Menachos 107
Summary
- The text continues מנחות דף קז עמוד ב within פרק הרי עלי עשרון and frames the closing סוגיות of the מסכת as clarifying how נדרים and נדבות are defined by minimum halachic units and by the binding force of stated לשונות even when a person claims a different intention, with repeated emphasis on the tension between אומדנא and formal requirements and on the rule that once a commitment enters the realm of הקדש it is treated with stringency.
- The text presents the משנה’s approach that when someone vows items like עצים, gold, or silver, the obligation follows the established minimums of the system even if the person protests that they intended less, and it aligns this with בית שמאי’s principle of תפוס לשון ראשון from נזיר where a person becomes bound by the initial formulation. The text treats these cases as examples where one’s phrasing creates a חיוב that cannot be reduced below the standard minimum once the vow is expressed in that category.
- The text notes prior discussion of קרבן עצים and רבי’s approach that it functions as a קרבן, and it recalls that earlier analysis addressed what is done with leftovers as explained by רש״י and רבינו גרשום. The narrative then transitions to the next ברייתא about לבונה.
- The text derives that one may not bring less than a קומץ of לבונה from the verse “והרים ממנו בקמצו… ואת כל הלבונה,” using a היקש that compares לבונה to the הרמה of a מנחה so that just as the מנחה’s הרמה is a קומץ, so too לבונה is at least a קומץ. The text distinguishes flour as core to the definition of מנחה, treats oil as sometimes presented as גופא דמנחה with discussion of “כל הראוי לבילה,” and portrays לבונה as both associated with the מנחה yet also separate because קמיצה is not taken from the לבונה itself. The text links this to other contexts where לבונה relates to קמיצה, including the בזיכי לבונה of לחם הפנים.
- The text rules that one who says “הרי עלי למזבח” brings לבונה because “אין לך דבר שקרב אגבי המזבח אלא לבונה,” and it contrasts this with “פירשתי ואיני יודע מה פירשתי” which requires bringing מכל דבר שקרב למזבח, with רש״י explaining that the person likely intended one of those items and that the range can include offerings with portions permitted to כהנים. The גמרא challenges the exclusivity of לבונה by proposing עולה, עולת העוף, and נסכים, and it answers that עולה has עור for כהנים, עולת העוף has מוראה ונוצה removed, and נסכים go to the שיתין rather than being burned.
- The text cites רש״י’s reference to יומא כ״א where מוראה ונוצה placed on the east side are “בנבלעין במקומן,” and it recounts the גמרא’s question whether the משנה in אבות lists all miracles and its addition that שברי כלי חרס, מוראה ונוצה, דישון מזבח הפנימי, and דישון המנורה were absorbed in place. The text preserves the flow of that sugya, including the resolution that multiple פסולים can be grouped and that further miracles like לחם הפנים are discussed, and it points to the continuation there about בית ראשון and בית שני.
- The text states that נסכים are dismissed from “למזבח” because they go to the שיתין, and it raises how to define מנחת נסכים when brought voluntarily and whether wine is included. The text brings the שפת אמת’s inference from רש״י on דף ק״ד that a voluntary מנחת נסכים might require wine, and it contrasts this with the רמב״ם in מעשה קרבנות ב׳ א׳ defining נסכים as wine and flour with the flour alone called מנחת נסכים, while describing that the wine is poured onto the יסוד and descends to the שיתין rather than being consumed by fire. The text presents the בריסקר רב’s חקירה whether this is “מנחת נסכים” as one integrated entity or “מנחה ונסכים” as parallel obligations, with a practical implication for whether a volunteer must bring wine along with the flour.
- The text recounts the narrative from סוכה נ״ג about דוד המלך digging the שיתין, triggering the תהום to surge and threaten to flood the world, and דוד’s question whether it is permitted to write and cast Hashem’s Name into the water to stop it. The text includes the detail that דוד did not want to rule in front of אחיתופל, the silence until דוד’s warning that one who withholds knowledge should choke, and אחיתופל’s קל וחומר from erasing the Name for שלום בית in סוטה to saving the world. The story concludes with the Name thrown in, the waters descending “שיתסר אלפי גרמי,” and the later note that אחיתופל ultimately dies by choking as part of the larger arc of those narratives.
- The text explains the משנה’s minimum for “הרי עלי זהב” as a דינר זהב and frames the גמרא’s “ודלמא נסכא” and “ודלמא פריטי” with רבי אלעזר’s אוקימתא that the vow referred to a מטבע, while רב פפא rejects tiny gold coins as not made by people. The text notes תוספות’ reading that נסכא is less than a דינר and contrasts it with אחרונים who suggest the רמב״ם understood the opposite, highlighting that the רמב״ם in הלכות ערכין ב׳ י׳ requires bringing a “לשון” of metal of a weight that forces the person to concede “לא על כך נתכוונתי” when no מטבע was specified. The text attributes the underlying stringency to the idea from ר׳ אלחנן that one does not apply “המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה” to הקדש because “אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט,” grounded in “לה׳ הארץ ומלואה,” and it describes the result that ספקות are treated לחומרא once the property is placed in the orbit of הקדש.
- The text parallels silver to gold with “כסף לא יפחות מדינר,” explains the rejection of “פריטי דכספא” as location-dependent currency by רב ששת, and sets נחושת at a minimum of “מעה כסף.” The text cites רבי אלעזר בן יעקב’s view that one may not vow less than “צינורא קטנה של נחושת,” justifying it as usable for cleaning wicks and lamps, and it connects this to a רשב״א in שבועות ל״ט about tools having halachic significance by virtue of their function even when their market value is minimal. The text adds תוספות’ note that this cleaning is not necessarily for the מנורה because the מנורה has its own implements, and it digresses to רבי עקיבא איגר’s inference from שבת’s “ובהדלקת הנר” that the husband prepares the candles while the wife lights.
- The text states that one who vows ברזל may not bring less than what is needed for כלה עורב, and it records רש״י’s interpretation that it consists of sharp metal spikes on the roof to deter birds, with a required size described as “אמה על אמה.” The text then presents תוספות בשם הערוך that מקדש ראשון did not need כלה עורב because birds would not fly over a sanctuary where the שכינה rests, whereas מקדש שני required it due to diminished קדושה. The text supports this sensibility with the account in סוכה כ״ח that birds flying over רבי יונתן בן עוזיאל would immediately burn while he learned, with רש״י attributing this to angels of fire gathering and תוספות attributing it to Torah being as joyful as at Sinai where it was given in fire, and it quotes the חפץ חיים in שם עולם tracing רב–תלמיד greatness back through the chain of tradition to emphasize the incomprehensible depth of earlier generations.
- The text recalls יומא כ״א ע״ב listing five missing elements in בית שני, enumerating ארון, כפורת, כרובים, אש, שכינה, רוח הקודש, and אורים ותומים, and it includes תוספות’ clarification that אורים ותומים were present as garments but did not answer inquiries. The text raises the view that the רמב״ם may define אורים ותומים differently, and it conveys a broader portrayal of בית שני as a בית המקדש with an empty קודש הקדשים that saddened elders who remembered בית ראשון. The text attributes to רבי יעקב קמינצקי in פרשת בא the idea that בית שני functioned as temporary strengthening before a long גלות, explains why the ארון was not brought up despite knowledge of its location, and links this theme to questions like why the ירושלמי is in Aramaic and why Persian month names were retained. The text further attributes to Rav Yaakov the notion, reported in the אמת ליעקב, that the establishment of the state after the Holocaust served as a צורך of חיזוק for Jewish identity and connection.
- The text rules that one who vows wine brings at least three לוגין and one who vows oil brings at least a לוג, while רבי requires three לוגין for oil. The text cites a ברייתא that “עזרא מלמד שמתנדב יין,” derives the minimum three לוגין with “ככה,” allows additional amounts with “יהיה,” and frames the oil dispute as a methodological question proposed before רב פפא between דון מינו ומינו and דן מינה ואוקי באתרא. The text then records רב פפא’s objection that if רבי learned oil from מנחה he would also say one לוג, and it proposes instead that רבי learns from “אזרח,” with רש״י explaining that just as wine was derived from אזרח so too oil is derived and aligned with the three-lug standard of נסכים. The text then cites רב הונא בריה דרב נתן’s challenge from a ברייתא deriving oil from “קרבן,” identifies that view with רבי, and concludes with רב פפא’s acceptance “אי תניא תניא,” with תוספות returning the analysis to the original methodological framing.
- The text explains that one who said they specified but does not remember must bring “כיום המרובה,” identified as the first day of סוכות that falls on שבת as the day with the greatest public offerings and נסכים. The text contrasts this with the busiest day in terms of private offerings as ערב פסח, while maintaining the sugya’s focus on ציבור.
- The text shifts to general קרבנות and rules that “הרי עלי עולה” requires at least a כבש, while רבי אלעזר בן עזריה allows even a תור or בן יונה. The text requires someone who remembers specifying “מן הבקר” but not which to bring פר ועגל, and someone who specified “מן הבהמה” to bring the full set of six animals, and if one did not specify even that then to add תור ובן יונה. The text treats “הרי עלי תודה ושלמים” as meaning either one and prescribes a כבש as common to both, and when the person specified “מן הבקר” or “מן הבהמה” without clarity it requires both male and female variants, reflecting that תודה and שלמים can be female unlike עולה.
- The text records the משנה’s fixed minimum valuations with נסכים: שור with its נסכים in a מנה, עגל in five, איל in two, and כבש in a סלע, and it states that if one vows “שור במנה” then the animal must be worth a מנה aside from its נסכים. The text attributes to רש״י that these measures are “כך נתפרש דינו בתורה שבעל פה” and “כך קבעו,” sounding like a received tradition. The text then presents the לחם משנה’s claim that the רמב״ם does not treat these as a fixed קבלה, reading them instead as local “דמים הבינוניים,” and it cites the רמב״ם’s rule that one need not bring the fattest but should not bring the weakest, with fulfillment even if one brought the weak animal.
- The text rules that if one vowed an ox “במנה” and brought two oxen totaling a מנה, they do not fulfill the vow, and that substituting black for white or large for small fails. The text records that bringing a larger animal than vowed fulfills according to תנא קמא but not according to רבי, and it explains an apparent disagreement about whether birds are included as dependent on local market values where either a כבש or עוף is the cheaper minimum.
- The text cites a ברייתא that one who says “הרי עלי עולה בסלע למזבח” brings a כבש as the only offering that fits that value, while uncertainty requires bringing every offering that fits. The text challenges why “מן הבקר” uncertainty demands both פר and עגל and answers that it follows רבי who holds that bringing גדול when one vowed קטן does not fulfill, and it resolves the structure as “רישא וסיפא רבי ומציעתא רבנן,” describing the matter as a dispute between רבי and the רבנן.
- The text closes with the רמב״ן’s treatment of יפתח’s tragic vow as a mistake rooted in thinking חרם that applies to destroying rebels could be extended to making an עולה from something unfit, which the רמב״ן calls “חס וחלילה.” The text reports the רמב״ן’s presentation of a dispute whether יפתח killed his daughter or secluded her, and it preserves the רמב״ן’s sharp rejection of אבן עזרא’s interpretation that she merely separated from worldly life for prayer, concluding with the רמב״ן’s statement that the simple explanation is the error described.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions