Menachos 88 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף פ"ח begins from דף פ"ז עמוד ב' and frames the פרק as dealing with the measuring vessels in the בית המקדש, moving from earlier מידות יבש to the משנה’s focus on מידות הלח and their roles in נסכים and other עבודות. The משנה and גמרא present disputes about how many liquid measures existed, whether a הין was needed at all, whether one marked כלי could replace multiple כלים, and what principle governs the Temple’s approach to measurement. The גמרא then develops technical debates about overflow (*berutzin*), the meaning of “מלאים,” and the requirement of seven measures as a הלכה למשה מסיני, before shifting to detailed applications of specific liquid measures for מצורע, נזיר, סוטה, תודה, מנחות, and the מנורה. The sugya closes with extended laws of the מנורה’s oil, relighting, cleaning, whether the cups are detachable, how “כיכר זהב” includes or excludes components, and how תורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל interacts with explicit התורה requirements of זהב טהור.
- Today's משנה states that there are שבע מידות של לח in the מקדש, listing measures from הין and its fractions down to לוג and its fractions, and ties them to the animal-based amounts required by the תורה for מנחת נסכים. Rabbi אלעזר בר צדוק says there is only one כלי with markings “עד כאן לפר, עד כאן לאיל, ועד כאן לכבש,” with a cited מחלוקת ראשונים whether he means literally one כלי for all measures or effectively two (one for הינין and one for לוגין). Shimon העמלואי says there is no הין because the הין is only needed once for משה רבינו’s שמן המשחה, and he replaces it with a special measure of לוג ומחצה for the daily חביתין of the כהן גדול.
- The ברייתא lists the same seven liquid measures according to both רבי יהודה and רבי מאיר, with the difference that רבי יהודה orders them from smallest to largest and רבי מאיר from largest to smallest. Rabbi יוחנן explains that the practical difference concerns *berutzin* when a כלי is overfilled, and the sugya explains the implications of pouring from small to large versus large to small. Abaye offers an alternative that the dispute can instead hinge on the word “מלאים” in the נשיאים’ קרבנות, where רבי מאיר reads “מלאים” as requiring exactness with no excess, while רבי יהודה reads it as requiring no deficiency even if there is extra, with רש"י comparing this to adding a קולבון to מחצית השקל.
- The חכמים answer that a הין existed because משה made it for שמן המשחה, and the גמרא frames the dispute as whether a one-time כלי not used לדורות is still kept or can be made temporarily and then hidden. The sugya questions why a substitute is required if הין is removed and answers by analogy to Ravina’s teaching that there are fixed הלכות למשה מסיני, concluding that “שבע מידות היו במקדש” is likewise גמירי and requires seven. The גמרא challenges רבי אלעזר בר צדוק because of that tradition and answers that he either rejects it or interprets “שבע מידות” as seven markings, meaning שבע מדידות rather than seven separate כלים.
- The משנה assigns רביעית מים to מצורע and רביעית שמן to נזיר, assigns חצי לוג מים to סוטה and חצי לוג שמן to תודה, and states that a לוג measures for all מנחות even a מנחה of ששים עשרון requiring ששים לוג. Rabbi אלעזר בן יעקב argues that even a sixty-עשרון מנחה needs only one לוג, deriving from the מצורע’s מנחה verse “ולוג שמן.” The sugya then enumerates נסכים-based oil totals in לוגים for פר, איל, and כבש, and states that three and a half לוגים are used for the מנורה because חצי לוג is used for each נר.
- Rabbi questions why a רביעית כלי is “נמשח,” rejecting מצורע because that act is done חוץ למחנה and rejecting נזיר because לחם נזיר becomes קדוש through שחיטת איל rather than via כלי שרת. Rav חייא answers that the רביעית is used for the כהן גדול’s חביתין because each חלה requires רביעית שמן and the שמן’s קדושה depends on being placed in the כלי. Rava questions why a חצי לוג needs משיחה, rejecting סוטה because the מים are taken from the כיור and are already “מים קדושים,” and rejecting תודה because לחמי תודה are קדושים through שחיטת תודה. Rav Shimon bar Rabbi answers that the חצי לוג is needed to divide oil as חצי לוג לכל נר ונר of the מנורה, and Rabbi responds “נר ישראל” and accepts the answer as correct.
- Rabbi teaches in the name of רבי יוחנן that if a נר goes out, the oil is discarded and the procedure is to clean it, add new oil, and relight it. The text brings three approaches: the Rambam reads the sugya within a daily morning cycle of הטבת הנרות and relighting, רש"י limits the case to a nighttime extinguishing because there is no morning relighting obligation, and the Rashba frames it as concerning the נר מערבי that must remain lit תמיד. The text adds that הטבת הנרות is restricted to a כהן while lighting can be done even by ישראל, presenting this as a conceptual contrast of removing bad before doing good, and it cites שולחן ערוך הלכות חנוכה סימן תרע"ג סעיף ב and משנה ברורה about whether one must replace oil and wick daily, with a report that Rav Moshe Shternbuch שליט''א recommends using a new wick daily as a זכר למקדש while a citation says the חת"ם סופר did not change wicks daily.
- Rav Zreika asks whether, when refilling after a נר extinguishes, one adds oil כמידתו ראשונה (a full חצי לוג) or only כמי שחסרה. Rav Yirmiya rules that it is obviously כמידתו ראשונה because there is no reliable way to know what is missing, and otherwise the system of fixed שבע מידות would explode into many contingent measures. The sugya repeats the ruling as a tradition that one removes the wick and oil and then refills כמידתו ראשונה and relights.
- Rav Huna b’Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav Sheshet says the נרות in the מקדש are “של פרקים,” explained as structurally enabling cleaning, while also stressing the verse “ככר זהב יעשה המנורה ואת נרותיה” and the need for הטבה. A challenge cites a ברייתא describing removing them, placing them in the אהל, wiping with a sponge, refilling, and lighting, and the sugya answers by aligning that with a תנא who says five נרות were not moved from their place, implying a dispute whether the cups are removable or only bendable. The sugya identifies the חכמים as רבי אלעזר בן צדוק, who describes a gold plate “כמין טס של זהב” atop the מנורה that is pushed inward for cleaning and pushed outward when adding oil.
- A ברייתא teaches that “מנורה ונרותיה” come from the כיכר as one hammered piece while the tongs and pans do not, while another view (attributed to נחמיה) limits כיכר to the מנורה itself. The sugya derives the positions from the verse “כיכר זהב טהור יעשה אותה” and “את כל הכלים האלה,” then resolves an internal contradiction about רבי נחמיה by saying there are two תנאים interpreting his view. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says the מנורה comes from the כיכר but the נרותיה, מלקחיה, and מחתותיה do not, and he interprets “את כל הכלים האלה” as requiring that all these כלי components still be made of gold.
- The sugya asks why a verse is needed to require gold when “זהב טהור” is explicit, and it answers that the novelty concerns “פי נרות,” which blackens from use. The text frames a possible assumption that תורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל would avoid using gold where it will be ruined, and it concludes that the verse nevertheless mandates זהב טהור there. The text reports an application raised by חשוקי חמד about whether one should avoid placing oil directly into a silver or gold מנורה when no glass insert is available, weighing potential damage against the principle of תורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions