Menachot Daf 50 (מנחות דף נ׳)
Daf: 50 | Amudim: 50a – 50b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (50a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution of the six vs. seven lambs question
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם שִׁבְעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא, תַּנָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאֵי, וּמַאי כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת וּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה? סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In any case, the question stands: Why does the mishna say six lambs when, in fact the number required is seven? The Gemara answers: Rather, the tanna is speaking generally, referring to how many inspected lambs are required throughout the year. And what did he mean by his statement: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana? It is merely intended as a mnemonic, to help one remember that there must be enough lambs for the daily offering of three days.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves a difficulty carried over from the previous daf: the mishna states that six inspected lambs must be kept in the Chamber of Lambs, but seven should be required (two daily offerings for three days plus one extra). The resolution reframes the mishna’s number as a general rule for most of the year, while “sufficient for Shabbat and the two days of Rosh HaShana” serves merely as a mnemonic device — not a literal count of lambs for those specific days.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא = Merely a mnemonic — a memory aid rather than a precise legal requirement
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Textual precision confirms the mnemonic interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״לְשַׁבָּת וְלִשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
According to this the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, and it does not teach that there must be six lambs for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, which would have indicated that these lambs are meant to actually be sacrificed on those days. The Gemara concludes that in fact one can learn from the language of the mishna that this is the correct interpretation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides textual support for the mnemonic interpretation by noting the mishna’s precise phrasing. It says “sufficient for (כְּדֵי לַ) Shabbat” rather than “for (לְ) Shabbat,” indicating the reference to Shabbat and Rosh HaShana is an approximation to help remember the three-day buffer, not a specification that these lambs are designated for those particular days. This “diyuka” (precise reading) method is a hallmark of Talmudic analysis — drawing legal conclusions from subtle linguistic choices.
Key Terms:
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי = The language is also precise — a formulaic expression used when the wording of the mishna supports the proposed interpretation
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara questions Rabbi Shimon’s mention of altar initiation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבּוֹקֶר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים. חִינּוּךְ מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: If the priests did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, nevertheless, they should sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. If they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon, as the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about the initiation of the Temple vessels, i.e., what is its relevance to the mishna?
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment begins a major new sugya about skipping the morning tamid offering. The mishna states that if the morning offering was missed, the afternoon offering should still be brought. Rabbi Shimon adds that for incense, the full measure would be offered in the afternoon because the golden altar must be initiated with the afternoon incense. The Gemara sharply asks: “Who mentioned initiation?” — the mishna is discussing a case where the morning offering was skipped, not the inauguration of a new altar. This question drives the restructuring of the mishna in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- חִינּוּךְ = Initiation/inauguration — the first use of a newly constructed Temple vessel
- מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב = The golden altar — the inner altar used for burning incense in the Heichal
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna is incomplete — initiation is the key distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If they did not sacrifice a lamb for the daily offering in the morning, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the daily offering of the morning. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then they should sacrifice the lamb of the daily offering in the afternoon even though they did not sacrifice the lamb of the morning offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara uses the hermeneutical method of “chassorei michassera” — the mishna is incomplete and must be emended. The reconstructed version distinguishes between an uninitiated altar (where the morning tamid must come first) and an already-initiated altar (where skipping the morning doesn’t prevent the afternoon offering). This distinction reconciles Rabbi Shimon’s mention of initiation with the mishna’s broader topic. The principle is that an altar must receive its inaugural offering in the morning before any afternoon service can take place.
Key Terms:
- חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא = The text is incomplete — a Talmudic technique for reinterpreting a mishna by inserting implied clauses
- נִתְחַנֵּךְ = Was initiated — i.e., the altar’s first offering has already been brought
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon distinguishes oness/shogeg from mezid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon adds a crucial qualification to the reconstructed mishna. The permission to bring the afternoon tamid when the morning was skipped applies only when the omission was due to circumstances beyond their control (oness) or inadvertence (shogeg). If priests deliberately skipped the morning offering (mezid), they cannot offer the afternoon tamid. However, incense is different — even if skipped intentionally, it may still be offered in the afternoon. This exceptional treatment of incense will be explained in Segment 10.
Key Terms:
- אֲנוּסִין = Compelled by circumstances beyond their control
- שׁוֹגְגִין = Acting inadvertently/unwittingly
- מְזִידִין = Acting deliberately/intentionally
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Scriptural source: the afternoon offering must be “second”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – שֵׁנִי בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that if the lamb of the daily offering of the morning was not sacrificed and the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, then the lamb of the afternoon is also not sacrificed? The Gemara explains that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning; and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Exodus 29:39). This verse teaches that the second lamb of the daily offering is sacrificed in the afternoon, but if it is the first one to be sacrificed, it may not be sacrificed in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now provides the biblical source for the rule that an uninitiated altar cannot start with the afternoon offering. The verse in Exodus 29:39 calls the afternoon lamb “the second (הַשֵּׁנִי)” — implying it must follow a first offering. On a new altar that has never been used, the afternoon lamb would be the very first offering ever, violating the verse’s requirement that it be “second.” This derasha is the foundation for the entire distinction between initiated and uninitiated altars.
Key Terms:
- הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי = “The second lamb” — the Torah’s designation for the afternoon tamid, implying it must follow a prior morning offering
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Qualification: the restriction applies only to uninitiated altars
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the offering of the morning. When the verse refers to the first or second offering, it means the first or second offering ever sacrificed on the altar. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then even if it is the first to be sacrificed that day, it should be sacrificed in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues by clarifying that the verse’s requirement for a “second” lamb applies only to the inaugural use of an altar. Once the altar has been initiated (even if years ago), the afternoon tamid can be offered even when the morning tamid was skipped on that day. The word “second” in the verse refers to the second offering ever on that altar, not the second offering of each day. This reading limits the restriction significantly and ensures that ongoing daily Temple service is not disrupted by a single missed morning offering.
Key Terms:
- בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים = In what case is this said — a standard formula limiting the scope of a preceding statement
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon’s qualification repeated within the baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבּוֹקֶר – יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment repeats Rabbi Shimon’s qualification from Segment 5, now as part of the complete baraita. Rabbi Shimon introduces a three-way distinction for an already-initiated altar: (1) unintentional omission of the tamid — the afternoon tamid is still offered; (2) intentional omission of the tamid — those same priests are penalized and cannot offer the afternoon tamid; (3) omission of the incense — regardless of intent, the afternoon incense may always be offered. The special treatment of incense sets up the Gemara’s inquiry in the next segments.
Key Terms:
- קְטֹרֶת = Incense — the twice-daily offering of spices burned on the golden altar
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rava clarifies: the penalty targets the negligent priests, not the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי כֹהֲנִים חָטְאוּ, מִזְבֵּחַ בָּטֵל?! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ הֵן, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים יַקְרִיבוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Does it make sense that because the priests sinned by intentionally failing to sacrifice the morning daily offering, the altar should be entirely idle? Rava said that this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: They, the priests who deliberately failed to sacrifice the morning daily offering, should not sacrifice the afternoon daily offering; but other priests should sacrifice it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a logical objection: if negligent priests cannot offer the afternoon tamid, does that mean the altar sits idle entirely? Surely the Temple service shouldn’t be canceled because of priestly misconduct! Rava resolves this by explaining that Rabbi Shimon’s penalty is personal — those specific priests are barred from performing the afternoon service, but a different group of priests may step in to offer it. The altar itself is never “punished”; only the individuals who were negligent are held accountable.
Key Terms:
- מִזְבֵּחַ בָּטֵל = The altar is idle — an absurd consequence the Gemara rejects
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Why incense is different: rarity and wealth make it precious
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּמְעַתְּרָא, חֲבִיבָא לְהוּ וְלָא פָּשְׁעִי.
English Translation:
By contrast, if the priests acted intentionally and did not burn the incense in the morning, even those same priests may burn it in the afternoon. The reason for this is that since burning the incense is uncommon and causes those who do so to become wealthy, it is dear to the priests, and they will not be negligent in the performance of this rite.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains why the same priests who deliberately skipped the morning incense are still permitted to offer it in the afternoon, unlike the tamid. Two reasons are given: (1) the incense service is uncommon (לָא שְׁכִיחָא) — each priest performed it rarely, perhaps once in a lifetime, given the large number of priests; (2) it brings wealth (מְעַתְּרָא) — tradition held that the priest who burned the incense would become wealthy. Because the incense was so cherished and rare, we can presume the priests would never deliberately neglect it; if they missed it, it must have been beyond their control.
Key Terms:
- מְעַתְּרָא = Causes wealth — a Talmudic tradition that the incense service brought prosperity to the priest who performed it
- לָא פָּשְׁעִי = They will not be negligent — a presumption against deliberate neglect of the prized incense service
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
Tannaitic dispute: is the golden altar initiated in the morning or evening?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם וְכוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches that if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon. The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is that the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices of the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning? The Gemara answers: The question of whether the incense of the morning or the afternoon initiates the service of a new golden altar is a dispute between tanna’im.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now examines Rabbi Shimon’s claim that a new golden altar is initiated with the afternoon incense, which is why the full measure would be burned in the afternoon when the morning incense was skipped. A contradiction is raised from a baraita that says the initiation occurs with the morning incense. The Gemara resolves this simply: it is a tannaitic dispute. This opens a new sub-discussion (Segments 12-14) about which position is more reasonable and what scriptural support exists for each view.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא = It is a dispute between tanna’im — the standard resolution when two tannaitic sources conflict
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye supports the afternoon initiation view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.
English Translation:
Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha should be in accordance with the one who says that it was initiated with the incense of the spices of the afternoon, as it is written with regard to the golden altar: “And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresses the lamps, he shall burn it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:7–8).
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye argues in favor of the afternoon initiation by citing Exodus 30:7-8, which links the morning incense to “dressing the lamps” (הֲטָבָה). The logic unfolds in the next segment: if the morning incense is connected to cleaning the lamps, the lamps must have been burning overnight — which means the Menorah was first lit the previous evening. This chain of reasoning proves the evening/afternoon service came first, and therefore the golden altar’s initiation also occurred with the afternoon incense.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת = When he dresses the lamps — the morning cleaning of the Menorah’s wicks
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Proof: morning lamp-dressing presupposes evening lighting
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לָאו דַּעֲבַד הַדְלָקָה מֵאוּרְתָּא, הֲטָבָה בְּצַפְרָא מֵהֵיכָא?
English Translation:
The fact that ashes are removed from the lamps of the Candelabrum in the morning indicates that the lamps had been lit previously, since if the priest had not performed the lighting of the lamps the previous evening, from where would the ashes be removed in the morning? This proves that the Candelabrum must have been lit for the first time in the evening. Since the verse states: “When Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord,” it must be that the incense was burned for the first time in the evening.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye completes his elegant logical chain: the verse mentions morning “dressing” of the lamps (removing ashes). But if the lamps were never lit, there would be nothing to clean in the morning. Therefore, the Menorah must have been lit first in the evening. Since the verse ties the incense to the same timing as the Menorah service, the incense must also have been first offered in the evening. This interconnection between the golden altar (incense), the Menorah (lamp-lighting), and chronological sequence demonstrates the evening-first principle for the Heichal vessels.
Key Terms:
- הַדְלָקָה = Lighting — the evening kindling of the Menorah lamps
- הֲטָבָה = Dressing/cleaning — the morning removal of ashes and trimming of wicks
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The opposing view: learning from the outer altar by analogy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר, גָּמַר מִמִּזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר – אַף כָּאן בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning, from where is this halakha derived? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the initiation of the altar of the burnt offering. Just as there, the service of a new altar of the burnt offering is initiated by means of the daily offering of the morning rather than the afternoon, so too here, the service of a new golden altar is initiated by means of the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents the opposing tanna’s reasoning. Rather than deriving the golden altar’s initiation from the Menorah’s evening lighting (as Abaye argued), this tanna draws an analogy from the outer altar of burnt offerings, which is certainly initiated with the morning tamid (as established in Segments 6-7). Just as the outer altar begins with its morning service, so too the inner golden altar should begin with its morning service — the morning incense. This represents two competing hermeneutical methods: one internal (from the Heichal vessels’ own schedule) and one external (from the outer altar’s precedent).
Key Terms:
- מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה = The altar of burnt offerings — the outer altar in the Temple courtyard, used for animal sacrifices
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Can the Table sanctify shewbread on a weekday?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶלָּא בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא בְּחוֹל – אִיחַנּוֹכֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִחַנַּךְ, הָא קַדּוֹשֵׁי מְיקַדֵּישׁ?!
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: And use of a new Table was initiated only with the arrangement of the shewbread on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But does the mishna mean to indicate that if the shewbread was placed on the Table on a weekday it is merely that the use of a new Table is not initiated, but the shewbread is sanctified? The halakha is that the shewbread is sanctified only when it is placed on the Table on Shabbat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts to the initiation of the Table (Shulchan) for the shewbread. The mishna states the Table is initiated only with shewbread placed on Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: the mishna’s phrasing seems to imply that while initiation cannot happen on a weekday, the shewbread placed on a weekday would still be sanctified. But this is incorrect — the shewbread is only sanctified when placed on the Table on Shabbat (since that is when it is properly arranged). This leads to the clarification in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים = Shewbread — twelve loaves placed on the golden Table in the Heichal every Shabbat
- קַדּוֹשֵׁי מְיקַדֵּישׁ = It sanctifies — referring to the Table’s ability to confer sanctity on the bread placed upon it
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna itself teaches that both initiation and sanctification require Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּחִינּוּךְ וְקִידּוּשׁ דְּשֻׁלְחָן בְּשַׁבָּת הוּא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְלֹא אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches us this halakha itself, that the initiation of the use of a new Table and the sanctification of the shewbread when it is placed on the Table occur only on Shabbat. This is as the mishna teaches in the latter clause with regard to the initiation of the use of a new Candelabrum: And use of a new Candelabrum was initiated only with the kindling of its seven lamps in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty by reinterpreting the mishna’s point: it is not distinguishing between initiation and sanctification on weekdays. Rather, the mishna teaches that both initiation and sanctification of the Table happen only on Shabbat. The proof comes from the mishna’s parallel statement about the Menorah — initiated only with the kindling of all seven lamps in the afternoon. Just as the Menorah has a specific time requirement, so too the Table has a specific day requirement (Shabbat). Each Heichal vessel has its own unique inauguration conditions.
Key Terms:
- חִינּוּךְ וְקִידּוּשׁ = Initiation and sanctification — two aspects of a vessel’s first use, here treated as inseparable for the Table
- הַמְּנוֹרָה = The Candelabrum — the seven-branched golden lampstand in the Heichal
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
Individual incense on the outer altar: the princes’ offering as a precedent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: (זֶהוּ) [זוֹהִי] קְטֹרֶת שֶׁעָלְתָה לְיָחִיד עַל מִזְבַּח הַחִיצוֹן, וְהוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּנְּשִׂיאִים.
English Translation:
§The Gemara cites another halakha relating to the burning of incense. The Sages taught in a baraita: This is incense that was offered for an individual rather than the community on the external altar, and not on the golden altar as usual; and this was a provisional edict, permitted temporarily for that time only. The Gemara clarifies: To what case is the baraita referring? Rav Pappa said: It is referring to the incense brought by the tribal princes at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a new topic: individual incense offerings. A baraita records a unique historical case where incense was brought by an individual on the outer altar — violating two standard rules (incense is normally communal and burned on the inner altar). Rav Pappa identifies this as the incense brought by each tribal prince (nasi) during the Tabernacle’s inauguration (Numbers 7). The baraita emphasizes this was a hora’at sha’ah (provisional edict) — a temporary divine dispensation that cannot serve as a precedent for future practice.
Key Terms:
- הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה = A provisional edict — a temporary divine directive that overrides normal halacha
- הַנְּשִׂיאִים = The tribal princes — the twelve leaders who brought inaugural offerings at the Tabernacle’s dedication (Numbers 7)
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Two false implications from the baraita’s phrasing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הוּא דְּלָא, הָא עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מַקְרֵיב? וְתוּ: עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן יָחִיד הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צִיבּוּר מַקְרְבִי?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But with regard to the incense of an individual, is it only on the external altar that it is not generally permitted to be burned, but an individual may sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as indicated by the baraita? And furthermore, on the external altar, is it only an individual who may not sacrifice incense, but the community may sacrifice incense on the external altar?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises two problematic implications from the baraita’s specific language. By saying the exception was “an individual’s incense on the outer altar,” the baraita seems to imply: (1) an individual could bring incense on the inner altar, and (2) the community could bring incense on the outer altar. Both implications are demonstrably false, as the next segment will show from a different baraita. This sets up the need for Rav Pappa’s resolution in 50b (Segment 3), where he explains the baraita’s rhetorical structure.
Key Terms:
- מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן = The external/outer altar — the copper altar in the courtyard used for burnt offerings
- מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי = The inner altar — the golden altar inside the Sanctuary used exclusively for incense
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
Scriptural proof: “strange incense” prohibits all voluntary individual offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ נְדָבָה, וְקוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָּהּ ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה״.
English Translation:
But isn’t it taught in a baraita contrary to those two inferences: One might have thought that an individual may voluntarily donate and bring incense similar to the incense brought by the tribal princes to the Temple as a gift offering, and I will read with regard to this incense, as in the case of other gift offerings: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Therefore, the verse states concerning the inner altar: “You shall bring no strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). This indicates that an individual may not sacrifice incense even on the inner altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites a second baraita that directly contradicts the implications of the first. One might have thought that individuals could voluntarily bring incense like the princes did, applying the general vow-fulfillment verse from Deuteronomy. The Torah therefore specifically forbids “strange incense” (ketoret zara) on the inner altar (Exodus 30:9). This proves an individual cannot bring incense on either altar — refuting the first implication from the previous segment. The discussion continues into amud bet with verses that refute the second implication as well.
Key Terms:
- קְטֹרֶת זָרָה = Strange/foreign incense — any incense offering not part of the prescribed communal obligation
- נְדָבָה = A gift/voluntary offering — a sacrifice brought voluntarily beyond one’s obligation
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
Extending the prohibition: could the community bring voluntary incense?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יָחִיד מֵבִיא, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ,
English Translation:
One might have thought that only an individual may not bring a gift of incense on the inner altar, as an individual does not bring his obligatory offering similar to this gift of incense, i.e., since an individual is never obligated to sacrifice incense, he may not voluntarily sacrifice incense either;
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues its step-by-step derivation by considering a logical distinction. Perhaps only individuals are prohibited from voluntary incense because individuals never have an obligation to bring incense — so their voluntary offering has no basis in existing obligation. But maybe the community, which does have an obligatory incense offering (the daily communal ketoret), could bring additional voluntary incense? This argument follows the general principle that one can volunteer offerings of a type one is sometimes obligated to bring. The continuation in 50b will show that the Torah closes this loophole as well.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבָה = Obligatory offering — as opposed to a voluntary one; the community has an obligatory daily incense
Amud Bet (50b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
The plural “lo ta’alu” extends the prohibition to the community
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל צִבּוּר יְהֵא מֵבִיא, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חוֹבָה כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ״.
English Translation:
but a community may bring incense as a gift offering, as the community does bring its obligatory offering similar to this, i.e., since the community is obligated to sacrifice incense it can also voluntarily sacrifice incense. Therefore, the verse states: You shall not bring [lo ta’alu] strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). The fact that the verse formulates the prohibition with the plural word ta’alu indicates that even the community may not sacrifice incense as a voluntary gift offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita closes the loophole raised in the previous segment. The Torah uses the plural form “lo ta’alu” (you shall not bring) rather than the singular, which extends the prohibition to the community as well as individuals. Since the community brings obligatory incense daily, one might have reasoned they could also bring voluntary incense. The plural verse eliminates this possibility — no entity, individual or communal, may bring additional incense beyond the fixed daily obligation.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תַעֲלוּ = “You [plural] shall not bring” — the plural form extending the prohibition to include the entire community
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Final verse: incense is restricted to the prescribed manner only
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יַעֲלוּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, אֲבָל יַעֲלוּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים לַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ יַעֲשׂוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the community may not bring a gift offering of incense on the inner altar, but it may bring incense on the external altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the anointing oil, and the incense of sweet spices for the sacred place; according to all that I have commanded you shall they do” (Exodus 31:11). This teaches that one has the right to do only that which is stated with regard to the matter, without deviation. Consequently, incense may sacrificed only by the community, only when there is an obligation to sacrifice it, and it must be burned only on the inner altar. This contradicts the implication of the previously cited baraita that it is permitted to burn the incense of an individual on the golden altar or the incense of a community on the outer altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita addresses one final possibility: perhaps the prohibition on voluntary incense applies only to the inner altar, but the outer altar could accept voluntary communal incense. Exodus 31:11 closes this loophole with a comprehensive principle: “according to all that I have commanded you shall they do” — meaning incense may only be offered exactly as prescribed. The conclusion is a triple restriction: incense must be (1) communal, not individual; (2) obligatory, not voluntary; and (3) on the inner altar, not the outer. This creates an apparent contradiction with the first baraita about the princes.
Key Terms:
- כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ = “According to all that I have commanded you” — a blanket verse limiting incense to its exact prescribed parameters
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa resolves the contradiction with “lo miba’aya” (it goes without saying)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא צִיבּוּר עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן בִּנְשִׂיאִים – הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: This is not problematic. The baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows. It is not necessary to state that the community may not sacrifice incense on the external altar, as we have not found a precedent for it. And similarly, it is not necessary to state that an individual may not sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as we have not found a precedent for it. But it is necessary to state that it is even prohibited for an individual to sacrifice incense on the external altar, despite the fact that we have ostensibly found a precedent for it in the case of the tribal princes; as that was a provisional edict and therefore cannot serve as a precedent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa elegantly resolves the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot by explaining the first baraita uses the rhetorical “lo miba’aya” structure. The first baraita’s real point was the hardest case: even an individual bringing incense on the outer altar (where we have a precedent from the princes) is prohibited, because the princes’ offering was a one-time provisional edict. The other combinations (community on the outer altar, individual on the inner altar) are mentioned only because they are even more obviously prohibited. The first baraita never implied these combinations were permitted — it was building to its climax.
Key Terms:
- לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר = It speaks in the style of “it goes without saying” — a rhetorical technique where obvious cases are stated to emphasize a less obvious one
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
The High Priest’s griddle-cake offering: brought whole and divided
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִין חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ, מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The twelve loaves of matza prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come from the house of the High Priest in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of flour (see Leviticus 6:13) and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna introduces the chavitin (griddle-cake) offering — the High Priest’s personal daily meal offering (Leviticus 6:12-14). Unlike communal offerings, this is funded by the High Priest himself. The key rule is that the full isaron (tenth of an ephah) of flour must be brought as a single unit and then divided — one cannot bring two separate half-measures. Half is offered in the morning and half in the afternoon. This ensures the offering’s unity, reflecting the Torah’s language “machatzitah” (half of it) — half of a complete whole, not a standalone half.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל = The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest — a personal daily meal offering prepared on a flat pan (machavat)
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah — a standard flour measure for meal offerings (approximately 2.5 liters)
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Replacement High Priest: two halves offered, two halves lost
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּהֵן שֶׁמֵּבִיא מֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית, וָמֵת, וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – לֹא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וַחֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם (מֶחֱצָה) וְחוֹצֵהוּ, מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין.
English Translation:
In the case of a High Priest who brings and sacrifices half in the morning and dies, and they appointed another High Priest in his stead, the replacement High Priest should neither bring half of a tenth of an ephah of flour from his house nor sacrifice the remaining half of the tenth of an ephah of his predecessor. Rather, he brings from his house an entire tenth of an ephah and divides it in half, sacrifices half, and the other half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are sacrificed, one-half of what was brought by each priest, and the other two halves are lost.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna presents a dramatic scenario: a High Priest offers his morning half and then dies mid-day. His replacement cannot simply use the deceased priest’s remaining half, nor can he bring just a half-measure from home. Instead, the new High Priest must bring a complete isaron, divide it, and offer one half. This means two halves are sacrificed (one from each priest’s isaron) and two halves go to waste. The principle of “machatzitah” — half of a complete whole — is so fundamental that it overrides concerns about wastefulness, teaching that each offering must originate from an intact whole.
Key Terms:
- מֶחֱצָה אָבֵד = Half is lost — the unused portion that cannot be sacrificed and must eventually be burned
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Baraita: why “machatzit” vs. “machatzitah” matters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִית״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מֵבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וּמַקְרִיב, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וּמַקְרִיב.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita, commenting on the verse: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). If the verse had stated: A meal offering perpetually, half in the morning and half in the evening; I would have said that the High Priest brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the morning and sacrifices it, and then he brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the afternoon and sacrifices it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a detailed baraita that derives the mishna’s rules from careful biblical exegesis of Leviticus 6:13. The baraita contrasts two possible Hebrew wordings: “machatzit” (a half) would mean bringing two independent half-portions from home. But the Torah actually says “machatzitah” (half of it) — with the possessive suffix indicating the half belongs to a pre-existing whole. This linguistic distinction is the scriptural basis for the entire halakhic framework of the chavitin offering’s preparation.
Key Terms:
- מַחֲצִית = A half — an independent half-portion (hypothetical rejected reading)
- מַחֲצִיתָהּ = Half of it — possessive form indicating the half derives from a complete unit
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Deriving the rule: half of a complete isaron
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מַקְרִיב, הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
Since the verse states: “Half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13), it teaches that he sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah. How so? The High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and divides it in half, and sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita draws the practical conclusion: “machatzitah” (half of it) means each morning and evening offering must be half of a single, complete isaron. The procedure is: bring one whole isaron, divide it, offer half in the morning and half in the afternoon. Both halves come from the same batch. This ensures the unity of the offering across the day — morning and evening are two parts of one continuous act of worship, not two separate offerings.
Key Terms:
- מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם = Half of a complete measure — the core principle that each half must derive from one whole
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
If the afternoon half is lost — must bring a new complete isaron
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִטְמָא מֶחֱצָה שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, יָכוֹל יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וְיַקְרִיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא.
English Translation:
In a case where the half of a tenth of an ephah that was supposed to be offered in the afternoon became impure or was lost after the High Priest sacrificed the first half in the morning, one might have thought that he should bring half of a tenth of an ephah from his house and sacrifice it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening,” which teaches that he brings half of a complete tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now extends the principle to a case of loss or contamination. If the reserved afternoon half becomes impure or lost, the High Priest cannot simply bring a standalone half-measure as a replacement. The verse insists on “machatzitah” — half of a complete unit. He must bring an entirely new isaron, divide it, and offer one half. The other half of this new isaron will go to waste. This seemingly wasteful requirement underscores the Torah’s insistence that each offering component must originate from a whole.
Key Terms:
- נִטְמָא = Became impure — ritually contaminated and therefore unfit for sacrifice
- אָבֵד = Was lost — misplaced or destroyed, requiring replacement
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Result: two halves sacrificed, two halves lost
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם [מִבֵּיתוֹ], וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה, וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין.
English Translation:
How so? The High Priest brings a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half, and the other half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are sacrificed, the half that was sacrificed in the morning from the original tenth of an ephah, and half of the replacement tenth of an ephah, and the other two halves are lost.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita summarizes the outcome in the loss/impurity scenario: the morning half from the original isaron was already offered; the lost or impure afternoon half is wasted; from the replacement isaron, one half is offered in the afternoon and the other is wasted. Net result: two halves offered, two halves lost. This parallels the mishna’s case of a replacement High Priest (Segment 5) and uses the same “machatzitah” principle, applied here to the same priest facing a mid-day loss.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין = Two halves are sacrificed — one from each separate isaron batch
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Replacement High Priest: same principle, additional complication
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית וָמֵת, וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, יָכוֹל יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ, אוֹ חֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא וּמַקְרִיב.
English Translation:
In the case of a High Priest who sacrificed half in the morning and died, and they appointed another High Priest in his stead, one might have thought that the second High Priest should bring half of a tenth of an ephah from his house and sacrifice it, or that he should sacrifice the remaining half of a tenth of an ephah of the first High Priest. Therefore, the verse states: “And half of it in the evening,” which teaches that he brings and sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now addresses the mishna’s case directly: the High Priest dies after the morning offering. Two logical shortcuts are rejected — the replacement cannot simply bring his own half-measure, nor can he use the deceased priest’s remaining half. The verse “u’machatzitah ba’erev” teaches that the afternoon offering must also be “half of it” — half of that specific priest’s own complete isaron. Since this is a new priest, he needs his own new isaron. The deceased priest’s remaining half has lost its partner (the morning half was offered by a different person) and becomes ownerless.
Key Terms:
- חֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן = Half of the first priest’s isaron — the remaining portion from the deceased High Priest, which cannot be used by the successor
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The replacement priest’s isaron: half offered, half wasted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב, וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין.
English Translation:
How so? The replacement High Priest brings a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half, and half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are lost, half of the tenth of an ephah brought by each priest, and the other two halves are sacrificed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita concludes the replacement scenario with its accounting: the deceased priest’s morning half was offered, his afternoon half is wasted; the replacement priest’s afternoon half is offered, his morning half (which has no purpose since the morning offering was already handled) is wasted. Again, two halves offered and two lost. This bookkeeping confirms the mishna’s statement and establishes the practical procedure. The question now shifts to what happens to the wasted halves — must they undergo ibbur tzurah (decay of form) before burning?
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין = Two halves are lost — the unused portions from each priest’s isaron
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Baraita before Rav Nachman: the lost halves require ibbur tzurah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מֶחֱצָה רִאשׁוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה שֵׁנִי – תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן, וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the two halves of a tenth of an ephah that are lost, a tanna, i.e., a Sage who recited baraitot, taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: With regard to the half that was not sacrificed by the first High Priest, who died, and the half brought but not sacrificed by the second High Priest who replaced him, their form should decay, i.e., they should be left overnight so they become disqualified, and then they should be brought out to the place designated for burning.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new sugya addresses the disposal of the wasted halves. A tanna recites a baraita before Rav Nachman stating that both wasted halves — from the first and second High Priest — must undergo “ibbur tzurah” (decay of form), meaning they must be left overnight to become disqualified before being taken to the burning place. This is the standard process for sanctified offerings that become disqualified: they cannot be burned immediately but must first lose their appearance of fitness. Rav Nachman will challenge this ruling in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- עִיבּוּר צוּרָה = Decay of form — the process of leaving a sanctified offering overnight so it becomes disqualified (linah) before burning
- בֵּית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה = The place of burning — a designated location in the Temple where disqualified offerings are incinerated
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Nachman’s challenge: the second half was destined to be lost
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: בִּשְׁלָמָא רִאשׁוֹן אִיחֲזִי לְהַקְרָבָה, אֶלָּא שֵׁנִי לְמָה לֵיהּ עִיבּוּר צוּרָה? מֵעִיקָּרָא לְאִיבּוּד קָא אָתֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said to the tanna: Granted, the half that was not sacrificed by the first High Priest should be left overnight before it is burned, because it was initially fit for sacrifice before the first High Priest died. But with regard to the half that was not sacrificed by the second High Priest, why must it be left overnight so that its form decays? It was brought to be lost from the outset, i.e., when the full tenth of an ephah was brought it was known that only half would be sacrificed and half would be lost. Consequently, it is unnecessary to leave it overnight before burning it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman makes a sharp distinction between the two wasted halves. The first High Priest’s remaining half was originally intended for sacrifice — it only became wasted when the priest died unexpectedly. So it makes sense to treat it with the dignity of ibbur tzurah. But the second High Priest’s wasted half was never intended for sacrifice — from the moment the replacement brought his new isaron, everyone knew only one half would be offered and the other would be discarded. Why should something brought “to be lost from the outset” require the formal decay process?
Key Terms:
- אִיחֲזִי לְהַקְרָבָה = Was fit for sacrifice — initially destined to be offered before circumstances changed
- מֵעִיקָּרָא לְאִיבּוּד קָא אָתֵי = It comes to be lost from the outset — brought with the knowledge that it would be wasted
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Nachman attributes the baraita to Rabba bar Avuh’s school
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּאֲמַר לָךְ, מַנִּי? תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ הוּא, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיגּוּל טָעוּן עִיבּוּר צוּרָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman continued: Who is the one who said this baraita to you? It was the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who says: All disqualified offerings, even piggul, which is disqualified by Torah law, require decay of form before they are burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman answers his own question by identifying the baraita’s source: the school of Rabba bar Avuh, which holds the maximalist position that all disqualified sacred items — even piggul (an offering invalidated by improper intent, a severe Torah-level disqualification) — require ibbur tzurah before burning. Under this view, the second High Priest’s wasted half also requires decay, since it has some degree of sanctity. But Rav Nachman implies that the mainstream Rabbis would disagree and burn the second half immediately, since it was never truly fit for sacrifice.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל = Piggul — a sacrifice invalidated because the priest had improper intent regarding its time of consumption
- תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ = The tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh — a specific tannaitic tradition with a strict approach to sanctified items
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi’s alternative: both halves are potentially fit at the moment of division
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא (דְּפָלְגִי בְּהוּ) [דְּפַלְגִינְהוּ], אִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְרֵיב, וְאִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְרֵיב – מִיחְזָא חֲזוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabba bar Avuh and hold that piggul does not require decay of form. Nevertheless, since at the time when the second High Priest divides the two halves, if he wants he can sacrifice this half, and if he wants he can sacrifice that other half, both halves are considered fit to be sacrificed and may not be burned until they are left overnight.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi offers a more broadly accepted explanation. Even according to the mainstream Rabbis (who don’t require ibbur tzurah for piggul), the second priest’s wasted half still requires decay — because at the precise moment of division, both halves were equally fit for sacrifice. The priest could have chosen either half to offer. Since both halves had a moment of potential fitness, they both acquired the status of sanctified items that require overnight disqualification before burning. This is a subtle point about the moment of determination: fitness is assessed at the time of division, not retroactively.
Key Terms:
- מִיחְזָא חֲזוּ = They are considered fit — both halves had a moment where they could have been the one selected for sacrifice
Segment 16
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute: bake then fry, or fry then bake?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹפָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְטַגְּנָהּ. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מְטַגְּנָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפָהּ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites that which was stated further about the griddle-cake offering: How are the griddle-cake offerings of the High Priest prepared? The verse seems to prescribe a variety of methods of preparation: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, you shall bring it in; and baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal offering shall you sacrifice for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:14). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is prepared in the following manner: The individual preparing it bakes it in an oven and afterward he fries it in a pan. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Ḥanina says that it is prepared in the following manner: The individual preparing it fries it in a pan and afterward he bakes it in an oven.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new dispute arises over the order of preparation for the chavitin offering. Leviticus 6:14 mentions multiple cooking methods — griddle-frying, soaking, and baking — but doesn’t clearly specify the sequence. Rabbi Yochanan (via R. Chiyya bar Abba) says the offering is first baked in an oven and then fried on a griddle. Rabbi Chanina (via R. Asi) reverses the order: first fried on the griddle, then baked. Both will base their positions on different readings of the word “tufinei” in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אוֹפָהּ = Bakes it — in a standard oven
- מְטַגְּנָהּ = Fries it — on a flat pan (machavat) with oil
- תֻּפִינֵי = Baked pieces — a key word in Leviticus 6:14 whose interpretation is disputed
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת
Both sides derive their position from “tufinei”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion because the verse states: “And baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal offering.” The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are still beautiful [te’afena na’a], i.e., before being fried. Rabbi Asi said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion because the word tufinei should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are already partially cooked [te’afena na], i.e., after being fried.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both amoraim derive their positions from a creative parsing of “tufinei.” R. Chiyya bar Abba reads it as “to’afena na’ah” — “bake it [when it is still] beautiful,” meaning bake it first while the dough is still in its pristine state, before frying changes its appearance. R. Asi reads it as “to’afena na” — “bake it [when it is already] partially cooked,” meaning the baking occurs after frying has already begun the cooking process. The same word yields opposite conclusions based on whether “na” means “beautiful/pristine” or “partially cooked.”
Key Terms:
- נָאָה = Beautiful/pristine — referring to the dough’s fresh, unbaked state
- נָא = Partially cooked — referring to a state between raw and fully done (cf. the prohibition of eating the Pesach offering “na”)
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
Tannaitic parallel: three views on tufinei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תֹּאפֶינָּה רַבָּה. אִית לֵיהּ נָא, וְאִית לֵיהּ נָאָה.
English Translation:
This dispute between the amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im in a baraita: The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are already partially cooked [te’afena na]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are still beautiful [te’afena na’a]. Rabbi Yosei says: The word tufinei is plural, indicating that the pieces should be baked extensively, i.e., more than once. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion that the pieces should be baked when they are already partially cooked, and he also accepts the opinion that they should be baked when they are beautiful. Therefore the offering should first be baked, then fried, then baked again.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a tannaitic precedent for the amoraic dispute. The anonymous first tanna reads “tufinei” as “na” (bake after frying), paralleling R. Asi/R. Chanina. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reads it as “na’ah” (bake before frying), paralleling R. Chiyya bar Abba/R. Yochanan. Rabbi Yosei introduces a third position: the plural form “tufinei” indicates multiple bakings — bake, then fry, then bake again. He combines both interpretations, resulting in a three-step process. This creative reading demonstrates how a single unusual word can generate multiple legal procedures.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּה = Extensively/much — Rabbi Yosei’s reading that the plural form implies repeated baking
- רַבִּי = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — the compiler of the Mishna
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה
Chavitin preparation overrides Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, וְדוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
English Translation:
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (96a): Concerning the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, of which six are sacrificed in the morning and six in the evening, their kneading, and forming of their loaves, and their baking are performed inside the Temple courtyard, and all labors involved in those actions override Shabbat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now cites a mishna from later in Menachot (96a) that establishes an important practical rule: the entire preparation of the chavitin — kneading, forming, and baking — must be done inside the Temple courtyard and overrides the Shabbat prohibitions. This is notable because these are preparatory steps (machshirei korban), not the actual sacrifice itself. Usually only the sacrifice itself overrides Shabbat, but the chavitin is an exception. The Gemara will now seek the scriptural basis for this special status.
Key Terms:
- לִישָׁה = Kneading — mixing flour with oil and water
- עֲרִיכָה = Forming — shaping the dough into loaves
- דוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת = Override Shabbat — these melachot are permitted on Shabbat for this offering
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Huna’s derivation and Rav Yosef’s objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה, וְאִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִינַּשְׁפָה לַהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵימָא דְּכָבֵישׁ לֵיהּ בְּיַרְקָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that these actions override Shabbat, derived? Rav Huna said: The verse says tufinei, meaning that when it is already baked it must still be beautiful [te’afena na’a]. And if one would bake it yesterday, on the eve of Shabbat, it would become swollen [inshefa] and no longer beautiful. Rav Yosef objects to this: If the purpose of baking them on Shabbat is to ensure they remain fresh, say that the loaves should be baked before Shabbat and covered with greens to preserve them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna’s derivation for the Shabbat override uses the “na’ah” (beautiful) reading of “tufinei”: the offering must be baked fresh so it remains beautiful. Baking the day before would cause the loaves to swell and deteriorate. Therefore, baking must occur on Shabbat itself, even though this involves prohibited labor. Rav Yosef objects: why not bake on Friday and preserve freshness by wrapping the loaves in greens (herbs)? This practical objection undermines Rav Huna’s derivation by showing that freshness could be maintained without violating Shabbat. This leads to alternative derivations in the next segments.
Key Terms:
- אִינַּשְׁפָה = Becomes swollen/stale — the deterioration of bread left overnight
- כָבֵישׁ בְּיַרְקָא = Covered with greens — a preservation technique to keep baked goods fresh
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The school of R. Yishmael: “tei’aseh” overrides Shabbat and impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״תֵּעָשֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תֵּעָשֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another explanation of why the preparation of these loaves overrides Shabbat. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil” (Leviticus 6:14), which teaches that it shall be made under all circumstances, even on Shabbat. Similarly, this phrase “shall be made” teaches that it should be made even in a state of ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
After Rav Yosef’s objection to Rav Huna’s derivation, the school of Rabbi Yishmael offers a more direct scriptural source. The verb “tei’aseh” (it shall be made) in Leviticus 6:14 is read as an emphatic — it shall be made under all circumstances, without exception. This one word is used twice: once to derive that the preparation overrides Shabbat, and once to derive that it overrides ritual impurity (tumah). This is a stronger derivation because it doesn’t depend on the freshness argument that Rav Yosef was able to challenge.
Key Terms:
- תֵּעָשֶׂה = “It shall be made” — an emphatic verbal form read as mandating performance under all circumstances
- טוּמְאָה = Ritual impurity — normally a barrier to Temple service, but overridden here
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s derivation: “tamid” implies continuous, uninterrupted obligation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״,
English Translation:
Abaye said that there is a different explanation: The verse states: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually” (Leviticus 6:13);
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye provides yet another derivation for the Shabbat override, citing the word “tamid” (perpetually) from Leviticus 6:13. Just as the word “tamid” in the context of the daily tamid offering (korban tamid) teaches that it must be offered every single day without interruption — including Shabbat — so too the chavitin’s “tamid” means it must be prepared and offered every day without exception. The daf ends mid-sentence, with the continuation presumably explaining how “tamid” generates this derivation. This segment is part of the broader Talmudic project of finding the strongest scriptural basis for each halacha.
Key Terms:
- תָּמִיד = Perpetually/continually — a key term indicating an obligation that cannot be interrupted, even by Shabbat or impurity