Gemara Clarity

Menachos 49a

מנחות מ״ט ע״א

Menachot 49a

Learn Menachos 49a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 49a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether a mistaken uprooting (עקירה בטעות) of an offering counts, and then a new משנה on whether the תמידין and the מוספין hold each other back, with the question of which comes first.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing an earlier question: the ברייתא's real source for 'what goes up on the מזבח does not come down' is the פסוק 'זאת תורת העולה.' Next, רבה בר בר חנה teaches that כבשי עצרת slaughtered as rams are valid but do not count for the community, and רב says they do count. רב חסדא limits רב to a case where the person only thought they were rams, because a mistaken uprooting (עקירה בטעות) still counts as an uprooting. רבה disagrees and says a mistaken uprooting does not count. רבא and then רבי זירא each challenge רבה, one from a case of mistaken פיגול and one from רבי שמעון's rule about a מנחה. אביי answers both challenges, ending with רבא's rule that a wrong thought which is clearly false does not disqualify. A new משנה then teaches that the תמידין and the מוספין do not hold each other back. It adds רבי שמעון's rules about a missed morning lamb, the incense, and how each Temple vessel is first put into use. The גמרא asks which comes first when the community cannot afford both, and it starts testing רב חסדא's proof from the משנה against the rule that nothing comes before the morning תמיד. That discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

תְּנָא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״

The tanna, on "This is the law of the burnt offering"

רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

which includes, he relies on it.

תָּנֵי רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב:

Rabba bar bar Chana taught before Rav:

כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם אֵילִים –

The lambs of Shavuot that one slaughtered for the sake of rams

The steps (26)

  1. ResolutionThe real source is the verse about the burnt offering
  2. Statementשבועות lambs slaughtered as rams: valid but do not count
  3. Rejectionרב: they do count
  4. Statementרב's view fits when he only thought they were rams
  5. StatementSlaughtered as rams: they do not count
  6. Statementרבה: a mistaken uprooting does not count
  7. Challengeרבא quotes a source to challenge רבה
  8. QuestionWhat kind of mistake is meant? Not knowing it was a sin offering
  9. ChallengeSo the priest thought it was a peace offering, which proves a mistaken uprooting counts
  10. Resolutionאביי: he knew it was a sin offering but thought it was allowed
  11. Challengeרבי זירא quotes רבי שמעון on a מנחה taken for the wrong purpose
  12. StatementWhy a מנחה is different from an animal offering
  13. QuestionRuling out the case where the כהן knew it was a מחבת
  14. ChallengeThe case must be an honest mistake, which goes against רבה
  15. Resolutionאביי: the כהן knew it was a מחבת
  16. ResolutionA thought that is clearly false does not disqualify
  17. StatementNew משנה: daily and additional offerings do not hold each other back
  18. StatementA missed morning lamb only fails to block the afternoon lamb when the miss was not on purpose
  19. StatementMissed morning incense is still burned in the afternoon
  20. StatementThe whole amount of incense was burned in the afternoon, and how each Temple vessel is first put into use
  21. QuestionA community that can't afford both: daily offerings or additional offerings first?
  22. QuestionWhat case is the question about? Not today's offerings against today's
  23. ResponseThe real question: tomorrow's daily offerings against today's additional offerings
  24. Proofרב חסדא points to our משנה for an answer
  25. ChallengeThe משנה cannot just be about which goes first
  26. Proofרבא explains that "the burnt offering" means the first offering of the day