Menachot Daf 60 (מנחות דף ס׳)
Daf: 60 | Amudim: 60a – 60b | Date: 7 Adar I 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (60a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of ribuy achar ribuy — restricting the measure of frankincense that disqualifies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָוֵי רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי, וְאֵין רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט.
English Translation:
this is one amplificatory expression after another, one in the context of the oil and the other in the context of the frankincense. And there is a principle that one amplificatory expression after another serves only to restrict. Consequently, the placement of frankincense on any amount of a meal offering of a sinner disqualifies the meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment concludes the discussion from the previous daf about the minimum quantity of frankincense that disqualifies a sinner’s meal offering. The Gemara applies the hermeneutical principle of ribuy achar ribuy (one amplificatory expression after another), which paradoxically serves to restrict rather than expand. The conclusion is that even a minimal amount (mashehu) of frankincense placed on a sinner’s meal offering renders it disqualified.
Key Terms:
- רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי = An amplificatory expression following another amplificatory expression — a hermeneutical principle meaning the Torah intends to restrict
- לְמַעֵט = To restrict/exclude
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא / תיקו
Alternative version of R. Yochanan’s dilemma — oil quantity on sinner’s offering — unresolved
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף: בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתַן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִנְחָה, מַהוּ? מִי בָּעֵינַן שִׂימָה כִּנְתִינָה אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If one placed oil of any amount on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Since the Torah states with regard to oil: “He shall place no oil upon it,” whereas with regard to frankincense it states: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” do we require that the placing of the oil must be like the giving of the frankincense, which must be an olive-bulk, or not? No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents an alternative version (ika d’amri) of Rabbi Yochanan’s dilemma. In this version, the question focuses on whether the minimum amount of oil that disqualifies a sinner’s meal offering must be an olive-bulk (like frankincense) or whether even a tiny amount suffices. The dilemma hinges on whether the Torah’s use of different verbs — “placing” (yasim) for oil and “giving” (yiten) for frankincense — implies different quantity requirements. The Gemara leaves this unresolved (teiku).
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = “There are those who say” — introduces an alternative version of a tradition
- תֵּיקוּ = The matter stands unresolved — a permanent Talmudic impasse
- שִׂימָה כִּנְתִינָה = “Placing like giving” — whether two different Torah terms imply the same standard
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita on two separate prohibitions for oil and frankincense — question about two priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן״, יָכוֹל בִּשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: If one placed oil on the remainder of a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he does not violate a prohibition. Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” one might have thought that this separation into two distinct prohibitions applies only where two priests perform these actions, one of whom places oil on the meal offering while the other puts frankincense. Perhaps in this case each of them is separately liable to receive lashes, but if one priest put both oil and frankincense on a meal offering, one might have thought he receives only one set of lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a baraita that analyzes the verse’s formulation of two separate prohibitions — one for oil and one for frankincense — on a sinner’s meal offering. The initial question (haveh amina) is whether the separation into two prohibitions only applies when two different priests each perform one of the prohibited acts. Perhaps when a single priest does both, it should count as only one violation. This touches on the fundamental principle of how multiple prohibitions stated in a single verse are counted.
Key Terms:
- שְׁיָרֶיהָ = The remainder of the meal offering — the portion not burned on the altar
- מַלְקוֹת = Lashes — the punishment for violating a Torah prohibition
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — “upon it” indicates the prohibition is on the offering itself, not on the priest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״, בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְלֹא בְּכֹהֵן.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “Upon it,” with regard to both the oil and the frankincense, which indicates that the verse is speaking of the meal offering itself, and it is not referring to the priest who performs the service. Since both prohibited actions can be performed on the same meal offering, an individual who does both is liable to receive two sets of lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita resolves the question by focusing on the word “upon it” (aleha). Since the Torah frames the prohibition in terms of the meal offering itself rather than the person performing the act, both placing oil and giving frankincense are independent violations. This means even a single priest who does both receives two sets of lashes. The key insight is that the Torah defines the prohibitions by the effect on the offering, not by who performs the act.
Key Terms:
- עָלֶיהָ = “Upon it” — referring to the meal offering itself
- בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה = On the body of the meal offering — the prohibition is defined by the offering, not the actor
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Vessel on vessel — does not disqualify the meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יִתֵּן כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי, וְאִם נָתַן – פָּסַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״, בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
English Translation:
Furthermore, one might have thought this verse means one may not even place a vessel containing oil or frankincense on top of a vessel that contains the meal offering, and that if one placed such a vessel on the meal offering he has thereby disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that the verse is speaking about the meal offering itself. One may not place oil or frankincense on the meal offering itself, but it is not prohibited to place a vessel containing oil or frankincense upon a vessel that contains the meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives another practical ruling from the word “upon it” — the prohibition applies only when oil or frankincense is placed directly on the meal offering itself, not when a vessel containing these substances is placed atop the vessel holding the offering. This is a practical Temple-era ruling: if a container of oil happens to rest on top of a container holding a sinner’s meal offering, the offering remains valid. The Torah specifically required direct contact with the offering itself for the prohibition to take effect.
Key Terms:
- כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי = A vessel on top of a vessel — indirect contact that does not disqualify
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna — four categories of meal offerings regarding hagasha and tenufa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה, וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה. הַגָּשָׁה וּתְנוּפָה. תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא הַגָּשָׁה. לֹא תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא הַגָּשָׁה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: There are four categories of meal offerings: Those that require bringing near, a rite that requires the priests to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the southwest corner of the altar, but do not require waving; those that require both bringing near and waving; those that require waving but not bringing near; and those that require neither waving nor bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna introduces a systematic four-part classification of meal offerings based on two ritual requirements: hagasha (bringing near to the altar) and tenufa (waving). These two rites serve different functions — hagasha brings the offering to the southwest corner of the altar before the handful is removed, while tenufa involves a waving motion. The mishna creates a 2x2 matrix: (1) hagasha only, (2) both, (3) tenufa only, (4) neither. This organizational structure is characteristic of Mishnaic taxonomy.
Key Terms:
- הַגָּשָׁה = Bringing near — the ritual of bringing the meal offering to the southwest corner of the altar
- תְּנוּפָה = Waving — a ritual movement performed with certain offerings
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
List of offerings requiring hagasha but not tenufa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין, מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם, מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
English Translation:
The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require bringing near but do not require waving: The fine-flour meal offering; the meal offering prepared in a pan; the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest; the meal offering of gentiles; a meal offering brought by women; and the meal offering of a sinner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna lists the first and largest category — meal offerings requiring hagasha only. This encompasses the five standard voluntary meal offerings (fine flour, pan, deep pan, oven loaves, oven wafers), as well as several special categories: priests’ offerings, the High Priest’s daily offering, offerings of gentiles, women’s offerings, and the sinner’s offering. This comprehensive list establishes the default: most meal offerings require hagasha but not tenufa.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת = Fine-flour meal offering — the most basic type of voluntary meal offering
- מַחֲבַת = Pan — a flat griddle for preparing meal offerings
- מַרְחֶשֶׁת = Deep pan — a covered pot for preparing meal offerings
- רְקִיקִין = Wafers — thin unleavened wafers used in oven-baked meal offerings
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Shimon’s dissent — no kemitza means no hagasha for priests’ offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ אֵין בָּהֶן הַגָּשָׁה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְמִיצָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְמִיצָה אֵין בָּהֶן הַגָּשָׁה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: The meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest do not require bringing of the meal offering near to the altar, due to the fact that there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, and there is a principle that with regard to any meal offering where there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, there is also no bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first tanna on two items. He holds that priests’ meal offerings and the High Priest’s daily offering do not require hagasha because they do not undergo kemitza (removal of a handful). His principle is that hagasha is linked to kemitza — the purpose of bringing the offering near the altar is to facilitate the subsequent removal of the handful. Since priests’ offerings are entirely burned (kalil) rather than having a handful removed, R. Shimon sees no reason for the hagasha step.
Key Terms:
- קְמִיצָה = Removal of a handful — the priest takes three fingers full of the meal offering to burn on the altar
- כָּלִיל = Entirely burned — priests’ meal offerings are completely consumed on the altar
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa’s principle — meal offerings always consist of ten items
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר – תְּנַן. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
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 asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with Rav Pappa’s sweeping principle about meal offerings in tractate Menachot: wherever the mishna mentions bringing a meal offering, it consists of ten items of the same kind. This is a meta-principle that applies across the entire tractate. The Gemara immediately questions what novel teaching this provides, since one might think this was already obvious from the mishnayot themselves.
Key Terms:
- רַב פָּפָּא = Rav Pappa — a prominent 4th-generation Babylonian amora
- עֶשֶׂר = Ten — the standard number of loaves or wafers in a baked meal offering
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa excludes R. Shimon’s view of mixing half loaves and half wafers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
English Translation:
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:
Rav Pappa’s principle targets a specific dispute: R. Shimon permits bringing a mixed batch of five loaves and five wafers for an oven-baked meal offering, while the anonymous tanna of the mishna requires all ten to be the same type. Rav Pappa explicitly sides with the mishna’s tanna against R. Shimon. This is a recurring principle in the tractate that ensures consistency in how meal offerings are brought — all items must be uniform.
Key Terms:
- מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין = Half loaves and half wafers — R. Shimon’s position allowing a mixed offering
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי = To exclude — a Talmudic formula indicating the purpose of a statement is to reject a particular opinion
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita — scriptural derivation for hagasha from Leviticus 2:8
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מֵאֵלֶּה לַה׳ וְהִקְרִיבָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי שֶׁטָּעוּן הַגָּשָׁה אֶלָּא קוֹמֶץ בִּלְבָד.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest require the ritual of bringing near. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: A verse discussing the meal offering prepared in the pan states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). If the verse had stated only: And you shall bring that which is made of these to the Lord and it shall be drawn near to the priest and he shall bring it near to the altar, omitting the words: The meal offering, I would say: I have derived only that the handful that is sacrificed on the altar alone requires bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
This begins a major baraita that derives the requirement of hagasha from Leviticus 2:8. The baraita engages in careful textual analysis: if the verse had simply said “and you shall bring that which is made of these,” we would only know that the kometz (handful) requires hagasha. The extra word “mincha” (the meal offering) teaches that the entire offering — not just the handful — must be brought near the altar. This is the foundational derivation that establishes hagasha as applying to the full meal offering.
Key Terms:
- מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = From where are these matters derived? — a standard Talmudic formula introducing a scriptural source
- קוֹמֶץ = The handful — the portion of the meal offering taken by the priest and burned on the altar
- וְהִגִּישָׁהּ = “And he shall bring it near” — the Torah’s term for the hagasha ritual (Leviticus 2:8)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Deriving hagasha for the entire offering and for the sinner’s meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִנְחָה״. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.
English Translation:
From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the entire meal offering? The verse states the superfluous term: “The meal offering,” which indicates that one must bring the entire meal offering to the altar prior to the removal of the handful. The baraita further asks: From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the meal offering of a sinner? The verse states: “The meal offering.” The addition of the definite article serves to include the meal offering of a sinner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues its step-by-step derivation. The word “mincha” in the verse extends the requirement of hagasha to the entire meal offering, not just the handful. The definite article “et ha-mincha” (the meal offering) further extends the requirement to include the sinner’s meal offering, which might otherwise have been excluded because it differs from standard voluntary offerings. This demonstrates the Talmudic method of extracting maximal legal content from each word and grammatical element in the Torah.
Key Terms:
- אֶת הַמִּנְחָה = “The meal offering” — the definite article serves as a ribuy (inclusion) to encompass additional types
- מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא = Meal offering of a sinner — a tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense (Leviticus 5:11)
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Question: Why is a verse needed if the sinner’s offering can be derived logically?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵא
English Translation:
The baraita raises a difficulty: Why is a verse necessary to teach that the requirement of bringing near applies to the meal offering of a sinner? But this halakha is capable of being derived by logical inference. The baraita elaborates: The procedure of bringing a meal offering is stated here, in the context of the meal offering of a sinner,
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment begins a classic Talmudic challenge: if the sinner’s meal offering can be derived through a kal va-chomer (a fortiori argument), why does the Torah need an explicit verse? The baraita is about to construct a logical proof that the sinner’s offering requires hagasha based on comparison to other offerings — and then systematically dismantle it. This sets up the extended series of kal va-chomer arguments and refutations that will continue on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- וְדִין הוּא = “And it is a logical inference” — introduces an argument that the law should be derivable without a verse
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר = A fortiori argument — if the law applies in a lenient case, it certainly applies in a stringent case
Amud Bet (60b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation — the kal va-chomer from voluntary offering to obligatory offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה.
English Translation:
which is an obligatory meal offering; and it is stated there, with regard to the deep-pan meal offering, which is a voluntary meal offering. Just as a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near, so too an obligatory meal offering, such as the meal offering of a sinner, requires bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues the logical inference begun on amud aleph. The baraita constructs a hekesh (analogy) between the sinner’s meal offering (which is obligatory) and the deep-pan meal offering (which is voluntary). Since the voluntary offering requires hagasha, the obligatory one should as well. However, this comparison will be challenged in the next segments, as the Gemara identifies distinguishing features between the two types of offerings.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת חוֹבָה = Obligatory meal offering — a meal offering brought to fulfill a requirement, such as the sinner’s offering
- מִנְחַת נְדָבָה = Voluntary meal offering — a meal offering brought as a free-will donation
Segment 2
TYPE: דחייה
First refutation — voluntary offering has oil and frankincense; sota offering as counterproof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה מִנְחַת נְדָבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה – אַף מִנְחַת חוֹבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ!
English Translation:
The baraita rejects this inference: What is notable about a voluntary meal offering? It is notable in that it requires oil and frankincense upon it, rendering its halakha more stringent than that of the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil and frankincense. Therefore, it would be logical to suggest that a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near but the meal offering of a sinner does not. The baraita responds: The meal offering brought by a sota, i.e., the meal offering of jealousy, can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it does not include oil and frankincense either, and yet it requires bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita challenges the kal va-chomer by noting a stringent feature unique to the voluntary offering: it requires oil and frankincense, while the sinner’s offering does not. Perhaps the requirement of hagasha only applies to offerings with these additional components. The response introduces the sota’s meal offering as a “tokhicha” (counterproof): it also lacks oil and frankincense yet still requires hagasha, undermining the attempted refutation.
Key Terms:
- מָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה = “What is notable about the voluntary offering?” — a standard formula for challenging a kal va-chomer
- תּוֹכִיחַ = “Can prove” — introduces a counterexample that undermines a refutation
- מִנְחַת סוֹטָה = Meal offering of a sota — the jealousy offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery
Segment 3
TYPE: דחייה
Second refutation — sota offering requires waving; voluntary offering as counterproof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מִנְחַת נְדָבָה תּוֹכִיחַ.
English Translation:
The baraita rejects this claim: One cannot derive the halakha of the meal offering of a sinner from the meal offering brought by a sota, as there is another requirement that applies to the meal offering brought by a sota but not to the meal offering of a sinner: What is notable about the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that it requires waving, whereas the meal offering of a sinner does not. The baraita responds: The voluntary meal offering can prove that waving is not the decisive factor, as a voluntary meal offering does not require waving and yet it requires bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dialectic continues with another round of challenge and response. The objection is that the sota’s offering requires tenufa (waving) — a stringency not shared by the sinner’s offering — so perhaps hagasha follows from tenufa. The response circles back to the voluntary meal offering, which has no tenufa requirement yet still needs hagasha. This ping-pong pattern between the two proof-texts is characteristic of the “lo re’i zeh k’re’i zeh” structure that follows.
Key Terms:
- פִּירְכָא = Refutation — a challenge that breaks a kal va-chomer by identifying a distinguishing stringency
Segment 4
TYPE: מסקנא
Common element argument (tzad ha-shaveh) — kemitza links to hagasha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁשָּׁוָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תַּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!
English Translation:
Therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and similarly they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the meal offering of a sinner, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
After the back-and-forth challenges, the baraita arrives at the “tzad ha-shaveh” (common element) argument. Neither the voluntary offering nor the sota’s offering can individually prove that the sinner’s offering needs hagasha, because each has a unique stringency. But their common element — both require kemitza and both require hagasha — creates a pattern. Since the sinner’s offering also requires kemitza, it should also require hagasha. This “lo re’i zeh k’re’i zeh” structure is one of the most fundamental forms of Talmudic reasoning.
Key Terms:
- לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה = “The aspect of this is not like the aspect of that” — each case has a unique feature the other lacks
- הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה = The common element — the shared feature from which we derive the law
- שָׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה = Equal regarding kemitza — all these offerings share the requirement of taking a handful
Segment 5
TYPE: דחייה
Refutation of tzad ha-shaveh — sinner’s offering limited to the poor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי, תֹּאמַר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.
English Translation:
The baraita rejects this suggestion: What is notable about the common element of the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that they are suited to come as the meal offering of a wealthy person just as they are suited to come as the meal offering of a poor person. Shall you say the same with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which is not suitable to come either as the meal offering of a wealthy person or as the meal offering of a poor person, since a sinner who is not poor does not bring a meal offering but a different offering (see Leviticus 5:6–11)? Therefore, the verse states: “The meal offering” (Leviticus 2:8), with the addition of the definite article, to include the meal offering of a sinner in the requirement of bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita breaks the tzad ha-shaveh with a devastating distinction: both the voluntary and sota offerings can be brought by anyone — rich or poor — but the sinner’s meal offering is exclusively for those too poor to afford an animal sacrifice (Leviticus 5:11). This unique feature of the sinner’s offering means it cannot be included via the common element argument. The conclusion is that the verse “et ha-mincha” is indeed necessary to include the sinner’s offering in the requirement of hagasha — the logical derivation alone is insufficient.
Key Terms:
- הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי = Suited to come from a wealthy person as from a poor person — a feature common to most meal offerings but not the sinner’s
- קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד = A sliding-scale offering — the sinner’s offering varies based on the offerer’s wealth
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Shimon’s derivation — “and you shall bring” includes the omer; “and it shall be drawn near” includes the sota
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״, ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon adds to the logical inference and says that other cases are included in the derivation from the verse, as the term “and you shall bring” serves to include the omer meal offering in the requirement of bringing near to the altar; and so the verse states with regard to the omer meal offering: “Then you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). Furthermore, “and it shall be drawn near” serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near; and so the verse states with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota: “And draw it near to the altar” (Numbers 5:25).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon presents his own derivation scheme, reading the multiple terms in Leviticus 2:8 as each including a different type of meal offering. “And you shall bring” (v’heveita) includes the omer offering, supported by a parallel verse that uses the same language for the omer. “And it shall be drawn near” (v’hikriváh) includes the sota’s offering, again supported by a parallel verse. This differs from the anonymous tanna’s approach and will be contrasted with Rabbi Yehuda’s alternative reading in the upcoming segments.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר = Omer meal offering — the barley offering brought on the second day of Passover (Leviticus 23:10)
- וְהֵבֵאתָ = “And you shall bring” — a term in Leviticus 2:8 that R. Shimon reads as including the omer
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Why not derive the sota’s offering through kal va-chomer?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת סוֹטָה, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין!
English Translation:
The baraita challenges: But this halakha is capable of being derived a fortiori by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner, which includes a lenient aspect, as it does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, then with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, which does require waving, is it not logical to conclude that it should require bringing near? The baraita rejects this logical inference, as there is a stringency that applies to the meal offering of a sinner which does not apply to the meal offering brought by a sota: What is notable about the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that it comes from wheat, whereas the meal offering brought by a sota comes from barley, an inferior product.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new kal va-chomer is proposed: if the sinner’s offering (which doesn’t need tenufa) still requires hagasha, then the sota’s offering (which does need tenufa, a greater stringency) should certainly require hagasha. The baraita refutes this by noting that the sinner’s offering is made from wheat — a superior grain — while the sota’s offering is made from barley. Perhaps the wheat-based offering merits the additional ritual of hagasha precisely because of its superior material, so one cannot derive from it to a barley-based offering.
Key Terms:
- חִיטִּין = Wheat — considered a superior grain
- שְׂעוֹרִין = Barley — considered an inferior grain, used for the sota and omer offerings
Segment 8
TYPE: דחייה
Counter-argument: omer offering proves barley can require hagasha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
English Translation:
The baraita responds: The omer meal offering can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it also comes from barley, and yet it requires bringing near. Therefore, the same should apply to the meal offering brought by a sota. The baraita rejects this claim: What is notable about the omer meal offering? It is notable in that it requires oil and frankincense, whereas the meal offering brought by a sota does not. The baraita answers: The meal offering of a sinner can prove that the requirement of oil and frankincense is not a decisive factor, as the meal offering of a sinner does not require oil and frankincense and yet it requires bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues the multi-step dialectic. The omer offering — also made from barley — serves as a counterproof that barley-based offerings can require hagasha. But this too is challenged: the omer has oil and frankincense, which the sota’s offering lacks. The sinner’s offering then serves as a counter-counterproof: it lacks oil and frankincense yet still needs hagasha. The back-and-forth pattern systematically eliminates potential distinguishing features.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר = The omer meal offering — a communal barley offering brought on the second day of Passover
Segment 9
TYPE: מסקנא
Second tzad ha-shaveh — common element of kemitza proves hagasha for sota
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה – תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!
English Translation:
Consequently, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that both the omer meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the meal offering brought by a sota, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
After another round of challenge and response, the baraita again arrives at a tzad ha-shaveh conclusion: the omer and sinner’s offerings share kemitza and hagasha; since the sota’s offering also has kemitza, it should also need hagasha. This is a parallel structure to the earlier derivation for the sinner’s offering (Segment 4), now applied to the sota’s offering. The common thread linking hagasha to kemitza is the central axis of this extended baraita.
Key Terms:
- וְחָזַר הַדִּין = “The inference has reverted” — signals the conclusion of the back-and-forth and the application of the common element
Segment 10
TYPE: דחייה
Refutation — common element fails because sota can come as coarse flour
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא קֶמַח, תֹּאמַר מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא קֶמַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.
English Translation:
The baraita rejects this suggestion: What is notable about the common element of the omer meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that they are both not suited to come as coarse flour, but only as fine flour. Shall you say the same with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, which is suited to come as coarse flour? Therefore, the verse states: “And draw it near,” which serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
The tzad ha-shaveh is again broken — the omer and sinner’s offerings must be fine flour, but the sota’s offering can be brought as coarse flour (kemach). This distinction prevents a logical derivation from the common element. Therefore, the verse “v’hikriváh” (and draw it near) is needed to explicitly include the sota’s offering in the hagasha requirement. This validates R. Shimon’s earlier reading: the verse is indeed necessary because the logical argument alone fails.
Key Terms:
- קֶמַח = Coarse flour — a lower quality than solet (fine flour), permitted for the sota’s offering
- סוֹלֶת = Fine flour — the standard high-quality flour required for most meal offerings
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Yehuda’s alternative — “and you shall bring” includes the sota, not the omer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת קׇרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ״.
English Translation:
It was stated that Rabbi Shimon derives from the term “and you shall bring” (Leviticus 2:8), written in the context of the deep-pan meal offering, that the omer meal offering is included in the requirement of bringing near. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda says: The term “and you shall bring” serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near; and so the verse states with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota: “Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour; 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:
R. Yehuda offers an alternative reading of the same verse. Where R. Shimon reads “v’heveita” as including the omer and “v’hikriváh” as including the sota, R. Yehuda reverses the assignments: “v’heveita” includes the sota (supported by Numbers 5:15 which uses the root h-v-a for the sota’s offering), leaving the omer to be derived by a different method. This dispute between R. Shimon and R. Yehuda is about which verse-phrase maps to which offering, not about whether the offerings require hagasha.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yehuda — a leading 2nd-generation tanna who frequently disputes with R. Shimon
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yehuda: the omer needs no verse — derived by kal va-chomer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדִּינָא קָא אָתְיָא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!
English Translation:
But with regard to the omer meal offering, a verse is not needed to teach that it requires bringing near. The baraita asks: What is the reason that no verse is needed for the omer meal offering? It is because this halakha is derived a fortiori by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner, which includes a lenient aspect, as it does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, then with regard to the omer meal offering, which includes a stringent aspect, as it does require waving, is it not logical to conclude that it should require bringing near?
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yehuda holds that the omer doesn’t need a dedicated verse because it can be derived logically: the sinner’s offering, which lacks the stringency of tenufa, still requires hagasha; the omer, which does require tenufa, should certainly require hagasha. This kal va-chomer works for R. Yehuda but will face challenges in the next segment. The key question is whether a distinguishing feature will break this a fortiori argument.
Key Terms:
- מִדִּינָא קָא אָתְיָא = “It comes from logical reasoning” — the law is derivable without a specific verse
Segment 13
TYPE: דחייה
Challenge to R. Yehuda’s kal va-chomer: wheat vs. barley; sota as counterproof and counter-counterproof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן, דְּ״מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״ הִיא! מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
English Translation:
The baraita rejects this inference: What is notable about the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that it comes from wheat, whereas the omer meal offering comes from barley. The baraita responds: The meal offering brought by a sota can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it comes from barley and yet it requires bringing near. The same should apply to the omer meal offering. The baraita rejects this claim: What is notable about the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that it comes to clarify whether or not the wife committed the transgression of adultery, as it is described with the phrase: “Bringing iniquity to remembrance,” whereas the omer meal offering does not come to clarify whether or not one transgressed. The baraita answers: The meal offering of a sinner can prove otherwise, as it does not come to clarify transgression and yet it requires bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
This extended segment runs through another full round of the kal va-chomer dialectic for R. Yehuda’s position. Each attempt to derive the omer’s hagasha logically is met with a distinguishing feature: the sinner’s offering is wheat (the omer is barley); the sota’s offering “brings iniquity to remembrance” (the omer does not). Each refutation is countered with another offering that lacks that feature, creating the circular pattern that will lead to a tzad ha-shaveh.
Key Terms:
- מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן = “Bringing iniquity to remembrance” — the unique purpose of the sota’s offering to clarify suspected adultery
Segment 14
TYPE: מסקנא
Third tzad ha-shaveh — common element proves hagasha for the omer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן שָׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה.
English Translation:
Therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that both the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the omer meal offering, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near. In this manner the requirement of bringing the omer meal offering near to the altar is derived jointly from the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner.
קלאוד על הדף:
For the third time, the baraita concludes with a tzad ha-shaveh: the sota and sinner’s offerings share kemitza and hagasha, so the omer (which also has kemitza) should require hagasha too. According to R. Yehuda, this derivation works for the omer without needing an explicit verse, which is why he uses the verse “v’heveita” for the sota instead. The repetitive structure of these derivations — with their systematic challenges and counter-proofs — is one of the most rigorous logical patterns in the Talmud.
Key Terms:
- צַד הַשָּׁוֶה = Common element — the shared feature from which the law is derived for a third offering
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Gemara challenges R. Shimon: How can the tzad ha-shaveh for the omer be refuted?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how would you refute this logical inference? In other words, there is no refutation of this claim, and it is therefore unclear why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to derive the requirement of bringing near concerning the omer meal offering from the term: “And you shall bring.” The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon refutes the claim in this manner: What is notable about the common element of the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that they are common offerings, i.e., they can be brought many times over the course of a year, whereas the omer offering is sacrificed only once a year.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now questions R. Shimon’s position: if the omer can be derived through a kal va-chomer (as R. Yehuda claims), why does R. Shimon need a verse? The answer reveals R. Shimon’s refutation: the sota and sinner’s offerings are “common” (metzuyin) — they can be brought at any time throughout the year — while the omer is offered only once annually, on the second day of Passover. This frequency distinction breaks the common element argument for R. Shimon, necessitating a verse.
Key Terms:
- מְצוּיִין = Common/frequent — offerings that can occur at any time, as opposed to fixed calendar offerings
- פִּירְכָא = Refutation — the distinguishing feature that breaks a logical derivation
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yehuda’s response: the omer is actually more common than the sota and sinner’s offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַדְּרַבָּה, הָא מְצוּיָיה טְפֵי, הָנָךְ זִימְנִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּלָל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? He maintains that this is not a valid refutation, as on the contrary, this omer meal offering is more common than the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner. The omer meal offering is definitely brought once a year, whereas in the case of these offerings, there may be times when you do not find it at all, if no poor sinners come forward and no women are accused of adultery by their husbands.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yehuda turns R. Shimon’s refutation on its head. He argues that the omer is actually more common: it is guaranteed to be brought once every year, while the sinner’s and sota’s offerings are contingent on events — someone sinning and being too poor for an animal, or a husband suspecting his wife. There could theoretically be a year where neither occurs. This clever reversal shows the subjectivity of the “common” criterion and explains why R. Yehuda considers the kal va-chomer valid for the omer.
Key Terms:
- מְצוּיָיה טְפֵי = More common — R. Yehuda argues that a guaranteed annual offering is more “common” than a contingent one
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
Alternative reading of “v’heveita” — can an individual bring a barley meal offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת, חוּץ מֵאֵלֶּה שֶׁבָּעִנְיָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a baraita: Or perhaps when the verse states: “And you shall bring,” this does not serve to teach about the requirement of bringing near but rather is written for a different reason: To indicate that an individual Jew may donate and bring a different kind of meal offering, one made from barley, apart from these five meal offerings, all made from wheat, which the verse mentions with regard to this matter (see Leviticus 2:1–13). The five offerings are the fine-flour meal offering, the meal offering prepared in the pan, the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and the meal offering baked in the oven, either in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita introduces an entirely different reading of “v’heveita”: perhaps it teaches not about hagasha at all, but about the types of meal offerings an individual may bring. Could the verse be saying that beyond the five wheat-based meal offerings listed in Leviticus 2, an individual may also voluntarily bring a barley meal offering? This would be a significant expansion of the types of voluntary offerings available. The next segment will address this question.
Key Terms:
- יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב = An individual who donates — a person bringing a voluntary offering
- חָמֵשׁ מְנָחוֹת = Five meal offerings — the five types of voluntary meal offerings listed in Leviticus chapter 2
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Kal va-chomer that an individual should be able to bring barley; refuted by “eleh”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִין הוּא: צִיבּוּר מֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין חוֹבָה, וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין חוֹבָה, אַף יָחִיד שֶׁמֵּבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין נְדָבָה – יָכוֹל יָבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נְדָבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֵלֶּה.
English Translation:
And this halakha is necessary because the opposite conclusion could otherwise have been derived by logical inference based on juxtaposition: The community brings an obligatory meal offering from wheat, i.e., the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the community also brings an obligatory meal offering from barley, the omer meal offering. So too an individual, who brings a meal offering from wheat as a voluntary gift offering, can likewise bring a meal offering from barley as a voluntary gift offering. Therefore, to prevent this inference, the verse states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:8), which teaches: I have nothing other than these five meal offerings as individual meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita shows why this alternative reading is necessary: a logical argument would suggest that since the community can bring both wheat and barley meal offerings (the two loaves from wheat and the omer from barley), an individual should also be able to bring a voluntary barley offering. The word “eleh” (these) in the verse restricts individual voluntary offerings to only the five types listed — all of which are wheat-based. An individual may not voluntarily bring a barley meal offering.
Key Terms:
- אֵלֶּה = “These” — a restrictive term limiting the types of offerings to those explicitly listed
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם = The two loaves — communal wheat offering brought on Shavuot
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative reading of “eleh” — does it mean one must bring all five types?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אֵלֶּה״ אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חֲמִישְׁתָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״ – רָצָה אַחַת מֵבִיא, רָצָה חֲמִישְׁתָּן מֵבִיא.
English Translation:
The baraita raises a difficulty: Or perhaps the verse states “these” not in order to exclude other individual meal offerings but rather to teach a halakha with regard to one who takes a vow to bring a meal offering and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, without specifying a particular type of meal offering, and it teaches that he must bring all five of them. The baraita explains: The verse states: “Of these,” which indicates that if the one who took a vow wants, he brings one meal offering, and if he wants, he brings all five of them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita raises another possible reading of “eleh”: perhaps it means that someone who vows a generic meal offering must bring all five types. The refutation comes from the word “me-eleh” (of these), with the prefix “min” (from/of) indicating a partial selection. This teaches that a person who vows a meal offering may choose any one of the five types — or all five if they wish. The distinction between “eleh” (these) and “me-eleh” (of these) is a subtle but critical point of exegesis.
Key Terms:
- מֵאֵלֶּה = “Of these” — the partitive “min” allows selection of one from among the five types
- הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה = “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering” — a generic vow without specifying the type
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Shimon — “et ha-mincha” includes other meal offerings (gentiles, women) in hagasha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, כְּגוֹן מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, לְהַגָּשָׁה. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: When the verse states: “The meal offering” (Leviticus 2:8), this serves to include the other meal offerings, for example the meal offering of gentiles and a meal offering brought by women, with regard to the requirement of bringing near. One might have thought that I should include from this verse even the two loaves and the shewbread. Therefore, the verse states: “Of these,” which indicates that not all meal offerings are included in the requirement of bringing near.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon uses “et ha-mincha” (with the definite article) to include additional offerings — specifically those of gentiles and women — in the hagasha requirement. But the inclusion has limits: the two loaves (shtei ha-lechem) and the shewbread (lechem ha-panim) are excluded by “me-eleh” (of these), indicating only offerings similar to those listed require hagasha. The next segments will define what makes an offering “similar” enough to be included.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם = Meal offering of gentiles — non-Jews could bring voluntary offerings in the Temple
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם = The two loaves — leavened wheat loaves offered communally on Shavuot
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים = Shewbread — twelve loaves placed on the golden table in the Temple each Shabbat
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Criterion: offerings with a portion burned on the altar require hagasha; those without do not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, וּלְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים.
English Translation:
The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near, and to exclude the two loaves and the shewbread from this halakha? One could suggest the opposite conclusion, to include these two offerings while excluding the others. The baraita answers: I include the other meal offerings, as there is a portion of them burned in the fire on the altar, and I exclude the two loaves and the shewbread from the requirement of bringing near, as there is no portion of them burned in the fire on the altar. Rather, they are eaten by the priests in their entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita establishes the defining criterion for which meal offerings require hagasha: whether any portion is burned on the altar (la-ishim). Offerings of gentiles, women, and sinners all have a kometz burned on the altar, so they require hagasha. The two loaves and shewbread are eaten entirely by the priests with nothing burned on the altar, so they are excluded. The logic is that hagasha — bringing the offering near the altar — is preparatory for the altar service; if nothing goes on the altar, the step is unnecessary.
Key Terms:
- לָאִישִּׁים = For the altar fires — a portion burned on the altar
- אֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים = No portion goes to the altar fires — these offerings are consumed entirely by the priests
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: the libation meal offering is entirely burned — should it need hagasha?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲלֹא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים כּוּלָּהּ לָאִישִּׁים, יָכוֹל (יְהֵא) [תְּהֵא] טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.
English Translation:
The baraita asks: But with regard to the meal offering brought with libations, which is entirely burned in the fire, by this logic one might have thought that it should require bringing near. The baraita answers: The verse states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). This indicates that the requirement of bringing near applies only to those meal offerings listed in this chapter, not to the meal offering brought with libations, which is not mentioned.
קלאוד על הדף:
A sharp challenge: the minchat nesakhim (meal offering accompanying animal sacrifices) is entirely burned on the altar — more than just a handful. By the criterion just established, it should certainly require hagasha. The answer is that the verse “v’hikriváh” limits hagasha to offerings from the category discussed in Leviticus 2, which does not include the libation meal offering. The libation meal offering accompanies animal sacrifices and has its own procedural rules, distinct from the standalone meal offerings of Leviticus 2.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים = Meal offering brought with libations — a meal offering that accompanies animal sacrifices and is entirely burned on the altar
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
Final question: what justifies including other meal offerings but excluding the libation offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ ״וְהִקְרִיב״ ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״, וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים?
English Translation:
The baraita asks: But didn’t you already derive from the term: “And it shall be drawn near,” that the meal offering brought by a sota is included in the requirement of bringing near? The baraita answers: As the verse could have stated: And shall be drawn near, and instead it states: “And it shall be drawn near,” this addition serves to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from the requirement of bringing near. The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near and to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from this requirement?
קלאוד על הדף:
This final segment of the daf raises a textual difficulty: the verse “v’hikriváh” was already used to include the sota’s offering — how can it also exclude the libation meal offering? The answer lies in the precise formulation: the Torah could have written a shorter form, so the extra letter teaches an additional exclusion. The baraita then asks the broader methodological question: what principle determines which offerings to include and which to exclude? This question will presumably be resolved on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- מָה רָאִיתָ = “What did you see?” — a standard challenge asking why one interpretive choice was preferred over another
- רִבּוּי וּמִיעוּט = Inclusion and exclusion — the hermeneutical process of including some cases while excluding others from a verse