Menachos 91
Summary
- The text explains how *motar nesakhim* is used for *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach* and presents two supporting *baraitot* for Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan, then moves into the Mishnah and *baraita* sources that define which *korbanot* require *nesakhim* and how the verses in Parashat *Sh’lach* are expounded to include or exclude specific offerings, with special focus on exceptions such as the *ḥatat* and *asham* of a *metzora* and the mechanics of multiple textual *ribbuyim* and *ḥillukim*.
- The text states that leftover *nesakhim* are used for *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*, meaning *olot* brought when the *mizbe’ach* is idle. Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef identifies *motar nesakhim* as *birutzei midot*, the overflow piled above the measuring vessel when liquids are measured for *minḥot* and *nesakhim*, and this surplus is converted to money for *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*. Rabbi Yoḥanan identifies *motar nesakhim* as the profit that *hekdesh* gains through the rule of *yad hekdesh al ha-elyonah*, and this profit is used for *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*.
- The *baraita* teaches that if there is another sacrifice, the *birutzei midot* are offered immediately with it as *nesakhim*, and if they remain overnight they are disqualified by *linah*. The text derives from this that *birutzei midot nithkadshu* and have *kedushat ha-guf* that is subject to *linah*, yet the *baraita* also says that when properly handled one uses them to “*mekayitzin bahen et ha-mizbe’ach*,” namely by bringing *olot* whose meat is for Heaven and whose hides go to the *kohanim*. The text explains that this *olam* model of “*ha-basar la-Shem veha-orot la-kohanim*” matches the rules of *motarot* learned from the parashah of Yehoyada ha-Kohen in Melakhim, establishing that surplus funds are apportioned “between Hashem and the *kohanim*” through the *olah* structure.
- The text notes the difficulty that items sanctified via *klei sharet* normally have no *pidyon*, and it adopts Tosafot’s approach that these *birutzei midot* are from *korbanot tzibbur* subject to *lev beit din matneh*, so that if they are not needed they can be rendered *ḥullin* and then monetized for *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*. The text adds that ordinarily a *lev beit din* condition would release sanctity without *pidyon*, but here the fact that the overflow can become disqualified by *linah* implies it retains *kedushat ha-guf* until an act clarifies “*lo hutzrechu*,” perhaps because until the last moment it may still be usable “*im yesh zevaḥ aḥer yakrivu imo*.”
- The supporting *baraita* rules that one who contracts to supply flour at four *se’ah* per *sela* must still supply four even if the price rises to three per *sela*, giving *hekdesh* an extra *se’ah* because *yad hekdesh al ha-elyonah*. The *baraita* further rules that if he contracted at three per *sela* and the price drops to four per *sela*, he supplies four, and it identifies the first case’s surplus as “*motar nesakhim le-kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*.” The text states that Beit Din redeems this surplus into money, since it is only *kedushat damim*, and uses the funds to purchase the *olot* of *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*.
- Tosafot brings the Bavah Metzia treatment that the first contract case would be *ribbit* for a private party but is not *ribbit* when done with *hekdesh*. The text frames the *ribbit* concern as an advance payment functioning as a loan until deliveries occur, so if the supplier ultimately gives more value than received he pays “interest.” The text says Tosafot rejects a setup where the seller already has full inventory at the time of payment, because then the transaction is a *mekach* rather than a loan and there is no *ribbit* even for a private party.
- The text raises that if the seller has no flour at purchase time, *hekdesh* funds from *terumat ha-lishkah* are *kadosh* and cannot be used until transferred onto an item, so the seller seemingly never benefits from the money and *ribbit* should not arise. Tosafot therefore proposes cases where the seller has an unfinished product that can receive the sanctity transfer, such as wheat still requiring significant processing into flour, so the money becomes usable after *ḥillul* while the transaction still resembles a loan for *ribbit* purposes, which *hekdesh* may take. Tosafot also proposes a case where the purchasing funds are not *kadosh* at all, such as money donated that does not acquire sanctity and is usable immediately, so ordinary *ribbit* mechanics apply but *hekdesh* may accept the resulting surplus.
- The Mishnah states that all public and private offerings require *nesakhim* except *bekhor*, *ma’aser*, *pesach*, *ḥatat*, and *asham*. The Mishnah adds the exception that the *ḥatat* and *asham* of a *metzora* do require *nesakhim*, and the text explains that the *metzora* brings an *olah*, a *ḥatat*, and an *asham* upon completion of purification, all with *nesakhim*, and even the poor *metzora*’s single *asham* comes with *nesakhim*. The text defines *nesakhim* as *solet belulah ba-shemen* as a *minḥat nesakhim* entirely burned, followed by *yayin la-nesekh* poured into the bowls at the base on the southwest corner of the *mizbe’ach*.
- A *baraita* expounds “*ve’asitem isheh la-Shem*” as potentially including anything that goes on the fire, even a *minḥah*, and it uses the word “*olah*” to limit the requirement of *nesakhim* to animal offerings. The *baraita* derives *shelamim* from “*zevaḥ*,” and it derives *todah* from the extra “*o zevaḥ*,” while excluding *bekhor*, *ma’aser*, *pesach*, *ḥatat*, and *asham* via “*le-fale neder o bi-nedavah*” as requiring that the offering be of the category that comes as a vow or freewill gift. The *baraita* includes obligatory festival offerings such as *olat re’iyah* and *shalmei ḥagigah* via “*o be-mo’adeikhem*,” then excludes festival *se’irei ḥatat* through the repetition “*ve-khi ta’aseh ben bakar*” as a *davar she-yatza min ha-kelal le-hakish* establishing “*mah ben bakar meyuḥad ba b’neder u-nedavah af kol ba b’neder u-nedavah*.”
- The text presents the dispute between Rabbi Yashiyah and Rabbi Yonatan about the function of “*min ha-bakar o min ha-tzon*,” with Rabbi Yashiyah using it to exclude *olat ha-of* and Rabbi Yonatan using “*zevaḥ*” to exclude birds and “*o*” to teach separation of cattle and flock. The text then explains the Gemara’s question against Rabbi Yonatan’s general rule “*ad she-yifrot lakh ha-katuv yaḥdav*,” the answer that a special “*o*” is still needed here, and the parallel question against Rabbi Yashiyah and its resolution from verses in Vayikra that already separate cattle and flock.
- The Gemara challenges why *todah* needs an extra inclusion, since it is explicitly called a *zevaḥ*, and it answers that the presence of accompanying bread could have suggested no *nesakhim*. The Gemara compares this to *eil nazir*, which has bread yet explicitly has *minḥah* and *nesekh*, and it resolves the distinction by saying the nazir has two types of bread while the *todah* has four types, creating a stronger mistaken inference that is rejected by the inclusion.
- The Gemara explains that without the word “*olah*” one might have treated the verse structure as *kelal u-ferat u-kelal* and included offerings like *bekhor*, *ma’aser*, and *pesach* by focusing on “not coming for sin,” excluding only *ḥatat* and *asham*. The word “*olah*” serves to exclude those as well, and the remaining *kelal u-ferat u-kelal* is used to include categories defined as “*she-eino meḥuyav ve-omed*.” The included items are listed as *vladot kodashim*, *temurotan*, an *olah* brought from *motarot* such as *kayitz ha-mizbe’ach*, *asham she-nitak li-re’iyah*, and offerings slaughtered *shelo lishman* that are treated as *nedavah* and require *nesakhim*.
- The Gemara treats multiple appearances of “*o*” as successive *ḥillukim* establishing that each individual offering requires its own *nesakhim* even when offerings are brought in paired combinations. The text states that “*o*” between *neder* and *nedavah* teaches separation so that each alone requires *nesakhim*, and for Rabbi Yonatan it also teaches that even if a *neder* and *nedavah* are brought together they do not share one set. The additional “*o*” phrases extend the rule to cases of an *olah* and *shelamim* both under one label, to two *olot* or two *shelamim* split only by *neder* versus *nedavah*, to two identical offerings under the same label, and finally to offerings brought simultaneously, with “*kakhah ta’asu la-eḥad*” presented as closing the last possible inference that one set might suffice *be-vat aḥat*.
- A *baraita* derives from “*u-sheloshah esronim solet minḥah*” in the *metzora* passage that the flour refers to *minḥah ha-ba’ah im ha-zevaḥ*, allocating one *isaron* per each of the three offerings. The text then says that a further derivation is needed to establish *yayin* *nesakhim*, and it uses “*ve-yayin la-nesekh revi’it ha-hin ta’aseh al ha-olah o la-zevaḥ la-keves ha-eḥad*” to include *olat metzora*, *ḥatat metzora*, and *asham metzora* through the terms *olah*, *zevaḥ*, and “*o*.” The Gemara rejects learning both *ḥatat* and *asham* from a single “*zevaḥ*” here, distinguishing cases where they are “*ki-hadadi*” from *metzora* where “*asham le-hakhsher ve-ḥatat le-khapper*” and therefore requires separate inclusions.
- The Gemara raises and rejects the possibility that the inclusions refer to the *ḥatat* and *asham* of a *nazir*, citing a *baraita* that “*u-minḥatam ve-niskeihem*” by *nazir* refers only to his *olah* and *shelamim*. The *baraita* repeats *minḥah* and *nesekh* by the *ayil*, treats it as “*ayil be-kelal hayah ve-lamah yatza*,” and again anchors the rule that *nesakhim* attach to offerings “*ba b’neder u-nedavah*,” excluding the *ḥatat* that is not in that category. The text ends as the Gemara begins a further question about whether the included *olah* could instead be *olat yoledet* and cites “*amar Abaye, olat yoledet...*” as the continuation point.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions