Menachos 91 - Cycle 14
Summary
- The שיעור on מנחות דף צא explains that many different קרבנות require נסכים, and the גמרא repeatedly derives this from the words *או*, *ל*, and other extra phrases in the פסוקים. The discussion shows that נסכים are required for a תודה despite its לחם, for the איל נזיר despite its accompanying חלות, for various donated offerings, for some cases of ולדות קדשים and תמורות, and for additional special offerings such as the אילו של אהרן and the פלגס. The text also connects these sugyos to practical questions in avodah and to related halachos in נזיר, מצורע, יולדת, and מעשר בהמה.
- The גמרא teaches that a קרבן תודה requires נסכים from the word או, even though one might think it would not because it comes with forty חלות. רש"י explains that the לחם might have been thought to replace the נסכים or to remove the offering from the category of a זבח, but the תורה teaches that it still requires נסכים. The גמרא compares this to the איל נזיר, which also comes with לחם and yet requires נסכים, and answers that תודה is different because it brings four kinds of לחם rather than two.
- The ברייתא derives from לפלא נדר או בנדבה that offerings brought as a נדר or a נדבה require נסכים, and the word או teaches that each one is treated separately. The discussion develops the principle that every קרבן brought independently requires its own נסכים, even when the offerings are similar, such as two עולות, two שלמים, or offerings brought together. The same pattern is extended to cases of different types of קרבנות and to offerings brought in one הקדשה, showing that the חיוב of נסכים follows each קרבן individually.
- The text explains that the פסוקים include ולדות קדשים, תמורתן, עולה הבאה מן המותר, אשם שניתק לרעייה, and כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמם, because these offerings still trace back to the original category of donated קרבנות. The משך חכמה is cited to explain why תמורה specifically needs a פסוק, since making תמורה is itself an עבירה and one might think such an offering should not be glorified with נסכים. רב לייב מאלין explains that זבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמם require a special לימוד because the new obligation created by the פסוק could have been viewed as a קרבן חוב, which might not need נסכים without explicit teaching.
- The גמרא returns again and again to the question למה לי, using *או* to separate cases that might otherwise be grouped together. It teaches that נדר and נדבה each need separate נסכים, that even two offerings of the same general type still require separate נסכים, and that even when offerings are brought together at the same time, each one retains its own חיוב. The discussion shows that the obligation of נסכים is tied to each קרבן itself and not merely to the general class of the offering.
- The ברייתא derives from the מצורע’s פסוקים that his עולה, חטאת, and אשם require נסכים. The text explains that the word זבח teaches inclusion of the מצורע’s חטאת and אשם, because the מצורע’s אשם serves to permit entry into the מחנה שכינה, while the חטאת serves לכפר, and they are not identical in function. The נזיר is used as a comparison, where his חטאת and אשם do not require נסכים, and the distinction shows why the מצורע’s offerings need their own separate פסוקים.
- אביי explains that the עולה of a יולדת is learned from the end of the פסוק, especially from the phrase לכבש האחד, which רבי נתן interprets as including other analogous cases. The text also cites the case of אחד עשר של מעשר, which is brought as a שלמים and therefore has נסכים, showing that a secondary or accidental offering can have a greater obligation than the primary one. Another פסוק is used to include אילו של אהרן, and the גמרא says that although it is brought by an individual on יום כיפור, it still requires נסכים because it falls under the category of a fixed-time offering.
- The word או in איל או איל is used to include the פלגס, and the גמרא discusses whether a פלגס is a distinct בריה, as רבי יוחנן says, or a ספק, as בר פדא says. The conclusion is that its נסכים are treated like those of an איל. The ברייתא then derives that there is no difference in נסכים between a שור and older or younger forms of cattle, nor between different forms of goats, while the distinction between כבש and איל remains relevant for sheep and related offerings. The final practical proof comes from a משנה in שקלים, which shows that only males have differentiated נסכים while females share the same requirement across age groups.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions