Menachot Daf 44 (מנחות דף מ״ד)
Daf: 44 | Amudim: 44a – 44b | Date: 25 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (44a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of the previous discussion — a slave is lower than a woman
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זִיל טְפֵי.
English Translation:
is more lowly than a woman, and therefore it is appropriate to recite an additional blessing on not having been born a slave.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief segment concludes the discussion from the previous daf (43b) about the three blessings recited each morning: “Who did not make me a gentile,” “Who did not make me a slave,” and “Who did not make me a woman.” The Gemara explains that a slave’s status is lower even than a woman’s, since a slave is not obligated in as many mitzvot as a woman. This hierarchy justifies the separate blessings and their order.
Key Terms:
- זִיל טְפֵי = “Go lower” — indicating a further degree of diminished status
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Description of the ḥilazon — the source creature for tekhelet dye
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חִלָּזוֹן זֶה, גּוּפוֹ דּוֹמֶה לַיָּם, וּבְרִיָּיתוֹ דּוֹמָה לְדָג, וְעוֹלֶה אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, וּבְדָמוֹ צוֹבְעִין תְּכֵלֶת, לְפִיכָךְ דָּמָיו יְקָרִים.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught: This ḥilazon, which is the source of the sky-blue dye used in ritual fringes, has the following characteristics: Its body resembles the sea, its form resembles that of a fish, it emerges once in seventy years, and with its blood one dyes wool sky-blue for ritual fringes. It is scarce, and therefore it is expensive.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a new topic related to tzitzit: the ḥilazon, the marine creature whose blood produces the precious tekhelet (sky-blue) dye. The baraita provides identifying characteristics — it is sea-colored and fish-like, and it surfaces only once every seventy years. This extreme rarity explains the exorbitant cost of tekhelet and why the mitzva of tekhelet was often impossible to fulfill. The identity of the ḥilazon has been a major scholarly debate, with the Murex trunculus snail being the leading modern candidate.
Key Terms:
- חִלָּזוֹן (Ḥilazon) = The sea creature from which tekhelet dye is extracted
- תְּכֵלֶת (Tekhelet) = Sky-blue dye used for one thread of the ritual fringes
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Natan: Every mitzva, however minor, is rewarded in this world
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: אֵין לָךְ כׇּל מִצְוָה קַלָּה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בְּתוֹרָה, שֶׁאֵין מַתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה. צֵא וּלְמַד מִמִּצְוַת צִיצִית.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: There is no mitzva, however minor, that is written in the Torah, for which there is no reward given in this world; and in the World-to-Come I do not know how much reward is given. Go and learn from the following incident concerning the mitzva of ritual fringes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Natan introduces one of the most famous aggadic stories in the Talmud with a powerful theological principle: every single mitzva in the Torah, no matter how seemingly minor, carries reward both in this world and the next. He specifically points to the mitzva of tzitzit as the proof text, setting up the dramatic narrative that follows. The phrase “I do not know how much” regarding the World-to-Come emphasizes that heavenly reward is beyond human comprehension.
Key Terms:
- מִצְוָה קַלָּה (Mitzva kala) = A “light” or seemingly minor commandment
- מַתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ (Matan sekhara) = The giving of its reward
Segment 4
TYPE: אגדתא
The story begins: A man diligent in tzitzit hears of a famous prostitute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה זָהִיר בְּמִצְוַת צִיצִית, שָׁמַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ זוֹנָה בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם שֶׁנּוֹטֶלֶת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים בִּשְׂכָרָהּ, שִׁיגֵּר לָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים וְקָבַע לָהּ זְמַן, כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ, בָּא וְיָשַׁב עַל הַפֶּתַח.
English Translation:
There was an incident involving a certain man who was diligent about the mitzva of ritual fringes. This man heard that there was a prostitute in one of the cities overseas who took four hundred gold coins as her payment. He sent her four hundred gold coins and fixed a time to meet with her. When his time came, he came and sat at the entrance to her house.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins one of the most celebrated aggadic narratives in the Talmud. The story deliberately emphasizes the protagonist’s particular devotion to the mitzva of tzitzit — this is not merely background detail but the central mechanism of the entire story. The extravagant sum of four hundred gold coins and the exotic overseas location underscore the intensity of temptation this man faces, making the eventual power of the mitzva all the more dramatic.
Key Terms:
- זָהִיר (Zahir) = Diligent, careful — denoting particular devotion to a mitzva
- כְּרַכֵּי הַיָּם (Kerakhei hayam) = Cities overseas, coastal metropolises
Segment 5
TYPE: אגדתא
The prostitute’s extravagant preparations — seven beds of silver and gold
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִכְנְסָה שִׁפְחָתָהּ וְאָמְרָה לָהּ: אוֹתוֹ אָדָם שֶׁשִּׁיגֵּר לִיךְ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים בָּא וְיָשַׁב עַל הַפֶּתַח. אָמְרָה הִיא: יִכָּנֵס. נִכְנַס, הִצִּיעָה לוֹ שֶׁבַע מִטּוֹת, שֵׁשׁ שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְאַחַת שֶׁל זָהָב, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת סוּלָּם שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, וְעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁל זָהָב.
English Translation:
The maidservant of that prostitute entered and said to her: That man who sent you four hundred gold coins came and sat at the entrance. She said: Let him enter. He entered. She arranged seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold. Between each and every one of them there was a ladder made of silver, and the top bed was the one that was made of gold.
קלאוד על הדף:
The lavish description of seven ascending beds — six of silver with silver ladders between them and a golden bed at the top — serves as a literary device to heighten the sense of luxury, temptation, and progressive escalation. The number seven may allude to completeness, suggesting that every possible enticement was deployed. This elaborate staging makes the subsequent spiritual turnaround even more powerful by contrast.
Key Terms:
- מִטּוֹת (Mittot) = Beds, couches — here arranged as ascending platforms
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדתא
The tzitzit slap his face — the turning point of the story
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עָלְתָה וְיָשְׁבָה עַל גַּבֵּי עֶלְיוֹנָה כְּשֶׁהִיא עֲרוּמָּה, וְאַף הוּא עָלָה לֵישֵׁב עָרוֹם כְּנֶגְדָּהּ, בָּאוּ אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹתָיו וְטָפְחוּ לוֹ עַל פָּנָיו, נִשְׁמַט וְיָשַׁב לוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְאַף הִיא נִשְׁמְטָה וְיָשְׁבָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. אָמְרָה לוֹ: גַּפָּהּ שֶׁל רוֹמִי, שֶׁאֵינִי מַנִּיחָתְךָ עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לִי מָה מוּם רָאִיתָ בִּי.
English Translation:
She went up and sat naked on the top bed, and he too went up in order to sit naked facing her. In the meantime, his four ritual fringes came and slapped him on his face. He dropped down and sat himself on the ground, and she also dropped down and sat on the ground. She said to him: I take an oath by the gappa of Rome that I will not allow you to go until you tell me what defect you saw in me.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the dramatic climax of the narrative. At the very moment of maximum temptation, the four tzitzit physically “slap” the man in the face — a vivid image suggesting that the mitzvot serve as constant, tangible reminders of one’s covenant with God. The descent from the elevated golden bed to the ground symbolizes a return from spiritual danger to grounded awareness. The woman’s astonishment — she assumes there must be a physical defect — highlights that she cannot fathom a spiritual motivation for his refusal.
Key Terms:
- טָפְחוּ לוֹ עַל פָּנָיו (Tafḥu lo al panav) = Slapped him on his face — a visceral image of spiritual awakening
- גַּפָּהּ שֶׁל רוֹמִי (Gappa shel Romi) = An oath invoking Rome’s authority; a Roman oath formula
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא
He explains: The tzitzit are like four witnesses testifying against him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לָהּ: הָעֲבוֹדָה, שֶׁלֹּא רָאִיתִי אִשָּׁה יָפֶה כְּמוֹתֵךְ, אֶלָּא מִצְוָה אַחַת צִיוָּנוּ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְצִיצִית שְׁמָהּ, וּכְתִיב בָּהּ: ״אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים – אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁעָתִיד לִיפָּרַע, וַאֲנִי הוּא שֶׁעָתִיד לְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר. עַכְשָׁיו נִדְמוּ עָלַי כְּאַרְבָּעָה עֵדִים.
English Translation:
He said to her: I take an oath by the Temple service that I never saw a woman as beautiful as you. But there is one mitzva that the Lord, our God, commanded us, and its name is ritual fringes, and in the passage where it is commanded, it is written twice: “I am the Lord your God” (Numbers 15:41). The doubling of this phrase indicates: I am the one who will punish those who transgress My mitzvot, and I am the one who will reward those who fulfill them. Now, said the man, the four sets of ritual fringes appeared to me as if they were four witnesses who will testify against me.
קלאוד על הדף:
The man’s response is theologically rich. He assures her that his rejection has nothing to do with her appearance — on the contrary, he has never seen anyone more beautiful. Rather, the four tzitzit corners served as four witnesses (the minimum needed for certain legal testimony in Jewish law) reminding him of God’s presence. The double phrase “I am the Lord your God” in the tzitzit passage encapsulates both divine justice (punishment) and divine mercy (reward), creating a complete theological framework that the man experienced as an encounter with God in the moment of temptation.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבָּעָה עֵדִים (Arba’a edim) = Four witnesses — a legal metaphor for the four corners of tzitzit
- הָעֲבוֹדָה (Ha’avoda) = An oath formula, literally “by the [Temple] service”
Segment 8
TYPE: אגדתא
She asks for his personal details — name, city, teacher, study hall
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרָה לוֹ: אֵינִי (מניחך) [מַנִּיחָתְךָ] עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לִי מָה שִׁמְךָ, וּמָה שֵׁם עִירְךָ, וּמָה שֵׁם רַבְּךָ, וּמָה שֵׁם מִדְרָשְׁךָ שֶׁאַתָּה לָמֵד בּוֹ תּוֹרָה. כָּתַב וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ.
English Translation:
She said to him: I will not allow you to go until you tell me: What is your name, and what is the name of your city, and what is the name of your teacher, and what is the name of the study hall in which you studied Torah? He wrote the information and placed it in her hand.
קלאוד על הדף:
Her detailed request for his identity — name, city, rabbi, and study hall — shows that his act of spiritual heroism has profoundly affected her. She does not want this to be an anonymous encounter; she wants to find the source of the moral strength she has witnessed. His willingness to write down his details also shows his integrity — he does not hide from his own story. This scene sets up the resolution of the narrative.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית מִדְרָשׁ (Beit midrash) = Study hall — the institution of Torah learning
Segment 9
TYPE: אגדתא
She distributes her wealth — one-third each to the government, the poor, and herself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עָמְדָה וְחִילְּקָהּ כׇּל נְכָסֶיהָ, שְׁלִישׁ לַמַּלְכוּת, וּשְׁלִישׁ לַעֲנִיִּים, וּשְׁלִישׁ נָטְלָה בְּיָדָהּ, חוּץ מֵאוֹתָן מַצָּעוֹת.
English Translation:
She arose and divided all of her property, giving one-third as a bribe to the government, one-third to the poor, and she took one-third with her in her possession, in addition to those beds of gold and silver.
קלאוד על הדף:
Her decision to divide her wealth represents a complete transformation of identity. The one-third to the government was likely necessary to leave her profession without legal repercussions. The one-third to the poor demonstrates her emerging commitment to charity and moral living. That she retained the beds — the very objects of temptation — foreshadows the story’s conclusion, where what was once a symbol of sin becomes a symbol of sanctified marriage.
Key Terms:
- נְכָסִים (Nekhasim) = Property, assets
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
She comes to Rabbi Ḥiyya to convert, proves her sincerity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבָאת לְבֵית מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חִיָּיא. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, צַוֵּה עָלַי וְיַעֲשׂוּנִי גִּיּוֹרֶת. אָמַר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, שֶׁמָּא עֵינַיִךְ נָתַתְּ בְּאֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים. הוֹצִיאָהּ כְּתָב מִיָּדָהּ וְנָתְנָה לוֹ. אָמַר לָהּ: לְכִי זְכִי בְּמִקָּחִךְ.
English Translation:
She came to the study hall of Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: My teacher, instruct your students concerning me and have them make me a convert. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to her: My daughter, perhaps you set your sights on one of the students and that is why you want to convert? She took the note the student had given her from her hand and gave it to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: Go take possession of your purchase.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ḥiyya’s initial suspicion — that she wants to convert for the sake of marrying a student — reflects the standard rabbinic concern about the sincerity of conversion (geirus). However, when she produces the note, Rabbi Ḥiyya understands the full story: her motivation is not merely romantic interest but a genuine spiritual transformation triggered by witnessing the power of Torah. His response, “Go take possession of your purchase,” validates both her conversion and her intended marriage.
Key Terms:
- גִּיּוֹרֶת (Giyoret) = A female convert to Judaism
- לְכִי זְכִי בְּמִקָּחִךְ (Lekhi zekhi be-mikḥekh) = “Go take possession of your purchase” — a legal-commercial metaphor for a legitimate acquisition
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
Conclusion: The same beds, now in permitted fashion — reward in this world
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹתָן מַצָּעוֹת שֶׁהִצִּיעָה לוֹ בְּאִיסּוּר, הִצִּיעָה לוֹ בְּהֶיתֵּר. זֶה מַתַּן שְׂכָרוֹ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה.
English Translation:
Those beds that she had arranged for him in a prohibited fashion, she now arranged for him in a permitted fashion. The Gemara completes its point about the reward of mitzvot and points out how this story illustrates the concept: This is the reward given to him in this world, and with regard to the World-to-Come, I do not know how much reward he will be given.
קלאוד על הדף:
The story comes full circle with beautiful narrative symmetry. The very same beds that symbolized forbidden temptation are now repurposed for the sanctified marital relationship between the convert and the Torah student. This poetic justice serves as Rabbi Natan’s proof that mitzvot are rewarded in this world — the man received the same pleasures he had denied himself, but now in a permitted context. The repeated refrain “in the World-to-Come I do not know how much” brackets the entire story, emphasizing that worldly reward is merely a taste of what awaits.
Key Terms:
- בְּאִיסּוּר / בְּהֶיתֵּר (Be-issur / Be-heter) = In a prohibited fashion / In a permitted fashion — the fundamental transformation of the story
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yehuda: A borrowed cloak is exempt from tzitzit for the first thirty days
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה, כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית, מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ חַיֶּיבֶת.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says: In the case of a borrowed cloak, for the first thirty days it is exempt from ritual fringes; from then on it is obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions from aggadah back to halakha. Rav Yehuda teaches that tzitzit is an obligation on the garment’s owner, not merely on whoever wears it. A borrower is exempt for the first thirty days because the garment is still primarily identified with the lender. After thirty days, however, the borrower’s extended use creates a quasi-ownership status (similar to an acquisition by ḥazaka), making him responsible for attaching tzitzit.
Key Terms:
- טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה (Tallit she’ula) = A borrowed garment/cloak
- שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם (Sheloshim yom) = Thirty days — the threshold for acquiring certain legal obligations
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Supporting baraita: The thirty-day threshold for mezuza in a rented house
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַדָּר בְּפוּנְדְּקִי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ – כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם פָּטוּר מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ חַיָּיב. אֲבָל הַשּׂוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – עוֹשֶׂה מְזוּזָה לְאַלְתַּר, מִשּׁוּם יִישּׁוּב דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: That distinction is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who resides in a guesthouse [pundaki] in Eretz Yisrael, or one who rents a house outside of Eretz Yisrael, for the first thirty days he is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza; from then on he is obligated. But one who rents a house in Eretz Yisrael must affix a mezuza immediately, due to the settlement of Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a parallel baraita to support Rav Yehuda’s thirty-day rule for borrowed garments, this time regarding mezuza. The same principle applies: temporary residence does not create an immediate obligation. The notable exception is renting in Eretz Yisrael, where the obligation applies immediately “due to the settlement of Eretz Yisrael” — a rabbinic policy designed to encourage permanent settlement by making temporary stays feel like permanent residence through the mitzva of mezuza.
Key Terms:
- פוּנְדְּקִי (Pundaki) = Guesthouse, inn
- יִישּׁוּב דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל (Yishuv de-Eretz Yisrael) = Settlement of the Land of Israel — a value that overrides the normal thirty-day exemption
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ḥisda: The mishna’s rule that tefillin of the arm and head do not prevent each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, אֲבָל אֵין לוֹ – מְעַכֶּבֶת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Absence of the phylacteries of the arm does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head, and absence of the phylacteries of the head does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm. Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this only in a case where one has the other phylacteries, but they are not with him or he is unable to wear them for some reason. But if he does not have the other phylacteries at all, then their absence does prevent the fulfillment of the mitzva to don the phylacteries that he has.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s discussion about the independence of the arm and head tefillin. Rav Ḥisda initially limits the mishna’s ruling: only when one owns both sets but cannot currently wear one of them can he still wear the other. If he does not own the other set at all, Rav Ḥisda initially argues that the absence is preventive — you should not don one without the other. This position reflects a concern about treating the two tefillin as an interconnected unit.
Key Terms:
- תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד (Tefilla shel yad) = Phylacteries of the arm
- מְעַכֶּבֶת (Me’akevet) = Prevents, holds back — a technical term meaning one component’s absence invalidates the other
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ḥisda retracts: One should still fulfill whichever mitzva one can
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אָמַרְתָּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא, אֶלָּא מַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תְּרֵי מִצְוֹת, חַד מִצְוָה נָמֵי לָא לֶיעְבֵּיד?! וּמֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי סְבַר? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִפְשַׁע.
English Translation:
Later on, the students said to him: Do you still say that? Rav Ḥisda said to them: No, rather I would say the opposite: Concerning one who does not have the ability to fulfill two mitzvot, should he also not perform the one mitzva that he does have the ability to fulfill? The Gemara asks: And what did he hold initially when he said not to don one of the phylacteries in the absence of the other? The Gemara answers: He held that it was due to a rabbinic decree, lest he be negligent and not try to acquire the phylacteries that he lacks.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda retracts his earlier position after being challenged by his students. His retraction is emphatic: it would be absurd to prevent someone from fulfilling the one mitzva they can perform simply because they cannot perform the related second mitzva. The Gemara then explains his original reasoning — it was a precautionary decree (gezeira) to prevent laziness. If people knew they could fulfill the obligation with just one tefillin, they might never bother acquiring the other. This tension between encouraging complete fulfillment and not denying partial fulfillment is a recurring theme in halakha.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִפְשַׁע (Gezeira shema yifsha) = A rabbinic decree lest one become negligent
- פְּשִׁיעָה (Peshi’a) = Negligence
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Sheshet: Not donning tefillin violates eight positive mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁמוֹנָה עֲשֵׂה.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet says: Anyone who does not don phylacteries violates eight positive mitzvot. This is referring to the mitzva to don phylacteries of the arm and head, each of which is mentioned in four different passages (Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet quantifies the severity of neglecting tefillin. Since the obligation to don tefillin appears in four separate Torah passages, and each passage commands both the arm and head tefillin, there are effectively eight distinct positive commandments being violated. This enumeration underscores the centrality of tefillin in Jewish practice and serves as a strong motivational statement: neglecting one mitzva can actually constitute multiple violations.
Key Terms:
- עֲשֵׂה (Aseh) = Positive commandment — a commandment requiring active performance
- שְׁמוֹנָה עֲשֵׂה (Shemona aseh) = Eight positive commandments
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא
Not wearing tzitzit violates five positive mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עֲשֵׂה.
English Translation:
And anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garments violates five positive mitzvot. This is because the mitzva of ritual fringes is stated four times in the primary passage concerning ritual fringes in Numbers: “That they prepare for themselves strings…and they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread. And it shall be to you for a fringe that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord” (Numbers 15:38–39). An additional command appears in the verse: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12).
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the enumeration, Rav Sheshet counts five positive commandments for tzitzit: four in the primary passage of Numbers 15:38–39 (prepare strings, put a tekhelet thread, it shall be a fringe, look upon it and remember) plus one in Deuteronomy 22:12 (“You shall prepare twisted cords”). This count emphasizes that even a single mitzva like tzitzit encapsulates multiple divine commands, each carrying its own obligation and potential reward.
Key Terms:
- גְּדִילִים (Gedilim) = Twisted cords — the term for tzitzit used in Deuteronomy
Segment 18
TYPE: מימרא
A kohen who does not ascend the platform violates three positive mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לַדּוּכָן, עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֲשֵׂה.
English Translation:
And any priest who does not ascend the platform to recite the Priestly Benediction violates three positive mitzvot expressed in the verses: “So you shall bless the children of Israel; you shall say to them” (Numbers 6:23), and: “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:27).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet extends his enumeration to the Priestly Blessing (Birkat Kohanim). The three positive commandments are derived from Numbers 6:23 (“So you shall bless” — command to bless; “you shall say to them” — command regarding the manner of saying) and Numbers 6:27 (“They shall put My name” — command to invoke God’s name upon Israel). This teaching emphasizes that kohanim have a special obligation they cannot shirk without incurring multiple violations.
Key Terms:
- דּוּכָן (Dukhan) = The platform from which kohanim recite the Priestly Blessing
- בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים (Birkat Kohanim) = The Priestly Blessing
Segment 19
TYPE: מימרא
Not having a mezuza violates two positive mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מְזוּזָה בְּפִתְחוֹ עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי עֲשֵׂה, ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״.
English Translation:
Anyone who does not have a mezuza in his doorway violates two positive mitzvot, stated in the verses: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9), and: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 11:20).
קלאוד על הדף:
The final entry in Rav Sheshet’s enumeration covers mezuza. The command to affix a mezuza appears twice in the Torah — in the first paragraph of Shema (Deuteronomy 6:9) and the second paragraph (Deuteronomy 11:20). Each constitutes an independent positive commandment. This systematic listing of mitzvot and their multiple sources — tefillin (8), tzitzit (5), Priestly Blessing (3), mezuza (2) — creates a comprehensive picture of the “weight” of everyday religious obligations.
Key Terms:
- מְזוּזָה (Mezuza) = The parchment scroll affixed to a doorpost containing the Shema passages
Segment 20
TYPE: מימרא
Reish Lakish: Donning tefillin leads to long life
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַמַּנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין מַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר:
English Translation:
And Reish Lakish says: Anyone who dons phylacteries lives a long life, as it is stated:
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish concludes the amud with a statement connecting tefillin to longevity. This serves as a positive counterpart to Rav Sheshet’s warnings about the violations incurred by neglecting mitzvot. While Rav Sheshet emphasized what one loses by failing to perform mitzvot, Reish Lakish emphasizes what one gains. The verse he cites (from Isaiah 38:16) begins on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- מַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים (Ma’arikh yamim) = Lives a long life, extends one’s days
Amud Bet (44b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of Reish Lakish’s statement — the verse from Isaiah about longevity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״ה׳ עֲלֵיהֶם יִחְיוּ וּלְכׇל בָּהֶן חַיֵּי רוּחִי וְתַחֲלִימֵנִי וְהַחֲיֵנִי״.
English Translation:
“The Lord is upon them, they will live, and altogether therein is the life of my spirit; and have me recover, and make me to live” (Isaiah 38:16). This is interpreted as referring to those who don phylacteries, which contain the name of the Lord, on their heads; as a result, they will live, be healed and merit long life.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes Reish Lakish’s teaching from the previous amud. The verse from Isaiah 38:16, originally part of King Hezekiah’s prayer of recovery, is homiletically interpreted as referring to tefillin. “The Lord is upon them” refers to the tefillin on one’s head (which contain God’s name), and the reward is threefold: life, healing, and extended days. This interpretation transforms a verse about a specific historical recovery into a universal promise tied to mitzva observance.
Key Terms:
- וְתַחֲלִימֵנִי (Ve-taḥlimeni) = “And have me recover” — interpreted as a reward for tefillin observance
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: Flour/oil and wine do not prevent each other; blood placements do not prevent each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַסּוֹלֶת וְהַשֶּׁמֶן אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַיַּיִן, וְלֹא הַיַּיִן מְעַכְּבָן. הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mishna returns to discussing the halakhot of meal offerings, which are the central theme of this tractate. The absence of the fine flour and the oil for the meal offering accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings does not prevent libation of the wine, and the absence of the wine for libation does not prevent sacrifice of the flour and the oil. Failure to perform some of the placements of blood on the external altar does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other placements, as even if the priest performed only one placement of blood, the offering effects atonement after the fact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf transitions back to the core subject matter of Menachot — the halakhot of meal offerings. This mishna establishes two important principles of non-interdependence. First, the meal offering components (flour and oil) and the wine libation that accompany animal offerings are independent; the unavailability of one does not prevent offering the other. Second, the multiple blood placements on the outer altar are similarly independent — even a single placement suffices for atonement after the fact. These principles reflect the broader theme of the chapter about when components of mitzvot prevent or do not prevent each other.
Key Terms:
- סוֹלֶת (Solet) = Fine flour — a key ingredient of meal offerings
- נְסָכִים (Nesakhim) = Libations — the wine poured on the altar alongside animal offerings
- מַתָּנוֹת (Mattanot) = Placements — applications of blood on the altar
- מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן (Mizbe’aḥ haḥitzon) = The external (outer) altar in the Temple courtyard
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on the order of meal offering and libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ – הָבֵא מִנְחָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָבֵא נְסָכִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים״ – הָבֵא זֶבַח, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָבֵא נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the additional offerings sacrificed on Sukkot and the Eighth Day of Assembly states: “And their meal offering and their libations for the bulls, for the rams and for the lambs” (Numbers 29:18). This indicates that after the animal is sacrificed, one must bring the meal offering and then bring the libations. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that since the verse states: “To bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, an animal offering, and libations, each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37), one must bring the animal offering and then bring the libations, and only then bring the meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a dispute about the proper sequence of the accompanying offerings. The Rabbis derive from Numbers 29:18 that the order is: animal offering, then meal offering, then wine libation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from Leviticus 23:37 that it should be: animal offering, then libations, then meal offering. Each side is reading the sequence implied by the word order in their chosen verse. This is a classic example of Talmudic hermeneutics where different verses yield different conclusions about procedural order.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחָה (Minkha) = Meal offering — the flour/oil component accompanying animal offerings
- רַבִּי (Rabbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — referred to simply as “Rabbi” throughout the Talmud
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge to Rabbi: Doesn’t the other verse support the Rabbis’ order?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי נָמֵי הָכְתִיב ״וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לְ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, וּ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ אֲפִילּוּ לְמָחָר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “And their meal offering and their libations,” indicating that the meal offering precedes the libations? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary in order to teach that once the animals have been sacrificed during the day, their meal offering and their libations may be offered even at night, and similarly, their meal offering and their libations may be offered even the next day.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position: if the verse in Numbers lists meal offering before libations, shouldn’t he concede that the meal offering comes first? The answer is that Rabbi uses that verse for a different legal derivation entirely — it teaches that meal offerings and libations may be offered at night or even the next day after the animal was slaughtered, since the verse’s plural phrasing implies extended time. This is a classic Talmudic technique: each side “uses up” the opposing verse for a different teaching.
Key Terms:
- בַּלַּיְלָה (Ba-layla) = At night — indicating that nesakhim can be offered after dark
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge to the Rabbis: Doesn’t their verse actually support Rabbi’s order?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים״? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִזְעֵירִי, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין נְסָכִים מִתְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַזֶּבַח.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis also, isn’t it written: “An animal offering, and libations,” indicating that the libations immediately follow the animal offering and precede the meal offering? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri, as Ze’eiri says: The libations that accompany animal offerings are consecrated only through the slaughter of the animal offering. This means that once the animal is slaughtered, the libations that were set aside to be brought with that animal offering cannot be diverted to accompany a different animal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now challenges the Rabbis with the same technique: the verse in Leviticus lists the animal offering directly followed by libations, suggesting Rabbi’s order is correct. The Rabbis respond that they use this verse to teach Ze’eiri’s principle — that the libations become sanctified (consecrated for their specific purpose) only when the animal is slaughtered. This means the libations are “locked in” to their designated animal offering once it is slaughtered. This is a significant halakhic concept about the transfer of sanctity through association.
Key Terms:
- מִתְקַדְּשִׁין (Mitkadshin) = Become consecrated — acquire sanctity and can no longer be redirected
- שְׁחִיטָה (Shekhita) = Ritual slaughter — the act that triggers consecration of the libations
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara challenges both sides: each opinion needs the other’s verse too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִזְעֵירִי, וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, וּ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ אֲפִילּוּ לְמָחָר!
English Translation:
The Gemara points out that both opinions remain difficult: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should also require the phrase “an animal offering, and libations” to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And the Rabbis should also require the phrase “and their meal offering and their libations” to indicate that their meal offering and their libations may be offered even at night, and their meal offering and their libations may be offered even the next day.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara realizes that the previous answers are insufficient. Both sides actually need both verses for their respective legal derivations: Rabbi also needs Ze’eiri’s teaching (from the Rabbis’ verse), and the Rabbis also need the teaching about nighttime and next-day offerings (from Rabbi’s verse). Since both verses are “used up” for other teachings, neither side can derive the order of precedence from them. This forces the Gemara to search for a different source for the dispute.
Key Terms:
- מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ (Mibba’i leih) = “He needs it for” — indicating a verse is required for a different derivation
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Attempted resolution from a third verse — but it applies to both sides
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, דִּכְתִיב ״עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה״, וְרַבִּי נָמֵי הָכְתִיב ״עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה״?
English Translation:
The Gemara offers a different explanation of the dispute in the baraita: Rather, this is the reasoning of the Rabbis, as it is written in the verse: “To bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, an animal offering, and libations, each on its own day.” The Rabbis derive from this that the meal offering should be offered immediately following the animal burnt offering. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “A burnt offering, and a meal offering”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts a fresh approach, pointing to the phrase “a burnt offering, and a meal offering” in Leviticus 23:37 as the Rabbis’ source — meal offering follows immediately after the burnt offering, before the libations. However, this verse is equally available to Rabbi, creating the same problem. The Gemara is systematically exhausting all possible scriptural sources for the dispute, showing the rigor of Talmudic analysis.
Key Terms:
- עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה (Ola u-minkha) = “A burnt offering and a meal offering” — the phrase indicating their sequential relationship
Segment 8
TYPE: מסקנא
Resolution: Both agree when accompanying offerings; they disagree only when brought independently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, בְּבָאִים עִם הַזֶּבַח דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נְסָכִים, דְּהָכְתִיב ״עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה״. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּבָאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִדְּבָאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח – מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נְסָכִים, בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן נָמֵי – מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
Rather, with regard to libations that accompany an animal offering, everyone agrees that the meal offering should be brought and afterward the libations should be brought, as it is written: “A burnt offering, and a meal offering.” When they disagree it is with regard to meal offerings and libations that are brought by themselves. The Rabbis hold that from the fact that when meal offerings and libations accompany offerings, the meal offerings are brought and then the libations are brought, it can be derived that when they are brought by themselves also, first the meal offering is brought and then the libations are brought.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reaches a key resolution: when meal offerings and libations accompany an animal offering, everyone agrees the order is meal offering first, then libations, based on “a burnt offering, and a meal offering.” The dispute is only about independent meal offerings and libations (brought without an accompanying animal). The Rabbis maintain that the same order applies universally — if the meal offering comes first when accompanying an animal, it also comes first when brought independently. This is an argument from analogy: the standard case sets the rule for the exceptional case.
Key Terms:
- בָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח (Ba’in im ha-zevaḥ) = Coming with the animal offering — the standard accompaniment scenario
- בָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן (Ba’in bifnei atzmam) = Coming by themselves — independent offerings
Segment 9
TYPE: מסקנא
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reasoning: When brought independently, libations take priority because of the Levite song
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי, הָתָם הוּא דְּאַיְּידֵי דְּאַתְחֵיל בַּאֲכִילָה, גָּמַר לַהּ לְכוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא דַּאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן – נְסָכִים עֲדִיפִי, הוֹאִיל דְּמִיתְאַמְרָא שִׁירָה עֲלַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is specifically there, in the case of meal offerings and libations that accompany an animal offering, that the meal offering is burned on the altar before the wine libation is poured on the altar. This is because since the altar has started to eat, i.e., consume, the animal offering, one must first complete the entire matter of the altar’s eating, including the meal offering. The pouring of the wine on the altar is likened more to drinking than to eating. But when the meal offering and the libations are brought by themselves, the libations are considered preferable, because the song of the Levites is recited over them. Consequently, the pouring of the libations precedes the burning of the meal offering on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi offers a fascinating rationale. When offerings accompany an animal, the altar is metaphorically “eating” — so you complete the meal (animal + meal offering = food) before the drink (wine libation). But when offerings are brought independently, libations take priority because the Levite song (shira) is recited specifically during the wine libation. Since the song sanctifies the Temple service, the libation that triggers it is given precedence. This anthropomorphic metaphor of the altar “eating” and “drinking” is a striking theological concept.
Key Terms:
- אֲכִילָה (Akhila) = Eating — metaphorically, the altar “consuming” the offering
- שִׁירָה (Shira) = Song — the Levitical song that accompanies the wine libation
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Return to the mishna: Blood placements on the outer altar do not prevent each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁעַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Failure to perform some of the placements of blood on the external altar does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other placements, as even if the priest performed only one placement, the offering effects atonement after the fact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses the second ruling in the mishna: the independence of blood placements on the outer altar. Most offerings require either two or four placements of blood on the altar corners. This mishna teaches that even if only one placement was performed, the offering still effects atonement after the fact (be-di’eved). This is a significant leniency in Temple procedure, distinguishing between the ideal (lekhatchila) and post-facto (be-di’eved) requirements.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ (Ein me’akvot zo et zo) = They do not prevent each other — one placement suffices after the fact
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Scriptural source: “The blood of your offerings shall be poured” — even one placement effects atonement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁכִּיפֵּר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל מִזְבַּח ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״.
English Translation:
Apropos this statement, the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to all offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar that if one placed their blood with one act of placement, as opposed to the two or four that are required depending upon the offering, that the offering has nevertheless effected atonement after the fact, i.e., one has fulfilled his obligation to bring the offering? As it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita provides the scriptural basis for the mishna’s ruling. The verse “the blood of your offerings shall be poured” uses the singular “poured” (yishafekh), implying that even a single act of pouring blood on the altar is sufficient. The word “poured” (שְׁפִיכָה) suggests a general, undivided action rather than multiple specific placements. This verse thus serves as the source for the post-facto validity of a single blood placement, even when multiple placements are required ab initio.
Key Terms:
- כִּיפֵּר (Kiper) = Effected atonement — the offering achieves its purpose
- שְׁפִיכָה (Shefikha) = Pouring — a general term for placing blood, implying even one act suffices
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: Festival offerings (bulls, rams, sheep, goats) do not prevent each other; Rabbi Shimon’s caveat about libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַפָּרִים וְהָאֵילִים וְהַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַשְּׂעִירִים – אֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּים, וְלֹא הָיוּ לָהֶם נְסָכִים – יָבִיא פַּר אֶחָד וּנְסָכִים, וְלֹא יַקְרִיבוּ כּוּלָּם בְּלֹא נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Failure to sacrifice one of the bulls, the rams, the sheep, or the goats of the additional offerings brought on Festivals does not prevent the sacrifice of the others. Rabbi Shimon says: If the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should rather bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna addresses the musaf (additional) offerings brought on festivals. The first ruling establishes that the different categories of festival offerings are independent — if one type is unavailable, the others are still brought. Rabbi Shimon adds an important caveat: even though offerings are technically independent, it is better to bring one complete offering (animal plus libations) than to bring many animals without their libations. His principle values quality and completeness over quantity, reflecting a deeper understanding of proper Temple service.
Key Terms:
- מוּסָפִין (Musafin) = Additional offerings — brought on Shabbat, festivals, and new moons
- פָּרִים (Parim) = Bulls; אֵילִים (Eilim) = Rams; כְּבָשִׂים (Kevasim) = Sheep; שְׂעִירִים (Se’irim) = Goats
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Which festival is the mishna discussing? Not Sukkot, since its offerings are fixed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ הָנֵי פָּרִים וּכְבָשִׂים דְּהֵיכָא? אִילֵּימָא דְּחַג – ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״, ״כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ!
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to these bulls, rams, and sheep mentioned in the mishna, on which festival are they offered? If we say that these are the offerings of the festival of Sukkot, this is difficult: It is written with regard to those days that their offerings must be brought: “According to the ordinance” (see, e.g., Numbers 29:18), and: “According to their ordinance” (Numbers 29:33). This indicates that no deviation from the Torah’s prescription is possible.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks which festival the mishna is discussing. Sukkot might seem the natural choice, since its musaf offerings involve varying numbers of bulls (from 13 on day one descending to 7 on day seven). However, the Torah specifies “according to the ordinance” regarding Sukkot offerings, implying strict adherence to the prescribed numbers — which would contradict the mishna’s principle that the absence of one animal doesn’t prevent others. If the exact count matters on Sukkot, then every animal is essential and their absence should indeed be preventive.
Key Terms:
- חַג (Ḥag) = The festival — here referring to Sukkot
- כַּמִּשְׁפָּט (Ka-mishpat) = “According to the ordinance” — implying strict procedural requirements
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Answer: The mishna refers to Rosh Ḥodesh and Shavuot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ וַעֲצֶרֶת דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים.
English Translation:
Rather, the mishna must be referring to the two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep of the New Moon and Shavuot, as mentioned in the book of Numbers (28:11, 27).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the question by identifying the mishna’s context as Rosh Ḥodesh (the New Moon) and Shavuot (Atzeret), whose additional offerings are prescribed in Numbers 28. Unlike Sukkot, these festivals do not have the restrictive “according to the ordinance” language, allowing for the mishna’s principle of non-interdependence to apply. The Gemara refers to the Book of Numbers as “Ḥomesh HaPekudim” (the Book of the Census/Numbers), its traditional Hebrew name, derived from the census recorded at the beginning of the book.
Key Terms:
- רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ (Rosh Ḥodesh) = The New Moon — the first day of each Hebrew month
- עֲצֶרֶת (Atzeret) = Assembly — the Talmudic name for Shavuot
- חוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים (Ḥomesh HaPekudim) = The Book of Numbers — literally “the fifth book of counting”