Menachos 79
Summary
- A new משנה on דף עט begins with laws of the bread that accompanies a קרבן תודה, ruling that the לחם becomes קדש when the תודה is slaughtered with a פסול of *chutz lizmano* or *chutz limkomo*, but not when the animal is found to be a טרפה, and it records a מחלוקת about a case of an animal found to be a בעלת מום and about related cases of שחיטה שלא לשמה. The גמרא attributes the משנה to רבי מאיר via a rule that a פסול existing before שחיטה prevents the לחם from becoming קדש, while a פסול arising after שחיטה does not, and it develops רבי יהודה’s version of the רבי אלעזר–רבי יהושע debate through competing comparisons and principles, including whether to compare by category of פסול or by whether כרת applies. The sugya then applies these comparisons to disputes about whether offerings taken onto the מזבח are removed, moves to a משנה about נסכים sanctified in a כלי when the זבח is later found פסול and the concept of לב בית דין מתנה עליהם, and concludes with a משנה and ברייתא that offspring, תמורה, and certain replacement cases of תודה are brought as תודה but do not require לחם, derived from specific words in the פסוקים.
- A speaker opens with “שלום to all,” states that today is דף עט beginning at עח עמוד ב at a new משנה, and says the דף is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרץ מרים שרה בת צבי יעקב משה with the wish that her נשמה should have an עליה. A speaker frames the day’s learning as moving into קרבן תודה and then into what is called troubleshooting.
- A משנה rules that if one slaughters the תודה with intent of eating it beyond the permitted time (*chutz lizmano*) or outside the permitted place (*chutz limkomo*), קדש הלחם and the לחם remains קדש. A משנה rules that if one slaughters and the animal is found to be a טרפה, לא קדש הלחם. A משנה records a מחלוקת for שחטה ונמצאת בעלת מום, with רבי אלעזר saying קדש and חכמים saying לא קדש, and it says the גמרא explains the מחלוקת.
- A משנה rules that if the תודה is slaughtered שלא לשמה, לא קדש הלחם. A משנה adds that the same rule applies to איל המילואים and to שני כבשי עצרת, that if they were slaughtered שלא לשמן, לא קדש הלחם.
- A גמרא asks “מני” and answers that the משנה follows רבי מאיר, citing a ברייתא that states a rule: כל שפסולה קודם שחיטה לא קדש הלחם, פסולה אחר שחיטה קדש הלחם. A גמרא explains that *chutz lizmano* and *chutz limkomo* are פסולים that occur after שחיטה through מחשבה, so קדש הלחם, while a טרפה is a פסול that existed before שחיטה even if only discovered after, so לא קדש הלחם. A ברייתא presents the מחלוקת as רבי אלעזר אומר קדש ורבי יהושע אומר לא קדש regarding בעלת מום and labels this as דברי רבי מאיר, aligning it with the משנה’s dispute.
- A רבי יהודה states that רבי אלעזר and רבי יהושע do not argue about טרפה being not קדש, about *chutz lizmano* being קדש, and about בעלת מום being not קדש. A רבי יהודה states that the מחלוקת is about *chutz limkomo*, with רבי אלעזר saying קדש and רבי יהושע saying לא קדש. A רבי אלעזר argues by analogy that since *chutz lizmano* and *chutz limkomo* are both פסולים of מחשבה, just as *chutz lizmano* makes the לחם קדש, so does *chutz limkomo*. A רבי יהושע argues by analogy that since *chutz limkomo* and בעלת מום are both פסולים in the קרבן, just as בעלת מום does not make the לחם קדש, so *chutz limkomo* does not.
- A רבי אלעזר tells רבי יהושע that he compares to *chutz lizmano* while רבי יהושע compares to בעלת מום, and he proposes deciding by which resemblance is stronger. A רבי אלעזר argues that one learns פסול מחשבה from פסול מחשבה and does not learn פסול מחשבה from פסול הגוף. A רבי יהושע argues that one learns a פסול שאין בו כרת from a פסול שאין בו כרת, aligning *chutz limkomo* with בעלת מום, and he rejects learning from *chutz lizmano* because it is a פסול שיש בו כרת through פגול. A גמרא states that they then argue to learn from שלא לשמה because it is פסול מחשבה and אין בו כרת, and it states ושתק רבי אלעזר as agreement to רבי יהושע’s argument.
- A גמרא challenges רבי מאיר by asking why טרפה counts as פסולו קודם שחיטה while בעלת מום does not. A גמרא answers that the case is a specific מום called בדוקין שבעין and is explained according to רבי עקיבא who holds אם עלו לא ירדו. A גמרא states that since בדוקין שבעין is a lighter פסול and for an עוף it is not a פסול, if it was brought up on the מזבח it is not taken down, and therefore it is not treated as פסול קודם שחיטה for קדושת לחם. A גמרא explains רבי יהושע’s view by saying that רבי עקיבא’s אם עלו לא ירדו applies to פסול דגופא, but not to קדושי לחם, so it remains פסול קודם שחיטה regarding making the לחם קדש.
- A גמרא brings an *itmar* that for חטאת slaughtered *chutz lizmano* the rule is אם עלו לא ירדו, and for *chutz limkomo* רבא says ירדו while רבה says לא ירדו. A gummary explains that רבא follows רבי יהושע by comparing *chutz limkomo* to בעל מום, while רבה follows רבי אליעזר by comparing *chutz limkomo* to *chutz lizmano*. A gummary reports that one version says רבה retracts to agree with רבא because רבי אליעזר retracted to רבי יהושע when he remained silent, and another version says that even if רבי אליעזר retracted regarding לחמי תודה, רבה does not retract regarding אם עלו because even learning from שלא לשמה would still yield אם עלו לא ירדו.
- A gummary asks in the name of רב פפא why the תנא leaves out איל נזיר, which is common, and instead cites איל המילואים, which was a one-time offering. A gummary answers that the תנא chooses the “עיקר מילתא” and therefore uses איל המילואים as the primary archetype.
- A משנה states that if נסכים were sanctified in a כלי and the זבח was found פסול, then if there is another זבח they are brought with it, and if not they become פסול בלינה. A note states that the גרסת רש"י כתב יד has “ואם לנו,” meaning that if they stayed overnight then they become פסול בלינה, yielding two different readings.
- A gummary cites זעירי that אין נסכים מתקדשין אלא בשחיטת הזבח, deriving it from the phrase זבח ונסכים to mean only once there is a זבח through שחיטה do they become נסכים. A gummary challenges this from the משנה’s case of נסכים that become פסול בלינה after the זבח is found פסול, and it answers that the case is where the זבח became פסול at זריקה, so the שחיטה was valid and already sanctified the נסכים. A gummary initially ties this to רבי’s principle that שני דברים המתירין מעלין זה בלא זה, explaining that valid שחיטה can elevate the status even if זריקה fails, unlike רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון who requires all מתירין.
- A gummary states that the משנה can fit even רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון by interpreting the case as blood received in a cup and then spilled. A gummary states that רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון follows his father רבי שמעון, who holds כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי, so blood ready for זריקה is treated as if זריקה occurred, allowing the נסכים to be treated as sanctified and therefore subject to פסול בלינה.
- A gummary cites רב חסדא that oil designated for one מנחה is פסול for another, and it asks how the משנה allows using these נסכים for another זבח. A gummary answers with ינאי’s principle לב בית דין מתנה עליהם, that an automatic built-in condition applies to offerings of the ציבור that if the items are needed they are used, and if not they can be directed to another זבח. A gummary distinguishes oil by stating שמן גופה דמנחה הוא, making it the body of the offering rather than an attachment like נסכים.
- A gummary asks why the built-in condition does not allow the נסכים to become חולין if they cannot be used. A gummary answers that this is a גזירה שמא יאמרו that people will say one may remove items from a כלי שרת to חול, which would lead to error. A gummary asks why there is no concern that people will say נסכים separated for one זבח are valid for another, and רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה answers by limiting the case to when another זבח was already slaughtered at that time so observers will assume the נסכים belonged to it.
- A gummary challenges that if the limitation is “זבח זבוח באותה שעה,” the משנה should have distinguished within its opening clause rather than moving to פסול בלינה. A gummary answers that the משנה indeed means that reuse applies only when there is זבח זבוח באותה שעה, and if there is not, the נסכים are treated as if they became פסול בלינה and are פסולין.
- A gummary asks whether רבי שמעון accepts לב בית דין מתנה עליהן and cites a statement in the name of רבי יוחנן about תמידים שלא הוצרכו לציבור at the turn of the year from אדר to ניסן with new שקלים. A gummary states that according to רבי שמעון אין נפדין תמימים and they must graze until they develop a מום before redemption, while according to רבנן נפדין תמימים, implying that רבי שמעון does not rely on such an implicit condition. A gummary answers that the תמיד case is different because there is a remedy through grazing, and it states that רבי שמעון relies on לב בית דין מתנה עליהם only when there is no other way out.
- A משנה rules that ולד תודה, תמורת תודה, and a case where one separated a תודה, it was lost, one separated another under it, and then the first was found, are all brought as תודה but אינם טעונין לחם. A משנה derives this from the phrase והקריב על זבח התודה, teaching התודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ולא חילופה ולא תמורתה טעונה לחם.
- A ברייתא asks why the פסוק includes the extra wording תודה יקריבנו and uses it to derive that when the original lost תודה is found after a replacement is designated, the owner may choose whichever one to offer and brings bread with that one. A ברייתא derives from יקריב that he may offer whichever he wants, and from יקריבנו that only one, not two, is accompanied by bread. A ברייתא then expands that ולד, חליפין, and תמורה are included for הקרבה from אם על תודה, while excluding them from requiring bread from והקריב על זבח התודה, reiterating that only the original תודה requires לחם.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions