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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf


MENACHOS 46 - Dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld in honor of the births of three first-born Turkel grandchildren: Ohr Esther, to Eitan and Ayeleth Turkel of Raanana; Yael Nechamah to Avi and Esti Turkel of Passaic; and a baby boy to Shoshi [Turkel] and Yossi Kaufman of Manchester. Mazel Tov to the proud parents and grandparents!


(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that, according to all opinions, the Lechem and the Kevasim are Me'akev each other - once they are connected ('Huzkeku Zeh la'Zeh') through the Shechitah.
(b) If one of them subsequently gets lost - the other one is then burned in the Beis ha'Sereifah.
(c) Ula cited the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who ask whether Tenufah will have the same effect as Shechitah (with regard to the Din of Ikuv). The fact that Rebbi Yochanan mentioned only Shechitah, and not Tenufah, is not a proof - because although he might have mentioned Shechitah because to preclude Tenufah, which does not create the Din of Ikuv, he might also have mentioned Shechitah, because it definitely creates a Din of Ikuv, whereas he is not certain whether Tenufah does.
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is -Teiku.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah bar Chanina tried to prove from the fact that ben Nannes and Rebbi Akiva argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen", even though the distribution is written after the Tenufah took place - that Tenufah does not create Ikuv.
(b) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua countered that proof however - by pointing out that it is also written after the Shechitah took place, even though Rebbi Yochanan definitely holds that Shechitah creates Ikuv.
(c) He therefore explains "Kodesh Yih'yu la'Hashem la'Kohen", even assuming that neither is Me'akev - by explaining that the Pasuk is really speaking about before the Shechitah, but with reference to the loaves or the Kevasim that will be given to the Kohen after the Shechitah.

(a) We query Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa which discusses certain Pesulim of the Lachmei Todah. It is - the Shechitah of the Korban that sanctifies the Lachmei Todah.
(b) If one of the loaves breaks or becomes Tamei before the Shechitah of the Korban, the owner is obligated to bring new loaves before proceeding with the Shechitah. In a case where the loaf was taken out of its boundary (the walls of Yerushalayim) - it must be brought back and remains Kasher (since, before the Shechitah, it too, does not adopt Kedushas ha'Guf).
(c) If any of these three Pesulim occurred after the Shechitah, the Kohen proceeds with the Zerikas ha'Dam, after which, the owner is permitted to eat the meat of the Korban. When performing the Zerikah - the Kohen has in mind 'le'Shem Shelamim' (and not 'le'Shem Todah').
(d) Even though, in the case where the loaf broke or was taken outside Yerushalayim, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation and the loaves are Pasul, in the case of 'Nitma Lachmah', the Tana rules 'vi'Yedei Nidro Yatza' - because the Tzitz atones for Tum'ah.
(e) The Lachmei Todah are Pasul and may not be eaten (see Shitah Mekubetzes 9).

(a) If the Pesulim occurred after the Zerikas ha'Dam ...
1. ... the Kohen must receive a loaf that is whole, that did not leave Yerushalayim and that did not become Tamei.
2. ... then, with the exception of the Pasul loaf, the owner is permitted to eat the remaining loaves.
(b) We ask from this Beraisa on Rebbi Yochanan (who holds that the Shechitah creates a Din Ikuv) - that, according to him, where the P'sul occurred after the Shechitah, the Korban ought to be Pasul together with the Lechem?
(c) And we answer - that the Todah is different, since the Torah specifically refers to it as a Shelamim, permitting it to be brought even without the Lechem (whatever the circumstances).


(a) Assuming that 'Tenufah Osah Zikah', Rebbi Yirmiyah rules in a case where ...
1. ... the Lechem subsequently got lost - that the Kevasim are Pasul.
2. ... the Kevasim got lost - the Lechem is Pasul.
(b) On the assumption that 'Tenufah Einah Osah Zikah', he asks whether, if after the Tenufah, the Lechem got lost, the new Lechem will require Tenufah. He takes for granted that if the Kevasim got lost, the new Kevasim will require Tenufah - because a. they are the Matirin, and b. it is next to them that the Torah writes "Tenufah" ("Ve'heinif Osam Tenufah").
(c) His She'eilah regarding the new Lechem, is only according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the Lechem is the Ikar. According to ben Nannes - it is obvious that the new Lechem does not require Tenufah.
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva, the new Lechem might not require Tenufah - since the Kevasim (which are their Matir) has already had it performed.
(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is -'Teiku'?

(a) When Abaye asked Rava why the two Kevasim sanctify the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and are Me'akev them, whereas the seven Kevasim are not, he initially replied - that it is because they are waved together with them.
(b) Abaye queried this from Todah - which are sanctified by the Shechitah of the Korban, even though it is not waved together with it.
(c) So Rava retracted, and compared the Sh'tei ha'Lechem to the Todah, where it is the Shelamim which permits the loaves (and the seven Kevasim are not Shelamim, but Olos). We reject that proof however, in that Todah is different - because it is the only Korban. Perhaps in the case of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, where there are two sets, either set will be Matir the Lechem.

(a) Rava ultimately learns it from Eil Nazir - where, like with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, various Korbanos are brought together with the loaves that he brings, yet it is specifically the Shelamim which is Matir them.
(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Eil Nazir) "ve'es ha'Ayil Ya'aseh Shelamim la'Hashem al Sal ha'Matzos" - that it is the Shelamim exclusively, that is Matir the loaves of the Nazir (as we just explained).
(c) And the Tana extrapolates from there that in a case where the Shalmei Nazir was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemo - the loaves do not become sanctified.

(a) 'Ibur Tzurah' means - than in the case of minor Pesulei Kodshim, the Kohanim leave the item overnight (to become Pasul be'Linah) before burning it.
(b) According to the Beraisa - the Kohanim perform Tenufah on Sh'tei ha'Lechem that one brought without the Kevasim, after which they must undergo Ibur Tzurah, before being burned in the Beis ha'Sereifah.
(c) The problem with this is that 'mi'Mah-Nafshach' - if they ought to be eaten (like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah), then why not let the Kohanim eat them; whereas if they ought to be burned, then why do they require Ibur Tzurah (seeing as they are Pasul d'Oraysa)?
(d) Strictly speaking, says Rabah, they ought to be eaten. Nevertheless, the Chachamim necessitated Ibur Tzurah (to enable them to be burned) - on account of a decree that the following year they will eat the Lechem without the Kevasim (because that's what they did last year, without realizing that last year there were no Kevasim; this year there are.

(a) Rabah bases his answer on the Mishnah in Shekalim (that we cited above in 'ha'Kometz Rabah') where Raban Yochanan ben Zakai maintains that the Kohanim declined to give their annual half-Shekel, based on the Pasuk "ve'Chol Minchas Kohen Kalil Tih'yeh, Lo Se'achel". That caused them not to donate - since if they did, the would be eating their own Menachos, when they ate the Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim, in whose payment they had participated.
(b) The problem with this is that - if it speaking in a case where the Lechem came together with the Kevasim, then why would it be any different than a Todah brought by a Kohen, which he would eat together with the loaves, because it is considered part of the Zevach.
(c) Rabah therefore tries to extrapolate from there - that the Tana must therefore be referring to Sh'tei ha'Lechem that were brought without the Kevasim ...
(d) ... a proof that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are due to be eaten even on their own which clearly emerges from the Mishnah there).

(a) Abaye refutes Rabah's proof however, by differentiating between the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lachmei Todah - in that although the latter are not referred to as a Minchah, the former is (when the Torah writes "be'Hakrivchem Minchah la'Hashem").
(b) Rav Yosef disagrees with Rabah. According to him, the loaves ought to be burned. Nevertheless, they require Ibur Tzurah - because burning Kodshim is forbidden on Yom-Tov.
(c) Once again, Abaye objects - because that principle is confined to Kodshim that became Pasul, but not to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, which are meant to be burned (and which may therefore be burned on Yom-Tov) ...
(d) ... just like the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, which were burned, since that was their Mitzvah.

(a) So we amend Rav Yosef's answer to 'Gezeirah Shema Yizdamnu Lahem Kevasim le'Achar mi'Ka'an' - meaning that we make Ibur Tzurah just in case Kevasim are found, in which case they will be able to be eaten.
(b) The problem Abaye has with this is - that, if that were so, they should really be burned at nightfall, from which point on the Kevasim could no longer have been sacrificed. But what's the point of Ibur Tzurah (until the morning?).

(a) Rava agrees with Rabah, only he disagrees with his source (for the ruling that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem that come on their own are eaten). And he learns this from the fact that the Torah refers to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem as Bikurim - from which he extrapolates that like Bikurim, they stand to be eaten ...
(b) ... and like Bikurim, this refers even when they are brought on their own, and not together with the Kevasim.

Next daf


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