Menachos 50
Summary
- The text explains the continuation of a recurring theme in *Maseches Menachos* about which components are *me’akev* each other and which are not, focusing on the *Korban Tamid* and the *Ketores* and then moving into the daily *Minchas Chavitin* of the *Kohen Gadol*. It presents the Mishnah’s rulings, the Gemara’s re-reading of the Mishnah through *chasuri mechsara*, the scriptural derivations for inaugurating (*chinuch*) the *mizbechos* and other *keilim*, and a series of sugyos about whether failures create an effective barrier or only a *knas* on the responsible *kohanim*. It then develops the halachic and conceptual implications of *Ketores* as *me’ashra* and connects that idea to later *poskim* about *sandekus*, contrasting the approaches of the Rema, the Vilna Gaon, the *Noda B’Yehuda*, and the *Chasam Sofer*. It concludes by framing the *Minchas Chinuch* of a new *kohen* as a symbolic “*hineni*” of humility that counters the risk of *ga’avah* that comes with *kavod*.
- The Mishnah rules that if the morning lamb is not offered, the afternoon lamb is still offered, and it similarly allows offering the afternoon *Ketores* even if the morning *Ketores* was not offered. Rabbi Shimon limits the afternoon *Tamid* allowance to cases of *ones* or *shogeg* and forbids it in a case of *mezid*, while still allowing the afternoon *Ketores* even if the morning *Ketores* was omitted. The text frames the *chachamim* as holding that the morning and afternoon services do not block each other, while Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between *Tamid* and *Ketores* and introduces a punitive element for intentional neglect of the *Tamid*.
- The Mishnah states that the *Mizbe’ach Hazahav* is inaugurated with the afternoon *Ketores*, the *Mizbe’ach Ha’olah* is inaugurated with the morning *Tamid*, the *Shulchan* is inaugurated with *Lechem Hapanim* on Shabbos, and the *Menorah* is inaugurated with lighting all seven lamps in the afternoon. The Gemara challenges the connection with *chinuch* by asking *chinuch man d’char shmei* and answers that the Mishnah requires insertion and restructuring via *chasuri mechsara*. The corrected reading makes the initial rule that if the morning *Tamid* was not brought then the afternoon *Tamid* is not brought, and it limits that prohibition to the case where the altar has not yet been inaugurated, while allowing the afternoon *Tamid* on a previously used altar.
- The Gemara derives the distinction from the verse calling the afternoon *Tamid* the *keves hasheni* and explains that “second” teaches that the afternoon offering may not be the “first” usage of a new altar. The text states that on an un-inaugurated altar the afternoon lamb must remain the “second,” while once the altar has been inaugurated the afternoon lamb can be offered even if it becomes the only lamb offered that day. Rabbi Shimon restates his *ones/shogeg* versus *mezid* distinction and keeps the leniency for the afternoon *Ketores*.
- The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon’s apparent *knas* by asking *v’chi kohanim chata’u mizbe’ach batel*, since penalizing the altar’s service seems unfair to the *mizbe’ach*. Rava explains that Rabbi Shimon means the guilty *kohanim* may not offer it, but others may offer it, preserving both the penalty and the altar’s service. The text emphasizes the theme of treating the *mizbe’ach* like a living recipient with “feedings,” including the framing that there are two “eatings,” *achilas adam* and *achilas mizbe’ach*.
- The Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon does not impose the same *knas* on *Ketores* because the situation is *lo shechi’acha* and because *Ketores* is *me’ashra*, making negligence unlikely. The text ties this to the practice of the *goral* and to *chadashim laKetores*, where a *kohen* typically offers *Ketores* only once, making intentional failure rare. The text states that this distinction creates practical halachic ramifications later on the daf.
- A contradiction arises between the Mishnah, which inaugurates the *Mizbe’ach Hazahav* with the afternoon *Ketores*, and a *braisa* that inaugurates it with the morning *Ketores*. The Gemara resolves this as *tana’i hi*, and Abaye argues that the afternoon view is more reasonable based on the verse *baboker baboker b’heitivo es haneiros yaktirenah* and the logic that morning cleaning implies the lamps were lit the previous evening. The opposing view learns by analogy from the inauguration of the *Mizbe’ach Ha’olah* with the morning *Tamid*, concluding that the *Mizbe’ach Hazahav* should likewise be inaugurated with the morning *Ketores*.
- The Mishnah’s statement that the *Shulchan* is inaugurated with *Lechem Hapanim* on Shabbos raises a question because *Lechem Hapanim* service is inherently Shabbos-based. The Gemara rejects the inference that weekday inauguration might have been possible and teaches that inauguration and sanctification of the *Shulchan* occur on Shabbos, just as the *seifa* teaches that inaugurating the *Menorah* uses the standard practice of lighting all seven lamps in the afternoon. The text aligns these inauguration rules with the principle that *chinuch* mirrors the regular avodah pattern.
- A *braisa* states that a private individual offering *Ketores* on the outer altar occurred only as a one-time *hora’as sha’ah*, and the Gemara identifies it as the *Nesi’im* offerings during the dedication, including *kaf achas asarah zahav malei ketores*. The Gemara initially entertains inferences that might permit other *Ketores* offerings by a *yachid* or by the *tzibbur* on different altars, then rejects them through another *braisa* that forbids *ketores zarah* and teaches *ein lecha ela mah she’amur ba’inyan*. Rav Papa explains that the earlier language is *lo mibaya k’amar*, closing the door on deriving permissibility from the exceptional precedent of the *Nesi’im*.
- The text applies the idea that *Ketores* is *me’ashra* to the halachah of *sandekus* by citing the Rema in Yoreh De’ah 265, who elevates the *sandek* above the *mohel* for precedence in *krias haTorah* because *kol sandek k’maktir ketores*. The Rema states a custom not to give two sons to one *ba’al bris* for *sandekus*, connecting it to *chadashim laKetores*. The text treats this as a practical *nafka mina* derived from the Gemara’s assumption that *Ketores* is cherished and unlikely to be neglected.
- The Vilna Gaon rejects the Rema’s reasoning with the phrase *devarav ein lahem shachar* and argues that if the analogy to *Ketores* were decisive then no one should ever serve as *sandek* twice, not merely twice for one father, and he adds *u’l’olam lo ra’inu sandek she’mit’asher*. The *Noda B’Yehuda* (Yoreh De’ah, Mahadura Kamma, siman 86) expresses discomfort addressing a matter without *shoresh min haShas* and calls the reasoning an *asmachta*, stating that in Poland they are not particular and that in many places the community rav regularly serves as *sandek*. The text portrays the *Noda B’Yehuda* as consistent in limiting halachic weight given to non-Talmudic sources, concluding that the matter is not a fixed, binding practice.
- The *Chasam Sofer* (Orach Chaim, teshuvah 158) argues that the practice has *shoresh v’yesod* through the Mahari”l in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz and objects to the *Noda B’Yehuda* dismissing it *k’le’achar yad*, stating *bimchilas kevodo ki Torah hi*. He answers the *Noda B’Yehuda’s* observation about rabbis regularly serving as *sandek* by analogizing the rav to the *Kohen Gadol*, who is allowed *makriv chelek b’rosh*, and he disputes the claim that no wealth results, treating *sandekus* as a *zechus gadol* that can affect a person’s *mazal*. He cites the juxtaposition in *V’zos Habrachah* of *u’brischa yintzoru* with *yasimu ketorah b’apecha* and uses Rashi to build a textual link between *bris milah* and *Ketores* that supports the *sandek* analogy.
- The Mishnah states that the *Minchas Chavitin* of the *Kohen Gadol* does not come as two separate halves but as one full *isaron* that is divided, with half offered in the morning and half in the afternoon. The Mishnah rules that if the morning half was offered and the *Kohen Gadol* died, the replacement *Kohen Gadol* brings a full *isaron*, offers half, and the other half is lost, while the remaining half from the first *Kohen Gadol* is also lost, resulting in two halves offered and two halves lost. A *braisa* derives this from *machatzisah baboker u’machatzisah ba’erev* as “half of a whole,” and it applies the same rule when the afternoon portion becomes *tamei* or lost, again producing two offered halves and two lost halves.
- A tanna teaches before Rav Nachman that both the first and second “lost halves” require *ibbur tzurah*, meaning they must be left until they become spoiled or invalid through *linah* before being burned. Rav Nachman accepts this for the first half that was initially fit for offering but questions why the second lost half requires *ibbur tzurah* since it was “destined to be lost” from the outset. The Gemara answers first that this follows the view of *tana d’vei Rabbah bar Avuha* that even *pigul* requires *ibbur tzurah*, and it then offers an alternative explanation even according to the *rabbanan* that each half was potentially fit to be offered because it was unknown which half would be brought.
- The text notes that besides the daily *Minchas Chavitin* of the *Kohen Gadol*, a *kohen hedyot* brings a one-time *Minchas Chavitin* on the first day he performs the avodah, known as *Minchas Chinuch*. It proposes that this *korban minchah* functions like the *shaliach tzibbur’s* “*hineni*,” expressing *ani mi’ma’asim* through the *minchas ani* symbolism and positioning the new *kohen* as humble at the start of his sacred role. The text connects this to Rav Yisrael Salanter’s concern that giving *kavod* can lead to *ga’avah* but that each person must manage his own *middos*, and it adds the Rambam’s statement that every Jew must give *kohanim* *kavod harbeh* and prioritize them in matters of *kedushah*. It links the danger of *ga’avah* in elevated roles to the broader tradition about Nadav and Avihu, citing Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetsky’s view that many Chazal explanations converge on a root of *ga’avah*, and it presents the inaugural *minchah* as a built-in antidote to that spiritual risk.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions