Menachot Daf 74 (מנחות דף ע״ד)
Daf: 74 | Amudim: 74a – 74b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (74a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Continuation of R. Shimon’s comparison: priest’s sinner offering follows the same kemitza procedure as an Israelite’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים כְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – מָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל נִקְמֶצֶת, אַף מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת.
English Translation:
the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests as equivalent to the status of a meal offering of a sinner brought by an Israelite. Just as with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by an Israelite, a handful is removed, so too, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues R. Shimon’s position from the previous daf, drawing a direct analogy between a priest’s sinner meal offering and that of an Israelite. The key move is that since the verse equates the two, the priestly rite of kemitza (removing a handful) must be performed on the priest’s offering just as it is on an Israelite’s. This is a significant departure from the standard rule that all priestly meal offerings are burned entirely without kemitza, and it forms the basis of R. Shimon’s unique approach to this category of offering.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים = The meal offering brought by a priest as a sinner’s offering, a special category that R. Shimon treats differently from ordinary priestly meal offerings
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: if the analogy to an Israelite’s offering holds, the remainder should also be eaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל נִקְמֶצֶת וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין?
English Translation:
The baraita challenges this: If so, then say as follows: Just as with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by an Israelite, a handful is removed and its remainder is eaten, so too, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful should be removed and its remainder eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a natural objection to R. Shimon’s position. If the priest’s sinner offering truly mirrors an Israelite’s in all respects, then the logical conclusion would be that the remainder (shirayim) should be eaten by priests, just as with an Israelite’s offering. But this creates a fundamental problem: the Torah explicitly states that priestly meal offerings are not eaten. The challenge thus exposes a tension in R. Shimon’s analogy — he cannot simply equate the two offerings in every respect without contradicting a separate Torah prohibition.
Key Terms:
- שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין = The remainder is eaten — referring to the standard procedure for an Israelite’s meal offering, where the remainder after kemitza goes to the priests
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: the verse equates only the priestly rite (kemitza), not the fate of the remainder — handful and remainder are each burned separately
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה, וְלֹא לָאִשִּׁים כַּמִּנְחָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? קוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְשִׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בְּעַצְמָן.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering,” which is interpreted to mean that with regard to the rite performed by the priest, his meal offering is like the meal offering of the Israelite, but it is not like the meal offering of the Israelite with regard to consumption by the fires of the altar. How is this possible? In what ways does the meal offering of a priest resemble that of an Israelite in some respects and not in others? The priest’s handful is sacrificed by itself, like that of the Israelite, and the remainder is sacrificed by itself, unlike those of the Israelite, which are eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita resolves the challenge through a precise reading of the verse “to the priest, as the meal offering.” The comparison to an Israelite’s offering applies only to the priestly service — the act of kemitza — but not to what happens to the offering on the altar fires. The practical result is a unique hybrid procedure: the handful is burned on the altar by itself (just as with an Israelite’s offering), and the remainder is also burned on the altar by itself (unlike an Israelite’s offering, where the remainder is eaten). This reading preserves both the analogy and the prohibition against eating priestly meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה = “To the priest, as the meal offering” — the key phrase limiting the analogy to the priestly rite only
- אִשִּׁים = The altar fires — the verse excludes the comparison with respect to what is consumed by fire
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: is the halakha that a priest may perform his own offering’s rite really derived from this verse?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא?
English Translation:
§ According to the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita cited earlier, a priest may perform the rites of a meal offering of a sinner that he brings for himself based on the verse “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering.” The Gemara now asks: With regard to this halakha that its rite is valid when performed by him, is it derived from here?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts focus from the fate of the offering to a secondary implication of the baraita: the idea that a priest may personally perform the sacrificial rites of his own sin offering. The question is whether this specific verse in Leviticus is truly the source for this halakha, or whether it can be derived from elsewhere. This initiates a chain of back-and-forth that will test three possible scriptural sources, each with progressively narrower scope, ultimately showing that all three are necessary to cover the full range of cases.
Key Terms:
- עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ = Its rite is valid when performed by him — the principle that a priest is not disqualified from performing the service for his own offering
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative source from Deuteronomy 18:6-7: a priest may come and sacrifice his own offerings at any time
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא, מִנַּיִן לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא וּמַקְרִיב קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו בְּכׇל עֵת וּבְכׇל שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבָא בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ וְשֵׁרֵת״.
English Translation:
It is derived from there, another verse cited in a baraita, which states: From where is it derived with regard to a priest that he may come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and at any hour that he desires, even when it is not during the period of his priestly watch? The verse states: “And if a Levite comes from any of your gates from all of Israel, where he lives, and comes with all the desire of his soul to the place which the Lord shall choose, then he shall serve in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brothers the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:6–7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes an alternative scriptural source for the principle that a priest may perform the service for his own offerings. The verse in Deuteronomy, “and comes with all the desire of his soul and shall serve,” broadly permits a priest to come and offer his own sacrifices whenever he wishes, even outside his designated watch rotation. This appears to make the Leviticus verse unnecessary for this halakha, setting up the next stage of the discussion where each verse’s unique contribution will be identified.
Key Terms:
- אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ = The desire of his soul — the phrase in Deuteronomy granting a priest the right to sacrifice his personal offerings at will
- וְשֵׁרֵת = And shall serve — interpreted to mean that the priest may personally perform the sacrificial service
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
The Deuteronomy verse covers only voluntary offerings, not sin offerings — the Leviticus verse is still needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בָּא עַל חֵטְא, אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁבָּא עַל חֵטְא – אֵימָא לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If the halakha were derived from there, the verse in Deuteronomy, I would say: This statement, that a priest may perform his rites whenever he chooses, applies only to a matter that does not come to atone for a sin, as the verse is referring to an offering that he desires to bring. But with regard to a matter that comes to atone for a sin, I would say that he may not perform the rite himself. Therefore, the halakha of the meal offering of a sinner must be derived from the verse in Leviticus: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains why the Deuteronomy verse alone is insufficient. The phrase “with all the desire of his soul” naturally refers to voluntary offerings — things a priest chooses to bring. One might reasonably think that sin offerings, which are obligatory responses to transgressions, fall outside this permission. Perhaps a priest who sinned should not be allowed to serve as his own officiant due to the taint of the sin. Therefore, the Leviticus verse remains necessary to teach that even for sin-related offerings, the priest may perform the rite himself.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר שֶׁבָּא עַל חֵטְא = A matter that comes to atone for a sin — sin offerings and guilt offerings that a priest brings for his own transgression
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
A third alternative source from Numbers 15:28 — the priest atones for himself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא נָמֵי מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן מִתְכַּפֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is this halakha that a priest may perform the rite of his own sin offering also derived from here, i.e., the verse: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering”? It is derived from there: “And the priest shall effect atonement for the soul that sins unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly” (Numbers 15:28). The term “for the soul that sins unwittingly” teaches that the priest may effect atonement even through himself, when he performs the rite.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now raises yet another competing source. Numbers 15:28 speaks explicitly of a priest effecting atonement for “the soul that sins unwittingly,” which is read to include the priest himself — he can be both the one performing the atonement and the one receiving it. This verse already covers sin offerings, which makes the Leviticus verse seem redundant once again. The Gemara is building a layered argument showing that each verse has a unique scope that the others cannot cover.
Key Terms:
- הַכֹּהֵן מִתְכַּפֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ = The priest achieves atonement through himself — the principle derived from Numbers that a priest can officiate his own atonement
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The Numbers verse covers only unwitting sins — the Leviticus verse is needed for intentional sins too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מֵהָהוּא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – בְּשׁוֹגֵג, אֲבָל בְּמֵזִיד – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If the halakha were derived from that latter verse, I would say: This statement, permitting him to effect his own atonement, applies when the offering is brought for a sin committed unwittingly. But with regard to an offering brought for a sin committed intentionally, the priest may not effect his own atonement. Therefore, the verse that states: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering,” teaches us that the priest may perform the rite even for an offering that he brings for an intentional sin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution completes the three-tiered argument. The Numbers verse explicitly mentions “the soul that sins unwittingly,” limiting its scope to inadvertent transgressions. For intentional sins requiring a meal offering, neither the Deuteronomy verse (which covers only voluntary offerings) nor the Numbers verse (which covers only unwitting sins) would suffice. Therefore, the Leviticus verse “to the priest, as the meal offering” is uniquely necessary to teach that even for intentional sins, a priest may serve as his own officiant. All three verses are thus shown to be non-redundant.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹגֵג = Unwitting/inadvertent — a sin committed without full awareness, covered by the Numbers verse
- מֵזִיד = Intentional — a deliberate sin, for which the Leviticus verse is uniquely needed
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Practical case: an intentional sin requiring a meal offering — the false oath of testimony
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמֵזִיד, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בִּזְדוֹן שְׁבוּעָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to an offering brought for a sin committed intentionally, how can you find these circumstances? The Gemara answers: You can find them in the instance of a meal offering brought as atonement for intentionally taking a false oath of testimony that he was not aware of a certain incident involving another individual. The priest may perform the rites for a meal offering that he brings to atone for such a sin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses a natural follow-up question: where do we actually find an intentional sin that requires a meal offering? Typically, intentional sins do not have sacrificial atonement. The answer is the unique case of shevu’at ha’edut (oath of testimony), where a witness falsely swears he has no relevant testimony. Even though this oath may be taken deliberately, the Torah prescribes an adjustable-value offering (korban oleh v’yored), which for a poor person may be a meal offering. This is the specific case where the Leviticus verse’s teaching about intentional sins becomes practically relevant.
Key Terms:
- זְדוֹן שְׁבוּעָה = Intentional false oath — specifically the oath of testimony, where a deliberate act still requires a sacrifice
- שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת = Oath of testimony — a unique category where even intentional transgression is atoned through an offering
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Shimon: both parts burned on altar. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon: handful burned, remainder scattered on ash heap
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, וְהַקּוֹמֵץ קָרֵב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁירַיִם מִתְפַּזְּרִין עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a handful of the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest is separated and offered upon the altar, it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed; and the handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed by itself. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered upon the place of the ashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second baraita now presents a dispute between R. Shimon and his son R. Elazar b. R. Shimon about the disposition of the remainder. Both agree that kemitza is performed, but they disagree on what happens to the shirayim. R. Shimon holds that the remainder is burned on the altar — sacrificed in its own right, just separately from the handful. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon takes a more unusual position: the remainder is merely scattered on the ash heap (beit hadeshen), not burned on the altar at all. This dispute will generate significant Gemara analysis in the following segments.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן = The place of ashes — the ash heap where certain sacrificial remains were deposited, either on the altar or below it
- מִתְפַּזְּרִין = Scattered — R. Elazar b. R. Shimon’s unique position that the remainder is dispersed rather than formally burned
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
R. Yochanan’s dilemma: which ash heap does R. Elazar mean? If above — same as his father; if below — nothing is sacrificed there
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הָוֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן דְּהֵיכָא? אִי דִּלְמַעְלָה – הַיְינוּ אֲבוּהּ, אִי דִּלְמַטָּה – יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לְמַטָּה?
English Translation:
With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan discusses it and asks: To which place of the ashes in the Temple is he referring? If he is referring to the one that is above, upon the altar, his opinion is identical to that of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated that the remainder is offered and burned upon the altar, after which the ashes are swept onto the ash heap upon the altar. If so, according to both opinions, the remainder is taken to the same place. And if Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the ash heap that is below the altar, that is difficult: Do you have any item that is sacrificed below the altar?
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan poses a sharp logical dilemma against R. Elazar b. R. Shimon’s position. The term “beit hadeshen” is ambiguous — it could refer to the ash heap on top of the altar or to the one at the base of the altar in the Temple courtyard. If it means the upper ash heap, then R. Elazar’s view collapses into his father’s, since both would result in the remainder ending up on the altar. If it means the lower ash heap, the position becomes incoherent: no sacrificial item is ever placed below the altar. R. Yochanan’s question thus presents a seemingly irresolvable fork.
Key Terms:
- לְמַעְלָה = Above — referring to the ash heap on top of the altar
- לְמַטָּה = Below — referring to the ash heap at the base of the altar in the courtyard
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
R. Abba suggests the remainder is scattered to be wasted — the Sages laugh: can something be sacrificed for waste?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: דִּלְמָא לְאִיבּוּד? אַחִיכוּ עֲלֵיהּ, וְכִי יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לְאִיבּוּד?
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, means that the remainder is scattered there to be wasted. When the Sages heard this, they laughed at him, saying: But do you have any item that is sacrificed as part of the Temple service in order to be wasted?
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Abba attempts to resolve R. Yochanan’s dilemma by proposing a third option: the remainder is scattered below specifically to be wasted — not as a sacrificial act but as a form of disposal. The Sages’ laughter at this suggestion reveals a fundamental principle of the sacrificial system: once kemitza has been performed, every part of the offering has sacral status and cannot simply be discarded. The concept of performing a priestly rite on something only to waste it offends the logic of the entire Temple service. Despite the mockery, the Gemara will proceed to find a resolution in the following segment.
Key Terms:
- לְאִיבּוּד = To be wasted — R. Abba’s suggestion that the remainder is disposed of rather than offered, which the Sages reject as conceptually impossible
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Father of R. Avin: the verse likens the priest’s offering to the griddle-cake only regarding eating prohibition, not burning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין: ״כׇּל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ – לַאֲכִילָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיהָ, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that there are consecrated items that are intentionally wasted. With regard to such items, the father of Rabbi Avin teaches: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Why must this verse, which follows those discussing the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, state that it shall not be eaten, after it already states that it is entirely offered? The verse teaches: I have likened the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest to the daily griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest with regard to eating, insofar as it is not eaten, but I have not likened it with regard to another matter, i.e., that the meal offering of a sinner is not burned in the manner of the griddle-cake offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The father of R. Avin provides the key exegetical resolution. The verse says two things: “entirely offered” and “shall not be eaten.” He reads the phrase “shall not be eaten” as establishing a limited analogy (hekesh) between the priest’s sinner offering and the griddle-cake offering — they share only the prohibition against eating, not the requirement of being entirely burned on the altar. This allows for the possibility that the remainder of the priest’s sinner offering is neither eaten nor fully burned, but scattered to waste. This teaching thus vindicates R. Elazar b. R. Shimon’s position and answers R. Yochanan’s objection.
Key Terms:
- כָּלִיל = Entirely offered — referring to the griddle-cake offering’s status as fully consumed on the altar
- לֹא תֵאָכֵל = Shall not be eaten — the secondary prohibition that applies to the priest’s sinner offering
- הִקַּשְׁתִּיהָ = I likened it — the principle of analogy (hekesh) drawn between the two types of offerings
Segment 14
TYPE: מחלוקת
Abaye reads the verse non-sequentially; Rava objects: “a sharp knife cutting verses!”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָא אָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָא אָמַר – ״כׇּל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן … לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ – חוֹבָתוֹ, ״כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה״ – נִדְבָתוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: סַכִּינָא חֲרִיפָא מַפְסְקָא קְרָאֵי!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is he saying, as the verse states explicitly that it must be entirely offered? Abaye said that this is what he is saying: This is how the verse is to be read: “Every meal offering of the priest…shall not be eaten,” when the offering is sacrificed to fulfill his obligation, such as the meal offering of a sinner. It is neither eaten nor completely burned, but rather placed on the ash heap. When the verse states: “Shall be offered in its entirety,” this is referring to his gift offering, which is completely burned in the manner of a griddle-cake offering. Rava said to him: This reading is like a sharp knife cutting the verses to pieces, as it interprets the beginning and end of the verse together, ignoring the middle.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye attempts to explain the father of R. Avin’s teaching by splitting the verse: the opening (“every meal offering of the priest”) and the end (“shall not be eaten”) refer to the obligatory offering, while the middle phrase (“shall be entirely offered”) refers to the voluntary offering. Rava’s vivid metaphor — “a sharp knife cutting verses” — captures his methodological objection: you cannot extract the beginning and end of a verse and skip the middle to create a reading. This is a classic Abaye-Rava exchange that highlights their different approaches to textual interpretation, with Rava insisting on reading the verse in its natural order.
Key Terms:
- סַכִּינָא חֲרִיפָא מַפְסְקָא קְרָאֵי = A sharp knife cutting verses — Rava’s colorful critique of Abaye’s non-sequential reading of the verse
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s sequential reading: “entirely offered” = voluntary; “shall not be eaten” = obligatory (neither eaten NOR entirely burned)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״כׇּל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה״ – נִדְבָתוֹ, ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ – חוֹבָתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava says: When the verse states: “Every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety,” this is referring to his gift offering, which is entirely offered. When the verse states that it “shall not be eaten,” this is referring to his obligatory meal offering, which is neither eaten nor entirely offered.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers his own reading of the verse that maintains its natural sequential order. “Every meal offering of the priest shall be entirely offered” — this first clause refers to voluntary (nedava) offerings, which are entirely burned on the altar like the griddle-cake offering. “Shall not be eaten” — this second clause refers to obligatory (chova) offerings like the sinner’s meal offering, which is subject only to a prohibition against eating but need not be entirely burned. The result is the same as the father of R. Avin’s teaching — the obligatory offering’s remainder goes to waste — but derived through proper sequential reading rather than Abaye’s cut-and-paste approach.
Key Terms:
- נִדְבָתוֹ = His voluntary/gift offering — entirely burned on the altar
- חוֹבָתוֹ = His obligatory offering — subject only to the eating prohibition, not the burning requirement
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Why not reverse the reading? Because the voluntary offering more closely resembles the griddle-cake offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא? מִסְתַּבְּרָא נִדְבָתוֹ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן תְּדִירָה, לָא חָטֵי, בְּסִים רֵיחֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why should the verse be read that way? I can reverse the interpretation and say that the priest’s obligatory meal offering is entirely offered, and his gift offering shall be neither eaten nor entirely offered. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that his gift offering should be included in the phrase “shall be offered in its entirety,” as it resembles the griddle-cake offering and differs from the meal offering of a sinner in several respects, namely, that it is frequent, that the priest bringing it did not sin, and that its scent is fragrant, as it is mixed with oil, and frankincense is added to it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises the natural objection: Rava’s reading is arbitrary — why not flip the assignments? The answer employs a standard Talmudic reasoning technique, comparing the candidate offerings to the griddle-cake offering to determine which the verse more naturally extends. The voluntary offering shares three characteristics with the griddle-cake: it is brought frequently (tedirah), it does not come on account of a sin, and it has a fragrant scent (since it contains oil and frankincense). These shared features make it the more logical candidate to share the griddle-cake’s fate of being entirely burned.
Key Terms:
- תְּדִירָה = Frequent — a principle of Talmudic reasoning: the more frequent item takes precedence or is more closely associated
- בְּסִים רֵיחֵיהּ = Its scent is fragrant — indicating the offering contains oil and frankincense, making it similar to the griddle-cake offering
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Counter-argument: the obligatory offering also shares features with the griddle-cake. Resolution: the voluntary offering has MORE similarities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, חוֹבָתוֹ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן חוֹבָה! הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: On the contrary, the verse should be interpreted to include his obligatory meal offering, as the obligatory meal offering is similar to the griddle-cake offering in that, unlike the gift offering, it comprises a tenth of an ephah and bringing it is an obligation. The Gemara responds: Because these similarities between the gift offering and the griddle-cake offering are more numerous than those between the obligatory offering and the griddle-cake offering, it is logical that the verse is comparing the gift offering to the griddle-cake offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pushes back: the obligatory offering also resembles the griddle-cake offering in two respects — both consist of a tenth of an ephah (issaron) and both are obligatory. This is a genuine counter-argument, since these are substantive halakhic features. The resolution is quantitative: the voluntary offering shares three features with the griddle-cake (frequency, no sin, fragrance) while the obligatory offering shares only two (quantity, obligation). Since the voluntary offering has more points of similarity, it is the more natural candidate for the “entirely offered” clause. This majority-rules approach to scriptural analogy is a common Talmudic method.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah — the standard flour quantity for the griddle-cake and the obligatory sinner’s meal offering
- הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן = Those are more numerous — the decisive argument: three similarities outweigh two
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Transition to the Rabbis’ view: how do they interpret “shall not be eaten” if all priestly meal offerings are entirely burned?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״כׇּל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״, מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
§ After discussing the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of the Rabbis that no handful is removed from any of the meal offerings of the priests, with regard to this verse: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten,” what do they do with it? How do they interpret the superfluous phrase: “It shall not be eaten”?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having thoroughly explored R. Shimon’s position and the debate between Abaye and Rava, the Gemara now pivots to the majority Rabbinic view. According to the Rabbis, all priestly meal offerings — both voluntary and obligatory — are entirely burned, with no kemitza performed. If so, the phrase “shall not be eaten” seems redundant: if the entire offering is burned, it obviously cannot be eaten. The Gemara therefore asks what additional teaching the Rabbis derive from this seemingly superfluous clause, setting up the gezera shava discussion that follows.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּנַן = The Rabbis — the majority view that disagrees with R. Shimon and holds all priestly meal offerings are entirely burned without kemitza
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
The Rabbis use the verses for a gezera shava: the upper verse has “entirely smoked,” the lower verse has “not eaten”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶלְיוֹנָה בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, וְתַחְתּוֹנָה בְּ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: Concerning the griddle-cake offering, the verse states: “It shall be entirely smoked for the Lord” (Leviticus 6:15). From this verse and the verse that follows it, which states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten,” I have derived only that the griddle-cake offering mentioned above, in the first verse, is subject to: “It shall be entirely smoked,” and that other meal offerings of priests mentioned below, in the second verse, are subject to: “It shall not be eaten.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis use the phrase “shall not be eaten” for an entirely different purpose than R. Shimon. The baraita identifies a gap in the two adjacent verses: Leviticus 6:15 (the “upper” verse) states the griddle-cake offering shall be “entirely smoked,” while Leviticus 6:16 (the “lower” verse) states the priests’ meal offerings “shall not be eaten.” Without further derivation, each verse applies only its own rule to its own subject — the griddle-cake is entirely burned but has no explicit eating prohibition, and the priests’ offerings are not eaten but have no explicit burning requirement. This sets up the need for a gezera shava.
Key Terms:
- עֶלְיוֹנָה = The upper/first verse — Leviticus 6:15, referring to the griddle-cake offering
- תַחְתּוֹנָה = The lower/second verse — Leviticus 6:16, referring to the priests’ meal offerings
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
Verbal analogy (gezera shava) from “entirely” / “entirely” — each verse’s rule is applied to the other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה, וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּלִיל״ ״כָּלִיל״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״כָּלִיל״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כָּלִיל״,
English Translation:
From where is it derived to apply the prohibition that was said about this case to that case, and the prohibition that was said about that case to this case, to teach that the priests’ meal offerings shall be entirely smoked and the griddle-cake offering shall not be eaten? The verse states: “Entirely,” in the first verse, and: “Entirely,” in the second, to be utilized as a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the priests’ meal offerings: “Entirely,” and it is stated there, with regard to the griddle-cake offering: “Entirely.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now employs the gezera shava method — one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles — using the shared word “kalil” (entirely) that appears in both verses. Since the same term appears in the verse about the griddle-cake offering and in the verse about the priests’ meal offerings, the Rabbis derive that the rules stated in each verse should be applied to the other. This is a bidirectional analogy: what is said about the griddle-cake transfers to the priests’ offerings, and what is said about the priests’ offerings transfers to the griddle-cake.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = Verbal analogy — a hermeneutical principle where identical terms in two different passages allow the laws of each to be transferred to the other
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Result of the gezera shava: griddle-cake gets the eating prohibition; priests’ meal offerings get the burning requirement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְהַלָּן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, אַף כָּאן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״. וּמָה כָּאן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ, אַף לְהַלָּן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ.
English Translation:
Just as there, the offering is subject to the prohibition of: “It shall be entirely smoked,” so too here, the offerings are subject to the prohibition of: “It shall be entirely smoked.” And just as here, with regard to the meal offering of the priest, the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon eating it, so too there, with regard to the griddle-cake offering, the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment spells out the practical result of the gezera shava. The transfer operates in both directions: the griddle-cake offering, which originally only had the positive command to be “entirely smoked,” now also receives the negative prohibition against eating. Conversely, the priests’ meal offerings, which originally only had the eating prohibition, now also receive the requirement to be entirely smoked on the altar. According to the Rabbis, both categories of offerings thus carry both a positive command (kalil tiktar) and a negative prohibition (lo te’akhel), creating a comprehensive framework of obligations.
Key Terms:
- כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר = Entirely smoked — the positive command transferred from the griddle-cake verse to all priests’ meal offerings
- לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה = A negative prohibition — the eating prohibition transferred from the priests’ meal offering verse to the griddle-cake offering
Segment 22
TYPE: בעיא
Ravina’s question: does a priest who eats sacrificial portions (eimurin) violate the “entirely offered, not eaten” prohibition?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָכַל מִן הָאֵימוּרִין, מָה הוּא? לָאו דְּזָרוּת
English Translation:
§ With regard to the prohibition against eating from certain offerings derived from the verse that states: “Shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten,” Ravina asks: In the case of a priest who ate from the sacrificial portions, what is the halakha? As to whether this priest violates the prohibition of a non-priest eating certain types of sacrificial meat, expressed in the verse: “No non-priest shall eat of the sacrificial meat” (Leviticus 22:10),
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina poses a new question that extends the discussion beyond meal offerings to the broader sacrificial system. Sacrificial portions (eimurin) — the fats and other parts designated for the altar — are forbidden to be eaten. Ravina’s inquiry is not about the non-priest prohibition (which clearly does not apply to priests), but rather whether the “kalil tihyeh, lo te’akhel” prohibition from the priests’ meal offering verse extends to all items designated to be entirely burned on the altar. This question probes whether the eating prohibition is limited to its immediate context or has universal application to all altar-bound portions. The question continues onto the next amud.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרִין = Sacrificial portions — the fats and designated parts of animal offerings that must be burned on the altar
- זָרוּת = Non-priest status — the prohibition against non-priests eating sacred food, which is not the subject of Ravina’s question
Amud Bet (74b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
Clarification: Ravina’s question is specifically about the “kalil” prohibition, not the non-priest prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, כִּי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לִי לָאו דְּ״כָלִיל תִּהְיֶה״, מַאי?
English Translation:
I do not raise the dilemma. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to the prohibition of: “Shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten.” What is the halakha? Is this prohibition applicable only to the meal offering of a priest mentioned in the verse, or does it apply to a priest who eats from the sacrificial portions as well?
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina now sharpens his question from the end of the previous amud. He clarifies that he is not asking about the prohibition of zarut (non-priest eating), which obviously does not apply to priests. Rather, his inquiry concerns the specific prohibition derived from “kalil tihyeh, lo te’akhel” — does this prohibition, which the Rabbis applied through the gezera shava to all items that must be entirely burned, extend to sacrificial portions (eimurin) of animal offerings? The question is whether a priest who eats eimurin violates one prohibition (zarut) or two (zarut plus the “kalil” prohibition).
Key Terms:
- לָאו דְּ״כָלִיל תִּהְיֶה״ = The prohibition of “shall be entirely offered” — the specific negative commandment whose scope Ravina is questioning
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
R. Aharon resolves from a baraita: R. Eliezer says everything in the “entirely offered” category carries the eating prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַהֲרֹן לְרָבִינָא: תָּא שְׁמַע דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּ״כָלִיל תִּהְיֶה״, לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Aharon said to Ravina: Come and hear an answer to this question from that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to every sacrificial item, not just the meal offering of a priest, such as the sacrificial portions, which is included in the category of “shall be offered in its entirety” that requires it to be burned, the verse serves to impose a prohibition against eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Aharon provides Ravina with a definitive answer from a tannaitic source. R. Eliezer’s position is that the “kalil tihyeh, lo te’akhel” prohibition is not limited to the priests’ meal offering but extends universally to anything that must be entirely burned on the altar. This means that a priest who eats sacrificial portions (eimurin) would indeed violate this additional prohibition, beyond the standard non-priest or me’ilah prohibitions. R. Eliezer’s broad reading treats the verse as establishing a general principle: whatever is designated for complete burning on the altar is subject to the negative commandment against eating.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּ״כָלִיל תִּהְיֶה״ = Everything that falls under “shall be entirely offered” — R. Eliezer’s expansive reading that applies the eating prohibition to all altar-bound items
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: classifying offerings — some go entirely to the altar (altar is stronger), some entirely to the priests (priests are stronger)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֵין בָּהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים. וּבָזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחַ מִזְבֵּחַ מִכֹּחַ הַכֹּהֲנִים. שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – נֶאֱכָלִין לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאֵין בָּהֶם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּבָזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחַ הַכֹּהֲנִים מִכֹּחַ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and the meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings are burned in their entirety on the altar, and there is no part of them for the priests. And in the case of those offerings, the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests. The two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves baked from new wheat, and the shewbread, i.e., the twelve loaves that were placed on the sacred Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, are eaten by the priests, and there is no part of them burned on the altar. And in the case of those offerings, the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna introduces a conceptual framework for classifying meal offerings by their destination. Most offerings are divided between the altar and the priests, but the mishna identifies extreme cases where one “power” completely dominates. Three types go entirely to the altar: priestly meal offerings (which cannot be eaten), the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake (which is entirely burned), and libation meal offerings (which accompany animal sacrifices). On the other side, two types go entirely to the priests: the two loaves of Shavuot and the shewbread, neither of which has any portion placed on the altar. The symmetrical structure highlights the balance between priestly and altar claims in the Temple system.
Key Terms:
- כֹּחַ מִזְבֵּחַ = The power of the altar — referring to offerings that go entirely to be burned
- כֹּחַ הַכֹּהֲנִים = The power of the priests — referring to offerings consumed entirely by priests
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים = Libation meal offering — the flour offering that accompanies animal sacrifices along with wine libations
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Challenges to the mishna’s list: burnt offering has hide for priests; bird burnt offering has crop/feathers discarded; libations go to drainpipes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא עוֹלָה! אִיכָּא עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְהָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף! אִיכָּא מוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה. וְהָא אִיכָּא נְסָכִים! לְשִׁיתִין אָזְלִי.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And are there no additional cases of sacrificial items that are completely placed on the altar, with none of their parts given to the priests? But isn’t there the burnt offering, which is completely burned on the altar? The Gemara answers: There is the burnt offering’s hide, which is given to the priests. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the bird sacrificed as a burnt offering, whose skin is not given to the priests? The Gemara answers: There is the bird burnt offering’s crop and its feathers, which are not burned upon the altar. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there wine libations, which are completely poured onto the altar? The Gemara answers: The libations go to the drainpipes, and pouring the wine into the drainpipes is not considered placing it upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the mishna’s claim that only three types of offerings go entirely to the altar by proposing apparent counterexamples. Each is refuted: the animal burnt offering (olah) seems entirely burned, but its hide goes to the priests. The bird burnt offering has no hide, but its crop and feathers are removed and not burned on the altar. Wine libations seem to go entirely on the altar, but they actually drain into the shitin (underground channels), not onto the altar surface. The rapid-fire question-and-answer format demonstrates the precision of the mishna’s categories — only offerings where literally every part goes to the altar qualify.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלָה = Burnt offering — entirely consumed on the altar, except for its hide
- עוֹרָהּ = Its hide — the skin of the burnt offering, which goes to the priests
- מוּרְאָה וְנוֹצָה = Crop and feathers — parts of the bird burnt offering removed and discarded, not burned
- שִׁיתִין = Drainpipes — underground channels beneath the altar through which wine libations flow
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna’s emphasis “in this” excludes Shmuel’s view — donated wine goes to drainpipes, not poured on the altar fires
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי ״בָּזוֹ״? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמִּתְנַדֵּב יַיִן מְבִיאוֹ וּמְזַלְּפוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי אִישִּׁים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּלְשִׁיתִין אָזְלִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is meant when the mishna emphasizes: And in the case of those offerings, the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests, indicating that there are other items that one might have thought are burned entirely on the altar as well? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s wording serves to exclude the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: One who donates wine brings it and pours it over the fires of the altar, such that it is offered in the manner of an animal offering and not as a libation. Therefore, the mishna’s wording teaches us that wine donated in this manner goes to the drainpipes, unlike according to the opinion of Shmuel that it is entirely burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the practical implication of the mishna’s emphatic phrasing “in this” (bazeh). The extra emphasis signals that only the listed items go entirely to the altar — excluding donated wine. Shmuel held that voluntarily donated wine is poured directly onto the altar fires (ishim), which would make it an additional case of the altar’s power dominating. The mishna rejects this by teaching that even donated wine goes to the drainpipes (shitin), not onto the altar surface. This is a significant practical ruling about the treatment of voluntary wine donations in the Temple.
Key Terms:
- אִישִּׁים = Altar fires — the burning wood arrangement on the altar where offerings are consumed
- מְזַלְּפוֹ = Pours/sprinkles — Shmuel’s view that donated wine is poured directly onto the altar fires
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Support for a different ruling of Shmuel: donated oil undergoes kemitza, remainder eaten by priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמִּתְנַדֵּב שֶׁמֶן – קוֹמְצוֹ, וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: With regard to another ruling, the mishna supports a different statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: One who donates oil to the Temple removes a handful and sacrifices it on the altar, and its remainder is eaten by the priests. Shmuel’s ruling is in accordance with the mishna, which does not list a donation of oil as one of the offerings given completely to the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
While the previous segment rejected Shmuel’s ruling about donated wine, the Gemara now shows that the mishna supports a different ruling of Shmuel regarding donated oil. According to Shmuel, when someone voluntarily donates oil to the Temple, it is treated like a standard meal offering: a handful (kometz) is removed and burned on the altar, and the remainder is eaten by the priests. The fact that the mishna does not list donated oil among the offerings that go entirely to the altar provides implicit support for Shmuel’s position that donated oil is divided between altar and priests rather than going entirely to either one.
Key Terms:
- הַמִּתְנַדֵּב שֶׁמֶן = One who donates oil — a voluntary oil donation treated like a meal offering with kemitza
- קוֹמְצוֹ = Removes a handful — the same kemitza procedure used for standard meal offerings is applied to donated oil
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge to the priests’ side: what about the bird sin offering (all eaten by priests)? Answer: its blood goes to the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף! אִיכָּא דָּמָהּ.
English Translation:
§ According to the mishna, with regard to the two loaves and the shewbread, the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar. The Gemara asks: And are there no more cases of sacrificial items that are given completely to the priests, with none of their parts placed upon the altar? But isn’t there the bird sacrificed as a sin offering, which is eaten entirely by the priests, and none of it is placed upon the altar? The Gemara answers: There is its blood, which is sprinkled upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now tests the other side of the mishna’s classification — the claim that only the two loaves and the shewbread go entirely to the priests. The bird sin offering appears to be a counterexample, since its meat is eaten entirely by the priests without any part being burned on the altar. However, the Gemara refutes this: the bird’s blood is sprinkled on the altar, meaning the altar does receive something from this offering. Only the two loaves and shewbread are truly cases where the altar receives nothing at all — no blood, no fat, no burning of any kind.
Key Terms:
- חַטַּאת הָעוֹף = Bird sin offering — a sin offering brought by poor individuals, whose meat is entirely eaten by priests but whose blood is applied to the altar
- דָּמָהּ = Its blood — the blood sprinkled on the altar, preventing this from being a pure “priests’ power” case
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Another challenge: the leper’s oil log — also refuted because its placements go toward the altar area
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאִיכָּא לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע! אִיכָּא מַתְּנוֹתָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the log of oil of a leper that he brings on the day that he becomes ritually clean, which is given completely to the priests? The Gemara answers: It is not given completely to the priests, as there are its placements, when oil is sprinkled seven times “before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16), and applied to the leper’s right ear, thumb, and big toe (see Leviticus 14:17).
קלאוד על הדף:
A second challenge to the priests’ category: the log of oil brought by a leper (metzora) upon purification seems to go entirely to the priests. The Gemara refutes this by noting that the oil has required “placements” (matnotav) — the priest sprinkles it seven times before the Lord and applies it to the leper’s ear, thumb, and toe. These ritual placements are directed toward the altar area (or at least the Sanctuary), meaning the altar/Temple does receive a portion of this offering. Once again, only the two loaves and shewbread remain as pure cases where the priests receive everything.
Key Terms:
- לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע = The log of oil of the leper — a measure of oil used in the purification ritual of a person healed from tzara’at
- מַתְּנוֹתָיו = Its placements — the seven sprinklings before the Lord and the applications to the leper’s body
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The emphasis “in this” excludes the view that two loaves brought alone go to burning — priests’ power is always greater here
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי ״בָּזוֹ״? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמַּאן דְּאָמַר: שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הַבָּאוֹת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן לִשְׂרֵיפָה אָתְיָין, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּבָזוֹ יִפָּה כֹּחַ כֹּהֲנִים לְעוֹלָם.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is meant when the mishna emphasizes: And in the case of those offerings, the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar? The Gemara answers: This wording serves to exclude the opinion of the one who says: The two loaves that are brought by themselves, unaccompanied by the requisite two lambs, may not be offered, and instead of being eaten they go to be burned. By emphasizing that the two loaves and the shewbread are eaten by the priests and not placed on the altar, the mishna teaches us that in this case, the power of the priests is always greater, even if the two lambs are not offered with the two loaves.
קלאוד על הדף:
Parallel to the earlier analysis of the altar’s side, the Gemara now explains the emphatic “in this” (bazeh) on the priests’ side. There is an opinion that if the two loaves of Shavuot are brought without their accompanying lambs, they cannot be offered and instead go to burning (sereifah). If that were correct, the two loaves would not always go entirely to the priests — sometimes they would be burned. The mishna’s emphatic language rejects this view, teaching that the priests’ power over the two loaves and shewbread is absolute and unconditional. The priests always receive these offerings in their entirety.
Key Terms:
- בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן = By themselves — the scenario where the two loaves are brought without the accompanying lambs
- לִשְׂרֵיפָה = To burning — the rejected view that unaccompanied loaves must be burned rather than eaten
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: vessel-prepared meal offerings require three oil procedures — pouring, mixing, and placing oil in the vessel first
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בִּכְלִי, טְעוּנוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן: יְצִיקָה, וּבְלִילָה, וּמַתַּן שֶׁמֶן בִּכְלִי קוֹדֵם לַעֲשִׂיָּיתָן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: All the meal offerings that are prepared in a vessel, e.g., the offerings prepared in a pan or deep pan, require three placements of oil, listed here in the reverse order of their placement: Pouring oil on the cakes after they have been cooked, and mixing oil into the flour, and placement of oil into the vessel prior to preparation of the meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
This second new mishna shifts to a detailed procedural topic: how oil is used in the preparation of vessel-based meal offerings. The mishna identifies three distinct stages of oil application, listed in reverse chronological order. First (listed last) is placing oil into the empty vessel before anything else. Second is mixing (belilah) — incorporating oil into the flour. Third (listed first) is pouring (yetzikah) — adding oil onto the finished cakes after cooking. The specification “prepared in a vessel” is significant because it will exclude oven-baked offerings, which have different oil requirements.
Key Terms:
- יְצִיקָה = Pouring — the final oil application, poured onto the finished cooked product
- בְּלִילָה = Mixing — incorporating oil into the flour during preparation
- מַתַּן שֶׁמֶן בִּכְלִי = Placement of oil in the vessel — the first step, placing oil into the empty service vessel before adding flour
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
Loaves vs. wafers: loaves are mixed with oil (dispute about when); wafers are smeared in chi shape. Remaining oil eaten by priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַלּוֹת בּוֹלְלָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: סוֹלֶת. הַחַלּוֹת טְעוּנוֹת בְּלִילָה, וּרְקִיקִין – מְשִׁיחָה. כֵּיצַד מוֹשְׁחָן? כְּמִין כִּי, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָלִין לַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
In the meal offerings that come as loaves, it is after the flour has been baked into loaves that one breaks them into pieces and mixes them with oil; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is with fine flour that one mixes the oil. Although the loaves of the meal offering baked in an oven require mixing of their flour with oil, wafers do not require mixing, but rather a smearing of oil on them after baking. How does one smear oil on them? He does so in a shape similar to the Greek letter chi, Χ, and the rest of the oil remaining after smearing is eaten by priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues with more specific oil procedures, distinguishing between loaves (challot) and wafers (rekikin). A tannaitic dispute emerges: Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi) holds that baked loaves are broken and then mixed with oil, while the Sages say the flour is mixed with oil before baking. For wafers, neither mixing nor pouring applies — instead, oil is smeared on the surface in the shape of the Greek letter chi (an X-shape). The mishna also addresses what happens to leftover oil: it is eaten by the priests, ensuring nothing goes to waste. This passage provides a remarkably detailed window into the physical procedures of meal offering preparation.
Key Terms:
- חַלּוֹת = Loaves — thick baked bread from the oven-baked meal offering, requiring oil mixing
- רְקִיקִין = Wafers — thin baked products from the oven-baked meal offering, requiring oil smearing
- מְשִׁיחָה = Smearing — the oil application method for wafers, done in a chi (X) pattern
- כִּי = Chi — the Greek letter (X-shape) used as the template for smearing oil on wafers
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa: “prepared in a vessel” excludes the oven-baked meal offering, which does not require oil pouring
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that all the meal offerings prepared in a vessel require three placements of oil, the Gemara asks: To exclude what does the mishna specify: Meal offerings prepared in a vessel? Rav Pappa said: The mishna serves to exclude the oven-baked meal offering, whose preparation does not require the use of a service vessel, as it is merely baked in an oven. Such a meal offering does not require the pouring of the oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the precise exclusion intended by the mishna’s qualifying phrase “prepared in a vessel.” Rav Pappa explains that this excludes the oven-baked meal offering (minchat ma’afeh), which is baked in an oven rather than cooked in a service vessel like a pan or deep pan. The oven-baked offering does not require yetzikah (pouring) of oil, though it still requires mixing (for loaves) or smearing (for wafers) as described in the previous segment. The distinction is technical but important: only offerings that are fried or cooked in a vessel on the altar require all three oil procedures.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה = Oven-baked meal offering — a meal offering prepared in an oven, which comes as either loaves or wafers and is excluded from the requirement of oil pouring
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Scriptural source: “fine flour in oil” teaches oil in the vessel first; “your offering” / “your offering” = gezera shava between pan and deep-pan offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאִם מִנְחַת מַרְחֶשֶׁת קׇרְבָּנֶךָ סֹלֶת בַּשֶּׁמֶן תֵּעָשֶׂה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה מַתַּן שֶׁמֶן בִּכְלִי. ״קׇרְבָּנֶךָ״ ״קׇרְבָּנֶךָ״ לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה,
English Translation:
With regard to the three placements of oil in a pan meal offering and a deep-pan meal offering, the Sages taught that the verse states: “And if your offering is a deep-pan meal offering, it shall be made of fine flour in oil” (Leviticus 2:7). This teaches that it requires the placement of oil in an empty vessel, and the flour is added afterward. In addition, the term “your offering” in this verse and the term “your offering” (Leviticus 2:5), written with regard to the meal offering prepared in a pan, are understood to teach a verbal analogy:
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita provides the scriptural basis for the mishna’s oil procedures. The verse about the deep-pan (marcheshet) offering states “fine flour in oil” — the ordering implies that oil is placed in the vessel first, and then the flour is added into it. This establishes the requirement to place oil in the vessel before preparation. Additionally, the repeated word “your offering” (korbanekha) in both the pan verse (Leviticus 2:5) and the deep-pan verse (Leviticus 2:7) creates a gezera shava, ensuring that the oil procedures required for one type of vessel-prepared offering apply equally to the other. This closes the daf with a neat hermeneutical framework linking both types of vessel meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת מַרְחֶשֶׁת = Deep-pan meal offering — one of the vessel-prepared meal offerings, made with a covered deep pan
- קׇרְבָּנֶךָ = Your offering — the repeated term creating a verbal analogy between pan and deep-pan meal offerings
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = Verbal analogy — the hermeneutical principle used here to equalize the oil procedures between the two types of vessel offerings