Menachos 100
Summary
- The text explains the Gemara on מנחות דף ק beginning from דף צט עמוד ב, starting with רבי יוסי’s view that לחם הפנים does not require an unbroken instantaneous swap as long as the שולחן does not remain overnight without bread, and it derives broader principles about what “תמיד” means in both Temple service and תלמוד תורה. It then analyzes tensions between sugyot about minimal daily Torah learning, whether and how those teachings should be stated before עמי הארץ, and how רבי ישמעאל and רבי שמעון בן יוחאי can be reconciled across different Gemaras. The text continues into laws of כלי שרת being מקדש שלא בזמנן, the mechanics and פסולים of mis-scheduling לחם הפנים and its בזיכין, and concludes with the Mishnah about timing windows for eating שתי הלחם and לחם הפנים and whether their preparation overrides שבת or יום טוב.
- The Gemara brings a ברייתא where רבי יוסי says that even if the old לחם הפנים is removed in the morning and the new is arranged in the afternoon, it is valid. Rabbi Yosi explains “לפני תמיד” as requiring that the שולחן not remain overnight without לחם, rather than requiring a literal unbroken moment-by-moment continuity. The text cites חגיגה דף כו עמוד א, where people are warned not to touch the שולחן because if it becomes טמא and requires טבילה, that would cause ביטול of “תמיד.”
- The שרידי אש (חלק א סימן קפ) questions why טבילת השולחן would necessarily violate “תמיד” if רבי יוסי allows a gap between removal and replacement. The אחיעזר (רב חיים עוזר, חלק ב סימן מט אות ג) answers that רבי יוסי’s “ערבית” means בין הערבים, late afternoon, not night, so the שולחן cannot be left to await הערב שמש after טבילה. The answer frames the problem as not the daytime gap itself but the impossibility of restoring the שולחן before nightfall, which would create לינה without לחם and violate רבי יוסי’s standard.
- Rabbi Ami infers from רבי יוסי that “תמיד” can mean minimal morning-and-evening continuity, and applies it to תלמוד תורה: learning one פרק שחרית and one פרק ערבית fulfills “לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך.” Rabbi Yochanan בשם רבי שמעון בן יוחאי says even קריאת שמע שחרית וערבית suffices to fulfill “לא ימוש.” The text states that one view forbids saying this in front of עמי הארץ because it could discourage broader learning, while רבא says it is a מצוה to say it before עמי הארץ because it can inspire them to value the גדול שכר of תורה and infer that all-day learning must be even more rewarding. The text emphasizes an attitude that תלמוד תורה is not approached minimally but as an opportunity and relationship with הקדוש ברוך הוא, citing the רמב״ן that “כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא.”
- The text contrasts this sugya with ברכות דף ל״ה עמוד ב where רבי ישמעאל derives “ואספת דגנך” as הנהג בהן מנהג דרך ארץ, while רבי שמעון בן יוחאי argues that constant work undermines Torah and that when ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום, מלאכתן נעשית על ידי אחרים. The text then brings the episode where דומא בן אחותו של רבי ישמעאל asks רבי ישמעאל whether, after learning all תורה, he may study חכמת יוונית, and רבי ישמעאל responds that one may do so only at a time that is neither day nor night, invoking “והגית בו יומם ולילה.” Rav Moshe (יורה דעה חלק ד סימן ל"ו) is cited as resolving this by distinguishing earning a livelihood as a permitted interruption versus studying חכמת יוונית out of interest as not a היתר. Rav Moshe also frames רבי שמעון בן יוחאי as distinguishing between the masses, who satisfy the baseline with minimal daily learning, and רבנן ותלמידיהון, who must learn full-time and may rely on “מלאכתן נעשית על ידי אחרים.”
- The text cites רב שמואל בר נחמני בשם רבי יונתן that “והגית בו יומם ולילה” is not חובה or מצוה but a ברכה. The explanation portrays הקדוש ברוך הוא seeing יהושע’s love of Torah, as in “ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האוהל,” and blessing him that despite communal leadership burdens he should always have access to Torah. The text interprets “נער” as describing exuberance and excitement rather than age, comparing this usage to יוסף being called נער.
- The text notes that the sugya implies קריאת שמע can be a קיום of תלמוד תורה and raises the פרי מגדים’ question (אשל אברהם סימן קל"ה) from בבא קמא about the תקנה of reading Torah on שבת, Monday, and Thursday so that Israel not go three days without תורה, since קריאת שמע is recited daily. The answer offered is that קריאת שמע is a חפצא של תורה but may not be the kind of תלמוד תורה needed to sustain people, because it is read דרך קריאה rather than learned דרך לימוד, meaning the required continuity involves the intellectual endeavor, not mere recitation. The text also reports the פרי מגדים’ point that no separate ברכת המצוה is made on קריאת שמע because it may be included in ברכת התורה.
- The text cites תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: “דברי תורה לא יהו עליך חובה ואי אתה רשאי לפטור עצמך מהן.” Tosafot presents three interpretations: Rashi’s view that one should not treat Torah like a debt to discharge with “אשנה פרק אחד ואפטר,” a second view that Torah is not the only obligation and should be combined with דרך ארץ while still not being abandoned, and a third view that one is not obligated to finish all of Torah though one is not free to desist, aligning with “לא עליך המלאכה לגמור ולא אתה בן חורין ליבטל.” The text frames this as holding both persistence and non-dejection together, continuing to strive while accepting the enormity of the task.
- The text brings חזקיה’s דרשה on “ואף הסיתך מפי צר רחב לא מוצק תחתיה,” stating that unlike אדם who misleads from life to death, הקדוש ברוך הוא moves people from death to life. It identifies “פי צר” as גהינם, narrow at the mouth and wide below, with smoke contained. It applies “גם היא למלך הוכנה” per Rashi to “לתלמיד שפירש מן התורה,” rejecting the claim that prior learning exempts one from judgment, and “מדורתה אש ועצים הרבה” as describing abundant fuel. It adds that “ונחל שולחנכם מלא דשן” teaches that Torah’s reward is not only avoidance of גהינם but also positive abundance.
- The text returns to the Mishnah’s case about יום הכיפורים falling on שבת and the inability to cook, where some would eat the meat raw. Raba bar bar Chana בשם רבי יוחנן says they were not בבליים but אלכסנדריים, and they were called בבליים because of hatred toward Babylonians, and a ברייתא states the same with רבי יוסי. רבי יהודה expresses relief because he is from בבל. Tosafot explains the גנאי despite the מצוה to avoid נותר, because they were habituated to eating raw meat year-round, which looks like רבתנותא, and the text adds the רש״ש that raw consumption is not דרך אכילה and therefore does not fulfill מצות אכילת קדשים, only the requirement of preventing נותר. The text contrasts this with the בית הלוי’s distinction between קרבן פסח, which has מצות אכילה and prevention of נותר, and other קרבנות, which he treats as only requiring consumption to avoid נותר.
- The text summarizes the Mishnah’s cases where the לחם and בזיכין are arranged or offered on the wrong day, producing פסול and removing liability for פיגול נותר וטמא because the items were never ראויים. Rashi explains the פסול as מחוסר זמן when the לבונה was on the שולחן only six days and states that leaving the bread longer is impossible because once the שולחן sanctifies it on שבת it cannot remain past שבת ראשונה due to לינה. The מקדש דוד challenges why לינה would not apply immediately when the bread was set without בזיכין, and the text reports an answer based on the צפנת פענח that there are two dinim: a מנחת לחם הפנים framework where בזיכין function like קמיצה and their הקטרה מתירה the bread, and a separate תמיד-framework of the שולחן that is fulfilled even without the בזיכין. The text uses this to explain why the שולחן-side fulfillment may prevent immediate פסול לינה even when the קרבן-side structure is incomplete.
- The Gemara brings a Mishnah in תמיד describing the morning procedure for determining dawn and the past error of slaughtering the תמיד at moonlight and burning it, followed by rules of טבילה and קידוש ידים ורגלים. אבוה דרבי אבין teaches that an עולת העוף נמלכה בלילה and a מנחה שנקמצה בלילה are burned, and the Gemara questions why the מנחה cannot be re-done. The answer states that כלי שרת מקדשין שלא בזמנן, and after a challenge from a ברייתא the conclusion is “אינו קדוש ליקרב אבל קדוש ליפסל,” meaning it cannot be offered but becomes sanctified enough to be disqualified. רבי זירא challenges from the Mishnah that bread and בזיכין set on Sunday can be left until next שבת, arguing that if the שולחן sanctifies outside its time it should sanctify and disqualify immediately. רבא answers that לילה is not מחוסר זמן while ימים are מחוסרין זמן, so the nighttime case can create “קדוש ליפסל” while a too-early weekday placement does not, and when the Gemara presses that Friday night should still disqualify, רבא answers with a case of “בשקדם וסילקו.” Mar Zutra בריה דרב אשי offers that because it was set שלא כמצוותו it is like “סדרא אקוף,” and Rashi explains that in such a case the שולחן does not sanctify even בזמנו.
- The next Mishnah states that שתי הלחם are eaten no less than two days and no more than three, depending on whether Shavuot falls on Sunday requiring baking on Friday. It states that לחם הפנים is eaten no less than nine days and no more than eleven, depending on whether ערב שבת is יום טוב or whether two days of ראש השנה prevent baking until Wednesday. Rashi notes that the count might seem to reach twelve but explains that for לינה קדשים הלילה הולך אחר היום, so מוצאי שבת can still be the eleventh day for eating. The Mishnah states that baking does not override שבת or יום טוב, while רבן שמעון בן גמליאל משום רבי שמעון הסגן says it overrides יום טוב but not יום צום. Rav Yina argues that for those who say נדרים ונדבות do not come on יום טוב, this is not merely a rabbinic decree of שמא ישהה but a דין דאורייתא, since even שתי הלחם, a חובת היום with no concern of delay, still does not override יום טוב for baking, concluding with הדרן לך שתי הלחם and the plan to begin פרק י״ב.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions