Menachot Daf 104 (מנחות דף ק״ד)
Daf: 104 | Amudim: 104a – 104b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (104a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of the discussion from the previous daf — Rabbi Beivai declines to answer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא עַל פַּלְטֵר סָמֵיךְ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Beivai concludes: And that man, i.e., I, relies on a baker. Therefore, my mind is not sufficiently settled to answer the question properly.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Beivai uses a self-deprecating expression common in the Talmud, referring to himself in the third person as “that man.” His statement that he “relies on a baker” means that he does not prepare his own bread and therefore lacks the financial stability and peace of mind needed for deep halakhic analysis. This is a continuation of the discussion from the previous daf about the impurity of the blood of a carcass (dam neveilot).
Key Terms:
- פַּלְטֵר (palter) = A baker; here indicating reliance on others for basic sustenance
- הָהוּא גַּבְרָא = “That man” — a Talmudic idiom for referring to oneself in the third person
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution — Rav Yosef identifies Rabbi Yehuda as the decisor of the Nasi’s household
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹרְיָינָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה, וְאוֹרִי לֵיהּ כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this question? Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic decisor of the house of the Nasi, and he instructed them according to his tradition that the blood of an animal carcass is impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the question that Rabbi Beivai could not answer by reporting Rav Yosef’s tradition. Rabbi Yehuda served as the official halakhic authority for the household of the Nasi (the political and spiritual leader of the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael). In that capacity, he ruled that the blood of a carcass is ritually impure — following Beit Hillel’s stringent position as detailed in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- מוֹרְיָינָא = Halakhic decisor; the official authority who issues rulings
- בֵּי נְשִׂיאָה = The house of the Nasi (Patriarch)
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Source — Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute the impurity of blood from a carcass
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. דַּם נְבֵילוֹת – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁטִּמְּאוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא טִמְּאוּ אֶלָּא בִּרְבִיעִית, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לִקְרוֹשׁ וְלַעֲמוֹד עַל כְּזַיִת.
English Translation:
As we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that six matters are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel. They include the blood of a carcass, which Beit Shammai deem ritually pure, as in their opinion only the flesh of a carcass imparts impurity; and Beit Hillel deem it ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed it impure only when it is in the quantity of at least a quarter-log, since that amount, were it to congeal, could constitute an olive-bulk, which is the minimum amount of the flesh of a carcass that is deemed impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita is notable because it presents one of the unusual cases where Beit Shammai is lenient and Beit Hillel is stringent — the opposite of the usual pattern. The logic behind the dispute concerns whether blood of a carcass is treated like the flesh of the carcass for purposes of ritual impurity. Beit Shammai holds that only flesh imparts impurity, while Beit Hillel extends impurity to the blood as well. Rabbi Yosei b. Rabbi Yehuda adds a qualification: Beit Hillel only deems it impure in the quantity of a quarter-log, because that amount of blood can congeal into an olive-bulk of solid matter — the standard minimum measure for carcass impurity.
Key Terms:
- דַּם נְבֵילוֹת = Blood of a carcass (neveila)
- רְבִיעִית = A quarter-log (liquid measure, approximately 86ml)
- כְּזַיִת = An olive-bulk — the minimum volume of carcass flesh that imparts impurity
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Mishna — The permitted and forbidden measures for pledging wine libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג, שְׁנַיִם, וַחֲמִשָּׁה, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאַרְבָּעָה, וְשִׁשָּׁה, וּמִשִּׁשָּׁה וּלְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine, because there are no existing libations with those measures of wine. But one pledges a libation of three log, which is the measure of wine brought with a lamb, or four log, which is the measure of wine brought with a ram, or six log, which is the measure of wine brought with a bull. And one may pledge a libation of six log and beyond, as any greater amount can be composed of combinations of these three.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna begins the twelfth chapter’s discussion of voluntary libation pledges. The Torah prescribes three measures of wine libations: three log for a lamb, four for a ram, and six for a bull. When a person voluntarily pledges wine, the pledge must correspond to one of these standard measures or a combination thereof. Amounts of one, two, or five log cannot be offered because they do not match any existing sacrificial libation — and five log cannot be composed from any combination of three, four, or six. However, amounts above six can always be decomposed into valid combinations (e.g., seven = three + four, eight = four + four, nine = three + six, ten = four + six).
Key Terms:
- לוֹג = A liquid measure (approximately 345ml); the basic unit for measuring wine and oil libations
- נְסָכִים = Libations — the wine offerings poured on the altar alongside animal sacrifices
- מִתְנַדְּבִין = To pledge voluntarily — bringing an offering not required by obligation
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא
The Gemara raises a dilemma — Is there a fixed amount for libations?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ – יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים, אוֹ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים?
English Translation:
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is there a fixed amount for libations, in that when one vows to bring a certain number of log of wine they are not offered separately, or is there no fixed amount for libations, and it is permitted to divide them and offer them in smaller amounts?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces the central halakhic dilemma of this sugya: when a person pledges an amount of wine, must it be offered as a single unit (יש קבע — there is a fixed amount), or may the wine be divided and offered in portions that each match a standard libation measure (אין קבע — there is no fixed amount)? This question has practical ramifications for cases where someone pledges a non-standard amount like five log.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ קֶבַע = There is a fixed amount — the wine must be offered as one unit
- אֵין קֶבַע = There is no fixed amount — the wine may be divided into valid portions
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Clarification — The practical case of five log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּאַיְיתִי חַמְשָׁה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – מָשֵׁיךְ וּמַקְרֵיב אַרְבְּעָה מִינַּיְיהוּ, דַּחֲזֵי לְאַיִל, וְאִידַּךְ הָוֵי נְדָבָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – עַד דִּמְמַלֵּי לְהוּ לָא קׇרְבִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? It is a case where he brought five log of wine. If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then he removes and offers four of them, as those are suitable for the libations of a ram, and the other log, which is not of sufficient volume, is allocated for communal gift offerings. Either it itself is offered, or it is redeemed and the money is used to buy offerings for the repletion of the altar, i.e., for times when the altar is idle. But if you say that there is a fixed amount for libations and the wine may not be divided and offered separately, then it is not offered itself or redeemed with money and offered until he adds to the existing measurement such that the total number of log may be offered as an independent libation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara illustrates the dilemma with a concrete case: someone brought five log of wine. If there is no fixed amount, he can split the five into four (a valid ram libation) plus one leftover log that goes to the communal gift fund. If there is a fixed amount, the five log are stuck — they cannot be offered until the person adds a sixth log to make a valid bull libation. The term “repletion of the altar” (קיץ המזבח) refers to the practice of buying burnt offerings with leftover communal funds when the altar would otherwise be idle.
Key Terms:
- נְדָבָה = Gift offering; here, the communal fund for maintaining altar activity
- קיץ המזבח = Repletion of the altar — burnt offerings purchased to keep the altar active
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s attempted proof from the six collection horns in the Temple
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תָּא שְׁמַע, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, וְאָמְרִינַן: כְּנֶגֶד מִי? כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר חַטָּאת, וּמוֹתַר אֲשָׁמוֹת, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם נָזִיר, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר קִינִּין, וּמוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
English Translation:
What is the halakha? Abaye said: Come and hear the answer from a mishna (Shekalim 6:5): There were six collection horns for communal gift offerings, and we say: For what were they designated? They were designated for funds left over from the purchase of sin offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of guilt offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of a guilt offering of a nazirite, for funds left over from the purchase of the guilt offering of a leper, for funds left over from the purchase of pairs of birds, and for funds left over from the purchase of the meal offering of a sinner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye attempts to resolve the dilemma by citing the Mishna in Shekalim, which describes six shofar-shaped collection horns in the Temple. Each horn collected surplus funds from various types of offerings. These surplus funds were then used for communal gift offerings (nedavat tzibbur). Abaye’s reasoning is: if libations have no fixed amount, then a surplus of leftover wine log would regularly occur, and there should have been a seventh horn designated for surplus libation funds.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹפָר = Collection horn — a shofar-shaped receptacle in the Temple for collecting donations
- מוֹתַר = Surplus/leftover funds from purchasing an offering
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye’s challenge — If there is no fixed amount, why is there no horn for surplus libation funds?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתַקֵּין שׁוֹפָר אַחֲרִינָא כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר נְסָכִים!
English Translation:
And if it is so that there is no fixed amount for libations, and if one vowed to bring five log then four are offered as a ram’s libation and the fifth can be redeemed and its money used for a communal gift offering, then let them institute an additional collection horn in the Temple for funds left over from the purchase of libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye sharpens his argument into a challenge: if libations have no fixed amount and portions can be split off, then there would inevitably be leftover wine or funds from partial libations. The Temple should therefore have had a seventh collection horn for these surplus libation funds. The absence of such a horn suggests that there is a fixed amount for libations — the wine cannot be divided and there are no leftovers.
Key Terms:
- לִיתַקֵּין = “Let them institute” — a standard Talmudic challenge suggesting that an expected institution should have existed
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Rejection — Libation surpluses are combined directly, not stored
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנָךְ לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר אָזְלִי, הָנֵי שְׁכִיחִי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִצְטָרְפִי דְּמָר וּדְמָר בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְקָרְבִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: These six horns are dedicated to funds that go to communal gift offerings, and these log of wine left over from libations are common, so there is no need to store them, since it is possible that the libation of this person will be combined with the libation of another person together in order to reach the desired amount, and then it is offered immediately. Therefore, no additional horn was necessary for the money from the redemption of libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflects Abaye’s proof by pointing to a practical distinction. Unlike the surplus funds from other offerings, which are monetary and must be stored until used, leftover wine log from libations are physical commodities that can be immediately pooled together. If one person has one leftover log and another has two, they combine to make three — a valid lamb libation. Because these surpluses are frequent and easily combined, there was no need for a dedicated collection horn. This response means Abaye’s proof is inconclusive.
Key Terms:
- מִצְטָרְפִי = They combine/join together
- נִדְבַת צִבּוּר = Communal gift offerings
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s proof from a baraita — The verse “home born” teaches that one may pledge independent libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״אֶזְרָח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין נְסָכִים, וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין.
English Translation:
Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: The Torah states with regard to libations: “All that are home born shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive halakhot. The term “home born” teaches that one may pledge libations even when they are not sacrificed together with an offering. And how much is the minimum volume that is offered? Three log, which is the smallest measurement of a libation in the Torah, i.e., the libation that is offered with a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava brings a stronger proof from a baraita that derives the concept of independent wine pledges from the verse in Numbers 15:13. The word “ezrach” (home born) is considered superfluous, and the Sages use it to teach that a native Israelite may pledge wine libations independently of any animal sacrifice. The minimum for such a pledge is three log — corresponding to the smallest standard libation, that of a lamb. This establishes the baseline; the question is whether one may pledge amounts beyond the standard measures.
Key Terms:
- אֶזְרָח = “Home born” / native citizen — the term from which independent libation pledges are derived
- שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין = Three log — the minimum independent wine libation (corresponding to a lamb)
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation of the baraita — Scriptural derivations for adding but not decreasing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף יוֹסִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיֶה״. יָכוֹל יִפְחוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״.
English Translation:
And from where is it derived that if one desires to add to this amount he may add? The verse states with regard to libations associated with the additional offerings for the New Moon: “And their libations: Half a hin of wine shall be for the bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for the lamb” (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous “shall be” one may understand that there are others, and derive that independent libations may also be brought. Can one decrease the amount of wine in a libation to less than three log? The verse states: “All that are home born shall do these things, in this manner” (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three log of wine.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues with two scriptural derivations. The word “yihyeh” (shall be) in Numbers 28:14 is considered superfluous, and from it the Sages derive that one may add to the minimum three-log libation. Conversely, the word “kakhah” (in this manner) in Numbers 15:13 establishes a floor — one may not bring less than three log. The critical question becomes: what does “adding” mean? Does it refer only to amounts that match other standard libation measures, or does it include non-standard amounts like five log?
Key Terms:
- יִהְיֶה = “Shall be” — the superfluous word teaching that additional amounts may be pledged
- כָּכָה = “In this manner” — establishing the minimum of three log
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Key argument — The permission to “add” must refer to five log, proving there is no fixed amount
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״יוֹסִיף״? אִילֵּימָא אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה – מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה? דַּחֲזוּ לְכֶבֶשׂ – אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה נָמֵי חֲזוּ לְאַיִל וּפַר! אֶלָּא לָאו, חֲמִשָּׁה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What does the baraita mean when it says that one may add to the minimum of three log for an independent libation? If we say it means that it is permitted to offer four or six log, then what is different about three log that it was specified? It is because it is suitable for the libations of a lamb. If so, then four or six log are also suitable, as four log is offered as the libation for a ram and six log is offered as the libation for a bull. Rather, in saying that one may add, isn’t the baraita referring to five log of wine, despite the fact that it is not a measurement used with any of the offerings? And learn from this baraita that there is no fixed amount for libations. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the baraita that this is so.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the decisive logical move in the sugya. The Gemara reasons that the baraita’s permission to “add” beyond three log would be meaningless if it referred only to four or six log — those are already standard libation measures and need no special derivation. The novelty must be that even a non-standard amount like five log may be offered. This proves that there is no fixed amount for libations: five log can be split into four (a ram’s libation) plus one (which goes to the communal fund). The Gemara affirms this conclusion.
Key Terms:
- מַאי שְׁנָא = “What is different?” — a standard logical challenge in Talmudic argumentation
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = “Learn from this” — a formula confirming a derivation
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Ashi’s objection — The mishna equates five log with two log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אֲנַן לָא תְּנַן הָכִי? אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג שְׁנַיִם וַחֲמִשָּׁה. קָתָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׁנַיִם, מָה שְׁנַיִם דְּלָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל, אַף חֲמִשָּׁה נָמֵי דְּלָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: But didn’t we learn this in the mishna: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine? Rav Ashi continues: In phrasing the mishna in this manner, the tanna teaches that the status of five log is similar to the status of two log: Just as two log are not suitable at all to be offered independently, so too, five log are also not suitable at all to offer, as there are no libations of this size. This demonstrates that there is a fixed amount to libations, and one may not divide them into two.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi presents a counter-argument from the mishna’s own language. The mishna groups five log together with one and two log as amounts that cannot be pledged. Rav Ashi argues that the mishna uses this grouping to teach an equivalence: just as two log is completely unsuitable for any libation and cannot be salvaged by splitting, so too five log is entirely unsuitable. If five log could be split into four plus one, it would not belong in the same category as two log. This reading of the mishna would support the position that there is a fixed amount for libations.
Key Terms:
- דּוּמְיָא = “Similar to” / “comparable to” — indicating the mishna draws an analogy between the items listed
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rejection — The cases are not comparable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This, two log, is as it is, and that, five log, is as it is, and there is no reason to compare them. Four of the five log are offered, with the fifth allocated for a communal gift offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dismisses Rav Ashi’s objection with a terse response: the mishna lists five alongside two and one not because they share the same halakhic status, but simply because none of them may be pledged as a complete independent libation. The reasons for each exclusion differ: one and two log are excluded because no standard libation has those measures, while five log is excluded from being offered as a single unit — but four of the five log may still be offered as a ram’s libation with the fifth going to the communal fund. The mishna’s listing does not prove equivalence.
Key Terms:
- מִידֵּי אִירְיָא = “Are the cases comparable?” — a dismissive formula rejecting an attempted analogy
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s analysis of specific amounts — From one through ten, and the unresolved question of eleven
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – הָא אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים, אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – עַד עֲשָׂרָה פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, אַחַד עָשָׂר
English Translation:
Abaye said: If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then there is no fixed amount for libations, and no further discussion is necessary. If you say that there is a fixed amount for libations, then the halakha of up to ten log of wine is obvious to me. One log, two log, or five log may not be brought, since these amounts are not offered as standard libations, but three, four, or six log are brought, as their amount is equivalent to those of standard libations. Between six and ten log may also be brought, since these amounts can be composed of a combination of the various wine libations. With regard to eleven log,
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye maps out the implications of each side of the debate. If there is no fixed amount, the matter is simple — any amount of three or more is fine. But if there is a fixed amount, Abaye analyzes each number: 1, 2, and 5 cannot be offered; 3 (lamb), 4 (ram), and 6 (bull) are valid single libations; 7-10 can all be composed from combinations of 3, 4, and 6 (e.g., 7=3+4, 8=4+4, 9=3+6, 10=4+6). But eleven is problematic — it cannot be composed from combinations of 3, 4, and 6 unless we allow mixing types (e.g., two rams plus one lamb = 4+4+3 = 11). This question carries over to amud bet.
Key Terms:
- אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר = “If you say” / “even if you maintain” — a conditional phrase exploring the implications of a particular position
- פְּשִׁיטָא לִי = “It is obvious to me” — indicating matters that are clear even under the debated position
Amud Bet (104b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
Continuation — The unresolved dilemma about eleven log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, מַאי: גַּבְרָא לִשְׁנֵי פָּרִים קָא מְכַוֵּין, וְעַד דִּמְמַלֵּי לְהוּ לָא קׇרְבִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא לִשְׁנֵי אֵילִים וְכֶבֶשׂ אֶחָד קָמְכַוֵּוין? תְּרֵי מֵחַד מִינָא וְחַד מֵחַד מִינָא אָמְרִינַן, אוֹ לָא? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
I ask, what is the halakha? Does the man who vowed to bring eleven log intend to bring an amount of wine corresponding to that which is brought in association with an offering of two bulls, i.e., twelve log, and until he accumulates that amount, the libation is not brought? Or perhaps he intends to bring an amount equal to that associated with two rams and one lamb, i.e., four for each ram and three for the lamb, totaling eleven. Do we say that he intended to bring two libations associated with one type, i.e., a ram, and one libation associated with another type, i.e., a lamb, or not? What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma about eleven log hinges on whether we may combine libation types from different animals. Eleven log equals 4+4+3 (two ram libations plus one lamb libation), but this requires mixing types. Alternatively, the pledger may have intended twelve (two bull libations) and simply fell one short. If mixing types is permitted, eleven is valid; if not, he must add a twelfth log. The Gemara leaves this as a teiku — an unresolved question. The Rambam rules practically that for five log, we ask the person to complete six, reflecting the caution born of this unresolved status.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיקוּ = The question remains unresolved — a Talmudic formula for dilemmas without resolution
- תְּרֵי מֵחַד מִינָא = Two of one type (i.e., two libations corresponding to the same animal category)
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
New mishna — Dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon about pledging oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדְּבִין יַיִן, וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One may pledge to bring independent libations of wine, but one may not pledge oil alone; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may pledge oil as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna introduces a new dispute about whether oil can be pledged as an independent offering. Rabbi Akiva holds that only wine may be pledged independently, not oil. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees, holding that oil may also be pledged independently. The dispute reflects a broader question about the nature of voluntary offerings: are they modeled exclusively on existing sacrificial components, or can any sanctified substance be offered independently?
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמֶן = Oil — used in meal offerings mixed with flour, but the question is whether it can be offered alone
- יַיִן = Wine — offered as libations, both alongside animal offerings and independently
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
The debate between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva — Arguments about oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: מָה מָצִינוּ בְּיַיִן, שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה וּבָא נְדָבָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה בָּא נְדָבָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּיַיִן שֶׁכֵּן קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, תֹּאמַר בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ?
English Translation:
Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering independent of any offering, so too, we find that oil comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that this is true with regard to wine, as it is sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself, shall you also say that this is also the case with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself but only mixed with the flour?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Tarfon uses a kal va-chomer (a fortiori) argument: since wine, which comes as both an obligatory accompaniment and a voluntary offering, can be pledged independently, so too oil — which also comes as an obligation (mixed into meal offerings) — should be pledgeable independently. Rabbi Akiva rejects this analogy by identifying a critical distinction: wine is poured on the altar as a separate, independent component of the sacrifice, while oil is always mixed into the flour and never offered independently even within obligatory offerings. Since oil never “stands alone” in its obligatory context, it cannot stand alone as a voluntary offering either.
Key Terms:
- בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ = By itself / independently — the key distinction in the debate
- חוֹבָה = Obligation — an offering required by Torah law
- נְדָבָה = Voluntary / gift offering
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Additional ruling — Partnership offerings and individual birds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, וְעוֹף – אֲפִילּוּ פְּרֵידָה אַחַת.
English Translation:
The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: Two people do not pledge a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah as partners, but they may pledge a burnt offering and a peace offering. And they may pledge to bring even an individual bird, not only a pair.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna establishes an important distinction between meal offerings and other offerings regarding partnership. Two people may jointly pledge a burnt offering or peace offering — even something as small as a single bird. However, a meal offering cannot be brought in partnership. This distinction is significant because it underscores the intensely personal nature of the meal offering, which the Torah introduces with the word “nefesh” (soul/person), as the Gemara will explain later on this amud.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah — the standard unit of flour for a meal offering (approximately 2.5 liters)
- פְּרֵידָה = A single bird (dove or pigeon), as opposed to a pair (ken)
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rava derives a principle from the agreement of both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמוֹד, מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva about whether one can pledge oil, Rava said: From the statements of both of them, we learn that a person may pledge a meal offering like those brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings every day.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava extracts a common principle from the debate between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva. Although they disagree about oil, both agree that a person may voluntarily pledge a meal offering in the form of the meal offerings that accompany animal sacrifices (minchat nesakhim). This is a meal offering of flour mixed with oil, prepared in the manner of the accompaniment offerings. Rava’s point is that although the standard five types of voluntary meal offerings are listed in Leviticus 2, one may also specify a meal offering in the format of the accompaniment offerings.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים = A meal offering of the libation type — flour and oil prepared in the manner of accompaniment offerings
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Clarification — Why Rava’s teaching is not obvious
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִנְחַת נְדָבָה גַּלִּי בַּהּ רַחֲמָנָא – הָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה מְנָחוֹת אִין, טְפֵי לָא! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְתָמָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּפָרֵישׁ – פָּרֵישׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: It needed to be said, lest you say that the Merciful One revealed the nature of a voluntary meal offering (see Leviticus, chapter 2). Perhaps only those five meal offerings detailed there are indeed brought as voluntary offerings, but any additional types, such as a meal offering brought with libations, are not. Rava therefore teaches us that these matters in the Torah apply only where his pledge of a meal offering was unspecified, but where he specified that the oil and flour about which he vows should be brought in the manner of a meal offering with libations, then he has specified, and the vow takes effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara justifies Rava’s teaching by explaining a potential misconception. One might think that the Torah’s listing of five types of voluntary meal offerings in Leviticus 2 is exhaustive — only those five types can be pledged voluntarily, and no others. Rava teaches that this limitation applies only when the pledger’s statement is unspecified (he simply says “a meal offering”). When he explicitly specifies the accompaniment-type format, his specification is valid. The principle is: where the pledger is explicit, his specification overrides the default categories.
Key Terms:
- גַּלִּי בַּהּ רַחֲמָנָא = “The Merciful One revealed” — indicating a Torah passage’s explicit teaching
- בִּסְתָמָא = In an unspecified case / by default
- פָּרֵישׁ = He specified — an explicit statement overrides the default
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Why can’t two people jointly pledge a meal offering? Initial suggestion and rejection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״תַּקְרִיב״, עוֹלָה נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״יַקְרִיב״!
English Translation:
§ The mishna stated that two people do not pledge a tenth of an ephah together. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), in the singular, that is not a proof, as with regard to a burnt offering as well, it is written in the singular: “When any man of you brings an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks the scriptural source for the mishna’s ruling that two people cannot jointly pledge a meal offering. The initial suggestion is that the singular verb “takriv” (brings) in Leviticus 2:1 implies that only one person may bring a meal offering. But the Gemara immediately rejects this: the burnt offering passage in Leviticus 1:2 also uses a singular verb “yakriv,” yet the mishna explicitly permits two people to jointly bring a burnt offering. So the singular verb alone cannot be the source.
Key Terms:
- תַּקְרִיב / יַקְרִיב = Singular forms of “to offer/bring” — used in the Torah’s instructions for both meal and burnt offerings
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The true source — The word “nefesh” (soul) in the meal offering passage
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא עוֹלָה מַאי טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם״, מִנְחָה נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״לְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
Rather, what is the reason that a burnt offering is brought by two people? The reason is that it is written in second person plural: “These you shall offer…beside your burnt offerings [le’oloteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: “Your meal offerings [leminḥoteikhem].” Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara works through the sources methodically. Burnt offerings can be brought jointly because of the plural “le’oloteikhem” in Numbers 29:39. But meal offerings are also referred to in the plural in the same verse. The decisive factor is the unique word “nefesh” (soul/person) in Leviticus 2:1, which introduces the voluntary meal offering. This word emphasizes the individual, personal nature of the meal offering — it must come from one person’s “soul,” not from a partnership. This reading connects to the famous aggadic teaching that follows.
Key Terms:
- נֶפֶשׁ = Soul / person — the key word that excludes partnership in meal offerings
- לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם / לְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם = “Your burnt offerings” / “Your meal offerings” — plural forms in Numbers 29:39
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi confirms — All offerings may be brought in partnership except meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״ – הַכֹּל בָּאִין בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, לֹא סִילֵּק הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִנְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: “Anyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). It is evident from the use of the plural in the second part of the verse that any offering can be brought in a partnership, and the verse excludes only a meal offering from this principle, as it is stated: “And when an individual brings a meal offering.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi provides the definitive scriptural proof. The verse in Leviticus 22:18 transitions from singular (“anyone that brings his offering”) to plural (“their vows… their free-will offerings that they sacrifice”), teaching that offerings generally may be brought by multiple people in partnership. The only exception is the meal offering, which is singled out by the word “nefesh” in Leviticus 2:1 as a uniquely individual offering. This ruling is codified by the Rambam as a law transmitted through the Oral Tradition.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּתָּפוּת = Partnership — joint ownership of a sacrifice
- רַבִּי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — the redactor of the Mishna
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yitzchak’s teaching — Why the Torah uses “nefesh” for the meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מִי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהָבִיא מִנְחָה? עָנִי, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב נַפְשׁוֹ לְפָנַי.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another comment about the fact that the Torah introduces the voluntary meal offering by emphasizing that it is brought by an individual. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term “an individual [nefesh]” is stated with regard to it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Whose practice is it to bring a meal offering? It is that of a poor individual; and I will ascribe him credit as if he offered up his soul [nafsho] in front of Me.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is one of the most famous and moving aggadic teachings in Seder Kodashim. Rabbi Yitzchak explains the unique use of the word “nefesh” (soul) in the meal offering passage: the meal offering — made of simple flour and oil — is the offering of the poor. While the wealthy bring bulls and rams, the poor person can only afford a handful of flour. God says: I regard this humble offering as if the person offered up their very soul. This teaching is cited by Rashi on Leviticus 2:1 and has become a foundational text for understanding that the value of a sacrifice is measured not by its material worth but by the sincerity and self-sacrifice behind it.
Key Terms:
- נֶפֶשׁ / נַפְשׁוֹ = Soul — the Torah’s use of “nefesh” connects the offering to the person’s very being
- עָנִי = A poor person — the typical one who brings a meal offering
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yitzchak’s parable — Why the Torah permits five types of meal offering preparations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה, (שנאמר) [שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ] בָּהּ חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן הַלָּלוּ? מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וְדָם שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ סְעוּדָה, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָנִי. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה לִי מִן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֵהָנֶה מִמְּךָ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitzḥak about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason that the meal offering is differentiated from other offerings in that the Torah stated these five types of preparations with oil with regard to it? The five types of voluntary meal offerings are: A meal offering of fine flour, a meal offering in a shallow pan, a meal offering in a deep pan, a meal offering of loaves baked in an oven, and a meal offering of wafers baked in an oven. All are brought with oil. This can be explained by a parable of a flesh-and-blood king whose friend made a festive meal for him, but the king knows that the friend is poor. The king said to him: Make for me foods from five types of fried dishes, so that I may benefit from you.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak extends his previous teaching with a beautiful parable. A king knows his friend is poor but wants to honor him by accepting his hospitality. Rather than asking for expensive dishes, the king requests five variations of simple fried foods — allowing the poor friend to show creativity and devotion within his means. So too, God gave the poor person five ways to prepare a meal offering from basic flour and oil, enabling variety and personal expression even within humble circumstances. The five types listed are: solet (fine flour), machavat (shallow pan), marcheshet (deep pan), ma’aseh tanur chalot (oven-baked loaves), and ma’aseh tanur rekikin (oven-baked wafers).
Key Terms:
- טִיגּוּן = Fried/prepared dishes — referring to the five methods of meal offering preparation
- מָשָׁל = Parable — a common Talmudic literary form for illustrating ethical or theological points
Segment 12
TYPE: הדרן
Hadran — Completion of Chapter 12 (HaMenachot VeHaNesakhim)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמְּנָחוֹת וְהַנְּסָכִים.
English Translation:
We have returned to you, HaMenachot VeHaNesakhim (chapter 12: The Meal Offerings and the Libations). This marks the completion of chapter 12 of tractate Menachot.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the hadran formula marking the completion of Chapter 12 of Menachot. The chapter dealt with the laws of meal offerings and libations, including the quantities of flour, oil, and wine that accompany various animal offerings, the maximum of sixty esronim of flour in a single vessel, and the rules for voluntary libation pledges. The hadran formula (“we have returned to you”) expresses the hope of returning to study this chapter again, reflecting the cyclical nature of Torah learning.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן = “We have returned to you” — the formula recited upon completing a chapter or tractate
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
New chapter (Chapter 13) begins — Pledging tenths of an ephah for meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא אֶחָד, ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of one-tenth. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah, he must bring two-tenths, as that is the minimum plural amount. If he says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know which number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths, as that is the maximum amount of a meal offering. The flour beyond the amount that he actually specified is rendered a voluntary meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Chapter 13 opens with a mishna addressing the halakhic mechanics of vow fulfillment for meal offerings. The mishna establishes three progressively complex cases: (1) a singular pledge — bring one isaron; (2) a plural pledge — bring the minimum plural, which is two; (3) a forgotten specification — bring sixty esronim, the maximum possible in a single vessel. The logic of the third case is that since the person cannot recall the exact number, he must bring the maximum to be certain he fulfills his obligation. Any surplus beyond his actual vow becomes a voluntary offering. The number sixty is based on the halakha that a single meal offering vessel cannot contain more than sixty esronim.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah (isaron) — the standard unit of flour for meal offerings
- שִׁשִּׁים = Sixty — the maximum number of esronim in a single meal offering vessel
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
Pledging an unspecified type of meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, שֶׁהִיא מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת.
English Translation:
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, he may bring whichever meal offering that he wishes, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, the shallow-pan or deep-pan meal offering, or the meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers. Rabbi Yehuda says: He must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna addresses a case where someone vows to bring “a meal offering” without specifying which type. The first tanna holds he may bring any of the five voluntary types. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, requiring specifically the fine-flour meal offering (minchat hasolet) because it is the “most notable” — it is listed first in Leviticus 2, and it requires the least preparation (just fine flour poured with oil and frankincense). The dispute reflects a broader question: when a vow is ambiguous, do we interpret it with maximum flexibility or according to the most prominent default?
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת = The fine-flour meal offering — the first and simplest type listed in Leviticus 2
- מְיוּחֶדֶת = Notable / distinguished / the most prominent
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
Plural and forgotten specifications for meal offering types
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִנְחָה״ אוֹ ״מִין הַמִּנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אַחַת. ״מְנָחוֹת״ אוֹ ״מִין מְנָחוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חֲמִשְׁתָּן.
English Translation:
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one meal offering. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two. If he says: I specified a meal offering but I do not know which meal offering I specified, he must bring all five types of meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna works through the permutations of meal offering pledges with increasing specificity and forgetfulness. The singular form “minchah” or “min ha-minchah” obligates one offering; the plural “menachot” or “min menachot” obligates the minimum plural of two. Most dramatically, if the person specified a particular type but forgot which one, he must bring all five types to cover every possibility. This mirrors the earlier case of forgotten esronim (where sixty must be brought) — the principle is: when in doubt, cover all possibilities so that the vow is certainly fulfilled.
Key Terms:
- חֲמִשְׁתָּן = All five of them — referring to the five types of voluntary meal offerings
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
The dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about forgotten specifications
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
English Translation:
If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not know how many tenths I specified, he must bring a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: His obligation is satisfied only when he brings meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs. He fulfills his vow with one of the meal offerings, and the rest are rendered voluntary meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the climactic dispute of the mishna. The first tanna holds that when someone forgets the number of esronim he specified, he simply brings sixty esronim in one vessel — the maximum possible — ensuring he covers his vow. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is far more stringent: the person must bring sixty separate meal offerings — one of one isaron, one of two esronim, one of three, and so on up to sixty. Only one of these sixty offerings actually fulfills his vow; the other fifty-nine become voluntary. Rabbi’s concern is that the forgotten number specified a meal offering in one vessel, and since that vessel could have held any amount from 1 to 60, all possibilities must be covered.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — whose stringent ruling requires 1,830 total esronim
- 1,830 esronim = The sum of 1+2+3+…+60 = 1,830 (the total flour required under Rabbi’s position)
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara asks why the mishna’s rulings are necessary
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מִיעוּט עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of a tenth. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Why is it necessary to teach this in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the mishna to mention this case as a preamble to the following halakha, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah he must bring two-tenths. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that the minimum amount that the word tenths is used in reference to is two-tenths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the necessity of each ruling in the mishna. The first case (one isaron for the singular “isaron”) seems obvious — so the Gemara explains it exists only as a preamble to the plural case. The plural case (two esronim for “esronot”) also seems obvious — but the Gemara clarifies that the mishna is establishing a technical principle: the minimum plural of “esronot” is exactly two. This is necessary because one might have thought that a vague plural could mean “many” (three or more). The mishna teaches that the halakhic default for a plural is the minimum possible: two.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט = The minimum (amount indicated by a plural term) — in halakhic interpretation, a plural means at least two
- אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ = “It was necessary” — explaining why a seemingly obvious ruling was included
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Identifying the tanna of the sixty-esronim ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. מַאן תַּנָּא?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know what number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a potential contradiction within the mishna: the earlier ruling (bring sixty esronim in one vessel) and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling (bring sixty separate meal offerings of increasing sizes) appear incompatible. The Gemara therefore asks: which tanna authored the earlier ruling? If it was Rabbi, it contradicts his own later ruling. If it was a different tanna, it must be identified.
Key Terms:
- מַאן תַּנָּא = “Who is the tanna?” — a standard query to identify the authority behind an anonymous ruling
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Chizkiyya’s answer — The first ruling is not Rabbi’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּאִי רַבִּי, הָאָמַר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
English Translation:
Ḥizkiyya said: This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mentioned at the end of the mishna. As if it was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn’t he say that such a person must bring meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths?
קלאוד על הדף:
Chizkiyya resolves the contradiction straightforwardly: the first ruling (bring sixty esronim in one vessel) is not Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion — it reflects the anonymous first tanna. Rabbi’s opinion is the stringent position stated at the end of the mishna. The two rulings represent a genuine dispute between the anonymous tanna and Rabbi, not an internal contradiction. This is a clean reading that treats the two statements as two different authorities.
Key Terms:
- חִזְקִיָּה = Ḥizkiyya — an early Amora in Eretz Yisrael, student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
- דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי = “Not in accordance with Rabbi” — attributing the anonymous ruling to a different tanna
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yochanan’s alternative — Both rulings can be Rabbi’s, in different cases
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, בְּאוֹמֵר ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אֲבָל לֹא קְבַעְתִּים בִּכְלִי״, דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת בְּשִׁיתִּין מָאנֵי.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: You may even say that this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because the case at the end of the mishna is a case where one specified that he would bring the tenths of an ephah in a single vessel. In such a case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one must bring sixty different amounts in sixty different vessels. By contrast, the former case in the mishna is one where the person says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I did not establish that they must be brought in one vessel. In such a case all agree that he must bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in sixty vessels, a tenth in each vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan offers a harmonizing approach: both rulings can be attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because they address different cases. The first case (bring sixty esronim) applies when the person did not specify a single vessel — so he brings sixty esronim split into sixty individual vessels, one isaron each. The second case (Rabbi’s stringent ruling) applies when the person specifically said the esronim should be in one vessel — then he must bring sixty meal offerings of increasing sizes (1, 2, 3… up to 60 esronim per vessel) because any one of them might match his forgotten specification. Rabbi Yochanan’s reading avoids attributing the first ruling to a different tanna and maintains consistency within Rabbi’s position.
Key Terms:
- כְּלִי = Vessel — the container in which the meal offering is prepared and offered
- קְבַעְתִּים = “I established them” / “I fixed them” — specifying that the esronim go in one vessel
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Why does Rabbi Yehuda hold that the fine-flour meal offering is the default?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, the first tanna holds he may bring whichever meal offering he wishes, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, since in the passage of the Torah that discusses the meal offering (Leviticus, chapter 2) the verse opens with the fine-flour meal offering first, mentioning it before the other meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda argues that when the Torah lists the five types of voluntary meal offerings in Leviticus 2, the fine-flour meal offering is mentioned first. This primacy of order in the Torah indicates its prominence. Therefore, when someone makes an unspecified meal offering pledge, the default should be the most prominent type — the one the Torah prioritized. The Gemara will now challenge this reasoning.
Key Terms:
- פָּתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה = “The verse opens with it first” — the principle that the Torah’s ordering indicates priority
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge — If order determines the default, then a burnt offering pledge should require a bull
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יָבִיא בֶּן בָּקָר, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal, must bring a young bull as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a powerful challenge to Rabbi Yehuda’s principle. If the Torah’s ordering determines the default obligation, then an unspecified burnt offering pledge should require a bull, since the burnt offering passage in Leviticus 1 opens with cattle before sheep and birds. But we know this is not the halakha — an unspecified burnt offering pledge is fulfilled with a lamb, the least expensive option. This challenge remains unresolved on this daf and continues onto the next page, where the Gemara will likely distinguish between the cases or limit Rabbi Yehuda’s principle.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן בָּקָר = A young bull — the first animal type listed in the burnt offering passage (Leviticus 1:3)
- אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה = “If that is so” — a standard Talmudic challenge formula