Menachot Daf 76 (מנחות דף ע״ו)
Daf: 76 | Amudim: 76a – 76b | Date: 24 Adar 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (76a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Mishna on preparation of meal offerings: rubbing/striking counts, and dispute over number of loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁיפָה וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּעִיטָה, שִׁיפָה וּבְעִיטָה בַּחִיטִּין. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בַּבָּצֵק. כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת עֶשֶׂר עֶשֶׂר, חוּץ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים וַחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהֵם בָּאוֹת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּם בָּאוֹת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, חוּץ מֵחַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּנְזִירוּת שֶׁהֵן בָּאוֹת עֶשֶׂר עֶשֶׂר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: All the meal offerings require rubbing three hundred times and striking five hundred times with one’s fist or palm. Rubbing and striking are performed on the wheat kernels to remove their husks prior to grinding them into flour. And Rabbi Yosei says: They are performed on the dough to ensure a smooth product. All of the meal offerings come as ten loaves or ten wafers from each one tenth of an ephah of flour, except for the shewbread and the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which come as twelve loaves or wafers; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They all come as twelve loaves except for the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering and the two types of loaves that accompany the peace offering of naziriteship, which come as ten each.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna opens the chapter with two distinct topics. First, it prescribes a precise regimen for preparing meal offering flour: 300 rubbings and 500 strikings, with a dispute between the first tanna (who applies these to the wheat kernels) and Rabbi Yosei (who applies them to the dough). Second, it introduces a major dispute about how many loaves each meal offering yields. Rabbi Yehuda holds the default is 10 loaves (with shewbread and the High Priest’s griddle-cake as exceptions at 12), while Rabbi Meir holds the default is 12 (with the thanks offering and nazirite offering as exceptions at 10). The remainder of the Gemara on this daf will focus heavily on the sources and reasoning behind these competing positions.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיפָה (shifa) = Rubbing, the process of rubbing wheat kernels to remove their husks
- בְּעִיטָה (be’ita) = Striking, pounding the kernels with fist or palm to further clean them
- חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל (chavitei kohen gadol) = The High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, brought half in the morning and half in the evening
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Elaboration on the rubbing/striking pattern and R’ Yirmeya’s unresolved dilemma
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: שָׁף אַחַת, בּוֹעֵט שְׁתַּיִם. שָׁף שְׁתַּיִם, בּוֹעֵט שָׁלֹשׁ. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי חַד, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי תְּרֵי? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita that the rubbing and striking are done in the following manner: He rubs once and strikes twice. Then he rubs twice and strikes three times. This sequence is repeated one hundred times, so that he rubs three hundred times and strikes five hundred times. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma with regard to the rubbing: Is the rubbing of the hand back and forth over the surface of the item considered one rubbing, or is perhaps rubbing back and forth considered two distinct rubbings? What is the correct count? The Gemara states: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara unpacks the mishna’s precise counts by explaining the alternating pattern: each cycle of rubbing is followed by one additional striking. The baraita clarifies that the sequence is rub 1/strike 2, rub 2/strike 3, repeating 100 times to yield 300 rubbings and 500 strikings. Rabbi Yirmeya then raises a characteristically precise question: when the hand moves back and forth in a single motion, does this count as one act of rubbing or two? The Gemara leaves the question as teiku (unresolved), illustrating the Talmud’s willingness to leave practical details of Temple procedure without definitive resolution.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = An unresolved Talmudic dilemma; the question stands without answer
- אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי (amtoyei ve-etoyei) = Back and forth, referring to the motion of rubbing
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying R’ Yosei’s position: on the dough INSTEAD of on the wheat, resolved by baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁיפָה וּבְעִיטָה בַּחִיטִּין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בַּבָּצֵק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּבָּצֵק וְלֹא בַּחִיטִּין, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַף בַּבָּצֵק? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: שִׁיפָה וּבְעִיטָה בַּחִיטִּין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שִׁיפָה וּבְעִיטָה בַּבָּצֵק.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Rubbing and striking are performed on the wheat kernels, while Rabbi Yosei says: They are performed on the dough. The Gemara comments: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Yosei mean that these actions are performed on the dough and not on the wheat kernels? Or perhaps he means that they are performed not only on the kernels but also on the dough. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: Rubbing and striking are performed on the wheat kernels. Rabbi Yosei says: Rubbing and striking are performed on the dough.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the precise meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement in the mishna. The ambiguity lies in whether he disagrees with the first tanna entirely (replacing kernels with dough) or merely adds an additional requirement (both kernels and dough). A baraita resolves this by rephrasing Rabbi Yosei’s position with the full statement “rubbing and striking are performed on the dough,” clearly indicating that he means the dough instead of the wheat kernels, not in addition to them. This is a classic Talmudic clarification of the scope of a tannaitic dispute.
Key Terms:
- בָּצֵק (batzek) = Dough; the mixture of flour and water before baking
- תָּא שְׁמַע (ta shema) = Come and hear; formulaic introduction to a proof from a baraita or mishna
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Source for shewbread being 12 loaves: explicit verse (Leviticus 24:5)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת כּוּ׳. שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, all of the meal offerings come as ten loaves or wafers, except for the shewbread and the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which come as twelve loaves or wafers. The Gemara examines the sources for these exceptions: With regard to the shewbread, it is written explicitly of it: “And you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes of it” (Leviticus 24:5).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the second part of the mishna, identifying the scriptural sources for the exceptions to the default number of loaves. The case of the shewbread is straightforward: the verse in Leviticus 24:5 explicitly states “twelve cakes,” so no derivation is needed. This establishes a firm starting point before moving to the more complex derivation of the griddle-cake offering in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (lechem ha-panim) = Shewbread; the twelve loaves arranged on the golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat
- בְּהֶדְיָא (be-hedya) = Explicitly; clearly stated in the verse
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Griddle-cake offering = 12 loaves, derived via gezera shava “chuka-chuka” from shewbread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – אָתְיָא ״חֻקָּה״ ״חֻקָּה״ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים.
English Translation:
That the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is also offered as twelve units is derived from a verbal analogy of the word “obligation,” written in the context of the verse discussing the shewbread. With regard to the griddle-cake offering, the verse states: “And the anointed priest…shall offer it; it is an obligation forever” (Leviticus 6:15), and the verse states with regard to the twelve loaves of the shewbread: “And it shall be for Aaron and his sons…a perpetual obligation” (Leviticus 24:9).
קלאוד על הדף:
Since the Torah does not explicitly state the number of loaves for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, the Gemara derives it through a gezera shava (verbal analogy). Both the griddle-cake offering and the shewbread use the term “chuka” (obligation/statute), allowing the transfer of the number 12 from the explicitly stated shewbread to the griddle-cake. This derivation is critical for the ensuing discussion, because the question will arise whether a law derived through gezera shava can itself serve as a source for further derivations (binyan av).
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה (gezera shava) = Verbal analogy; a hermeneutical rule that links two laws sharing identical terminology
- חֻקָּה (chuka) = Obligation/statute; the shared term linking the griddle-cake offering and shewbread
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא + קושיא
R’ Yehuda derives 10 loaves from thanks offering; challenge: why not derive 12 from shewbread?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת דְּבָאוֹת עֶשֶׂר עֶשֶׂר, מְנָלַן? גָּמַר מִלַּחְמֵי תוֹדָה – מָה לְהַלָּן עֶשֶׂר, אַף כָּאן עֶשֶׂר. וְלֵילַף מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, אַף כָּאן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who states in the mishna with regard to all the meal offerings that they come as ten loaves or ten wafers, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the loaves of the thanks offering. Just as there, there are ten loaves, so too here, with regard to all other meal offerings, there are ten loaves. The Gemara challenges: But let him derive it from the shewbread: Just as there, there are twelve loaves, so too here, with regard to all other meal offerings, there must be twelve.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment launches the central sugya of the daf: from which source should one derive the default number of loaves for all meal offerings? Rabbi Yehuda derives 10 from the thanks offering (korban toda), where 10 loaves of each type are explicitly mandated. The Gemara immediately challenges this by asking why Rabbi Yehuda does not instead derive 12 from the shewbread, which also has an explicit verse. This sets up a classic “mah nafshakh” (either way) analysis, requiring Rabbi Yehuda to justify choosing one analogy over another.
Key Terms:
- מְנָלַן (menalan) = From where do we derive this? A standard Talmudic formula for asking the scriptural source
- בִּנְיַן אָב (binyan av) = A paradigmatic derivation; using one case to establish a general principle for all similar cases
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Thanks offering is more analogous to meal offerings: individual, voluntary, oil, disqualified overnight, not Shabbat, not impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִלַּחְמֵי תוֹדָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן יָחִיד, הַמִּתְנַדֵּב, שֶׁמֶן, נִפְסָל, שֶׁלֹּא בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּטוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: It stands to reason that Rabbi Yehuda should derive the halakha of the other meal offerings from the loaves of the thanks offering, as the other meal offerings resemble the loaves of the thanks offering and differ from the shewbread in several respects: They are offered by an individual and not by the public; they are brought by one who donates and not as obligatory offerings; oil is used in their preparation; they are disqualified when left overnight, whereas, by contrast, the rite of the shewbread demands that it be left on the Table for eight days; they are not brought on the Sabbath, unlike the shewbread, whose rite is performed on the Sabbath; and they are not brought in a state of ritual impurity, unlike the shewbread, which is brought even in a state of impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defends Rabbi Yehuda’s choice by listing six shared characteristics between ordinary meal offerings and the thanks offering loaves that the shewbread does not share. These include: brought by individuals (not communal), voluntary (not obligatory), involve oil, disqualified overnight (lina), not brought on Shabbat, and not brought in ritual impurity. This method of comparing candidate source-laws through shared features is a standard Talmudic technique for resolving competing analogies (binyan av). The more features two items share, the stronger the analogy.
Key Terms:
- נִפְסָל בְּלִינָה (nifsol be-lina) = Disqualified by being left overnight; most sacrificial items must be consumed or offered within their designated time
- מִסְתַּבְּרָא (mistabra) = It stands to reason; introducing a logical argument for why one derivation is preferred
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-argument: shewbread more analogous in sanctity, frankincense, matza, and standalone status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּלְבוֹנָה, מַצָּה, וָעֶצֶם!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: On the contrary, Rabbi Yehuda should derive the halakha of the other meal offerings from the shewbread, as they resemble the shewbread in several respects: They are consecrated property of the most sacred order, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are of lesser sanctity; and they are brought with frankincense, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are not; they are brought only as unleavened bread, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering include some leavened bread; and each is brought as an offering by itself, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are brought together with an animal sacrifice.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pushes back with a counter-list of four features that meal offerings share with the shewbread rather than the thanks offering: highest sanctity (kodshei kodashim), use of frankincense, exclusively matza (no chametz), and brought as standalone offerings (not accompanying an animal sacrifice). These are arguably more intrinsic properties of meal offerings than the procedural similarities cited in the previous segment, making this a serious challenge to Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation.
Key Terms:
- לְבוֹנָה (levona) = Frankincense; placed on meal offerings and on the shewbread but not on thanks offering loaves
- עֶצֶם (etzem) = By itself, standalone; meal offerings are independent, unlike thanks offering loaves which accompany an animal sacrifice
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: thanks offering analogies are more numerous (hanakh nefishon)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: These analogies between other meal offerings and the loaves of the thanks offering are more numerous than the analogies between other meal offerings and the shewbread. Therefore, the halakha of other meal offerings is derived from the loaves of the thanks offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the competing analogies with the principle that quantity of shared features determines which source-law prevails. Since meal offerings share six features with the thanks offering (segment 7) but only four with the shewbread (segment 8), the thanks offering wins as the paradigm. This “counting features” approach is a standard Talmudic method for adjudicating between competing binyan av derivations. Though brief, this resolution is only temporary, as the Gemara will immediately raise a new challenge from the griddle-cake offering.
Key Terms:
- הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן (hanakh nefishan) = Those are more numerous; the decisive principle that the analogy with more shared features prevails
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
If gezera shava can teach further via binyan av, why not derive 12 from the griddle-cake offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי סְבִירָא לַן דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּבִנְיַן אָב, נֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל: מָה לְהַלָּן – שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, אַף כָּאן – שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה?
English Translation:
The Gemara posited previously that according to Rabbi Yehuda, a verbal analogy teaches that, like the shewbread, the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is brought as twelve units. The Gemara asks: And if we hold that a matter learned through a verbal analogy may subsequently teach as a paradigm, let us derive the halakha of the other meal offerings from the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: Just as there, the meal offering comprises twelve units, so too here, other meal offerings should consist of twelve units.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment introduces a critical hermeneutical question: can a law derived through gezera shava serve as the basis for further derivation via binyan av? If so, the griddle-cake offering (whose 12-unit count was derived via gezera shava from the shewbread) could itself become the paradigm for all meal offerings. The Gemara is testing whether the griddle-cake, as a meal offering itself, might be an even better analogy than the thanks offering loaves. This raises the stakes of the debate by introducing the griddle-cake as a third potential source.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּבִנְיַן אָב (davar ha-lamed bi-gezera shava chozer u-melamed be-vinyan av) = A matter derived through verbal analogy can subsequently serve as a paradigmatic source for other laws
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Thanks offering still better: ordinary person, voluntary, whole (not halves)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִלַּחְמֵי תוֹדָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב חֲצָאִין;
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that Rabbi Yehuda should derive their halakha from the halakha of the loaves of the thanks offering, as the other meal offerings resemble the loaves of the thanks offering and differ from the griddle-cake offering in several respects: They are brought by an ordinary person and not by the High Priest; they are brought by one who donates and not as obligatory offerings; and they are only brought whole, while the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering is brought in halves, half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara responds to the griddle-cake challenge by listing features that distinguish meal offerings from the griddle-cake but align them with the thanks offering: brought by an ordinary person (hedyot), brought voluntarily, and brought whole rather than in halves. The griddle-cake offering is unique in being the High Priest’s personal daily obligation, divided into two half-portions. These distinctions begin the process of demonstrating that the thanks offering remains the superior analogy, even against this new competitor.
Key Terms:
- הֶדְיוֹט (hedyot) = Ordinary person, common individual (as opposed to the High Priest)
- חֲצָאִין (chatza’in) = Halves; the griddle-cake offering was split, half offered in the morning and half in the evening
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Additional similarities between meal offerings and thanks offering: piggul-eligible, not Shabbat, not impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְפִיגּוּל, שֶׁלֹּא בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּטוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
In addition, they are disqualified as piggul, i.e., when they are sacrificed with the intent to be consumed after their appointed time, unlike the griddle-cake offering, which is not eaten at all; they are not brought on the Sabbath, unlike the griddle-cake offering; and they are not brought in a state of ritual impurity, whereas the griddle-cake offering is brought by the High Priest even while impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
This short segment continues the list of features shared between meal offerings and the thanks offering, now adding three more: susceptibility to piggul disqualification (the griddle-cake is entirely burned and thus not subject to piggul), not brought on Shabbat, and not brought in a state of impurity. Together with the previous segment’s three features, this gives six points of similarity favoring the thanks offering. However, the Gemara is about to show that the griddle-cake may still win on quantity of shared features.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = A sacrifice offered with improper intent regarding the time of its consumption, rendering it invalid and carrying the penalty of karet
- טוּמְאָה (tum’a) = Ritual impurity; most offerings cannot be brought in a state of impurity, but the griddle-cake and shewbread override this
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Counter: griddle-cake shares tenth-ephah, service vessel, highest sanctity, and frankincense with meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, מֵחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן, כְּלִי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּלְבוֹנָה;
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, Rabbi Yehuda should have derived the halakha of the other meal offerings from the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, as the other meal offerings resemble the griddle-cake offering in several respects: They both contain a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering contain several tenths of an ephah; they are consecrated when placed in a service vessel, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are consecrated when the thanks offering is slaughtered; they are consecrated property of the most sacred order, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are of lesser sanctity; and they are brought with frankincense, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now mounts a powerful counter-attack, listing four features that meal offerings share with the griddle-cake but not the thanks offering: the tenth-ephah measure, consecration through a service vessel (kli shares), highest sanctity status, and the use of frankincense. These are substantive, intrinsic properties of meal offerings that connect them to the griddle-cake at a deeper level than mere procedural similarities. The argument is building toward showing that the griddle-cake may actually be the better analogy.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (issaron) = A tenth of an ephah; the standard flour measure for individual meal offerings
- כְּלִי שָׁרֵת (kli sharet) = Service vessel; a consecrated Temple vessel that sanctifies what is placed within it
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Additional griddle-cake similarities: matza, standalone, hagasha, altar fires — these are MORE numerous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַצָּה וָעֶצֶם, הַגָּשָׁה וְאִישִּׁים, וְהָנֵי נְפִישָׁן.
English Translation:
In addition, they are brought only of unleavened bread, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering include some leavened bread; and each is brought as an offering itself, whereas the loaves of the thanks offering are brought together with an animal sacrifice; part of their rite is bringing them near the southwest corner of the altar, unlike the loaves of the thanks offering; and parts or all of them are placed on the fires of the altar, unlike the loaves of the thanks offering. The Gemara comments: And indeed, these similarities between other meal offerings and the griddle-cake offering are more numerous than the similarities between other meal offerings and the loaves of the thanks offering. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to derive the number of loaves from the griddle-cake offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge intensifies: four more features are added to the griddle-cake column — matza only (no chametz), brought as standalone offerings, the rite of hagasha (bringing near the altar corner), and placement on the altar fires. With eight total shared features versus the thanks offering’s six, the griddle-cake analogy now appears to prevail by the very counting method used earlier. This puts Rabbi Yehuda in a difficult position and forces the Gemara to find a different principle to justify his preference for the thanks offering.
Key Terms:
- הַגָּשָׁה (hagasha) = The rite of bringing the meal offering near the southwest corner of the altar before the kemitza
- אִישִּׁים (ishim) = The fires of the altar; parts of meal offerings are burned on the altar, unlike thanks offering loaves which are eaten
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Decisive principle: R’ Yehuda derives ordinary from ordinary (hedyot me-hedyot)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶדְיוֹט מֵהֶדְיוֹט עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda prefers to learn the halakha of the other meal offerings, which are brought by an ordinary person, from the loaves of the thanks offering, which are brought by an ordinary person.
קלאוד על הדף:
This terse but decisive answer overrides the numerical counting method with a qualitative principle: Rabbi Yehuda holds that when deriving a law, the identity of the person bringing the offering is the most significant factor. Since ordinary meal offerings are brought by ordinary individuals (hedyot), they should be derived from another offering brought by an ordinary individual (the thanks offering), not from the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. This principle — hedyot me-hedyot adif leh — reflects a deeper logic: the category of the person performing the act shapes the nature of the offering more than its technical features.
Key Terms:
- הֶדְיוֹט מֵהֶדְיוֹט (hedyot me-hedyot) = Ordinary from ordinary; the principle that laws for commoners’ offerings should be derived from other commoners’ offerings rather than the High Priest’s
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Meir: if gezera shava can teach further, derives 12 from griddle-cake (more analogies)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן בָּאוֹת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּדָבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּבִנְיַן אָב – יָלֵיף מֵחֲבִיתֵּי (דכהן) [כֹהֵן] גָּדוֹל, דְּהָנֵי נְפִישָׁן.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: They all come as twelve loaves. The Gemara explains: What does he hold? If he holds that a matter learned through a verbal analogy is subsequently used to teach as a paradigm, he derives the number of loaves in other meal offerings from the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, which was itself derived from a verbal analogy, as these similarities between other meal offerings and the griddle-cake offering enumerated above are more numerous.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now analyzes Rabbi Meir’s position. Rabbi Meir rules that all meal offerings come as 12 loaves, the opposite of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara presents two scenarios for how Rabbi Meir reaches this conclusion, depending on his view of a hermeneutical principle. In the first scenario, if he holds that a law derived by gezera shava can subsequently serve as a paradigm (binyan av), then he derives 12 from the griddle-cake offering, since the griddle-cake shares more features with ordinary meal offerings than the thanks offering does (as established in segments 13-14). Unlike Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir does not invoke the hedyot me-hedyot principle.
Key Terms:
- מַאי קָסָבַר (mai kasavar) = What does he hold? A formulaic question probing the underlying assumptions of a tanna’s position
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Meir alternative: if gezera shava cannot teach further, derives 12 from shewbread (sacred from sacred)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּדָבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּבִנְיַן אָב – יָלֵיף מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים, הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
And if he holds that a matter learned through a verbal analogy is not subsequently used to teach as a paradigm, then he derives the number of loaves in other meal offerings from the twelve loaves of the shewbread. This is because Rabbi Meir prefers to derive the status of the other meal offerings, which are consecrated property of the highest order, from the shewbread, which is also consecrated property of the highest order, in contrast to the loaves of the thanks offering, which are of lesser sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
In the second scenario, if a law derived by gezera shava cannot serve as a paradigm, then the griddle-cake is eliminated as a potential source. Rabbi Meir then derives 12 from the shewbread directly, using the principle hekdesh me-hekdesh (sacred from sacred) — analogous to but opposite of Rabbi Yehuda’s hedyot me-hedyot principle. Rabbi Meir prioritizes the shared sanctity level: since meal offerings and shewbread are both kodshei kodashim (most sacred), the shewbread is the better source. Either way, Rabbi Meir arrives at 12, while Rabbi Yehuda arrives at 10.
Key Terms:
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ (hekdesh me-hekdesh) = Sacred from sacred; the principle that laws for offerings of highest sanctity should be derived from other such offerings
- קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים (kodshei kodashim) = Most sacred offerings; a category including meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Meir’s exceptions: thanks offering = 10 from explicit derivation; nazirite from “shelamav”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּץ מִלַּחְמֵי תוֹדָה וּנְזִירוּת, שֶׁהֵן בָּאוֹת עֶשֶׂר עֶשֶׂר. לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: They all come as twelve loaves except for the loaves of the thanks offering and the loaves that accompany the guilt offering of naziriteship, which come as ten each. The Gemara explains the exceptions: With regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, it is written explicitly of them that these loaves are brought in units of ten, based on a verbal analogy: With regard to the thanks offering, the verse states: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift [teruma] to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:14), and with regard to teruma of the tithe it is stated: “You shall set apart of it a gift [teruma] for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). Just as the teruma of the tithe consists of one portion of ten, so too, the loaves of the thanks offering are brought in units of ten (see 77b).
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that Rabbi Meir holds the default is 12 loaves, the Gemara explains why the thanks offering and nazirite offering are exceptions at 10. The thanks offering’s number is derived from a gezera shava linking “teruma” in Leviticus 7:14 to “teruma” in Numbers 18:26 (teruma of the tithe), establishing that one out of every ten loaves is separated as the priestly gift. This derivation from teruma of the tithe — where one-tenth is the standard — anchors the number 10 for the thanks offering. The explicit textual basis for 10 overrides the general default of 12.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה (teruma) = A priestly gift; here, the loaf separated from the thanks offering for the priest, analogized to the tithe’s teruma
- מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר (ma’aser min ha-ma’aser) = Tithe of the tithe; the Levite’s obligation to separate one-tenth for the priest
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Nazirite peace offering derives 10 loaves from thanks offering via “shelamav”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְזִירוּת – דְּאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ – לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
English Translation:
That ten loaves accompany the guilt offering of naziriteship is derived from a verse, as the Master says: The verse describing the thanks offering states: “With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13). The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite. Just as each of the four varieties of loaves accompanying the thanks offering are brought in units of ten loaves, so too, the peace offering of the nazirite comprises ten loaves.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now explains the second exception in Rabbi Meir’s system. The nazirite’s peace offering inherits the number 10 from the thanks offering through the inclusive plural “shelamav” (his peace offerings) in Leviticus 7:13. The extra possessive suffix expands the scope of the verse beyond the thanks offering alone to include the nazirite’s peace offering. Since the nazirite offering is linked to the thanks offering by this textual connection, it follows the same count of 10 loaves per variety, not the general default of 12.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלָמָיו (shelamav) = His peace offerings; the plural/possessive form that includes the nazirite’s peace offering alongside the thanks offering
- שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר (shalmei nazir) = The peace offering brought by a nazirite upon completing the nazirite vow
Segment 20
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel: thanks offering baked as 4 loaves (one per type) suffices; 40 is le-mitzva only
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁאֲפָאָן אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת – יָצָא. וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַרְבָּעִים לְמִצְוָה!
English Translation:
§ The loaves of the thanks offering consist of ten of each of the following four types: Leavened loaves, unleavened wafers, standard unleavened loaves, and unleavened loaves made from flour mixed with water and oil. With regard to these loaves, Rav Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: In the case of loaves of the thanks offering that one baked as only four loaves, one of each of the four types, where each loaf is the size of ten loaves, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But do we not require forty loaves? The Gemara answers: Forty loaves are brought in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel introduces a leniency: the thanks offering, which normally requires 40 loaves (10 of each of 4 types), can be fulfilled with just 4 oversized loaves — one per type. The 40-loaf count is le-mitzva (the ideal way to fulfill the obligation) but not me’akev (indispensable). This ruling has practical implications: it means that the number of individual loaves is secondary to ensuring all four types of bread are represented with the correct total amount of flour. This ruling will be challenged in the following segments.
Key Terms:
- לְמִצְוָה (le-mitzva) = For optimal fulfillment; the preferred way to perform the mitzva but not indispensable
- אַרְבָּעִים חַלּוֹת (arba’im challot) = Forty loaves; the standard count for the thanks offering (10 each of 4 types)
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא + תירוץ
Challenge: teruma requires a whole loaf; answer: separate during kneading stage
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא בָּעֵי אַפְרוֹשֵׁי תְּרוּמָה מִינַּיְיהוּ! וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפְרֵישׁ מִכֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא – ״אֶחָד״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס, דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישָׁה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges this: But an individual who brings the loaves as an offering is required to separate teruma from them by designating one loaf of each type to be given to the priests, which cannot be done where only one loaf of each type exists. And if you would say that he may separate a tenth-sized piece from each and every loaf, that is difficult: Doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift [teruma] to the Lord,” which teaches that he may not take sliced bread, but rather a whole loaf? The Gemara answers: This is a case where he separated it while kneading, so that it is not considered separating a slice.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical challenge arises: the Torah requires separating one whole loaf from each type as teruma for the priests, but if there is only one loaf per type, none would remain for the offering itself. Cutting a piece would violate the verse’s requirement for “one” (a whole loaf), not a paros (broken piece). The Gemara resolves this creatively: the teruma portion is separated at the kneading stage, before the dough is baked. Since the separated portion was never part of a baked loaf, it counts as a whole unit from the outset, satisfying both Shmuel’s leniency and the teruma requirement.
Key Terms:
- פָּרוּס (paros) = A broken or sliced piece; the Torah requires a complete loaf for teruma, not a fragment
- בְּלֵישָׁה (be-lisha) = During kneading; separating the teruma portion at the dough stage before baking
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
Baraita objection: thanks offering quantities are fixed. Answer: Shmuel follows a different tanna (continues on 76b)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁרִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן – כְּשֵׁרוֹת, חוּץ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים, וַחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה וּנְזִירוּת! הוּא
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: All the meal offerings where one increased the measure of their loaves or where one decreased the measure of their loaves are nevertheless fit, except for the twelve loaves of shewbread, and the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, and the ten loaves of each variety for the thanks offering and the ten loaves that accompany the guilt offering of naziriteship. Evidently, no fewer than forty loaves are fit for the thanks offering, in contradiction to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: He
קלאוד על הדף:
A strong baraita challenge is raised against Shmuel: this baraita explicitly lists the thanks offering and nazirite offering among those whose loaf counts are indispensable, directly contradicting Shmuel’s view that baking only 4 loaves suffices. The baraita treats the 10-per-type count as me’akev (essential), not merely le-mitzva. The Gemara begins its answer — “He” (hu) — indicating Shmuel follows a different tanna, but the resolution is cut off at the amud break and continues on 76b.
Key Terms:
- מֵיתִיבִי (meitivi) = An objection is raised; introducing a challenge from a baraita or mishna against an amora’s statement
- רִיבָּה/מִיעֵט בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן (ribba/mi’et be-midat chalatan) = Increased or decreased the measure of their loaves; making loaves larger or smaller than standard
Amud Bet (76b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Shmuel follows the first tanna of a variant baraita; “yesh omrim” is the stricter view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁרִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן – כְּשֵׁרוֹת, חוּץ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים וַחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה וּנְזִירוּת.
English Translation:
states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: All the meal offerings where one increased the measure of their loaves or where one decreased the measure of their loaves are nevertheless fit, except for the twelve loaves of the shewbread and the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. And some say: Even the ten loaves of each variety of the thanks offering and the ten loaves that accompany the guilt offering of naziriteship are fit only when brought in their prescribed measures. Shmuel agrees with the first tanna, according to whom the loaves of the thanks offering and the loaves of naziriteship are fit even when not offered in the proper quantities.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution continues from the previous amud: Shmuel follows the first tanna of this variant baraita, who holds that only the shewbread and griddle-cake have indispensable loaf counts, while the thanks offering and nazirite counts are flexible. The stricter view — “yesh omrim” (some say) — adds the thanks offering and nazirite to the indispensable list, which is the position of the baraita cited in the challenge. By identifying a tannaitic dispute, the Gemara shows that Shmuel has legitimate tannaitic support for his lenient ruling, even though it contradicts the other baraita.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים (yesh omrim) = Some say; an anonymous dissenting opinion within a baraita, typically representing a minority view
- הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא (hu de-amar ki hai tanna) = He states his opinion in accordance with this tanna; the standard Talmudic defense of an amora against a baraita
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Huna: oven-baked meal offering baked as one loaf suffices; reason: “matzat” (singular spelling)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה (שאפה) [שֶׁאֲפָאָהּ] חַלָּה אַחַת – יָצָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? (מַצּוֹת) ״מַצָּת״ כְּתִיב.
English Translation:
§ Rav Huna says: With regard to an oven-baked meal offering that one baked as only one loaf, although he did not bring the mandated quantity, he has fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? It is that the verse states with regard to the oven-baked meal offering: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:4). The term “unleavened loaves [matzot]” is written without the letter vav, which is generally used with regard to the plural form. Therefore, it may be read in the singular as unleavened loaf [matzat], which teaches that even one unleavened loaf is fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna extends the leniency further: not just the thanks offering (per Shmuel), but even a standard oven-baked meal offering can be fulfilled with a single loaf. His proof rests on a textual nuance — the word “matzot” in Leviticus 2:4 is written defectively (chaser) without the vav, allowing it to be read as the singular “matzat.” This kri/ktiv (written vs. read) discrepancy teaches that while the optimal practice is multiple loaves, the minimum requirement is one. This is a classic example of how Talmudic exegesis derives practical law from spelling variations in the Torah text.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה (minchat ma’afeh) = Oven-baked meal offering; one of the five types of voluntary meal offerings
- חָסֵר (chaser) = Defective spelling; when a word is written without a vav or yod that would normally indicate a vowel, allowing alternative reading
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא + תירוץ
Rav Pappa challenges Rav Huna’s textual reasoning; Shmuel and Rav Huna actually disagree
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״מַצָּת״, הָא כְּתִיב ״מַצּוֹת״ – לָא? וְהָא גַּבֵּי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה דִּכְתִיב ״מַצּוֹת״, וְאָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁאֲפָאָן אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת – יָצָא! הָהִיא פְּלִיגָא.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa objects to this derivation: The reason Rav Huna gives is that it is written in the singular form of matzat. But if it were written: Matzot, would this not be the halakha? But what about the verse concerning the loaves of the thanks offering, where it is written “matzot” with a vav, indicating the plural form, in the verse: “Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened loaves mixed with oil” (Leviticus 7:12), and yet Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: In the case of loaves of the thanks offering that were baked as four loaves, such that each of the four varieties of loaves is baked as only one loaf, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara answers: That statement of Shmuel disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna, according to whom four loaves are not fit for the thanks offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa exposes a logical weakness in Rav Huna’s reasoning: if the defective spelling “matzat” is the sole basis for the leniency, then where the verse writes the full “matzot” (as with the thanks offering), fewer loaves should not suffice. But Shmuel already ruled that even the thanks offering — where “matzot” is fully spelled — is valid with only 4 loaves! The Gemara resolves this by revealing that Shmuel and Rav Huna actually disagree: Shmuel’s leniency for the thanks offering does not follow Rav Huna’s textual logic, and vice versa. They are independent lenient rulings with different bases.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ (matkif lah) = Raises an objection; a formula indicating a strong challenge to a preceding statement
- פְּלִיגָא (peliga) = They disagree; indicating that the two amoraic statements reflect conflicting positions
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Flour-to-grain ratios: omer = 1/10 from 3 se’a barley; two loaves = 2/10 from 3 se’a wheat; shewbread = 24/10 from 24 se’a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹמֶר הָיָה בָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע סְאִין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The omer offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, would come from a tenth of an ephah of flour sifted from three se’a of barley. The two loaves would come from two-tenths of an ephah of flour sifted from three se’a of wheat. The shewbread would come from twenty-four tenths of an ephah of flour sifted from twenty-four se’a of wheat.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna shifts to a different topic: the ratio of raw grain to finished flour for three Temple offerings. The ratios reveal the quality of the grain source. The omer (barley, new crop) has the worst yield — 3 se’a produce only 1/10 ephah of usable flour (a 1:30 ratio). The two loaves (wheat, new crop) are better — 3 se’a yield 2/10 (a 1:15 ratio). The shewbread (wheat, old crop) has the best yield — a 1:1 ratio of se’a to tenths. These differences reflect the combined effects of grain type (wheat vs. barley) and crop freshness (new vs. old).
Key Terms:
- עוֹמֶר (omer) = The measure of barley offered communally on 16 Nisan, permitting new grain for consumption
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (shtei ha-lechem) = The Two Loaves; the communal wheat offering brought on Shavuot
- סְאָה (se’a) = A dry measure of volume, approximately 7.2 liters
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Omer: new crop + barley = poor yield, requiring 3 se’a for 1 tenth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמֵחָדָשׁ אָתֵי, וּמִשְּׂעוֹרִין אָתֵי, עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר לָא אָתֵי אֶלָּא מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that according to the mishna, the relatively large amount of three se’a of barley is necessary to yield a single tenth of an ephah of flour for the omer offering? The Gemara answers: Since it comes from the fresh new crop, which contains a large amount of refuse, and it comes from barley, which is coarser than wheat, a choice tenth of an ephah of flour comes only from a minimum of three se’a of barley.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the omer’s low yield by identifying two compounding factors: barley is inherently coarser than wheat (producing more chaff and less fine flour), and the new crop (chadash) harvested just the day before has more refuse than aged grain. The combination of these two disadvantages means that achieving a “choice tenth” (issaron muvchar) of flour requires starting with three full se’a. This practical agricultural knowledge underlies the halakhic standards the Temple maintained for the quality of its offerings.
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ (chadash) = New crop; grain from the current year’s harvest, as opposed to yashan (old crop)
- עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר (issaron muvchar) = A choice tenth of an ephah; the finest quality flour after thorough sifting
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Two loaves: wheat is better quality, so 2 tenths from 3 se’a despite being new crop
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין – כֵּיוָן דְּמֵחִיטִּין אָתְיָין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמֵחָדָשׁ אָתְיָין, שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אָתוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna rule that the two loaves would come from two-tenths of an ephah of flour sifted from three se’a of wheat, whereas only a tenth of an ephah is used from the same amount of grain for the omer? The Gemara answers: Since the loaves come from wheat, which is of superior quality to barley, although they come from the new crop and require sifting, the grains are clean enough that two-tenths of an ephah come from the sifting of three se’a of grain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two loaves of Shavuot occupy a middle position: they share the disadvantage of being from the new crop (like the omer) but have the advantage of being wheat rather than barley. Wheat’s superior grain quality offsets the new-crop factor, doubling the yield compared to the omer — 2 tenths from the same 3 se’a. The Gemara’s analysis shows a systematic framework: grain type and crop age are the two independent variables determining flour yield, and each offering’s ratio reflects its specific combination.
Key Terms:
- חִיטִּין (chittin) = Wheat; produces finer flour than barley and has a higher yield ratio
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Shewbread: wheat + old crop = best yield, 1 tenth per se’a (1:1 ratio)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה סְאִין – מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמֵחִיטִּין אָתוּ, וּמִיָּשָׁן אָתוּ, עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר אָתֵי מִסְּאָה.
English Translation:
The mishna stated that the shewbread would come from twenty-four tenths of an ephah of flour sifted from twenty-four se’a of wheat. What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Since they come from wheat, and they come from the old crop, which contains relatively little refuse, the grains are so clean that a choice tenth of an ephah of flour comes from one se’a of grain, and twenty-four tenths of an ephah come from twenty-four se’a.
קלאוד על הדף:
The shewbread represents the optimal case: wheat (the better grain type) from the old crop (yashan), which has dried thoroughly and contains minimal refuse. Both variables are favorable, resulting in the best possible yield — a 1:1 ratio of se’a to tenths. This completes a neat tripartite schema: omer (worst: barley + new) = 1:3 yield; two loaves (middle: wheat + new) = 2:3 yield; shewbread (best: wheat + old) = 1:1 yield. The practical wisdom embedded in these ratios reflects generations of Temple experience with grain processing.
Key Terms:
- יָשָׁן (yashan) = Old crop; grain from a previous year’s harvest, which has dried out and produces cleaner flour
- סְאָה (se’a) = A dry measure; the shewbread’s 1:1 ratio means each se’a yields one full tenth of choice flour
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Flour measure (tenths) is indispensable; grain measure (se’a) is not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁרִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת עֶשְׂרוֹנָן, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת עִשָּׂרוֹן – פְּסוּלוֹת. רִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת סְאִין שֶׁלָּהֶן, אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת סְאִין שֶׁלָּהֶן – כְּשֵׁרוֹת.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: All the meal offerings where one increased the measure of their tenth of an ephah of flour by collecting it with a vessel larger than a tenth of an ephah, or where one decreased the measure of their tenth of an ephah of flour by collecting it with a vessel smaller than a tenth of an ephah, are disqualified. If he increased the measure of their se’a of grain or decreased the measure of their se’a of grain, e.g., if he used two or four se’a instead of three, but sifted until he was left with the correct measure of a tenth of an ephah of flour, they are fit offerings. This is because the number of se’a mentioned in the mishna is necessary only for the optimal fulfillment of the mitzva, but is not indispensable.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita draws a critical halakhic distinction between two types of measurements in the mishna. The flour measure (the issaron, or tenth of an ephah) is biblically mandated and indispensable — using the wrong amount of flour invalidates the offering. However, the grain measure (how many se’a of raw grain one starts with) is merely a practical guideline for optimal flour quality. If one starts with more or fewer se’a but still sifts out the correct amount of fine flour, the offering is valid. This distinction between essential requirements (me’akev) and optimal practice (le-mitzva) is a recurring theme on this daf.
Key Terms:
- מְעַכֵּב (me’akev) = Indispensable; a requirement whose omission invalidates the offering
- לְמִצְוָה (le-mitzva) = For optimal practice; the ideal way to perform the mitzva but not absolutely required
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
Sifting counts: omer 13, two loaves 12, shewbread 11; R’ Shimon: no fixed number, sift until adequate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹמֶר הָיָה מְנוּפֶּה בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָפָה, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה לָהֶן קִצְבָה, אֶלָּא סוֹלֶת מְנוּפָּה כָּל צׇרְכָּהּ הָיָה מֵבִיא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ סֹלֶת וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ״, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מְנוּפָּה כָּל צׇרְכָּהּ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The flour of the omer was sifted with thirteen sifters, each finer than its predecessor, and the flour that emerged from the final sifter was sacrificed. The flour of the two loaves was sifted with twelve sifters, and the flour of the shewbread was sifted with eleven sifters. Rabbi Shimon says: They have no fixed number of sifters; rather, it was fine flour that was completely sifted that one would bring for all of these offerings, as it is stated: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it” (Leviticus 24:5), indicating that one does not fulfill his obligation until the flour will be completely sifted.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna continues the discussion of flour preparation but now addresses sifting rather than grain quantities. The first tanna prescribes a graduated system: the omer (poorest quality grain) needs the most sifting (13 sifters), the two loaves less (12), and the shewbread the least (11). The decreasing count corresponds inversely to grain quality — better grain needs fewer siftings. Rabbi Shimon disagrees fundamentally, holding that there is no fixed count; the standard is functional: sift until the flour is solet (fine flour) of adequate quality. His view prioritizes the end result over a prescribed process.
Key Terms:
- נָפָה (nafa) = Sifter, sieve; used to separate fine flour (solet) from coarser particles and bran
- סוֹלֶת (solet) = Fine flour; the highest quality flour used for meal offerings, produced by repeated sifting
- קִצְבָה (kitzba) = Fixed measure or number; R’ Shimon says there is no fixed sifter count
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Alternating fine/coarse sifters; R’ Shimon b. Elazar: stacked 13 sifters in descending order
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּדַקָּה בְּגַסָּה, בַּדַּקָּה בְּגַסָּה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָפוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ וְזוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ, עֶלְיוֹנָה קוֹלֶטֶת סוּבִּין, תַּחְתּוֹנָה קוֹלֶטֶת סוֹלֶת.
English Translation:
GEMARA: When a fine sifter was used, the small, dust-like particles emerged and the fine flour was caught in the sifter, and when a coarse sifter was used, the fine flour emerged and the bran was caught in the sifter. With regard to the sifting of the flour, the Sages taught in a baraita: The sifting would begin in a sifter of slight holes, and the flour that remained would then be sifted in a sifter of large holes. The flour that emerged would again be sifted in a sifter with slight holes that were not quite as small as the first one with small holes, and again in a sifter of large holes that were not quite as large as the first one with large holes. All the sifting would proceed in this manner. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There were thirteen sifters in the Temple, this one above, i.e., preceding, that one, and this one above that one. The highest sifter would collect bran, parts of the kernel aside from the actual pure flour, and the lowest sifter would collect fine flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara describes two different sifting methods. The first tanna’s method involves alternating between fine and coarse sifters in sequence — fine sifters catch dust-like impurities while allowing flour through; coarse sifters catch bran while allowing flour through. This back-and-forth process progressively refines the flour. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar describes a different system: all 13 sifters are stacked vertically in a single apparatus, with the coarsest on top (catching bran) and the finest on the bottom (collecting pure solet). Both methods aim to produce the purest possible flour, but they represent fundamentally different engineering approaches.
Key Terms:
- דַּקָּה (daka) = Fine sifter; one with small holes that catches larger particles and lets fine dust through
- גַּסָּה (gasa) = Coarse sifter; one with large holes that lets fine flour through and catches bran
- סוּבִּין (subin) = Bran; the coarse outer layer of the grain kernel, removed through sifting
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Shimon’s view elaborated; baraita: “solet v’afita otah” — acquire as fine flour (solet)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה לָהֶן קִצְבָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״סֹלֶת וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּקַּחַת סוֹלֶת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that in contrast to the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon says: They have no fixed number of sifters; but the flour would be sifted as many times as was necessary, based on the verse: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake it.” In addition, the Sages taught: When the verse states with regard to the shewbread: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it,” this teaches that fine flour is acquired after it has been sifted for the baking of the shewbread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to Rabbi Shimon’s position and then introduces a related baraita. Rabbi Shimon’s key insight is that the verse “take solet and bake it” sets a qualitative standard — the flour must be solet (fine flour) — without prescribing a specific process for achieving that quality. The baraita adds that the shewbread flour should ideally be purchased already as solet (fine flour), meaning the Temple treasury would acquire pre-sifted flour rather than raw grain. This sets up the discussion in the next segment about whether raw wheat may also be purchased.
Key Terms:
- סוֹלֶת (solet) = Fine flour; Rabbi Shimon interprets the verse as setting a quality standard rather than a procedural requirement
- נִקַּחַת (nikachat) = Is acquired/purchased; indicating the shewbread flour should be bought already as fine flour
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
May purchase wheat for shewbread (“v’lakachta” = any state), but only for shewbread (“otah”) due to cost
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ חִיטִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל אַף בִּשְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתָהּ״, מִפְּנֵי הַחִיסָּחוֹן.
English Translation:
And from where is it derived that even wheat kernels may be purchased before they are ground and sifted? The verse states: “And you shall take,” indicating that the grain should be taken in any case and in any state. One might have thought that it is so even for other meal offerings. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it,” indicating that the shewbread alone may be acquired as kernels because of the sparing [haḥissaḥon].
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues its analysis of Leviticus 24:5. The word “v’lakachta” (and you shall take) implies the grain may be acquired in any state — even as unprocessed wheat kernels. However, the limiting word “otah” (it, specifically) restricts this leniency to the shewbread alone. The reason is economic: since the shewbread requires 24 se’a every week — a huge ongoing expense — the Torah permits purchasing cheaper raw wheat rather than expensive pre-sifted flour. Other meal offerings, brought only occasionally and in smaller quantities, must still be purchased as solet. This introduces the principle of “chissachon” — the Torah’s concern for fiscal responsibility.
Key Terms:
- חִיסָּחוֹן (chissachon) = Sparing; economic consideration — the Torah allows cost-saving measures for expensive communal obligations
- אוֹתָהּ (otah) = It (specifically); a limiting term restricting the leniency of purchasing raw wheat to the shewbread alone
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Elazar: the Torah spares Israel’s money; proof from God providing water for cattle (Numbers 20:8)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי ״מִפְּנֵי הַחִיסָּחוֹן״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִשְׁקִיתָ אֶת הָעֵדָה וְאֶת בְּעִירָם״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar says: What is the meaning of: Because of the sparing? Rabbi Elazar says: The Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Due to the large quantity of grain needed for the shewbread every week, purchasing sifted fine flour would be a substantial expense. The Gemara explains: Where is the allusion to this principle? It is found in a verse, as it is written that when the Jewish people were thirsty in the wilderness in the aftermath of Miriam’s death, God instructed Moses: “And speak to the rock before their eyes, so that it will give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give drink for the congregation and for their cattle” (Numbers 20:8). Evidently, the miracle of extracting water from the rock was performed even for the purpose of providing water for the livestock.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar elevates the concept of “chissachon” into a broad theological principle: “ha-Torah chasa al mamonan shel Yisrael” — the Torah is concerned for the financial welfare of the Jewish people. God does not impose unnecessarily expensive obligations. The proof text is remarkable: even when performing the miracle of water from a rock, God included provision for the cattle, showing divine concern for Israel’s material resources. This principle has far-reaching halakhic applications beyond the Temple and is invoked throughout the Talmud wherever cost-saving measures are discussed.
Key Terms:
- הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל (ha-Torah chasa al mamonan shel Yisrael) = The Torah spares the money of Israel; a foundational principle that the Torah does not impose unnecessary financial burdens
- בְּעִירָם (be’iram) = Their cattle; God’s instruction to provide water even for livestock demonstrates concern for Israel’s economic resources
Segment 14
TYPE: הדרן
End of Chapter 6 (Eilu Menachot Nikmatzot)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת.
English Translation:
[Hadran segment - end of chapter]
קלאוד על הדף:
This marks the conclusion of the sixth chapter of Menachot, “Eilu Menachot Nikmatzot” (These are the meal offerings from which a handful is taken). The hadran formula (“we shall return to you”) expresses the hope of revisiting this material in future study. Chapter 7 begins immediately with the next segment.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alakh) = We shall return to you; the traditional formula recited upon completing a chapter or tractate of Talmud
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
Thanks offering flour: 5 Jerusalem se’a = 6 wilderness se’a = 20 tenths; 10 for chametz, 10 for matza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַתּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי אֵיפוֹת, הָאֵיפָה שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, עֶשְׂרִים עִשָּׂרוֹן – עֲשָׂרָה לֶחָמֵץ וַעֲשָׂרָה לַמַּצָּה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem se’a offering, which are equivalent to six wilderness se’a. The se’a referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the se’a used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness se’a. These two ephahs are twenty measures of a tenth of an ephah. Ten of these tenths were used to make leavened loaves and ten of these tenths were used to make unleavened loaves, i.e., matza.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna opens Chapter 7 by detailing the flour requirements for the thanks offering — a topic introduced in the previous chapter’s debate about loaf counts. The mishna navigates between two systems of measurement: the Jerusalem se’a (larger) and the wilderness se’a (smaller, the biblical standard). Five Jerusalem se’a equal six wilderness se’a, which equal two ephahs or 20 tenths of an ephah. The flour is split evenly: 10 tenths for chametz (leavened bread) and 10 tenths for matza (unleavened bread), corresponding to the 10 leavened loaves and the three types of matza (10 of each type) that accompany the thanks offering.
Key Terms:
- סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת (se’in Yerushalmi’yot) = Jerusalem se’a; a larger measure used in the Second Temple period, 1/5 larger than the wilderness se’a
- סְאִין מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת (se’in midbariyot) = Wilderness se’a; the biblical standard measure from the desert period
- אֵיפָה (eifa) = Ephah; a dry measure equal to 3 wilderness se’a or approximately 21.6 liters