Menachos 83 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף פג resumes from דף פב עמוד ב and moves from the question of whether obligatory קרבנות may be funded by מעשר שני into רבי עקיבא’s method of deriving multiple הלכות from the היקש of “זאת תורת,” including rules of אכילה, בליעה, מותרות, and פיגול. The narrative then pivots to רבי עקיבא’s alternative דרשות that avoid learning *efshar* from *she’i efshar*, and it uses the פסוק “וזבחת הפסח” to establish the דין of מותר פסח becoming שלמים with multiple sources and distinctions among cases. The final portion opens the new משנה about where מנחות may be sourced from, which offerings require חדש and ארץ ישראל, what counts as the “best” grain, and a תנאic dissent that validates עומר and שתי הלחם from ישן בדיעבד while still framing חדש as the לכתחילה ideal.
- Today's opening assumes the גמרא’s prior conclusion that a קרבן should not be brought from מעשר שני funds. Rabbi Elazar derives this from פסח מצרים because no מעשר שני existed then, and Rabbi Akiva objects with “וכי דנים אפשר משאי אפשר,” rejecting a לימוד from a case where the option cannot exist.
- Rabbi Akiva’s source for the מעשר שני exclusion comes from the פסוק “זאת תורת העלה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים,” which links the קרבנות through a היקש. The earlier שיעור uses this linkage to derive the requirement of slaughtering with a knife, and the current flow continues the idea that the דין of מנחה that it is eaten only “לזכרי כהונה” extends to other קרבנות in the list. The גמרא rejects applying this to חטאת and אשם because “בהדיא כתיב,” and it rejects applying it to זכרי שלמי צבור because it is already learned “מריבוי דקרא,” and it attributes the remaining need to a מחלוקת תנאים where some learn it from this היקש.
- The ברייתא reads חטאת as teaching “מקדשה בבלוע,” that whatever absorbs from חטאת becomes sanctified “להיות כמוהו,” with the same constraints of כהנים, עזרה, and זמן אכילה, and it extends this to all linked קרבנות. The ברייתא reads אשם as teaching that “אין שפיר ושלייא קדש בה,” and it extends that even to קרבנות that can be female, explaining that this depends on the view that ולדות קדשים become קדוש only at “הוייתם,” supported by “רק קדשיך אשר יהיו לך ונדריך,” and it explicitly treats this as an example of “דנין אפשר משאי אפשר.” The ברייתא reads מלואים as teaching that leftover meat is burned while a leftover living animal designated for a קרבן has no שריפה obligation, based on “ואם יותר מבשר המלואים ומן הלחם עד הבוקר ושרפת את הנותר באש,” and it extends this structure to all קרבנות. The narrative illustrates מותר animals through the case of multiple designations and later recovery, and it distinguishes the outcomes for נדבה versus חטאת ואשם, including the path of letting the animal become a בעל מום and using proceeds for עולת נדבת ציבור, while also noting that for חטאת it can become one of “חמש חטאות המתות” depending on pregnancy timing. The קרן אורה questions why this דרשה is needed given existing הלכה למשה מסיני and other פסוקים, and he proposes that the pasuk supplies coverage for קרבנות where the דין is not otherwise explicit. The ברייתא reads שלמים as the model for פיגול mechanics, stating that with מחשבת חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו the קרבן becomes פיגול and even the נסכים become פיגול.
- A separate ברייתא “משמיה דרבי עקיבא” reassigns the דרשות because Rabbi Akiva rejects Rabbi Elazar’s use of אשם as a base due to “אין דנים אפשר משאי אפשר.” Rabbi Akiva learns “מקדשת בבלוע” from מנחה and still needs the same דין written by חטאת, because מנחה might absorb due to being “רקיקא” while חטאת might not, and חטאת might absorb due to greasy meat “אגב דשמין” while מנחה might not, so “צריכה” justifies both. Rabbi Akiva reads חטאת as teaching that it comes only “מן החולין,” is brought “ביום,” and is done “ביד הימנית,” and he applies these to all קרבנות. Rav Chisda derives חטאת’s “מן החולין” from “אשר לו,” meaning from his own funds and “ולא משל מעשר,” while the גמרא labels the “ביום” and “ביד הימנית” items as “כדי נסבא” because day is learned from “ביום צותו” and the right hand rule is learned from Rish Lakish via Rabba bar bar Chana that wherever “אצבע וכהונה” appears it must be the right hand and left invalidates the עבודה. Rabbi Akiva reads אשם as teaching “עצמותיו מותרים,” permitting non-edible bones, with the qualification that bones with marrow are excluded, and he extends this to all קרבנות, including עולה despite it being “כליל.” Rabbi Akiva reads מלואים like Rabbi Eliezer that leftover meat is burned while a leftover living animal is not.
- The גמרא returns to its original purpose of grounding Rabbi Akiva’s rule that any obligatory offering is brought only from חולין rather than מעשר funds. Rabbi Akiva anchors the חולין requirement in the חטאת derivation through “אשר לו,” rather than relying on Rabbi Elazar’s פסח מצרים approach.
- The גמרא asks what Rabbi Akiva does with “וזבחת הפסח לה' אלקיך צאן ובקר” if he does not use it for the חולין rule, and it answers that he uses it “כדרב נחמן” to derive מותר פסח becoming שלמים. The text presents two understandings of מותר פסח, either leftover money after designation or an extra animal from a lost-and-found scenario, and it explains that the pasuk’s reference to “צאן ובקר” cannot mean the פסח itself because “אין פסח בא אלא מן הכבשים ומן העיזים,” so it points to using the surplus for something that comes from צאן ובקר, namely שלמים. Rashi explains that פסח aligns with שלמים because both are eaten, unlike עולה, and another explanation uses the male-and-female scope of “צאן ובקר” that matches שלמים more than עולה.
- The גמרא challenges whether this is the source and cites a distinct derivation from Shmuel’s father using “לזבח השלמים” to teach that something coming from צאן, namely פסח, becomes a זבח שלמים. The גמרא adds a third source from a ברייתא on “אם כשב הוא מקריב,” using the superfluity to include פסח’s אליה when it is a sheep and to include “פסח שעבר שנתו” and “שלמים הבא מכח פסח” as having all דיני שלמים, including סמיכה, נסכים, and תנופת חזה ושוק, while “ואם כבש קרבנו” interrupts to show that a goat has no אליה. The text presents a מחלוקת ראשונים on “שלמים הבא מכח פסח,” with Rashi reading it as חגיגת ארבעה עשר and Tosafot reading it as the earlier מותר הפסח cases, and it notes a further dispute whether a post-time פסח offered לשם פסח is פסול or becomes שלמים automatically. The גמרא explains “תלתא קראי כתיבי” because each covers a different case: “עבר זמנו,” “עברה שנתו,” and the case where neither occurred but an extra designation produces a surplus, and it explains why none can be learned from the others due to פסח שני relevance and continued ראויות.
- The text closes the prior unit with “הדרן עלך התודה וזבחה” repeated three times.
- The משנה states that all public and private מנחות may come “מן הארץ” or from “חוץ לארץ,” and may come “מן החדש” or “מן הישן,” except for the עומר and the שתי הלחם which come only from “מן החדש” and only “מן הארץ” in ארץ ישראל. The narrative addresses the concern of טומאה from ארץ העמים by explaining that food becomes טמא only after being *mukhsher* by wetting, and the grain is guarded from moisture to avoid טומאה. The text defines חדש as grain that began growing after the sixteenth of ניסן and ישן as grain that is older relative to that cutoff, and it frames the עומר on the second day of פסח and the שתי הלחם on שבועות as the offerings with the stricter sourcing.
- The משנה requires that all מנחות come only “מן המובחר,” and it identifies the top quality as “מכמס וזנוחה, אלפא לסולת,” explaining that “אלפא” is Greek for the first letter and signals the best. The second tier is “עפרים בבקעה,” and the משנה adds that all regions are valid though “מכאן היו מביאין” because these are superior sources. Rashi and the ראשונים debate what “כל הארצות” includes, whether it means יהודה, עבר הירדן, and גליל, and the prevailing view reported holds that עבר הירדן is treated as ארץ ישראל for מצוות התלויות בארץ even if its קדושה differs.
- The גמרא states “מתניתין דלא כהאי תנא” and brings a ברייתא that validates an עומר and שתי הלחם brought from ישן as כשר while still “חיסר מצווה.” The ברייתא derives עומר’s בדיעבד validity from “תקריב מנחת ביכורים,” reading “תקריב” as allowing even “מן העלייה,” and it derives the same for שתי הלחם from “ממושבותיכם תביאו,” excluding חוץ לארץ but including “אפילו מן העלייה.” The גמרא resolves competing דרשות by using “תביאו” in the plural to extract “תרתי,” both the allowance of “מן העלייה” and the fixed שיעור of an איסרון as earlier learned on דף ע״ז. The גמרא treats “ראשית” and “והקרבת מנחה חדשה לה'” as לכתחילה requirements, and it cites the teaching of Rav Natan and Rabbi Akiva that שתי הלחם from ישן are כשרות while “שתהא חדשה לכל המנחות” means no מנחות may be brought from the new crop until after the שתי הלחם, with the קרן אורה emphasizing that לכתחילה everyone still prefers חדש despite בדיעבד validity of ישן.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions