Menachot Daf 52 (מנחות דף נ״ב)
Daf: 52 | Amudim: 52a – 52b | Date: 28 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (52a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of red heifer ashes discussion — no me’ilah liability for ashes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּאֶפְרָהּ אֵין מוֹעֲלִין.
English Translation:
but if one derives benefit from its ashes, one is not liable for misusing consecrated property. It is clear from the baraita that by Torah law one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from the ashes of a red heifer.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment concludes the discussion from the previous daf about me’ilah (misuse of consecrated property) regarding the red heifer. The baraita establishes a clear distinction: while the red heifer itself is subject to me’ilah, its ashes are not. This is significant because the ashes of the red heifer are used for purification from corpse impurity, and imposing me’ilah liability on them could discourage their essential ritual use.
Key Terms:
- מוֹעֲלִין (mo’alin) = Liable for misusing consecrated property (me’ilah)
- אֶפְרָהּ (efrah) = Its ashes — the ashes of the red heifer used for purification
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ashi explains two rabbinic ordinances regarding red heifer ashes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁתֵּי תַּקָּנוֹת הֲוַאי, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין, בְּאֶפְרָהּ אֵין מוֹעֲלִין. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מְזַלְזְלִי בַּהּ, וְקָא עָבְדִי מִינֵּיהּ לְמַכָּתָן – גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ מְעִילָה.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said in response: In fact, this halakha is by Torah law, but there were two ordinances that were enacted concerning this matter. By Torah law, if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property, but if he derives benefit from its ashes he is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Once the Sages saw that people were treating the ashes of the heifer disrespectfully, and making salves for their wounds from it, they decreed that it is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property and one may not derive benefit from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi presents an elegant historical explanation involving two successive rabbinic ordinances. By Torah law, the ashes are not subject to me’ilah. However, when people began using them for mundane medicinal purposes — making salves for wounds — the Sages enacted that me’ilah applies to the ashes as well, to preserve their sanctity. This illustrates the rabbinic principle of enacting protective legislation (gezeirot) to safeguard holy objects when their status is being undermined by popular practice.
Key Terms:
- תַּקָּנוֹת (takkanot) = Rabbinic ordinances or enactments
- דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (d’oraita) = By Torah law
- מַכָּתָן (makatan) = Their wounds — people were using the sacred ashes medicinally
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Second ordinance — reverting to Torah law when the first decree caused problems
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָּרְשִׁי מִסְּפֵק הַזָּאוֹת, אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
Once they saw that as a result of this decree people were refraining from sprinkling it in cases where there was uncertainty as to whether or not an individual was impure and required sprinkling, they revoked the decree and established it in accordance with the halakha as it is by Torah law, that one is not liable for misusing the ashes of a red heifer.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment illustrates the dynamic nature of rabbinic legislation. When the first decree caused people to become afraid to sprinkle purification waters in doubtful cases, the Sages revoked their own enactment and restored the original Torah law. This demonstrates the principle that when a rabbinic decree causes more harm than the problem it was meant to solve, it should be rescinded. Ritual purity is essential for Temple service, and discouraging purification sprinklings was counterproductive.
Key Terms:
- סְּפֵק הַזָּאוֹת (sfek haza’ot) = Uncertain sprinklings — cases of doubt about whether purification sprinkling was needed
- אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (okmuhah ad’oraita) = They restored it to Torah law
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Dispute about funding the bull for unwitting communal sin and goats of idol worship
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – בַּתְּחִילָּה מַגְבִּין לָהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֵן בָּאִין.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda that is similar to the one cited earlier. The Sages taught in a baraita: If there is a need to sacrifice the bull for an unwitting communal sin, brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling concerning a prohibition for which one is liable to receive karet and the majority of the community acts upon it, or the goats brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous ruling permitting idol worship and the majority of the community acts on it, a new collection of funds is organized for them. The funds are not taken from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, unlike other communal offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The funds for these sacrifices come from the collection of the chamber.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a new dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon about the funding source for two specific communal sin offerings: the bull brought when the Sanhedrin mistakenly permits something carrying a karet penalty, and the goats brought for erroneous permission of idol worship. Rabbi Yehuda holds a special fundraising drive is needed because these extraordinary offerings should not draw from the regular Temple treasury. Rabbi Shimon maintains they come from the existing chamber collection (terumat halishkah). This parallels the earlier dispute about funding the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering after his death.
Key Terms:
- פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר (par he’elem davar) = Bull for an unwitting communal sin — brought when the Sanhedrin errs
- שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה (se’irei avodah zarah) = Goats of idol worship — brought for communal idolatry from Sanhedrin error
- תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה (terumat halishkah) = Collection of the Temple treasury chamber
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Contradictory baraita reverses the opinions — which is authoritative?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ אַחְרִיתָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita the opposite, i.e., that the first opinion cited above is that of Rabbi Shimon and the second is that of Rabbi Yehuda? Which of the two baraitot is the later one and therefore the more accurate and authoritative version of their opinions?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a textual contradiction: another baraita attributes the positions in reverse — Rabbi Shimon requiring a new collection and Rabbi Yehuda favoring the chamber funds. When two baraitot contradict each other regarding the attribution of opinions, the Talmud typically asks which version is “later” (achrita), meaning which was edited more carefully and is therefore more authoritative. This type of inquiry is common when trying to establish the correct attribution of tannaitic views.
Key Terms:
- אַחְרִיתָא (achrita) = The later, more authoritative version of a baraita
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The Sages suggest the first baraita is later, based on R. Shimon’s concern for negligence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: לֵימָא קַמַּיְיתָא אַחְרִיתָא, דְּשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּחָיֵישׁ לִפְשִׁיעָה.
English Translation:
The Sages said the following before Rav Ashi: Let us say that the first baraita cited above is the later one, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about the possibility of negligence. Just as Rabbi Shimon was concerned above that the heirs of the High Priest would not provide the funds for the griddle-cake offering, it is reasonable to assume that he would be concerned that people would not contribute to a new collection, and therefore the funds are taken from the collection of the chamber.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages propose that the first baraita — where Rabbi Shimon says the funds come from the chamber — is the later and more authoritative version. Their reasoning draws on the principle established in the previous daf that Rabbi Shimon is generally concerned about negligence (peshi’ah). Just as he worried that the High Priest’s heirs might neglect to fund the griddle-cake offering, he would similarly worry that a special collection might not succeed, and therefore prefers using existing Temple treasury funds.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיעָה (peshi’ah) = Negligence — the concern that people will fail to fulfill their obligations
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ashi distinguishes between atonement offerings and non-atonement matters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בָּתְרָיְיתָא אַחְרִיתָא, כִּי קָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִפְשִׁיעָה – מִילְּתָא דְּלֵית בְּהוּ כַּפָּרָה בְּגַוַּוהּ, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּאִית לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה בְּגַוַּוהּ – לָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִפְשִׁיעָה.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to the Sages: You may even say that the latter baraita cited above is the later and more authoritative one. When Rabbi Shimon expressed that he is concerned about the possibility of people acting with negligence, that was only with regard to a matter that does not provide them with atonement, e.g., the griddle-cake offering of the deceased High Priest. But Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about the possibility of negligence with regard to a matter that does provide them with atonement, e.g., these sin offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi introduces a crucial distinction that undermines the Sages’ reasoning. He argues that Rabbi Shimon’s concern about negligence is context-dependent: when an offering provides direct atonement (kapparah) to the community — as these communal sin offerings do — people will be sufficiently motivated to contribute. But when the offering has no direct personal benefit to the donors — like the deceased High Priest’s griddle-cake offering — there is genuine concern about negligence. This preserves the possibility that either baraita could be authoritative.
Key Terms:
- כַּפָּרָה (kapparah) = Atonement — the motivating factor that prevents negligence
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara asks what conclusion was reached
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks, in light of the fact that the discussion above was inconclusive: What conclusion was reached about it; which baraita is later and more authoritative?
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief but important transitional question signals that the preceding analysis left the matter unresolved. The formula “mai havei alah” (what was the conclusion?) is a standard Talmudic device used when a discussion reaches an impasse and a definitive resolution is sought. It typically introduces a new proof or source that will settle the matter.
Key Terms:
- מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ (mai havei alah) = What conclusion was reached? — standard formula for seeking resolution
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabba Zuti resolves the dispute with a baraita citing Numbers 28:2
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה זוּטֵי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – לְרַבּוֹת פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the daily sacrifice: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Me, you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2), serves to include the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats of idol worship. This teaches that the funds for these offerings come from the collection of the chamber; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. This proves that it is Rabbi Shimon who holds that these sacrifices are brought from the collection of the chamber.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba Zuti provides the definitive resolution by citing a third baraita that explicitly identifies Rabbi Shimon as the one who derives from Numbers 28:2 that these offerings come from the chamber collection. The verse “My food… you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in its due season” implies that communal offerings should be funded from existing communal resources (the chamber collection), ensuring they are always available “in their due season.” This settles the attribution dispute conclusively: Rabbi Shimon holds they come from the chamber, and Rabbi Yehuda requires a new collection.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּה זוּטֵי (Rabba Zuti) = A later Babylonian amora, contemporary of Rav Ashi
- ״אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי״ (et korbani lachmi) = “My food” — Numbers 28:2, used to include these offerings in regular communal funding
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא
R. Yochanan’s dilemma: Is the interim chavitin offering brought twice daily or only in the morning?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, אוֹ דִילְמָא שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית וּבְטֵילָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: And for the duration of the period until a new High Priest is appointed, the griddle-cake offering was sacrificed as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: Does the mishna mean that a complete tenth of an ephah is offered in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is offered in the afternoon, because this offering is sacrificed twice a day and is not divided in half when it is not brought by the High Priest himself? Or does it perhaps mean that a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and the offering is canceled in the afternoon?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a major new topic: what happens to the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering (chavitin) during the interim between one High Priest’s death and the appointment of his successor. Normally, the High Priest brings a tenth of an ephah divided in half — half in the morning and half in the afternoon. But when the mishna says a “complete” tenth is brought, R. Yochanan asks whether this means a full tenth is brought twice daily (morning AND afternoon) or only once in the morning, with the afternoon offering canceled. This dilemma generates an extended back-and-forth between Babylonian and Eretz Yisrael scholars.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיתִּין (chavitin) = Griddle-cake offering — the daily meal offering of the High Priest
- שְׁלֵימָה (sheleimah) = Complete — a full tenth of an ephah rather than the usual half
- בְטֵילָה (beteilah) = Canceled — the possibility that the afternoon offering is simply not brought
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s proof from Tamid 31b — the eighth priest always carries the chavitin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמִינִי בַּחֲבִיתִּים, וְאִם אִיתָא דִּבְטֵילָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם – הָא זִמְנִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּח לֵיהּ שְׁמִינִי בַּחֲבִיתִּים! הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דְּמֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא מִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו.
English Translation:
Rava said: Come and hear the resolution to this dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna (Tamid 31b) describing the order of the nine priests who brought the limbs of the daily offering up to the ramp of the altar, both in the morning and in the afternoon: The eighth priest carries the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. And if it were so that the offering is canceled in the afternoon, then sometimes one would not find the eighth priest carrying the griddle-cake offering. What are the circumstances when there would be no eighth priest? In a case where the High Priest died after he brought his griddle-cake offering in the morning and they did not yet appoint another High Priest in his stead. Therefore, it must be that a complete tenth of an ephah was also brought for the afternoon offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava attempts to resolve R. Yochanan’s dilemma from the mishna in Tamid, which describes the fixed order of nine priests carrying parts of the daily offering. The eighth priest always carries the chavitin. Rava reasons: if the afternoon chavitin were canceled when there’s no High Priest, the mishna should have noted that sometimes there are only eight priests, not nine. Since the mishna presents nine as a fixed number for both morning and afternoon services, the chavitin must always be offered in the afternoon as well.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמִינִי בַּחֲבִיתִּים (shemini bachavitin) = The eighth [priest carries] the griddle-cake offering
Segment 12
TYPE: דחייה
R. Yirmeya dismisses the Babylonian proof as “dark” reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אֲמַר: בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי, מִשּׁוּם (דְּיָתְבוּ) [דְּיָתְבִי] בְּאַתְרָא דַּחֲשׁוֹכָא אָמְרִי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא דִּמְחַשְּׁכָן.
English Translation:
The Sages stated this proof before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya rejected it and said: Those foolish Babylonians, because they dwell in a low-lying and therefore dark land, they state halakhot that are dark, i.e., erroneous.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is one of the Talmud’s famous inter-academy barbs. R. Yirmeya, a sage who moved from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, dismisses Rava’s proof with a colorful insult: the Babylonians live in a “dark” land and produce “dark” (faulty) logic. Despite the harsh tone, this literary device reflects a genuine halakhic disagreement about methodology that R. Yirmeya will now substantiate with his counter-argument.
Key Terms:
- בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי (Bavla’ei tafsha’ei) = Foolish Babylonians — a famous Talmudic put-down
- שְׁמַעְתָּתָא דִּמְחַשְּׁכָן (shemattata dimechashechan) = Dark halakhot — erroneous teachings
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
R. Yirmeya’s counter-argument: the fine flour and wine items are also listed as fixed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁבִיעִי בַּסֹּלֶת, תְּשִׁיעִי בַּיַּיִן, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא בָּטְלִי?
English Translation:
Rather, with regard to that which the same mishna teaches: The seventh priest carries the fine flour for the meal offering component of the daily offering and the ninth priest carries the wine for the libations that accompany the daily offering, is it also the case that they are never canceled?
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yirmeya provides the substance behind his dismissal. He points out that the same mishna in Tamid also lists the seventh and ninth priests as carrying fine flour and wine respectively. But we know from other sources that these items can sometimes be absent at the time of the daily offering (they can be brought at night or the next day). If the mishna lists them despite these possible absences, then the mishna simply describes the typical case and cannot be used to prove that exceptions never occur.
Key Terms:
- סֹּלֶת (solet) = Fine flour — for the meal offering component of the daily offering
- יַיִן (yayin) = Wine — for the libations accompanying the daily offering
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Proof that meal offerings and libations can be delayed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ אֲפִילּוּ לְמָחָר.
English Translation:
That is not correct, as it is derived from the verse “Their meal offering and their libations” (Numbers 29:18) that these items may be sacrificed even at night, despite the fact that the daily offering they accompany must be sacrificed during the day. Similarly, the phrase “their meal offering and their libations” indicates that these items may be sacrificed even the next day (see 44b). Under those circumstances there would not have been fine flour and wine brought by the seventh and nine priests at the time of the daily offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes R. Yirmeya’s refutation. The verse “Their meal offering and their libations” teaches that these components have flexible timing — they can be offered at night or even the next day. If so, there would be scenarios where the seventh and ninth priests have nothing to carry during the regular daily offering procession. Since the mishna still lists them as part of the standard nine-priest formation, the mishna clearly describes only the typical case. Therefore, one cannot deduce from the “eighth priest” that the chavitin must always be offered.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם (minchatam v’niskehem) = Their meal offering and their libations — Numbers 29:18, teaching flexible timing
Segment 15
TYPE: מסקנא
Conclusion: The mishna in Tamid describes only the typical case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּאִי לָא קָתָנֵי; הָכִי נָמֵי, דְּאִי לָא קָתָנֵי.
English Translation:
Rather, one must explain that the tanna does not teach cases of what if, and is speaking only about the typical case. So too with regard to Rava’s proof from the mishna, it is not compelling because the tanna does not teach cases of what if the High Priest dies and a successor has not yet been appointed.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment crystallizes the methodological principle at the heart of R. Yirmeya’s refutation: the tanna of the mishna in Tamid describes only the standard procedure, not hypothetical or unusual scenarios. Since the mishna doesn’t account for exceptional cases like delayed meal offerings or absent libations, it equally cannot be used to prove anything about the exceptional case of a deceased High Priest. Rava’s proof is therefore rejected.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִי לָא קָתָנֵי (d’i lo katanei) = The tanna does not teach “what if” cases — a methodological principle about mishnaic scope
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s initial reaction: the Sages shared only his weaker argument
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַהְדְּרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר: מִבִּישׁוּתִין אָמְרִי קַמַּיְיהוּ, מִטֵּיבוּתִין לָא אָמְרִי קַמַּיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Sages then brought Rabbi Yirmeya’s analysis before Rava. Rava initially said to them: You state our inferior statements, which can be refuted, before the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, but you do not state our superior statements before them?
קלאוד על הדף:
When Rava hears that R. Yirmeya demolished his proof, his initial reaction is not to defend the argument but to blame the messengers. He chides the traveling scholars for sharing his weaker proof with the Eretz Yisrael academy rather than his stronger ones. This passage provides a fascinating window into how Torah scholarship traveled between the two major centers of learning — Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael — with scholars serving as intermediaries carrying arguments back and forth.
Key Terms:
- בִּישׁוּתִין (bishutan) = Our inferior [statements] — Rava’s weaker arguments
- טֵיבוּתִין (teivutan) = Our superior [statements] — Rava’s stronger arguments
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s superior proof from Leviticus 6:13 — “solet mincha tamid”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
והֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי נָמֵי טֵיבוּתִין הִיא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״, הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין.
English Translation:
And Rava then said to them: This statement, that the griddle-cake offering is sacrificed twice a day even if there is no High Priest, is also one of our superior statements, as the verse states concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid], half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is like the meal offering component of the daily offerings [temidin] and must be sacrificed in the morning and the afternoon, even if the High Priest died and was not yet replaced.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava pivots and offers a far stronger proof — one based on scriptural derivation rather than inference from mishnaic practice. The word “tamid” (perpetually) in Leviticus 6:13 links the chavitin offering to the tamid (daily) offerings, implying it must be brought consistently morning and afternoon, just as the daily offerings are never canceled. This is a textual argument (drasha), which is more authoritative than the inferential argument from Tamid that R. Yirmeya had refuted.
Key Terms:
- סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד (solet mincha tamid) = Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually — Leviticus 6:13
- מִנְחַת תְּמִידִין (minchat temidin) = Meal offering of the daily offerings — the perpetual daily sacrifice
Segment 18
TYPE: מסקנא
Resolution: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites a baraita — complete offerings both morning and afternoon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית, וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s dilemma, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: If the High Priest died and was not yet replaced, a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
After the extended debate between the Babylonian and Eretz Yisrael academies, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak provides the definitive resolution with an explicit baraita. The answer to R. Yochanan’s original dilemma is clear: when the High Priest dies, a complete tenth of an ephah is offered BOTH in the morning AND in the afternoon. The offering is not canceled but rather doubled — each half-day receives its own complete offering instead of the usual half-portion.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם (sheleimah shacharit u’sheleimah bein ha’arbayim) = A complete offering in the morning and a complete offering in the afternoon
Segment 19
TYPE: מחלוקת
Introduction of the dispute about frankincense for the chavitin offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי וְרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis disagree as to the amount of frankincense brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan introduces a new dispute about the quantity of frankincense (levonah) that accompanies the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering. This is a separate question from the fine flour amount discussed above — while the flour is clearly a tenth of an ephah divided between morning and afternoon, the amount of frankincense is debated. The dispute centers on how to handle the fact that the chavitin is a single offering divided into two daily portions.
Key Terms:
- אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי (Abba Yosei ben Dostai) = A tanna who holds a minority view about frankincense quantities
- לְבוֹנָה (levonah) = Frankincense — an aromatic resin offered on the altar
Segment 20
TYPE: מחלוקת
The dispute detailed: two handfuls vs. one handful split in half
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי אוֹמֵר: מַפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים שֶׁל לְבוֹנָה, קוֹמֶץ שַׁחֲרִית וְקוֹמֶץ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: מַפְרִישׁ לָהּ קוֹמֶץ אֶחָד, חֲצִי קוֹמֶץ שַׁחֲרִית וַחֲצִי קוֹמֶץ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: The High Priest separates two handfuls of frankincense for his griddle-cake offering each day; one handful for his morning offering and one handful for his afternoon offering. And the Rabbis say: The High Priest separates one handful of frankincense each day for his griddle-cake offering. He divides it in half and brings half a handful for his morning offering and half a handful for his afternoon offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The positions are laid out clearly. Abba Yosei ben Dostai requires two full handfuls of frankincense daily — one for each half of the chavitin. The Rabbis require only one handful, split in half. The practical difference is significant: Abba Yosei ben Dostai’s position doubles the frankincense requirement. This dispute will become critical when the Gemara discusses what happens after the High Priest dies, since the quantities of all accompanying materials come into question.
Key Terms:
- קוֹמֶץ (kometz) = A handful — a standard measure for frankincense on the altar
- חֲצִי קוֹמֶץ (chatzi kometz) = Half a handful — the Rabbis’ measure for each daily offering
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The underlying reasoning: can half a handful be offered? Can a tenth require two handfuls?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי סָבַר: לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן חֲצִי קוֹמֶץ דְּקָרֵיב, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן עִשָּׂרוֹן דְּבָעֵי שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that since one does not find a case where the Torah explicitly states that half a handful is sacrificed, he brings a complete handful for each offering. And the Rabbis hold that since one does not find a case where a tenth of an ephah requires two handfuls of frankincense, he brings only one handful and divides it between the two offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the core theoretical disagreement. Both sides argue from precedent: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says there is no precedent for offering half a handful of frankincense (since every other offering uses a full handful), so each portion of the chavitin must get a full handful. The Rabbis counter that there is no precedent for a single tenth of an ephah requiring two handfuls. Each side is uncomfortable with a different anomaly, and each resolves it by maintaining the aspect they consider more fundamental.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (issaron) = A tenth of an ephah — the standard flour measure for meal offerings
Segment 22
TYPE: בעיא
R. Yochanan’s dilemma about frankincense when the High Priest dies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו,
English Translation:
Having discussed the quantity of frankincense that is generally brought with the griddle-cake offering, the Gemara now addresses a case where the High Priest died. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of a High Priest who died and they did not yet appoint another in his stead,
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment opens a new dilemma by R. Yochanan that extends into amud bet. Having established that the flour portion is doubled when the High Priest dies (a complete tenth each for morning and afternoon), the question now becomes: what about the accompanying frankincense and oil? Does the doubling of flour automatically mean the frankincense and oil are doubled too? This dilemma is especially nuanced according to the Rabbis’ position, since they normally split one handful between two offerings. The segment breaks mid-sentence, continuing on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת (kohen gadol shemet) = A High Priest who died — the recurring scenario in this sugya
Amud Bet (52b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
Continuation of R. Yochanan’s dilemma — is the frankincense doubled?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבָּנַן הוּכְפְּלָה לְבוֹנָתוֹ, אוֹ לָא? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּכְפְּלָה סׇלְתּוֹ הוּכְפְּלָה לְבוֹנָתוֹ, אוֹ דִילְמָא מַאי דְּגַלִּי גַּלִּי, מַאי דְּלָא גַּלִּי לָא גַּלִּי.
English Translation:
according to the Rabbis, who hold that generally one handful of frankincense is divided between the morning and afternoon offerings, is the amount of frankincense doubled or not? Do we say that since in this case its fine flour is doubled, as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour is sacrificed in both the morning and evening, its frankincense is also doubled? Or perhaps that which the verse reveals, i.e., that a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and afternoon, it reveals, and that which it does not reveal, it does not reveal; and therefore, since the verse does not indicate that the amount of frankincense is doubled, only one handful is brought.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing from the end of amud aleph, R. Yochanan’s dilemma is now fully articulated according to the Rabbis’ position. The question hinges on a fundamental interpretive principle: when the Torah explicitly doubles one component of an offering (the fine flour), does this automatically extend to other components (frankincense)? Or does the principle “what it reveals, it reveals; what it does not reveal, it does not reveal” (mai d’gali gali) limit the doubling only to what is explicitly stated? This is a significant hermeneutical question about the scope of biblical derivations.
Key Terms:
- הוּכְפְּלָה (hukhpelah) = Was doubled — the key question regarding frankincense
- מַאי דְּגַלִּי גַּלִּי (mai d’gali gali) = What it reveals, it reveals — a limiting interpretive principle
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא
Additional dilemma about oil quantity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְשֶׁמֶן, בֵּין לְאַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי וּבֵין לְרַבָּנַן – מַהוּ?
English Translation:
And furthermore, what is the halakha concerning the oil of the griddle-cake offering in a case where the High Priest died and was not yet replaced, both according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai and according to the Rabbis? Is the required amount three log, as it is when the High Priest brings the griddle-cake offering, or is the amount of oil doubled just as the amount of fine flour is doubled?
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan adds a second dilemma about the oil component. Unlike the frankincense question — which applies only to the Rabbis (since Abba Yosei ben Dostai already has two handfuls regardless) — the oil question applies to both positions. Normally three log of oil are used. When the flour is doubled after the High Priest’s death, should the oil also be doubled to six log? This question rounds out the full picture of what happens to all the chavitin’s components during the interregnum.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמֶן (shemen) = Oil — used in preparing the griddle-cake offering
- לוֹג (log) = A liquid measure (approximately 300-500 ml depending on opinion)
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s proof from the “five handfuls” mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲמִשָּׁה קְמָצִין הֵן, וְאִם אִיתָא, זִימְנִין דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ שִׁבְעָה.
English Translation:
Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma concerning the quantity of frankincense that is brought in this case, based upon a mishna (106b): There are five halakhot pertaining to a handful. The halakha of the frankincense sacrificed with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is not included in this number, because only half a handful of frankincense is sacrificed at one time. And if it is so that when there is no High Priest a complete handful is brought in the morning and in the afternoon, then sometimes you find that there are seven halakhot pertaining to a handful.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava attempts another proof, this time from the mishna that lists five cases involving a handful (kometz). He argues: if according to the Rabbis, each half-day offering gets a full handful when the High Priest dies, this would create two additional cases of a full handful — bringing the total to seven. But the mishna only lists five, suggesting that no full handful of frankincense is ever offered with the chavitin. This would support the view that the frankincense is NOT doubled.
Key Terms:
- חֲמִשָּׁה קְמָצִין (chamishah kematzin) = Five halakhot pertaining to a handful — from Menachot 106b
Segment 4
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection and counter-argument: the mishna does teach “what if” cases
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאִי לָא קָתָנֵי, יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר שְׁמַעְיָה לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא מַעֲלֶה קוֹמֶץ בַּחוּץ, דְּאִי הֲוָה, וְקָתָנֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: The tanna does not teach cases of what if the High Priest died, and is speaking only about a typical case. The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and teaching this halakha. Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa: But the mishna does list the case of one who intentionally offers up the handful from a meal offering outside the Temple courtyard, who is liable to receive karet. This is not a standard case but rather a case of what if, and nevertheless it is taught in the mishna. Accordingly, Rava’s proof is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara initially rejects Rava’s proof using the same principle from amud aleph — the tanna doesn’t teach hypothetical cases. But Rav Yosef bar Shemaya challenges this rejection by pointing out that the same mishna (about five handfuls) does include a “what if” case: one who offers a handful outside the Temple courtyard and is liable for karet. If the tanna includes that hypothetical scenario, the claim that the mishna doesn’t teach hypothetical cases is undermined, and Rava’s proof may be valid after all.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלֶה קוֹמֶץ בַּחוּץ (ma’aleh kometz bachutz) = One who offers a handful outside [the Temple courtyard] — a hypothetical case in the mishna
Segment 5
TYPE: מסקנא
Definitive resolution from a baraita — two handfuls of frankincense, three log of oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית, וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, וּמַפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין – קוֹמֶץ שַׁחֲרִית וְקוֹמֶץ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, וּמַפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין – לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית, לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a High Priest who died and they did not yet appoint another in his stead, a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour is brought for the griddle-cake offering in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is brought in the afternoon. And one separates two handfuls of frankincense for it, and sacrifices one handful with the morning offering and one handful with the afternoon offering. And one separates three log of oil for it, and brings a log and a half with the morning offering and a log and a half with the afternoon offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak once again provides the definitive resolution, this time for both the frankincense and oil dilemmas. The baraita gives precise quantities: two handfuls of frankincense (one per offering) and three log of oil (a log and a half per offering). Notably, the flour is doubled (two complete tenths), the frankincense gets two full handfuls, but the oil remains at three log (not doubled to six). The question now becomes: whose opinion does this baraita follow?
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין (shloshet luggin) = Three log — the standard oil measure for the chavitin
- לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה (log u’mechetzah) = A log and a half — the oil measure per offering
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Whose opinion is this baraita? Not the Rabbis — inconsistency in doubling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבָּנַן – מַאי שְׁנָא לְבוֹנָתָהּ דְּהוּכְפְּלָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא שַׁמְנָהּ דְּלֹא הוּכְפְּלָה?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what is different about its frankincense such that it is doubled in the case where the High Priest died, and what is different about its oil such that it is not doubled?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a logical problem with attributing this baraita to the Rabbis. According to the Rabbis, the normal amount is one handful of frankincense (split in half). The baraita requires two handfuls — which would mean the frankincense was doubled. But the oil stays at three log (not doubled). If we’re following a principle that everything doubles when the flour doubles, why would frankincense double but oil not? And if we follow “what the verse reveals, it reveals,” then neither should double. The inconsistency makes it impossible to attribute this baraita to the Rabbis.
Key Terms:
- מַנִּי (manni) = Whose [opinion is this]? — a standard attribution question
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
The baraita follows Abba Yosei ben Dostai — nothing was actually doubled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּעָלְמָא שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בָּעֲיָא, וּלְבוֹנָה לֹא הוּכְפְּלָה, וְשֶׁמֶן לֹא הוּכְפַּל.
English Translation:
Rather, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Dostai, who said: The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest generally requires two handfuls. And therefore when the baraita requires two handfuls of frankincense in the case where the High Priest died and another has not yet been appointed, the frankincense is not being doubled and the oil is also not doubled. Therefore, three log of oil are required, as usual.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is elegant. The baraita follows Abba Yosei ben Dostai, who holds that the chavitin ALWAYS requires two handfuls of frankincense (one per daily offering). So when the baraita mentions two handfuls for the post-death scenario, it’s not a doubling — it’s simply maintaining the regular requirement. Likewise, the oil stays at three log because it was never doubled. The only thing that actually changed is the flour: each half-day gets a complete tenth instead of half a tenth. This resolves the inconsistency that made it impossible to attribute the baraita to the Rabbis.
Key Terms:
- בְּעָלְמָא (b’alma) = Generally, normally — even when the High Priest is alive
Segment 8
TYPE: מסקנא
Inference: if oil isn’t doubled for Abba Yosei, it’s not doubled for the Rabbis either
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִדְּשֶׁמֶן לְאַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי לֹא הוּכְפְּלָה לְבוֹנָתָהּ וְשַׁמְנָהּ, לְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי לָא הוּכְפְּלוּ.
English Translation:
And from the fact that according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai the requisite oil is not doubled, one can conclude that also according to the Rabbis its frankincense and its oil are not doubled.
קלאוד על הדף:
This concluding inference answers R. Yochanan’s original dilemmas for both positions. Since even Abba Yosei ben Dostai — who is more generous with frankincense quantities — holds that the oil is not doubled, we can conclude that the Rabbis would certainly agree that neither frankincense nor oil is doubled. The only component that changes when the High Priest dies is the fine flour: each offering gets a complete tenth. All other quantities remain the same as during the High Priest’s lifetime.
Key Terms:
- וּמִדְּ (umid) = And from the fact that — introducing an inference from one opinion to another
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yochanan rules like Abba Yosei ben Dostai — but this contradicts his own principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה קְמָצִין הֵן.
English Translation:
This discussion in the Gemara began with Rabbi Yoḥanan presenting the dispute between Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis, and it concludes with his ruling concerning their dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Dostai. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, and we learned in the unattributed mishna cited earlier: There are only five halakhot pertaining to a handful. Since the mishna does not list the fact that a handful of frankincense is offered twice daily with the griddle-cake offering, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan accept that opinion?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies an internal contradiction in R. Yochanan’s teachings. On one hand, he rules like Abba Yosei ben Dostai (two handfuls of frankincense daily). On the other hand, he has a well-known principle that the halakha always follows an unattributed mishna (stam mishna). The mishna listing only five cases of a handful implies that the chavitin frankincense is NOT a full handful (supporting the Rabbis). If R. Yochanan follows the stam mishna, he should rule like the Rabbis, not Abba Yosei ben Dostai.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה (halakha kistam mishna) = The halakha follows an unattributed mishna — R. Yochanan’s famous principle
- חֲמִשָּׁה קְמָצִין (chamishah kematzin) = Five handfuls — the unattributed mishna listing only five cases
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: different amoraim disagree about what R. Yochanan actually said
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: They are different amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. One said that Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in accordance with Abba Yosei ben Dostai, and one said that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the contradiction with a standard device: the conflicting statements attributed to R. Yochanan were actually transmitted by different amoraim who disagreed about what R. Yochanan held. One amora reported that R. Yochanan ruled like Abba Yosei ben Dostai; another reported that he always follows the stam mishna. This is a common Talmudic resolution — rather than imputing inconsistency to a major sage, the Talmud attributes the inconsistency to his students’ differing transmissions of his views.
Key Terms:
- אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ (amora’ei ninhu) = They are [different] amoraim — a resolution attributing contradictory statements to different tradents
Segment 11
TYPE: הדרן
End of Chapter 4 (HaTekhelet)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַתְּכֵלֶת.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the hadran — the formulaic conclusion of a chapter of Talmud. “Hadran alakh” means “we shall return to you,” expressing the commitment to revisit and review the material. Chapter 4 (HaTekhelet) dealt extensively with the tekhelet dye, the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, and the funding of communal sacrifices. The daf now transitions to Chapter 5 with a new mishna about the general rules of meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alakh) = We shall return to you — the traditional chapter-ending formula
- הַתְּכֵלֶת (HaTekhelet) = The Tekhelet — the name of Chapter 4
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna (Chapter 5): All meal offerings come as matza except the thanksgiving and two loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת מַצָּה, חוּץ מֵחָמֵץ שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁהֵן בָּאוֹת חָמֵץ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: All the meal offerings come to be offered as matza, with care taken to prevent leavening, except for ten loaves of leavened bread among the forty loaves that accompany the thanks offering, and the meal offering of the two loaves that are brought on the festival of Shavuot, as they come to be offered as leavened bread.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna opens Chapter 5 with a foundational rule: virtually all meal offerings (menachot) must be prepared as matza — unleavened. Only two categories are exceptions: the leavened loaves among the forty that accompany a thanksgiving offering (korban todah), and the two loaves (shtei halechem) brought on Shavuot. This is striking because leavening (chametz) is generally prohibited in offerings, based on Leviticus 2:11. The thanksgiving and Shavuot loaves are the rare cases where leavened bread is required.
Key Terms:
- מַצָּה (matza) = Unleavened bread — the default requirement for all meal offerings
- חָמֵץ שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה (chametz shebatodah) = The leavened bread in the thanksgiving offering
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (shtei halechem) = The two loaves — the Shavuot offering
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Meir’s method of leavening: using leaven from within the offering’s own flour
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַשְּׂאוֹר בּוֹדֶה לָהֶן מִתּוֹכָן, וּמְחַמְּצָן.
English Translation:
The Sages disagree as to the manner in which those meal offerings are leavened. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to the leaven added to the dough to facilitate leavening, one separates [bodeh] part of the flour for the meal offerings from within the flour of the meal offerings themselves, causes it to become leaven, and leavens the meal offerings with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now addresses a practical question: how do you leaven the thanksgiving and Shavuot offerings? Rabbi Meir says the leaven starter (se’or) should be created from the offering’s own flour. You take some of the consecrated flour, let it ferment into sourdough starter, and then use that to leaven the rest. This method ensures that no outside material enters the offering, keeping the entire offering from a single source. The verb “bodeh” is unusual and means to separate or extract.
Key Terms:
- שְׂאוֹר (se’or) = Leaven/sourdough starter — used to ferment the dough
- בּוֹדֶה (bodeh) = Separates, extracts — an unusual verb describing the process
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Yehuda’s method: bringing external aged leaven and adding flour to fill the measure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הִיא אֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא אֶת הַשְּׂאוֹר וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמִּדָּה, וּמְמַלֵּא אֶת הַמִּדָּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַף הִיא הָיְתָה חֲסֵרָה אוֹ יְתֵרָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: That is also not the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva, as aged leaven is a more effective leavening agent. Rather, one brings the leaven from another, aged, dough and places it into the measuring vessel, and then he adds flour until he fills the measuring vessel, to ensure the appropriate measure of a tenth of an ephah of flour. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: That too is inappropriate, as in that manner the meal offering will either be lacking the requisite measure or be greater than the required measure, as the Gemara will explain.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda critiques Rabbi Meir’s method as suboptimal — freshly fermented starter from the offering’s own flour won’t be as effective as aged sourdough. He proposes instead to bring external aged leaven, place it in the measuring vessel, and add flour to fill the measure. But the Rabbis identify a problem with Rabbi Yehuda’s approach: placing the leaven in the measuring vessel first means the flour measurement will be imprecise. Either the leaven takes up space (so less flour is used — the offering is deficient) or the leaven doesn’t count toward the measure (so extra flour is added — the offering exceeds the requirement). Either way, the exact tenth of an ephah is compromised.
Key Terms:
- מִן הַמּוּבְחָר (min hamuvchar) = The optimal manner — the best way to fulfill a mitzvah
- הַמִּדָּה (hamiddah) = The measuring vessel — used to ensure the exact measure of a tenth of an ephah
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Beginning of Gemara on the new mishna: the source for all meal offerings being matza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי פְּרִידָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁהֵן בָּאוֹת מַצָּה? מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ – כְּתִיב בַּהּ, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ – כְּתִיב בַּהּ
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rabbi Perida raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: From where is it derived with regard to all the meal offerings that they come to be offered as matza? Rabbi Ami was puzzled by this question, and replied: What do you mean when you say: From where do we derive this? Concerning every meal offering with regard to which it is written explicitly in the Torah that it comes as matza, it is written with regard to it, and therefore the dilemma does not arise. And concerning any meal offering where it is not written explicitly with regard to it that it must be matza, nevertheless it is written with regard to it:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins its analysis of the new mishna by asking for the scriptural source of the rule that all meal offerings must be matza. Rabbi Perida asks Rabbi Ami for the derivation, but Rabbi Ami is puzzled by the question — for offerings where matza is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, there is no need for a derivation. And for offerings where it is not explicitly stated, there is presumably another verse that covers them. This sets up a discussion about how the Torah’s general prohibitions against leavening apply to all meal offerings. The daf ends mid-discussion, to be continued on the next page.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי פְּרִידָא (Rabbi Perida) = A prominent third-generation Eretz Yisrael amora, known for his patience
- מְנָלַן (menalan) = From where do we derive this? — asking for the scriptural source