Menachos 45
Summary
- An extended learning on *Masekhet Menachot* דף מ"ה returns to the theme of *devarim hame’akvin zeh et zeh* within *korbanot*, beginning with a mishnah about sets of animals and whether one element blocks another. רבי שמעון prioritizes bringing fewer animals with their accompanying *nesachim* over bringing many without, while later authorities and *acharonim* probe how that fits with the idea that *nesachim* can be brought later and whether “later” is only *bedi’eved*. The *Gemara* identifies which *korbanot* the mishnah means, moves into דרשות from יחזקאל that seem to contradict תורה until explained through halachic interpretation, and then shifts to the שבועות system of שתי הלחם and its accompanying offerings, where רבי עקיבא, רבי יהושע בן ננס, and רבי שמעון dispute whether the bread or the sheep are mutually indispensable and why.
- A transition back to the core Menachot topic frames the sugya as defining which components of a *korban* package block one another. The mishnah states that “הפרים האילים והכבשים אין מעכבין זה את זה,” and רבי שמעון rules that if there are many bulls but insufficient *nesachim*, one brings “פר אחד ונסכיו” rather than offering all without *nesachim*. The רמב"ן and other ראשונים read the רבנן as disputing רבי שמעון and favoring bringing all animals now and bringing *nesachim* later, since *nesachim* can be delayed. The שפת אמת records a difficulty—“צריך עיון כיון דמייתי נסכים אחר עשרה ימים והקרבנות אין להם תשלומין למה ידחה קרבן משום נסכים?”—and later suggestions propose that delaying *nesachim* may be only *bedi’eved* or limited to a case where the *zevach* was already offered, preserving the value of a “קרבן שלם” when one still has a choice. The חפץ חיים raises a ספק about a parallel case where funds do not cover all animal types, questioning whether one should bring some of each or complete one species even if the other is totally absent.
- The *Gemara* asks which “פרים” and “כבשים” are meant and rejects סוכות because “כמשפט כמשפטם” implies *i’kuv* as Rashi reads it. It explores ראש חודש and עצרת of חומש הפקודים but finds no plural “אילים” there, and it notes that the אילים of עצרת in תורת כהנים have “הויה כתיב בהו,” also suggesting *i’kuv*. The conclusion ties the mishnah to עצרת of תורת כהנים in relation to the *musaf* of חומש הפקודים: the אילים of ויקרא are not מעכב the איל of במדבר and vice versa, while the פרים are even non-blocking among themselves. The *Gemara* resolves the lack of symmetry by stating “תנא מילי מילי קתני,” treating each clause as teaching a separate rule.
- A conceptual question is raised parallel to an earlier debate about the קרבן העומר, asking whether the עומר is inherently a פסח offering or simply the offering of the sixteenth of ניסן that happens to fall on פסח, supported by multiple ראיות attributed to the רמב"ם. The same style of question is applied to שתי הלחם, asking whether it is a שבועות offering or an offering marking the completion of ספירת העומר, and the sugya’s separation between ויקרא-offerings and במדבר-offerings is suggested as potentially reflecting that independence. The text presents a מוסר framework describing movement from barley to wheat: the עומר from new barley is “מתיר חדש” in the world and the שתי הלחם from new wheat is “מתיר חדש” in the בית המקדש, mapping a process from מצרים to תורה and from animal fodder symbolism to human sanctification. The ספר החינוך is cited as counting a distinct מצות עשה “להקריב ביום חג השבועות לחם חמץ מחיטה חדשה,” calling it “מנחה חדשה,” emphasizing that it is one of the rare offerings involving חמץ and stating “והלכה היא שאי אפשר להביא any קרבן before one brings that קרבן.”
- The *Gemara* interprets יחזקאל’s ראש חודש passage “פר בן בקר תמימים וששת כבשים ואיל תמימים יהיו,” deriving from “פר” that if two bulls are required in תורה and only one is found, one is still brought, and from “שישה” that if the Torah’s seven lambs cannot be found, six are brought. It extends the logic down to even one, anchored by “ולכבשים כאשר תשיג ידו,” and explains that “שישה כבשים” still matters because “דכמה דאפשר להדורי מהדרינן,” requiring maximal effort. It then asks “ומנין שמעכבין זה את זה?” and answers “תלמוד לומר יהיו,” which תוספות explains as applying “כששיש להם כל הצורך,” meaning that when all are available, withholding any creates *i’kuv* and can nullify partial fulfillment. The text draws an ethical analogy that a person is judged for what they could have done and connects it to “מבטלין תלמוד תורה מפני מקרא מגילה,” including a framing בשם רב עובדיה יוסף that hearing מגילה, though obligatory, is called “ביטול” relative to deeper learning one could have done.
- A difficulty arises from יחזקאל’s “תקח פר בן בקר תמים וחטאת את המקדש,” since the bull of ראש חודש is an עולה, leading רבי יוחנן to state “פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדרשה.” The רשב"א asks why אליהו is needed rather than יחזקאל himself and answers that אליהו may come before תחיית המתים, or that אליהו may clarify matters even prior to משיח in a *beit midrash* setting, fitting stories of אליהו’s frequent appearances. The רמב"ם is quoted from הלכות מלכים פרק י"ב describing uncertainty in the prophetic sequence of events, the role of a נביא before גוג ומגוג, and the principle that these details are not “עיקר בדת,” warning against fixation because they do not lead to אהבה or יראה. The text links this to the “לא בשמים היא” boundary, citing the מהר"ץ חיות that אליהו cannot legislate halacha via prophecy but can transmit received wisdom or clarify factual reality, and it adds the Sanhedrin dream case—“דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין”—as another model of non-halachic heavenly input. רב אשי interprets the passage as referring to “מלואים שהקריבו בימי עזרא כדרך שהקריבו בימי משה,” while the רמב"ם in הלכות מעשה הקרבנות ב' י"ד frames יחזקאל’s measurements as מילואים for חנוכת המזבח “בימי המלך המשיח כשיבנה בית שלישי,” and ב' ט"ו notes that Ezra’s offerings were from the seven days of מילואים. The גרי"ז raises a difficulty that if קדושה ראשונה is eternal then milu’im should not be needed in Ezra’s time, and an answer is suggested that even if place-sanctity remains, rebuilding the structure requires a new חנוכה.
- A further יחזקאל verse states that כהנים shall not eat נבלה or טרפה, prompting the question why the restriction would single out כהנים if all ישראל are forbidden. רבי יוחנן again says “פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדרשה,” while רבינא explains that a kohen-specific *hava amina* exists because מליקה is permitted for kohanim in חטאת העוף, so one might think they could eat other non-shechitah carcasses as well. The sugya concludes “קא משמע לן” that this is not allowed, and the text notes a חקירה whether מליקה is treated as sanctioned eating of a “נבלה” or as a distinct halachic slaughter for *korbanot*. רבי יוסף ענגיל in אסוון דאורייתא is cited as comparing this structure to שעיר לעזאזל and עגלה ערופה and asking whether rules like “אותו ואת בנו” apply if these acts count as “שחיטה” or not.
- The *Gemara* praises חנינא בן חזקיה—“זכור אותו האיש לטוב”—stating that without him ספר יחזקאל would have been hidden because its words seemed to contradict תורה. It describes how he brought “שלוש מאות גרבי שמן,” sat in an attic, and reconciled the passages through דרשה. The text aligns this with other borderline ספרים such as קהלת, אסתר, and שיר השירים that had controversies yet entered תנ"ך, while noting יחזקאל’s distinct placement among נביאים.
- A ברייתא reads יחזקאל’s “ואיפה לפר ואיפה לאיל” and רבי שמעון challenges it because a bull’s and a ram’s measures are not identical, so the phrase signals a policy rule rather than a measurement claim. The ברייתא applies רבי שמעון’s principle both to *nesachim* for bulls and to the *minchah* measure for rams: one brings one complete unit rather than many incomplete offerings. The presentation associates this with the idea that a smaller, complete act is preferable to a larger, deficient one, echoing “טוב מעט בכוונה מהרבה בלא כוונה.”
- The next mishnah states that “הפר והאילים והכבשים והשעיר אין מעכבין את הלחם ולא הלחם מעכבן,” allowing the שתי הלחם or those offerings to be brought without the other. A dispute is then stated about the two כבשי שלמים of עצרת: רבי עקיבא holds “הלחם מעכב את הכבשים והכבשים מעכבין את הלחם,” yet he permits bringing the bread alone, whereas רבי יהושע בן ננס holds the reverse, arguing that sheep were offered for forty years in the desert without the bread. תוספות cites a view attributed to רש"י that they lacked ordinary bread because they had מן, while the רש"י in the sugya emphasizes “ממושבותיכם” requiring ארץ ישראל produce, explaining why the bread could not be brought במדבר.
- רבי שמעון rules “הלכה כדברי בן ננס אבל אין טעם כדבריו,” rejecting the במדבר proof because “כל האמור בחומש הפקודים קרב במדבר וכל האמור בתורת כהנים לא קרב במדבר,” and asserting that only upon entering ארץ ישראל were both sets brought. He explains that sheep can stand alone because “הכבשים מתירים את עצמם,” while bread cannot be brought alone because “אין לו מי שיתירנו.” A supporting ברייתא interprets “והקרבתם על הלחם” and offers רבי טרפון’s reading that obligation in the sheep only begins once obligation in the bread begins, while a further derivation distinguishes the seven sheep of אמור from the seven of פנחס by their differing accompanying פרים ואילים and by a changed order, proving they are separate sets.
- The *Gemara* explains רבי עקיבא’s position via a גזירה שוה “יהיו” from “תהיינה,” linking to bread, while בן ננס learns “יהיו” from “יהיו,” linking to sheep, preferring the closer verbal match when available. It adds that רבי עקיבא prefers learning from items that are “מתנה לכהן,” distinguishing them from עולות, and it offers an alternate יסוד: they argue about the meaning of “קודש יהיו לה' לכהן.” רבי עקיבא reads it as referring to the bread as something wholly given to the כהן, while בן ננס reads it as referring to the sheep as something partly for Hashem and partly for the כהן, and רבי עקיבא answers the “לה'” phrase through רב הונא’s rule “קנו ה' ונתנו לכהן,” describing קדשי שולחן גבוה that are then granted to the כהן.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions