Menachot Daf 18 (מנחות דף י״ח)
Daf: 18 | Amudim: 18a – 18b | Date: March 21, 2025
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (18a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda’s position: decree about partial blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? גְּזֵירָה מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ אַטּוּ כׇּל דָּמוֹ, וְכׇל דָּמוֹ פְּסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is to leave of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit. What is the reason for this? It is a rabbinic decree disqualifying the offering when some of its blood is left over until the next day due to the concern that a priest may intend to leave over all of its blood, and if one’s intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies Rabbi Yehuda’s position from the end of 17b. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis applies only to unusual consumption intents (drinking blood, burning meat). But regarding intent to leave blood overnight, everyone agrees it disqualifies. Why? Because of a rabbinic decree: intent about partial blood is treated like intent about all the blood, since leaving ALL the blood overnight is a Torah-level disqualification.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ אַטּוּ כׇּל דָּמוֹ = A decree: partial blood is like all the blood
- פְּסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא = Torah-level disqualification
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yehuda’s proof from a baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי שֶׁאִם הִנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר שֶׁפָּסוּל? חִישֵּׁב לְהַנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר נָמֵי פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that if he left the blood until the next day without presenting it, that the offering is unfit? Therefore, if he intended to leave the blood until the next day, it is also unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda presents his argument through a kal vachomer (a fortiori reasoning). If actually leaving blood overnight disqualifies the offering, then surely intent to leave it overnight should also disqualify. This supports his position that everyone agrees intent to leave blood overnight disqualifies – the dispute only concerns unusual consumption intents.
Key Terms:
- הִנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר = Left it until tomorrow
- חִישֵּׁב לְהַנִּיחוֹ = Intended to leave it
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar’s counter-position
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימֵר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit and the Rabbis deem it fit, as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda’s interpretation. According to Rabbi Elazar, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis extends to ALL unusual intents – including intent to leave blood overnight. There’s no distinction between active unusual intent (drinking blood) and passive unusual intent (leaving blood). The Rabbis deem the offering fit in both cases.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge: Does Rabbi Yehuda really hold “everyone agrees it’s disqualified”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי: כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתַי אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, מָצָאתִי יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי יוֹשֵׁב לְפָנָיו, וְהָיָה חָבִיב לוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר, עַד לְאַחַת אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר מַהוּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one’s intention is to leave some of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua to clarify my knowledge, and some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to clarify the knowledge of, i.e., study under, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, I found Yosef the Babylonian sitting before Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. And every ruling that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua taught was especially dear to him, until they began discussing one halakha, when Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, with regard to one who slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, what is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s position through a famous narrative. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relates that when he visited Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua to learn, he found Yosef the Babylonian there. Yosef asked about the very case we’re discussing: intent to leave blood overnight. This narrative will reveal that the answer is NOT “everyone agrees it’s disqualified.”
Key Terms:
- לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתַי = To clarify my knowledge (lit. to extract my measures)
- יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי = Yosef the Babylonian
Segment 5
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s repeated answer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. עַרְבִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. שַׁחֲרִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. צׇהֳרַיִם אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. מִנְחָה אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: The offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian repeated this question that evening, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. He asked again the following morning, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. Once again, he asked this question at noon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. When he asked the question a further time that late afternoon, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: I hold that the offering is fit, but Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit. Yosef the Babylonian’s face lit up [tzahavu panav] with joy.
קלאוד על הדף:
Yosef persisted in asking the same question throughout the day – evening, morning, noon, and afternoon. Each time Rabbi Elazar answered that the offering is fit. Finally, in the afternoon, Rabbi Elazar added that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and deems it unfit. This mention of a dissenting opinion made Yosef’s face light up with joy – he had been searching for exactly this information.
Key Terms:
- צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו = His face lit up/turned bright (with joy)
- עַרְבִית, שַׁחֲרִית, צׇהֳרַיִם, מִנְחָה = Evening, morning, noon, afternoon
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדתא
Yosef explains his joy – returning a lost teaching
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ יוֹסֵף: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא כִּיוַּונְנוּ שְׁמוּעָתֵינוּ עַד עָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הֵן! אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פָּסוּל שָׁנָה לִי, וְחָזַרְתִּי עַל כׇּל תַּלְמִידָיו וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לִי חָבֵר וְלֹא מָצָאתִי, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁשָּׁנִיתָ לִי פָּסוּל – הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: Yosef, it seems to me that our, i.e., my, halakhot were not accurate until now, when I said that the offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, yes, I agree that the offering is fit, as you said. But my reluctance to accept your statement was due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught me that the offering is unfit, and I went around to all of Rabbi Yehuda’s disciples, seeking another disciple who had also heard this from him, but I could not find one, and thought that I must have been mistaken. Now that you have taught me that Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, you have returned to me that which I had lost.
קלאוד על הדף:
Yosef explains why he’s so happy. Rabbi Yehuda had taught him that the offering is disqualified, but Yosef couldn’t find any other student of Rabbi Yehuda who confirmed this teaching. He feared he had misremembered. Now that Rabbi Elazar mentioned Rabbi Eliezer’s dissenting opinion, Yosef realizes that Rabbi Yehuda was teaching him Rabbi Eliezer’s position – and his memory was correct all along!
Key Terms:
- הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי = You have returned to me my lost item (my forgotten teaching)
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Elazar’s tears and blessing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, אָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה חֲבִיבִין עֲלֵיכֶם בְּיוֹתֵר, קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״מָה אָהַבְתִּי תוֹרָתֶךָ כׇּל הַיּוֹם הִיא שִׂיחָתִי וְגוֹ׳״, הָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לְפִיכָךְ שָׁנָה לְךָ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s eyes streamed with tears, and he said: Happy are you, Torah scholars, for whom matters of Torah are exceedingly dear. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua recited this verse about Yosef the Babylonian: “O how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 119:97). He continued: Because Rabbi Yehuda is the son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Elai is the student of Rabbi Eliezer, therefore Rabbi Yehuda taught you the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer that the offering is unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar was moved to tears by Yosef’s dedication to recovering a lost teaching. He quotes Psalms 119:97 about loving Torah and meditating on it constantly. Then he explains why Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the stringent opinion: Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Elai, who was a student of Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda transmitted his family’s tradition – Rabbi Eliezer’s view – that intent to leave blood overnight disqualifies.
Key Terms:
- זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת = His eyes streamed with tears
- מָה אָהַבְתִּי תוֹרָתֶךָ = How I love Your Torah (Psalms 119:97)
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
The Gemara’s challenge from this story
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל אַתְנְיֵיהּ, מַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? אִיהוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains its objection: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit, what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: You have returned to me that which I had lost? Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had said to him only that whether the offering is rendered unfit is subject to a dispute, and Yosef the Babylonian would have been taught that all agree that it is unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now applies the story to challenge Rabbi Yehuda’s position. If Rabbi Yehuda taught “everyone agrees it’s disqualified,” then what was Yosef’s “lost item”? Rabbi Elazar only mentioned a dispute (Rabbi Eliezer says unfit, Rabbis say fit) – not that everyone agrees! If Yosef learned “everyone agrees,” hearing about a dispute wouldn’t restore his lost teaching.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – דחייה
Alternative: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda taught about a dispute?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי, כָּשֵׁר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (פָּסוּל) פּוֹסֵל אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִי הָכִי, מַאי הָא מִפְּנֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא? אֲנַן נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא קָא מַתְנִינַן!
English Translation:
Rather, what is it that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian? Did he teach him that the Rabbis deem the offering fit and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit? If that is so, what did Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua mean when he said that it was only because Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Elai, who was the student of Rabbi Eliezer, that Rabbi Yehuda taught this dispute? According to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, we too teach this dispute. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught both opinions in a dispute does not require justification.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara considers an alternative: maybe Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef about the dispute (fit vs. unfit). But then why did Rabbi Elazar need to justify Rabbi Yehuda’s teaching by tracing his lineage to Rabbi Eliezer? Everyone teaches this dispute! The lineage explanation only makes sense if Rabbi Yehuda taught something distinctive – Rabbi Eliezer’s minority opinion as authoritative.
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Resolution: “Returning the lost item” means confirming some disqualification exists
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ, וּמַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? (דהדר) [דְּאַהְדַּר] לֵיהּ מִיהָא שׁוּם פַּסְלוּת בָּעוֹלָם.
English Translation:
Rather, it must be that actually, Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit; and what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said: You have returned to me that which I had lost? He meant that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had in any event returned to him that there is some opinion in the world concerning the unfitness of the offering if one’s intention was to leave over the blood until the next day. His answer reassured Yosef the Babylonian that there is in fact such an opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty. Rabbi Yehuda did teach “everyone agrees it’s disqualified.” What was Yosef’s “lost item”? Not the exact formulation, but the basic concept that SOME authority holds it’s disqualified. Yosef searched for confirmation that disqualification exists at all, and Rabbi Elazar provided that by mentioning Rabbi Eliezer. The existence of any disqualifying opinion validated Yosef’s memory.
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: Meal offering procedures
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יָצַק, לֹא בָּלַל, וְלֹא פָּתַת, וְלֹא מֶלַח, לֹא הֵנִיף, לֹא הִגִּישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת, וְלֹא מְשָׁחָן – כְּשֵׁירָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, or did not mix the oil into the meal offering, or did not break the loaves into pieces, or did not add salt, or did not wave the omer meal offering or the meal offering of a sota, or did not bring the meal offering to the altar, or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces than appropriate, or did not smear oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna transitions to a new topic: the preparation of meal offerings. It lists seven procedures—pouring oil, mixing, breaking into pieces, salting, waving, bringing near to the altar, and anointing wafers—and rules that omitting any of them does not invalidate the offering. Even breaking into pieces that are too large doesn’t disqualify. This teaches that while these procedures are commanded, they are not indispensable.
Key Terms:
- יָצַק = Poured (oil)
- בָּלַל = Mixed
- פָּתַת = Broke into pieces
- מֶלַח = Salted
- הֵנִיף = Waved
- הִגִּישׁ = Brought near (to the southwest corner of the altar)
- פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת = Large pieces
Amud Bet (18b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying the Mishna’s meaning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״לֹא יָצַק״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יָצַק כְּלָל – עִיכּוּבָא כְּתַב בָּהּ! אֶלָּא, לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר. אִי הָכִי, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ נָמֵי – לֹא בָּלַל כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר, הָא לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל – פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it states that if one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, the meal offering is fit? If we say that it means that he did not pour oil at all, that is difficult: Doesn’t the verse write with regard to the pouring of the oil that doing so is indispensable? Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour it. The Gemara notes: If so, that the first clause of the mishna is understood in this manner, then the next halakha in the mishna: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, should also be understood as referring to a case where a priest did not mix the oil into the meal offering, but a non-priest did mix it, so it is fit. This would indicate that if one did not mix the oil into the meal offering at all, the meal offering is unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara analyzes the Mishna’s wording. “Did not pour” cannot mean complete omission – the Torah requires pouring! Rather, it means a non-priest poured instead of a priest. But then the Gemara extends this logic: “did not mix” should also mean a non-priest mixed – implying that complete omission of mixing would invalidate. This creates a problem…
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge from the sixty measures rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין, וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי אֵינָם נִבְלָלִין מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – כְּשֵׁרָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (103b): One who volunteers to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths of an ephah of flour must bring a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel and a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah in a second vessel, because sixty tenths of an ephah of flour can be properly mixed with a log of oil but sixty-one tenths cannot be properly mixed with the oil. And we discussed it and asked: Even if sixty-one tenths of an ephah do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna here that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil into the meal offering, if one did not mix the oil into it, the meal offering is still fit?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a challenge from another Mishna. That Mishna says 60 measures can be mixed, but 61 cannot – and therefore must be divided. But our Mishna says failure to mix doesn’t invalidate! So why does the other Mishna require dividing the 61 measures?
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ ר’ זירא
Rabbi Zeira’s resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Zeira said the following explanation: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira provides a foundational principle. If an offering CAN be properly mixed (60 measures or less), then actual mixing is not indispensable – if you skip it, the offering is still fit. But if an offering CANNOT be properly mixed (61+ measures), then the inability to mix invalidates it. The potential for mixing matters, not the actual mixing.
Key Terms:
- רָאוּי לְבִילָּה = Fit/suitable for mixing
- אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ = Mixing is not indispensable for it
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Distinguishing pouring from mixing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ: ״לֹא יָצַק״ – לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן אֶלָּא זָר, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל.
English Translation:
The Gemara refutes this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. When the mishna states: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, it is referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering but a non-priest did pour it. When it states: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, it means he did not mix the oil at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the apparent tension. The Mishna’s clauses refer to different situations. “Did not pour” means a non-priest poured instead of a priest. “Did not mix” means no mixing at all occurred. Each clause addresses a different scenario – one about WHO performed the act, one about WHETHER the act was performed.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying “large pieces”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשְׁתָּא לֹא פָּתַת כְּלָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת״? שֶׁרִיבָּה בִּפְתִיתִין.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces [pittim merubbot] than appropriate, the meal offering is fit. The Gemara asks: Now that it has already been stated in the mishna that if one did not break the loaves into pieces at all the meal offering is fit, is it necessary to state that if one broke the meal offering into greater pieces than appropriate the meal offering is fit? The Gemara answers: What does the expression pittin merubbot mean? It means that he increased [ribba] the amount of the meal offering’s pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions an apparent redundancy. If not breaking at all is okay, why mention large pieces? The answer: “pittim merubbot” doesn’t mean large pieces – it means MANY pieces (too small). He broke it into more pieces than necessary, each smaller than required. This is also acceptable.
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative explanation for “large pieces”
Hebrew/Aramatic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת אִיכָּא וְלָא תּוֹרַת פְּתִיתִין אִיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is actually referring literally to large pieces [pittim merubbot], and it was necessary to teach this explicitly, lest you say that the meal offering is fit there, when the loaves are not broken, since they have the status of loaves, but here, when the loaves are broken into excessively large pieces and no longer have the status of loaves, as they have been broken up, but still do not have the status of pieces, as they are not the correct size, the offering is not fit. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha explicitly.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers an alternative explanation. “Pittim merubbot” does mean large pieces. Why state this if not breaking at all is okay? Because you might think: unbroken loaves are valid since they still have “loaf status.” But large pieces – neither proper loaves nor proper pieces – might be invalid! The Mishna teaches that even this intermediate state is acceptable.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge: Is the Mishna not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״ – מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה.
English Translation:
§ Based on the Gemara’s earlier inference that when the mishna states that the meal offering is valid even if the priest did not pour the oil it is referring to a case where a non-priest did perform this action, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This teaches that one who admits to the validity of the sacrificial rites and accepts responsibility for them has a portion in the priestly gifts, but one who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites does not have a portion in the priestly gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a question about Rabbi Shimon’s view. Rabbi Shimon derives from Leviticus 7:33 that priests who don’t acknowledge the sacrificial rites lose their share. This suggests that all rites – including pouring – are priestly duties. If so, how can the Mishna say a non-priest’s pouring is valid?
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s list of fifteen rites
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת – הַיְצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת, וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת, וְהַקְטָרוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת, וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת, וְהַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, מִנַּיִן?
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not admit to the validity of these rites of the presenting of the blood or the burning of the fats alone, which are the sacrificial rites of a slaughtered offering, as those rites are enumerated in the verse. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of the fifteen sacrificial rites performed by the priests? The baraita clarifies: These are the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of oil, the mixing, the breaking, the salting, the waving, the bringing of the offering to the altar, the removal of the handful, and the burning of the handful on the altar. And it includes other rites as well: The pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering, and the receiving of the blood in a vessel, and the sprinkling of the blood, and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck, and the purification of a leper, and lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of these rites?
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita lists fifteen priestly rites: the eight meal offering procedures (pouring, mixing, breaking, salting, waving, bringing near, handful-taking, burning) plus seven additional rites (pinching bird offerings, receiving blood, sprinkling blood, giving sota water, breaking heifer’s neck, purifying leper, and the Priestly Blessing). A priest who rejects any of these loses his share.
Key Terms:
- מְּלִיקוֹת = Pinching (bird offering’s neck)
- קַבָּלוֹת = Receiving (blood in vessel)
- הַזָּאוֹת = Sprinklings
- נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם = Lifting of hands (Priestly Blessing)
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Source for the fifteen rites
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, עֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה!
English Translation:
The baraita continues: The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” teaching that with regard to any sacrificial rite that is entrusted to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to its validity does not have a portion in the priestly gifts. Since the pouring of the oil is included in the list of sacrificial rites entrusted to the priests, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering should not be fit if this service was performed by a non-priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives from “among the sons of Aaron” that ALL rites entrusted to priests must be acknowledged by priests who want their share. Since pouring is listed among the fifteen priestly rites, according to Rabbi Shimon, a non-priest’s pouring should invalidate! This seems to contradict our Mishna.
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ רב נחמן
Rav Nachman’s resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָר. מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים דְּלָאו בַּת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. There, in the baraita, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the meal offering of priests, whereas here, in the mishna, the context is a meal offering of an Israelite. In the case of a meal offering of an Israelite, which is one that requires the removal of a handful to be burned on the altar, a verse teaches that from the stage of the removal of the handful onward, the rites performed with the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest. By contrast, the meal offering of priests, which is one that does not require the removal of a handful, as the entire meal offering is burned on the altar, requires that from the outset the rites must be performed by a member of the priesthood; otherwise it is unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman distinguishes between two types of meal offerings. An Israelite’s meal offering requires kemitza (handful-taking) – the verse teaches that only from kemitza onward must priests serve. So pre-kemitza rites (pouring, mixing) can be done by non-priests. But a priest’s meal offering has no kemitza (it’s entirely burned) – so ALL rites require priests from the start.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים = Meal offering of priests
- מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל = Meal offering of an Israelite
- בַּת קְמִיצָה = Requires handful-taking
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – קושיית רבא
Rava’s objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר!
English Translation:
Rava said to him: After all, in the case of the meal offering of priests, from where was it included that there is an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from the halakha of the meal offering of an Israelite, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, just as there the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava challenges Rav Nachman’s distinction. The obligation to pour oil on a priest’s meal offering is derived from the Israelite’s meal offering. If it’s derived from there, the rules should be the same! Just as a non-priest can pour for an Israelite, so too for a priest.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא – לישנא אחרינא
Alternative version of Rav Nachman’s answer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּנִקְמָצוֹת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת.
English Translation:
There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna teaches that a meal offering is fit if the oil was poured by a non-priest, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is removed, whereas there, in the baraita that lists the pouring of the oil as one of the rites performed by the priests, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative version of Rav Nachman’s answer. The distinction is simpler: offerings that require kemitza (handful-removal) allow non-priests for pre-kemitza rites. Offerings without kemitza require priests throughout. This is essentially the same distinction but formulated differently.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא – קושיית רבא שנית
Rava’s repeated objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי שֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת, מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִנִּקְמָצוֹת, כְּנִקְמָצוֹת – מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
Rava said to him: After all, in the case of meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, from where was it included that there is also an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from meal offerings from which a handful is removed, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, the halakha with regard to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed is like the halakha with regard to those from which a handful is removed; just as there, the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest. Rather, since Rava deflected Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises the same objection to this alternative formulation. Since non-kemitza offerings derive their pouring laws from kemitza offerings, the rules should be identical! The Gemara concludes: our Mishna is NOT in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. The Mishna follows the Rabbis who permit non-priestly pre-kemitza service.
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The Rabbis’ source
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ״, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who hold that the offering is fit even if the oil was poured by a non-priest? The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful” (Leviticus 2:1–2). From here it is derived that from the removal of the handful onward, the rites of the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides the scriptural basis for the Rabbis’ position. Leviticus 2:1-2 describes the meal offering: pour oil, add frankincense, bring to the priests, then the priest takes the handful. The verse mentions priests only at the kemitza stage. This teaches: from kemitza onward = priestly duty. Before kemitza = even non-priests may perform.
Key Terms:
- וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן = And he shall pour oil upon it
- וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן = And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s response (incomplete)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן
English Translation:
And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: “Aaron’s sons,”
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends mid-sentence with Rabbi Shimon’s response beginning. He will explain how he reads the verse differently to derive that even early rites require priests. The continuation appears on 19a.