Menachot Daf 59 (מנחות דף נ״ט)
Daf: 59 | Amudim: 59a – 59b | Date: 6 Adar I 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (59a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Four categories of meal offerings regarding oil and frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה, לְבוֹנָה וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן, לֹא לְבוֹנָה וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: There are four types of meal offerings: Those that require both oil and frankincense, those that require oil but not frankincense, those that require frankincense but not oil, and those that require neither frankincense nor oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna opens a new chapter by presenting a comprehensive four-part classification of all meal offerings based on whether they require oil, frankincense, both, or neither. This systematic taxonomy is characteristic of the Mishna’s organizational method — creating clear categories before diving into details. The four categories cover every possible combination, ensuring no meal offering is left unclassified.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמֶן (shemen) = Oil — olive oil mixed into or poured upon meal offerings
- לְבוֹנָה (levona) = Frankincense — an aromatic resin placed upon meal offerings
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
Meal offerings requiring both oil and frankincense: the five voluntary types
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין.
English Translation:
The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense: The fine-flour meal offering, as it is stated: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon” (Leviticus 2:1); the meal offering prepared in a pan (see Leviticus 2:5–6); the meal offering prepared in a deep pan (see Leviticus 2:7–10); and the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers (see Leviticus 2:4).
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna begins enumerating the first category — offerings requiring both oil and frankincense. These five types correspond to the five voluntary meal offerings described in Leviticus chapter 2. The fine-flour offering (solet) is the simplest form; the pan (machavat) and deep-pan (marcheshet) offerings are fried preparations; and the oven-baked offerings come as either loaves (challot) or wafers (rekikin). All share the common requirement of both oil and frankincense as stated explicitly in their respective verses.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת (minchat hasolet) = Fine-flour meal offering — raw flour with oil and frankincense
- מַחֲבַת (machavat) = Flat pan — used for frying meal offerings
- מַרְחֶשֶׁת (marcheshet) = Deep pan — produces a softer, more liquid preparation
- רְקִיקִין (rekikin) = Wafers — thin, flat baked items smeared with oil
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Additional meal offerings requiring both oil and frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מִנְחַת גּוֹי, מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר.
English Translation:
Additional meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense are the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest every day, half in the morning and half in the evening; the meal offering of a gentile; a meal offering brought by women; and the omer meal offering (see Leviticus 23:15).
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna adds five more offerings to the first category. These are a diverse group: the voluntary meal offering of a priest (which is entirely burned rather than partially eaten), the daily obligation of the High Priest (chavitin), offerings brought by gentiles and women, and the communal omer offering brought on the second day of Passover. Despite their varied origins and purposes, all share the requirement of both oil and frankincense.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ (minchat kohen mashiach) = The anointed priest’s meal offering — the daily chavitin brought by the High Priest
- מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר (minchat ha’omer) = The omer meal offering — brought from new barley on 16 Nisan
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Meal offerings requiring only oil or only frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת נְסָכִים טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵין טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים טָעוּן לְבוֹנָה, וְאֵין טָעוּן שֶׁמֶן.
English Translation:
The meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings requires oil but does not require frankincense. The shewbread requires frankincense but does not require oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now covers the two middle categories — offerings requiring only one of the two additives. The libation meal offering (minchat nesakhim), which accompanies animal sacrifices, requires oil but not frankincense. Conversely, the shewbread (lechem hapanim), the twelve loaves placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, requires frankincense (placed in two bowls alongside the bread) but not oil. These two offerings are the only examples in their respective categories.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים (minchat nesakhim) = Libation meal offering — accompanies animal offerings with wine and oil
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (lechem hapanim) = Shewbread — twelve loaves displayed on the Table in the Sanctuary
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Meal offerings requiring neither oil nor frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת – אֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה.
English Translation:
The two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot (see Leviticus 23:17), the meal offering of a sinner, and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota require neither oil nor frankincense. The two loaves do not require oil or frankincense because these additions are not mentioned with regard to it. The meal offering of a sinner does not require them, as it is written: “He shall not put oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). With regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, it is similarly written: “He shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).
קלאוד על הדף:
The final category includes three offerings that require neither oil nor frankincense. The two loaves of Shavuot simply have no mention of these additives. The sinner’s meal offering and the sota’s meal offering are explicitly prohibited from receiving oil and frankincense — the sinner’s offering because it should not be “beautified” (as Rashi explains elsewhere), and the sota’s because it commemorates a suspected transgression. The mishna provides the scriptural sources for each prohibition.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (shtei halechem) = Two loaves — leavened bread brought on Shavuot from new wheat
- מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא (minchat choté) = Sinner’s meal offering — brought by the poorest who cannot afford animal or bird offerings
- מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת (minchat kena’ot) = Jealousy meal offering — brought by a sota (suspected adulteress)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa’s principle: meal offerings always require ten items of one type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר – תְּנַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara explains: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with a broad principle from Rav Pappa that applies throughout the tractate. When the mishna mentions loaves and wafers separately (as in segment 2), it implies they cannot be mixed — one must bring ten of one type. This rejects Rabbi Shimon’s view that half-and-half is acceptable. Rav Pappa’s principle provides an interpretive key for reading mishnayot across the entire tractate.
Key Terms:
- רַב פָּפָּא (Rav Pappa) = A prominent fifth-generation Babylonian Amora
- רְקִיקִין (rekikin) = Wafers — one of two forms for oven-baked meal offerings
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Derasha: “upon it” — oil on the omer, not on the shewbread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנָתַתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the omer meal offering requires both oil and frankincense. With regard to this meal offering, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall put oil upon it and lay frankincense upon it; it is a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:15). From this it can be inferred: One must put oil specifically “upon it,” but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the scriptural sources for the mishna’s classifications. A baraita interprets Leviticus 2:15 (discussing the omer meal offering) — the word “upon it” (aleha) is restrictive, meaning oil goes specifically on this offering but not on the shewbread. This begins a lengthy analysis of how each word in this verse assigns or withholds the requirements of oil and frankincense for various meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- עָלֶיהָ (aleha) = “Upon it” — a restrictive term excluding other offerings from the requirement
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Kal va-chomer refuted: shewbread should logically require oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁיָּכוֹל – וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁטָּעוּן לְבוֹנָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן שֶׁמֶן! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן.
English Translation:
As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, to conclude that the shewbread should require oil? The baraita explains: And if the meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings, which does not require frankincense, nevertheless requires oil, then with regard to the shewbread, for which the halakha is more stringent in that it requires frankincense, is it not logical that it should also require oil? Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that one places oil upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita explains why the verse is needed. Without it, a kal va-chomer (a fortiori) argument would prove that the shewbread requires oil: if the libation meal offering, which doesn’t even need frankincense, still needs oil, then surely the shewbread, which does need frankincense (a more stringent requirement), should also need oil! The verse “upon it” breaks this logic by explicitly limiting the oil requirement to the omer offering alone.
Key Terms:
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (kal va-chomer) = A fortiori inference — one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Derasha: “upon it” — frankincense on the omer, not on the libation offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְשַׂמְתָּ עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה.
English Translation:
Similarly, the phrase “and lay frankincense upon it” indicates that one must place frankincense “upon it,” but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now addresses the second half of the same verse. Just as “upon it” limited the oil requirement, the phrase “lay frankincense upon it” similarly restricts frankincense to the omer offering and excludes the libation meal offering. This mirrors the previous derivation but in reverse — here it is frankincense being excluded from an offering that does have oil.
Key Terms:
- וְשַׂמְתָּ (vesamta) = “And you shall place” — the verb indicating the frankincense requirement
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
Kal va-chomer refuted: libation offering should logically require frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן שֶׁמֶן – טָעוּן לְבוֹנָה, מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁטְּעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה.
English Translation:
As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if the shewbread, for which the halakha is more lenient than the meal offering brought with libations in that it does not require oil, nevertheless requires frankincense, then concerning the meal offering brought with libations, which does require oil, is it not logical that it should also require frankincense? Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” to indicate that one places frankincense upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the mirror-image kal va-chomer: if the shewbread, which doesn’t need oil (a more lenient status), still needs frankincense, then the libation meal offering, which does need oil, should certainly need frankincense too! Again, the verse “upon it” breaks this logical inference. These two parallel derivations demonstrate how Scripture prevents the two “middle category” offerings from being upgraded to the “both” category through logical argument.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (talmud lomar) = “Therefore the verse states” — formula introducing a scriptural refutation of a logical argument
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
“Meal offering” includes the eighth-day inauguration; “it is” excludes the two loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי לִלְבוֹנָה, ״הִיא״ – לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה.
English Translation:
In the phrase “it is a meal offering,” the term “meal offering” serves to include in the obligation of frankincense the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. With regard to that offering the verse states: “And a meal offering mixed with oil” (Leviticus 9:4), but it does not mention frankincense. Therefore, the term “meal offering” written in the context of the omer meal offering serves to apply the requirement of frankincense to the meal offering of the eighth day of inauguration. And the term “it is” in the same phrase serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita extracts two more rulings from the end of Leviticus 2:15: “it is a meal offering” (mincha hi). The word “mincha” (meal offering) is inclusive — it brings the eighth-day inauguration offering under the frankincense requirement even though frankincense isn’t mentioned in its own verse. The word “hi” (it is) is restrictive — it excludes the two loaves of Shavuot from both oil and frankincense. Every word in the verse is thus assigned a specific halakhic function.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי (minchat shemini) = Meal offering of the eighth day — brought during the Tabernacle’s inauguration (Leviticus 9:4)
- הִיא (hi) = “It is” — a restrictive term in Talmudic hermeneutics
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: maybe “upon it” excludes the priests’ meal offering, not the shewbread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: ״עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן. אֵימָא: ״עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁמֶן!
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the halakhot stated in the baraita: The Master said that the phrase: “And you shall put oil upon it,” teaches that one places oil upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil on the shewbread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why does the baraita conclude that this verse excludes the shewbread? One can say instead: “Upon it” you shall place oil, but one does not place oil on the meal offering of priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now scrutinizes the baraita’s assumption. Why assume “upon it” excludes the shewbread from the oil requirement rather than the priests’ meal offering? The restrictive word “upon it” must exclude something, but the choice of which offering to exclude is not self-evident. This launches a detailed comparative analysis of which offerings are more similar to the omer and should therefore be included.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא (eima) = “Say” — introduces an alternative interpretation challenging the assumed reading
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
The priests’ meal offering should be included due to six similarities with the omer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן, כְּלִי,
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of oil, as the meal offering of priests is similar in many ways to the omer meal offering that is the subject of the verse. The Gemara details the points of similarity between the two types of meal offerings: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas each of the twelve loaves of the shewbread is prepared from two-tenths of an ephah. Furthermore, both are kneaded and consecrated in a service vessel, whereas the shewbread is not consecrated in a service vessel but rather is baked in an oven in the Temple courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara employs the method of “mah matzinu” — comparing shared characteristics to determine which offering the verse should include. The priests’ meal offering shares two key features with the omer: both use a tenth of an ephah (isaron) of flour, and both are consecrated in a service vessel (keli). The shewbread differs on both counts — it uses two-tenths per loaf and is baked directly. This begins a list of similarities that will total six.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (isaron) = A tenth of an ephah — the standard flour measure for most meal offerings
- כְּלִי (keli) = Service vessel — a sacred vessel used for consecrating offerings
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Continuation: outside, change of form, hagasha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּץ, וְצוּרָה, הַגָּשָׁה,
English Translation:
Thirdly, both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering are sacrificed outside the Sanctuary on the outer altar, whereas the shewbread is placed on the Table inside the Sanctuary. And in both cases the halakha of a change in form applies, i.e., if they were left overnight without being sacrificed they are disqualified, whereas the shewbread is left on the Table for a week. Furthermore, in both cases there is the obligation of bringing the meal offering near to the lower part of the altar, at the southwest corner, an obligation that does not apply to the shewbread.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three more points of similarity: (1) Both are offered outside the Sanctuary on the outer altar, unlike the shewbread which is placed on the Table inside. (2) Both are subject to disqualification through change of form (leaving them overnight), unlike the shewbread which sits for an entire week. (3) Both require hagasha — bringing the offering near the southwest corner of the altar — a ritual not performed with the shewbread. These distinctions highlight how different the shewbread is from standard meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- הַגָּשָׁה (hagasha) = Bringing near — the ritual of presenting the meal offering at the southwest corner of the altar
- צוּרָה (tzura) = Form — refers to the principle that an offering left overnight changes form and is disqualified
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Sixth similarity: both are placed in fire
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִישִּׁים.
English Translation:
And finally, some portion of both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering is placed in the fire, as the handful of the omer meal offering is sacrificed, while the entire meal offering of a priest is burned on the altar. By contrast, the shewbread is not sacrificed on the altar at all. In total, there are therefore six points of similarity between the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering, all of which are not shared by the shewbread. Consequently, the requirement of oil stated with regard to the omer meal offering should also apply to the meal offering of priests, not to the shewbread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sixth and final point: both offerings involve fire on the altar — the omer’s handful is burned and the entire priests’ meal offering is consumed by fire. The shewbread, by contrast, never touches the altar fire. With six shared characteristics between the priests’ meal offering and the omer (isaron, keli, outside, form, hagasha, fire), none shared with the shewbread, the Gemara concludes that “upon it” should exclude the shewbread and include the priests’ offering.
Key Terms:
- אִישִּׁים (ishim) = Fire-offerings — portions placed upon the altar fire
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-argument: shewbread has six similarities too — communal, obligatory, impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן צִיבּוּרָא, חוֹבָה, טַמְיָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara counters: On the contrary [adderabba], it stands to reason that the shewbread, not the meal offering of priests, should be included in the requirement of oil, as the shewbread has points of similarity with the omer meal offering in that both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is an individual meal offering. Furthermore, they are both obligatory offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is voluntary. Additionally, both can sometimes be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, as the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is disregarded in cases involving the public. Like the offering of an individual, the meal offering of priests is not brought in a state of impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pushes back with a counter-list favoring the shewbread. Three similarities with the omer: (1) Both are communal (tzibbur) offerings, while the priests’ is individual. (2) Both are obligatory (chova), while the priests’ is voluntary. (3) Both override ritual impurity (tum’a) when necessary because communal offerings push aside impurity, while individual offerings cannot. This sets up a “tiebreaker” situation.
Key Terms:
- צִיבּוּרָא (tzibbura) = Communal — offerings brought on behalf of the entire community
- טַמְיָא (tamya) = Impurity — communal offerings may be brought even in a state of ritual impurity
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Continuation: eaten, piggul, Shabbat — six counter-similarities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָכֵיל פִּיגּוּלָא, בְּשַׁבְּתָא.
English Translation:
Also, there is the halakha that both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are eaten by priests, while the meal offering of priests is entirely burned on the altar. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] applies to both the shewbread and the omer meal offering, but not to the meal offering of priests. And finally, both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are brought even on Shabbat, as they are communal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is not sacrificed on Shabbat. Accordingly, there are also six points of similarity between the shewbread and the omer meal offering. Why, then, isn’t the verse interpreted as including the shewbread in the requirement of oil, and excluding the meal offering of priests?
קלאוד על הדף:
Three more similarities bring the shewbread’s total to six as well: (4) Both are eaten by priests, while the priests’ meal offering is entirely burned. (5) The laws of piggul (improper time-intent) apply to both, but not to the priests’ offering. (6) Both are brought on Shabbat, while the priests’ offering is not. With six points on each side, the comparison is a draw, and the Gemara needs a tiebreaker to determine which offering the verse includes.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = Improper intent regarding time — if a priest intends to eat the offering after its designated time, it becomes piggul and incurs karet
- אִישִּׁים (ishim) = Fire-offerings — the priests’ meal offering is entirely consumed by fire
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “nefesh” (anyone) includes individual offerings like the priests’ meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Even so, it stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests, as in the same passage that deals with the omer meal offering the verse states: “And when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). This verse includes all meal offerings of individuals in the halakhot of meal offerings stated in this chapter, including the meal offering of priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The tiebreaker is found in the broader context of the chapter. Leviticus 2:1 opens with “nefesh” (a person/anyone), which encompasses all individual meal offerings. Since the priests’ meal offering is an individual offering, it falls under this inclusive term. The shewbread, as a communal offering, does not. Therefore, despite equal numbers of comparative similarities, the textual context tips the scales toward including the priests’ meal offering in the oil requirement and excluding the shewbread.
Key Terms:
- נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) = “A person/anyone” — inclusive term in Leviticus 2:1 encompassing all individual meal offerings
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: maybe “upon it” excludes the priests’ meal offering from frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: ״עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה. אֵימָא: ״עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים לְבוֹנָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. The Master said: The phrase: “And lay frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 2:15), teaches that one must place frankincense upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations. The Gemara asks: Why does the baraita state that this verse excludes the meal offering brought with libations? One can say: One places frankincense upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering of priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now applies the same challenge to the frankincense derivation. The baraita said “upon it” excludes the libation meal offering from frankincense — but why not say it excludes the priests’ meal offering instead? This parallel structure mirrors the oil discussion, and the Gemara will provide a parallel set of comparative arguments.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים (minchat nesakhim) = Libation meal offering — accompanies animal sacrifices
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Four similarities between the priests’ offering and the omer for frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל בְּלוֹג.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of frankincense, as the meal offering of priests is similar in many respects to the omer meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas the libations that accompany meal offerings come in various amounts, depending on the type of animal offering they accompany. Furthermore, in both cases the flour is mixed with a log of oil, whereas in the case of the meal offering brought with libations, the amount of oil mixed with the flour depends on the type of animal offering it accompanies.
קלאוד על הדף:
For the frankincense derivation, the Gemara provides a parallel comparative analysis. Two similarities so far: (1) Both use a fixed measure of one isaron (tenth of an ephah), while the libation offering varies by animal type. (2) Both are mixed with exactly one log of oil, while the libation offering’s oil quantity varies. These fixed-measure similarities distinguish both from the variable-quantity libation offerings.
Key Terms:
- בָּלוּל בְּלוֹג (balul b’log) = Mixed with a log — a log is a specific liquid measure (approximately 300 ml) of oil
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
Continuation: hagasha and self-standing — four total similarities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוּגָּשׁ, בִּגְלַל עֶצֶם.
English Translation:
Additionally, both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering are brought near to the altar, a ritual that is not performed with the meal offering brought with libations. And finally, both are sacrificed due to themselves, i.e., they do not accompany any other offering, whereas meal offerings brought with libations accompany animal offerings. There are therefore four points of similarity between the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering that do not apply to the meal offering brought with libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more similarities complete the list: (3) Both undergo hagasha (bringing near the altar), which is not done with the libation meal offering. (4) Both are standalone offerings — they are brought for their own sake, not as accompaniments to animal sacrifices. The libation meal offering, by contrast, always accompanies an animal offering. These four points favor including the priests’ meal offering in the frankincense requirement.
Key Terms:
- מוּגָּשׁ (mugash) = Brought near — subject to the ritual of hagasha
- בִּגְלַל עֶצֶם (biglal etzem) = Due to itself — an offering brought independently, not accompanying another
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
Counter: libation offering shares four similarities too — communal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנְחַת נְסָכִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן צִיבּוּרָא,
English Translation:
The Gemara counters: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the meal offering brought with libations and not the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of frankincense. This is because the meal offering brought with libations is similar to the omer meal offering in that both the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is that of an individual.
קלאוד על הדף:
As before, the Gemara presents a counter-argument. The libation meal offering also shares similarities with the omer that the priests’ offering does not. The first point: both are communal offerings. This mirrors the structure of the oil discussion but with different offerings being compared. The Gemara will enumerate four counter-similarities to match the four already presented.
Key Terms:
- אַדְּרַבָּה (adderabba) = “On the contrary” — introduces a counter-argument reversing the proposed conclusion
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא
Continuation: obligatory, impurity, Shabbat — four counter-similarities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוֹבָה, וְאִיטַּמִּי. בְּשַׁבְּתָא.
English Translation:
Furthermore, both the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering are obligatory offerings, while the meal offering of priests is a gift offering. And both may sometimes be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, as the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is disregarded in cases involving the public; whereas the meal offering of priests must be brought in a state of purity because it is an offering of an individual. Finally, both are brought even on Shabbat, whereas the meal offering of priests may not be brought on Shabbat. Accordingly, as there are also four points of similarity between the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering, one can ask why the meal offering brought with libations is not included in the requirement of frankincense.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three more points complete the counter-list: (2) Both are obligatory, not voluntary. (3) Both may override impurity as communal offerings. (4) Both are brought on Shabbat. With four similarities on each side, the comparison is again tied — the priests’ offering matches the omer in quantity and ritual details, while the libation offering matches it in status characteristics. The Gemara again needs the “nefesh” tiebreaker.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבָה (chova) = Obligatory — a required offering, as opposed to a voluntary gift
Segment 24
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “nefesh” again tips the scales toward the individual offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests in the requirement of frankincense, as the verse states: “Anyone” (Leviticus 2:1), which is referring to all meal offerings of individuals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same tiebreaker resolves this parallel dispute. The word “nefesh” (anyone) in Leviticus 2:1 encompasses all individual meal offerings, including the priests’ meal offering. Since the libation meal offering is a communal offering, it falls outside this inclusive term. This elegant solution — using the same verse to resolve both the oil and frankincense discussions — demonstrates the systematic coherence of the baraita’s hermeneutic framework.
Key Terms:
- נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) = “Anyone” — the decisive textual element that resolves the tie in favor of individual offerings
Segment 25
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: maybe “meal offering” excludes rather than includes the eighth-day offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי לִלְבוֹנָה, וְאֵימָא – לְהוֹצִיא? הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבּוֹת – שַׁפִּיר.
English Translation:
The baraita teaches that the term: “Meal offering” (Leviticus 2:15), serves to include the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle in the requirement of frankincense. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this term serves to exclude the meal offering of the eighth day from the requirement of frankincense. The Gemara is puzzled by this suggestion: What is this suggestion? Granted, if you say that the verse serves to include the meal offering of the eighth day of inauguration in the requirement of frankincense, it works out well. This is because the only reason one could know that the requirement of frankincense applies would be that the halakha of this meal offering, which was brought on one occasion, is derived from the halakha of a meal offering that is brought in all generations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions whether the word “mincha” (meal offering) could serve to exclude rather than include the inauguration offering. But this suggestion is immediately deemed illogical: if we’re including, there’s a reason — a one-time offering needs a special verse to be included under permanent regulations. The Gemara will show that exclusion makes no sense here.
Key Terms:
- שָׁעָה (sha’a) = Temporary/transitory — refers to one-time offerings like the inauguration
Segment 26
TYPE: תירוץ
Refutation: transitory offerings aren’t derived from permanent ones without a verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְהוֹצִיא – לְמָה לִי? שָׁעָה מִדּוֹרוֹת לָא יָלְפִינַן.
English Translation:
But if you say that the verse serves to exclude the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle from the requirement of frankincense, why do I need a verse for this purpose? There is a principle that we do not learn the requirements of transitory offerings from the requirement of offerings of later generations. In other words, even without this verse one would not have thought that the requirement of frankincense applies to the meal offering of the eighth day, so there is no need for the verse to exclude this possibility.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara invokes a fundamental hermeneutical principle: transitory (sha’a) offerings cannot be derived from permanent (dorot) ones. Since the eighth-day inauguration offering was a one-time event, we would never have assumed it requires frankincense based on the permanent omer offering. Therefore, a verse to exclude it would be superfluous. The word “mincha” must serve the opposite function — to include this transitory offering, which otherwise would not have been subject to the frankincense requirement.
Key Terms:
- שָׁעָה מִדּוֹרוֹת לָא יָלְפִינַן (sha’a midorot la yalfnan) = We do not derive transitory rulings from permanent ones — a principle limiting the scope of hermeneutical derivation
Segment 27
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: maybe “it is” excludes the priests’ meal offering, not the two loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הִיא״ – לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה. וְאֵימָא לְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים? מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן,
English Translation:
The baraita teaches that the term: “It is” (Leviticus 2:15), serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this serves to exclude the meal offering of priests from the requirements of oil and frankincense. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in these requirements, while the two loaves should be excluded, as the meal offering of priests is similar to the omer meal offering in several respects that do not apply to the two loaves. The Gemara elaborates: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, unlike the two loaves, which are prepared from two-tenths.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third round of the same challenge-and-response pattern. The Gemara asks why “it is” (hi) excludes the two loaves rather than the priests’ meal offering. The answer begins another comparative analysis: the priests’ offering shares more features with the omer. First similarity: both use one isaron of flour, while the two loaves use two-tenths each. This launches the most extensive comparison yet.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (shtei halechem) = Two loaves — the leavened bread offering of Shavuot
Segment 28
TYPE: תירוץ
Six similarities: vessel, matza, self-standing, hagasha, fire
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּלִי, מַצָּה, וְעֶצֶם, הַגָּשָׁה, וְאִישִּׁים.
English Translation:
Furthermore, both are consecrated in a service vessel, unlike the two loaves, which are consecrated by being baked in an oven. Both come as matza, whereas the two loaves are leaven. And both come due to themselves, not with any other offering, whereas the two loaves come together with the lambs on Shavuot. With regard to both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering, there is an obligation to bring them near to the altar, which does not apply to the two loaves. And finally, they are both placed in the fire atop the altar, whereas the two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Five more similarities (total six): (2) Both are consecrated in a service vessel, not baked in an oven. (3) Both are matza (unleavened), while the two loaves are chametz (leavened). (4) Both are standalone offerings, while the two loaves accompany the Shavuot lambs. (5) Both require hagasha. (6) Both involve fire on the altar. The matza/chametz distinction is particularly noteworthy — it’s a fundamental difference in the nature of the offering itself.
Key Terms:
- מַצָּה (matza) = Unleavened bread — most meal offerings must be unleavened
- אִישִּׁים (ishim) = Fire-offerings — portions consumed on the altar
Segment 29
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-argument begins: on the contrary, the two loaves should be included
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה,
English Translation:
The Gemara counters: On the contrary,
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief segment is the pivot to the counter-argument, which will be fully developed at the start of amud bet. The Gemara is about to present an extensive list of similarities between the two loaves and the omer — a list that will actually be longer than the six points just enumerated for the priests’ meal offering. The single word “adderabba” signals that a powerful rebuttal is coming.
Key Terms:
- אַדְּרַבָּה (adderabba) = “On the contrary” — a standard Talmudic term introducing a reversal of the proposed argument
Amud Bet (59b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
The two loaves share eleven similarities with the omer — communal, obligatory, impurity, eaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: צִיבּוּר, חוֹבָה, טַמְיָא, דַּאֲכַל,
English Translation:
it stands to reason that the two loaves, not the meal offering of priests, should be included in the requirement of oil and frankincense, as the two loaves have points of similarity with the omer meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: The two loaves and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is a meal offering of an individual. Both are obligatory offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is a gift offering. Both are sometimes sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, while the meal offering of priests may not be. Also, they are similar in that priests eat the two loaves and the omer meal offering, whereas the meal offering of priests is entirely burned upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Amud bet opens by continuing the counter-argument from the end of amud aleph. The Gemara begins listing the two loaves’ similarities with the omer: (1) communal, (2) obligatory, (3) may override impurity, (4) eaten by priests. Each point highlights a way the two loaves are more structurally similar to the omer than the priests’ meal offering, which is individual, voluntary, must be pure, and is entirely burned.
Key Terms:
- דַּאֲכַל (d’akhal) = That is eaten — both the omer remainder and two loaves are consumed by priests
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Continuation: piggul, Shabbat, permits, waving, Eretz Yisrael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פִּיגּוּלָא, בְּשַׁבְּתָא, מַתִּיר, תְּנוּפָה, בָּאָרֶץ,
English Translation:
Furthermore, the halakha of piggul applies to the two loaves and the omer meal offering, but not to the meal offering of priests. And these offerings are sacrificed even on Shabbat, whereas the meal offering of priests is not. Additionally, both the two loaves and the omer meal offering render other items permitted, as the omer meal offering renders permitted the consumption of the new crop and the two loaves render permitted the sacrifice of meal offerings from the new crop; whereas the meal offering of priests does not render anything permitted. And both cases include the requirement of waving, while the meal offering of priests is not waved. In addition, the two loaves and the omer meal offering must come from the produce of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the meal offering of priests may consist of produce from outside Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
Five more powerful similarities: (5) piggul applies to both, (6) both override Shabbat, (7) both serve as “matir” — they permit something else (the omer permits eating new grain, the two loaves permit new-grain meal offerings), (8) both require waving (tenufa), (9) both must come from Eretz Yisrael produce. These are significant functional similarities that the priests’ meal offering does not share.
Key Terms:
- מַתִּיר (matir) = Permits — an offering that enables something previously forbidden
- תְּנוּפָה (tenufa) = Waving — the ritual of lifting and waving the offering before God
- בָּאָרֶץ (ba’aretz) = From the Land [of Israel] — a restriction on the source of produce
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Continuation: fixed time, new crop — eleven total, outnumbering six
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּזְמַן חָדָשׁ, וְהָנֵי נְפִישָׁן.
English Translation:
Also, the two loaves and the omer meal offering are sacrificed at a fixed time, as the omer meal offering is brought on the day after the first Festival day of Passover and the two loaves are sacrificed on Shavuot. By contrast, there is no fixed time for a meal offering of priests. Finally, the two loaves and the omer meal offering must come from the new crop, whereas the meal offering of priests may be brought from the old crop. And these eleven points of similarity between the two loaves and the omer meal offering are more numerous than the six points of similarity between the meal offerings of priests and the omer meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final two similarities: (10) both have a fixed calendar date, and (11) both must come from the new crop (chadash). The Gemara tallies the score: eleven similarities for the two loaves versus only six for the priests’ meal offering. This is the strongest counter-argument yet — not merely equal but nearly double the number of shared characteristics. How can the baraita still include the priests’ offering and exclude the two loaves?
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ (chadash) = New crop — grain harvested after the previous omer offering
- נְפִישָׁן (nefishan) = Are more numerous — the Gemara explicitly notes the quantitative advantage
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “nefesh” tips the balance yet again
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests in the requirement of oil and frankincense, as in the passage discussing the omer meal offering the verse states: “Anyone.” This verse is referring to all meal offerings of individuals, including meal offerings of priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
For the third time, “nefesh” (anyone) serves as the decisive tiebreaker — or rather, the decisive override. Even though the two loaves share eleven similarities versus six, the textual anchor of “nefesh” in Leviticus 2:1 encompasses all individual offerings, including the priests’. The two loaves, as a communal offering, cannot be brought under this inclusive term. This demonstrates a key principle: scriptural language can override even a preponderance of logical similarities.
Key Terms:
- נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) = “Anyone/a person” — the consistent tiebreaker throughout this sugya
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: liability for placing oil and frankincense on a sinner’s/sota’s meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ וְחַיָּיב עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְחַיָּיב עַל לְבוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן – פְּסָלָהּ, לְבוֹנָה – יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: And if one places oil or frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner or on the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he is liable to be flogged for violating the prohibition against placing the oil by itself, and he is liable to be flogged for violating the prohibition against placing the frankincense by itself, as these are two separate prohibitions. If one placed oil upon the meal offering he has disqualified it, but if one placed frankincense upon the meal offering he should gather the frankincense and remove it. In this manner, the meal offering can be salvaged.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna addresses what happens when someone violates the prohibition against adding oil or frankincense to the sinner’s or sota’s meal offerings. Two key rulings: (1) Oil and frankincense are treated as separate prohibitions — one receives lashes for each independently. (2) Oil permanently disqualifies the offering because it is absorbed into the flour and cannot be removed, while frankincense can be gathered up and removed, leaving the meal offering valid. This practical distinction between absorbable and removable substances is a central theme of the coming Gemara discussion.
Key Terms:
- פְּסָלָהּ (pesalah) = Disqualified it — the offering is permanently invalidated
- יִלְקְטֶנָּה (yilkatenah) = He should gather it — the frankincense can be removed to salvage the offering
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Oil on the remainder doesn’t violate; vessel on vessel doesn’t disqualify
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה; נָתַן כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי – לֹא פְּסָלָהּ.
English Translation:
Furthermore, one violates the prohibition only by placing oil on the meal offering prior to the removal of the handful; if he placed oil on its remainder he does not violate a prohibition. If one placed a vessel with oil on top of a vessel that contains a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering brought by a sota he did not disqualify the meal offering, as the oil was not placed on the meal offering itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna adds two important qualifications. First, the prohibition applies only before the handful (kometz) is removed — once the handful has been taken, placing oil on the remaining flour (shirayim) does not constitute a violation. Second, indirect contact doesn’t count: stacking a vessel of oil on top of the meal offering vessel does not disqualify the offering because the oil never physically touches the flour. Both rulings define the boundaries of “placing upon” (simah al).
Key Terms:
- שְׁיָרֶיהָ (shirayeha) = Its remainder — the portion left after the handful is removed
- כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי (keli al gabei keli) = Vessel upon vessel — indirect contact that does not constitute “placing upon”
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: oil on the sinner’s offering disqualifies it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״, וְאִם שָׂם – פָּסַל.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified if oil is placed upon it, but if frankincense is placed upon it he should gather and remove the frankincense. The Sages taught a baraita: The verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). The phrase “he shall place no oil upon it” teaches that one may not place oil on the meal offering of a sinner, and that if he did place oil on this meal offering he has thereby disqualified it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a baraita that derives the mishna’s rulings from Leviticus 5:11. The verse has three clauses — the oil prohibition, the frankincense prohibition, and the phrase “for it is a sin offering” (ki chatat hi). The baraita will show how each clause serves a distinct purpose, with the key question being whether adding these substances merely violates a prohibition or also disqualifies the offering.
Key Terms:
- לֹא יָשִׂים (lo yasim) = “He shall not place” — the negative commandment regarding oil on the sinner’s meal offering
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
“For it is a sin offering” — frankincense doesn’t disqualify; “it is” — but oil does
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְאִם נָתַן – פָּסַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי חַטָּאת״. יָכוֹל אַף בְּשֶׁמֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הִיא״.
English Translation:
One might have thought that the same applies to the clause: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” and that if one gave frankincense on this meal offering he has consequently also disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states: “For it is a sin offering,” from which it is derived that even if one placed frankincense on it, it remains a sin offering, which is not the case if he placed oil upon it. One might have thought the same would also apply with regard to oil placed on a meal offering of a sinner, that in this case as well the meal offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: “It is a sin offering,” to indicate that although it is still deemed a sin offering when frankincense is placed on it, this is not the case when oil is placed on it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita performs a precise textual analysis of Leviticus 5:11. “Ki chatat” (for it is a sin offering) teaches that the offering retains its sacred status even with frankincense — meaning it is not disqualified. But “hi” (it is) limits this saving clause: it applies only to frankincense, not to oil. Oil permanently disqualifies because it is absorbed and inseparable. This elegant reading extracts two opposite rulings from a single phrase.
Key Terms:
- כִּי חַטָּאת (ki chatat) = “For it is a sin offering” — the clause that preserves the offering’s validity despite frankincense
- הִיא (hi) = “It is” — the restrictive word that limits the saving clause to frankincense only
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Rationale: oil is absorbed and irremovable; frankincense can be gathered
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לִפְסוֹל בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּלְהַכְשִׁיר בַּלְּבוֹנָה? פּוֹסֵל אֲנִי בַּשֶּׁמֶן, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטוֹ, וּמַכְשִׁיר אֲנִי בַּלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ.
English Translation:
The baraita asks: And what did you see to interpret the verse in this manner, to disqualify the meal offering due to the addition of oil but to render it valid with the addition of frankincense, when one could have equally drawn the opposite conclusion? The baraita answers: This interpretation is logical for the following reason: I disqualify it due to the addition of oil, since the oil is absorbed in the flour and it is impossible to gather it and remove it from the meal offering. But I render it valid with the addition of frankincense, as it is possible to gather the frankincense and remove it from the meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita anticipates the objection: why read the verse this way and not the reverse? The answer is practical and physical: oil, once poured on flour, is absorbed and cannot be separated — the damage is irreversible. Frankincense, being a solid resin, sits on top and can be picked off — the offering can be restored to its original state. The verse’s distinction between the two substances aligns with their physical properties.
Key Terms:
- אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטוֹ (i efshar lelikto) = It is impossible to gather it — oil is absorbed and inseparable
- אֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ (efshar leloktah) = It is possible to gather it — frankincense can be physically removed
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא
Dilemma: ground frankincense that cannot be gathered — what is the halakha?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה שְׁחוּקָה, מַהוּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטָהּ, וְהָא לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטָהּ? אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִיבַּלְעָא, וְהָא נָמֵי לָא מִיבַּלְעָא?
English Translation:
§ Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one placed frankincense that had been ground into a fine powder, which cannot be gathered up and removed, on the meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Is the reason that a meal offering on which frankincense was placed is generally valid due to the fact that it is possible to gather the frankincense, and since in this case it is impossible to gather it the meal offering is disqualified? Or perhaps the reason that the meal offering is usually not disqualified is due to the fact that the dry frankincense is not absorbed by the flour of the meal offering, and therefore, as this ground frankincense is also not absorbed, the meal offering is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar Rav Huna poses an elegant test case that distinguishes between two possible rationales. Normal frankincense is both non-absorbed AND removable. Ground frankincense is non-absorbed BUT not removable. If the meal offering remains valid, it must be because non-absorption is the key factor. If disqualified, it’s because removability is what matters. This is a classic Talmudic method of isolating variables through a borderline case.
Key Terms:
- לְבוֹנָה שְׁחוּקָה (levona shechuka) = Ground frankincense — frankincense crushed to a fine powder that cannot be gathered
- מִיבַּלְעָא (mibal’a) = Absorbed — whether a substance penetrates and merges with the flour
Segment 11
TYPE: ראיה
Attempted proof from the mishna: “he should gather it” implies removability is key
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: וּלְבוֹנָה יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the mishna: And if one placed frankincense upon the meal offering he should gather and remove it, and it is then valid. This indicates that the status of the meal offering depends on whether or not the frankincense can be gathered up. Since ground frankincense cannot be gathered and removed from the flour, the meal offering should be disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma from the mishna itself. The mishna’s instruction to “gather it” (yilkatenah) seems to indicate that removability is the operative reason — if you can’t gather it, the offering would be disqualified. This would resolve the dilemma in favor of the first possibility: ground frankincense would disqualify the offering because it cannot be removed.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע (ta shema) = “Come and hear” — introduces an attempted proof from an authoritative source
Segment 12
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: perhaps there are two reasons — non-absorption AND removability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּלְמָא חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא, דְּלָא מִיבַּלְעָא, וְעוֹד – יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps there are two reasons for this halakha but only one of them is explicitly stated in the mishna, as the tanna states one reason and adds another. One reason is that the Torah did not disqualify a meal offering upon which an improper item was placed, if that item is not absorbed in the flour. And another reason the meal offering is not disqualified by frankincense is that one can gather up the frankincense and restore the meal offering to its former state.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proof by suggesting the mishna mentions only one of two independent reasons. The frankincense doesn’t disqualify because (1) it isn’t absorbed AND (2) it can be gathered up. The mishna only mentions the second reason, but the first may also be operative. Under this reading, ground frankincense — which is not absorbed even though it cannot be gathered — would still not disqualify the offering. The dilemma remains unresolved.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא וְעוֹד (chada ve’od) = “One and another” — the tanna states one reason while implying an additional one
Segment 13
TYPE: ראיה
Second attempted proof from the baraita: “it is possible to gather it”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַכְשִׁיר אֲנִי בַּלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָא אָמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, as the aforementioned baraita states: I render it valid with the addition of frankincense, as it is possible to gather the frankincense and remove it from the meal offering. This also indicates that the reason the meal offering is valid is that the frankincense can be gathered up, and since ground frankincense cannot be gathered up the meal offering should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as here too one can say that the tanna of the baraita states one reason and adds another. The justification he states, that the frankincense can be gathered up, may be in addition to the reason that only a substance that is absorbed by the meal offering disqualifies it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second proof is attempted from the baraita (segment 9), which also emphasizes the ability to gather the frankincense. But the same rejection applies: the baraita may be citing one reason while the primary operative principle is non-absorption. The Gemara applies the “chada ve’od” defense again, maintaining that both sources are inconclusive.
Key Terms:
- הָכָא נָמֵי (hakha nami) = “Here too” — applying the same rejection to a second attempted proof
Segment 14
TYPE: מסקנא
Resolution: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings a baraita proving removability is the key factor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תַּנְיָא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה – מְלַקֵּט אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה, וּכְשֵׁרָה. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא לִיקֵּט לְבוֹנָתָהּ חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about Rabba bar Rav Huna’s dilemma? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota upon which one placed frankincense, he should gather up the frankincense and the meal offering is valid. And if, before he gathered its frankincense, the priest performing the service had intent to sacrifice its handful or eat its remainder either beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet, unlike the usual case of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul]. This is because at the time the priest had the improper intent the meal offering was not valid, as it had frankincense upon it at that time.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves the dilemma with a decisive baraita. The key evidence: if a priest has improper intent (machshava) BEFORE the frankincense is gathered, the offering is disqualified but without karet liability — because at that moment, the offering was invalid (due to the frankincense still being present). This proves that while frankincense sits on the offering, the offering is actually in a disqualified state. If non-absorption alone were sufficient to preserve validity, the offering should be valid even with frankincense present. Therefore, removability is the key factor — and ground frankincense disqualifies.
Key Terms:
- חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ (chutz lizemano) = Beyond its designated time — intent to consume after the time limit, leading to piggul
- חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ (chutz limkomo) = Outside its designated area — intent to consume in a wrong location
Segment 15
TYPE: מסקנא
After gathering frankincense: improper intent for time = piggul with karet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם מִשֶּׁלִּיקֵּט לְבוֹנָתָהּ, מְחַשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
And if after he gathered its frankincense the priest has intent to sacrifice its handful or to eat its remainder outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet. But if he had intent to sacrifice its handful or to eat its remainder beyond its designated time, it is piggul, and one who eats it is liable to receive karet for it. This baraita indicates that until the frankincense is removed from the meal offering, the meal offering is disqualified. This proves that the reason a meal offering upon which frankincense has been placed is valid is due to the ability to remove the frankincense, and not because it is not absorbed. This resolves Rabba bar Rav Huna’s dilemma: If ground frankincense is placed on the meal offering of a sinner, the meal offering is disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s contrast is conclusive. After gathering the frankincense, the offering regains full validity — improper time-intent now creates piggul with karet liability, and improper place-intent disqualifies without karet (the normal rules). The change in status from “before gathering” to “after gathering” proves the offering’s validity depends on the frankincense being removable. Ground frankincense, which cannot be gathered, would therefore permanently disqualify the offering.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = Invalid due to time-intent — offering disqualified with karet for consumption
- כָּרֵת (karet) = Excision — the severe divine punishment for eating piggul
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: if the offering is disqualified by frankincense, it is “rejected” — improper intent shouldn’t matter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִיהְוֵי פַּךְ, וְאַמַּאי פָּסְלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה? דָּחוּי הוּא!
English Translation:
§ The baraita teaches that if the priest had improper intent while there was frankincense on the meal offering, the meal offering is disqualified. The Gemara challenges: But let this meal offering of a sinner that has frankincense on it be like a meal offering on which oil had been poured from a cruse. Such a meal offering is disqualified. Why is it stated that the improper intent disqualifies the meal offering in the case where there is frankincense on it? It is already rejected from its consecrated state by the presence of the frankincense, and therefore the improper intent should have no effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a conceptual problem with the baraita. If the meal offering is already disqualified by the presence of frankincense, it should be considered “dachui” (rejected). A rejected offering cannot be further affected by improper intent — you can’t disqualify something already disqualified. So why does the baraita say improper intent matters while the frankincense is present? This launches a discussion of the important principle of “dichui” (rejection) in sacrificial law.
Key Terms:
- דָּחוּי (dachui) = Rejected — a sacrifice that has been disqualified from its consecrated status
- פַּךְ (pach) = Cruse — a vessel from which oil might be poured, used as an analogy for disqualification
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת
Abaye: the Torah still calls it a “sin offering”; Rava: this follows Chanan the Egyptian
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״חַטָּאת״ קַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי הוּא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּחוּיִין.
English Translation:
Abaye says: Even though the meal offering is disqualified while there is frankincense on it, nevertheless the Merciful One calls it “a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11) even in that state, and therefore the improper intent has an effect with regard to it. Rava said there is a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥanan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two Amoraim offer different solutions. Abaye argues from the verse itself: even in its disqualified state, the Torah still calls this offering a “sin offering” (chatat), which gives it a residual sacred status that can be affected by improper intent. Rava takes a different approach: the baraita follows Chanan the Egyptian, who rejects the entire principle of dichui — he holds that temporary disqualification never leads to permanent rejection. These represent fundamentally different ways of understanding when an offering can be “rescued.”
Key Terms:
- חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי (Chanan haMitzri) = Chanan the Egyptian — a Tanna who rejects the principle of dichui (rejection)
- דְּחוּיִין (dechuyyin) = Rejection — the principle that a temporarily disqualified offering is permanently rejected
Segment 18
TYPE: ראיה
Chanan the Egyptian’s view: even blood in the cup can be paired with a new scapegoat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ דָּם בַּכּוֹס, מֵבִיא חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַגְרָלָה וּמְזַוֵּוג לוֹ.
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Ḥanan the Egyptian says: In the event that the scapegoat of Yom Kippur was lost, even if the blood of its counterpart that is sacrificed to God has already been slaughtered and its blood has been collected in the cup, the blood is not rejected, but rather one brings another scapegoat as its counterpart and pairs it with the goat that has already been slaughtered, and the blood is sprinkled.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita illustrates Chanan’s rejection of dichui through a dramatic example from Yom Kippur. When the scapegoat (the one sent to Azazel) is lost after its counterpart has been slaughtered and the blood collected, most authorities would say the blood is “rejected” because its paired goat is gone. Chanan says no — bring a new scapegoat and pair it with the existing blood. Temporary loss of the partner doesn’t permanently disqualify the blood. This principle, applied to our case, means the frankincense-contaminated offering is not permanently rejected.
Key Terms:
- הַגְרָלָה (hagralah) = Drawing lots — the process of assigning the two Yom Kippur goats by lottery
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ashi: anything within one’s power to remedy is not “rejected”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ – לָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said that there is a different answer: Any matter that is within one’s power to remedy is not deemed rejected. In this case, since one can gather up the frankincense from the meal offering it is not rejected as an offering, and therefore the priest’s improper intention is significant.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi offers a third approach that doesn’t require rejecting the principle of dichui entirely. His middle-ground position: dichui applies only when the disqualification is beyond human control. When a person can fix the problem — like gathering up the frankincense — the offering is never truly “rejected” because the remedy is available. This is a more nuanced position than Chanan’s blanket rejection of dichui, and it will be supported by the ensuing discussion.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ (kol sheb’yado) = Whatever is within one’s power — a qualifying principle limiting the scope of dichui
Segment 20
TYPE: ראיה
Rav Adda supports Rav Ashi: R. Yehuda accepts dichui but not when it’s fixable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ דְּחוּיִין? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם – יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מֵת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם.
English Translation:
Rav Adda says: It stands to reason that the correct explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi, as whom did you hear who accepts the principle of rejected offerings? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): And Rabbi Yehuda also says: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God was spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat, its counterpart, is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. In either case, two other goats must be brought and lots drawn again. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, when one of the goats dies, the remaining one is rejected.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda provides evidence supporting Rav Ashi’s position. He identifies Rabbi Yehuda as the classic proponent of dichui: if one Yom Kippur goat is lost, the other is rejected. But as Rav Adda will show, even Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between irreversible loss (where dichui applies) and situations that are within one’s power to fix (where dichui does not apply). This validates Rav Ashi’s “within one’s power” exception.
Key Terms:
- הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ (hamishtaleach) = The scapegoat — the Yom Kippur goat sent to Azazel
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה (Rabbi Yehuda) = A major Tanna who accepts the principle of dichui
Segment 21
TYPE: ראיה
Even R. Yehuda: when it’s within one’s power, the blood is collected and sprinkled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִילּוּ הֵיכָא דִּבְיָדוֹ, תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹס הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, וְזוֹרְקוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד.
English Translation:
And yet concerning a case where it is in one’s power to remedy the situation, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: After the Paschal offerings were slaughtered in the courtyard, before the floor was rinsed a priest would fill a cup with the blood of the many offerings brought that day that was now mixed together on the floor, and sprinkle it with a single sprinkling against the base of the altar, i.e., against its north and west sides, where there was a base, as is required for the Paschal offering. This was done in case the blood of one of the offerings had been spilled. The offering would be rendered valid, as some of its blood was now sprinkled on the altar. This indicates that even if the blood of an offering was spilled onto the floor, since a priest has the power to remedy this problem the offering is not rejected.
קלאוד על הדף:
The decisive proof: Rabbi Yehuda himself — the champion of dichui — teaches that when Paschal offering blood spills on the floor, a priest can scoop it up from the mixed blood and sprinkle it. The blood is NOT rejected because the priest can physically gather it. This perfectly parallels our case: frankincense on a meal offering is not permanent rejection because a priest can gather it. Even the strictest proponent of dichui agrees that “within one’s power” is an exception. This conclusively supports Rav Ashi’s position.
Key Terms:
- דַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת (dam hata’aruvot) = Mixed blood — blood from multiple offerings that pooled together on the Temple floor
- יְסוֹד (yesod) = Base/foundation — the bottom portion of the altar where certain blood sprinklings are directed
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yochanan: any amount of oil on an olive-bulk of meal offering disqualifies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִנְחָה – פָּסַל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לֹא יָשִׂים״ – שִׂימָה כֹּל דְּהוּ, ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עַד דְּאִיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the placement of oil upon the meal offering of a sinner or the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed any amount of oil on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, he has thereby disqualified the meal offering. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it” (Leviticus 5:11). This indicates an act of placing that has no minimum amount, and therefore one is liable for any amount of oil. When the verse states “upon it,” this teaches that a meal offering is disqualified by the oil only if it has the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan introduces precise minimum measures. The verse “lo yasim” (he shall not place) uses a verb with no minimum, meaning any amount of oil — even a tiny drop — triggers the prohibition. But “aleha” (upon it) requires a significant “it” — the meal offering must be at least an olive-bulk (kezayit) for the disqualification to take effect. So: any oil + olive-bulk of offering = disqualified. This asymmetry between the oil (no minimum) and the offering (minimum required) is derived from careful attention to each word.
Key Terms:
- מַשֶּׁהוּ (mashehu) = Any amount — even the tiniest quantity
- כְּזַיִת (kezayit) = Olive-bulk — the standard halakhic minimum measure for food-related matters
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yochanan: an olive-bulk of frankincense on any amount of meal offering disqualifies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן כְּזַיִת לְבוֹנָה עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ מִנְחָה – פָּסַל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לֹא יִתֵּן״ כְּתִיב, עַד דְּאִיכָּא נְתִינָה. ״עָלֶיהָ״ –
English Translation:
And Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed an olive-bulk of frankincense on top of any amount of a meal offering, he has thereby disqualified the meal offering. What is the reason for this halakha? It is written: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 5:11), which indicates that frankincense disqualifies the meal offering only if there is at least an amount that constitutes giving, which is an olive-bulk. When the verse states “upon it,”
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s second ruling is the mirror image of the first. For frankincense, the verb “lo yiten” (he shall not give) implies a substantive act of giving, which requires a minimum of an olive-bulk of frankincense. But “aleha” (upon it) here refers to any amount of meal offering — even a tiny amount is affected by the frankincense. So: olive-bulk of frankincense + any amount of offering = disqualified. The two rulings together show opposite minimum requirements for oil versus frankincense, derived from the different verbs used in the verse (yasim vs. yiten). The daf ends mid-sentence, with the discussion continuing on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- נְתִינָה (netina) = An act of giving — implies a more substantial minimum than mere “placing”
- לֹא יִתֵּן (lo yiten) = “He shall not give” — the verb used for the frankincense prohibition, implying a minimum quantity