Menachot Daf 63 (מנחות דף ס״ג)
Daf: 63 | Amudim: 63a – 63b | Date: 10 Adar 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (63a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Maḥavat vs. marḥeshet — vessel requirements for meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּמַחֲבַת״ – לֹא יָבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, ״בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת״ – לֹא יָבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת. מָה בֵּין מַחֲבַת לְמַרְחֶשֶׁת? מַרְחֶשֶׁת יֵשׁ לָהּ כִּיסּוּי, מַחֲבַת אֵין לָהּ כִּיסּוּי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מַרְחֶשֶׁת עֲמוּקָּה וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ רוֹחֲשִׁין (רַכִּין), מַחֲבַת צָפָה וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ קָשִׁין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering to the Temple and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a maḥavat, may not bring one prepared in a marḥeshet. Similarly, if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḥeshet, he may not bring one prepared in a maḥavat. The mishna clarifies: What is the difference between a maḥavat and a marḥeshet? A marḥeshet has a cover, whereas a maḥavat does not have a cover; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A marḥeshet is deep, and due to the large amount of oil, its product is soft because it moves about [roḥashin] in the oil. A maḥavat is flat, as the sides of the pan are level with the pan, and due to the small amount of oil, its product is hard.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna opens a new chapter (Chapter 5: Kol HaMenachot) dealing with the specifics of how individual meal offerings are prepared and the consequences of vow language. The fundamental principle is that when a person specifies a particular vessel type in their vow, they are bound to use that exact vessel. The Tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel concerns the defining characteristic that distinguishes the two vessels — whether it is the cover (lid vs. no lid) or the depth (deep vs. flat), which affects the texture of the finished product.
Key Terms:
- מַחֲבַת (maḥavat) = A flat frying pan used for preparing certain meal offerings
- מַרְחֶשֶׁת (marḥeshet) = A deep frying pan used for preparing certain meal offerings
- כִּיסּוּי (kissuy) = A cover or lid
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Attempted etymological derivation for maḥavat and marḥeshet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אִילֵּימָא מַרְחֶשֶׁת, דְּאָתְיָא אַרִחוּשֵׁי הַלֵּב, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״רָחַשׁ לִבִּי דָּבָר טוֹב״, וּמַחֲבַת, דְּאָתְיָא אַמַּחְבּוֹאֵי הַפֶּה, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״מְנַבַּח נַבּוֹחֵי״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: As the Torah does not describe the different vessels, what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, explaining that a marḥeshet has a cover and a maḥavat does not have a cover? If we say that the term marḥeshet indicates that the offering comes to atone for the sinful musings [raḥashei] of the heart, as it is written: “My heart muses [raḥash] on a goodly matter” (Psalms 45:2), and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in a covered vessel just as the thoughts of the heart are hidden, this interpretation is insufficient. And if we say that the term maḥavat indicates that the offering comes to atone for transgressions committed with the corners of [ammaḥavo’ei] the mouth, as people say with regard to someone who speaks loudly: He is barking [minbaḥ nevuḥei], and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in an open vessel, this interpretation is also insufficient.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to derive the names of the vessels from their etymological roots, linking each to a type of sin atonement. The idea is that “marḥeshet” relates to “raḥash” (whispering/musing) — hidden thoughts of the heart — and therefore requires a covered vessel. “Maḥavat” relates to “navḥa” (barking) — open speech — and therefore uses an open vessel. This would give Rabbi Yosei HaGelili a textual basis for his view. However, the Gemara will reject this approach because the etymological connections are ambiguous.
Key Terms:
- רִחוּשֵׁי הַלֵּב (riḥushei halev) = Musings or stirrings of the heart
- מַחְבּוֹאֵי הַפֶּה (maḥavo’ei hapeh) = Hidden places of the mouth; metaphor for speech
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rejecting the etymology — the derivations can be reversed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא אִיפְּכָא: מַחֲבַת, דְּאָתְיָא אַמַּחְבּוֹאֵי הַלֵּב, דִּכְתִיב ״לָמָּה נַחְבֵּאתָ לִבְרֹחַ״; מַרְחֶשֶׁת, דְּאָתְיָא אַרִחוּשֵׁי [הַפֶּה], כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״הֲוָה מְרַחֲשָׁן שִׂיפְוָותֵיהּ״. אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.
English Translation:
The reason these interpretations are insufficient is that one can also say the opposite, and suggest that the name maḥavat indicates that the offering must be prepared in a closed vessel, as it comes to atone for the secret musings of the heart, as it is written that Laban said to Jacob: “Why did you flee secretly [naḥbeita]” (Genesis 31:27). Likewise, with regard to marḥeshet, one can say that it must be prepared in an open vessel, as it comes to atone for whispers [reḥushei] of the mouth which are heard and revealed, as people say: His lips were whispering [meraḥashan]. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili cannot derive the meanings of the terms marḥeshet and maḥavat from the verses; rather, his interpretation is learned as a tradition.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a classic Talmudic move: showing that an etymological argument can cut both ways. “Maḥavat” could equally relate to hiding (naḥbeita — Genesis 31:27), suggesting a covered vessel. “Marḥeshet” could relate to lip-whispering (meraḥashan), suggesting an open vessel. Since the linguistic derivation is ambiguous and reversible, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion must rest on an oral tradition (gemara), not a scriptural derivation. This demonstrates the limits of etymological reasoning in halakhic discourse.
Key Terms:
- גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ (gemara gemiri lah) = It is learned as a tradition — indicating the knowledge comes from received tradition, not exegesis
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel’s scriptural basis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. מַרְחֶשֶׁת עֲמוּקָּה – דִּכְתִיב ״וְכׇל נַעֲשָׂה בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת״, מַחֲבַת צָפָה – דִּכְתִיב ״וְעַל מַחֲבַת״.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says that a marḥeshet is deep, whereas a maḥavat is flat. The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: A marḥeshet is deep, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “in” indicates that this meal offering is prepared inside a vessel, i.e., a deep container. Conversely, a maḥavat is flat, with the sides of the pan level with the pan, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “on” indicates that it is prepared on the vessel, not inside it. Therefore, a flat vessel is required.
קלאוד על הדף:
Unlike Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s tradition-based view, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel derives the distinction from the prepositions used in Scripture. Leviticus 7:9 uses “in” (בַּ) for marḥeshet and “on” (עַל) for maḥavat. The preposition “in” implies depth — the food is placed inside the vessel — while “on” implies flatness — the food sits on top of a flat surface. This is a straightforward textual derivation that yields a clear practical distinction: depth determines the vessel type, not whether it has a cover.
Key Terms:
- בַּ (ba) = “In” — preposition indicating interior, suggesting depth
- עַל (al) = “On” — preposition indicating surface, suggesting flatness
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Beit Shammai’s uncertainty about the meaning of “marḥeshet” in vows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מַרְחֶשֶׁת״ יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one vows: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḥeshet, he is obligated to bring a meal offering of that type. With regard to this, the Sages taught that Beit Shammai say: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḥeshet, without using the term: Meal offering, or the preposition: In, in such a case the money for the meal offering should be placed in a safe place until the prophet Elijah comes heralding the Messiah, and clarifies what should be done.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita introduces a fascinating case of halakhic uncertainty. When someone says simply “I undertake to bring a marḥeshet” — without saying “a meal offering in a marḥeshet” — Beit Shammai are unsure how to interpret the vow. The phrase “until Elijah comes” (עד שיבוא אליהו) is a Talmudic idiom for unresolvable halakhic questions — they are set aside for future prophetic resolution. This reflects Beit Shammai’s broader tendency toward strictness and their reluctance to act on uncertain halakhic interpretations.
Key Terms:
- עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ (ad sheyavo Eliyahu) = Until Elijah comes — a Talmudic expression for halakhic questions that cannot be resolved and are deferred to prophetic revelation
- יְהֵא מוּנָּח (yehei munnaḥ) = Let it be set aside — the money is held in limbo
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Explaining Beit Shammai’s doubt — vessel name vs. preparation method
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ, אִי עַל שׁוּם כְּלִי נִקְרְאוּ, אוֹ עַל שׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: Beit Shammai are uncertain with regard to the source of the terms marḥeshet and maḥavat, whether the offerings are called these names due to the specific vessel in which each meal offering is prepared, or whether they are called these names due to the manner of their preparation. The significance of this distinction is that if the term marḥeshet is referring to a specific type of vessel, then if one takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḥeshet, he must bring an actual vessel of that type, whereas if the term is referring to the manner of preparation of the meal offering then he is obligated to bring that type of meal offering. Since Beit Shammai are uncertain which is the correct interpretation, they rule that he must wait until the prophet Elijah comes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The crux of Beit Shammai’s doubt is whether the term “marḥeshet” is primarily a vessel name or a preparation-type name. If it names a vessel, then saying “I’ll bring a marḥeshet” means bringing the physical vessel as a Temple donation. If it names a preparation method, then the vow obligates bringing a meal offering prepared in that manner. Since the vower used ambiguous language — omitting “meal offering” and the preposition “in” — the intent cannot be determined, and the funds must be held until the matter is resolved.
Key Terms:
- עַל שׁוּם כְּלִי (al shum keli) = Due to the vessel — the name refers to the physical container
- עַל שׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן (al shum ma’aseihen) = Due to their preparation — the name refers to the cooking method
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Beit Hillel’s resolution — marḥeshet is a specific Temple vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כְּלִי הָיָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּ״מַרְחֶשֶׁת״ שְׁמוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִין כַּלְבּוֹס עָמוֹק, וּכְשֶׁבָּצֵק מוּנָּח בְּתוֹכוֹ – דּוֹמֶה כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי הַבָּרָתִים וּכְמִין בִּלְוָטֵי הַיְּוָונִים.
English Translation:
And Beit Hillel say that there is no uncertainty about this matter, as there was a particular vessel in the Temple, and its name was marḥeshet. And this vessel resembled a type of deep kelabus, which is a vessel with indentations, and when dough is placed inside it, it gets pressed against the indentations and takes their shape. The dough resembles a type of apple of berotim trees, or a type of acorn [balutei] of the Greek oak trees. Therefore, one who takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḥeshet, must bring this type of vessel to the Temple as a donation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Beit Hillel resolve the ambiguity decisively: the marḥeshet was a known, specific vessel in the Temple — deep, with indentations like a waffle mold — that shaped dough into rounded forms resembling apples or acorns. Since everyone knew this vessel by name, when someone vows “I’ll bring a marḥeshet,” they clearly mean the vessel itself. This reflects Beit Hillel’s general approach of resolving doubts practically rather than deferring them. The vivid physical description — comparing the vessel’s output to berotim apples and Greek acorns — suggests this was a well-known utensil among the priestly service.
Key Terms:
- כַּלְבּוֹס (kalbos) = A vessel with indentations, similar to a waffle or muffin mold
- תַּפּוּחֵי הַבָּרָתִים (tappuḥei habaratim) = Apples of the berotim (cypress) trees — describing the shape of dough pressed in the mold
- בִּלְוָטֵי הַיְּוָונִים (balvatei hayevanim) = Greek acorns — another comparison for the dough’s shape
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Beit Hillel’s scriptural proof — prepositions prove vessel names
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל נַעֲשָׂה בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת וְעַל מַחֲבַת״, אַלְמָא עַל שׁוּם הַכֵּלִים נִקְרְאוּ, וְלֹא עַל שׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם.
English Translation:
And the verse states two different prepositions with regard to these vessels: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet and on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). It does not state simply: And all that is made in the marḥeshet and the maḥavat. Since it seems from the verse that when using the marḥeshet the meal offering is prepared inside the vessel and when using the maḥavat it is prepared on the vessel, evidently they are called these names due to the vessel in which the meal offering is prepared, not due to the manner of their preparation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Beit Hillel clinch their argument with the same verse Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel used (Leviticus 7:9), but for a different purpose. The distinct prepositions — “in” for marḥeshet and “on” for maḥavat — prove that the Torah is referring to physical vessels with different shapes, not to different preparation methods. If the names referred to preparation methods, the prepositions would be unnecessary. This establishes that the terms are vessel names, and therefore one who vows “a marḥeshet” is donating a vessel to the Temple.
Key Terms:
- אַלְמָא (alma) = “Evidently” — introducing a logical conclusion from a textual proof
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
Oven-baked meal offering — which ovens qualify
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּתַנּוּר – לֹא יָבִיא מַאֲפֵה כוּפָּח, וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה רְעָפִים, וּמַאֲפֵה יוֹרוֹת הָעַרְבִיִּים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רָצָה – מֵבִיא מַאֲפֵה כוּפָּח.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering baked in an oven, he may not bring a meal offering baked on a small oven [kupaḥ], nor a meal offering baked on roofing tiles, nor a meal offering baked in the baking pits of the Arabs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he so wishes, he may bring a meal offering baked on a kupaḥ.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna moves from pan-type offerings to oven-baked offerings. The first tanna rules strictly: when the Torah says “oven” (תנור), it means a proper oven — not a small portable stove (kupaḥ), not roofing tiles used for baking, and not the pit-ovens used by Arabs. Rabbi Yehuda permits a kupaḥ because it shares essential baking characteristics with a standard oven. This dispute parallels the broader question of how narrowly or broadly to interpret vow language and Temple requirements.
Key Terms:
- כוּפָּח (kupaḥ) = A small portable stove or oven
- רְעָפִים (re’afim) = Roofing tiles used for baking
- יוֹרוֹת הָעַרְבִיִּים (yorot ha’arvi’im) = Baking pits of the Arabs — earth ovens dug into the ground
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
Loaves vs. wafers — mixing types in a baked meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה – לֹא יָבִיא מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד.
English Translation:
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, without specifying loaves or wafers, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and the other half in the form of wafers; rather, they must all be of one form or the other. Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, due to the fact that both loaves and wafers are written with regard to this meal offering, which indicates that it is one offering of two possible forms.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna presents a second dispute about oven-baked offerings. Leviticus 2:4 mentions both “loaves of unleavened bread mixed with oil” and “wafers of unleavened bread smeared with oil.” The first tanna treats these as two distinct sub-types: you must bring all loaves or all wafers. Rabbi Shimon views the verse as describing one flexible offering that can include either or both forms. This dispute hinges on whether the conjunction “or” (או) in the verse is exclusive (one or the other) or inclusive (one, the other, or both).
Key Terms:
- חַלּוֹת (ḥallot) = Loaves — thick unleavened bread mixed with oil
- רְקִיקִין (rekikin) = Wafers — thin unleavened bread smeared with oil
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita deriving the exclusion of non-standard ovens
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַאֲפֵה תַנּוּר״, וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה כוּפָּח, וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה רְעָפִים, וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה יוֹרוֹת הָעַרְבִיִּים.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4), this emphasizes that it must be prepared in an oven, and not baked on a kupaḥ, nor baked on roofing tiles, nor baked in the baking pits of the Arabs, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides the scriptural source for the mishna’s ruling. The Torah’s specific mention of “oven” (תנור) is understood as a limiting term — only a proper oven qualifies, excluding all alternative baking methods. This reflects the hermeneutical principle that when the Torah specifies a particular item, it excludes similar but non-identical items. The baraita confirms the first tanna’s position that the term “oven” is restrictive.
Key Terms:
- מַאֲפֵה תַנּוּר (ma’afeh tannur) = Baked in an oven — the Torah’s specific requirement for this type of meal offering
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת
Three-way dispute on the double “oven” derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״תַּנּוּר״ ״תַּנּוּר״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים, לְהַכְשִׁיר מַאֲפֵה כוּפָּח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״תַּנּוּר״ ״תַּנּוּר״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים, אֶחָד שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲפִיָּיתָן בְּתַנּוּר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁיְּהֵא הֶקְדֵּישָׁן בַּתַּנּוּר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: In this verse it states “oven,” and it also states “oven” in another verse: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven” (Leviticus 7:9). Since it is written two times, and these terms are restrictions, one follows the hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. Consequently, this derivation serves to render fit a meal offering baked on a kupaḥ, and it too is deemed an oven. Rabbi Shimon says: The terms “oven” and “oven,” which are written a total of two times, serve to teach two halakhot: One instance teaches that their baking should be in an oven, and the other one teaches that their consecration is in an oven, i.e., meal offerings are not consecrated in service vessels but rather in the oven.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a rich hermeneutical dispute. The word “oven” appears twice in the Torah (Leviticus 2:4 and 7:9). Rabbi Yehuda applies the principle of מיעוט אחר מיעוט לרבות — a double restriction serves to expand — so the second “oven” includes a kupaḥ (small stove). Rabbi Shimon reads each occurrence as teaching a distinct halakha: one mandates baking in an oven, and the other teaches that the oven itself consecrates the offering. This three-way reading of the same textual repetition showcases how different hermeneutical approaches lead to dramatically different practical outcomes.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט לְרַבּוֹת (mi’ut aḥar mi’ut lerabbot) = A restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves to amplify — a key hermeneutical principle
- הֶקְדֵּישָׁן (hekdeishan) = Their consecration — the moment at which an offering becomes sacred
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge to Rabbi Shimon from his own position on Beit Pagei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הֱוֵי רָגִיל לוֹמַר שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים כְּשֵׁרוֹת בָּעֲזָרָה, וּכְשֵׁרוֹת בְּבֵית פָּאגֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold in accordance with this line of reasoning? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (95b) that Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are valid if they are kneaded, shaped, or baked in the Temple courtyard, and that they are also valid if they are prepared in the place called Beit Pagei, which is outside the walls of the Temple Mount? As these offerings are not disqualified by being taken outside the Temple, evidently they are not consecrated in the oven.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises an internal contradiction within Rabbi Shimon’s views. If the oven consecrates the offering (as he claims from the double “oven”), then removing the offering from the Temple after baking should disqualify it as yotzei (something sacred that has left its designated area). But Rabbi Shimon himself rules in another mishna (95b) that the Two Loaves and Shewbread can validly be prepared even in Beit Pagei, outside the Temple Mount. If the oven consecrated them, they would be disqualified upon removal from the sacred precinct!
Key Terms:
- בֵּית פָּאגֵי (Beit Pagei) = A location outside the Temple Mount walls where bread offerings could be prepared
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (shtei haleḥem) = The Two Loaves offered on Shavuot
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (leḥem hapanim) = The Shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s reinterpretation — consecration “for the sake of” an oven
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: אֵימָא, שֶׁיְּהֵא הֶקְדֵּישָׁן לְשׁוּם תַּנּוּר.
English Translation:
Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the oven does not consecrate meal offerings, and as for his statement in the baraita concerning the two derivations, one should say that the other derivation from the term “oven” teaches that their consecration by the owner must be explicit, i.e., from the outset he must say that he is sanctifying his meal offering for the sake of a meal offering baked in an oven.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava elegantly resolves the contradiction by reinterpreting Rabbi Shimon’s second derivation. It does not mean the oven physically consecrates the offering; rather, it means the owner must verbally specify that the offering is “for the sake of an oven-baked meal offering” at the time of consecration. This preserves both of Rabbi Shimon’s positions: the oven-baked offering requires explicit verbal dedication, and baking can be done outside the Temple precinct (like Beit Pagei) without disqualification.
Key Terms:
- לְשׁוּם תַּנּוּר (leshum tannur) = For the sake of an oven — verbal specification of the offering type at consecration
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita on loaves vs. wafers — the verse teaches it is voluntary
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֵה, לֹא יָבִיא מֶחֱצָה [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִי תַּקְרִיב״ – כְּשֶׁתַּקְרִיב, לַעֲשׂוֹת דְּבַר רְשׁוּת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers, whereas Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, as it is one offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4). The phrase: “And when you bring,” indicates that this offering is not obligatory. Rather, when you wish you may bring, i.e., the verse teaches how to perform the meal offering baked in an oven as a voluntary matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Before addressing the loaves-vs-wafers dispute, the Gemara notes an important preliminary: the phrasing “when you bring” (וכי תקריב) uses conditional language, indicating this is a voluntary offering (נדבה), not an obligatory one. This contextualizes the entire discussion — the rules about loaves, wafers, and mixing apply specifically to voluntarily vowed meal offerings, not to mandatory ones. The voluntary nature affects how strictly vow language is interpreted.
Key Terms:
- דְּבַר רְשׁוּת (devar reshut) = A voluntary matter — as opposed to an obligation
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation — “offering” implies one type only
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִנַּיִין לְאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה״, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״קׇרְבָּן מִנְחָה״ – קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה קׇרְבָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
With regard to the term: “A meal offering,” Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he must not bring half of the bread in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers? The verse states: “A meal offering,” which indicates: I told you to bring one offering, i.e., all ten loaves from one type, and not two or three offerings of different types, as allowed by Rabbi Shimon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda’s position rests on the word “offering” (קרבן) being singular. Since the Torah says “a meal offering” — one offering — bringing a mixture of loaves and wafers would effectively constitute two offerings combined into one, which contradicts the singular language. This reading treats loaves and wafers as fundamentally different sub-categories, each constituting its own “offering type,” so mixing them would violate the unity implied by the singular term.
Key Terms:
- קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד (korban eḥad) = One offering — the basis for requiring uniformity in the offering’s components
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon begins his rebuttal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן:
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda:
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief segment introduces Rabbi Shimon’s counter-argument to Rabbi Yehuda, which continues on the next amud. The Gemara captures the back-and-forth nature of Tannaitic debate, with Rabbi Shimon directly addressing Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation from “a meal offering.” The argument will hinge on counting how many times “offering” appears in the relevant verses.
Amud Bet (63b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s rebuttal — “offering” appears only once for both types
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״קׇרְבָּן״ ״קׇרְבָּן״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְנֶאֱמַר בּוֹ חַלּוֹת וּרְקִיקִין.
English Translation:
And is it stated with regard to a meal offering baked in an oven: “Offering,” and again: Offering, for a total of two times, once in connection to a meal offering of loaves and once in connection to a meal offering of wafers? If that were the case, it would indicate that these are two types of offerings. But doesn’t it actually say “offering” only one time: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4)? And it is stated with regard to this meal offering both loaves and wafers, which indicates that these are two varieties of the same offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon delivers a powerful textual argument: if loaves and wafers were truly separate offering types, the Torah would have used the word “offering” (קרבן) twice — once for each type. Instead, the single word “offering” governs both loaves and wafers within the same verse, proving they are two permissible forms of one unified offering. This is a straightforward reading of Leviticus 2:4, where “loaves… or wafers” are presented as alternatives within a single offering framework.
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s practical conclusion — full flexibility in combining
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵעַתָּה, רָצָה לְהָבִיא חַלּוֹת – מֵבִיא, רְקִיקִין – מֵבִיא, מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין – מֵבִיא, וּבוֹלְלָן וְקוֹמֵץ מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם, וְאִם קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ מֵאֶחָד עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם – יָצָא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon continues: From now it may be inferred that if one wants to bring ten loaves he may bring ten loaves, and if he prefers to bring ten wafers, he may bring ten wafers, and if he decides that half of them should be loaves and half of them wafers, he may bring it in this manner. And if he brings part as loaves and part as wafers, how does he proceed? He mingles all of them and removes a handful from both of them. And if he removed a handful and it happened that only part of one type, either loaves or wafers, came up in his hand for both of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as they are both part of a single offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon spells out the practical implications of his unified-offering theory. Since loaves and wafers are one offering, the vower has complete flexibility: all loaves, all wafers, or any combination. Moreover, when the handful (kemitzah) is taken for the altar, it need not contain both types — even if only one type comes up in the priest’s hand, the obligation is fulfilled. This follows logically from the principle that both forms are equally valid expressions of a single offering.
Key Terms:
- בּוֹלְלָן (bollan) = He mingles them — combining both types together
- קוֹמֵץ (kometz) = Removes a handful — the priestly act of taking a portion from the meal offering for the altar
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda’s alternative derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין לְאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה״, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה אֲשֶׁר תֵּאָפֶה בַּתַּנּוּר״, ״וְכׇל נַעֲשָׂה בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת וְעַל מַחֲבַת לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתָהּ לוֹ תִהְיֶה״, ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he may not bring half of the offering as loaves and half as wafers? He answers: The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in an oven, and every one that is made in the deep pan, and on the shallow pan, shall belong to the priest who sacrifices it. And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:9–10).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, the son of Rabbi Yehuda, provides an alternative scriptural derivation for the same ruling as his father. He uses a textual analogy (hekkesh) between the oven-baked offering and other types of offerings mentioned in Leviticus 7:9-10. The key is the word “and every” (וכל), which appears in both verses and creates a comparison between them. His derivation will be explained in the next segment.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The “and every” analogy — treating loaves and wafers as separate types
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה ״וְכׇל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה שְׁנֵי מִינִין חֲלוּקִין, אַף ״וְכׇל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה שְׁנֵי מִינִין חֲלוּקִין.
English Translation:
The verses juxtapose the meal offering baked in an oven to the meal offering prepared on the pan and the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and similarly to the meal offering brought as a gift, alluded to by the phrase: “Mixed with oil,” and to the meal offering of a sinner, which is called: “Dry.” This teaches that just as the term: “And every” (Leviticus 7:10), stated below with regard to those meal offerings, is referring to two different types of meal offering, so too, the term: “And every” (Leviticus 7:9), stated above, with regard to the two forms of meal offering baked in an oven, is referring to two different types of meal offering, and therefore one may not bring part as loaves and part as wafers.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda employs a gezerah shavah-like analogy on the word “and every” (וכל). In Leviticus 7:10, “every meal offering mixed with oil” and “dry” clearly refer to two distinct offering types (voluntary vs. sinner’s). By analogy, the “every” in Leviticus 7:9 regarding oven-baked offerings also indicates two distinct types — loaves and wafers. This provides an independent textual basis for prohibiting the mixture, distinct from his father’s derivation from the singular “offering.”
Key Terms:
- וְכׇל (vekhol) = “And every” — the linking term used for the analogy between the two verses
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
How Rabbi Yehuda responds to Rabbi Shimon’s challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר לָךְ: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב ״קׇרְבָּן״ ״קׇרְבָּן״ דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that loaves and wafers are two different types of meal offerings baked in an oven, respond to Rabbi Shimon’s proof? After all, Rabbi Shimon is saying well when he points out that the verse mentions “offering” only once. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: Since it is written: “With oil,” and: “With oil,” in the verse: “It shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4), it is considered as though it is written “offering” and “offering,” and therefore these are deemed two different types of meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses the apparent strength of Rabbi Shimon’s argument — that “offering” appears only once. Rabbi Yehuda counters that the phrase “with oil” (בשמן) appears twice in Leviticus 2:4, once for loaves (“mixed with oil”) and once for wafers (“smeared with oil”). This double mention of oil effectively functions as if “offering” were written twice, creating a textual marker that distinguishes loaves and wafers as separate sub-types. This is a creative reading that finds hidden structural division within a seemingly unified verse.
Key Terms:
- בְּשֶׁמֶן (bashemen) = “With oil” — its double appearance serves as a textual divider between the two types
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s alternative reading of the double “with oil”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אִי לָא כְּתִיב ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דַּוְוקָא מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין, אֲבָל חַלּוֹת לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ וּרְקִיקִין לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the repetition of the term “with oil” teaches a different halakha. If it were not written “with oil,” and again “with oil,” I would say that a meal offering baked in an oven must be specifically brought half as loaves and half as wafers, and if he wanted to bring only loaves alone or wafers alone, I would say that he may not bring a meal offering in this manner. The repetition of the term “with oil” teaches us that a meal offering baked in an oven can comprise ten loaves, or ten wafers, or a combination of both types.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon “reclaims” the double “with oil” for his own purposes. Without the repetition, one might think the verse mandates a mixture — always half loaves and half wafers. The double “with oil” teaches that each type can stand independently: all loaves, all wafers, or a mix. So rather than dividing the offering into two types (as Rabbi Yehuda claims), the repetition actually expands the options within a single offering framework. This is a masterful example of how the same textual feature can be read in opposite directions.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Why cite Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda separately from his father?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ אֲבוּהּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאִי עֲבַד.
English Translation:
The Gemara further inquires: The baraita states that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that loaves and wafers are two different types of meal offerings. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is the same as that of his father, Rabbi Yehuda, whose opinion is also mentioned in the baraita. Why is it necessary to cite Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion separately? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, because there is a practical difference between his ruling and that of his father; as, if someone transgressed and performed the sacrifice of a meal offering baked in an oven by bringing a mixture of loaves and wafers, according to Rabbi Yehuda the offering is valid after the fact, whereas Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda deems it not valid even after the fact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks a standard question: if father and son reach the same conclusion, why cite both? The answer reveals a significant practical difference. Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation from the singular “offering” is a prescriptive rule — ideally don’t mix, but if you did, it’s valid post-facto (בדיעבד). Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation from the “and every” analogy is more absolute — it categorizes loaves and wafers as fundamentally separate types, so mixing is invalid even post-facto. The different scriptural sources generate different levels of stringency.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִי עֲבַד (de’i avad) = If he transgressed and did it — referring to post-facto (bedi’avad) validity
- הַיְינוּ אֲבוּהּ (hainu avuha) = This is the same as his father — questioning redundancy
Segment 8
TYPE: הדרן / משנה
Hadran and new mishna — the omer offering on Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת. מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: עוֹמֶר הָיָה בָּא בַּשַּׁבָּת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, וּבַחוֹל מֵחָמֵשׁ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד שַּׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל מִשָּׁלֹשׁ הָיָה בָּא.
English Translation:
We shall return to you, Kol HaMenachot. MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: When the day of the sacrifice of the omer meal offering would occur on Shabbat, the labors performed that would otherwise be prohibited were kept to a minimum, and the one-tenth of an ephah of flour that was brought as an offering was processed from three se’a of reaped barley. And if it occurred during the week, the flour was processed from five se’a of reaped barley. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a of reaped barley.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment marks a major transition: the conclusion of Chapter 5 (Kol HaMenachot) with the hadran formula (“We shall return to you”) and the beginning of Chapter 6. The new mishna introduces a completely different topic — the omer meal offering and how its preparation differs on Shabbat versus weekdays. Rabbi Yishmael holds that on Shabbat, less barley was reaped (three se’a instead of five) to minimize Sabbath labor.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alakh) = “We shall return to you” — the traditional formula marking completion of a chapter
- עוֹמֶר (omer) = The barley meal offering brought on the 16th of Nisan (second day of Pesach)
- סְאָה (se’ah) = A dry measure, approximately 7.2 liters
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Ḥanina’s additional distinction — reaping methods on Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר: בַּשַּׁבָּת הָיָה נִקְצָר בְּיָחִיד, וּבְמַגָּל אֶחָד, וּבְקוּפָּה אַחַת, וּבַחוֹל – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת, וְשָׁלֹשׁ מַגָּלוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת, וּבְשָׁלֹשׁ מַגָּלוֹת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual and with one sickle and with one basket into which the barley was placed; and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and with three sickles.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ḥanina the Deputy High Priest presents a parallel dispute about the reaping method for the omer. He says on Shabbat only one person reaped with one sickle into one basket, while on weekdays three people reaped with three sickles into three baskets. The Rabbis maintain three reapers in both cases. Like Rabbi Yishmael’s dispute about quantity (three vs. five se’a), this dispute concerns whether Shabbat labor should be minimized for the omer. The Rabbis consistently maintain uniform procedures regardless of the day.
Key Terms:
- סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים (segan hakohanim) = The Deputy High Priest — a senior priestly office
- מַגָּל (maggal) = A sickle — the reaping tool
- קוּפָּה (kuppah) = A basket — for collecting the reaped barley
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara’s opening — the Rabbis’ position is straightforward
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן קָא סָבְרִי: עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר (בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה) [מִשָּׁלֹשׁ] סְאִין אָתֵי, וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּחוֹל וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּשַׁבָּת.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to how many se’a of barley were reaped for the omer meal offering on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yishmael three se’a were reaped when the offering was brought on a Shabbat, and five se’a were reaped when the offering was brought on a weekday. The Rabbis maintain that both during the week and on Shabbat, three se’a were reaped. The Gemara asks: Granted the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they maintain that a select tenth of an ephah of flour comes from three se’a of reaped barley, and therefore there is no difference whether the barley is reaped during the week or whether it is reaped on Shabbat, as a select tenth is required.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the mishna’s presentation of Rabbi Ḥanina the Deputy High Priest’s view and begins the Gemara’s analysis. The Gemara starts by noting that the Rabbis’ position is straightforward: a select tenth of an ephah of flour requires three se’ah of barley regardless of the day. Since the quality requirement is constant, there is no reason to differentiate between Shabbat and weekdays. The Gemara will now probe Rabbi Yishmael’s position, which treats Shabbat differently.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר (issaron muvḥar) = A select tenth — the finest quality flour for the offering
- בִּשְׁלָמָא (bishlama) = “Granted” — introducing the straightforward position before raising a difficulty
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The Rabbis’ position is clear — the challenge is understanding Rabbi Yishmael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר: עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר לָא אָתֵי אֶלָּא מֵחָמֵשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת נָמֵי! אִי מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אָתֵי – אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל נָמֵי!
English Translation:
Rather, there is a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who differentiates between Shabbat and during the week. What does he hold? If he holds that a select tenth of an ephah of flour can come only from five se’a of reaped barley, then even on Shabbat five se’a should also be required. And if the select tenth of an ephah of flour can come from even three se’a, then even on a weekday three should suffice.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara articulates a logical dilemma with Rabbi Yishmael’s position. If five se’a are truly needed for select flour, then Shabbat should also require five. If three se’a suffice, then weekdays should also use only three. Why does Rabbi Yishmael differentiate? The question exposes an apparent internal inconsistency that needs resolution — the answer will reveal a nuanced Shabbat-specific reasoning.
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s resolution — minimize the variety of Shabbat labors
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר בְּלָא טִירְחָא אָתֵי מֵחָמֵשׁ, בְּטִירְחָא אָתֵי מִשָּׁלֹשׁ. בַּחוֹל מַיְיתִינַן מֵחָמֵשׁ, דְּהָכִי שְׁבִיחָא מִילְּתָא. בְּשַׁבָּת – מוּטָב שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בִּמְלָאכָה אַחַת בְּהַרְקָדָה, וְאַל יַרְבֶּה בִּמְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
English Translation:
Rava said: Rabbi Yishmael holds that a select tenth of an ephah of flour without extra effort comes from five se’a, and with extra effort it comes from three se’a. During the week, we bring from five se’a, as that is the common practice. On Shabbat, it is preferable to increase one labor, i.e., the sifting, and not to increase many labors.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment presents both the sharpened question and Rava’s resolution together. Rava explains that Rabbi Yishmael holds a middle position: select flour can be produced from either three or five se’a, but with different levels of effort. Five se’a produce select flour easily (without extra labor); three se’a require intensive sifting. On weekdays, five se’a are used for efficiency. On Shabbat, three se’a are used to minimize the number of distinct prohibited labors — better to increase sifting (one labor) than to reap, winnow, and process additional barley (multiple labors). This reveals a sophisticated Shabbat calculus: minimizing the diversity of prohibited acts takes priority over minimizing total effort.
Key Terms:
- טִירְחָא (tirḥa) = Exertion or effort
- הַרְקָדָה (harkadah) = Sifting — the labor of passing flour through a sieve
- מוּטָב שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בִּמְלָאכָה אַחַת (mutav sheyarbeh bimlakhah aḥat) = It is preferable to increase one labor — the principle of minimizing the variety of Shabbat violations
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rabba’s parallel — Rabbi Yishmael and flaying the Paschal offering on Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת – מַפְשִׁיט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַד הֶחָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ Rabba said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, said the same thing. As it is taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, when the Paschal offering is sacrificed but not roasted until Shabbat ends, one flays the Paschal offering up to the breast, to enable removal of the parts of the animal that are sacrificed upon the altar on Shabbat, and flays the rest of the animal after Shabbat. Further skinning is only to facilitate eating the animal and therefore it does not override Shabbat. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One has not performed the obligation properly unless he flays it in its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba draws a parallel between two Tannaitic positions. Just as Rabbi Yishmael minimizes Shabbat labor by reducing the barley quantity, Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka minimizes Shabbat labor by limiting the flaying of the Paschal offering. Both share the principle: when a Temple service overrides Shabbat, only the minimum necessary labor should be performed. Flaying up to the breast suffices to extract the sacrificial fats (eimurim); further flaying merely facilitates eating and doesn’t override Shabbat. The Rabbis disagree — once the offering overrides Shabbat, all its standard procedures are performed fully.
Key Terms:
- מַפְשִׁיט (mafshit) = Flaying — removing the hide from the animal
- הֶחָזֶה (heḥazeh) = The breast — the point to which flaying suffices for extracting sacrificial parts
- אֵימוּרִים (eimurim) = The sacrificial fats and organs burned on the altar
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The shared principle — wherever possible, don’t exert on Shabbat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָתָם, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לָא טָרְחִינַן? הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר – לָא טָרְחִינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains why the statements of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, are the same. Didn’t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say there that anywhere that it is possible to perform the necessary task without an additional action, we do not exert ourselves on Shabbat? Here, too, since it is possible to perform the necessary task without the extra flaying, we do not exert ourselves.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba articulates the common principle: wherever it is possible (efshar) to fulfill the requirement without additional Shabbat labor, we minimize. For the omer — three se’a with extra sifting rather than five se’a with more reaping. For the Paschal offering — flay to the breast, not the whole animal. Both authorities share the view that Shabbat overriding (doḥeh Shabbat) is limited to what is strictly necessary, not extended to related conveniences.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לָא טָרְחִינַן (kol heikha de’efshar la tarḥinan) = Wherever it is possible, we do not exert ourselves — the principle of minimal Shabbat labor
Segment 15
TYPE: דחייה
Rejecting the comparison — degradation of consecrated items may change the calculus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָכָא, אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא בִּזְיוֹן קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל הָתָם דְּאִיכָּא בִּזְיוֹן קֳדָשִׁים,
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this comparison: From where is this conclusion reached? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his ruling only here, in the case of reaping three se’a on Shabbat, where there is no degradation of consecrated items. But there, where there is degradation of consecrated items, as the animal will be left half-flayed overnight,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabba’s equation of the two cases. The omer case involves no disgrace to sacred items — the barley is simply processed less efficiently. But the Paschal offering case involves leaving an animal half-flayed overnight, which could be considered degrading to consecrated items (bizayon kodashim). Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael would agree that in such cases, full flaying is required to prevent disgrace, even on Shabbat. This distinction weakens the parallel between the two Rabbis’ positions. The daf ends mid-discussion, with the resolution continuing on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- בִּזְיוֹן קָדָשִׁים (bizayon kodashim) = Degradation of consecrated items — a concern that could override the principle of minimizing Shabbat labor