Menachos Daf 86 - Oil for Menachos and Menorah
Summary
- A speaker opens a שיעור on מנחות דף פ"ו from the end of דף פ"ה עמוד ב' and frames the day’s flow as identifying the oil called אנפקטון and resolving whether it is כשר בדיעבד, outlining the Mishnah’s process for producing oil for מנחות and the מנורה through three harvests and three yields per harvest, and moving into the Gemara’s proofs that הקדוש ברוך הוא does not need human-provided light. A sponsorship is stated in honor of Dr. David Lanzner’s wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גאלדא בת שמחה עליה השלום. The presentation then transitions at the end to the next Mishnah’s shift from שמן to יין for the נסכים and broader Mikdash-quality rules.
- A speaker begins with “*gut morgn*” and “good morning” and states the learning is מנחות דף פ"ו, holding at the end of דף פ"ה עמוד ב' on “אין מביאין לו מבית הזבלים.” A sponsorship is announced by Dr. David Lanzner in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גאלדא בת שמחה עליה השלום, with a wish that the נשמה should have an עליה. A roadmap is given that the session will define אנפקטון and address a סתירה about its בדיעבד validity, explain how oil is produced for מנחות and the מנורה via three harvests and three yields, clarify whether olives are picked as they ripen or collected together, rank the oils, show why the מנורה requires higher-quality oil than מנחות, bring proofs that הקדוש ברוך הוא does not need the light, and then pivot to a Mishnah about wine for נסכים.
- A ברייתא states “אין מביאין אנפקטון ואם הביא פסול מפני שהוא שרף,” contradicting a Mishnah that treats אנפקטון as כשר בדיעבד. Rav Yosef resolves it as a dispute, attributing the פסול position to רבי חייא, who does not view it as oil, and the כשר position to רבי שמעון ברבי, who treats it as oil. The Gemara supports this with conduct: רבי חייא “זריק ליה,” which Tosafos explains as not eating it though using it for skin, hair removal, and softening, while רבי שמעון ברבי “מטבל ביה” by dipping bread, with the mnemonic “עשירים מקמצין” tied to רבי שמעון’s wealth and refusal to waste. The Maharal in נתיבות עולם explains “עשירים מקמצין” as stemming from a נפש-quality of עשירות that is never satiated, and a כתב יד of Rashi defines קמצן as אצרן who stores and does not discard, while נתיבות הקודש questions how רבי שמעון’s dipping proves he holds it is oil if the reason is thrift rather than categorization.
- A verse in מגילת אסתר about “ששה חדשים בשמן המור” is brought, and a dispute identifies שמן המור as either סטכתא, described as שמן הפירסמון, or as שמן זית שלא הביא שליש. The עין אליהו gives a הלכתי application that one who vows against “שמן המור” uses the Megillah’s term, so its definition matters for נדרים, while the presentation also treats the basic need to interpret a תנ"ך term as meaningful in itself. A תניא in the name of רבי יהודה identifies אנפיקנון as שמן זית שלא הביא שליש and states it is used because it “משיר את השיער ומעדן את הבשר.”
- A Mishnah rule is applied that oil from olives “שנשרו במים,” and olives that are כבושים or שלוקים, is פסול, and a ברייתא adds שמן זית כבוש, שלוק, שרוי, oil “בשל שמרים,” and oil “של ריח רע” as disallowed, with “ואם הביא פסול.” The ספרי derives exclusions from “בלולה בשמן כתית,” and the תשב"ץ explains the issue with foul-smelling oil as akin to a בעל מום, since bad smell signals defect. Rava asks whether one who consecrates such פסול oil receives מלקות “משום בעל מום,” debating whether פסול makes it like a בעל מום or whether בעל מום applies only to animals, and the Gemara leaves it as תיקו.
- A Mishnah teaches “שלשה זיתים הם ובהן שלשה שלשה שמנים,” describing three picking times and, within each, three extractions. The first harvest takes olives from the top (“מגרגר בראש הזית”), crushes them and places them in a basket to drain, with רבי יהודה requiring placement “סביבות הסל” so sediment adheres to the sides and the oil strains clearer; the first yield is “זה ראשון,” then pressing produces “זה שני” with a beam according to the Tanna Kama but with stones according to רבי יהודה, and grinding and pressing again yields “זה שלישי,” with the first yield for the מנורה and the rest for מנחות. The second harvest takes olives at rooftop height (“מגרגרו בראש הגג”) and repeats the same three-yield process with the same dispute about basket placement and beam versus stones, again assigning first yield to the מנורה and the rest to מנחות. The third harvest takes the lower olives, leaves them in the מעטן בבית הבד “עד שילקה,” dries them on the roof, and then crushes and drains them, again with רבי יהודה’s “סביבות הסל” approach, followed by pressing and then grinding-and-pressing for the second and third yields, and again assigning first yield to the מנורה and the rest to מנחות.
- A parenthetical discussion cites דגל מרבבה reporting a practice of not using שמן זית on פסח due to crushing in a mortar used for חמץ, with the claim that שמן זית is a דבר חריף that can extract absorbed taste even cold. The חיד"א argues common oil production is in a dedicated בית הבד handling only oil, distinguishing it from the crushing described for Mikdash purposes. A comparison is made to buying cut fruit where a facility handles only fruit, and רבי יעקב עמדין in שאלות יעבץ is cited as not having heard of that non-olive-oil practice, alongside the observation of extensive OU listings of olive oils for Pesach. A תשובות בית שערים citation of a letter from the ישמח משה addresses flower-seed oils as technically permitted but discouraged due to confusion with other oils, and the משנה ברורה in סימן תנ"ג rules that if oil was crushed in a כלי that soaked חמץ it carries חמץ flavor due to חריפות and pressure, citing שער הציון and דגל מרבבה, while מחצית השקל permits imported oils from dedicated presses without such concerns.
- A ספק asks whether the Mishnah’s term implies picking olives individually as they ripen (“מגרגרו”) or gathering them once fully ripened (“מגלגלו”). A ברייתא derives from “שמן זית זך כתית למאור” and “מזיתו” that the first harvest is “מגלגלו בראש הזית,” collecting once fully ripened, and it restates the three-yield procedure, including that the third harvest requires softening in the מעטן and drying until moisture flows. רבי יהודה in the ברייתא adds that crushing is done in a מכתשת rather than grinding in a ריחיים, pressing is with stones rather than a beam, and placement is “לתוך סביבות הסל” rather than the basket bottom. The Gemara notes an internal tension when mapping the details, since “כותש” aligns with רבי יהודה while the basket-bottom method aligns with the Rabbis, and it resolves that the Mishnah’s author agrees with רבי יהודה in one detail and disagrees in another.
- A Mishnah ranks oil quality, declaring the best as “הראשון שבראשון” and the lowest as “השלישי שבשלישי,” and states equivalences such as “השני שבראשון והראשון שבשני שווין” and other matched groupings by yield number. The Mishnah presents an intuitive קל וחומר that מנחות should require שמן זית זך because they are for “אכילה,” but it derives from “זך כתית למאור ואין כתית למנחות” that the extra quality requirement is limited to the מנורה, and the יד מלאכי challenges the validity of the hypothetical קל וחומר under the rule that a קל וחומר that begins as a stringency and ends as a leniency is invalid, especially for time-bound communal offerings. The Gemara asks how oils can be “שווין” if only first yields are fit for the מנורה, and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers that “שווין” means equal for מנחות. The Rambam at the end of הלכות איסורי מזבח פרק ז הלכה יא is cited as explaining that quality rankings guide a person who seeks to refine himself and bring the best, linking this to Hevel’s “מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן” and Hashem’s favorable response described in the Rambam’s broader closing remarks on bringing the finest offerings.
- A ברייתא interprets “זך” as “נקי,” and רבי יהודה interprets “כתית” as “כתוש,” requiring crushing in a מכתשת rather than grinding. רבי יהודה proposes that one might think “זך כתית” is פסול for מנחות, and it is rebutted from “ועשרון סולת בלול בשמן כתית,” establishing that כתית oil is כשר for מנחות, while “למאור” explains the distinction as “מפני החיסכון.” The explanation defines the savings as avoiding immense cost because מנחות are common and require much oil, while the menorah uses a fixed smaller amount, described as three and a half לוג daily with a חצי לוג per lamp.
- A דרשה on “ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך” quotes רבי שמואל בר נחמני: “אליך ולא לי,” with the declaration “לא לאורה אני צריך.” רבי זכאי בשם רבי אלעזר says that the שולחן in the north and the מנורה in the south show “לא לאכילה אני צריך ולא לאורה אני צריך,” with Rashi explaining that one who needs light for eating would place lamp and table together, while Tosafos cites and rejects an alternate proof based on the שכינה being in the west. A verse about Solomon’s Temple windows, “חלוני שקופים אטומים,” is explained as narrow inside and wide outside, signaling that the Mikdash does not require external illumination and instead spreads light outward. A teaching on “מחוץ לפרוכת העדות” defines the menorah as “עדות הוא לכל באי עולם שהשכינה שורה בישראל,” and the statement that Israel traveled forty years “לא הלכו אלא לאורו” is explained by the Rashba, Chiddushei haRan, and Shitah Mekubetzes as referring to the עמוד אש and the light of the שכינה, while Tosafos notes a שבת דף כ"ב version that frames “הוא” as Aharon but the local context frames the point about הקדוש ברוך הוא. Rava defines the core עדות as “זה נר מערבי,” which receives the same measure of oil, is used to light others and is finished last, lasting longer than the rest as a נס; the Maharal in חידושי אגדות explains why this counts as עדות, and a מדרש תנחומא version is cited where it remains lit from Rosh Hashanah to the next year, alongside a report that Rav Chaim asked the Imrei Emes how daily lighting is fulfilled and the Imrei Emes answered that adding a drop of oil daily counts as a מעשה הדלקה.
- A concluding note states that the Mishnah at the end of the דף shifts the topic from שמן to יין, following earlier treatment of סולת, and frames the coming discussion as standards for נסכים in the בית המקדש, including sources, highest quality, and what is כשר or פסול. The speaker closes by stating that continuation will resume at the next Mishnah and ends with a wish for “a גוט יום טוב.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions