Menachot Daf 77 (מנחות דף ע״ז)
Daf: 77 | Amudim: 77a – 77b | Date: 27 Adar 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (77a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Continuation of the mishna: Distribution of flour among the leavened and unleavened loaves of the thanks offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ – עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, וַעֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה – וּבְמַצָּה שָׁלֹשׁ מִינִין: חַלּוֹת, רְקִיקִין, וּרְבוּכָה. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים וּשְׁלִישׁ לְכׇל מִין וּמִין, וְשָׁלֹשׁ חַלּוֹת לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
The mishna elaborates: There are ten tenths for the loaves of leavened bread, a tenth of an ephah per loaf. And there are ten tenths for the loaves of matza. And among the loaves of matza there are three types: Loaves, wafers, and those poached in water, ten loaves of each type. Consequently, there are three-and-one-third tenths of an ephah for each and every type, three loaves per tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna details the precise flour distribution for the forty loaves that accompany the thanks offering. The twenty tenths of an ephah are split evenly: ten for the leavened loaves (one tenth per loaf) and ten for the unleavened loaves. Since the matza portion is divided among three types — loaves (challot), wafers (rekikin), and those poached in water (revukhah) — the math yields an uneven fraction: three-and-one-third tenths per type, with three loaves produced from each tenth. This meticulous accounting reflects the halakhic concern for precision in sacred offerings, ensuring that each type of bread receives its proper share.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (Isaron) = A tenth of an ephah, the standard flour measure for meal offerings
- רְבוּכָה (Revukhah) = Loaves poached/scalded in water, one of three types of matza in the thanks offering
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The Jerusalem measure: Recalculating the flour distribution in kav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְמִדָּה יְרוּשַׁלְמִית הָיוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים קַב, חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְחָמֵץ וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְמַצָּה. חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְחָמֵץ – קַב וּמֶחֱצָה לְחַלָּה, חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְמַצָּה. וּבְמַצָּה שָׁלֹשׁ מִינִין: חַלּוֹת, וּרְקִיקִין, וּרְבוּכָה. נִמְצְאוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת קַבִּין לְכׇל מִין וּמִין, וּשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לְקַב.
English Translation:
And in the Jerusalem measure there were thirty kav, fifteen kav for the loaves of leavened bread and fifteen for the loaves of matza. The mishna elaborates: There are fifteen kav for the loaves of leavened bread, one and one-half kav per loaf. And there are fifteen kav for the loaves of matza. And among the loaves of matza there are three types: Loaves, wafers, and those poached in water. Consequently, there are five kav for each and every type, two loaves per kav.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now restates the same flour distribution using the larger Jerusalem kav measure instead of the wilderness isaron. The total of twenty tenths equals thirty Jerusalem kav (since Jerusalem measures were larger than wilderness measures). The mishna shows that the same proportions hold: each leavened loaf takes one-and-a-half kav, and among the matza types, each type receives five kav to produce ten loaves (two per kav). The difference in measuring units — wilderness versus Jerusalem — sets up the Gemara’s discussion about the relationship between these measurement systems and the permissible limits for augmenting measures.
Key Terms:
- קַב (Kav) = A unit of dry measure; six kav equal one se’a
- מִדָּה יְרוּשַׁלְמִית (Jerusalem measure) = The enlarged measurement standard adopted after the wilderness period
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara asks: How do we know an ephah equals three se’a?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ הַתּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הָאֵיפָה וְהַבַּת תֹּכֶן אֶחָד יִהְיֶה (לָכֶם)״. מָה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, אַף אֵיפָה שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem se’a, 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. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that there are three se’a in an ephah, derived? Rav Ḥisda said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: “The ephah and the bat shall be of one measure” (Ezekiel 45:11). Therefore, just as the bat, a measure for liquids, is three se’a, so too the ephah, a measure for dry goods, is three se’a.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins its analysis by probing the biblical foundation for the measurement system. The mishna assumes that an ephah equals three se’a, but this equivalence is not stated explicitly in the Torah. Rav Hisda derives it from Ezekiel 45:11, which equates the ephah (dry measure) with the bat (liquid measure). Since the bat is known to be three se’a, the ephah must also be three se’a. This sets up a chain of derivation: if the thanks offering requires twenty tenths (two ephahs = six se’a in wilderness terms), and Jerusalem measures are one-sixth larger, then five Jerusalem se’a equal six wilderness se’a.
Key Terms:
- אֵיפָה (Ephah) = A dry measure equivalent to three se’a
- בַּת (Bat) = A liquid measure equivalent to three se’a, the same volume as an ephah
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: How do we know the bat is three se’a?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַת גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״לָשֵׂאת (אֶת) מַעְשַׂר הַחֹמֶר הַבָּת״, אֵיפָה נָמֵי הָכְתִיב ״וַעֲשִׂירִית הַחֹמֶר הָאֵיפָה״! אֶלָּא חוֹמֶר לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the bat itself, from where do we derive its measure? If we say that we derive it from that which is written in the same verse: “That the bat may contain the tenth-part of a ḥomer,” and since one ḥomer consists of thirty se’a, one bat is equivalent to three se’a, there is a difficulty: With regard to an ephah as well, isn’t it written in the same verse: “And the ephah the tenth-part of a ḥomer”? Why, then, must the measure of an ephah be derived from that of a bat? Rather, I do not know how much the measure of a ḥomer is; consequently, when the verse states that the ephah is one-tenth of one ḥomer, this does not demonstrate the measure of the ephah. Here too, I do not know how much the measure of the bat is.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further: if we could already derive the bat from the homer (since the bat is one-tenth of a homer, and a homer is thirty se’a), then we could derive the ephah directly from the homer too, making the derivation from the bat unnecessary. The resolution is elegant: we actually do not independently know the homer’s value. The verse that defines the bat as one-tenth of a homer is circular if we do not already know the homer. A different source is needed to establish the bat’s measure, from which the homer can then be calculated.
Key Terms:
- חוֹמֶר (Homer) = The largest biblical dry measure, equivalent to thirty se’a (= ten ephahs)
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Deriving the bat from Ezekiel 45:14
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְחֹק הַשֶּׁמֶן הַבַּת הַשֶּׁמֶן וּמַעְשַׂר הַבַּת מִן הַכּוֹר עֲשֶׂרֶת הַבַּתִּים חוֹמֶר כִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת הַבַּתִּים חוֹמֶר״.
English Translation:
Rather, derive the volume of the ephah from here, from a subsequent verse, where it is written with regard to separating teruma: “And the set portion of oil, the bat of oil, shall be the tithe of the bat out of the kor, which is ten bat, even a ḥomer; for ten bat are a ḥomer” (Ezekiel 45:14). The verse states that there are ten bat in one kor and ten bat in one ḥomer. Since it is known that one kor is equivalent to thirty se’a, the verse indicates that there are also thirty se’a in one ḥomer. It can therefore be derived from the verse that there are three se’a in one bat, and consequently, three se’a in one ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the circularity by citing Ezekiel 45:14, which independently establishes that ten bat equal one kor. Since the kor is an independently known measure of thirty se’a, we can now calculate: if ten bat = one kor = thirty se’a, then one bat = three se’a. From there, since the ephah equals the bat (per Ezekiel 45:11), the ephah is also three se’a. This chain of derivation — kor to bat to ephah — exemplifies how the Talmud reconstructs an entire measurement system from scattered biblical verses.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹר (Kor) = A large dry or liquid measure equivalent to thirty se’a
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel’s rule: Measures may not be increased by more than one-sixth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת, וְלֹא עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת, וְהַמִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לֹא יִשְׁתַּכֵּר יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the Sages increased the size of the measures so that five Jerusalem measures are equal to six wilderness measures. With regard to the practice of augmenting measures, Shmuel says: If the residents of a certain place want to change the standard of their measures and augment them by a certain fraction, they may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, and they may not increase the value of a coin by more than one-sixth of its previous value. And one who profits from his sales may not profit by more than one-sixth.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel introduces a broad economic principle triggered by the mishna’s mention of the Jerusalem measures being larger than the wilderness measures. His rule extends beyond Temple measures to all commercial regulation: measures, currency, and profit margins are all capped at one-sixth. This is remarkable — the Talmud derives a general principle of fair commercial practice from the specific case of how the Jerusalem se’a was enlarged from the biblical wilderness se’a. The one-sixth limit reflects a balance between allowing communities to adjust their standards and protecting market stability.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתוּת (Shtut) = One-sixth, the maximum permissible increase in measures, coinage, or profit
- אוֹנָאָה (Ona’ah) = Price exploitation; overcharging beyond one-sixth of an item’s value
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
First attempted reason: Market price disruption — rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם אַפְקוֹעֵי תַּרְעָא – אִי הָכִי, שְׁתוּת נָמֵי לָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes these statements. When Shmuel said: They may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, what is the reason for this? If we say it is because doing so causes market prices to rise, the same concern should apply to raising the prices by one-sixth, and therefore that should also not be allowed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins testing possible reasons for Shmuel’s one-sixth limit. The first suggestion is that increasing measures beyond one-sixth would disrupt market prices (afku’ei tar’a). But this reasoning is self-defeating: if the concern is price disruption, then even a one-sixth increase should be prohibited, since any increase in measures affects prices. The Gemara’s logic here is that a reason based purely on market disruption cannot explain why one-sixth is specifically permitted.
Key Terms:
- אַפְקוֹעֵי תַּרְעָא (Afku’ei tar’a) = Disrupting/inflating market prices
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Second attempted reason: Exploitation laws — rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אוֹנָאָה, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לֶיהֱוֵי בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח, וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה – חוֹזֵר!
English Translation:
Rather, one might say that the prohibition is due to concern for exploitation; and they may increase the measures only by up to one-sixth so that there will not be nullification of the transaction, as the transaction is nullified only when the disparity is more than one-sixth of the value of the item. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed? A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the details of the item are easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction. The statement of Shmuel concerns sales involving measures.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second attempt connects Shmuel’s rule to the laws of ona’ah (price exploitation), where a one-sixth discrepancy is the threshold for nullifying a sale. However, Rava’s teaching demolishes this connection: for items sold by measure, weight, or number, even the slightest discrepancy reverses the transaction. Since changes to standardized measures inherently involve measurable quantities, the ona’ah threshold of one-sixth is irrelevant. This forces the Gemara to look for another source for the one-sixth limit.
Key Terms:
- בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח (Bittul mekah) = Nullification of a transaction due to excessive price disparity
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Third attempted reason: Merchant protection — also rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם תַּגָּרָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִמְטְיֵיהּ דְּיָאנָה. דְּיָאנָה הוּא דְּלָא לִימְטְיֵיהּ, רְוָחָא לָא בָּעֵי? זְבֵן וְזַבֵּין – תַּגָּרָא אִיקְּרִי?!
English Translation:
Rather, the prohibition is for the benefit of the merchant, so that there will not be a loss suffered by a merchant who might not realize that a new standard was issued, and might sell in accordance with the old standard. Since a merchant usually enjoys a profit of one-sixth of the value of an item, if the standard is not increased by more than this amount he will not suffer a loss, as at worst he will forfeit his profit margin. The Gemara notes: This explanation is also difficult, since even if the aim is to ensure that there will not be a loss for the merchant, does he not need to earn a profit? There is a well-known adage in this regard: If you buy and sell without earning any profit, will you be called a merchant? A merchant must profit from his sales; therefore, if this decree was instituted for the protection of merchants, the Sages should have ensured that they earn a profit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third attempt is pragmatic: merchants typically earn about one-sixth profit, so if measures increase by no more than one-sixth, a merchant selling at the old standard would at worst break even. But the Gemara’s retort is common-sense and memorable: “If you buy and sell without profit, will you be called a merchant?” (zeven v’zabbin — taggara ikri?!). Merely breaking even is not acceptable for a merchant. This proverbial dismissal forces the Gemara to abandon logical reasoning entirely and look for a scriptural source instead.
Key Terms:
- תַּגָּרָא (Taggara) = Merchant, trader
- דְּיָאנָה (Diyanah) = Financial loss
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Hisda’s resolution: Shmuel’s rule derived from Ezekiel 45:12
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁמוּאֵל קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ, ״הַשֶּׁקֶל עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה עֶשְׂרִים שְׁקָלִים חֲמִשָּׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים שְׁקָלִים עֲשָׂרָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁקֶל הַמָּנֶה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, מָנֶה מָאתָן וְאַרְבְּעִין הָווּ.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: The prohibition is not based on logical reasoning. Instead, Shmuel found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: “And the shekel shall be twenty gera; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your maneh” (Ezekiel 45:12). According to this verse, the sum of all of these numbers, sixty shekels, is equivalent to a maneh. This is problematic: How can a maneh consist of sixty shekels? Since each biblical shekel is equivalent to four dinars, if a maneh is equal to sixty shekels, a maneh is two hundred and forty dinars. But a maneh is actually equal to twenty-five shekels, which are one hundred dinars.
קלאוד על הדף:
After three failed logical explanations, Rav Hisda reveals that Shmuel’s rule is not based on reasoning at all but on scriptural exegesis. Ezekiel 45:12 lists the components of a maneh: 20 + 25 + 15 = 60 shekels. But a standard maneh is only 25 shekels (100 dinars). If 60 shekels = 240 dinars, this is far more than a standard maneh. This anomaly drives the derivation in the next segment. The verse’s mathematical puzzle is the key to unlocking three important principles about sacred measurements and market regulation.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה (Maneh) = A weight/monetary unit; a standard maneh = 25 shekels = 100 dinars
- גֵּרָה (Gera) = The smallest biblical weight unit; 20 gera = 1 shekel
- דִּינָר (Dinar) = A coin; 4 dinars = 1 shekel
Segment 11
TYPE: מסקנא
Three principles derived from the verse about the maneh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל הָיָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר.
English Translation:
Rather, one can learn from the verse three matters: Learn from it that the sacred maneh was doubled, so that it equaled two hundred, not one hundred, dinars. And furthermore, as Ezekiel stated that the maneh will be sixty shekels, not fifty, learn from it that a community may increase measures, but they may not increase them by more than one-sixth. And learn from it that the one-sixth is calculated from the outside, i.e., it is one-sixth of the final sum, which is one-fifth of the previous sum.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the climax of the sugya on measures. From Ezekiel’s puzzling verse, three principles emerge: (1) The sacred maneh was double the secular one — 50 shekels instead of 25 — explaining why the verse’s 60 shekels makes sense as a sacred maneh (200 dinars) plus a one-sixth increase (to 240 dinars). (2) Communities may augment measures, but by no more than one-sixth. (3) The “one-sixth” is calculated “from the outside” (mi-l’var), meaning one-sixth of the new total, which is one-fifth of the original. So going from 50 to 60 shekels: the increase of 10 is one-sixth of 60 (the new amount), not one-sixth of 50 (the old amount).
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ (Sacred maneh) = The doubled sacred weight: 50 shekels = 200 dinars
- שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר (One-sixth from the outside) = The fraction is calculated as one-sixth of the final/new total
Segment 12
TYPE: מסקנא
Ravina: The mishna itself confirms the one-sixth calculation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבִינָא: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: תּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Ravina said: The mishna is also precisely formulated so as to reflect the fact that the one-sixth increase is calculated from the outside, as it teaches: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem se’a of flour, which are equivalent to six wilderness se’a. One can infer that the se’a could be increased by only one-sixth from the outside. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina connects the abstract principle back to the concrete case in the mishna. The mishna states that five Jerusalem se’a equal six wilderness se’a. The increase from five to six means the additional one se’a is one-sixth of the new total (6), not one-sixth of the old total (5). This perfectly confirms the principle of “shtuta mi-l’var” — the one-sixth is calculated from the outside (the final amount). The Gemara affirms this reading, tying together the theoretical derivation from Ezekiel with the practical measurement conversion in the mishna.
Key Terms:
- מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת (Midbariyot) = Wilderness measures, the older/smaller measurement standard
- יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת (Yerushalamiyot) = Jerusalem measures, the larger/augmented measurement standard
Amud Bet (77b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: Teruma from the loaves of the thanks offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מִכּוּלָּם הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֶחָד מִכׇּל קׇרְבָּן תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, ״אֶחָד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס, ״מִכׇּל קׇרְבָּן״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שָׁוִין, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל מִקׇּרְבָּן עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. ״לַכֹּהֵן הַזֹּרֵק אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה״, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַבְּעָלִים.
English Translation:
MISHNA: From all of the four types of loaves accompanying the thanks offering, one takes one loaf from each set of ten as teruma, to be given to a priest, as it is stated: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord; to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given” (Leviticus 7:14). The verse is analyzed: “One” indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf; “of each offering” indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type; “to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given,” and the rest of the loaves are eaten by the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna shifts to the teruma separation from the forty loaves. One loaf from each type (four total: one leavened, one challah, one wafer, one revukhah) is given to the priest who performs the blood-sprinkling service. The mishna derives three rules from Leviticus 7:14: the teruma loaf must be whole (not sliced), it must be taken equally from each type, and it may not be substituted across types. The remaining thirty-six loaves are eaten by the owner. This establishes both the precise measure of the priestly gift (one-tenth per type) and its procedural requirements.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה (Teruma) = A priestly portion separated from an offering
- פָּרוּס (Parus) = A sliced or broken loaf, which is disqualified as teruma
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita expanding the scriptural analysis of teruma from the thanks offering loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ״ – מִן הַמְחוּבָּר, ״אֶחָד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס, ״מִכׇּל קׇרְבָּן״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת (שָׁווֹת) [שָׁוִוין], שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, ״תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִכַּמָּה הִיא,
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches some of the halakhot of teruma to be taken from the loaves of the thanks offering that are derived from the verse: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord.” The Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the same verse: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase “And he shall present from it” indicates that the loaves must all be as one, i.e., teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. “One” indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf. “Of each offering” indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type. When the verse states: “As a teruma unto the Lord,” I do not know from how many loaves the teruma is taken.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita adds a fourth derivation not found in the mishna: “from it” (mimenu) means the teruma must be taken while all the loaves are still joined together (min ha-m’ḥubbar) — not after they have been separated. The baraita then raises the key question: the verse calls the priestly portion “teruma” but does not specify the ratio. The word “teruma” appears in several contexts in the Torah with different ratios — teruma of the tithe (1/10), first fruits (no fixed amount), and others. A gezeira shava (verbal analogy) will be needed to determine the correct measure.
Key Terms:
- מִן הַמְחוּבָּר (Min ha-m’hubbar) = From that which is joined together; teruma must be separated while the loaves are in one place
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה (Gezeira shava) = A verbal analogy — a hermeneutical rule deriving law from shared terminology between two passages
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
First verbal analogy: Teruma of the tithe — one out of ten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״תְּרוּמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אַף כָּאן אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה.
English Translation:
I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves describing the thanks offering: “Teruma,” and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “Then you shall set apart from it a teruma for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). Just as below, with regard to teruma of the tithe, one out of every ten is separated as teruma, so too here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, one out of every ten loaves is separated as teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita proposes the first verbal analogy: the word “teruma” here can be compared to “teruma” in the context of teruma of the tithe (terumat ma’aser), where the Levite separates one-tenth of his received tithe and gives it to the priest. By analogy, the teruma from the thanks offering loaves should also be one out of ten. Since each type has ten loaves, this yields one loaf per type — four total — exactly as the mishna rules.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר (Terumat ma’aser) = Teruma of the tithe — the one-tenth that the Levite separates from his tithe and gives to the priest
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-analogy: First fruits (bikkurim) — no fixed measure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּבִכּוּרִים ״תְּרוּמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר, אַף כָּאן אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way and derive the measure from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here: “Teruma,” and it is stated with regard to first fruits: “Teruma” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Just as below, with regard to first fruits, it has no measure, so too here, say that it has no measure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita introduces a competing analogy: “teruma” also appears regarding bikkurim (first fruits), which have no fixed minimum measure. If we derive the thanks offering teruma from bikkurim rather than terumat ma’aser, there would be no required measure at all — any amount would suffice. The sugya must now determine which analogy is more appropriate, using the classic Talmudic method of comparing shared characteristics to decide which source is the better comparator.
Key Terms:
- בִּכּוּרִים (Bikkurim) = First fruits brought to the Temple, which have no minimum measure
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
First attempt to resolve: Comparing characteristics — teruma not followed by another teruma
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה: דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, מִתְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בִּכּוּרִים, שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, teruma of the tithe or the first fruits, the case of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of a teruma that is not followed by another teruma, such as teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, from a teruma that is not followed by another teruma, such as teruma of the tithe. And the case of the first fruits will not serve as proof, since they are followed by another teruma, as teruma and tithes are taken after the first fruits are separated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita applies the standard method of adjudicating competing analogies: which source shares more features with the case at hand? Teruma of the thanks offering loaves is a final separation — nothing else is taken after it. Terumat ma’aser shares this characteristic (it is also a final separation, with no further obligations). Bikkurim, however, are followed by additional terumot and tithes. So the teruma of the thanks offering should be derived from terumat ma’aser, yielding a measure of one-tenth.
Key Terms:
- אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה = “No teruma follows it” — a characteristic shared by the thanks offering teruma and terumat ma’aser
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-argument: Both are eaten in a sacred place
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, מִתְּרוּמָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem, from teruma of the first fruits, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem. And the case of teruma of the tithe will not serve as proof, as it may be eaten anywhere.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents the opposing argument with equal force. The teruma of the thanks offering loaves must be eaten in Jerusalem (a sacred place). Bikkurim are also eaten in Jerusalem. Terumat ma’aser, by contrast, may be eaten anywhere. By this criterion, the thanks offering teruma more closely resembles bikkurim, which would yield no fixed measure. The argument is now at an impasse — each analogy has a compelling shared characteristic — and the baraita must resort to a direct textual proof.
Key Terms:
- מָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ (Makom kadosh) = A sacred place, specifically Jerusalem
Segment 7
TYPE: מסקנא
Resolution: The shared phrase “from it a teruma” establishes the gezeira shava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, וּכְתִיב בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה״ – לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
English Translation:
Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “From it…a teruma unto the Lord,” and, similarly, it is written with regard to teruma of the tithe: “From it a teruma,” to indicate that there is a verbal analogy between the two, from which it can be derived that one separates one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering as teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The impasse is resolved by the specific wording of the verses. Both the thanks offering passage and the terumat ma’aser passage use the identical phrase “mimenu teruma” (“from it a teruma”). This precise verbal match creates a definitive gezeira shava that overrides the competing analogy to bikkurim. The result: one out of every ten loaves is separated as teruma, yielding four loaves total (one from each type of ten). This demonstrates how, when logical reasoning reaches a stalemate, the Torah’s exact wording serves as the tiebreaker.
Key Terms:
- מִמֶּנּוּ (Mimenu) = “From it” — the specific shared term that establishes the verbal analogy
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
New question: How much flour per leavened loaf? Analogy from the two loaves of Shavuot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָמַדְנוּ לִתְרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִכַּמָּה הִיא חַלָּה. הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לֶחֶם״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם ״לֶחֶם״, מָה לְהַלָּן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, אַף כָּאן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: We have learned with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that its measure is one out of every ten. But I do not know from this verbal analogy from how much flour each leavened loaf is to be prepared. I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage concerning the loaves of the thanks offering: “Bread” (Leviticus 7:13), and it is stated there, with regard to the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat: “Bread” (Leviticus 23:17). Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, with regard to the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the teruma ratio, the baraita turns to a different question: how much flour goes into each individual leavened loaf? The word “lehem” (bread) appears both in the thanks offering passage and regarding the Two Loaves (shtei ha-lehem) brought on Shavuot. Since each of the Two Loaves is made from one tenth of an ephah (isaron), the analogy yields one isaron per leavened loaf of the thanks offering. With ten leavened loaves, that totals ten isaronot — matching the mishna’s teaching.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (Shtei ha-lehem) = The Two Loaves, a communal offering brought on Shavuot from new wheat
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-analogy: The shewbread uses two tenths per loaf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לֶחֶם״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים ״לֶחֶם״, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way and derive the halakha from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “Bread,” and it is stated there, with regard to the shewbread: “Bread” (Leviticus 24:7). One can conclude that just as there, with regard to the shewbread, each of the twelve loaves is baked from two-tenths of an ephah flour, so too here, each of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering should be baked from two-tenths of an ephah of flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
A competing analogy emerges: the word “lehem” also appears regarding the lehem ha-panim (shewbread), where each of the twelve loaves requires two tenths of an ephah. If we derive the thanks offering from the shewbread, each leavened loaf would require two tenths — doubling the total flour. The baraita now faces the same methodological challenge as before: two equally valid verbal analogies pointing to different conclusions. Again, the resolution will require comparing which source better resembles the case at hand.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (Lehem ha-panim) = The shewbread, twelve loaves displayed in the Temple each week
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Comparing: The two loaves are leavened and accompany an animal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, the two loaves or the shewbread, the case of the leavened loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, from another meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, such as the two loaves, which are also leavened, and which come with animal offerings (see Leviticus 23:17–19). And the shewbread will not serve as proof, since it does not come as leavened bread, nor does it come with an animal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita argues for the Two Loaves analogy by noting two shared features with the thanks offering: both are leavened (hametz) and both accompany animal sacrifices (zevah). The shewbread, by contrast, is neither leavened nor offered alongside an animal sacrifice. This makes the Two Loaves a much closer parallel, supporting the derivation of one isaron per loaf.
Key Terms:
- חָמֵץ (Hametz) = Leavened bread; both the thanks offering loaves and the Two Loaves are leavened
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-argument: The shewbread can come from old grain and outside Eretz Yisrael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה מֵאָרֶץ וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה מֵאָרֶץ וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁאֵין בָּאוֹת אֶלָּא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הָאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or of outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain; from the halakha of the shewbread, which is also a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or from outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain. And the two loaves will not serve as proof, since they can come only from new grain and from Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The opposing argument highlights a different set of shared features. Both the thanks offering loaves and the shewbread can be made from grain grown anywhere (inside or outside Eretz Yisrael) and from either new or old grain. The Two Loaves, however, are restricted to new grain from Eretz Yisrael only. By this criterion, the shewbread is the better comparator, which would yield two tenths per loaf. Once again, the competing analogies produce a deadlock requiring a direct textual resolution.
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ (Hadash) = New grain, from the current year’s harvest
- יָשָׁן (Yashan) = Old grain, from a previous year’s harvest
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution from “You shall bring” — the Two Loaves serve as the model
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה שְׁתַּיִם״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״? שֶׁכׇּל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּזֶה, מַה לְּהַלָּן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה אַף כָּאן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.
English Translation:
Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states concerning the two loaves: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving” (Leviticus 23:17). As there is no need for the verse to state: “You shall bring,” what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall bring”? This indicates that whatever, i.e., any meal offering, you bring from a different place, it must be like this, i.e., the two loaves. Therefore, just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf.
קלאוד על הדף:
The deadlock is broken by an exegetical reading of a seemingly superfluous word. In Leviticus 23:17, the verse about the Two Loaves says “you shall bring” (tavi’u), which appears redundant. The baraita explains that this extra word teaches a general principle: any other bread offering “brought from a different place” (i.e., the thanks offering loaves) follows the same flour measure as the Two Loaves. This definitively establishes one isaron per loaf, resolving the competing analogies in favor of the Two Loaves.
Key Terms:
- תָּבִיאוּ (Tavi’u) = “You shall bring” — the superfluous verb that serves as the basis for the derivation
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
“They shall be” — each loaf gets its own tenth, not a shared total
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
English Translation:
But if so, perhaps one can derive that just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the entire measure for the two loaves is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the entire measure for all ten loaves of leavened bread is two-tenths. To exclude this possibility, the same verse states: “They shall be,” to indicate that each leavened loaf is prepared from a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the ten loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering are prepared with a total of ten tenths of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
A potential misreading is addressed: perhaps the analogy to the Two Loaves means only two tenths total for all ten leavened loaves (one-fifth of a tenth per loaf!). The word “tihyena” (“they shall be”) in the verse excludes this reading, indicating that the measure applies to each loaf individually. This is a precise exegetical distinction: the Two Loaves as a unit require two tenths (one per loaf), and the thanks offering loaves likewise require one tenth per loaf — yielding ten tenths total.
Key Terms:
- תִּהְיֶינָה (Tihyena) = “They shall be” — indicating that the measure applies to each individual loaf
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Deriving the matza flour measure from the leavened bread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָמַדְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ, עֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: We have learned that there are ten tenths of an ephah of flour for the loaves of leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. From where is it derived that there are ten tenths of an ephah for the thirty loaves of matza? The verse states: “If he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Leviticus 7:12–13).
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the leavened bread requires ten tenths, the baraita asks: how do we know the matza also requires ten tenths? The answer lies in the juxtaposition of Leviticus 7:12 (listing the three types of matza) and 7:13 (mentioning the leavened bread). By placing them adjacent, the Torah indicates that the matza portion should correspond to (neged) the leavened bread portion, yielding the same total flour measure.
Key Terms:
- נֶגֶד (Neged) = Corresponding to; the matza flour measure parallels the leavened bread measure
Segment 15
TYPE: מסקנא
Conclusion: Twenty tenths total — ten for leavened, ten for matza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נֶגֶד חָמֵץ, הָבֵא מַצָּה. נִמְצְאוּ עֶשְׂרִים עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ, וַעֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה.
English Translation:
By mentioning all the loaves of unleavened bread in one verse and the loaves of leavened bread in the subsequent verse, it is indicated that one must bring the matza in a measure corresponding to the measure of the loaves of leavened bread. Consequently, there are twenty tenths of flour for the loaves of the thanks offering, ten for the loaves of leavened bread, and ten for the matza.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita reaches the intermediate conclusion: the total flour for the thanks offering is twenty tenths of an ephah, split evenly between leavened and unleavened. This establishes the base numbers that the mishna elaborates on: ten isaronot for the ten leavened loaves, and ten isaronot divided among the thirty unleavened loaves (three types of ten each). The symmetry between hametz and matza is derived from the textual juxtaposition, reflecting the principle that the Torah’s arrangement of verses carries halakhic significance.
Key Terms:
- עֶשְׂרִים עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת = Twenty tenths of an ephah, the total flour for all loaves of the thanks offering
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
The matza must be three types, not one — concluding the baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁבְּמַצָּה לֹא יְהוּ כּוּלָּן אֶלָּא מִמִּין אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת מַצּוֹת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן סֹלֶת מֻרְבֶּכֶת וְגוֹ׳״. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים וּשְׁלִישׁ לְכׇל מִין וּמִין, וְשָׁלֹשׁ חַלּוֹת לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, וְנִמְצְאוּ לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה אַרְבָּעִים. נוֹטֵל מֵהֶן אַרְבַּע וְנוֹתֵן לְכֹהֵן, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָלִים לַבְּעָלִים.
English Translation:
One might have thought that one brings ten loaves of matza, and that all of them shall be of only one type. Therefore, the verse states: “If he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering.” The verse indicates that one must bring three types of matza. Consequently, there are three-and-one-third of a tenth of an ephah of flour for each and every type, and three loaves to a tenth of an ephah. And consequently, there are a total of forty loaves of the thanks offering. The owner of the offering takes four of them, one loaf of each type, and gives them to the priest, and the remaining loaves are eaten by the owner and any ritually pure Jew to whom he wishes to give the loaves. This concludes the baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s grand summary brings together all the derivations. The verse in Leviticus 7:12 explicitly lists three types of matza (challot, rekikin, and murbechet), requiring thirty matza loaves (ten of each type). Combined with the ten leavened loaves, the total is forty loaves. Four go to the priest as teruma (one per type), and the owner eats the remaining thirty-six. This elegant mathematical structure — twenty tenths of flour, forty loaves, four types — is entirely derived from close reading of the biblical text, demonstrating the Talmudic method of building complex halakhic frameworks from scriptural exegesis.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבָּעִים (Arba’im) = Forty — the total number of loaves accompanying the thanks offering
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: “From it” — what does “joined together” mean for the sin offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ״ – מִן הַמְחוּבָּר. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֶת כׇּל חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ״ – הָתָם מַאי מְחוּבָּר אִיכָּא?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: “And he shall present from it,” indicates that the teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then concerning that which is written in the verse with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar: “And all the fat thereof he shall take off from it and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 4:19), there, what is there to be joined together?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now returns to scrutinize the baraita’s first derivation — that “mimenu” implies the loaves must be “joined together” when teruma is taken. But the same word “mimenu” appears regarding the sin offering’s fats (Leviticus 4:19). In that context, the fats are part of a single animal — what would “joined together” mean there? The question is not just about the sin offering but about the consistency of the interpretive principle: if “mimenu” always means “from the joined,” it should apply to every occurrence.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרִין (Eimurin) = The sacrificial portions (fats) of an offering that are burned on the altar
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Answer: Don’t cut the meat before removing the fats
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: שֶׁלֹּא יְנַתֵּחַ בָּשָׂר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֵימוּרִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The sacrificial portions of the sin offering must be sacrificed from that which is joined together, in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says, as Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The priest may not cut up the meat of the offering before taking from it the sacrificial portions that are to be burned upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge elegantly: in the context of the sin offering, “from the joined” means the priest must not butcher the animal into pieces before removing the sacrificial fats. The fats must be separated from the intact carcass, not from dismembered parts. This maintains the consistency of the hermeneutical principle: “mimenu” teaches that the separation (whether of teruma from loaves or fats from the offering) must occur while the source material is still whole and connected.
Key Terms:
- נִתּוּחַ (Nittuah) = The cutting/butchering of a sacrificial animal into pieces
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Revisiting the verbal analogy between the thanks offering teruma and terumat ma’aser
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״תְּרוּמָה״.
English Translation:
§ The Master said: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves of the thanks offering: “Teruma,” and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “Teruma.” Just as one-tenth of the tithe is separated as teruma of the tithe, so too one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering is separated as teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the key gezeira shava that established the one-in-ten ratio, now to challenge it from different directions. Having resolved the questions about “mimenu” and the flour measures, the sugya turns to testing whether the comparison to terumat ma’aser is truly the correct one by considering alternative sources that might seem equally valid.
Key Terms:
- נֶאֱמַר כָּאן… וְנֶאֱמַר = “It is stated here… and it is stated” — the standard formula introducing a gezeira shava
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not derive from the teruma of Midian? — It was a one-time event
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנֵילַף מִתְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן? דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת מִתְּרוּמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma that was taken following the war of the Jewish people against Midian, where the word teruma also appears (see Numbers 31:28–30). The measure of the teruma there was not one of ten. The Gemara responds: One derives the halakha with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is practiced for all generations, from teruma of the tithe, which is also practiced for all generations. And teruma of Midian shall not serve as proof, as it is not practiced for all generations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the gezeira shava by asking: why not compare to the teruma taken from the Midianite spoils (Numbers 31), where different ratios applied? The answer is straightforward: the Midianite teruma was a one-time event, not a permanent obligation. The thanks offering teruma, like terumat ma’aser, applies for all generations. Permanent obligations should be derived from permanent obligations, not from one-time historical events. This reflects a general Talmudic principle that ongoing halakhot are derived from ongoing precedents.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן (Terumat Midyan) = The teruma separated from the spoils of the war against Midian (Numbers 31:28–30)
- נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת (Noheget l’dorot) = Practiced for all generations
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not derive from teruma of halla? — Different wording
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנֵילַף מִתְּרוּמַת חַלָּה? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳״ מִדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, לְאַפּוֹקֵי תְּרוּמַת חַלָּה דְּלֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma of ḥalla, i.e., the portion of dough given to the priest, as the verse refers to it as a teruma (see Numbers 15:19–20). That measure is one in twenty-four. The Gemara responds: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that one derives a matter, i.e., teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, of which it is stated: “From it a teruma unto the Lord” (Leviticus 7:14), from a matter, i.e., teruma of the tithe, of which it is stated: “From it a teruma for the Lord” (Numbers 18:26). This serves to exclude teruma of ḥalla, of which it is not stated: From it a teruma for the Lord.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another challenge: the dough-offering (halla) is also called “teruma” and has a different ratio (1/24). Why not derive from it? The school of Rabbi Yishmael provides the definitive answer: the gezeira shava requires an exact verbal match. Both the thanks offering and terumat ma’aser use the phrase “mimenu teruma la-Hashem” (“from it a teruma for the Lord”), while halla does not use this precise wording. This demonstrates the importance of exact textual correspondence in establishing a valid gezeira shava — close is not good enough.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמַת חַלָּה (Terumat halla) = The dough-offering, a portion of dough given to the priest (1/24 of the batch)
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = The school of Rabbi Yishmael, known for particular exegetical principles
Segment 22
TYPE: בעיא
Rava’s dilemma: Does a non-priest incur death and the one-fifth penalty for eating the teruma loaves?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא: תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אוֹ אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?
English Translation:
§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, is a non-priest who intentionally partakes of it liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who intentionally consumes teruma of the tithe? And similarly, is a non-priest who unwittingly partakes of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering liable to pay the value of what he consumed as well as an additional one-fifth of that value, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who partakes of teruma of the tithe unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:9, 14)? Or is one not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for their consumption?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava poses a fascinating question that probes the limits of the gezeira shava: just because the measure of teruma from the thanks offering loaves is derived from terumat ma’aser, does that mean all the strictures of teruma apply? Specifically, does a non-priest who eats it face the severe penalties of death at Heaven’s hands (for intentional consumption) and the one-fifth surcharge (for unwitting consumption)? This tests whether the verbal analogy transfers only the specific measure or the entire legal framework of teruma.
Key Terms:
- מִיתָה (Mita) = Death at the hand of Heaven, the penalty for a non-priest intentionally consuming teruma
- חוֹמֶשׁ (Homesh) = The one-fifth surcharge paid by a non-priest who inadvertently consumes teruma
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
Rava elaborates: Does the comparison transfer the full teruma status?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, כִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״בּוֹ״ וַ״חֲמִשִּׁיתוֹ״ מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא?
English Translation:
Rava elaborates: Since teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is compared to teruma of the tithe, perhaps it is considered like teruma of the tithe, and the same penalties are incurred. Or perhaps, since the verse uses restrictive terms with regard to teruma of the tithe, as the verse states of one who intentionally partakes of it: “They shall die due to it” (Leviticus 22:9), and the verse states with regard to one who unwittingly partakes of it: “Then he shall put its fifth-part unto it” (Leviticus 22:14), the Merciful One restricted this halakha specifically to the case of teruma of the tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava frames the two sides clearly. On one hand, the verbal analogy (hekesh) to terumat ma’aser might carry over the full teruma framework, including the severe penalties. On the other hand, the Torah uses restrictive language in the penalty verses — “due to it” (bo) and “its fifth-part” (hamishito) — suggesting these penalties are limited specifically to agricultural teruma. The question is whether the gezeira shava is comprehensive (transferring all laws) or limited (transferring only the specific measure of one-tenth).
Key Terms:
- אִיתַּקַּשׁ (Ittakash) = Was compared/juxtaposed; a halakhic comparison between two cases
- מִיעֵט (Mi’et) = The Torah restricted/limited [the application]
Segment 24
TYPE: בעיא ותיקו
Does teruma of the thanks offering loaves render a mixture forbidden? — Unresolved
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְדַמַּעַת, אוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rava raises another dilemma based on the comparison of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering and teruma of the tithe: Does teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that fell into non-sacred produce render the mixture forbidden, as is the halakha concerning teruma of the tithe? Or does the comparison of teruma of the loaves to teruma of the tithe apply only with regard to the proper measure, and it does not render the mixture forbidden? The Gemara comments: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises a second dilemma: if teruma of the thanks offering loaves falls into non-sacred food, does it create a “medumma” (forbidden mixture) the way regular teruma does? Regular teruma that falls into non-sacred food renders the entire mixture forbidden (unless the ratio is more than 1:100). Both of Rava’s dilemmas — the penalties and the medumma status — remain teiku (unresolved). The Rambam (Hilkhot Ma’aseh Ha-Korbanot 9:13) records both dilemmas as unresolved, meaning in practice the strictures are applied out of doubt.
Key Terms:
- מְדַמַּעַת (Medamma’at) = Renders a mixture forbidden; a characteristic of teruma that falls into non-sacred food
- תֵּיקוּ (Teiku) = The dilemma remains unresolved
Segment 25
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara asks how “they shall be” proves each loaf needs one tenth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּהְיֶינָה״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא?
English Translation:
§ The Master said in the baraita: The verse states: “They shall be,” indicating that each leavened loaf must come from a tenth of an ephah, so that the loaves of matza of the thanks offering are prepared from ten tenths of an ephah. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this? How is this derived from “they shall be”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf concludes mid-question. The Gemara challenges the baraita’s assertion that “tihyena” (“they shall be”) proves each individual loaf requires one tenth of an ephah. The simple meaning of “they shall be” does not obviously indicate individual loaf measures rather than a collective total. The answer to this question continues on the next daf (78a), where the exegesis of this word is completed. This cliffhanger ending is typical of daf boundaries, which follow the pagination of the printed Talmud rather than logical divisions.
Key Terms:
- מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא = “What is the derivation?” — the standard formula asking for the exegetical basis of a statement