(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 76

MENACHOS 76 - sponsored towards the Zechus of a Refu'ah Shelemah for Reb Aharon David ben Mirel.


OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that all Menachos are supposed to be made into ten Chalos. This means that from every Isaron of floor that the Minchah contains, ten Chalos should be brought. Does this requirement apply only to Menachos that are baked before the Kemitzah is performed, or does it apply even to Menachos that are baked *after* the Kemitzah is performed, such as a Minchas Soles? (See RASHI in Vayikra 2:1, who says that the Kemitzah of a Minchas Soles is done before it is baked.)
(a) RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH Kol ha'Menachos) says that even though the Kemitzah of a Minchas Soles is done before the Minchah is baked, the requirement to bake it into ten Chalos still applies.

(b) Rashi in Chumash (Vayikra 2:4, DH v'Chi Sakriv), however, explains differently. Rashi there says that the Gemara in Menachos teaches that Menachos "that are baked before their Kemitzah and that have Kemitzah done to them with Pesisah are all baked into ten Chalos, and the Menachos that are to be brought [in the form of] Rekikin are brought as ten Rekikin." The RE'EM points out that Rashi's words imply that only Menachos that have Kemitzah done to them *after* they are baked are supposed to be brought in the form of ten Chalos. Moreover, Rashi explicitly states earlier (74b, DH Yetzikah) that a Minchas Soles does not come in the form of Chalos at all.

The Re'em and the LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 13:10) have difficulty with this opinion of Rashi. Why does Rashi differ from the simple explanation of our Mishnah and say that it does not really mean that all Menachos are brought as ten Chalos?

The MISHNEH L'MELECH does not understand the problem with this opinion at all. We should assume that the Mishnah is referring to every Minchah which the Torah requires to be baked or fried in some manner. However, the Torah gives no instruction about how to bake or fry a Minchas Soles. Why, then, should we think that one should have to bake or fry a Minchas Soles into ten loaves? Not only does it not have to be baked into ten Chalos, it does not have to be baked at all! After the Kemitzah is done and offered on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohanim may eat the flour even without baking it if they so wish.

Accordingly, the Lechem Mishneh and Mishneh l'Melech argue with the position of the RAMBAM (ibid.). After discussing the various types of Menachos, the Rambam says, "When [all of these four Menachos] are baked, every Isaron is baked into ten Chalos." The difficulty is obvious -- the Rambam just finished discussing *five* types of Menachos: Soles, Machvas, Marcheshes, Chalos, and Rekikin. Which one is the Rambam now leaving out of this list?

1. The Lechem Mishneh answers that none of them are left out. This is because Chalos and Rekikin are very similar, as they are both baked in an oven (see Insights to 74b regarding other possible differences). They, therefore, can be called one general category of Minchas Ma'afeh, Menachos that are baked.

2. The Mishneh l'Melech says that the Rambam is leaving out Minchas Soles, since it is not baked and does not have to be made into Chalos. The KEREN ORAH (55a) and others are perplexed by the words of the Mishneh l'Melech. With regard to a Minchas Soles, the Torah explicitly states, "And the leftovers from it, Aharon and his sons shall eat. It should be eaten as Matzos in a holy place" (Vayikra 6:9). The Torah clearly states that the Minchas Soles should be baked into Matzos! TOSFOS (52b, DH Minayin) also seems to rule that the Minchas Soles must be made into Matzos. (Y. Montrose)


QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the fact that the Lechem ha'Panim was permitted to be brought as flour and then sifted, as opposed to regular Menachos that had to be brought as Soles (very fine flour). RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH Talmud Lomar) explains that regular Menachos were not permitted to be sifted by the person bringing them, since not everyone is trusted to sift their flour properly. Why does this concern not apply to the flour of the Lechem ha'Panim? The Gemara answers, "Because of Chisachon."

What is Chisachon? Rebbi Elazar explains that the Torah is concerned about the money of Yisrael, and therefore it does not require that the Lechem ha'Panim -- which is offered every week -- be brought as expensive Soles. Only other Menachos, which are not brought often, must be bought as Soles.

The Gemara asks where the Torah hints to the concept that it is concerned for the money of Yisrael. The Gemara answers that it is alluded to in the verse, "You shall bring forth for them water from the rock, and give drink to the people and their animals" (Bamidbar 20:8). This verse teaches that Hashem was concerned not only about the people, but also about their animals.

Why does the Gemara ask what the source is for the concept that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael? The Mishnah in Nega'im (12:5) explicitly states what the source is! Regarding a house that will be declared by the Kohen to have Tzara'as, the verse states, "And the Kohen will command that they clear out the house" (Vayikra 14:36). Rebbi Meir addresses the reason for clearing out the contents of the house before the Kohen declares the house as having Tzara'as. If it is done in order to prevent his wooden or metal utensils, or his clothing, from becoming Tamei, then there should be no need to clear out the house since these items can easily be immersed in a Mikvah and made Tahor! It must be that the Torah is concerned about the person's earthenware vessels; if such vessels become Tamei, they will have to be destroyed. Rebbi Meir continues and says that if the Torah cares so much about a person's insignificant money, then how much more so does the Torah care about his significant money. This Mishnah, and the verse it quotes regarding Tzara'as, seems to be the source that the Torah cares about our money. Why, then, does the Gemara here quote a different verse, and not cite the Mishnah in Nega'im?

Moreover, we find that RASHI in many places (Yoma 39a, Rosh Hashanah 27a, Chulin 49b) says that the source for this concept is the teaching in Nega'im. Why does he make no mention of the source given by our Gemara?


(a) The NODA B'YEHUDAH (YD 2:160) answers that the Gemara here does not quote the Mishnah in Nega'im, because the verse quoted here is a stronger proof to this concept than the verse quoted in Nega'im. The fact that the Torah says that the house should first be cleared out is understandable, since it is easy to save the person's vessels and not cause them to be destroyed for no reason. In contrast, when Hashem supplied water for the Jewish people, He caused a miracle to happen by making the water for the entire nation come out of a rock. It is known that Hashem only performs a miracle when it is absolutely necessary, and He minimizes the miraculous nature of the event as much as possible. We see from this verse that even though Hashem only needed to make a miracle to enable the people to drink, He made a greater miracle so that their cattle should survive as well, because He cares about the money of Yisrael.

However, this verse shows only that Hashem cares about the money of all of Yisrael, as He saved all of their cattle from dying; it does not tell us that Hashem is concerned even for the money of an individual. The Mishnah in Nega'im teaches that Hashem is concerned even for the money of an individual. This is why Rashi cites the teaching of Nega'im in Chulin and in Rosh Hashanah; the Gemara in those places is discussing the money of an individual. Although the Gemara in Yoma is discussing the public vessel used for the lottery that determined which goat would be brought as a Korban and which would be la'Azazel, the Gemara there says that it was *not* a Kli Shares. The Noda b'Yehudah says that the Kohen Gadol could technically make those vessels and keep them. This is why Rashi there gives the verse mentioned in Nega'im as the source that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael, since that verse teaches that He is concerned even with an individual's money.

(b) The NIMUKEI HA'GRIV prefaces his answer by explaining the Mishnah in Nega'im. The Mishnah there quotes two other opinions which argue with Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that even though not all of the things in a house are usually able to become Tamei, the Torah is telling us that, in this case, everything in the house does become Tamei if it is not taken out of the house. The Torah is not telling us to save the person's money. Rebbi Shimon says that the reason the Torah says to take the things out of the house is not because of a special Halachah that all things in the house, regardless of their normal ability to become Tamei, become Tamei. Rather, the Torah commands a person to take out all of his things out of the house even though they will not become Tamei, and it is a Heavenly decree, without regard for his possessions (see ELIYAH RABAH from the VILNA GA'ON, and TIFERES YISRAEL, in contrast to the view of the BARTENURA who says that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Meir). This means that the only Tana who says that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael is Rebbi Meir, and the other Tana'im do not have a source for the fact that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael.

The Gemara here quotes a Sifra. The Gemara in Shabbos (137a) teaches that the Sifra was written by Rebbi Yehudah (unless a different Tana is quoted). This means that the Gemara cannot quote Rebbi Meir's teaching in Nega'im as proof for the Sifra's concept that the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael, since the Sifra is expressing the view of Rebbi Yehudah, and Rebbi Yehudah does not agree with Rebbi Meir's proof in Nega'im!

Why, then, does Rashi quote Rebbi Meir's opinion as the source for this teaching? The Nimukei ha'Griv gives two explanations. First, Rashi usually explains the Gemara according to Rebbi Meir, since any anonymous Mishnah is attributed to Rebbi Meir. Second, the Bartenura learns that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Meir's teaching, and the Halachah follows their view against that of Rebbi Yehudah. Accordingly, it makes sense that Rashi generally accepts this Mishnah in Nega'im as the source. The Gemara here does not quote this as the source, because the Gemara is expressing the view of Rebbi Yehudah. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,