Menachos 4
Summary
- Today’s learning of *daf* Menachos 4 centers on the Mishnah’s rule that *kol hamenachos shenikmetzu shelo lishman* remain valid but do not fulfill the owner’s obligation, with two exceptions—*Minchas Chotei* and *Minchas Kenaos*—that become invalid when done *shelo lishmah*. The Gemara first attempts to anchor these exceptions in comparisons to *Chatas* through Torah terms and a proposed *gezeirah shavah*, then rejects extending those comparisons because of the limiting verse *oso la’chatat* and reestablishes the source as the word *hu* written in these parshiyos. A second major passage presents Rav’s ruling that *Minchas HaOmer* and certain *Asham* offerings (*Asham Nazir* and *Asham Metzora*) are invalid *shelo lishmah* because they exist to permit or qualify and fail to do so, and the Gemara challenges Rav from Mishnayos and a Beraisa. The text closes with a broad framing of *Zevachim* versus *Menachos* and brings the Rambam and later commentaries on how the term *zevachim* functions in *lashon Chachamim* versus *lashon ha’kasuv*, along with an *Ibn Ezra* and a later insight connecting the name *mizbe’ach* to which korbanos are associated with it.
- Today’s *daf* is Menachos *daf* 4, nine lines from the top of *daf* 4a at the two dots *chutz miMinchas Chotei uMinchas Kenaos*. Today’s *daf* is being learned as a *zechus refuah sheleimah* for יצחק בן שפרה מירל, חוה מרים בת מלכה פרידא, שלמה בן חיה לאה. Today’s *daf* is also being learned as a *zechus* for שרה בת סילביא that she find a זיווג הגון בקרוב. Today’s *daf* is also being learned לעילוי נשמת חיה שרה בת יעקב הלל, יוסף בן ישראל אלתר הכהן and משה בן אברהם.
- The opening *sugya* in Menachos parallels the opening of Zevachim: just as Zevachim says all korbanos slaughtered *shelo lishman* are valid but do not fulfill the owner’s obligation except for *Chatas* and *Pesach*, Menachos says all *menachos* whose *kemitzah* is done *shelo lishmah* are valid but do not fulfill the owner’s obligation except for *Minchas Chotei* and *Minchas Kenaos*. The critical *avodos* in a *minchah* are described as *kemitzah*, placing the *kometz* into a *kli shareis*, bringing it to the *mizbe’ach*, and the *haktarah*, and a wrong intent in these normally yields *kasher* with *lo alu l’baalim l’shem chovah*. The two exceptions are defined as the offering of the poorest sinner in the *olah v’yoreid* framework and the offering brought by the *sotah* process, and for these the wrong intent renders the offering *pasul* such that the *shirei minchah* cannot be eaten and the *kometz* cannot be offered.
- The Gemara initially accepts that *Minchas Chotei* is invalid *shelo lishmah* because the Torah calls it *Chatas* through the phrase *ki chatas hi*, alongside its distinct lack of oil and frankincense. The Gemara then asks for the source that *Minchas Kenaos* is invalid *shelo lishmah* and brings a teaching stated before Rav Nachman that surplus funds of *Minchas Kenaos* become *nedavah*, which Rav Nachman supports via the phrase *mazkeres avon* and a comparison to *Chatas* where *avon* appears as well, yielding *mah chatas mosrah nedavah af Minchas Kenaos mosrah nedavah*. The Gemara then proposes extending that linkage further so that *mah chatas pesulah shelo lishmah af Minchas Kenaos pesulah shelo lishmah*, but challenges that move by asking why an *Asham* would not also become invalid *shelo lishmah* from an *avon* linkage.
- The Gemara rejects deriving *shelo lishmah* invalidity from the *avon* linkage by concluding that the *gezeirah shavah* is used only for *mosar nedavah* and not for *shelo lishmah*, and it invokes the limiting concept from *oso la’chatat* that singles out *Chatas* for invalidity *shelo lishmah* while other *kodashim* remain valid. The Gemara therefore re-asks the source for both *Minchas Chotei* and *Minchas Kenaos* being invalid *shelo lishmah* and answers that the basis is the word *hu* as used in the Torah, paralleling the *hu* of *Chatas* that yields invalidity *shelo lishmah*. The Gemara asks why *Asham* is not similarly invalid since *Asham hu* appears, and answers that this *hu* is written after *haktaras eimurim* and cannot teach invalidity because the offering is valid even without the *haktarah*, and the *hu* is instead used for Rav Huna in the name of Rav that an *Asham* “*hu b’havayaso yehei*” until it is *nitak l’re’iyah*, after which slaughtering it *stam* makes it valid *l’shem olah*.
- Rav states that *Minchas HaOmer* whose *kemitzah* is done *shelo lishmah* is invalid because it comes to permit and it did not permit, and he similarly states that *Asham Nazir* and *Asham Metzora* slaughtered *shelo lishmah* are invalid because they come to qualify and they did not qualify. The text defines *Minchas HaOmer* as brought on ט״ז ניסן to permit *tevuah chadashah*, connecting it to the counting leading to *Shtei HaLechem* on Shavuos, and it defines the two *ashamos* as the enabling korban for the *nazir tamei* to restart counting and the enabling korban for the *metzora* to reenter the camp. Rav’s logic is presented as hinging on the offering’s essential function as a *matir* or *machshir*, so that when *lo alu l’baalim l’shem chovah* blocks that function the offering becomes wholly invalid.
- The Gemara challenges Rav from the opening Mishnah of Menachos by asking why *Minchas HaOmer* is not listed among the exceptions, and it answers with three distinctions: the Mishnah lists *yachid* offerings and not *tzibbur*, it lists offerings that come *biglal atzman* and not those accompanied by a *zevach*, and it lists offerings without a fixed time and not those *kavua lahem zman*. The Gemara similarly challenges Rav from the opening Mishnah of Zevachim by asking why *Asham Nazir* and *Asham Metzora* are not listed among exceptions, and it answers that because other *ashamos* such as *Asham Gezeilos* and *Asham Me’ilos* come for atonement, the Mishnah does not want to present a non-uniform category. The Gemara then asks why Rav’s logic about “came to qualify and did not qualify” would not equally invalidate atonement offerings that “came to atone and did not atone,” and Rabbi Yirmiyah answers that the Torah differentiates between *mechaperim* and *machshirim* by the precedent that a *mechaper* can sometimes be brought after death while a *machshir* is not brought after death, citing the Mishnah in Kinnim about a *yoledes* whose heirs bring the *olah* but not the *chatas*.
- Rav Yehudah the son of Rav Shimon ben Pazi challenges Rabbi Yirmiyah from the Mishnah in Me’ilah about one who set aside money for Nazir offerings and died, where the funds may be used to bring an *olah* and *shelamim*, and he frames these as enabling offerings that still come after death. Rav Papa answers that Rabbi Yirmiyah meant a *machshir kavua* does not come after death, while the Nazir’s offerings are a *machshir she’eino kavua* because *gilach al achas mishaloshon yatza*.
- A Beraisa states that an *Asham Metzora* slaughtered *shelo lishmah* or lacking the blood applications on the thumbs is offered on the *mizbe’ach* and requires *nesachim*, while a second *asham* is required to qualify the owner. The Gemara concludes *tiyuvta d’Rav* from this Beraisa, and Tosafos notes that the Gemara could have answered *Rav tana hu u’palig* as found in other places.
- The text frames Zevachim as dealing with offerings from בעלי חיים and Menachos as dealing with the grain-based *korban minchah*, and it cites the Rambam in Hilchos Ma’aseh HaKorbanos and in his introduction to Seder Kodashim that all animal offerings are collectively called *zevachim*. The *Mabit* in Kiryas Sefer states that calling all korbanos *zevachim* is in *lashon Chachamim*, while in *lashon Torah* the term refers to *shelamim*, and the Tosefos Yom Tov similarly writes that Scripture’s *zivchah* is only by *shelamim* and *olos* and points to the Ibn Ezra at the end of Yisro. The Ibn Ezra recounts a challenge from a *min* who claimed that *zevichah* appears only by *shelamim*, and he answers from the verse *v’zavachta alav es olosecha v’es shlamecha*.
- A later insight cited in *Mishmar HaLevi* attributes to Rav Velvel Tchetchik that the name *mizbe’ach* for the inner altar implies association with *zevach*, and it explains that the *dam* of the inner *chataos* is applied there, indicating that even *chatas* is connected to *zevach*. The text further cites a Ramban in Naso and Lech Lecha describing *asham* and *chatas* as *davar echad v’shem echad hu v’Torah achas lahem*, extending the linkage of *zevach* beyond the *shelamim* and *olah*. The Zohar in Vayakhel (דף ר״ט עמוד א׳) asks why the inner altar is called a *mizbe’ach* despite no animal slaughter there and answers that the *ketores* subdues and “slaughters” harmful forces, which is why it bears the name *mizbe’ach* on the level of *nistar*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions