Menachot Daf 21 (מנחות דף כ״א)
Daf: 21 | Amudim: 21a – 21b | Date: February 3, 2026
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (21a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Continuing the discussion about which items require salt, the Gemara proposes a textual emendation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַפֵּיק עֵצִים וְעַיֵּיל נְסָכִים, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲבָל הַיַּיִן וְהַדָּם וְהָעֵצִים וְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֵין טְעוּנִין מֶלַח.
English Translation:
Wood is removed from the baraita, and insert in its place wine libations, teaching that they do not require the addition of salt. As it is taught in a baraita: But the wine libations and the blood, and the wood and the incense, do not require salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves a difficulty from the previous daf by proposing a textual emendation to a baraita. The original baraita seemed inconsistent, so the Gemara suggests replacing “wood” with “wine libations” to create a coherent teaching. The corrected baraita lists four items exempt from the salt requirement: wine libations, blood, wood, and incense. This textual methodology (אפיק… ועייל) is a standard Talmudic approach when a transmitted text appears corrupt or contradictory.
Key Terms:
- אפיק… ועייל = Remove… and insert; a method of textual emendation
- נסכים = Wine libations that accompany animal offerings
- קטורת = Incense burned on the inner altar
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Questioning whose opinion the baraita follows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי – קַשְׁיָא עֵצִים, אִי רַבָּנַן – קַשְׁיָא קְטֹרֶת.
English Translation:
In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the ruling of the baraita concerning wood is difficult, as the baraita rules that wood does not require salt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood does require salt. If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling of the baraita concerning incense is difficult.
קלאוד על הדף:
Even after the textual emendation, the Gemara identifies a problem: the baraita cannot align with either Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (who holds wood requires salt) or the Rabbis (who hold incense requires salt). This sets up the need to find a third opinion that can consistently explain all four exemptions—wood, blood, wine, and incense.
Key Terms:
- רבי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the compiler of the Mishnah
- רבנן = The Rabbis; the majority Tannaitic opinion
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Identifying the baraita’s author: Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, וְעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה וְעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים וְיֶשְׁנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
English Translation:
The baraita is in accordance with this following tanna, who explains the verse that was interpreted in the baraita in a different manner. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, says: Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar, so too, any item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar requires salting.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka as the source of this baraita. He derives the salt requirement using the hermeneutical principle of כלל ופרט וכלל (general-specific-general). The meal offering serves as the paradigm (פרט), and three criteria are derived: (1) susceptible to impurity, (2) consumed by fire on the altar, and (3) offered on the outer altar. Only items meeting all three criteria require salt.
Key Terms:
- מקבל טומאה = Susceptible to ritual impurity
- אישים = The altar fire
- מזבח החיצון = The outer altar in the Temple courtyard
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – מסקנה
Applying the three criteria to exclude four items
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָצְאוּ עֵצִים – שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה, יָצְאוּ דָּם וָיַיִן – שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִים לָאִשִּׁים, יָצְאָה קְטֹרֶת – שֶׁאֵינָהּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
English Translation:
Therefore, wood is excluded, as it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Wine and blood are excluded, as they are not brought on the fire of the altar but rather are sprinkled on the corner of the altar. The incense is excluded, as it is sacrificed not on the external altar but rather on the inner altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each of the four exempt items fails to meet one of the three criteria: Wood is not susceptible to impurity (it’s not a food). Blood and wine are not consumed by fire—they’re poured or sprinkled. Incense is burned on the inner altar, not the outer one. This elegant analysis explains why exactly these four items are exempt from salting while all other offerings require it.
Key Terms:
- זריקה = Sprinkling; the method of applying blood to the altar
- מזבח הפנימי = The inner altar (for incense) in the Sanctuary
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Questioning why blood needs a scriptural exclusion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא לְדָם, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דָּם לִיבְעֵי מֶלַח? כֵּיוָן דְּמַלְחֵיהּ נָפֵיק לֵיהּ מִתּוֹרַת דָּם, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּם שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר זְעֵירִי: דָּם שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But how can it be that according to all opinions, the reason that blood does not require salting is that the verse excluded blood, indicating that if not for that, I would say that blood requires salt? Once one salts the blood, it exits the category of blood, as Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Chanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress the prohibition against consuming blood by drinking it, since it no longer has the status of blood that is fit to be presented on the altar. And Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: With regard to blood that one salted, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it, since salted blood has the status of cooked blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a logical difficulty: Why does the Torah need to explicitly exclude blood from the salt requirement? Salting blood would transform it and remove it from the category of “blood” entirely! Ze’eiri teaches that cooked or salted blood loses its halachic status as blood—one who consumes it doesn’t violate the prohibition of eating blood. So requiring salt would be self-defeating: the very act of salting would disqualify the blood for altar service.
Key Terms:
- זעירי = Ze’eiri; a prominent first-generation Amora
- אינו עובר עליו = Does not transgress on it; not liable for the prohibition
- נפיק ליה מתורת דם = Exits the category of blood
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – מימרא
Rav Yehuda’s related teaching about roasted limbs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב יְהוּדָה דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן, אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ״.
English Translation:
And similarly, Rav Yehuda himself says: With regard to the limbs of a burnt offering that one first roasted and afterward brought them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement of the verse that an offering be an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda extends the principle: pre-cooking sacrificial limbs before placing them on the altar ruins the offering. The pleasing aroma (ריח ניחוח) must arise from the altar fire itself, not from prior cooking. This connects to the blood discussion—both teach that altering the offering’s natural state before the required service undermines its validity.
Key Terms:
- אברים = Limbs; parts of animal offerings burned on the altar
- צלאן = Roasted them
- ריח ניחוח = Pleasing aroma; the purpose of altar offerings (Leviticus 1:9)
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Answering why blood still needs exclusion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִישְׁדֵּא בַּהּ מַשֶּׁהוּ לְמִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is still necessary to derive that blood does not require salt, lest you say that the priest should sprinkle any amount of salt, even a minute quantity, on the blood, merely for the fulfillment of the mitzva, as such an amount would not render the blood as cooked. To counter this, the verse teaches us that blood requires no application of salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Without explicit exclusion, one might think a tiny amount of salt should be applied symbolically—enough to fulfill the mitzva of salting without actually transforming the blood. The verse teaches that blood requires absolutely no salt, not even a symbolic sprinkling. This eliminates any doubt about the salt requirement for blood offerings.
Key Terms:
- משהו = Any amount; the smallest quantity
- למצוה בעלמא = Merely for the mitzva; symbolic fulfillment
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – סוגיא
Discussing curdled blood and liability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּם שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָא אָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הִקְפָּה אֶת הַדָּם וַאֲכָלוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Chanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it. Rava was sitting and saying this halacha. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita: If one curdled blood and consumed it, or in a case where one melted forbidden fat and swallowed it, even though he changed its form, he is liable.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now examines Ze’eiri’s teaching in depth. Rava taught this ruling publicly, but Abaye challenged him from a baraita that seems to contradict it: one who curdles blood (thickens it through heating) and eats it IS liable! Similarly, one who melts forbidden fat and drinks it remains liable. This seems to prove that changing the form doesn’t exempt from the prohibition.
Key Terms:
- הקפה = Curdled; congealed by heat
- חלב = Forbidden fat (chelev); distinct from milk (chalav)
- גמעו = Swallowed it; drank the melted fat
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Distinguishing fire-curdling from sun-curdling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁהִקְפָּה בָּאוּר, כָּאן שֶׁהִקְפָּה בַּחַמָּה. בְּאוּר – לָא הָדַר, בַּחַמָּה – הָדַר.
English Translation:
Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Ze’eiri’s statement relates to a case where he curdled the blood by means of the fire, whereas there, in the case of the baraita, he curdled the blood by means of the sun. Blood curdled by means of a fire cannot return to its former state, so one is not liable, whereas blood curdled by means of the sun can return to its former state, so one is liable.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers a distinction based on reversibility: Fire-curdled blood undergoes an irreversible chemical change and loses its blood status—no liability. Sun-curdled blood can return to liquid form, so it retains its blood status—liability applies. This distinction (הדר vs. לא הדר) becomes a key principle for understanding when transformation affects halachic status.
Key Terms:
- באור = By fire
- בחמה = By the sun
- הדר = Returns; reversible
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Abaye’s further challenge using Rabbi Mani’s teaching
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי לֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִידְּחִי אִידְּחִי, דְּהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מָנִי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וַאֲכָלוֹ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה יִדָּחֶה. אִישְׁתִּיק.
English Translation:
Abaye objected: But even when blood is curdled by means of the sun, let us say that since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it was disqualified, i.e., excluded, from the prohibition against consuming blood; as Rabbi Mani inquired of Rabbi Yochanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halacha? Rabbi Yochanan responded: He is not liable; since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it shall be disqualified from the prohibition against consuming blood. Rava was silent and had no answer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye presses Rava with Rabbi Yochanan’s teaching: even sun-curdled blood, though reversible, should be exempt because it’s currently unfit for the altar! The principle “הואיל ונדחה ידחה” (since it was disqualified, let it remain disqualified) should apply. Rava falls silent, unable to answer. This is a significant moment—when a great sage is silenced by a valid objection.
Key Terms:
- קרש = Congealed; another term for curdled
- הואיל ונדחה ידחה = Since it was disqualified, it shall remain disqualified
- אישתיק = He was silent; could not respond
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Abaye suggests a resolution: internal vs. external sin offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא וַדַּאי, כָּאן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת, כָּאן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת!
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: Perhaps here the baraita is certainly referring to the blood of the external sin offerings, which is sprinkled on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, whereas there Ze’eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye himself offers a resolution: the contradiction may reflect different types of sin offerings. External sin offerings have their blood sprinkled on the outer altar—curdled blood is still “fit” since it can be placed there. Internal sin offerings require dipping and sprinkling inside the Sanctuary—curdled blood cannot be dipped. Thus, the halachic status of curdled blood depends on which offering’s blood it is.
Key Terms:
- חטאות החיצונות = External sin offerings; blood applied to outer altar
- חטאות הפנימיות = Internal sin offerings; blood brought inside the Sanctuary
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר
Rava explains Rav Chisda’s teaching on the distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר, אַדְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ בְּחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, ״וְלָקַח וְנָתַן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, בַּר לְקִיחָה וּנְתִינָה הוּא. בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – פָּטוּר, ״וְטָבַל וְהִזָּה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר טְבִילָה וְהַזָּאָה הוּא.
English Translation:
Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rav Chisda says: With regard to blood that became congealed, if it is blood of the external sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and congealed blood is suitable for taking and placing, as one can take the congealed blood and place it upon the altar. By contrast, if it is blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is exempt, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood, and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava recalls Rav Chisda’s brilliant distinction based on the Torah’s language. For external sin offerings, the Torah says “take and place” (ולקח ונתן)—curdled blood can be taken and placed, so it retains blood status and liability applies. For internal sin offerings, the Torah says “dip and sprinkle” (וטבל והזה)—curdled blood cannot be dipped, so it loses blood status and there’s no liability. The verb determines the halacha!
Key Terms:
- רב חסדא = Rav Chisda; prominent third-generation Amora
- ולקח ונתן = And take and place (Leviticus 4:25)
- וטבל והזה = And dip and sprinkle (Leviticus 4:6)
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא – מימרא
Rava’s own view: liability even for inner sin offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרָבָא דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ רָאוּי בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ דָּם חֲמוֹר שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ רָאוּי בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
English Translation:
And Rava himself says: Even if there was blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings. Rav Pappa says: Therefore, according to the same reasoning, in the case of the blood of a donkey that became congealed and one ate it, he is liable, despite the fact that a donkey’s blood is not fit to be brought as an offering, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava disagrees with Rav Chisda and offers a broader principle: liability exists even for inner sin offering blood because curdled blood of that same type COULD be used for external sin offerings. Rav Pappa extends this dramatically: even donkey blood (which can never be offered) creates liability when curdled, because kosher animal blood in that state could be used for external sin offerings. The theoretical possibility creates universal liability.
Key Terms:
- כנגדו ראוי = Its equivalent is fit; theoretical usability
- דם חמור = Donkey blood; non-sacrificial animal
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא – הלכה
Ze’eiri’s teaching about blood interposing during immersion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר זְעֵירִי: דָּם, בֵּין לַח בֵּין יָבֵשׁ, חוֹצֵץ. מֵיתִיבִי: הַדָּם וְהַדְּיוֹ וְהַדְּבַשׁ וְהֶחָלָב, יְבֵשִׁין – חוֹצְצִין, לַחִין – אֵינָן חוֹצְצִין. לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּסָרֵיךְ, הָא דְּלָא סָרֵיךְ.
English Translation:
In the context of the halachot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Ze’eiri says: Blood, whether moist or dry, interposes during ritual immersion. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to blood, ink, honey, or milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; but when they are moist, they do not interpose. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; this statement of Rav Giddel is referring to a case where the blood adheres to the skin, as it has begun to congeal and therefore interposes. That baraita is referring to a case where the blood did not adhere and therefore does not interpose.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a practical halacha about ritual immersion (טבילה). Ze’eiri rules that blood on one’s body—wet or dry—invalidates immersion by creating a barrier (חציצה). A baraita seems to contradict this, saying wet substances don’t interpose. The resolution: it depends on adhesion. If the blood adheres (sticks) to the skin, it interposes regardless of moisture. If it’s merely wet and loose, it washes away and doesn’t interpose.
Key Terms:
- חוצץ/חציצה = Interposes; creates a barrier invalidating immersion
- טבילה = Ritual immersion in a mikveh
- סריך = Adheres; sticks to the skin
- דיו = Ink
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא – דרשה
Interpreting the verse about salting offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״תִּמְלָח״, לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״בַּמֶּלַח״ – יָכוֹל תְּבוֹנֵהוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְלָח״. אִי ״תִּמְלָח״ – יָכוֹל בְּמֵי מֶלַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּמֶּלַח״.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt, and asks: For what purpose does the expression you shall season come? The Gemara answers: It is written for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every meal offering of yours shall be with salt, one might have thought that the halacha is tevonehu, a term that will be explained in the Gemara. Therefore, the verse states: You shall season. Conversely, had the verse stated only: You shall season, one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states with salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara analyzes Leviticus 2:13, which contains two phrases: “with salt” (במלח) and “you shall season” (תמלח). Why both? Each phrase excludes an incorrect understanding. “You shall season” excludes the possibility of תבונהו (whatever that means—explained later). “With salt” excludes using salt water instead of actual salt. Both terms together establish the precise method of salting offerings.
Key Terms:
- תמלח = You shall season; active verb form
- במלח = With salt; prepositional phrase
- תבונהו = A term to be explained; subject of debate
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא – הלכה
The type of salt required: Sodomite salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח״ – הָבֵא מֶלַח שֶׁאֵינָהּ שׁוֹבֶתֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית שֶׁמֵּבִיא מֶלַח אִיסְתְּרוֹקָנִית? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״ – ״תַּקְרִיב״ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, ״תַּקְרִיב״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״תַּקְרִיב״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תַּקְרִיב״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
The continuation of the verse: And you shall not omit salt from your meal offering, teaches that one should bring salt that never rests, i.e., it is found continuously. And what type of salt is this? This is referring to salt of Sodom. And from where is it derived that if one did not find salt of Sodom that he should bring salt of istrokanit, which is quarried from rock? The verse states immediately afterward: With all your offerings you shall sacrifice salt, in order to emphasize that you should sacrifice any type of salt; you should sacrifice salt from any place, even from a location outside of Eretz Yisrael; you should sacrifice salt even on Shabbat; and you should sacrifice salt even in a state of ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse “do not omit salt” (לא תשבית) is interpreted as: bring salt that “does not rest”—salt continuously available. This refers to Sodomite salt from the Dead Sea region, known for its abundance. If unavailable, rock salt (איסתרוקנית) may be used. The repeated word “תקריב” (you shall offer) teaches four expansions: any type of salt, from anywhere, even on Shabbat, even in impurity. The salt requirement overrides many restrictions.
Key Terms:
- מלח סדומית = Sodomite salt; from the Dead Sea area
- מלח איסתרוקנית = Rock salt; quarried salt
- לא תשבית = Do not omit; literally “do not cause to cease”
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא – מחלוקת
Three Amoraim debate the meaning of “tevonehu”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״תְּבוֹנֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, יָכוֹל יִתְבּוֹנֶנּוּ כְּתֶבֶן בְּטִיט. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, ״יִתְבּוֹנֶנּוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יָכוֹל יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ כְּבִנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, ״יִבְנֶנּוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יָכוֹל תְּבוּנֵהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term tevonehu? Rabba bar Ulla said: This is what the baraita is saying: One might have thought that one should mix into it large quantities of salt, just as one mixes straw into clay. Abaye said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: Yitabonenu, and not tevonehu. Rather, Abaye said: The baraita is saying that one might have thought one should form the addition of salt just as one builds a building, by adding layer upon layer. Rava said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: He should build it and not tevonehu. Rather, Rava said: The baraita states: One might have thought tevonehu.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fascinating philological debate unfolds. Rabba bar Ulla interprets תבונהו as mixing salt like straw in clay—Abaye rejects this based on the word’s form. Abaye suggests it means building layers of salt—Rava rejects this too. Each scholar proposes an etymology and each is challenged on grammatical grounds. The precise meaning remains elusive.
Key Terms:
- תבן = Straw
- טיט = Clay
- בנין = Building
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – מסקנה
Rav Ashi’s interpretation and the practical method of salting
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״תְּבוּנֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: יָכוֹל יִתֵּן בּוֹ טַעַם כְּבִינָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְלָח״. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מֵבִיא הָאֵבֶר וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח, וְחוֹזֵר וְהוֹפְכוֹ וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח, וּמַעֲלֵהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is meant by tevonehu? Rav Ashi said: One might have thought that one should infuse the entire offering with the taste of salt, just as understanding (binah) infuses a person with wisdom. To counter this, the verse states: You shall season. How does he act? He brings the limb that is to be sacrificed on the altar and applies salt, and then turns it over and again applies salt, and brings it up to the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi offers the accepted interpretation: תבונהו connects to בינה (understanding/infusion). One might think the salt must completely penetrate the offering, infusing it entirely. The verse “you shall season” teaches that surface salting suffices. The practical procedure is then stated: salt one side, flip, salt the other side, then bring it to the altar. Simple surface application—no deep infusion required.
Key Terms:
- בינה = Understanding; wisdom that permeates
- כיצד הוא עושה = How does one do it; practical instruction
- הופכו = Turns it over
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא – הלכה למעשה
Abaye’s extension to salting meat for cooking
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכֵן לִקְדֵירָה.
English Translation:
Abaye says: And one acts similarly before placing meat into a pot. If one wishes to cook meat and needs to salt it in order to extract its blood, it is sufficient to apply salt to both sides and let it sit until the blood drains. Then, after it is washed, the meat is ready to be cooked and eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye draws a practical halachic conclusion from the Temple procedure: the same method applies to kashering meat for home cooking. To remove blood from meat, salt both sides—no need for deep penetration. This becomes the basis for the halachic practice of melicha (salting meat) that Jews follow to this day. The Temple practice informs domestic kashrut!
Key Terms:
- קדירה = Pot; cooking vessel
- מליחה = Salting; the process of kashering meat by extracting blood
Amud Bet (21b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Teaching about me’ilah (misuse) of Temple salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלַח שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵבֶר – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְשֶׁבְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to salt that is on the limb of an offering, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but in the case of salt that is on the ramp or that is on top of the altar, one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita addresses the prohibition of me’ilah (deriving personal benefit from Temple property). Salt that has already been applied to a sacrificial limb is fully consecrated—using it triggers me’ilah liability. However, salt merely sitting on the ramp or altar top, not yet applied to an offering, has a different status—no me’ilah applies. The salt’s consecration level depends on its stage in the sacrificial process.
Key Terms:
- מועלין = Liable for me’ilah; misuse of consecrated property
- כבש = The ramp leading up to the altar
- ראש המזבח = Top of the altar
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – מקור
Rav Mattana cites the scriptural source
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״וְהִקְרַבְתָּם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִשְׁלִיכוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלַח וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתָם עֹלָה לַה׳״.
English Translation:
Rav Mattana said: What is the verse from which it is derived? The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering to the Lord.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mattana provides the scriptural basis from Ezekiel 43:24. The verse describes the sequence: the offering is brought, salt is cast upon it, then it’s offered up. Only after the salt is “cast upon” the offering does it become part of the consecrated sacrifice. Salt sitting elsewhere hasn’t yet been incorporated into the service.
Key Terms:
- והשליכו = And they shall cast; describes applying salt
- עולה = Burnt offering
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Mishnah about priests benefiting from Temple salt and wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים, שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נְאוֹתִים בָּהֶן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְקׇרְבָּנָם, אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה – לָא.
English Translation:
We learned elsewhere: The court instituted an ordinance about the salt and about the wood that the priests may derive benefit from them. Shmuel says: They taught only that the priests may derive benefit from the salt for use on their offerings, but not for eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A mishnah from elsewhere (Shekalim) states that the Beit Din allowed priests to use Temple salt and wood. Shmuel limits this: priests may use communal salt only for their own sacrifices (salting their offerings), not for personal consumption (seasoning their food). The communal property has a specific permitted use.
Key Terms:
- נאותים = Derive benefit; permitted use
- שמואל = Shmuel; the great Amora of Nehardea
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר
Initial understanding of Shmuel’s statement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ קׇרְבָּנָם. לֶאֱכוֹל – אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים.
English Translation:
It enters our mind to say: He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings. And when he states that for eating it is not permitted, he is referring to eating the meat of sacrificial animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara initially understands Shmuel narrowly: “for their offerings” means salting the offerings themselves; “not for eating” means not even for eating sacrificial meat. This reading seems overly restrictive.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenging the narrow interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא לִמְלוֹחַ עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים יָהֲבִינַן, לַאֲכִילַת קֳדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Now, if we give the priests salt in order to salt the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to the priests to keep, is it reasonable to rule that we do not give them salt in order to add it when they eat the meat?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara finds this interpretation absurd: We allow priests to use Temple salt for preserving animal hides (a non-eating purpose), but we’d prohibit them from using it to season the meat they’re entitled to eat? That makes no sense—eating sacrificial meat is more important than preserving hides!
Key Terms:
- עורות קדשים = Hides of sacrificial animals; given to priests as perquisites
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Teaching about the three locations of Temple salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הַמֶּלַח נְתוּנָה: בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח, וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: You are found to be saying that the salt is placed in three locations in the Temple: In the Chamber of the Salt, and on the ramp, and on top of the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita establishes the Temple’s salt infrastructure: three storage/usage locations. This teaches the extensive use of salt throughout the Temple service and provides context for understanding where priests could access salt.
Key Terms:
- לשכת המלח = Chamber of the Salt; a Temple storage room
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא (continued)
Explaining the purpose of each salt location
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים, עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
English Translation:
It is placed in the Chamber of the Salt, since the priests salted there the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to them. It is placed on the ramp, since the priests salted there the sacrificial limbs. It is placed on top of the altar, since the priests salted there the handful of the meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering that accompanies the libations, and the bird burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each location served a specific purpose: The Chamber was for salting hides (preservation). The ramp was for salting animal limbs before placing them on the altar. The altar top was for items burned directly there: the kometz (handful) of meal offerings, frankincense, incense, various priestly meal offerings, and bird burnt offerings. This detailed list shows how pervasive salt was in Temple operations.
Key Terms:
- קומץ = Handful; portion of meal offering burned on altar
- לבונה = Frankincense
- מנחת כהן משיח = Meal offering of the anointed High Priest
- עולת העוף = Bird burnt offering
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – מסקנה
Reinterpreting Shmuel’s statement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לַאֲכִילַת קׇרְבָּנָם, וּמַאי לַאֲכִילָה – אֲכִילָה דְחוּלִּין.
English Translation:
Rather, what did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that it is permitted for the priests to add salt when they eat the meat of their offerings. And what is meant when he states that for eating it is not permitted? He is referring to eating non-sacred food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara corrects the understanding of Shmuel: “For their offerings” means priests may use Temple salt when eating their portions of sacrificial meat. “Not for eating” means not for their ordinary, non-sacred meals. Temple salt is for Temple-related consumption only, not for the priests’ regular food at home.
Key Terms:
- אכילת קרבנם = Eating their offering; consuming sacrificial portions
- חולין = Non-sacred; ordinary food
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא ותירוץ
Why is this obvious point taught?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּלִּין, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר מָר ״יֹאכְלוּ״, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עִמָּהּ חוּלִּין וּתְרוּמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת עַל הַשּׂוֹבַע, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מֶלַח דְּקָדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: Isn’t it obvious that the salt is not to be eaten with non-sacred food? What would non-sacred food be doing there in the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: Even though non-secular food may be brought to the Temple courtyard, and the Master said that they eat non-sacred and terumah food together with sacrificial meat so it be eaten while satisfied, even so we do not give them consecrated salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: Why mention non-sacred food—it wouldn’t be in the Temple anyway! The answer: Actually, priests could bring ordinary food to the Temple to eat alongside their sacrificial portions (so the sacred meat is eaten with appetite, not gorged). Even so, they may not use Temple salt for that ordinary food. The permission is narrowly defined.
Key Terms:
- על השובע = While satisfied; eating sacred food respectfully, not in desperate hunger
- תרומה = Terumah; priestly tithe
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה
Ravina supports this interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ, טַעְמָא דְּאַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין, הָא לָא אַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין – לָא?
English Translation:
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable to explain that Shmuel’s explanation is correct; then one must extrapolate that the reason this is permitted is that the court stipulated that it should be, but had the court not stipulated this, it would not be permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina supports the corrected interpretation with logic: If “for their offerings” meant merely for salting the offerings themselves, why would a court enactment be needed? Salt is obviously required for offerings! The enactment must permit something beyond the obvious—namely, using salt for eating their sacrificial portions.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
But even Israelites receive salt for their offerings!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָהֲבִינַן, לְכֹהֲנִים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?
English Translation:
Now that we give salt to Israelites to salt their offerings, will we not give salt to priests for the same purpose?
קלאוד על הדף:
Another objection: Regular Israelites bringing offerings receive communal salt—certainly priests would too! No special enactment would be needed for the obvious case of salting priestly offerings. This confirms the enactment addresses a less obvious permission.
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
Teaching about whether salt comes from home or the community
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ?
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita that one might have thought that one who says “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering,” must bring salt from his home, just as he brings frankincense from his home.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita addresses a fundamental question: When someone vows to bring a meal offering, should they supply their own salt (like they supply their own frankincense), or does salt come from the communal Temple supply? This halachic inquiry has practical implications for Temple logistics.
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (continued)
The logical argument for bringing salt from home
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא לְבוֹנָה, מָה לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – אַף מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
English Translation:
And this would seem to be a logical inference: It is stated one shall bring a meal offering and salt, and it is stated one shall bring a meal offering and frankincense. Therefore, just as frankincense comes from his home, so too, salt from his home.
קלאוד על הדף:
A kal vachomer (logical inference) suggests salt should come from home: Both salt and frankincense accompany meal offerings. Since frankincense must come from the individual, perhaps salt should too. This is a reasonable comparison.
Key Terms:
- דין הוא = It is a logical inference
- מתוך ביתו = From his home; privately supplied
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא (continued)
Counter-argument: compare to wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא עֵצִים – מָה עֵצִים מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף מֶלַח מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר!
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated one shall bring a meal offering and salt, and it is stated one shall bring a meal offering and wood. Therefore, just as wood comes from communal supplies, so too, salt shall come from communal supplies.
קלאוד על הדף:
A counter-argument: Wood for the altar fire comes from the community, not individuals. Perhaps salt is like wood, not frankincense—supplied communally. Both comparisons are valid, creating uncertainty.
Key Terms:
- משל ציבור = From communal supplies
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא (continued)
Evaluating which comparison is stronger
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה, דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Let us see to which salt is more similar: We derive the halacha of salt, which is a matter that applies to all offerings, from the halacha of wood, which is also a matter that applies to all offerings. And do not let frankincense prove otherwise, as it does not apply to all offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita attempts to resolve by finding the better analogy. Salt applies to ALL offerings; wood applies to ALL offerings; frankincense applies only to SOME (meal offerings). Like should be derived from like—salt should follow wood and come from the community.
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא (continued)
Another angle: what accompanies the offering in one vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין דָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, מִדָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ עֵצִים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִים עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד!
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way: We derive the halacha of salt, which is a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel, from the halacha of frankincense, which is also a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel. And do not let wood prove otherwise, as it does not accompany the meal offering in one vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Counter-argument: Salt and frankincense both accompany the meal offering in the same vessel—they’re physically together. Wood is separate. By this criterion, salt should follow frankincense and come from home. The debate continues!
Key Terms:
- בכלי אחד = In one vessel; physically together
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא (conclusion)
Scriptural resolution: “covenant of salt”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם״, מָה לְהַלָּן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף כָּאן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: The verse states “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” and there it states “From the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.” Therefore, just as there it means communal supplies, so too here the salt is brought from communal supplies.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution comes from a gezeirah shavah (verbal analogy): The phrase “everlasting covenant” (ברית עולם) appears both regarding salt (Numbers 18:19) and regarding the shekalim collected from all Israel (Exodus 31:16). Just as the shekalim are communal, so is the salt. This settles the matter—salt comes from the community, not individuals.
Key Terms:
- ברית מלח עולם = Everlasting covenant of salt
- גזירה שוה = Verbal analogy; hermeneutical principle
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – מימרא
Rav Mordechai’s clarification about ben Bukhri
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי קָאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבֶן בּוּכְרִי.
English Translation:
Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The ruling of the mishnah is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mordechai, citing Rav Sheisha, explains that the mishnah’s enactment permitting priests to use communal salt addresses ben Bukhri’s view specifically. This introduces a dispute about priestly obligations to contribute to communal funds.
Key Terms:
- בן בוכרי = Ben Bukhri; a Tanna with a minority opinion about priests
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה
The dispute between ben Bukhri and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן:
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishnah: Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavneh: Any priest who contributes his half-shekel is not considered a sinner. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said to him: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, but the priests interpret this verse to their own advantage.
קלאוד על הדף:
A famous dispute: Ben Bukhri held priests are exempt from the annual half-shekel contribution—if they contribute, it’s optional but not wrong. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai disagreed—priests ARE obligated, but they self-servingly interpret otherwise. This dispute affects whether priests have any share in communal offerings purchased with shekel funds.
Key Terms:
- שוקל = Contributes the half-shekel
- רבן יוחנן בן זכאי = Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai; leader after the Temple’s destruction
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה (continued)
The priests’ self-serving interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״, הוֹאִיל וְעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הִיא, הֵיאַךְ נֶאֱכָלִין?
English Translation:
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten.” Those priests claim: Since the omer offering and the two loaves and the shewbread, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings. How, then, can they be eaten?
קלאוד על הדף:
The priests’ reasoning: If they contribute shekels, they’d be partial owners of communal meal offerings (omer, two loaves, showbread). But the Torah says priestly meal offerings must be entirely burned, not eaten! Since these communal offerings ARE eaten by priests, the priests conclude they must not be owners—hence, they shouldn’t contribute shekels. This is the “self-serving interpretation” Rabban Yochanan criticized.
Key Terms:
- עומר = Omer offering; barley meal offering on 16 Nisan
- שתי הלחם = Two loaves; wheat offering on Shavuot
- לחם הפנים = Showbread; twelve loaves in the Temple
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא – מסקנה
According to ben Bukhri, the enactment is necessary
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְבֶן בּוּכְרִי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא מִיחַיַּיב לְאֵיתוֹיֵי, כִּי מַיְיתֵי נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא, דְּקָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, דְּמַיְיתֵי וּמָסַר לְהוֹן לְצִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
But according to ben Bukhri, since he is not obligated to bring the half-shekel ab initio, when a priest does bring it, he brings and transfers it to the community, so it becomes part of the communal funds.
קלאוד על הדף:
According to ben Bukhri, priests who voluntarily contribute their shekel transfer it to the community. Thus, they have no ownership stake in communal offerings or supplies. The Beit Din’s enactment was necessary to explicitly permit priests to use the communal salt—since according to ben Bukhri, priests have no inherent right to communal property. The enactment grants permission where none automatically existed.
This concludes the sugya, connecting the abstract dispute about priestly shekel contributions back to the practical question of Temple salt usage.
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא – הוה אמינא
The reasoning behind the enactment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:
English Translation:
The Gemara states the relevance of the opinion of ben Bukhri to the statement of Shmuel: According to the opinion of ben Bukhri it might enter your mind to say that
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief fragment introduces the logical reasoning behind the Beit Din’s enactment. The phrase “סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא” (it might enter your mind to say) signals that the Gemara is about to explain what mistaken conclusion one might have drawn without the explicit enactment. According to ben Bukhri’s view that priests don’t contribute the half-shekel, one might think they have no rights to communal property at all—including the salt. The enactment clarifies that despite this, priests may still use communal salt for their sacrificial portions.
This daf ends mid-thought, with the continuation on daf 22a explaining the complete reasoning.
Key Terms:
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא = “It might enter your mind to say”; introduces a potential (but rejected) line of reasoning