Menachos 106
Summary
- The text explains the Gemara on Menachot 106a as it reconciles the Mishnah with Rabbi Shimon through the use of a *tenai* and then clarifies how *kemitzah* and the oil are handled when a person said he specified a *minchah* but no longer remembers which one. It applies earlier disputes about *chalot* and *rekikin*, adopts the position of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah regarding *meshichah* and leftover oil, and explores what “מושחן כמין כי” means and why Chazal describe shapes with Greek letters rather than *lashon hakodesh*. It then shifts to the case of one who specified a *minchah* of *esronim* but forgot how many, presents the dispute between Chachamim and רבי about bringing one vessel of sixty versus bringing one through sixty in separate vessels, and offers multiple Gemara explanations for that dispute. It concludes with the Mishnah and Beraita about donating items like wood, frankincense, and metals, the minimum amounts required, and רבי’s view that wood is a full *korban* with practical requirements like salt, *hagashah*, and even *kemitzah*.
- A person who said he specified a *minchah* but does not remember which must bring all five types according to the Tanna Kamma, and the Gemara says the Mishnah can still fit Rabbi Shimon because Rabbi Shimon’s additional possibilities can be addressed by making a *tenai*. Rabbi Shimon’s solution brings sets corresponding to *chalot* and *rekikin* and uses a *tenai* so the offering retroactively matches what was intended. The Gemara then addresses how to perform *kemitzah* under this *tenai* framework.
- The Gemara asks “והאיכא מותר שמן” because the halachic handling of oil differs between *chalot* and *rekikin*. It relies on the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Shimon that “מושחן כמין כי ומותר שמן נאכל לכהנים,” so leftover oil goes to the Kohanim and the practical *safek* is resolved. The text explains the underlying dispute as whether *meshichah* on *rekikin* functions as a substitute for *belilah* like *chalot* or whether *meshichah* is an independent mitzvah that requires only a symbolic application, with the remaining oil assigned to the Kohanim.
- The phrase “כמין כי יווני” is presented as the required shape of the oil application, with Rashi identifying it as resembling the letter ט and Tosafot offering other shapes. Rabbeinu Manoach explains in Hilchot Sukkah that Chazal avoid describing non-sacred matters with *otiyot hakodesh* and therefore use Greek-letter analogies, framing this as an expression of “קדושת התורה וכבודה.” The text challenges the classification of a sukkah or *korban minchah* procedures as “דבר של חול” and links the broader idea to the Gemara in Shabbat about the inner meaning of the Hebrew alphabet. It adds the idea that Shas begins with an open מ and ends with a closed מ as “מאמר פתוח מאמר סתום,” and it quotes Rav Nebenzahl that gratitude for *lashon hakodesh* is included in the Yom Tov phrase “ורוממנו מכל לשון.”
- Rav Kahana asks why the ספק does not require bringing a *minchat nesachim* as well, since Rava says “מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בכל יום.” The Gemara answers that the case assumes the person remembers enough distinguishing signs to exclude *minchat nesachim*, including that his ספק concerns a יחיד-offering, an offering “בא בגלל עצמו,” an offering that requires *levonah*, an offering with a specific oil measure, and an offering that requires *kemitzah*. These criteria exclude *nesachim* because they do not match the combination of סימנים the person is unsure about.
- A Beraita states that if one said he fixed the vow in one vessel but forgot how many *esronim*, Chachamim require bringing one *minchah* of sixty *esronim*, while רבי requires bringing offerings from one through sixty, totaling 1,830 *esronim*. When the ספק includes both which of the five *menachot* and how many *esronim*, Chachamim require five offerings of sixty each, totaling 300 *esronim*, while רבי requires one-through-sixty for each of the five, totaling 9,150 *esronim*. The Gemara then asks “במאי קמיפלגי” and develops several frameworks to locate the dispute.
- Rav Chisda says the dispute turns on whether “מותר להכניס חולין לעזרה,” while assuming all agree one may not mix *chovah* and *nedavah* flour in the same vessel. רבי prohibits bringing *chullin* into the Azarah, so a תנאי that leaves the remainder as *chullin* cannot work, forcing separate vessels. Chachamim allow bringing *chullin* into the Azarah, enabling one vessel of sixty with a *tenai* that whatever is not the חובה is *chullin*. The text cites the Rambam in Hilchot Shechitah that not only is *shechitat chullin* in the Azarah forbidden but “כל החולין אסור להכניסן לעזרה,” including “בשר שחוטה או פירות ופת,” and it records the Mishneh LaMelech’s question whether the prohibition applies to absolutely any חולין item or only items comparable to things offered.
- Rava says all agree “אסור להכניס חולין בעזרה” and the dispute is whether “מותר לערב חוב ונדבה” in one vessel, with Chachamim permitting and רבי forbidding. Abaye challenges that a mixture requires “שני קמצים,” and the Gemara answers that one performs *kemitzah* twice and makes it “דתלי ליה בדעת כהן” by designating the first as *chovah* and the second as *nedavah*. The text cites the Chazon Ish that this appears to invoke *bererah* and raises difficulty because רבי elsewhere rejects *bererah*, while the עולת שלמה argues this is not *bererah* because designation is needed only from that point forward and not *lemafre’a*. The Gemara then confronts the *haktarah* order problem, since burning the *nedavah* first risks missing required *shirayim* for the *chovah*, and burning the *chovah* first risks “בל תקטיר” if the second portion is truly *shirayim*; it resolves this through רבי יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי by burning the extra “לשם עצים” in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s rule that “לריח ניחוח אי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלה לשם עצים.”
- Rav Acha brei deRava suggests everyone allows mixing *chovah* and *nedavah* and the dispute is whether Rabbi Eliezer’s “לשם עצים” works, with Chachamim accepting and רבי rejecting. The Gemara rejects this by arguing that if רבי allowed mixing but only rejected Rabbi Eliezer, a two-vessel strategy could solve the problem without requiring one-through-sixty vessels, so this cannot be the basis of the dispute.
- Rava offers that everyone allows mixing and accepts Rabbi Eliezer, and the dispute instead tracks the earlier Mishnah about oil quantities. Chachamim follow the view that a *minchah* of sixty requires sixty *logim*, so one vessel of sixty works regardless of the ספק. רבי follows Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov that even a *minchah* of sixty has only one *log*, and the ספק then creates uncertainty whether the mixture constitutes one *minchah* needing one *log* or two *menachot* needing two *logim*, which blocks the one-vessel solution.
- Rav Ashi says the dispute is whether “קטן והביא גדול” works, with Chachamim holding “יצא” and רבי holding “לא יצא.” The Gemara notes an identical dispute appears by animal offerings and explains both are needed: by *minchah* the מזבח receives only a *kometz* regardless of size, which might lead one to think Chachamim are lenient only there, while by animals the greater offering increases *eimurim*, which might lead one to think רבי is strict only there. The Gemara concludes “צריכא” because each context might have implied the opposite ruling without the other.
- The Mishnah rules that one who says “הרי עלי עצים” must bring no fewer than “שני גזירין,” and one who says “לבונה” must bring at least a *kometz*, and it lists five cases defined by the measure of *kometz* including vowed frankincense, the frankincense that accompanies a *minchah*, offering a *kometz* outside, and the two *bezichin* of the *lechem hapanim*. The Mishnah sets minimum donations for metals, requiring at least a דינר זהב for gold, a דינר כסף for silver, and a מעה כסף for copper, and the text cites the שפת אמת and the Ritva that a “דינר נחושת” is not significant enough to be assumed. The Mishnah says that when one specified a donation amount but forgot it, he keeps bringing until he can say “לא לכך נתכוונתי,” and the text cites R’ Elchanan in קונטרס דברי סופרים that “המוציא מחברו” does not apply to הקדש because “דלגבי גבוה אין אדם מוחזק כלל לא בגופו ולא בממונו,” alongside a related Radbaz that “אין נפשו של אדם קניינו אלא קניין הקדוש ברוך הוא.” A Beraita derives from “קרבן” that one may donate wood and sets the amount as two logs, and רבי declares “עצים קרבן הם,” which makes them require salt and *hagashah*; Rava adds that according to רבי, wood requires *kemitzah* through pulverizing, and Rav Pappa adds “עצים צריכין עצים,” meaning additional wood is needed to burn the wood-offering itself.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions