Menachot Daf 51 (מנחות דף נ״א)
Daf: 51 | Amudim: 51a – 51b | Date: 27 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (51a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation from previous daf — the chavitin is compared to the daily offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין.
English Translation:
this teaches that the halakha of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is like that of the meal offering that is a component of the daily offerings. The daily offerings override Shabbat, as the verse says: “This is the burnt offering of every Shabbat, beside the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering thereof” (Numbers 28:10). Therefore, preparing the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest likewise overrides Shabbat.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues directly from the previous daf’s discussion about whether the preparation of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering (chavitin) overrides Shabbat. The reasoning here is that since the chavitin is categorized as being “like the meal offering of the daily offerings” (temidin), it inherits all the properties of the temidin — including the ability to override Shabbat. This is a classic Talmudic move of deriving the status of one obligation from another through textual comparison.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת תְּמִידִין (minchat temidin) = The meal offering that accompanies the daily tamid sacrifice
- דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת (dochah Shabbat) = Overrides Shabbat — certain Temple obligations supersede the prohibition of Shabbat labor
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s explanation: the griddle requires a vessel, so overnight disqualification applies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה כְּלִי, וְאִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִיפְּסִילָא לַיהּ בְּלִינָה. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה כְּלִי.
English Translation:
Rava said that the basis for it overriding Shabbat is the fact that the verse states: “On a griddle” (Leviticus 6:14), which teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel. Therefore, if he had baked it the previous day rather than on Shabbat, it would be disqualified by being left overnight, since the loaves had already been consecrated in a service vessel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: “On a griddle” teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers a different reasoning for why the chavitin overrides Shabbat. Since the Torah specifies “on a griddle,” the offering requires a sacred vessel (kli sharet). Once the dough is placed in the griddle, it becomes consecrated, and consecrated items left overnight are disqualified (linah). Therefore, the offering must be prepared fresh on the day it is brought — even on Shabbat — since it cannot be baked the day before. A supporting baraita confirms Rava’s interpretation.
Key Terms:
- מַחֲבַת (machabat) = A flat griddle or pan — one of the sacred Temple vessels used for preparing meal offerings
- לִינָה (linah) = Overnight disqualification — consecrated items that remain overnight past their designated time become invalid
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
“With the oil” — extra oil is required, but the amount is unknown
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: The continuation of the verse states: “It shall be made with the oil.” The fact that the verse makes reference to “the oil” rather than just oil indicates that one is supposed to add extra oil to it, but I do not know how much oil to add.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now turns to the question of how much oil the chavitin requires. The verse says “bashemen” — “with THE oil” — using the definite article, which the baraita reads as indicating an increased amount of oil beyond the standard. However, the verse does not specify the quantity, setting the stage for an elaborate series of comparisons (gezeirot shavot) to determine the exact amount.
Key Terms:
- בַּשֶּׁמֶן (bashemen) = “With the oil” — the definite article (“the”) is read as indicating additional oil beyond the norm
- לְהוֹסִיף (l’hosif) = To add — here meaning to increase the oil quantity beyond what would otherwise be required
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
First gezerah shavah: comparing to the meal offering with libations — 3 log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים ״שֶׁמֶן״ – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
Therefore I must deduce as follows: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Oil,” and it is stated there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings: “A tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil” (Exodus 29:40). Just as there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations, the amount of oil required is three log per tenth of an ephah of flour; so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, one brings three log of oil per tenth of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s first attempt to determine the oil quantity uses a verbal analogy (gezerah shavah): both the chavitin and the meal offering accompanying animal sacrifices (minchat nesakhim) mention “oil.” Since the nesakhim requires 3 log per issaron, perhaps the chavitin does too. A quarter hin equals 3 log — this is a generous quantity, reflecting the special status of offerings that accompany animal sacrifices.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים (minchat nesakhim) = The meal offering that accompanies the libation poured with animal sacrifices
- לוֹג (log) = A Talmudic liquid measure, approximately 300-350 ml
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (issaron) = A tenth of an ephah — a dry measure of flour, approximately 2.5 liters
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Counter-comparison: the voluntary meal offering requires only 1 log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה ״שֶׁמֶן״, מָה לְהַלָּן לוֹג אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן לוֹג אֶחָד.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Oil,” and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering: “And when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it” (Leviticus 2:1). Just as there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering, one brings one log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour (see 88a); so too here, one brings one log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now presents the competing possibility. The word “oil” also appears in connection with the voluntary meal offering (minchat nedavah), which requires only 1 log per issaron. If we derive the chavitin’s oil requirement from this source instead, the amount would be much smaller. This creates a genuine dilemma: two equally valid verbal analogies yield two different results.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת נְדָבָה (minchat nedavah) = Voluntary meal offering — brought by individuals as a free-will offering, requiring only 1 log of oil per issaron
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Favoring the libation comparison using the תבש”ט mnemonic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין תבש״ט מתבש״ט: תָּדִיר, בָּאָה חוֹבָה, דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת, דּוֹחָה טוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
The baraita analyzes these two possibilities: Let us see to which case it is more similar, i.e., which is a better comparison to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Perhaps we should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet, from the halakha with regard to a meal offering brought with libations, which also has the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet. These characteristics are that they are frequent [tadir], as these offerings are sacrificed twice daily; they are brought [ba’ah] as an obligation; they override Shabbat; and they override impurity [tuma].
קלאוד על הדף:
To resolve the competing analogies, the baraita employs a methodological principle: we should derive from the case that shares more features with the subject. The mnemonic תבש”ט captures four features shared by both the chavitin and the nesakhim meal offering: both are frequent (tadir), obligatory (ba’ah chovah), override Shabbat, and override ritual impurity. Since the voluntary meal offering lacks these features, the libation comparison seems stronger.
Key Terms:
- תבש”ט = Mnemonic for: תָּדִיר (frequent), בָּאָה חוֹבָה (obligatory), שַׁבָּת (overrides Shabbat), טוּמְאָה (overrides impurity)
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Conclusion of the first argument: do not derive from an offering lacking these features
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין דָּנִין תבש״ט מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ תבש״ט.
English Translation:
And we should not derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet, from the voluntary meal offering, which does not have the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet.
קלאוד על הדף:
This short statement completes the first side of the argument: since the chavitin shares the four characteristics of תבש”ט with the nesakhim offering but not with the voluntary offering, we should derive the oil quantity from the nesakhim — yielding 3 log. However, as the next segment will show, there is an equally compelling counter-argument.
Key Terms:
- אֵין דָּנִין (ein danin) = “We do not derive” — a methodological principle that one should not derive halakhot from a case that does not share the relevant characteristics
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Counter-argument using the יגי”ל mnemonic favoring the voluntary offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין יגי״ל מיגי״ל – יָחִיד, בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, יַיִן, לְבוֹנָה.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way: We should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, from the voluntary meal offering, which also has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, which stand for the following halakhot: Each of these offerings may be brought by an individual [yaḥid]; each is brought for [biglal] its own sake, rather than accompanying another offering; they are not accompanied by wine [yayin] for a libation; and they require frankincense [levona].
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now presents a counter-argument with equal force. Using the mnemonic יגי”ל, it identifies four features shared by the chavitin and the voluntary meal offering: both are brought by an individual (not communal), both are independent offerings (not accompanying another sacrifice), neither requires a wine libation, and both require frankincense. The nesakhim offering lacks all these features, so by this metric the voluntary offering is the better comparison — yielding only 1 log.
Key Terms:
- יגי”ל = Mnemonic for: יָחִיד (individual), בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ (for its own sake), יַיִן (no wine), לְבוֹנָה (requires frankincense)
- לְבוֹנָה (levonah) = Frankincense — an aromatic resin placed on certain meal offerings
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The comparison reaches a standoff — equally compelling in both directions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין דָּנִין יגי״ל, מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ יגי״ל.
English Translation:
And we should not derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, from the halakha with regard to the meal offering brought with libations, which does not have the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed. Consequently, the comparisons in both directions are equally compelling.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the critical moment in the baraita: both sets of comparisons are equally valid. The chavitin shares four features (תבש”ט) with the nesakhim offering and four different features (יגי”ל) with the voluntary offering. Neither comparison can definitively prevail based on shared characteristics alone. This impasse is what necessitates the specific derivations offered by R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan ben Beroka and R. Shimon in the following segments.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (gezerah shavah) = Verbal analogy — a hermeneutical principle that derives law from identical words appearing in different contexts
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka: derive from “solet mincha tamid” — 3 log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״ – הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין, מָה מִנְחַת תְּמִידִין שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף זוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
The baraita continues its determination of how much oil is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: “This is the offering of Aaron…the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid], half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). The fact that the verse makes reference to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest as tamid teaches that it is in the same category as the meal offering component of the daily offerings [temidin]. Just as the meal offering component of the daily offerings requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too this griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka breaks through the impasse with a direct scriptural derivation rather than relying on the contested verbal analogy. The Torah describes the chavitin as “solet mincha tamid” — linking it explicitly to the daily offering (tamid). Since the meal offering of the daily tamid sacrifice requires 3 log of oil per issaron, the chavitin does as well. This approach bypasses the competing gezeirot shavot entirely.
Key Terms:
- סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד = “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually” — the verse in Leviticus 6:13 describing the chavitin, with “tamid” linking it to the daily offerings
- תְּמִידִין (temidin) = The daily offerings — the morning and afternoon tamid sacrifices
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Shimon: the added oil language compares to the sheep offering — 3 log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: רִיבָּה כָּאן שֶׁמֶן, וְרִיבָּה בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁמֶן, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: The verse adds to the amount of oil that is required here, with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, and it similarly adds to the amount of oil that is required there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep. Just as there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, three log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, three log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon takes a different approach. He notes that the Torah uses language of “adding” (ribbah) oil in both the chavitin verse and the verse about the meal offering accompanying sheep sacrifices. Since both have this feature of “extra oil” and the sheep offering requires 3 log per issaron, the chavitin should match. Notably, all three Tannaim agree on the result — 3 log — but each derives it through different exegetical methods.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים (minchat kevasim) = The meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of sheep (lambs), which requires 1 issaron of flour and 3 log of oil
- רִיבָּה (ribbah) = Added/expanded — indicating the Torah added extra emphasis on the oil requirement
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
Counter-possibility: compare to bulls and rams — only 2 log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: רִיבָּה כָּאן שֶׁמֶן, וְרִיבָּה בְּמִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים שֶׁמֶן, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן?
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way: The verse adds to the amount of oil that is required here, and it similarly adds to the amount of oil that is required in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams. Just as there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams, two log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, two log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon’s derivation faces a challenge: the language of “extra oil” also appears regarding the meal offering for bulls and rams, which requires only 2 log per issaron (since bulls require 3 issaronot with 6 log total, and rams 2 issaronot with 4 log total). If we compare to that offering instead, the chavitin would need only 2 log. This sets up the need for a tiebreaker criterion.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים (minchat parim v’eilim) = The meal offering accompanying bulls (3 issaronot, ½ hin oil) and rams (2 issaronot, ⅓ hin oil), yielding 2 log per issaron
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Resolution: compare offerings of equal flour quantity (1 issaron = 1 issaron)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה: דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, וְאֵין דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים.
English Translation:
With regard to these two possibilities, let us see to which case it is more similar, i.e., which is a better comparison to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Perhaps we should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour. And we should not derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour from the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour, such as the meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of bulls and rams.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon resolves his own dilemma with a simple and elegant principle: derive like from like. The chavitin uses 1 issaron of flour, as does the sheep’s meal offering. Bulls and rams use 2 or 3 issaronot — a different category entirely. Since the chavitin matches the sheep offering in flour quantity, it should match in oil quantity as well: 3 log per issaron. This is a classic Talmudic move of preferring the more structurally similar comparison.
Key Terms:
- דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן = “We derive a meal offering that comes as one issaron from a meal offering that comes as one issaron” — the principle of comparing structurally similar cases
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Internal contradiction in the baraita: “bashemen” adds oil, but then it compares to 1 log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה ״שֶׁמֶן״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the beginning of the baraita: This baraita itself is difficult, as it contains an internal contradiction. First you said that the expression “with the oil” stated in the verse concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest serves to add extra oil, which indicates that more than the basic amount of one log of oil is required. And then it teaches: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Oil,” and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering that it must be brought with “oil.” The baraita suggests that just as one log of oil is brought with the voluntary meal offering, so too one log is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now identifies a fundamental problem within the baraita itself. The opening statement — that “bashemen” indicates additional oil — implies the offering needs more than 1 log. But then the baraita considers comparing to the voluntary meal offering, which requires only 1 log. If “bashemen” already tells us the amount is more than standard, why entertain the possibility of 1 log at all? This apparent self-contradiction prompts three Amoraic resolutions in the following segments.
Key Terms:
- הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא (ha gufa kashya) = “This itself is difficult” — a standard Talmudic formula introducing an internal contradiction within a single source
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye’s resolution: the baraita contains two different Tannaim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאן תְּנָא בַּשֶּׁמֶן לְהוֹסִיף? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קָאָמַר. וּבְדִינָא מַאן קָא מַהְדַּר? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
English Translation:
In answer to this question, Abaye said: Who is the tanna who taught that the term “with the oil” with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest serves to add extra oil? It is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that three log of oil are required, as derived from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep. And Rabbi Shimon is speaking utilizing the style of: If it were not stated. If the verse had not indicated by the term “with the oil” that extra oil is required, it would have been possible to derive from the voluntary meal offering that only one log is required. And who is the tanna who responds to Rabbi Shimon’s derivation and suggests that in fact the amount of oil can be derived from the case of the voluntary meal offering? It is Rabbi Yishmael.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves the contradiction by splitting the baraita into two speakers. The opening claim that “bashemen” adds oil belongs to R. Shimon, using the rhetorical style of “if it were not stated” (ilu lo ne’emar) — meaning: without the verse, one might have compared to the voluntary offering and concluded 1 log. The subsequent comparison to the voluntary offering is actually R. Yishmael’s counter-argument. Thus there is no contradiction — it is a debate between two Tannaim within the same baraita.
Key Terms:
- אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר (ilu lo ne’emar) = “If it were not stated” — a rhetorical device where a Tanna says: “Without this verse, I would have thought X; but the verse teaches otherwise”
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Huna b. Rav Yehoshua: the entire baraita is R. Yishmael’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא.
English Translation:
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that the baraita should be understood differently: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who derives that three log of oil are required in the griddle-cake offering based upon the amount required in the meal offering component of the daily offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna b. Rav Yehoshua offers a more unified reading: the entire baraita is a single author — R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka — walking through his reasoning step by step. Rather than being a debate between multiple Tannaim, it is one sage working through the problem methodically, considering and rejecting alternatives before arriving at his conclusion. The next segments explain how this reading resolves the contradiction.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלָּהּ (kulah) = “All of it” — indicating the entire baraita is attributed to a single author
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yishmael’s logic: “bashemen” adds oil because the griddle already implies oil is needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ – לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לִקְבּוֹעַ שֶׁמֶן – לָא צְרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – כְּמִנְחַת מַחֲבַת דָּמְיָא.
English Translation:
And with regard to the possibility of deriving that only one log is required, as in the voluntary meal offering, this is what he is saying: The term “with the oil” stated with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest comes to add more oil to it than the single log required for the voluntary meal offering. As, if the purpose of that term were merely to establish the basic fact that the offering must include oil, a verse is not needed to teach that. Since it is written with respect to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “On a griddle [maḥavat]” (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [maḥavat] meal offering, which requires oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
Under Rav Huna’s reading, R. Yishmael reasons: the word “bashemen” must mean something beyond merely establishing that oil is needed, because we already know oil is required from the mention of the griddle (machabat). Any griddle-based meal offering inherently requires oil. Therefore, “bashemen” must be teaching something additional — that the oil quantity is greater than the standard 1 log. This logical deduction is elegant in its simplicity.
Key Terms:
- לִקְבּוֹעַ שֶׁמֶן (likboa shemen) = “To establish oil” — meaning to teach the basic requirement that the offering must include oil
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Counter-possibility: “bashemen” is needed to distinguish from the sinner’s offering (no oil)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
English Translation:
Or perhaps the purpose of the verse is to establish only that the offering must include oil, and it is necessary to teach that because if the Merciful One had not stated: “With the oil,” I would say: Let it be like the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now considers a counter-argument within R. Yishmael’s reasoning: perhaps “bashemen” does not indicate extra oil at all, but is simply needed to teach that the chavitin requires oil in the first place. Without it, one might have compared the chavitin to the meal offering of a sinner (minchat chotet), which uniquely does not include oil. This would mean “bashemen” is merely establishing the baseline — that oil is needed — leaving open the possibility that only 1 log is required.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא (minchat chotet) = The meal offering of a sinner — uniquely among meal offerings, it contains neither oil nor frankincense (Leviticus 5:11)
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yishmael falls back on “solet mincha tamid” after the gezerah shavah fails
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַר אָמַר: תִּיהְוֵי נָמֵי לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, תֵּיתֵי מִדִּינָא, וְדָן דִּינָא וְלָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאַצְרְכַהּ קְרָא ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״, כְּדִמְסַיֵּים רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִילְּתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, then said: Let it even be that the purpose of the verse is to establish only that it requires oil, and even so one can arrive at the conclusion that three log are required due to the derivation based upon the verbal analogy from the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. But although Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, attempts to employ this derivation he is unsuccessful, as there is a counter-indication from another verbal analogy to the voluntary meal offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, needed to derive the halakha from the verse: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid]” (Leviticus 6:13), as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, concluded his statement in the baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment shows R. Yishmael’s complete logical progression according to Rav Huna’s reading. R. Yishmael concedes that “bashemen” might only establish the basic oil requirement. He then tries the gezerah shavah from the nesakhim offering (3 log), but it fails because the counter-comparison to the voluntary offering (1 log) is equally valid — the same impasse from segments 4-9. Having exhausted both approaches, R. Yishmael finally relies on the verse “solet mincha tamid,” which directly links the chavitin to the daily offering and its 3-log requirement. This resolves both the contradiction and the derivation.
Key Terms:
- וְדָן דִּינָא וְלָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ = “He attempted the derivation but it did not work” — indicating the gezerah shavah approach was inconclusive
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabba’s resolution: the entire baraita is R. Shimon’s using “if it were not stated”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קָאָמַר].
English Translation:
Rabba said that the baraita should be understood differently: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Shimon is speaking utilizing the style of: If it were not stated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba offers a third reading: the entire baraita — including the comparison to the voluntary offering — is R. Shimon’s. He is using the “ilu lo ne’emar” rhetorical method throughout, meaning: “If the verse hadn’t said ‘bashemen,’ I would have tried to derive the answer through a gezerah shavah, which would have reached an impasse. Since that approach failed, the verse ‘bashemen’ is needed.” This makes the contradiction disappear — R. Shimon is narrating his own intellectual journey through the problem.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = “All of it is R. Shimon” — attributing the entire baraita to a single author
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
R. Shimon’s reasoning elaborated: “bashemen” adds oil, and even without it, he has a derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן לָא צְרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ כְּמַחֲבַת דָּמְיָא, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָמֵר ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין.
English Translation:
And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: The term “with the oil” serves to add extra oil to it. As, if the purpose of that term were merely to establish that the offering must include oil, a verse is not needed to teach that. Since it is written with respect to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “On a griddle [maḥavat]” (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [maḥavat] meal offering, which requires oil. And even if the verse had not stated: “With the oil,” I have a manner of derivation for the fact that more than one log of oil is required, based upon a verbal analogy.
קלאוד על הדף:
Under Rabba’s reading, R. Shimon lays out his multi-step reasoning. First, “bashemen” cannot merely mean “oil is required” because the griddle pan already implies that. Second, even before we have “bashemen,” a gezerah shavah to the nesakhim offering could yield 3 log. R. Shimon is building layers of reasoning: one exegetical, one logical. The question is whether the gezerah shavah can carry the argument on its own.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין (yesh li badin) = “I have a manner of derivation” — indicating R. Shimon has a logical proof available even without the verse
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
The gezerah shavah fails, so “bashemen” is needed; R. Shimon considers bulls and rams (2 log)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדָן דִּינָא, לָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאַצְרְכַהּ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״, הֲדַר אָמַר: תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים.
English Translation:
But although Rabbi Shimon attempts to employ this derivation he is unsuccessful, as there is a counter-indication from another verbal analogy, and therefore the term “with the oil” is needed to teach that more than one log of oil is required. Nevertheless, this teaches only that more oil than usual is required, but the specific amount still must be clarified. Rabbi Shimon then said: Let the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest be like the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams, which require two log of oil per ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
The gezerah shavah fails due to competing comparisons (the same impasse from segments 4-9), so R. Shimon now relies on “bashemen” to establish that more than 1 log is needed. But “more than 1 log” could mean either 2 or 3. R. Shimon first considers comparing to bulls and rams (2 log per issaron). This would be the minimum amount beyond the standard, but as the next segment will show, he rejects this in favor of the sheep offering (3 log).
Key Terms:
- וְאַצְרְכַהּ (v’atzrakhah) = “And it necessitated” — the failed derivation makes the verse “bashemen” essential for establishing the extra oil requirement
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
Transition to amud bet — R. Shimon begins the resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַר אָמַר: דָּנִין
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon then said: We should derive the halakha
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief fragment at the end of amud aleph is the beginning of R. Shimon’s resolution, which continues at the top of amud bet. He is about to explain why the chavitin should be compared to the sheep offering (3 log) rather than the bulls and rams (2 log), based on the shared flour quantity of one issaron. The page break falls mid-sentence — a common occurrence in the Talmud’s physical layout.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַר אָמַר (hadar amar) = “He then said” — indicating the next step in a sequential argument
Amud Bet (51b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation: R. Shimon resolves — compare offerings with equal flour quantity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן וְכוּ׳.
English Translation:
with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, and not from a meal offering that is brought in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes R. Shimon’s reasoning from the end of 51a. The decisive criterion is the flour quantity: the chavitin requires 1 issaron, the sheep offering requires 1 issaron, but bulls require 3 issaronot and rams require 2. Since we should compare “like to like,” the chavitin follows the sheep offering’s ratio of 3 log of oil per issaron. This concludes the lengthy sugya on the oil quantity — all Tannaim agree on 3 log.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (issaron) = A tenth of an ephah — the standard flour measure for both the chavitin and the sheep’s meal offering
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: Who funds the chavitin when the High Priest dies with no replacement?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִשֶּׁל מִי הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If they did not appoint another High Priest in his stead, from whose property was the griddle-cake offering brought and sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the community. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the High Priest. And for the duration of the period until a new High Priest was appointed, the griddle-cake offering was sacrificed as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
This Mishna introduces a new practical question: normally the High Priest personally funds his chavitin and splits it — half in the morning, half in the evening. But if he dies and no replacement is appointed, two issues arise. First, who pays? R. Shimon says the community (tzibur), R. Yehuda says the heirs (yorshim). Second, how is it offered? Both agree: the full issaron is offered at once (shelemah), not split in half, since there is no Kohen Gadol to perform the morning/evening division.
Key Terms:
- צִיבּוּר (tzibur) = The community/public — here meaning communal Temple funds from the Temple treasury (lishkah)
- יוֹרְשִׁין (yorshim) = Heirs — the children or estate of the deceased High Priest
- שְׁלֵימָה (shelemah) = Complete/whole — the entire issaron is offered at once, not divided
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yehuda’s source: “the anointed priest from among his sons shall offer it”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the High Priest died and they did not appoint another High Priest in his stead, from where is it derived that his griddle-cake meal offering should be sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the High Priest? The verse states in reference to the griddle-cake offering: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it” (Leviticus 6:15).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins analyzing the Mishna’s dispute. R. Yehuda’s position — that the heirs fund the offering — is derived from Leviticus 6:15, which mentions “from among his sons” in connection with continuing the chavitin. The phrase “his sons” is read as referring to the heirs who inherit the obligation along with the estate. This sets up a textual exchange between R. Yehuda and R. Shimon, each deriving different halakhot from different parts of the same verse.
Key Terms:
- מִבָּנָיו (mibanav) = “From among his sons” — the key phrase R. Yehuda reads as assigning financial responsibility to the heirs
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yehuda: “otah” teaches the offering is brought whole, not in halves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל יַקְרִיבֶנָּה חֲצָאִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתָהּ״ – כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא חֶצְיָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
One might have thought that the heirs should sacrifice it in halves as the High Priest does. Therefore the verse states “it,” teaching that they should sacrifice all of the tenth of an ephah and not half of it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yehuda addresses the second question: should the heirs split the offering like the High Priest did? The word “otah” (it) is read as emphatic — the entire offering, not half. Since the heirs are not the Kohen Gadol, they do not perform the morning/evening split. Instead, they bring a full issaron and offer it whole. This word “otah” becomes a point of contention, as R. Shimon uses it for a different derivation.
Key Terms:
- אֹתָהּ (otah) = “It” — the accusative form of “her/it,” read by R. Yehuda as emphasizing the completeness of the offering
- חֲצָאִין (chatza’in) = Halves — the normal way the High Priest brings the chavitin: half morning, half evening
Segment 5
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Shimon’s alternative readings: “chok olam” = community funding; “kalil toktar” = entirely burned
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ – מִשֶּׁל עוֹלָם, ״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ בְּהַקְטָרָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: The continuation of the verse: “It is a statute forever [olam] to the Lord,” teaches that in this case of a High Priest who has died and has not yet been replaced, the offering is brought from the property of the world [olam], i.e., the community. The end of the verse: “It shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord,” teaches that although it is brought by the community and not by a priest, the entire tenth of an ephah should be sacrificed and not eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon reads the same verse entirely differently. “Chok olam” (statute forever) is creatively parsed as “from the property of the olam (world/community).” And “kalil toktar” (wholly made to smoke) teaches that the offering is entirely burned on the altar — important because normally a communal meal offering would partially go to the priests. Since the community is bringing it, R. Shimon needs a special verse to teach that it is nonetheless entirely consumed by fire, as the Kohen Gadol’s chavitin always is.
Key Terms:
- חׇק עוֹלָם (chok olam) = “Statute forever” — R. Shimon reads “olam” as “world/community” rather than “forever”
- כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר (kalil toktar) = “Wholly made to smoke” — the entire offering goes on the altar, nothing eaten
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: doesn’t that verse serve a different purpose entirely?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַאי ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And did that verse: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it,” come to teach this halakha that Rabbi Yehuda derived from it?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges R. Yehuda’s use of Leviticus 6:15 for deriving the heirs’ obligation. The concern is that this verse may already be “occupied” — it might be needed for a different teaching entirely. If the verse has a primary purpose elsewhere, R. Yehuda cannot co-opt it for his derivation. The next segment presents that competing interpretation.
Key Terms:
- לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא = “Did it come for this purpose?” — a standard Talmudic challenge questioning whether a verse is available for a given derivation
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
The verse is needed to distinguish Aaron’s daily offering from his sons’ initiation offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ״, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַקְרִיבִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״, אַהֲרֹן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבָנָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. ״בָּנָיו״ – אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
English Translation:
That verse is needed for that which is taught in a baraita: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed” (Leviticus 6:13). One might have thought that since the verse speaks of the offering in the singular, it means that Aaron and his sons should sacrifice one offering. Therefore the verse states: “Which they shall offer to the Lord,” in plural, teaching that Aaron sacrifices an offering by himself as the High Priest, and his sons sacrifice offerings by themselves as ordinary priests. When the verse refers to “his sons,” these are the ordinary priests. Each priest must bring a griddle-cake offering as an offering of initiation when he begins his service.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge now becomes concrete. Leviticus 6:13 mentions “the offering of Aaron and his sons,” and a baraita explains this means two separate obligations: Aaron (the High Priest) brings the chavitin daily, while “his sons” (ordinary priests) each bring a one-time initiation offering (minchat chinukh). The verse in 6:15 about “the anointed priest from among his sons” is what distinguishes these two obligations. If the verse is needed for this purpose, how can R. Yehuda also use it for the heirs’ obligation?
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת (kohanim hedyotot) = Ordinary priests — as distinguished from the High Priest
- מִנְחַת חִינּוּךְ (minchat chinukh) = Initiation meal offering — brought by each priest when he first begins Temple service
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Clarification: “his sons” in v. 13 = ordinary priests, since v. 15 covers the Kohen Gadol
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״ – הֲרֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״בָּנָיו״? אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
English Translation:
Do you say that this is referring to the offering of initiation of ordinary priests, or is it referring only to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priests? When the verse states in the continuation of that passage: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it; it is a statute forever to the Lord; it shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:15), the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is thereby mentioned. How do I realize the meaning of the term “his sons” in Leviticus 6:13? These are the ordinary priests, and the verse is referring to their offering of initiation. Consequently, verse 15 is referring to the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering, rather than referring to a case of a High Priest who died.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now explains its interpretive logic. One might ask: does “his sons” in v. 13 refer to future High Priests or to ordinary priests? Since v. 15 explicitly mentions “the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons,” the High Priest’s ongoing obligation is already covered there. Therefore, “his sons” in v. 13 must refer to ordinary priests and their initiation offering. This means v. 15 is primarily about the basic Kohen Gadol obligation — seemingly leaving no room for R. Yehuda’s derivation about heirs.
Key Terms:
- מַה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים = “How do I realize/fulfill [the meaning of]” — a standard Talmudic phrase for asking what a word or phrase teaches
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “mibanav” (from among his sons) teaches two halakhot from one phrase
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו בָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״, מַאי ״מִבָּנָיו״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The verse teaches both the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering daily and the fact that when he dies his heirs must bring the offering until a new High Priest is appointed. If it were so that the verse is teaching only that the heirs of a High Priest who died must bring the griddle-cake offering until a new High Priest is appointed, let the verse merely write: The anointed priest that shall be in his stead, his sons shall offer. What is the need to say: “From among his sons”? Learn from the fact that verse uses this term that two halakhot are derived from the verse.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge elegantly. The verse uses the specific formulation “mibanav” (from among his sons) rather than simply “banav” (his sons). The extra “mi” (from) is superfluous if the verse only teaches the basic obligation. Therefore, the verse teaches two things: (1) the ongoing High Priestly obligation to bring the chavitin, and (2) that when the High Priest dies, “his sons” — i.e., his heirs — must continue bringing it. This is a classic example of deriving multiple halakhot from a single word.
Key Terms:
- שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי (shama’at minah tartei) = “Derive from it two [halakhot]” — the principle that a seemingly redundant word teaches an additional law
- מִבָּנָיו vs. בָּנָיו = “From among his sons” vs. “his sons” — the prefix “mi” is the textual hook for the additional derivation
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Cross-examination: What does R. Shimon do with “otah” (it)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״אֹתָהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וְלֹא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon, who derives the halakha that it should be entirely sacrificed from the phrase: “It shall be wholly made to smoke,” do with that word “it,” from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that in the case of a High Priest who died after bringing the first half of his griddle-cake offering, and then 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 the first High Priest, i.e., his predecessor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now cross-examines R. Shimon. Since R. Shimon derives the “offering whole” rule from “kalil toktar” rather than from “otah,” the word “otah” is free for a different teaching. R. Shimon uses it for a specific scenario: when a High Priest dies mid-day (after offering the morning half) and a replacement is immediately appointed. The new Kohen Gadol cannot just bring “the other half” — he must bring a completely new issaron, split it, and offer his own half. The predecessor’s remaining half goes to waste.
Key Terms:
- חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן (chatzi issaron) = Half an issaron — the normal morning or evening portion of the chavitin
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Why not derive from the vav of “umachatzitah”? R. Shimon doesn’t expound the vav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִן ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ״? וָי״ו לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Let him derive this halakha from the expression: “And half of it” (Leviticus 6:13), as discussed on 50b; the word “and,” which is added by the letter vav at the beginning of the word, is expounded to mean that the replacement High Priest must bring a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The Gemara answers: He did not derive the halakha from there because he does not expound the extra letter vav in that word, as he holds that its addition is not significant.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: on the previous daf (50b), the vav in “umachatzitah” (AND half of it) was used to derive that a replacement Kohen Gadol brings a full issaron. Why does R. Shimon need “otah” for this same halakha? The answer reveals a methodological disagreement: R. Shimon does not consider the vav prefix to be exegetically significant. For him, the vav is simply connective grammar, not a source for deriving halakha. Therefore he needs the separate word “otah” for this teaching.
Key Terms:
- וָי״ו לָא דָּרֵישׁ (vav lo dareish) = “He does not expound the vav” — a methodological principle: some Tannaim do not treat the connective vav as carrying independent legal meaning
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Cross-examination: What does R. Yehuda do with “chok olam”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? חוּקָּה לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that if the High Priest dies and a new one has not yet been appointed the griddle-cake offering is brought by the previous High Priest’s heirs, do with that phrase: “It is a statute forever to the Lord,” from which Rabbi Shimon derives that it is brought from communal resources? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the statute requiring the High Priest to sacrifice the griddle-cake offering is to apply forever.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues its systematic cross-examination by asking what R. Yehuda does with the phrase R. Shimon used for his derivation. For R. Yehuda, “chok olam” simply means what it says literally: the chavitin is an eternal statute — it applies in perpetuity, not just during the First Temple period. He does not read “olam” as “world/community” the way R. Shimon does. This illustrates how different exegetical approaches to the same words lead to fundamentally different halakhic conclusions.
Key Terms:
- חוּקָּה לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא = “It shall be a statute forever” — R. Yehuda’s straightforward reading of “chok olam”
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
What does R. Yehuda do with “kalil toktar”? — used for a gezerah shavah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶלְיוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל) בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, וְתַחְתּוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט) בְּ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need the phrase: “It shall be wholly made to smoke”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: I have derived only that the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest mentioned above is included in the mandate: “It shall be wholly made to smoke” (Leviticus 6:15), and that the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest mentioned below is included in the prohibition: “It shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yehuda uses “kalil toktar” not for the interim chavitin (as R. Shimon does), but for a broader halakhic principle connecting the High Priest’s chavitin to the ordinary priest’s voluntary meal offering. The Torah states two things in adjacent verses: the chavitin is “wholly made to smoke” (v. 15) and the priest’s voluntary offering “shall not be eaten” (v. 16). R. Yehuda needs “kalil toktar” as the basis for a verbal analogy (gezerah shavah) linking these two types of offerings.
Key Terms:
- עֶלְיוֹנָה (elyonah) = “The upper one” — referring to the verse mentioned above (v. 15, the chavitin)
- תַחְתּוֹנָה (tachtonah) = “The lower one” — referring to the verse mentioned below (v. 16, the ordinary priest’s offering)
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The gezerah shavah from “kalil” — applying each verse’s rule to the other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנַּיִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּלִיל״ ״כָּלִיל״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״כָּלִיל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כָּלִיל״,
English Translation:
From where is it derived that one is mandated to apply what is said about that verse to this one, and what is said about this verse to that one? The verse states with regard to the griddle-cake offering: “Wholly,” and the verse uses the word “wholly” with regard to the voluntary meal offering of a priest, in order to teach a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest: “Wholly” (Leviticus 6:15), and it is stated there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest: “Wholly” (Leviticus 6:16).
קלאוד על הדף:
The word “kalil” (wholly) appears in both v. 15 (regarding the chavitin) and v. 16 (regarding the ordinary priest’s voluntary meal offering). This shared language creates a gezerah shavah — a verbal analogy — that allows the rules stated about each offering to be applied to the other. The mechanism works bidirectionally: each verse contributes something the other lacks, creating a more complete legal framework for both offerings.
Key Terms:
- לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה = “To apply what is said about this to that” — the bidirectional mechanism of a gezerah shavah
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Result: both offerings are entirely burned AND there’s a prohibition on eating them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה כָּאן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, אַף לְהַלָּן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״. וּמָה לְהַלָּן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ, אַף כָּאן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ.
English Translation:
Just as here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering, it is included in the mandate: “It shall be wholly made to smoke,” so too there, the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest is included in the mandate: It shall be wholly made to smoke. And just as there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest, the verse comes to place a prohibition on its consumption, so too here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, the verse comes to place a prohibition on its consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The gezerah shavah yields two results. First, the ordinary priest’s voluntary meal offering (which is only described as “not to be eaten”) also has the positive mandate of being “wholly made to smoke.” Second, the chavitin (which only has the mandate of “wholly made to smoke”) also carries a negative prohibition against eating it. This means both offerings have both a positive command (burn it entirely) and a negative prohibition (do not eat it). This is significant because violating a negative prohibition carries different consequences than merely failing to fulfill a positive command.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה (lo ta’aseh) = A negative commandment/prohibition — here, the prohibition against eating the offering
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Major challenge: If R. Shimon holds community funding is Torah law, why list it as a rabbinic ordinance?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that in a case where the High Priest died and a new one has not been appointed, the requirement that the griddle offering be brought from the property of the community is by Torah law, as indicated by the fact that he derives this halakha from a verse?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a powerful contradiction. In our sugya, R. Shimon derives community funding from a verse (“chok olam”), which implies it is a Torah-level obligation. But R. Shimon himself is quoted elsewhere as listing this among “seven ordinances of the court” (takanot beit din) — which implies it is merely a rabbinic enactment. Is it d’oraita or d’rabbanan? This sets up one of the most interesting resolutions on the daf.
Key Terms:
- דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (d’oraita) = By Torah law — a biblical-level obligation
- תַּקָּנוֹת בֵּית דִּין (takanot beit din) = Ordinances of the court — rabbinic enactments
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
The contradiction: Mishna Shekalim lists 7 rabbinic ordinances, including this one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. גּוֹי שֶׁשָּׁלַח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, שָׁלַח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים – (קְרֵיבָה) [קְרֵיבִין] מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations; and this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: In the case of a gentile who sent his burnt offering from a country overseas, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are sacrificed at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public’s expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara quotes the Mishna in Shekalim where R. Shimon himself lists seven things the court enacted — explicitly calling them rabbinic ordinances (takanot). Among these are rules about who pays for libations when a gentile sends an offering from overseas or when a convert dies leaving designated sacrifices. The chavitin of a deceased High Priest appears in this same list. If R. Shimon himself calls it a “takanah” (ordinance), how can he also derive it from a verse as Torah law?
Key Terms:
- הִתְקִינוּ (hitkinu) = “They enacted/ordained” — language specifically associated with rabbinic legislation
- מְדִינַת הַיָּם (medinat hayam) = “Overseas country” — literally “a province across the sea”
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation of the Shekalim mishna: the convert’s offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת, וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים – יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
And similarly, in the case of a convert who died without heirs and left animals that he had designated as offerings, if he has the libations, i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations are sacrificed from his estate. And if he did not do so, the libations are sacrificed from public funds.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues quoting the Shekalim mishna, providing another example of communal responsibility for offering costs. When a convert dies without heirs, his estate has no one to inherit it (hefker). If he designated animals as offerings but did not separately designate the required libations, the community bears the cost. This parallel case strengthens the general principle that the community has a responsibility to ensure offerings are properly completed — the same principle R. Shimon applies to the deceased High Priest’s chavitin.
Key Terms:
- גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת (ger shemet) = A convert who died — a legally significant category because a convert’s property becomes ownerless (hefker) if he has no heirs
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The specific ordinance about the chavitin — listed as rabbinic by R. Shimon himself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
And another ordinance: It is a stipulation of the court with regard to a High Priest who died, and they did not yet appoint another High Priest in his stead, that his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Rabbi Shimon then enumerates three additional ordinances. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that Rabbi Shimon holds that this halakha concerning the offering of a High Priest who died is a rabbinic ordinance, rather than Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here is the smoking gun of the contradiction. R. Shimon explicitly calls the community-funded chavitin a “tenai beit din” — a stipulation/ordinance of the court. This is clearly rabbinic language. Yet on our daf, he derives community funding from the verse “chok olam.” The tension is stark and demands resolution, which R. Abbahu provides in the next segments with a fascinating historical narrative.
Key Terms:
- תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין (tenai beit din) = A stipulation/condition of the court — a formal rabbinic enactment with the force of law
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
R. Abbahu: there were actually two ordinances — resolving the contradiction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: (שְׁנֵי) [שְׁתֵּי] תַּקָּנוֹת הֲווֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abbahu said in response: In fact, Rabbi Shimon holds that this halakha is by Torah law. But in fact, there were two ordinances that were enacted concerning this matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Abbahu’s answer is both surprising and elegant: R. Shimon indeed holds that community funding is Torah law. The fact that it appears in a list of “ordinances” is because there were two separate legislative acts — not one. The next segment will reveal the full historical narrative of how the policy shifted back and forth, ultimately returning to the Torah-law baseline. The “ordinance” R. Shimon refers to in Shekalim is the final restoration of the original law, not an innovation.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי תַּקָּנוֹת (shtei takanot) = Two ordinances — R. Abbahu’s key insight that resolves the apparent contradiction
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The full historical narrative: Torah law → heirs → back to Torah law
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִדְּצִיבּוּר, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מִידַּחְקָא לִישְׁכָּה – תַּקִּינוּ דְּלִגְבֵּי מִיּוֹרְשִׁים, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָשְׁעִי בַּהּ – אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
Initially, they acted in accordance with that which is prescribed by Torah law, and if a High Priest died and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his stead, his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Once they saw that the funds in the chamber of the Temple treasury were being depleted, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the payment for the offering should be collected from the previous High Priest’s heirs. Once they saw that the heirs were negligent in the matter and did not bring the offering, they revoked the previous ordinance and established it in accordance with the halakha as it is by Torah law, that it is brought from public funds.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is one of the most remarkable passages on the daf, providing a rare historical narrative of halakhic policy changes. Phase 1: Torah law requires community funding. Phase 2: The treasury was being depleted, so the Sages shifted the cost to the heirs — a pragmatic rabbinic ordinance. Phase 3: The heirs were negligent (pash’ei), failing to bring the offering at all. So the Sages reverted to the original Torah law. The “takanah” in Shekalim refers to this final reversion — an ordinance to restore the Torah-law baseline. This brilliantly explains how something can be both d’oraita and appear in a list of takanot.
Key Terms:
- לִישְׁכָּה (lishkah) = The Temple treasury chamber — the room where communal funds (shekalim) were stored
- פָשְׁעִי (pash’ei) = Were negligent — the heirs did not fulfill their obligation to bring the offering
- אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = “They established it according to Torah law” — the Sages reversed their own ordinance, restoring the original biblical rule
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
New topic: the red heifer — applying the same Torah law vs. rabbinic ordinance framework
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעַל פָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת הִיא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בַּהּ – ״הִיא״, בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין,
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites the continuation of the mishna in Shekalim (7:7): And the court enacted an ordinance with regard to the red heifer that one is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from its ashes. The Gemara asks: Why does the baraita state that this is an ordinance of the court, when in fact it is by Torah law? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a red heifer: “It is a sin offering” (Numbers 19:9), which teaches that a red heifer is treated like a sin offering in that one is liable for misusing it. The fact that it states: “It is a sin offering” indicates that if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf now applies the same analytical framework — distinguishing Torah law from rabbinic ordinance — to another item in R. Shimon’s list of seven enactments. The Shekalim mishna states that the court enacted that one does not commit me’ilah (misuse of consecrated property) with the red heifer’s ashes. But a baraita derives from the verse “it is a sin offering” (Numbers 19:9) that me’ilah applies to the red heifer itself — while the limiting word “hi” (it) excludes the ashes from me’ilah by Torah law. If this is already Torah law, why call it a rabbinic ordinance? The resolution presumably follows the same pattern as the chavitin: an ordinance that restores or reinforces Torah law.
Key Terms:
- פָּרָה אֲדוּמָה (parah adumah) = The red heifer — burned to produce ashes used for ritual purification from corpse contamination
- מְעִילָה (me’ilah) = Misuse of consecrated property — deriving personal benefit from items dedicated to the Temple
- חַטָּאת (chatat) = Sin offering — the legal classification that subjects the red heifer to me’ilah laws