Menachos 9
Summary
- Today’s learning of *daf* Menachos 9 begins from *gufa* on 8b and is dedicated as a זכות רפואה שלימה for יצחק בן שפרה מירל, חוה מרים בת מלכה פרידא, and שלמה בן חיה לאה, and as a זכות for שרה בת סילביא that she find a זיווג הגון בקרוב. Rabbi Yochanan rules that *shelamim* slaughtered in the *heichal* are valid by applying *lo yehei tafel chamur min ha’ikar* from “ושחטו פתח אהל מועד,” and the Gemara distinguishes this logic for *avodah* from *achilah*. The *daf* then presents multiple disputes between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in *menachos* about *belilah* performed outside the *azarah* and about a *minchah* that becomes missing before or after *kemitzah*, tying parts of the analysis to the broader dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua about whether the remaining portions are required to permit the accompanying service.
- Today's דף is learned as a זכות רפואה שלימה for יצחק בן שפרה מירל, חוה מרים בת מלכה פרידא, and שלמה בן חיה לאה. Today's דף is also learned as a זכות for שרה בת סילביא that she find a זיווג הגון בקרוב.
- Rabbi Yochanan says שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשרין. Rabbi Yochanan derives this from “ושחטו פתח אהל מועד,” reading the verse as requiring slaughter in a holy place and applying *lo yehei tafel chamur min ha’ikar* so that if the *petach* is valid then the *ohel mo’ed* itself is certainly valid.
- Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira teaches that if the עובדי כוכבים encircle the *azarah*, the *kohanim* enter the *heichal* and eat קדשי קדשים ושיירי מנחות based on “בקודש הקדשים תאכלנו,” with Rashi explaining this against the verse stating they are eaten “בחצר אהל מועד.” The Gemara asks why a verse is needed if *lo yehei tafel chamur min ha’ikar* should allow eating in the *heichal* from “בחצר אהל מועד יאכלוה.” The Gemara answers that for *avodah* it is fitting for a servant to serve in the presence of his master and the *svara* of *lo yehei tafel chamur min ha’ikar* applies, but for *achilah* it is unbefitting to eat in the presence of one’s master and the *svara* does not apply, so only “בקודש הקדשים תאכלנו” permits it.
- The Gemara records: בלולה חוץ לחומת העזרה, Rabbi Yochanan says פסולה and Reish Lakish says כשירה. Reish Lakish derives from “והביאה אל בני אהרן הכהנים וקמץ” that מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה, so יציקה ובלילה are כשרים בזר, and he concludes that if *kehuna* is not required then *panim* is also not required. Rabbi Yochanan argues that since בלילה is done בכלי and requires a כלי שרת, it requires a holy place, so even if *kehuna* is not required *panim* is required. A *baraisa* supports Rabbi Yochanan: בלילה זר כשירה and חוץ לחומת העזרה פסולה.
- The Gemara records: מנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה, Rabbi Yochanan says יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה and Reish Lakish says לא יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה. Rabbi Yochanan explains this by holding קמיצה קובעת so that until *kemitzah* it is not yet called a *minchah* and the rule of “מן המנחה פרט לשחסר” does not yet apply, allowing replacement. Reish Lakish holds קדושת כלי קובעת, so once the mixture has קדושת כלי it is already a *minchah* and cannot be repaired by bringing more. Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from the law of לוג שמן של מצורע that becomes חסר before the initial pouring, where the ruling is ימלאנו, and the Gemara treats this as a תיובתא דריש לקיש.
- The Gemara records: שיריים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה, Rabbi Yochanan says מקטיר קומץ עליהם and Reish Lakish says אין מקטיר קומץ עליהם. The Gemara connects this to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua’s dispute of אם אין בשר אין דם and applies it in *menachos* as whether the absence of *shiyarei minchah* prevents *haktaras hakometz*. The Gemara states that אליבא דרבי אליעזר there is no dispute because even if the *shiyarim* are lost the *kometz* may be burned, and the dispute is אליבא דרבי יהושע. Rabbi Yochanan reads Rabbi Yehoshua as requiring only a minimal remainder, citing the *baraisa* that allows זריקת הדם when there remains כזית בשר or כזית חלב, and in an *olah* even חצי כזית בשר וחצי כזית חלב combine because the whole offering is burned. Reish Lakish answers that by a *minchah* a special verse “והרים הכהן מן המנחה את אזכרתה והקטיר” requires the entire *minchah* to be present at *haktarah*, while Rabbi Yochanan reads “מן המנחה” as referring to a *minchah* that had been complete earlier.
- Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from a *baraisa* about לחם הפנים that if the bread becomes broken before removing the two bowls of frankincense, the bread is invalid and one may not burn the bowls, but if it breaks after removal, the bread is invalid yet one may burn the bowls. Reish Lakish answers that this *baraisa* follows Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yochanan rejects that because if it were Rabbi Eliezer then even if it were burned or lost it would still be valid. Reish Lakish remains silent, and the Gemara asks why he did not distinguish between a *minchas yachid* and a *minchas tzibbur* by arguing that since טומאה is treated leniently for the public, *chisaron* might also be treated leniently. Rav Ada bar Ahavah derives from the failure to make that distinction that חיסרון כבעל מום דמי and ואין בעל מום בציבור.
- Rav Pappa reviews the sugya and Rav Yosef bar Shemaya objects that the disputes of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish may themselves concern a public *minchah* such as מנחת העומר דציבור היא. Rav Yosef bar Shemaya argues that if the dispute already applies to a public *minchah*, then no proof can be drawn that *chisaron* must be treated like *ba’al mum* based on the lack of a *yachid–tzibbur* distinction.
- A *baraisa* expounds “מסלתה” and “משמנה” to teach that if either is חסרה כל שהוא the offering is פסול, and another *baraisa* expounds “והנותרת מן המנחה” as excluding a מנחה שחסרה, a case of שחסר קומצה, and a case of שלא הקטיר מלבונתה כלום. The Gemara asks why two verses are needed for *chisaron* and suggests one addresses a *minchah* missing before *kemitzah* and one addresses *shiyarim* missing between *kemitzah* and *haktarah*, calling this a potential תיובתא דרבי יוחנן בתרוייהו. The Gemara answers that the verse about missing before *kemitzah* means it is invalid unless one brings from his house and fills it, and the verse about *shiyarim* missing between *kemitzah* and *haktarah* teaches that even if one burns the *kometz*, the remaining *shiyarim* are forbidden to eat. Ze’iri derives this from “והנותרת ולא הנותרת מן הנותרת,” and Rabbi Yannai derives it from “מן המנחה” meaning a *minchah* that is whole.
- The text returns to Rabbi Yochanan’s rule of שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשרין and raises the Minchas Chinuch’s question why the formulation implies *bedi’eved* if the inference of *lo yehei tafel chamur min ha’ikar* should apply *lechatchilah*. The Minchas Chinuch answers from “ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש מבית לפרכת,” with the *Torat Kohanim* reading מבית לפרכת as להזהיר על כל הבית and the Rambam ruling that *kohanim* are warned not to enter the *kodesh* or *kodesh hakodashim* שלא בשעת עבודה, with entry into the *kodesh* for no service being a לאו and punished by lashes. The Minchas Chinuch explains that since שחיטה לאו עבודה היא, entering the *heichal* to perform slaughter would be a ביאה ריקנית and prohibited *lechatchilah*, even though the slaughter is valid *bedi’eved*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions