי, and רבי יהודה defines כתית as כתוש, linking it to initial crushing. רבי יהודה raises the possibility that “למאור” could imply that zakh and crushed oil is פסול for menachot, and resolves it by citing “ועשרון סולת בלול בשמן כתית,” making כתית valid for מנחות as well. The presentation explains that the qualities sought for lighting and for eating differ, creating an initial thought that the sweetest or otherwise preferable oil for eating might not match the oil best suited to wick-drawing.
- Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani derives from “אליך” that the oil is brought as a term of affection for ישראל and not because Hashem needs light. רבי זריקא אמר רבי אלעזר states that Hashem needs neither eating nor light, and the placement of the שולחן in the north and the מנורה in the south signals that the light is not for divine consumption needs. The verse about windows “שקופים אטומים” is explained as wide outside and narrow inside, reinforcing that the design is not meant to maximize incoming light.
- The gemara interprets “מחוץ לפרוכת העדות” to mean the מנורה itself is the *edut* for the world that the שכינה rests in ישראל, since ישראל in the מדבר traveled by Hashem’s light. Rava identifies the *edut* as the נר מערבי, which receives the same measured oil as the others yet is used to light the others and still lasts the longest. A מדרש תנחומא בפרשת תצוה quotes רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים describing extraordinary longevity of the מנורה’s light, and a later reported exchange has Rav Ḥayyim Brisker challenging the מדרש as a ביטול מצוה and the אמרי אמת answering that they would add a drop of oil daily, with the add-on framed through the דין that adding oil is מבעיר. The account notes a further debate about whether violating מבעיר equals a full מעשה הדלקה for mitzvah purposes, citing the אבני נזר אורח חיים סימן תקכד.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions