Menachot 107: וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 107

To download, click/tap here: PDF

How do we interpret the intention of someone who commits to bringing a sacrifice, but isn’t clear about his plans?

The Mishna on our daf offers answers to that question, as well as to the question of how to deal with someone who says that he made a commitment to bring a specific sacrifice but now does not remember what he said at that time. In this second case, the Mishna tries to work out how to be sure that all possibilities are covered; in the first case, the Mishna tries to work out how we understand what the person most likely meant.

We explore the approach to pledges with an interesting article on the Jewish bankers under the Czar.

Menachot 106: וְהַגּוֹרָלוֹת הִפַּלְנוּ עַל קֻרְבַּן הָעֵצִים

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 106

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The Mishna on our daf teaches that if someone obligates himself to bring wood to the Temple, he must bring at least two pieces of wood, as are usually placed on the altar together every morning and afternoon.

The Gemara quotes a baraita that teaches that contributing wood to the Temple is considered like committing oneself to bringing an actual sacrifice. This is derived from an extra word korban that appears in the Torah (either, according to Rashi, in Vayikra 2:1, or, according to Rabbeinu Gershom, in Vayikra 1:2) and is supported by a passage in Sefer Nehemiah (10:35) that specifically talks about “the sacrifice of wood.”

We explore the unique aspects of the wood sacrifice.

We argue that the wood offering dissolves the categorical boundary between instrument and end, between fuel for the sacred and the sacred itself, and that this dissolution bears directly on the theology of sacred brokenness, the phenomenology of embodied material worship, and the clinical reading of the therapeutic encounter. 

Menachot 105: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת קָאָמַר, סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 105

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Isn’t it taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says that one must bring a fine-flour meal offering since the verse opens with it first? The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Which meal offering is the most notable of the meal offerings, as it has no modifier? It is this, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, with which the verse opens first. The reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must bring a fine-flour meal offering is not because the verse opens with it, but because it has no modifier.

The Gemara challenges: If so, the explanation of the baraita is unnecessary; isn’t it obviousthat Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the fine-flour meal offering, as he says so explicitly? The Gemara answers: The baraita explains that the reference to the meal offering with which the passage opens merely serves as a mnemonic, so one should not forget which type of meal offering Rabbi Yehuda is referring to.

A mnemonic device is a memory trick or memory device employing any learning technique that aids information retention or retrieval in the human memory, often by associating the information with something that is easier to remember.

It makes use of elaborative encoding, retrieval cues and imagery as specific tools to encode information in a way that allows for efficient storage and retrieval. It aids original information in becoming associated with something more accessible or meaningful—which in turn provides better retention of the information.

Menachot 104: הָנָךְ לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר אָזְלִי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 104

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In general, when a person makes a statement that indicates that he accepts upon himself the obligation to bring a sacrifice, through the power of his stated intention the object referred to becomes sanctified. Nevertheless, since it is his statement that sanctification takes effect, we must clarify what must be said and how to deal with situations where someone’s intentions are not clearly expressed.

We explore halakhic architecture of designation: the categories, the mechanics of peh (utterance), yad(incomplete utterance requiring inference), and maḥshavah (silent intention); the problem of under-specification represented by the Menaḥot Mishnah; and the special case of hafrashah in agricultural gifts.

Menachot 103: אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 103

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned throughout Massekhet Menaḥot, a standard meal offering is made up of solet – fine wheat-flour – mixed with oil and frankincense that is prepared in one of a number of different ways. There are meal offerings that are made differently – e.g., the minḥat ha-omer, brought on the second day of Passover that is made from barley or the minḥat sota, brought by a woman who was suspected of an extra-marital affair, which does not include oil and frankincense – but those are not voluntary meal offerings.

What if someone decided to bring a meal offering, but specifically stated that he wanted to bring it in a manner that was unusual?

The Mishna on our daf deals with that question. According to the Tanna Kamma, whatever statement was made must be corrected so that a proper meal offering will be brought. Thus, if someone says “I accept upon myself a meal offering of barley” he must bring a minḥa of wheat. If he said “I accept upon myself a meal offering from ordinary flour” he must bring a minḥa made of solet. If he said that he would bring a meal offering that did not include oil and frankincense, the minḥa that he brings must include them. If he said that i would bring it with solet measuring half an isaron, he must bring a full isaron, which is the normal amount of flour that is brought.

We explore the prophetic response to sacrifices and added review of the Hassidic approach to various korbanot.