Menachot Daf 107 (מנחות דף ק״ז)
Daf: 107 | Amudim: 107a – 107b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (107a)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך הסוגיא
Tail of 106b’s bird-olah question — the crop and feathers exclude it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה.
English Translation:
the crop and feathers, which are thrown on the ground next to the altar and are not burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
This fragment completes the answer started at the end of 106b. The Gemara there had challenged: isn’t the bird-olah also “entirely on the altar” (since birds aren’t flayed)? The answer appears here: no — the מוּרְאָה (crop) and נוֹצָה (feathers) are removed and tossed onto the ash-heap beside the altar, not burned. So even the bird-olah has non-altar components, leaving frankincense as the unique “entirely-burned” item that answers a vow “for the altar.”
Key Terms:
- מוּרְאָה (mura’ah) = the crop, the pouch in a bird’s digestive tract that stores food before digestion
- נוֹצָה (notzah) = feathers — together with the crop, these are thrown on the ash-heap (בית הדשן) and not offered on the altar
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Wine libations excluded — they go to the shittin, not onto the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאִיכָּא נְסָכִים, לַשִּׁיתִין אָזְלִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But aren’t there wine libations, which are poured entirely onto the altar? The Gemara answers that the wine is not actually poured onto the altar; it is poured into ducts on the side of the altar and goes down to the drainpipes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another challenge to frankincense’s unique status: surely wine libations are “entirely given” to the altar? The Gemara answers with technical precision: the wine is not actually burned on the altar’s surface — it flows through ducts and disappears into the שִׁיתִין, subterranean drainage channels. So while wine “goes to the altar” in a loose sense, it does not satisfy the strict criterion of being קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא (sacrificed on the altar as-is).
Key Terms:
- שִׁיתִין (shittin) = the drainage channels below the southwestern corner of the altar into which the wine libations flowed
- נְסָכִים (nesakhim) = the wine libations poured with animal offerings
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Minchat Nesakhim excluded — not a “clean” category
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאִיכָּא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא מִנְחָה דְּאָכְלִי כֹּהֲנִים מִינַּהּ, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a meal offering brought with libations, which is entirely burned on the altar? The Gemara answers that when one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring to the altar, his intent is clearly to bring a type of offering that is only sacrificed on the altar. A meal offering brought with libations is a type of meal offering. Therefore, since there are other types of a meal offering from which the priests eat, after a handful has been removed from it and burned, a meal offering brought with libations is not a clear example of an offering that is sacrificed on the altar in its entirety, and certainly was not his intent. Therefore, his intent must have been to bring frankincense.
קלאוד על הדף:
The minchat nesakhim really is entirely burned on the altar — unlike regular menachot, nothing goes to the kohanim. So why doesn’t it count for the “for the altar” default? The Gemara’s answer is psychological: when a vower says “for the altar” he picks a conceptually clean category, not a category like מנחה where eating-by-kohanim is the norm. The vower’s mental sorting excludes the entire minchah family (even the libation-minchah sub-type which happens to be fully burned), leaving frankincense alone.
Key Terms:
- לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ (lo pesika leih) = “it is not decisive for him” — the vower would not single out this category in his mental picture
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים (minchat nesakhim) = the meal-offering accompanying libations; entirely burned, unlike regular menachot
Segment 4
TYPE: שני תירוצים על המשנה
Why a gold vow requires a gold dinar — coin versus nugget, dinar versus peruta
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הֲרֵי עָלַי זָהָב״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. וְדִלְמָא נְסָכָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּאָמַר ״מַטְבֵּעַ״. וְדִלְמָא פְּרִיטֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּרִיטֵי דְּדַהֲבָא לָא עָבְדִי אִינָשֵׁי.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold to the Temple treasury, must donate no less than a gold dinar. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps his intention in using the word gold is not to a coin at all, but to a small piece [naskha] of gold. Rabbi Elazar said: The case of the baraita is where he said the word coin. The Gemara challenges further: But perhaps his intention is not to a dinar, but to smaller coins, such as perutot. Rav Pappa said: People do not make perutot of gold. Therefore, it is unlikely that this was his intent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two challenges to the mishna’s “gold dinar” minimum. First: maybe “gold” means a raw lump (נְסָכָא), not a coin at all? Rabbi Elazar clarifies the mishna only applies when the vower explicitly said מַטְבֵּעַ (coin). Second: even granting coin, why assume dinar and not the smaller peruta? Rav Pappa answers with a sociological fact: people do not mint gold perutot — gold is too valuable to issue in such small denominations, so the smallest gold coin is the dinar.
Key Terms:
- נְסָכָא (naskha) = a raw, unshaped lump of precious metal, not a coin
- מַטְבֵּעַ (matbei’a) = a minted coin
- פְּרִיטָה (peruta) = the smallest unit of copper currency; never minted in gold
Segment 5
TYPE: שני תירוצים מקבילים
Parallel analysis for silver — requires a regional qualification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כֶּסֶף״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינָר. וְדִלְמָא נְסָכָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּאָמַר ״מַטְבֵּעַ״, וְדִלְמָא פְּרִיטֵי? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא סָגוּ פְּרִיטֵי דְכַסְפָּא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate silver to the Temple maintenance, must donate no less than the value of a silver dinar. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps his intention in using the word silver is not to a coin at all, but to a small piece of silver. Rabbi Elazar said: The case of the baraita is where he said the word coin. The Gemara challenges further: But perhaps his intention is not to a dinar, but to smaller coins, such as perutot. Rav Pappa said: The halakha of the baraita is stated with regard to a place where silver perutot do not circulate.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara runs the same two challenges for silver. The lump/coin distinction is resolved identically (Rabbi Elazar: the mishna speaks where he said מַטְבֵּעַ). But the peruta question is different for silver: silver perutot do exist historically. Rav Sheshet must qualify: the mishna applies only in a locale where silver perutot do not circulate, so the smallest available silver denomination is the dinar. Where silver perutot do circulate, a silver peruta would be enough.
Key Terms:
- בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא סָגוּ פְּרִיטֵי דְכַסְפָּא (be’atra delo sagu peritei dekhaspa) = “in a place where silver perutot do not circulate” — a regional qualification that makes the dinar the effective minimum
- רַב שֵׁשֶׁת (Rav Sheshet) = an early Babylonian amora known for sharp halachic distinctions
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא — נחושת
Copper minimum — R. Eliezer b. Ya’akov’s distinctive view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״נְחוֹשֶׁת״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִמָּעָה כֶּסֶף. תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִצִּינּוֹרָא קְטַנָּה שֶׁל נְחֹשֶׁת. לְמַאי חַזְיָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁמְּחַטְּטִין בָּהּ פְּתִילוֹת, וּמְקַנְּחִין בָּהּ נֵרוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate copper to the Temple maintenance, must donate no less than the value of a silver ma’a. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: He must donate no less than the amount needed to forge a small copper hook. The Gemara asks: For what use is that suitable in the Temple? Abaye said: They scrape the wicks from the Candelabrum with it and clean the lamps of the Candelabrum with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna requires copper equal in value to a silver maah, but R. Eliezer ben Ya’akov offers a fundamentally different measure: the amount of copper needed to forge a small hook (צִינּוֹרָא קְטַנָּה). Abaye explains the Temple use: this little hook was employed to trim wicks and clean the lamps of the Menorah. R. Eliezer ben Ya’akov anchors the minimum to an actual functional Temple tool rather than to a monetary equivalence, reflecting his characteristic concrete-functional approach.
Key Terms:
- צִינּוֹרָא קְטַנָּה (tzinorah ketanah) = a small hook — used in the daily cleaning of the Menorah’s lamps
- מָעָה כֶּסֶף (ma’ah kesef) = a silver maah, one-sixth of a silver dinar
- רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב (R. Eliezer ben Ya’akov) = a tanna whose rulings are deemed “קב ונקי” (small but pure/reliable)
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא — ברזל
Iron minimum — a raven-deterrent device
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּרְזֶל, תַּנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִכָּלְיָה עוֹרֵב, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה.
English Translation:
The mishna discusses pledges of gold, silver, and copper. What is the halakha if one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate iron? It is taught in a baraita that others say: He must donate no less than the amount that can be made into a base and spike designed to eliminate the ravens [mikkalya orev]. The Gemara asks: And how much is that? Rav Yosef said: One cubit in width by one cubit in length.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna listed gold, silver, and copper but not iron. A baraita from “Others” fills the gap: an iron vow must suffice to forge a כָּלְיָה עוֹרֵב — a spiked iron plate installed on the roof of the sanctuary to prevent ravens from perching and defiling it. Rav Yosef quantifies: one cubit square. The Temple’s concrete maintenance needs become the anchor for the minimum vow-amount.
Key Terms:
- כָּלְיָה עוֹרֵב (kalyah orev) = “raven-destroyer” — a spiked iron plate installed atop the sanctuary roof to keep ravens from landing and soiling it
- אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה (amah al amah) = one cubit by one cubit (approximately 48×48 cm)
- אֲחֵרִים (Acherim) = “Others” — a Talmudic designation, often understood to refer to Rabbi Meir when cited by that name
Segment 8
TYPE: גירסא אחרת
Alternative version of the baraita — inverted structure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לֹא יִפְחוֹת מֵאַמָּה עַל אַמָּה. לְמַאי חַזְיָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לְכָלְיָה עוֹרֵב.
English Translation:
There are those who say another version of this baraita and the subsequent explanation: One who pledges to donate iron must donate no less than one cubit in width by one cubit in length. The Gemara asks: For what is this amount of iron suitable? Rav Yosef said: It is suitable for a base and spike designed to eliminate the ravens.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative transmission inverts the previous structure. In this version, the baraita stated the quantitative measure directly (one cubit by one cubit) and Rav Yosef supplied the functional reason (for a kalyah-orev). The halachic result is identical; only the rhetorical arrangement differs — either “make a raven-deterrent” → needs 1×1 cubit, or “at least 1×1 cubit” → useful for a raven-deterrent.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי (ika de’amrei) = “there are those who say” — a Talmudic formula introducing an alternative version of a teaching
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה — יין ושמן
New mishna — minimums for wine and oil vows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי יַיִן״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין, ״שֶׁמֶן״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִלּוֹג, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a libation of wine, must bring no less than three log, as that is the minimum amount of wine brought as a libation accompanying an animal offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring oil, must bring no less than a log, as the smallest meal offering includes one log of oil. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He must bring no less than three log, as that is the amount of oil in the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of a lamb, which is the smallest amount in any of the meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of an animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna sets minimums for liquid-donation vows. A wine vow: at least three log (the libation-quantity for a lamb, the smallest animal offering). An oil vow: the Tanna Kamma requires one log (the oil for the smallest standalone meal offering), while Rebbi requires three log (the oil for the libation-minchah accompanying a lamb). The dispute hinges on which category of offering serves as the “anchor” for an oil vow — standalone minchah or libation-accompaniment.
Key Terms:
- לוֹג (log) = a liquid measure, approximately 300-500 ml
- שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין (sheloshah lugin) = three log; the minimum libation quantity (for a lamb)
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה — פירשתי ואיני יודע
“Specified but forgot” — bring the maximum of any Temple day
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא כְּיוֹם מְרוּבֶּה.
English Translation:
One who says: I specified how many log I vowed to bring but I do not know what amount I specified, must bring an amount of oil equivalent to the amount brought on the day that the largest amount of oil is sacrificed in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s solution for a forgotten-quantity oil vow: bring the amount equivalent to the day of maximum Temple oil consumption (כְּיוֹם מְרוּבֶּה). This safely covers any plausible original specification. The next segment will identify which day that is — the first day of Sukkot on Shabbat, which combines festival musaf offerings with Shabbat musaf, yielding the highest daily oil total.
Key Terms:
- יוֹם מְרוּבֶּה (yom meruveh) = “a day of multiplicity” — the day on which the greatest number of offerings (and hence the most oil) were brought
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא — מקור לנדבת יין
Source: “ezrach” teaches that one may volunteer a wine libation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין יַיִן, וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Torah states with regard to libations: “All that are native 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 “native born” teaches that one may pledge libations independently, even when they are not sacrificed together with an offering. And how much is the minimum size that is offered? Three log, which is the smallest measurement of a libation in the Torah and is offered with a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sources the wine vow’s minimum. The superfluous term “אֶזְרָח” in Bamidbar 15:13 is interpreted exegetically: the term teaches that a native Israelite may volunteer wine libations on their own, detached from an animal offering. The three-log minimum is determined by the smallest libation mentioned in Torah — the libation accompanying a lamb.
Key Terms:
- אֶזְרָח (ezrach) = native-born [Israelite]; Bamidbar 15:13 — the derivation-word for the permissibility of standalone libations
- נְדָבָה (nedavah) = a voluntary gift offering
Segment 12
TYPE: המשך הדרשה
Adding is allowed; reducing below three log is not
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 to it? 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 the third part of a hin for the ram, and the fourth part of a hin for the lamb (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous “shall be” one may understand that there are other amounts of wine that may be brought as independent libations. One might have thought that he can decrease the amount of wine in a libation to less than three log. Therefore, the verse states: “All that are native 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:
Two further derivations bracket the wine-libation amount. On one side, the word יִהְיֶה (Bamidbar 28:14, “shall be”) authorizes going above three log — one may volunteer a half-hin, third-hin, or quarter-hin like the Rosh Chodesh libations. On the other side, the word כָּכָה (Bamidbar 15:13, “in this manner”) blocks going below three log. The minimum is floored at three log; above it, the vower has flexibility.
Key Terms:
- יִהְיֶה (yihyeh) = “shall be” — source for upward flexibility in libation-size
- כָּכָה (kakha) = “thus” or “in this manner” — source for the three-log floor
Segment 13
TYPE: שאלה — במאי מיפלגי
What drives the oil-minimum dispute?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁמֶן – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִן הַלּוֹג, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring oil, he must bring no less than a log, as the smallest meal offering includes a log of oil. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He must bring no less than three log. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now probes the underlying logic of the oil-minimum dispute. Tanna Kamma requires one log, Rebbi requires three. Why the threefold gap? The next segments will offer two candidate framings: either the dispute is over the proper scope of a heqesh-derivation (דון מינה ומינה vs. דון מינה ואוקי באתרה), or it is over which verse is the source.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (bemai ka mipalgi) = “about what do they disagree?” — the Gemara’s standard probe for underlying principles
Segment 14
TYPE: הצעה ראשונה
First framing: dispute about the proper scope of heqesh-inference
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: בְּדוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, בְּדוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵים בְּאַתְרַהּ – קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
The Sages said before Rav Pappa: The Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree with regard to the proper method of logical derivation when deriving the halakha with regard to one matter from the halakha with regard to another matter. One opinion holds that the proper method is to infer from it, and again from it, i.e., equate the two cases in all aspects, while the other holds that the comparison extends only to one specific issue derived from the primary case, in accordance with the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., in all other aspects the cases are not equated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages propose that the dispute maps onto a classical meta-halachic principle. When deriving a new halacha by analogy: (a) Do we import all features from the source (דון מינה ומינה)? Or (b) do we import only the enabling feature and otherwise “place it back in its own setting” (דון מינה ואוקי באתרה)? The next segments will unpack how each view applies to the oil-vow case.
Key Terms:
- דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ (dun minah u’minah) = “infer from it and again from it” — equate the two cases fully
- דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ (dun minah v’ukei be’atrah) = “infer from it but place it back in its own place” — import only the enabling feature
Segment 15
TYPE: ביאור צד הרבנן
The Rabbis: infer both the existence and the quantity from minchah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין – אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי מִתְנַדְּבִין, וּמִינַּהּ: מָה מִנְחָה בְּלוֹג – אַף שֶׁמֶן בְּלוֹג.
English Translation:
The Sages explained: The Rabbis hold by the principle: Infer from it, and again from it. The Gemara explains the application of this principle: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too oil is contributed, as inferred from the verse addressing the meal offering. And again one infers from this source: Just as a meal offering requires a log of oil, so too here, an offering of oil alone must be a log of oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis apply דון מינה ומינה. Step one (מינה): the possibility of volunteering oil is derived from volunteering a minchah. Step two (ומינה): once the analogy is established, all features transfer — and a minchah requires one log of oil, so an oil-vow also requires one log. Full feature-transfer yields one log as the minimum.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחָה בְּלוֹג (minchah belog) = a minchah [takes] one log — the standard oil-quantity for a minimal meal offering
Segment 16
TYPE: ביאור צד רבי
Rebbi: derive existence from minchah, but quantity from libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי סָבַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ, מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי מִתְנַדְּבִין, וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ כִּנְסָכִים, מָה נְסָכִים שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין, אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the proper method is to infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too oil is contributed. But with regard to all other aspects of this halakha, interpret the halakha according to its own place, and its status is like that of libations, which are similar to oil in that they are also poured onto the altar: Just as one contributes libations of three log, so too when one contributes oil, one contributes three log.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rebbi applies דון מינה ואוקי באתרה — split the inference. Step one: derive from minchah that oil can be volunteered. Step two: once authorized, restore oil to its natural structural context, which is that of libations (both are poured liquids). And the libation-minimum is three log. So oil’s minimum tracks libations, not minchah.
Key Terms:
- אוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ (ukei be’atrah) = “place it in its own setting” — after deriving the minimal feature, let the new category take its own natural parameters
Segment 17
TYPE: דחיית רב פפא
Rav Pappa rejects the framing — Rebbi derives from a different verse entirely
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אִי מִמִּנְחָה גָּמַר לַהּ רַבִּי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, אֶלָּא רַבִּי מֵ״אֶזְרָח״ גְּמִיר לַהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said to the Sages who suggested this interpretation: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derived the source of the gift offering of oil from the verse addressing the meal offering, he would not disagree with the Rabbis, as everyone employs the principle of: Infer from it, and again from it. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the gift offering of oil from a verse concerning libations: “All that are native born shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire” (Numbers 15:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from here that just as one may contribute wine libations, so too one may contribute oil. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compares oil to wine libations: Just as one contributes libations of three log, so too one contributes three log of oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa rejects the Sages’ meta-principle framing. Everyone accepts דון מינה ומינה as the default — so if Rebbi derived the oil-vow from minchah, he would also agree to one log. The real difference is the source verse: Rebbi derives the oil-vow from אֶזְרָח (Bamidbar 15:13, the libation verse), not from minchah. Since Rebbi’s source is libations, his quantity is three log, matching libations. The dispute is about verse-selection, not about derivation-method.
Key Terms:
- דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי (dekhulei alma lo pligi) = “all agree” — a Talmudic move that eliminates a proposed point of dispute
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא ותשובה מוגבלת
Rav Huna b. Rav Natan challenges; Rav Pappa concedes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״קׇרְבָּן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן, וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין? רַבִּי, וְקָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״קׇּרְבָּן״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא.
English Translation:
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: And how can you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the source of the gift offering of oil is not from the meal offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban mincha]” (Leviticus 2:1), that the superfluous word korban teaches that one may contribute oil. And how much must one contribute? Three log. The Gemara explains the question: Who did you hear that says the gift offering of oil is three log? This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and yet he cites the source of the gift offering of oil from the word korban, which is referring to a meal offering. Rav Pappa said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna b. Rav Natan produces a baraita that contradicts Rav Pappa’s claim. The baraita derives the oil-vow from “קָרְבָּן” (in Vayikra 2:1, the minchah verse) and requires three log — attributing to Rebbi both the minchah-derivation and the three-log quantity. This seems to reopen the original meta-principle framing. Rav Pappa’s concession is succinct and striking: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא — “if it is taught thus, it is taught thus” — meaning he cannot contest a clear tannaitic source even if it complicates his reconstruction.
Key Terms:
- אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא (i tanya tanya) = “if it is taught, it is taught” — a Talmudic acknowledgment of yielding to a tannaitic text
Segment 19
TYPE: זיהוי יום מרובה
Identifying “yom meruveh” — Sukkot Day One on Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא כְּיוֹם מְרוּבֶּה. תְּנָא: כְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that one who says: I specified how many log I vowed to bring but I do not know what number I specified, must bring an amount of oil equivalent to the amount brought on the day that the largest amount of oil is sacrificed in the Temple. The Sages taught: He must bring an amount of oil equivalent to the amount that is brought on the first day of the Festival, i.e., Sukkot, when it occurs on Shabbat. The offerings brought on that day include the additional offerings for Sukkot and also the additional offerings for Shabbat, and the total amount of oil brought on that day is 140 log.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita identifies the “day of maximum oil” as the first day of Sukkot when it coincides with Shabbat. That day combines Sukkot’s first-day musaf (13 bulls, 2 rams, 14 lambs) with Shabbat’s musaf (2 lambs) and the regular daily tamidim — totaling 140 log of oil. Bringing this maximum safely covers any plausible quantity the forgotten vow could have specified.
Key Terms:
- יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג (yom tov harishon shel chag) = “the first day of the Festival” — Sukkot day one
- 140 log = the total oil-quantity when Sukkot day one coincides with Shabbat
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה — נדר סתמי לעולה
New mishna — “I vow an olah” defaults to a lamb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹ תּוֹר אוֹ בֶּן יוֹנָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must bring a lamb, which is the least expensive land animal sacrificed as an offering. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may bring either a dove or a pigeon, as a bird burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna shifts to animal-offering vows. The Tanna Kamma: an unspecified “olah” vow requires a lamb — the cheapest land-animal offering, so the default is the minimum-value candidate. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is even more lenient: a bird-olah (turtledove or pigeon) suffices, which is cheaper still. The next segment in the gemara (on amud bet) will explain their dispute as a regional-custom difference rather than a principled disagreement.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלָה (olah) = burnt offering — entirely burned on the altar
- תּוֹר / בֶּן יוֹנָה (tor / ben yonah) = turtledove / pigeon — the two bird species used for bird-offerings
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה — נדר מפורש ונשכח
Specified but forgot — escalating coverage lists for olah vows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִן הַבָּקָר, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא פַּר וְעֵגֶל. ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא פַּר וְעֵגֶל, אַיִל, שָׂעִיר, גְּדִי וְטָלֶה. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ –
English Translation:
One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering, and I specified that it would be from the herd, but I do not know what animal I specified, must bring a bull and a male calf, as a burnt offering is brought only from male animals. One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering and I specified that it would be from the animals but I do not know what animal I specified, must bring a bull and a male calf, a ram, a large male goat, a small male goat, and a male lamb. One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering, and I specified what type of burnt offering it would be, but I do not know what I specified,
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna builds three tiers of forgotten-specification coverage. (1) “From the herd” (בָּקָר) — narrowed to cattle only: must bring both a bull and a male calf. (2) “From animals” (בְּהֵמָה) — broader, all kosher land-animals: must bring six (bull, calf, ram, large goat, small goat, lamb). (3) Completely unspecified — the list extends to include birds as well. Since olah is male-only, only male animals appear in these lists. The daf cuts off mid-segment; the completion (adding dove and pigeon) opens 107b.
Key Terms:
- בָּקָר (bakar) = the herd, i.e., cattle (bulls, cows, calves)
- בְּהֵמָה (beheima) = (kosher domesticated) animal, broader — includes sheep and goats as well
Amud Bet (107b)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך המשנה
Completion of the fully-unspecified case — add a dove and a pigeon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן תּוֹר וּבֶן יוֹנָה.
English Translation:
adds a dove and a pigeon to the previous list.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s sentence from 107a completes here. For a fully-unspecified forgotten olah vow, the six land-animals alone are insufficient — the vower might have specified a bird. So the list extends: add a turtledove and a pigeon, bringing the total to eight offerings that cover every possible olah specification.
Key Terms:
- מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן (mosif aleihen) = “he adds to them” — extends the previous list of land animals
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה — תודה ושלמים
Parallel rules for toda and shelamim — male and female pairs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ – יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִן בָּקָר, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא פַּר וּפָרָה, עֵגֶל וְעֶגְלָה. ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא פַּר וּפָרָה, עֵגֶל וְעֶגְלָה, אַיִל וּרְחֵלָה, שָׂעִיר וּשְׂעִירָה, גְּדִי וּגְדִיָּיה, טָלֶה וְטַלְיָיה.
English Translation:
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and a peace offering, must bring a lamb, which is the least expensive land animal sacrificed as an offering. One who says: I vowed to bring a peace offering and I specified that it would be from the herd but I do not know what animal I specified, must bring a bull and a cow, and a male calf and a female calf. One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering and specified that it would be from the animals, but I do not know what animal I specified, must bring a bull and a cow, a male calf and a female calf, a ram and a ewe, a large, i.e., adult, male goat and a large female goat, a small, i.e., young, male goat and a small female goat, and a male lamb and a female lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same three-tier structure applies to toda and shelamim vows, but with a crucial difference: peace offerings accept both sexes, so every tier doubles. “From the herd” → bull + cow + male calf + female calf (4). “From animals” → all 12 (six species × 2 sexes). Since shelamim and toda can be male or female, the coverage-list must include both sexes of every species to guarantee fulfillment.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹדָה (toda) = thanksgiving offering; a sub-type of shelamim
- שְׁלָמִים (shelamim) = peace offering; permits both male and female animals
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה — ערכי נדר הכולל נסכים
Standard market-values for vows that include libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הֲרֵי עָלַי שׁוֹר״ – יָבִיא הוּא וּנְסָכָיו בְּמָנֶה, ״עֵגֶל״ – יָבִיא הוּא וּנְסָכָיו בְּחָמֵשׁ, ״אַיִל״ – יָבִיא הוּא וּנְסָכָיו בִּשְׁתַּיִם, ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ – יָבִיא הוּא וּנְסָכָיו בְּסֶלַע.
English Translation:
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull as a burnt offering or peace offering, must bring the bull, its accompanying meal offering, and its libations, with the total value of one hundred dinars. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a calf, must bring the calf, its accompanying meal offering, and its libations, with the total value of five sela, which equal twenty dinars. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a ram, must bring the ram, its accompanying meal offering, and its libations, with the value of two sela, which equal eight dinars. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a lamb, must bring the lamb, its accompanying meal offering, and its libations, with the value of one sela, which equals four dinars.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna fixes market-value baselines for four species when the vow does not specify separately. “Bull” (שׁוֹר) = 100 dinars (one maneh) total including minchat nesakhim and libations. “Calf” (עֵגֶל) = 5 sela = 20 dinars. “Ram” (אַיִל) = 2 sela = 8 dinars. “Lamb” (כֶּבֶשׂ) = 1 sela = 4 dinars. These figures create a ready halachic scale, assuming the vower did not distinguish the animal from its accompanying libations.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה (maneh) = 100 dinars, a large Temple-era monetary unit
- סֶלַע (sela) = 4 dinars; a standard silver coin
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה — נדר מפורש בערך
Explicit value-vow excludes libations from the stated amount
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שׁוֹר בְּמָנֶה״ – יָבִיא בְּמָנֶה, חוּץ מִנְּסָכָיו. ״עֵגֶל בְּחָמֵשׁ״ – יָבִיא בְּחָמֵשׁ, חוּץ מִנְּסָכָיו. ״אַיִל בִּשְׁתַּיִם״ – יָבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם, חוּץ מִנְּסָכָיו. ״כֶּבֶשׂ בְּסֶלַע״ – יָבִיא בַּסֶּלַע, חוּץ מִנְּסָכָיו.
English Translation:
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull with the value of one hundred dinars as a burnt offering or peace offering, must bring the bull with the value of one hundred dinars excluding its accompanying meal offering and libations. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a calf with the value of five sela as a burnt offering or peace offering, must bring the calf with the value of five sela excluding its accompanying meal offering and libations. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a ram with the value of two sela as a burnt offering or peace offering, must bring the ram with the value of two sela excluding its accompanying meal offering and libations. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a lamb with the value of one sela as a burnt offering or peace offering, must bring the lamb with the value of one sela excluding its accompanying meal offering and libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
A critical linguistic rule: if the vower explicitly names both animal and value (“a bull worth one maneh”), the stated value refers to the animal alone, excluding the nesakhim (libations + accompanying minchah). The libations must be added on top. Contrast segment 3: when only the animal is named (“a bull”), the stated default value already includes libations. Explicit specification shifts the semantic scope.
Key Terms:
- חוּץ מִנְּסָכָיו (chutz minesakhav) = “excluding its libations” — the stated value does not cover accompanying libations
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה — שניים לא עולים אחד
Two bulls, even almost-full-value each, cannot substitute for one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שׁוֹר בְּמָנֶה״, וְהֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם בְּמָנֶה – לֹא יָצָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ זֶה בְּמָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר וְזֶה בְּמָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר.
English Translation:
If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull with the value of one hundred dinars as a burnt offering or peace offering, and he brought two bulls with a combined value of one hundred dinars, he has not fulfilled his obligation. And that is the halakha even if this bull has the value of one hundred dinars less one dinar and that bull has the value of one hundred dinars less one dinar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Identity matters, not just value. One who vowed a single bull worth 100 dinars has not fulfilled his obligation by bringing two bulls, even if they collectively total 100 dinars. The striking extension: even if each of the two bulls is worth 99 dinars (well above the single bull’s value!), the vow is not satisfied. The vow specified one animal of a certain quality-class, and substituting two different animals — however valuable — does not match.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר (maneh chaser dinar) = 99 dinars — one dinar less than a full maneh
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה — מחלוקת רבי ורבנן
Color, size, and the katan/gadol dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שָׁחוֹר״ וְהֵבִיא לָבָן, ״לָבָן״ וְהֵבִיא שָׁחוֹר, ״גָּדוֹל״ וְהֵבִיא קָטָן – לֹא יָצָא. ״קָטָן״ וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָצָא.
English Translation:
If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a black bull, and he brought a white bull; or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a white bull, and he brought a black bull; or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a large bull, and he brought a small bull, in all these cases he has not fulfilled his obligation. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three rules and a dispute. (1) Wrong color: black-for-white or white-for-black both fail. (2) Wrong size going down (vowed gadol, brought katan): fails. (3) Wrong size going up (vowed katan, brought gadol): Tanna Kamma says יצא (the small is included in the large), but Rebbi says לא יצא — the offering must exactly match the vow’s specification. This is the exact “katan and brought gadol” dispute referenced on 106b, now stated explicitly.
Key Terms:
- שָׁחוֹר / לָבָן (shachor / lavan) = black / white — distinct identity features that cannot be swapped
- גָּדוֹל / קָטָן (gadol / katan) = large / small — for Tanna Kamma, an asymmetric substitution is permitted (larger can fulfill smaller); for Rebbi, it is not
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — הפיכת המחלוקת למנהג
No real dispute — each Tanna reflects his own locale’s usage
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a burnt offering and does not specify which animal he will bring, according to the first tanna he must bring a lamb, and according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya he may bring a dove or a pigeon. The Gemara explains: And they do not disagree in principle. This Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the locale of the first tanna, when people would say: Burnt offering, they would be referring to a land animal, whereas in the locale of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, when people would say: Burnt offering, they would also be referring to a bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dissolves the apparent machloket. Tanna Kamma and R. Elazar ben Azarya are not disagreeing about halachic principle. Rather, each rules according to the popular speech-patterns of his own community. In Tanna Kamma’s locale, “olah” colloquially meant a land-animal offering; in R. Elazar ben Azarya’s locale, “olah” embraced bird offerings as well. The vow’s scope tracks the vower’s local linguistic usage — a recurring principle in nedarim: language is judged by common parlance (לשון בני אדם).
Key Terms:
- מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ (mar ki atrei) = “each master according to his locale” — a Talmudic formula attributing apparent disputes to regional practice
- לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם (leshon benei adam) = “the language of ordinary people” — the default interpretive frame for vows
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא — נדר בסלע
“An olah worth a sela for the altar” defaults to a lamb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה בְּסֶלַע לַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב בְּסֶלַע לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא כֶּבֶשׂ. ״שֶׁקָּרֵב בְּסֶלַע פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא מִכׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב בְּסֶלַע לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering with the value of one sela for the altar, must bring a lamb; as you have no animal that is sacrificed on the altar and has the value of one sela but a lamb. One who says: When I made my vow I specified that I will bring an item that is sacrificed on the altar and has the value of one sela, but I do not know what I specified, must bring one of every animal that is sacrificed on the altar and has the value of one sela. Although this condition generally indicates a lamb, since the person specified a particular animal but does not remember which, one cannot be certain that he specified a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita applies the “specific default” and “forgot-coverage” logic to a specifically-valued vow. For “an olah worth a sela for the altar” — a lamb is the unique canonical candidate (the mishna already set a lamb’s value at one sela). But if the vower insists he originally specified some sela-valued altar-item and has since forgotten, mere default-inference is unsafe — he must bring one of every sela-valued altar-item, since he has in principle excluded reliance on the default.
Key Terms:
- בְּסֶלַע לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ (besela legabei mizbeiach) = “worth one sela, for the altar” — the qualifying specifications in the vow
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא — ממה נפשך
Why two animals? A bull alone should suffice on either reading
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִן הַבָּקָר, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא פָּר וְעֵגֶל. אַמַּאי? וְלַיְתֵי פַּר, מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: I vowed to bring a peace offering, and I specified that it would be from the herd, but I do not know what animal I specified, he must bring a bull and a calf. The Gemara asks: Why? Let him bring a bull, as whichever way you look at it he has fulfilled his vow. If he vowed to bring a bull, he has done so. If he vowed to bring a calf, he has fulfilled his vow, because the value of a calf is included in the value of a bull.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects with ממה נפשך logic: a single bull should suffice. If the forgotten vow was “bull” — he brought a bull. If it was “calf” — well, a bull is even larger, and a small is included in a large (per Tanna Kamma). So why must he bring both? This question already implicitly assumes the Tanna Kamma position; the next segment will respond by identifying the mishna with Rebbi.
Key Terms:
- מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ (mimah nafshach) = “whichever side [of the dilemma you take]” — a Talmudic argument-form using an exhaustive disjunction
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ — הא מני רבי
The mishna is Rebbi’s view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – לֹא יָצָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the mishna’s first clause (bring both bull and calf) with Rebbi. Since Rebbi holds that קטן והביא גדול לא יצא — substituting a larger animal does not discharge a smaller-animal vow — he cannot rely on “bring just a bull.” He must cover both possibilities individually: a bull if that was vowed, a calf if that was vowed. The next segment will press this identification against tensions elsewhere in the mishna.
Key Terms:
- הָא מַנִּי (ha mani) = “who is [the author of] this?” — a Talmudic attribution question
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא — אי רבי אימא סיפא
Citing the two-bulls-for-one mishna as potentially Rabbinic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי רַבִּי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״שׁוֹר בְּמָנֶה״ וְהֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם בְּמָנֶה – לֹא יָצָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ זֶה בְּמָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר וְזֶה בְּמָנֶה חָסֵר דִּינָר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull with the value of one hundred dinars, and he brought two bulls with the combined value of one hundred dinars, he has not fulfilled his obligation, and that is the halakha even if this bull has the value of one hundred dinars less one dinar and that bull has the value of one hundred dinars less one dinar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pushes back. If the whole mishna is Rebbi’s, cite the later clause: “vowed ‘a bull for a maneh’ and brought two bulls for a maneh = not fulfilled, even if each is worth 99 dinars.” But that ruling holds for both Rebbi and Tanna Kamma — so citing this alone doesn’t decide attribution. The real test is the next segment: the middle clause explicitly cites Rebbi as a dissenter, which implies the unnamed voice of the middle clause is not Rebbi but Chachamim.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא סֵיפָא (eima seifa) = “say the closing clause” — a Talmudic move shifting focus to the latter portion of a text
Segment 12
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
The middle clause explicitly names Rebbi as the dissenter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שָׁחוֹר״ וְהֵבִיא לָבָן, ״לָבָן״ וְהֵבִיא שָׁחוֹר, ״גָּדוֹל״ וְהֵבִיא קָטָן – לֹא יָצָא, ״קָטָן״ וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָצָא.
English Translation:
If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a black bull, and he brought a white bull; or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a white bull, and he brought a black bull; or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a large bull, and he brought a small bull, in all these cases he has not fulfilled his obligation. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara quotes the middle clause of the mishna, which states the anonymous ruling that “vowed katan and brought gadol = יצא” — with Rebbi explicitly cited as a named dissenter. The named-dissent structure proves that the anonymous voice is not Rebbi. So the middle clause is Chachamim’s, not Rebbi’s. This creates an awkward textual pattern: the first clause (pair of animals) is Rebbi, the middle (katan/gadol) is Chachamim — i.e., the mishna’s anonymous author switches sides.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אוֹמֵר (Rabbi omer) = “Rabbi says” — explicit named attribution to Rebbi, typically as dissent from an anonymous ruling
Segment 13
TYPE: ניסוח הקשיים
Stating the split — first and last clauses are Rebbi, middle is Chachamim?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא – רַבִּי, וּמְצִיעֲתָא – רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
If the first clause, which teaches that one who vowed to bring an offering from the herd must bring both a bull and a calf, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then it turns out that the first clause and the last clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Can that be so?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara voices the objection bluntly. If the reisha (bring-both) follows Rebbi, the middle clause (katan-became-gadol = יצא) follows Chachamim, and the seifa (then Rebbi explicitly cited) returns to Rebbi. A unified mishna shouldn’t flip between the two named positions across its three clauses. Can the Gemara really accept such a disjointed authorship?
Key Terms:
- מְצִיעֲתָא (metziata) = the middle [clause] — one of three structural divisions of a mishna alongside reisha and seifa
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ — אין
Yes, the mishna has mixed authorship — and teaches that itself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִין, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי, מְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Yes, the first clause and the last clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And this is what the mishna is saying: This matter, i.e., the ruling that one who vows to bring an offering from the herd must bring a bull and a calf, is not universally accepted. Rather, it is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara accepts the split authorship. The reisha and seifa follow Rebbi; the middle clause follows Chachamim. The point is not inconsistency but disclosure: by juxtaposing the “bring both bull and calf” rule (needed only for Rebbi) with the explicit machloket later about katan/gadol, the mishna signals that the reisha itself is disputed. In effect, the middle clause educates the reader about the dispute that generates the reisha’s rule.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת (davar zeh machloket) = “this matter is [subject to] a dispute” — the meta-level takeaway
Segment 15
TYPE: סוגיא חדשה — שופרות הנדבה
Mishna from Shekalim — the six collection horns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, כְּנֶגֶד מִי? (סִימָן (קמ״ף) [קנ״ז] ש״ע.)
English Translation:
§ We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 18b): There were six collection horns in the Temple for the collection of donations for communal gift offerings, i.e., burnt offerings that were sacrificed when the altar was idle. The Gemara asks: To what did these six horns correspond? The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the names of the five Sages who give answers to this question: Kuf, mem, peh, shin, ayin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now launches a new but thematically-connected sugya on the six collection horns (שופרות) in the Temple, where donations for communal gift-offerings were deposited. The question: why six specifically? The mnemonic (Kuf-mem-peh-shin-ayin) previews the answers of five Sages: Chizkiya, Rabbi Yochanan, Ze’eiri, Rabbi Pappa, and Bar Padda. Each offers a different correspondence principle.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹפָרוֹת (shofarot) = collection horns — shofar-shaped vessels in which Temple donations were deposited
- נְדָבָה (nedavah) = communal gift offerings — olot sacrificed when the altar was otherwise idle, funded by these donations
Segment 16
TYPE: תשובה ראשונה — חזקיה
Chizkiya: six priestly family-lines, to prevent quarreling over hides
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: כְּנֶגֶד שִׁשָּׁה בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת הַכֹּהֲנִים, שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁלוֹם זֶה עִם זֶה.
English Translation:
Chizkiya says: These six collection horns corresponded to the six extended patrilineal families of priests who served each week in the Temple. There was one collection horn for each family, which the Sages installed for them so that there would be peace between one another and they would not quarrel. The hides of the burnt offerings are given to the priests, and by keeping the money for the offerings sacrificed by each family separate, they would not come to quarrel over those hides.
קלאוד על הדף:
Chizkiya’s sociological reading: each mishmar (priestly rotation) had six בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת (family-lines), one per weekday. Each family would receive the hides of the olot it sacrificed. Mixing the families’ donations into one horn would create confusion and disputes over hide-ownership; separate horns ensured clean allocation and domestic peace within the mishmar. The number six reflects a pastoral-administrative reality.
Key Terms:
- בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת (batei avot) = patrilineal houses; the six sub-divisions of each weekly mishmar
- חִזְקִיָּה (Chizkiya) = Chizkiya bar Chiyya, a leading Eretz Yisrael amora, son of the tanna R. Chiyya
Segment 17
TYPE: תשובה שניה — ר’ יוחנן
R. Yochanan: six horns to prevent the coins from decaying
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהַנְּדָבָה מְרוּבָּה, תִּיקְּנוּ לָהֶם שׁוֹפָרוֹת מְרוּבִּין, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַפְּשׁוּ הַמָּעוֹת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yochanan says: Since the money for the communal gift offerings was plentiful, as much money was donated for this purpose, there was a concern that if too many coins were placed in one collection horn, only the uppermost coins would be taken and the bottom ones would deteriorate. Therefore, the Sages installed many collection horns for them, so that each horn would contain fewer coins and the coins would not decay.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan’s practical reading. Donations for communal gift-offerings were so abundant that concentrating them in one horn would mean only the top coins got used; those buried at the bottom would oxidize, tarnish, or decay. Distributing deposits across six horns kept coin-turnover rapid enough to prevent deterioration. The number six is a matter of logistical capacity.
Key Terms:
- יִתְעַפְּשׁוּ (yitaphshu) = become moldy or decay — used here for coin-tarnish when stored too long
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן (R. Yochanan) = Rabbi Yochanan bar Nappacha, the leading Eretz Yisrael amora of the third century
Segment 18
TYPE: תשובה שלישית — זעירי
Ze’eiri: one horn per olah species, matching Rebbi’s strict view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּזְעֵירִי אָמַר: כְּנֶגֶד פַּר וָעֵגֶל, אַיִל וָכֶבֶשׂ, גְּדִי וְשָׂעִיר, וְרַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – לֹא יָצָא.
English Translation:
And Ze’eiri says: The six collection horns correspond to the six types of animals from which burnt offerings can be brought: A bull, a calf, a ram, a lamb, a small goat, and a large goat. And each type of animal required its own collection horn, because the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull and he brought a large bull, he has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ze’eiri ties the six horns directly to our mishna’s six species of olah-eligible land animals. Each horn collected money specifically for that species’ purchase. This specificity makes sense only on Rebbi’s strict view — if substitution were permitted (Chachamim), one horn for the generic “olah” could fund any species. Rebbi’s “לא יצא” for katan-brought-gadol forces species-by-species accounting and thus six separate horns.
Key Terms:
- זְעֵירִי (Ze’eiri) = an early Babylonian amora who moved to Eretz Yisrael and transmitted many halachot in Rabbi Yochanan’s name
- פר, עגל, איל, כבש, גדי, שעיר = the six olah-eligible species: bull, calf, ram, lamb, young goat, mature goat
Segment 19
TYPE: תשובה רביעית — בר פדא
Bar Padda: six horns for leftover chatat/asham monies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַר פְּדָא אָמַר: כְּנֶגֶד הַפָּרִים, וְהָאֵילִים,
English Translation:
And bar Padda says: The six collection horns correspond to the six types of animals from which sin offerings and guilt offerings can be brought. If an animal designated for a guilt offering or a communal sin offering was lost, another animal was consecrated in its stead, and then the first animal was found, the value of that animal is placed into one of these collection horns, and a communal gift offering is brought with it. One was for the value of the bulls brought as communal sin offerings. And one was for the value of the rams brought as guilt offerings for robbery or for misuse of consecrated property,
קלאוד על הדף:
Bar Padda explains the six horns as collection-points for the value of “abandoned” chatat/asham animals — cases where an animal was designated for a specific guilt or sin offering, lost, replaced, then found, and its value must be given to communal gift offerings. Each horn tracked a different category (bulls for communal sin offerings, rams for various ashamot, etc.). The text breaks mid-enumeration; the continuation opens the next daf with additional horn-categories.
Key Terms:
- בַּר פְּדָא (Bar Padda) = an Eretz Yisrael amora, cited often in Yerushalmi traditions
- אֵילִים (eilim) = rams — the animal brought for asham gezelot and asham me’ilot