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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 63



(a) Our Mishnah rules that someone who declares that he will bring a Minchah al ha'Machavas - is not permitted to then bring a Minchas Marcheshes (in fulfillment of his Neder), or vice-versa.

(b) According to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, the former is baked in a flat pan, the latter, in a deep one ... , as we have already learned. According to him ...

1. ... a Minchas Marcheshes is so-called - because, due to its soft texture, it looks as if it is creeping (which is similar to the Targum's translation of 'insects').
2. ... a Minchah al ha'Machavas turns out crisp - because (unlike a Minchas Marcheshes, where the oil accumulates at the bottom of the pot, w here it saturates the Minchah) it spreads to the four corners of the pan and is absorbed by the Minchah only in small quantities.
(c) According to Rebbi Hagelili - a Minchas Marcheshes is covered during baking, whereas a Minchah al ha'Machavas is not.
(a) To explain Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, we suggest that the root of Marcheshes is 'Rechusha de'Libi', and that of Machavas is 'Machbu'i ha'Peh'.
1. 'Rechusha de'Libi' means - the (sinful) thoughts of the heart (like in the Pasuk in Tehilim "Rachash Libi Davar Tov").
2. 'Machbu'i ha'Peh' means - what the mouth reveals (from the Lashon 'Niv', which refers to the upper lip).
(b) We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Pasuk on the one hand, and a common expression on the other.
1. The Pasuk "Lamah Nachbeisa Li'vro'ach" (said by Lavan to Ya'akov) means - 'Why did you run away secretly'? ...
2. ... and the expression 'Havi Merachshan Sif'vaseih' - 'his lips were (visibly) moving'.
(c) In fact, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili derives his distinction between Marcheshes and Machavas - from tradition (as passed down to him by his Rebbes).

(d) Whereas Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Na'aseh *ba*'Marcheshes" - that 'Marcheshes' is a deep K'li.
2. ... "*ve'al* Machavas" - that 'Machavas' is a shallow one that has no real walls.
(a) If someone declares 'Harei Alai Marcheshes', Beis Shamai in a Beraisa rule that the Neder is placed on hold until Eliyahu comes - because they are uncertain whether 'Marcheshes' is the name of the K'li or the name of the Minchah (based on the texture of the finished Minchah).

(b) The ramifications of this She'eilah are - whether the Noder is - whether the Noder is Chayav to bring a Minchas Marcheshes, or whether he is Chayav to donate a Marcheshes to the Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c) Had he meant to obligate himself to bring a Minchas Marcheshes, he ought to have said - 'Harei Alai Minchah al ha'Marcheshes' or ' ... Minchas Marcheshes'.

(a) Beis Hillel rule - that the Noder is obligated to donate a Marcheshes to Bedek ha'Bayis, since there definitely was such a K'li in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) The Marcheshes was - deep, but with a partition half way down. That partition contained small, round cavities (presumably ten, to form the ten loaves required for every Minchah), causing the dough to form into balls shaped like acorns and chestnuts (known as B'rasi apples and Greek 'Blavta' respectively).

(c) And they learn from the 'Beis' in "be'Marcheshes" and the word "al in "al ha'Machavas" - that these were Keilim (and not names of the type of Minchah).

(a) Our Mishnah teaches that someone who undertakes to bring a 'Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur' must bring a Minchah that is baked in a Tanur - an oven shaped like a rhombus, with space for one pot, and not in a Kupach, with space for one pot, too, but shaped like a cube.

(b) Neither may he bring a Minchas 'Ma'afeh Ra'afim' or 'Ma'afeh Yoros Arabiyim'. A Minchas Ma'afeh ...

1. ... Ra'afim' is - baked on tiles.
2. ... Yoros Arabiyim' is - baked in Arabian pre-heated pots.
(c) The Tana Kama forbids bringing a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur, half Chalos and half wafers. We might have thought that one may - because the Torah mentions them both (but which the Tana Kama interprets to mean that he may choose between one and the other).

(d) Rebbi Shimon - permits a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur which is half Chalos and half wafers, because it is one and the same Korban.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama - in that he permits baking a Ma'afeh Tanur in a Kupach (which, technically speaking, is also a Tanur).

(b) In a Beraisa, he learns from the fact that the Torah repeats the word "Tanur" (once in Vayikra and once in Tzav) - that a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur incorporates a Ma'aseh Kupach.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the extra "Tanur" comes - to teach us that, not only must the Ma'afeh Tanur be baked in an oven, but that it must also be sanctified (Kedushas ha'Guf) in an oven.

(b) And, in a Mishnah in 'Sh'tei ha'Lechem', he states - that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim are Kasher if they are baked in the Beis Pagi (an area outside the walls of the Azarah) as well as in the Azarah.

(c) The problem this creates with his previous ruling is - that if the Tanur sanctifies a Minchah (Kedushas ha'Guf), then how can the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim be baked in the Beis Pagi"? Seeing as the oven is outside the Azarah, this immediately renders them Pasul be'Yotzei?

(d) To reconcile Rebbi Shimon's first statement, with his second, Rava amends Rebbi Shimon's first statement to read - 'she'Yehei Hekdeishan Leshem Tanur' (meaning that when one designates them as Kedushas Damim, one does so with the intention of baking them in an oven).




(a) The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk "*ve'Chi Sakriv* Korban Minchah Ma'afeh Sanur" to mean - that bringing a Minchah is Reshus, not a Chiyuv.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah there learns from the word "*Korban* Minchah" - that he is not permitted to bring half the Minchah Chalos, and the other half, wafers (because the Torah prescribes one option for bringing the Minchah, and not two (though his reason will become more clear in the Beraisa quoted in the Sugya]).

(c) Rebbi Shimon objects to that - on the grounds that the Torah uses the word "Korban" only once, adding "Chalos Matzos" and "Rekikei Matzos", implying that he can bring either one of them, or both.

(d) For him to agree with Rebbi Yehudah - the Torah would have had to write "Korban" twice, since that would have implied that the Chalos and the Rekikin are two independent Korbanos, which may not be mixed.

(a) Supposing that, according to Rebbi Shimon, one did bring half Chalos and half wafers, before performing the Kemitzah - the Kohen would have to mix them together ...

(b) ... in order to take the Kemitzah from both kinds together.

(c) If, in spite of that, he took the Kemitzah from only one of them - he would be Yotzei.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk "*ve'Chol* Minchah Asher Te'afeh ba'Tanur, *ve'Chol* Na'aseh ba'Marcheshes ve'al Machavas ... , *ve'Chol* Minchah Belulah va'Shemen va'Chareivah" - that just as the two latter "ve'Chol" refer to two Menachos that may not be combined, so too, the former one (incorporting Chalos and Rekikin), a support for his father Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the repetition of "ba'Shemen" (in the Pasuk "So'les Chalos Belulos ba'Shemen, u'Rekikei Matzos Meshuchim ba'Shemen") - that the Torah is speaking about two different Korbanos (as if it had written Korban twice), one pertaining to Chalos, the other, to Rekikin.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, however, the Torah repeats "ba'Shemen", to teach us - that he has the option of bringing either Chalos or Rekikin (because otherwise, he would learn from the one "Korban" that one is obligated to bring half of each).

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi appears to echo his father's opinion. He argues with him however, in that - he will invalidate the Korban Bedieved, if one brought half of each, in the same way as mixing a ''Belulah" (a Minchas Nedavah) and a "Chareivah" (a Minchas Chotei, would be Pasul Bedieved); whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, it will be Kasher (based on the principle that whatever is not repeated in the realm of Kodshim, is Kasher Bedieved).

***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Menachos' *****

***** Perek Rebbi Yishmael *****


(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, when the sixteenth of Nisan falls on Shabbos, the Omer comprises three Sa'ah of barley - five Sa'ah, when it falls on a weekday.

(b) From the three or five Sa'ah of barley that they initially cut, they obtain - one Isaron of flour, after sifting it many times.

(c) According to the Chachamim ...

1. ... they cut three Sa'ah of barley, both on Shabbos and on a weekday -.
2. ... they use three scythes and three boxes on Shabbos as they use on a weekday, when cutting the Omer.
(d) Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim maintains - that they use only one scythe and one box when the Omer falls on Shabbos, but three of each when it falls on a weekday.

(e) They also argue about how many men Beis-Din send to cut the barley on Shabbos, though on a weekday they both agree that it is three - and according to the Chachamim, that is how many they sent on Shabbos. But according to Rebbi Yishmael, on Shabbos they send only one.

(a) The Chachamim hold that three Sa'ah of barley is required to obtain one Isaron of the finest quality. The problem with Rebbi Yishmael is - that 'Mah Nafshach', if five Sa'ah produdes the best-quality Isaron, then why do they not cut five Sa'ah on Shabbos, too? Whereas if three is sufficient, then why do they cut five when the Omer falls on a weekday?

(b) Rava answers - that one obtains the best-quality flour from five Sa'ah, by producing less from each Sa'ah, without having to sift it so many times; whereas obtaining a near-comparable quality flour from three Sa'ah, requires sifting it more times. And Rebbi Yishmael prefers the latter method on Shabbos, which entails more sifting, but minimizes the other Melachos needed to obtain the extra two Sa'ah (reaping, winnowing, selecting, grinding and the initial sifting, for the extra two Sa'ah), even though the result is not quite as perfect.

(a) Rabah tries to equate Rebbi Yishmael with Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - who permits skinning the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan that falls on Shabbos only up to the chest (because he considers any more than that an unnecessary Tircha).

(b) The Rabbanan - permit the skinning to be completed.

(c) We reject Rabah's suggestion however, on two scores. Rebbi Yishmael ...

1. ... in our Sugya might well agree with the Rabbanan that one is permitted to complete the skinning of the Korban Pesach - because of 'Bizayon Kodshim' (it is a denigrating of Kodshim to leave them lying half skinned until nightfall).
2. ... B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah there, on the other hand, might well agree with the Rabbanan in our Sugya - because whereas there, skinning the animal up to the heart enables them to remove the innards (which is the purpose of the skinning at that stage) to completion, here the Omer reaches a higher stage of perfection if they prepare five Sa'ah (as we explained).
Next daf


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