Menachot Daf 20 (מנחות דף כ׳)
Daf: 20 | Amudim: 20a – 20b | Date: March 23, 2025
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (20a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Covenant of salt – Rabbi Yehuda vs Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר נָמֵי רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״בְּרִית מֶלַח״? מַה בְּרִית הָאֲמוּרָה בַּמֶּלַח – מֶלַח מְמַתֶּקֶת אֶת הַבָּשָׂר, אַף בְּרִית הָאֲמוּרָה בְּיִסּוּרִים – יִסּוּרִים מְמָרְקִין אֶת כׇּל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: בְּרִית מֶלַח – שֶׁהַבְּרִית כְּרוּתָה לַמֶּלַח מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית, שֶׁהִבְטִיחוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמַיִם הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לִקָּרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּמֶּלַח וְנִסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם בֶּחָג.
English Translation:
He also said: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: For what reason did the Torah state the phrase “covenant of salt”? Just as in the covenant that is stated with regard to salt – salt sweetens meat, so too, in the covenant that is stated with regard to suffering – suffering cleanses a person’s entire body. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The phrase “covenant of salt” indicates that the covenant was established with salt from the six days of Creation, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, promised the lower waters that they would be offered on the altar through the salt and the water libation on Sukkot.
קלאוד על הדף:
This opening segment presents two interpretations of “covenant of salt.” Rav connects it to a theological point about suffering, comparing how salt improves meat to how suffering purifies a person. Reish Lakish offers an aggadic explanation: during Creation, the lower waters were distressed at being separated from the heavens, so God promised they would be represented on the altar through salt (derived from evaporated seawater) and the water libation on Sukkot.
Key Terms:
- בְּרִית מֶלַח = Covenant of salt
- יִסּוּרִים מְמָרְקִין = Suffering cleanses
- מַיִם הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים = Lower waters
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda: Covenant indicates indispensability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״בְּרִית״ – אֵין בְּרִית אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁכָּרְתוּ עָלָיו בְּרִית. מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַמֶּלַח מְעַכֶּבֶת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם״.
English Translation:
The Sages taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: “Covenant” – there is no covenant unless it is something over which a covenant was made. From where is it derived that salt is indispensable for the offering? As it is stated: “A covenant of salt forever” (Numbers 18:19).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda argues that the term “covenant” inherently implies indispensability. When the Torah describes something as a covenant, it signals an essential requirement that cannot be omitted. The phrase “covenant of salt forever” teaches that salt is absolutely essential for offerings – its omission invalidates.
Key Terms:
- מְעַכֶּבֶת = Indispensable
- בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם = A covenant of salt forever
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon: Covenant vs. repetition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״בְּרִית״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״בְּרִית״ – מָה לְהַלָּן כְּרִיתוּת, אַף כָּאן כְּרִיתוּת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: “Covenant” is stated here and “covenant” is stated elsewhere. Just as there, the term indicates excision, so too here, the term indicates excision.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon derives the meaning of “covenant” differently – through a gezeirah shavah (verbal analogy). Just as “covenant” elsewhere in the Torah refers to the covenant of circumcision where there is a penalty of excision (karet), so too “covenant of salt” implies that omitting salt leads to a severe consequence.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = Verbal analogy
- כְּרִיתוּת = Excision
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Yosef: Rav holds like the Mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַב כְּתַנָּא דִידַן דְּתָנֵי: הַמֶּלַח מְעַכֶּבֶת.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: It seems from this that the statement of Rav is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna who taught: The salt is indispensable.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef observes that Rav’s position aligns with the Mishna’s ruling that salt is indispensable. This connects the aggadic discussion about the “covenant of salt” to practical halacha – the covenant language teaches a binding legal requirement.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Abaye’s challenge: Why didn’t Rabbi Shimon list salt?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּהֲדֵי הָנָךְ דְּאָמַר: ״לֹא יָצַק״, ״לֹא בָּלַל״, ״לֹא מָלַח״! מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: But Rabbi Shimon did not include it among those items that he listed, saying: “Did not pour,” “did not mix,” “did not salt”! What is the reason that he did not include it?
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye raises a difficulty. In the Mishna on 18a, Rabbi Shimon lists procedures whose omission doesn’t invalidate – but he doesn’t list salt among them. If salt were truly indispensable according to Rabbi Shimon, why didn’t he specifically exclude it from his permissive list?
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Answer: Salt is different – non-priests at altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנָךְ מִילֵּי דְּאֵין זָר קָרֵב אֶצְל מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ בִּזְבָחִים.
English Translation:
Those matters concern things where a non-priest does not approach the altar, as those are written with regard to offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer distinguishes salt from other procedures. The items Rabbi Shimon listed (pouring, mixing) can be done by non-priests away from the altar. But salting is different – it takes place at the altar area where non-priests may not go. Since salting involves altar service, Rabbi Shimon didn’t need to include it in his list of procedures that can be omitted.
Key Terms:
- אֵין זָר קָרֵב אֶצְל מִזְבֵּחַ = A non-priest does not approach the altar
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
“Covenant” equals repetition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״בְּרִית״ – כְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The term “covenant” is equivalent to a case where the verse repeated the matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav establishes an important principle: when the Torah uses the word “covenant,” it has the same legal force as explicit repetition. Since repetition in the Torah indicates indispensability, calling salt a “covenant” automatically makes it essential – without needing the Torah to explicitly repeat the command.
Key Terms:
- שָּׁנָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב = The verse repeated the matter
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Full baraita: Generalization-detail-generalization
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל קׇרְבָּנְךָ תַּקְרִיב מֶלַח״ – כְּלָל, ״וְכׇל קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָתְךָ בַּמֶּלַח תִּמְלָח״ – פְּרָט, ״וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיךָ מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָּן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: “Upon all your offerings you shall sacrifice salt” (Leviticus 2:13) – this is a generalization. “And every meal-offering of yours you shall salt with salt” – this is a detail. “You shall not cease the salt of the covenant of your God from upon your meal-offering” – this is then a generalization. When there is a generalization, and a detail, and then a generalization, you may deduce only items similar to the detail.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita applies the hermeneutical rule of “generalization-detail-generalization” (klal u-frat u-klal). The first verse is general (all offerings), the second specifies meal offerings, and the third returns to general language. This structure limits the law to items sharing characteristics with the detail.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל = Generalization-detail-generalization
- אִי אַתָּה דָּן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט = You deduce only items similar to the detail
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
How so? What does the detail teach?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד? מָה הַפְּרָט מְפֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁבָּא חוֹבָה, וְדָבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר שֶׁבָּא חוֹבָה וְקָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
How so? Just as the detail is explicit – an item that comes as an obligation, and an item that is offered on the altar, so too, everything that comes as an obligation and is offered on the altar requires salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita specifies what characteristics the detail (meal offerings) has: (1) it comes as an obligation, and (2) it is offered on the altar. Any item sharing both characteristics requires salt. This includes the fats of offerings, limbs of burnt-offerings, and frankincense.
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
What is included
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה וְאֶת הָאֵימוּרִין וְאֶת אֵיבָרֵי עוֹלָה.
English Translation:
This serves to include the frankincense, the sacrificial portions, and the limbs of the burnt-offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The generalization-detail-generalization structure teaches that salt is required for frankincense (which accompanies meal offerings), the emurin (fats and other portions burned on the altar), and the limbs of burnt-offerings. All these share the characteristics of being obligatory and offered on the altar.
Key Terms:
- לְבוֹנָה = Frankincense
- אֵימוּרִין = Sacrificial portions (fats burned on altar)
- אֵיבָרֵי עוֹלָה = Limbs of the burnt-offering
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
What does this exclude?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְמַעוּטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוּטֵי דָּם.
English Translation:
And what does this serve to exclude? It serves to exclude blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The hermeneutical derivation excludes blood from the salt requirement. Blood doesn’t share the characteristics of meal offerings in the relevant way, so it doesn’t require salting.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge: Blood is not similar at all!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּם – מִי דָּמֵי לְמִנְחָה? וּמָה לְמִנְחָה שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה כֻּלָּהּ חוֹבָה, תֹּאמַר בְּדָם שֶׁאֵין בָּא כֻּלּוֹ חוֹבָה!
English Translation:
Blood – is it similar to a meal-offering at all? The meal-offering all comes as an obligation, whereas blood – not all of it comes as an obligation!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions why blood needs explicit exclusion. Blood seems obviously different – a meal offering is entirely obligatory, but not all blood is required on the altar (only specific amounts are sprinkled). The differences seem obvious enough without needing a derivation.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Answer: Blood shares “three min” with meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִין, צְרִיךָ. בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מִ״ן״ שֶׁבְּמִנְחָה: מַה מִּנְחָה בָּאָה לְחוֹבָה, אַף דָּם בָּא לְחוֹבָה. מַה מִּנְחָה מַתֶּרֶת, אַף דָּם מַתִּיר. מַה מִּנְחָה קֹדֶשׁ קׇדָשִׁים, אַף דָּם קֹדֶשׁ קׇדָשִׁים.
English Translation:
Yes, the exclusion is necessary. It is derived from the three occurrences of “min” [from] in the meal-offering passage: Just as a meal-offering comes as an obligation, so too blood comes as an obligation. Just as a meal-offering permits the remainder to be eaten, so too blood permits the meat to be eaten. Just as a meal-offering is most sacred, so too blood is most sacred.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains why explicit exclusion is needed. Blood actually shares three key characteristics with meal offerings: (1) it comes as an obligation, (2) it is a “permitting” factor that enables consumption of other parts, and (3) it is “most sacred” (kodshei kodashim). These similarities could have led us to include blood in the salt requirement.
Key Terms:
- מַתֶּרֶת/מַתִּיר = Permits (enables other parts to be consumed)
- קֹדֶשׁ קׇדָשִׁים = Most sacred
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge: But salting would ruin blood!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֶלַח דְּדָם הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִי מָלְחַתְּ לֵיהּ – קָא מַפְסְדַתְּ לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
Rather, how would you find the salting of blood possible? If you salt it – you ruin it!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a practical objection. Even if we tried to include blood logically, it’s physically impossible – adding salt to blood would coagulate it and ruin it for the sprinkling service. How can the Torah require something impossible?
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Answer: Verse needed nonetheless
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לָאו קְרָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נִמְלְחָהּ וְנִקְרְבָהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
If not for the verse, I would have said: Let us salt it and then offer it. Therefore, it teaches us that this is not required.
קלאוד על הדף:
Despite the practical difficulty, the verse is still necessary. Without explicit exclusion, we might have thought: salt the blood even though it becomes ruined, and then offer it in that state. The verse teaches this is not required – blood is completely exempt from salting.
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Challenge: Why do I need the verse?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, לְמָה לִי קְרָא? תֵּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״עֵין הַפְּרָט״!
English Translation:
If so, why do I need a verse? Let me derive it from “similar to the detail”!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: if blood doesn’t meet the criteria of the generalization-detail-generalization (it’s not “similar to the detail”), why do we need a separate verse to exclude it? The hermeneutical rule itself should exclude blood automatically.
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Frankincense that comes in one vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה. לְבוֹנָה – בְּחַד מָנָא קָאָתְיָא!
English Translation:
The Master said: This serves to include the frankincense. But frankincense comes in one vessel!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the inclusion of frankincense. Frankincense comes in a single vessel (the kaf), which might suggest it’s fundamentally different from meal offerings and shouldn’t require salt.
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Answer: Griddle-cake frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְבוֹנָה דְּמַחֲבַת וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, דְּבָאָה בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים.
English Translation:
It refers to the frankincense of the griddle-cake and the deep-pan offerings, which come in two vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer: the inclusion refers specifically to the frankincense that accompanies griddle-cake and deep-pan meal offerings, which are prepared in two separate vessels. This type of frankincense shares characteristics with the detail and requires salt.
Key Terms:
- מַחֲבַת = Griddle-cake (shallow-fried meal offering)
- מַרְחֶשֶׁת = Deep-pan (deep-fried meal offering)
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Does wood require salt?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֵצִים – מִי קָרְבִי? אָמַר רַבִּי: מָצִינוּ יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב עֵצִים.
English Translation:
Wood – is it offered as a sacrifice? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: We find that an individual can voluntarily donate wood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explores whether wood requires salt. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (simply “Rabbi”) notes that individuals can voluntarily donate wood for the altar fire. This suggests wood has some status as an offering, raising the question of whether it needs salting.
Key Terms:
- עֵצִים = Wood
- מִתְנַדֵּב = Voluntarily donates
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Characteristics of offerings requiring salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה הַפְּרָט מְפֹרָשׁ – עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ, עַל גַּבֵּי הָעֵצִים, בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף כֹּל עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ, עַל גַּבֵּי הָעֵצִים, בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
English Translation:
Just as the detail is explicit – on the fire, on the wood, at the top of the altar, on the outer altar, so too, anything that is on the fire, on the wood, at the top of the altar, on the outer altar requires salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara lists four characteristics that define what requires salt: (1) placed on fire, (2) placed on wood, (3) at the top of the altar, and (4) on the outer altar (not the inner incense altar). Items sharing all these characteristics with meal offerings require salt.
Key Terms:
- עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ = On the fire
- עַל גַּבֵּי הָעֵצִים = On the wood
- בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ = At the top of the altar
- מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן = The outer altar
Amud Bet (20b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
On the contrary – blood should have been included!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, דָּם הוּא דְּאִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי! מַה מִּנְחָה בָּאָה לְחוֹבָה, אַף דָּם בָּא לְחוֹבָה. מַה מִּנְחָה מַתֶּרֶת, אַף דָּם מַתִּיר. מַה מִּנְחָה בִּפְנִים, אַף דָּם בִּפְנִים.
English Translation:
On the contrary, blood is what should have been included! Just as a meal-offering comes as an obligation, so too blood comes as an obligation. Just as a meal-offering permits the remainder to be eaten, so too blood permits the meat to be eaten. Just as a meal-offering is offered inside the Temple courtyard, so too blood is presented inside.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reverses direction – instead of asking why blood needs exclusion, it argues blood should have been INCLUDED! Blood shares three characteristics with meal offerings: (1) obligatory, (2) permits other parts, (3) used inside the courtyard. This shows why explicit exclusion was necessary.
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge: Limbs should be excluded!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, אֵיבָרִים הוּא דְּאִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוּטֵי! מָה מִּנְחָה בָּאָה לְחוֹבָה, אֵיבָרִים אֵין בָּאִין לְחוֹבָה. מַה מִּנְחָה מַתֶּרֶת, אֵיבָרִים אֵין מַתִּירִין. מַה מִּנְחָה בִּפְנִים, אֵיבָרִים בַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
On the contrary, limbs are what should have been excluded! Just as a meal-offering comes as an obligation, limbs do not come as an obligation in themselves. Just as a meal-offering permits the remainder to be eaten, limbs do not permit anything. Just as a meal-offering is offered inside, limbs are offered outside on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now challenges from the opposite direction. The limbs of burnt-offerings seem different from meal offerings in several ways: they don’t come as an independent obligation, they don’t “permit” anything, and they’re placed on the outer part of the altar. If we apply the detail strictly, limbs should be EXCLUDED from salting!
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Mnemonic: Alef, Shin, Beit, Nun; Tet, Mem, Alef
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סִימָן: אש״בן ט״מא.
English Translation:
Mnemonic: Alef, Shin, Beit, Nun; Tet, Mem, Alef.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the characteristics being compared. The letters represent key Hebrew words in the upcoming discussion comparing limbs and blood to determine which should be included or excluded from the salt requirement.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן = Mnemonic
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution: Limbs have more similarities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אֵיבָרִים דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין לְרַבּוֹיֵי וְצַד אֶחָד לְמַעוּטֵי – מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֵיבָרִים דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין לְרַבּוֹיֵי. דָּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין לְמַעוּטֵי וְצַד אֶחָד לְרַבּוֹיֵי – מְמַעֵט אֲנִי דָּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין לְמַעוּטֵי.
English Translation:
Rather, limbs, which have two aspects for inclusion and one aspect for exclusion – I include the limbs since they have two aspects for inclusion. Blood, which has two aspects for exclusion and one aspect for inclusion – I exclude blood since it has two aspects for exclusion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is mathematical: limbs have more characteristics favoring inclusion than exclusion, so they’re included. Blood has more characteristics favoring exclusion, so it’s excluded. This shows how the Talmud balances multiple factors when applying hermeneutical principles.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
What are the two aspects for limbs?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיבָרִים מַאי שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין לְרַבּוֹיֵי? עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ – וְעַל גַּבֵּי הָעֵצִים.
English Translation:
Limbs – what are the two aspects for inclusion? On the fire – and on the wood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two characteristics that favor including limbs in the salt requirement: (1) they are placed on the fire, and (2) they are placed on the wood. These match the characteristics of meal offerings, which also go on fire and wood.
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
What aspects exclude blood?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּם מַאי שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין לְמַעוּטֵי? לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵשׁ – וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי הָעֵצִים.
English Translation:
Blood – what are the two aspects for exclusion? It is not on the fire – and not on the wood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Blood lacks both key characteristics: it’s not placed on the fire and not on the wood. Blood is sprinkled against the altar, not burned. These two differences outweigh the one similarity (coming as an obligation), leading to its exclusion from salting.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Wood – is it an offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֵצִים – מִי קָרְבִי? אָמַר רַבִּי: מָצִינוּ יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב עֵצִים.
English Translation:
Wood – is it offered as a sacrifice? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: We find that an individual can voluntarily donate wood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a question about wood: can it be considered an offering that requires salt? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi notes that individuals can voluntarily donate wood for the altar, suggesting wood has some status as an offering.
Key Terms:
- עֵצִים = Wood
- מִתְנַדֵּב = Voluntarily donates
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Chanina: Three things don’t require salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵינָן טְעוּנִין מֶלַח: דָּם, וְיַיִן, וְעֵצִים.
English Translation:
Rabbi Chanina taught: Three things do not require salt: blood, wine, and wood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina provides a clear teaching listing the three items that don’t require salt despite being used in Temple service: blood, wine (libations), and wood. Each has its own reason for exclusion.
Key Terms:
- דָּם = Blood
- יַיִן = Wine
- עֵצִים = Wood
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Reason for excluding wine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יַיִן – מַאי טַעְמָא? יַיִן לַשִּׁיתִין הוּא דְּקָא נָחֵית.
English Translation:
Wine – what is the reason? Wine goes down into the drains.
קלאוד על הדף:
Wine doesn’t require salt because it’s not consumed on the altar. Wine libations are poured on the altar and flow down through the shitin (drainage channels) beneath the altar. Since it’s not burned on the altar like other offerings, the salt requirement doesn’t apply.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיתִין = Drains (channels beneath the altar)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Reason for excluding wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֵצִים – מַאי טַעְמָא? עֵצִים לַאֲכִילָה קָא אָתוּ? עֵצִים לְהַבְעָרָה קָא אָתוּ!
English Translation:
Wood – what is the reason? Does wood come for consumption? Wood comes for burning fuel!
קלאוד על הדף:
Wood doesn’t require salt because its purpose is fundamentally different. Wood isn’t “consumed” by the altar as food for God – it serves as fuel to burn other offerings. This instrumental role distinguishes it from actual offerings that require salting.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Where do they salt?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכָא מָלְחִי? אָמַר רַב: עַל גַּבֵּי כֶּבֶשׁ מָלְחִי.
English Translation:
Where do they salt the offerings? Rav said: They salt them on the ramp.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav identifies the location for salting: the kevesh (ramp) leading up to the altar. Priests would salt the offering parts on the ramp before placing them on the altar fire. This explains why only priests can salt – the ramp is part of the altar area where non-priests are forbidden.
Key Terms:
- כֶּבֶשׁ = Ramp (leading to the altar)