Menachos 106
Summary
- Today's *shiur* learns *Maseches Menachos* on Daf 106 and begins with Rav Kahana asking Rav Ashi why the Mishnah’s case of one who said *pirashti eizeh minchah* but forgot which requires bringing only five *menachos* and not also *Minchas Nesachim*, and the Gemara answers that the person’s own *safek* excludes *Minchas Nesachim* through five identifying features summarized by the *siman* יחיד בגלל לבונה בלוג מקמצה. The *shiur* then compares this to Tosafos on Daf 104b that limits a generic *minchah* to the five regular *menachos*, and suggests the difference between saying *minchah* *stam* and saying he was explicitly *mefaresh*. The Gemara continues to the Mishnah’s dispute between Rebbe and the Chachamim about one who specified a *minchah* of *esronos* in one *kli* but forgot how many, expands it with a *braisa* including the totals of 1830 and 9150, and analyzes multiple proposed bases for the *machlokes* including issues of *chullin* in the *azarah*, mixing *chovah* and *nedavah*, *daas kohen*, burning as *etzim* per Rebbi Eliezer, oil-measure logic tied to Rebbi Elazar ben Yaakov, and the rule of קטן והביא גדול. The *shiur* then introduces the next Mishnayos of “*harei alai*” pledges such as *etzim*, *levonah*, and *zahav*, lists five *dinim* of *kemitzah*, and brings a *braisa* deriving donation of wood as a *korban* and Rebbe’s view that wood has *minchah*-like requirements such as *melach* and *hagashah*, with further comments from Rashi, Tosafos, Rabbeinu Gershom, the *Sefas Emes*, and other notes.
- Today's *shiur* begins nine lines from the top of the *amud* near the words אמר ליה רב כהנא לרב אשי and ties the discussion to the Mishnah on Daf 104b about one who said he explicitly specified which *minchah* he meant but no longer remembers. The Mishnah requires bringing all five: *solet*, *machavas*, *marcheshes*, and the two *ma’afeh tanur* types *chalos* and *rekikin*, so that he is certainly *yotzei* his *chiyuv*. Rav Kahana challenges this by adding the possibility of *Minchas Nesachim* and cites Rava’s teaching that מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בכל יום, making it possible that the person specified that form as well.
- The Gemara answers that the operative doubt is described as כי קא מסתפקא ליה, emphasizing that the person himself has the doubt rather than *beis din* having doubt about him. The Gemara sets the Mishnah in a case where the person is sure it was not *Minchas Nesachim*, and it provides a *siman* to remember five ways this certainty is expressed: יחיד בגלל לבונה בלוג מקמצה. The text states that if he lacks these indicators then there is room for *safek* about *Minchas Nesachim* and he would in fact have to bring six.
- The first criterion is יחיד, where he is only uncertain among *menachos* brought by a *yachid*, and he is not uncertain about something that could come as a *tzibbur* offering; the *shiur* cites Rashi’s point from the word נפש that אין שנים מתנדבין עישרון. The second is בגלל, where he is uncertain only about something brought independently בא בגלל עצמו and not about something that comes associated with a *zevach*, so he is not uncertain about *nesachim* that usually come with a *korban*. The third is לבונה, where he is uncertain only about a *minchah* that is טעון לבונה and he is not uncertain about something not requiring *levonah*, which the *shiur* identifies as *Minchas Nesachim*. The fourth is בלוג, where he remembers the *minchah* had one *log* of oil like the regular five *menachos*, and he is not uncertain about a case of up to three *login* of oil as described for *nesachim* by different animals. The fifth is מקמצה, where he is uncertain only about something requiring *kemitzah*, while *Minchas Nesachim* has no *kemitzah* because it is entirely burned on the *mizbe’ach*.
- The *shiur* recalls learning Tosafos on Daf 104b דיבור המתחיל הרי עלי מנחה יביא איזה שירצה, where Tosafos says פירוש מחמשת מנחות and adds אבל במנחת נסכים לא יכוין even though מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בכל יום. Tosafos explains this by דסתמא דעתו המנחות המפורשות ורגילות לבוא בפני עצמן ולא בגלל זבח, so a generic *minchah* pledge is presumed to mean one of the regular five. The *shiur* asks why this *sevara* does not eliminate *Minchas Nesachim* in the Daf 106a case as well, and proposes that Tosafos’s presumption applies only when he said *minchah* *stam*, whereas when he said *pirashti* he may have explicitly said *Minchas Nesachim*, making it necessary for the Gemara’s *ukimta* that he knows it was not that.
- The Gemara moves to the Mishnah’s next case where he specified a *minchah* of *esronos* in one *kli* but forgot the number, and Rashi explains this as the amount of *esronos* in a single vessel. The Chachamim say he brings one vessel of up to sixty *esronos* with a condition that what matches his vow is *chovah* and the remainder is treated as described by Rashi, while Rebbe says he must bring sixty vessels with measurements from one through sixty so that the intended number is certainly included. The Gemara brings a *braisa* with the *girsa* adjustments attributed to the *Bach*, stating that the Chachamim require a *minchah* of sixty *esronos* while Rebbe requires מנחות של עשרונים מאחד ועד ששים totaling שהן אלף ושמונה מאות ושלשים.
- Tosafos explains 1830 by pairing the lowest and highest numbers from one to sixty so that each pair totals 61, yielding thirty pairs and thus 30×61 = 1830. Tosafos applies the same pairing method to פרי החג, pairing 7 with 13, 8 with 12, and 9 with 11 to make three twenties plus the middle 10 for a total of 70. The *shiur* records an email from Jay Braun asserting Tosafos aligns with the formula n(n+1)/2 for 1 through 60, and he extends it to the Sukkos count by computing 1–13 minus 1–6, while noting that Tosafos’s pairing feels simpler for the Sukkos numbers.
- The Gemara continues with a case of two uncertainties: ואיני יודע מאיזו מהן פירשתי, where he forgot both which *minchah* and how many *esronos*. The Chachamim require חמש מנחות של ששים ששים עשרונים totaling three hundred, because he must cover the maximum count and also cover all five types. Rebbe requires חמש מנחות של ששים עשרונים מאחד ועד ששים totaling שהן תשעת אלפים ומאה וחמשים.
- Rav Chisda explains the *machlokes* as depending on whether it is permitted to bring *chullin* into the *azarah*. Rashi explains that on this approach the Chachamim’s conditional structure implies that any excess beyond the true vow remains *chullin*, while Rebbe forbids bringing *chullin* into the *azarah* and therefore requires separate vessels so that the correct measure is *chovah* and the rest are *nedavah*. Rashi raises the earlier issues from Daf 24 about the *kohen* potentially taking *kemitzah* from mixed material and the permissibility of eating *sheyareiha*, and answers with the principle that the *kemitzah* follows the *daas* of the *kohen*.
- Rava rejects the *chullin* framing and states that all agree *chullin* may not enter the *azarah*, and the dispute is whether mixing *chovah* and *nedavah* is allowed. Abaye challenges that if the sixty contains both *chovah* and *nedavah* then two *kemitzos* are required, and the Gemara answers that he performs *kamatz* and then *kamatz* again, relying on *daas kohen* to assign the first to *chovah* and the second to *nedavah*. The Gemara then raises technical difficulties of which is burned first, invoking the rule about שיריים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה and the prohibition of burning what remains under וכל שהוא ממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו.
- Rav Yehuda brei d’Rav Shimon ben Pazi answers that after burning the *chovah* first, the remainder can be brought לשם עצים in accordance with Rebbi Eliezer. The Gemara quotes Rebbi Eliezer’s reading of ואל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחוח, allowing burning not for “*reiach nichoach*” but as *etzim*. Rav Acha brei d’Rava suggests the *machlokes* is whether the Chachamim accept Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbe rejects him, but Rav Ashi challenges this by proposing a simpler 61-*issaron* solution if mixing were allowed.
- Rav Ashi argues that if Rebbe allows mixing *chovah* and *nedavah* but merely rejects Rebbi Eliezer, then Rebbe should solve the problem by bringing sixty in one *kli* and one in another, touching them to satisfy והרים ממנו, and arranging *kemitzah* so that the dilemmas are avoided. The text presents Rashi’s explanation that this avoids the missing-*sheyarim* issue because the extra *kemitzah* is taken from the separate small vessel rather than reducing the sixty. The Gemara concludes that this cannot be the correct reading of Rebbe, implying Rebbe must hold the mixing itself is not allowed.
- Rava offers another approach that all agree mixing is allowed and all accept Rebbi Eliezer’s *etzim* solution, and the dispute turns on the earlier *machlokes* of Rebbi Elazar ben Yaakov and the Rabbanan about oil amounts. The Rabbanan say a *minchah* of sixty *esronos* takes sixty *login*, while Rebbi Elazar ben Yaakov says even sixty *esronos* takes only one *log* based on למנחה ולא שמן. Rebbe is aligned with Rebbi Elazar ben Yaakov and therefore cannot resolve the conditional case in one vessel because he cannot determine whether the contents count as one *minchah* with one *log* or two *menachos* requiring two *login*.
- Rav Ashi gives another framing that the dispute is whether קטן והביא גדול counts as fulfillment, with the Chachamim saying he is *yotzei* and Rebbe saying he is not. The Gemara notes that this dispute already appears later on Daf 107b regarding a *shor*, and answers צריכא because by *minchah* the *kometz* is the same regardless of size while by *shor* a bigger animal has more *eimurim*. The *shiur* adds the *Sefas Emes*’s observation that one could also argue the reverse distinction based on the percentage of the *kometz* relative to the total flour.
- The *shiur* notes the *Masores HaShas* that the next *siman* introduces a sequence of Mishnayos about generic “*harei alai*” statements for *etzim*, *zahav*, *yayin*, *olah*, *todah*, and *shor*. The next Mishnah rules that one who says הרי עלי עצים must bring not less than שני גזירים. The Mishnah also states that one who says he will bring *levonah* must bring at least a *kometz*, and it lists חמישה קמצים with rules such as *levonah* pledges requiring a *kometz*, a donated *minchah* requiring accompanying *kometz levonah*, liability for העלאה בחוץ of a *kometz* as explained by Rashi and challenged by Tosafos, and the two *bezichin* of *Lechem HaPanim* requiring two *kemitzos*.
- Rashi understands המעלה את הקומץ בחוץ חייב as referring to the *kometz* of a *minchah*, and explains why the Mishnah frames the inside obligation through the outside liability. Tosafos objects that this would align the Mishnah with Rav Elazar against the Rabbanan who require only a *kezayis* for liability, so Tosafos reinterprets the clause as referring to a *kometz* of *levonah*. The *shiur* records the *Sefas Emes* explaining that the Mishnah emphasizes *chiddushim* in *kemitzah* and therefore focuses on *levonah* rather than the obvious *kemitzah* of *minchah*.
- The Mishnah rules that one who pledges gold must bring at least a דינר זהב equal to 25 דינרי כסף, one who pledges silver must bring at least a דינר כסף, and one who pledges copper must bring at least the value of a מעה כסף. The Mishnah states that one who said he specified an amount but forgot should continue giving until he can say with certainty לא לכך נתכוונתי.
- A *braisa* derives from the extra word קרבן in ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה that people may donate *etzim* as a *korban*, quantified as שני גזירים, and it cites והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים as textual support. The *shiur* presents a dispute where the Chachamim treat specified donated logs as *etzei ma’arachah* serving to enable burning other offerings, while Rebbe says עצם קרבן הן with *minchah*-like laws such as טעון מלח and טעון הגשה. Rava says that according to Rebbe the wood would require *kemitzah* of splinters, and Rav Pappa adds that according to Rebbe the wood requires its own wood, while Rabbeinu Gershom and the *Sefas Emes* are cited on related implications such as what happens to the *sheyarim* and why *levonah* is not mentioned.
- The *shiur* ends as the Gemara begins to derive the minimum *kometz* of *levonah* from the pasuk והרים ממנו בקומצו מסולת המנחה ומשמנה ואת כל הלבונה, stating that the *levonah* is compared to the lifting of the *minchah* through the shared framing of *haramah* and *kemitzah*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions