Menachos 76
Summary
- All *menachot* require precisely three hundred acts of *shifah* and five hundred of *beitah*, with a dispute whether these are done on the *chitin* stage or on the *batzek* stage, and the *Gemara* explains the counting pattern and leaves Rabbi Yirmiyah’s question unresolved. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir argue whether the standard *minchah* comes as ten or twelve loaves, and the *Gemara* weighs derivations from *lachmei todah*, *lechem hapanim*, and *chavitei Kohen Gadol*, including the premise of whether something learned by *gezeirah shavah* can teach by *binyan av*, and it concludes with different decisive similarities. The sugya then treats the minimum and invalid variations for *lachmei todah* and other *menachot*, the requirements of *terumah* from *todah*, and a further debate about when reduced numbers remain valid. The *Mishnah* and *Gemara* also give the source-amount ratios and sifting requirements for the *omer*, *shtei halechem*, and *lechem hapanim*, and they derive from “ולקחת סולת ואפית אותה” that *lechem hapanim* may be taken as *solet* or *chitin* “מפני החיסכון,” grounding “התורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל” in “והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם,” alongside extended later reflections and sources brought about *lechem mishneh* and this principle.
- All *menachot* require three hundred *shifah* and five hundred *beitah* as real counts. The *Gemara* sets a fixed sequence of “שף אחת בועט שתים שף שתים בועט שלוש” repeated one hundred times to produce the three-to-five ratio totaling three hundred and five hundred. Rabbi Yirmiyah asks whether *shifah* counts an “אמטויי ואטויי” as one or as two, and the *Gemara* leaves it as *teiku*.
- The *Tanna Kamma* places *shifah u’beitah* at the *chitin* stage, and Rabbi Yosi places them at the *batzek* stage. A question arises whether Rabbi Yosi means only *batzek* or also *chitin*, and a *baraita* clarifies his view as exclusively *batzek*.
- Rabbi Yehudah holds that standard *menachot* come ten by ten, except *lechem hapanim* and *chavitei Kohen Gadol*, which come as twelve. Rabbi Meir holds that all *menachot* come as twelve except *chalos todah* and *nezirus*, which come ten by ten.
- The twelve of *lechem hapanim* is explicit in the Torah. The twelve of *chavitei Kohen Gadol* comes from a *gezeirah shavah* “חוקה חוקה” from *lechem hapanim*. The *Gemara* frames a further derivation as dependent on whether “דבר הלמד בגזירה שוה חוזר ומלמד בבנין אב.”
- Rabbi Yehudah derives ten for standard *menachot* from *lachmei todah* by “מה להלן עשר אף כאן עשר.” The *Gemara* rejects learning twelve from *lechem hapanim* by preferring *lachmei todah* on the grounds of greater similarity: both are *yachid*, *nedavah*, include *shemen*, become invalid by *linah*, and are not brought on Shabbat or in *tumah*, unlike *lechem hapanim*. The *Gemara* then notes counter-similarities to *lechem hapanim*—both are *kodesh kodashim*, have *levonah*, are *matzah*, and come *mechamat atzman*—but it rules that the earlier set of similarities is more numerous.
- The *Gemara* raises learning twelve from *chavitei Kohen Gadol* if *gezeirah shavah* can generate a teaching *binyan av*. It prefers *lachmei todah* because standard *menachot* align with *hedyot*, *hitnadev*, not being brought in halves, having *pigul*, and not being brought on Shabbat or in *tumah*, unlike *chavitei Kohen Gadol*. The *Gemara* lists strong counter-similarities between standard *menachot* and *chavitei Kohen Gadol*—*issaron*, *kli*, *kodesh*, *levonah*, *matzah*, *atzman*, *hagashah*, and *ishim*—and resolves by privileging “הדיוט מהדיוט עדיף” over the longer similarity list.
- Rabbi Meir’s view depends on whether he allows something learned by *gezeirah shavah* to teach by *binyan av*: if yes, he learns from *chavitei Kohen Gadol* due to the longer similarity list; if no, he learns from *lechem hapanim*. Rabbi Meir treats “הקדש מהקדש עדיף” as decisive, preferring *kodesh kodashim* derived from *kodesh kodashim* over comparison to *kodashim kalim*.
- The Torah explicitly states the structure of *lachmei todah*. *Nezirus* loaves derive from “שלמיו” as a plurality that includes the *nazir*’s *shelamim*, making its loaves parallel to *todah* and thus ten by ten.
- Shmuel, via Rav Tovi bar Kisna, rules that *lachmei todah* baked as four loaves is valid *bedi’eved*. The objection that forty are required is answered as “למצווה,” and the problem of separating *terumah* as “אחד מכל קרבן” is resolved by separating while still *issa* rather than as baked bread. A *baraita* disqualifies *lachmei todah* and *nezirus* when the loaf-count is increased or reduced, but another *baraita* presents a dispute in which a *tanna kama* permits it and “ויש אומרים” forbids it, allowing Shmuel to align with the permissive view.
- Rav Huna rules that a *minchat ma’afeh* baked as one loaf is valid *bedi’eved* because “מצות” is written חסר, implying singular usage. Rav Papa challenges this from Shmuel’s permissive ruling on *lachmei todah* despite “מצות” written מלא, and the *Gemara* concludes that Rav Huna and Shmuel stand in disagreement and anchors the issue as a dispute of *tannaim*.
- The *Mishnah* states that the *omer* comes as one *issaron* from three *se’in*, *shtei halechem* as two *issaronot* from three *se’in*, and *lechem hapanim* as twenty-four *issaronot* from twenty-four *se’in*. The *Gemara* explains that the *omer* needs more raw measure because it comes from *chadash* and from barley, making refined flour harder to obtain, while *shtei halechem* benefits from wheat though still *chadash*. The *lechem hapanim* yields an *issaron* from each *se’ah* because it comes from wheat and from *yashan*.
- A *baraita* rules that *menachot* with increased or decreased *issaron* measure are invalid. The same *baraita* rules that increased or decreased starting *se’ah* measure remains valid.
- The *omer* is sifted with thirteen *nefot*, *shtei halechem* with twelve, and *lechem hapanim* with eleven, while Rabbi Shimon says there is no fixed count and the requirement is *solet menufah kol tzarkah*. A *baraita* describes the fixed-count method as alternating *dakah* and *gasah*, while Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says thirteen distinct sieves stand stacked with graded fineness, where the upper catches bran and the lower catches refined *solet*. Rabbi Shimon’s position relies on “ולקחת סולת ואפית אותה” as requiring fully sifted flour rather than a fixed number of sieves.
- From “ולקחת סולת ואפית אותה,” a teaching emerges that *lechem hapanim* may be taken as *solet*, and from “ולקחת מכל מקום” it may even be taken as *chitin*. “אותה” limits this option to *lechem hapanim* and not other *menachot*. Rav Elazar explains “מפני החיסכון” as “התורה חסה על ממונם של ישראל.”
- The *Gemara* grounds the principle in “והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם,” highlighting that provision extends to the animals. The narrative brings later treatments that compare this source with the source “וציווה הכהן ופינו את הבית” found in other contexts, and it records the reconciliation that one source emphasizes a miracle performed for Israel’s property while the other emphasizes concern even for an individual’s property. The text also links this verse to a separate rule that drinking precedes giving animals to drink, as in Rivkah’s “שתה וגם לגמליך אשקה,” and as reflected in the ordering “והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם.”
- The text connects the twelve loaves of *lechem hapanim* to the halachah of *lechem mishneh* from “לחם משנה” in Shabbat 117b. It presents Rashi’s reading that two loaves are held but only one is cut, alongside the Rashba’s reading that Rabbi Zeira cuts both loaves, and it records the practical dispute reflected in *Shulchan Aruch* O.C. 274 versus the *Gra* who sides with the Rashba, Maharshal, Shlah, and Rav Hai Gaon. It reports the prevailing practice as like the *Shulchan Aruch*, while also recording the *Ma’aseh Rav* that the *Gra* cut both loaves together and aligned this with *Zohar* traditions about *yud-bet chalos*, contrasting an approach that sets twelve loaves on the table with the *Gra*’s approach of reaching twelve by cutting two loaves at each of three meals.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions