Menachot Daf 78 (מנחות דף ע״ח)
Daf: 78 | Amudim: 78a – 78b | Date: 28 Adar 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (78a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of the derivation: The superfluous yod in “tihyena” indicates ten tenths
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״תִּהְיֶינָה״ כְּתִיב. אֵימָא עֲשָׂרָה קְפִיזֵי? אָמַר רָבָא: בְּעֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
English Translation:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: “They shall be” [tihyena] is written with two instances of the letter yod. The superfluous yod, whose numerical value is ten, is interpreted to indicate that the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering must be prepared from ten tenths of flour. The Gemara raises an objection: Say that the superfluous yod indicates that the loaves must be prepared with ten half-kav, a smaller measure than ten tenths of an ephah? Rava says: One cannot say this, since the verse habitually spoke of tenths of an ephah and not other measures.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues directly from the end of daf 77, resolving how “tihyena” teaches that each individual loaf requires one tenth. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi identifies a superfluous yod in the word “tihyena” (whose gematria is 10), deriving that ten tenths of flour are required. The Gemara challenges: perhaps the yod indicates ten of a smaller unit (kefizei)? Rava responds with a principle of biblical interpretation: the Torah consistently speaks in terms of tenths of an ephah when discussing flour measures, so the superfluous yod must refer to tenths.
Key Terms:
- תִּהְיֶינָה (Tihyena) = “They shall be” — the word with a superfluous yod (numerical value 10) from which the ten-tenth requirement is derived
- קְפִיזֵי (Kefizei) = Half-kav measures, a smaller unit that the Gemara suggests as an alternative reading
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Deriving the matza flour measure from the leavened bread by hekkesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָמַדְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ. עֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל חַלּוֹת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ״, כְּנֶגֶד חָמֵץ הָבֵא מַצָּה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: 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: “With cakes of leavened bread,” after mentioning the three types of matza accompanying the thanks offering (Leviticus 7:12–13), indicating that one must bring the matza in a measure corresponding to the measure of the loaves of leavened bread.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that the leavened bread requires ten tenths, the Gemara now derives the matza quantity. The juxtaposition of the matza types (Leviticus 7:12) with the leavened bread (7:13) creates a hekkesh (comparison): “with cakes of leavened bread” indicates that the matza should be brought “corresponding to” (keneged) the leavened bread — yielding the same ten tenths. This comparison is crucial because the matza quantity is not stated explicitly in the Torah.
Key Terms:
- כְּנֶגֶד (Keneged) = Corresponding to; the matza measure mirrors the leavened bread measure
- הֶיקֵּשׁ (Hekkesh) = A biblical comparison, where the Torah juxtaposes two topics to equate their laws
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Can a matter derived by hekkesh teach another matter by hekkesh? Resolution: “heimenu v’davar aher”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ? הֵימֶנּוּ וְדָבָר אַחֵר הוּא, וְכֹל הֵימֶנּוּ וְדָבָר אַחֵר – לָא הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But can a matter that was derived by comparison then come back and teach the matter by comparison with regard to consecrated matters? Since the halakha that the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering are prepared from ten tenths of an ephah is itself derived by comparison to the two loaves, can one then derive from it that the matza loaves of the thanks offering consist of ten tenths of an ephah? The Gemara responds: The halakha that the loaves of leavened bread consist of ten loaves made from ten tenths of an ephah is not derived solely by comparison to the two loaves; rather, it is derived from itself, as the halakha that there are ten loaves is stated in the verse concerning the thanks offering, and from another matter, and any halakha derived from itself and from another matter is not considered a comparison. Consequently, the halakha with regard to the matza loaves may be derived from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A major hermeneutical challenge arises: there is a Talmudic principle that a law derived by hekkesh (comparison) cannot then serve as the basis for another hekkesh. Since the leavened bread’s ten-tenth requirement was derived from the Two Loaves (by comparison), it seemingly cannot teach the matza requirement by comparison. The resolution introduces the concept of “heimenu v’davar aher” (from itself and another matter): the leavened bread’s law is partly stated directly in its own verse (the number of loaves) and only partly derived from the Two Loaves (the flour per loaf). This mixed derivation is not classified as a pure hekkesh, so it can still teach by comparison.
Key Terms:
- הֵימֶנּוּ וְדָבָר אַחֵר (Heimenu v’davar aher) = “From itself and another matter” — a derivation that combines internal textual evidence with an external source
- דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ = “A matter derived by comparison” — which generally cannot teach another matter by comparison
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Alternative resolution: “tavi’u” is an amplification, not a comparison
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? ״תָּבִיאוּ״ רִבּוּיָא הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a halakha derived from itself and from another matter does not constitute a comparison, but according to the one who says that a halakha derived from itself and from another matter does constitute a comparison, what is there to say? The Gemara responds: According to that opinion, the halakha that each loaf is prepared from a tenth of an ephah is derived from that which the verse states with regard to the two loaves: “You shall bring” (Leviticus 23:17), which is a term of amplification that serves to teach that the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering consist of ten tenths of an ephah of flour. Since this halakha is derived not by comparison but by amplification from the two loaves, one can derive the halakha with regard to the matza loaves by comparison to the loaves of leavened bread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses the opposing view — that “heimenu v’davar aher” IS considered a hekkesh. For this opinion, a different escape route is offered: the word “tavi’u” (“you shall bring”) in Leviticus 23:17 is not a comparison at all but a ribbuy (amplification), a distinct hermeneutical category. Since the leavened bread’s flour measure is derived by amplification rather than comparison, the matza can still be derived from it by comparison. This ensures the derivation works under both approaches.
Key Terms:
- רִבּוּיָא (Ribbuy’a) = An amplification — a hermeneutical derivation distinct from hekkesh (comparison)
- תָּבִיאוּ (Tavi’u) = “You shall bring” — the amplifying word from Leviticus 23:17
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
The ram of inauguration included all three types of matza like the todah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַמִּילּוּאִים הָיוּ בָּאִין כַּמַּצָּה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה – חַלּוֹת, וּרְקִיקִין, (וּרְבִיכָה) [וּרְבוּכָה].
English Translation:
MISHNA: The loaves that accompanied the ram of the inauguration of the Tabernacle would come parallel to the three types of matza that accompany the thanks offering: Loaves, wafers, and loaves poached in water and made with oil (see Leviticus 8:26). The loaves of leavened bread that accompany the thanks offering were not brought with the ram of inauguration.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna introduces two new topics: the inauguration offering (milluim) and the nazirite’s offering. For the inauguration, the ram was accompanied by all three types of matza — challot, rekikin, and revukhah — mirroring the matza component of the thanks offering. Notably, no leavened bread was included. This sets up the Gemara’s inquiry into the biblical source for including revukhah in the inauguration offering, since the relevant verse (Leviticus 8:26) does not explicitly mention it.
Key Terms:
- מִילּוּאִים (Milluim) = The inauguration offerings brought during the seven days of the Tabernacle’s consecration
- רְבוּכָה (Revukhah) = Loaves poached/scalded in water with oil, one of three matza types
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
The nazirite’s offering had only two types of matza — no revukhah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְזִירוּת הָיְתָה בָּאָה שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת כְּמַצָּה שֶׁל תּוֹדָה, חַלּוֹת וּרְקִיקִין, וְאֵין בָּהּ רְבוּכָה, נִמְצָא עֲשָׂרָה קַבִּין יְרוּשַׁלְמִית, שֶׁהֵן שִׁשָּׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת וְעוֹדְיִין.
English Translation:
The loaves that accompany the offering that the nazirite brings upon completion of his period of naziriteship would come with only two parts of the three types of matza that accompany the thanks offering, namely, loaves and wafers, but there is no matza poached in water (see Numbers 6:15). Consequently, the loaves of the offering of a nazirite are from ten kav of fine flour according to the Jerusalem measure, as taught in the previous mishna that each type of the loaves of matza comes from five kav of flour, which equal six-and-two-thirds tenths of an ephah according to the wilderness measure, as each type of the loaves of matza comes from three-and-one-third tenths of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna contrasts the nazirite’s offering with the thanks offering. The nazirite brings only “two-thirds” (shtei yadot) of the matza types — challot and rekikin — but not revukhah. The flour calculation follows: since each matza type requires five Jerusalem kav (from the previous mishna), two types total ten Jerusalem kav, which equals six-and-two-thirds tenths of an ephah in wilderness measures. The mishna’s precision in listing both measurement systems reflects the practical reality that Temple operations needed to work with both standards.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת (Shtei yadot) = Two parts out of three — the nazirite brings two of the three matza types
- נְזִירוּת (Nezirut) = Naziriteship — a vow of abstinence from wine, haircuts, and corpse-impurity
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Source for inauguration loaves: Rav Hisda/Rav Hama bar Gurya derive from Leviticus 8:26
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וּמִסַּל הַמַּצּוֹת אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי ה׳ לָקַח חַלַּת מַצָּה אַחַת וְחַלַּת לֶחֶם שֶׁמֶן אַחַת וְרָקִיק אֶחָד״. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״חַלּוֹת״ – חַלּוֹת, ״רָקִיק״ – רָקִיק, ״שֶׁמֶן״ מַאי נִינְהוּ? לָאו רְבוּכָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the loaves that accompanied the ram of the inauguration of the Tabernacle consisted of the three types of matza brought with a thanks offering: Loaves, wafers, and loaves poached in water and made with oil. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It is derived from that which the verse states: “And out of the basket of unleavened bread that was before the Lord, he took one unleavened cake, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer” (Leviticus 8:26). Granted, “cakes” are cakes, and “wafer” is a wafer. But what is “oiled bread” referring to? Is this not referring to matza poached in water and made with oil?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks a biblical source for the mishna’s claim that the inauguration offering included all three matza types. Rav Hisda, citing Rav Hama bar Gurya, points to Leviticus 8:26, which describes Moses taking from the basket of matza: an unleavened cake (challah), oiled bread (hallat lehem shemen), and a wafer (rakik). The first and third are straightforward — challot and rekikin. The middle term, “oiled bread,” is identified as revukhah (poached loaves made with oil).
Key Terms:
- חַלַּת לֶחֶם שֶׁמֶן (Hallat lehem shemen) = “A cake of oiled bread” — the term in Leviticus 8:26 identified as revukhah
- סַל הַמַּצּוֹת (Sal ha-matzot) = “Basket of unleavened bread” — the container from which Moses took the inauguration loaves
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Avya objects: “oiled bread” could mean a cake of oil. Alternative derivation from Leviticus 6:13-15
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַוְיָא: אֵימָא אַנְתָּא דְּמִשְׁחָא! אֶלָּא, כִּדְדָרֵשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַבְלָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ״.
English Translation:
Rav Avya objects to this: One can say that “oiled bread” is referring to a cake of oil. Rather, derive it as Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught in the name of Rabbi Tavla, that the verse states: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall bring to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. On a pan it shall be made with oil; when it is poached, you shall bring it in; in broken pieces shall you bring the meal offering for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall bring it” (Leviticus 6:13–15).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Avya challenges the identification of “hallat lehem shemen” as revukhah. The phrase could simply mean a cake generously made with oil — not necessarily one poached in water. This forces the Gemara to find an alternative source. Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda, citing Rabbi Tavla, turns to Leviticus 6:13-15, which describes the High Priest’s daily meal offering. This passage mentions preparation “on a pan with oil” and the term “poached” (murbechet), explicitly referencing the revukhah method.
Key Terms:
- אַנְתָּא דְּמִשְׁחָא (Anta d’mishha) = “A cake of oil” — Rav Avya’s alternative reading of “hallat lehem shemen”
- חֲבִיתִּין (Havitin) = The High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Comparing the inauguration to the anointing: just as the anointing offering is revukhah, so too the inauguration
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ לְבָנָיו בְּיוֹם הִמָּשְׁחוֹ? אֶלָּא מַקִּישׁ חִינּוּכוֹ לְהִמָּשְׁחוֹ: מָה הִמָּשְׁחוֹ רְבוּכָה, אַף חִינּוּכוֹ רְבוּכָה.
English Translation:
One can ask: And what have we learned with regard to Aaron’s sons, i.e., the ordinary priests, from the instructions for the High Priest on the day that he is anointed? Rather, the verse juxtaposes the meal offering brought by an ordinary priest during his inauguration with the meal offering brought by the High Priest when he is anointed. This juxtaposition teaches that just as the meal offering brought by the High Priest when he is anointed is poached in water, so too the meal offering brought by an ordinary priest during his inauguration is poached in water. Similarly, the loaves brought with the ram of the inauguration of the Tabernacle included loaves poached in water.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the derivation through a hekkesh (comparison). Leviticus 6:13 mentions both Aaron (the High Priest) and “his sons” (ordinary priests), connecting the inauguration of ordinary priests to the anointing of the High Priest. Since the High Priest’s offering is described as “poached” (revukhah), the inauguration offering must also include revukhah. By extension, the loaves brought with the ram of the Tabernacle’s inauguration also included this type. This elegant chain of reasoning — from the High Priest’s anointing to the ordinary priest’s inauguration to the Tabernacle’s inauguration — establishes revukhah as a required component.
Key Terms:
- חִינּוּכוֹ (Hinukho) = His inauguration — referring to the inaugural service of an ordinary priest
- הִמָּשְׁחוֹ (Himasho) = His anointing — referring to the anointing of the High Priest
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת
How many meal offerings does a new High Priest bring? Rav Hisda says two; Mar bar Rav Ashi says three
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הַמִּתְקָרֵב לַעֲבוֹדָה צָרִיךְ שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת הָאֵיפָה, אַחַת לְהִמָּשְׁחוֹ, וְאַחַת לְחִינּוּכוֹ. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: שָׁלֹשׁ.
English Translation:
§ Concerning the matter of the High Priest’s meal offering on the day of his inaugural service in the Temple, Rav Ḥisda says: A High Priest who approaches the Temple service on the day that he is anointed is required to bring two meal offerings consisting of two tenths of an ephah, one for the fact that he is anointed as the High Priest and must bring the daily meal offering of the High Priest, and one for his inauguration. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: He requires three tenths of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
An apparently simple dispute about numbers masks a deeper question about a priest’s career trajectory. Rav Hisda says a newly anointed High Priest brings two meal offerings: one for his anointing (the daily havitin offering) and one for his inauguration as High Priest. Mar bar Rav Ashi says three. The next segment reveals that both are correct — the difference depends on whether the High Priest had previously served as an ordinary priest.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיתִּין (Havitin) = The High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, consisting of one tenth of an ephah
- חִינּוּכוֹ (Hinukho) = The inauguration offering brought when a priest first serves
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Depends on whether he already served as an ordinary priest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא – דַּעֲבַד עֲבוֹדָה כְּשֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, הָא – דְּלָא עֲבַד עֲבוֹדָה כְּשֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.
English Translation:
And they do not disagree. This one, Rav Ḥisda, is referring to a High Priest who already performed the Temple service as an ordinary priest. Accordingly, he has already brought a meal offering for his inauguration as an ordinary priest. He therefore brings only two tenths of flour, one for his inauguration as High Priest and one for the daily meal offering of the High Priest. And that one, Mar bar Rav Ashi, is referring to a High Priest who has not yet performed the Temple service as an ordinary priest. He must therefore bring three tenths, one for his inauguration as an ordinary priest, one for his inauguration as High Priest, and one for the daily meal offering of the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara harmonizes the two positions elegantly: there is no actual dispute. If the new High Priest already served as an ordinary priest, he previously brought his inauguration offering and now needs only two (High Priest inauguration + daily havitin). But if he was appointed directly to the High Priesthood without prior service, he needs three (ordinary priest inauguration + High Priest inauguration + daily havitin). This resolution illustrates the Talmudic preference for reconciling apparent disputes by identifying different factual scenarios.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט (Kohen hedyot) = An ordinary priest, as distinguished from the High Priest
- עֲבוֹדָה (Avodah) = Temple service
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Return to the mishna: The nazirite’s offering has only two types of matza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְזִירוּת הָיְתָה בָּאָה שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת, כַּמַּצָּה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: The loaves that accompany the offering that the nazirite brings upon completion of his period of naziriteship would come with only two parts, parallel to the types of matza that come with the thanks offering, i.e., loaves and wafers, but not matza poached in water.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the second half of the mishna, which stated that the nazirite’s offering includes only two of the three matza types (challot and rekikin, but not revukhah). The Gemara will seek the scriptural basis for this distinction — why does the nazirite bring fewer types than the thanks offering? The answer will emerge from a careful reading of Numbers 6:15.
Key Terms:
- נָזִיר (Nazir) = A nazirite, one who has taken a vow of abstinence
- שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת (Shtei yadot) = Two out of three parts
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
“Shelamav” includes the nazirite’s peace offering in the todah’s measures
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ – לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר, לַעֲשֶׂרֶת קַבִּין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת וְלִרְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the loaves brought with a thanks offering: “If he sacrifices it for a thanks offering, then he shall sacrifice 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). “His peace offerings” serves to include the nazirite’s peace offering in the halakhot that its accompanying meal offerings must consist of ten Jerusalem kav and one-quarter of a log of oil, just like the measurements required for the cakes and wafers of the thanks offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita identifies the source linking the nazirite’s offering to the thanks offering. The word “shelamav” (“his peace offerings”) in Leviticus 7:13 is plural, which the Rabbis interpret as including the nazirite’s peace offering. This inclusion means the nazirite must follow the thanks offering’s flour measures (ten Jerusalem kav) and oil quantity (a quarter-log). The inclusive reading of “shelamav” is the starting point — but the next segment will limit what exactly is included.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלָמָיו (Shelamav) = “His peace offerings” — the plural form that includes the nazirite’s offering
- רְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן (Revi’it shemen) = A quarter-log of oil, the required amount for the nazirite’s loaves
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
“Matzot” excludes revukhah from the nazirite’s offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לְכׇל מָה שֶׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַצּוֹת״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the verse indicates that the meal offering of the nazirite’s peace offering is equivalent to the loaves of the thanks offering concerning all that is stated with regard to the matter of the thanks offering, and that one brings three types of matza consisting of fifteen Jerusalem kav and half a log of oil. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the nazirite’s peace offering: “And a basket of unleavened bread, loaves of fine flour mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Numbers 6:15), to indicate that the nazirite’s meal offering consists only of matza loaves and matza wafers, and not matza poached in water.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now limits the scope of the inclusion. While “shelamav” brings the nazirite into the thanks offering framework, Numbers 6:15 explicitly lists only two matza types: challot and rekikin. The verse says “matzot” (unleavened bread) and then specifies only loaves and wafers — conspicuously omitting revukhah. This exclusion reduces the nazirite’s flour requirement from fifteen Jerusalem kav (three types times five each) to ten (two types times five each), and the oil from half a log to a quarter-log.
Key Terms:
- סַל מַצּוֹת (Sal matzot) = “A basket of unleavened bread” — the nazirite’s verse in Numbers 6:15 that specifies only two types
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa and the school of Rabbi Yishmael explain how “matzot” excludes revukhah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מַצּוֹת״, לְאַפּוֹקֵי רְבוּכָה דְּלֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מַצּוֹת״. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״מַצּוֹת״ – כָּלַל, ״חַלּוֹת וּרְקִיקִין״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁבַּפְּרָט, חַלּוֹת וּרְקִיקִין – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What is the biblical derivation by which “matza” indicates that loaves poached in water were not brought? Rav Pappa says: The verse indicates that the nazirite brings matza specifically from an item of which it was stated: “Matzot.” This serves to exclude loaves poached in water, of which it is not stated: Matzot. In addition, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Unleavened bread” is a generalization; “loaves of fine flour mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” is a detail. When the Torah states a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only what is in the detail. Therefore, loaves and wafers are included in the nazirite’s meal offering, while other items are not.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two parallel explanations are given for how “matzot” excludes revukhah. Rav Pappa’s approach is linguistic: revukhah is not typically called “matzot” in the Torah, so when the nazirite’s verse says “matzot” it includes only those items normally designated by that term. The school of Rabbi Yishmael uses the hermeneutical rule of “klal u-frat” (generalization and detail): “matzot” is the general category, and “challot and rekikin” are the specific details. Under this rule, the general term includes only what the details specify — excluding revukhah. Both approaches reach the same conclusion through different methodological pathways.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט (Klal u-frat) = “Generalization and detail” — a hermeneutical rule where the general statement includes only the specifics listed
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי (L’apukei) = “To exclude” — indicating that revukhah is excluded from the nazirite’s obligation
Amud Bet (78b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Slaughtering todah inside but loaves outside the wall — loaves not consecrated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לִפְנִים וְלַחְמָהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ בַּתַּנּוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ קָרְמוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters the thanks offering in its proper place inside the Temple courtyard, and at that time its forty loaves were outside the wall, the loaves were not consecrated. Likewise, if he slaughtered the thanks offering before the surface of the loaves formed a crust in the oven, and even if the surface of all the loaves formed a crust except for one of them, the loaves were not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna shifts to a new topic: what conditions must be met for the slaughter of the thanks offering to consecrate its accompanying loaves? Two requirements are introduced: (1) the loaves must be inside “the wall” at the time of slaughter, and (2) all loaves must have formed a crust in the oven (karmu paneiha). Failure on either count — even if 39 of 40 loaves have crusted — means the loaves are not consecrated. The standard is all-or-nothing.
Key Terms:
- קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ (Karmu paneiha) = “Formed a crust” — the minimum baking required for the loaves to be considered bread
- קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם (Kadash ha-lehem) = “The bread was consecrated” — the slaughter of the thanks offering confers sanctity on the loaves
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Yohanan vs. Reish Lakish: Which wall does the mishna mean?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״חוּץ לַחוֹמָה״? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פָּאגֵי, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by outside the wall? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it means outside the wall of Beit Pagei in Jerusalem. And Reish Lakish says that it means outside the wall of the Temple courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
A major amoraic dispute about the mishna’s meaning. R. Yohanan holds that “outside the wall” refers to the outer wall of Beit Pagei (a wall surrounding the Temple Mount area), meaning the loaves are not consecrated only if they are outside the broader Jerusalem Temple compound. Reish Lakish takes a stricter view: “outside the wall” means outside the Temple courtyard (azarah) itself — a much smaller area. The dispute hinges on whether the word “al” (with/upon) in the verse requires physical proximity.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית פָּאגֵי (Beit Pagei) = A wall/area surrounding the Temple Mount in Jerusalem
- עֲזָרָה (Azarah) = The Temple courtyard where sacrifices were performed
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish’s reasoning: “al” means “nearby” — loaves must be in the courtyard
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה, בָּעֵינַן ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: Reish Lakish says that it means outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, because the verse states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “Then he shall sacrifice with [al] the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil” (Leviticus 7:12). And we require that the thanks offering be slaughtered strictly “with [al]” the accompanying loaves, i.e., with the loaves nearby. If the loaves are outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, they are not considered nearby.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish bases his view on the word “al” in Leviticus 7:12, which he interprets as requiring proximity: the loaves must be “upon” or “with” the offering — meaning in the same location, i.e., inside the Temple courtyard. If the loaves are outside the azarah walls while the animal is slaughtered inside, they fail the “al” requirement and cannot be consecrated. This is a strict, locational reading of the preposition “al.”
Key Terms:
- עַל (Al) = “Upon/with” — Reish Lakish reads this as requiring physical proximity
- בְּסָמוּךְ (B’samukh) = “Nearby” — the loaves must be adjacent to the offering
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yohanan’s reasoning: “al” does not require proximity — only that loaves not be outside Beit Pagei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פָּאגֵי, אֲבָל חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה – קָדוֹשׁ, וְלָא בָּעֵינַן ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the loaves were outside the wall of Beit Pagei, they are not consecrated, because it is prohibited to eat the loaves outside the wall of Beit Pagei. Since if they were taken outside the wall of Beit Pagei, they would be disqualified because they were removed from their permitted area, they cannot be consecrated if they are there. But if they were merely outside the Temple courtyard, where they may be eaten, they are consecrated. And we do not require that the thanks offering be slaughtered strictly “with” the accompanying loaves, i.e., nearby.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yohanan takes a more lenient approach. He does not read “al” as requiring strict physical proximity. Instead, the issue is functional: the loaves must be in a place where they could legally be eaten. Since the thanks offering loaves are eaten within the walls of Jerusalem (specifically within Beit Pagei), they only fail to be consecrated if they are outside that boundary. Being outside the courtyard but still within Jerusalem is acceptable. This reading focuses on eligibility rather than location.
Key Terms:
- חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פָּאגֵי = Outside the wall of Beit Pagei — the outer boundary of the permissible eating area
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
But R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish already disputed this in the context of the Paschal offering!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אִיפְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: Why is it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish to disagree with regard to a case where the loaves were situated outside the wall when the thanks offering was slaughtered? But didn’t they already disagree with regard to this matter one other time?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a standard Talmudic question: if R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish already dispute the meaning of “al” in a different context (the Paschal offering and hametz), why do they need to repeat the dispute here? The Gemara regularly seeks to eliminate redundant disputes. If their positions were already known from one case, stating them again seems unnecessary. This sets up the “tzrikha” (it was necessary) response.
Key Terms:
- אִיפְּלִיגוּ (Ipligu) = They already disagreed — indicating a parallel dispute exists elsewhere
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The parallel dispute: Slaughtering the Paschal offering while possessing hametz
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הֶחָמֵץ – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַתָּמִיד. וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹ לַשּׁוֹחֵט, אוֹ לַזּוֹרֵק, אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה – עִמּוֹ בָּעֲזָרָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ בַּעֲזָרָה.
English Translation:
This is as we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 63a) with regard to the slaughtering of the Paschal offering: One who slaughters the Paschal offering with leavened bread still in his possession transgresses a prohibition, as the verse states: “You shall not sacrifice the blood of My offering with [al] leavened bread; neither shall the offering of the festival of Passover be left until the morning” (Exodus 34:25). Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve with leavened bread in his possession transgresses the prohibition. And Reish Lakish says: Actually, one is not liable unless the leavened bread is in the possession of the one who slaughters the offering, or the one who sprinkles its blood, or one of the members of the group, and the leavened bread is with that person in the Temple courtyard. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is liable even if the leavened bread is not with that person in the Temple courtyard. Evidently, they already disagree with regard to the meaning of the word “al.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents the parallel dispute from Pesahim 63a. Regarding the prohibition of slaughtering the Paschal offering while possessing hametz, Reish Lakish requires the hametz to be physically in the Temple courtyard (consistent with his “al = nearby” reading), while R. Yohanan holds one is liable even if the hametz is elsewhere (consistent with his rejection of the proximity requirement). This is precisely the same interpretive dispute applied to a different halakhic context.
Key Terms:
- פֶּסַח (Pesah) = The Paschal offering
- חֲבוּרָה (Havurah) = The group of people registered to eat a particular Paschal offering
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
First side of the tzrikha: Why the todah case is needed beyond the Pesach case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהַהִיא – בְּהַהִיא קָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּאִיסּוּרָא קָאֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מִקְדַּשׁ לֶחֶם – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאִי אִיתֵיהּ בִּפְנִים – קָדוֹשׁ, אַבָּרַאי – לֹא קָדוֹשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara replies: It is necessary to state the dispute concerning both matters. As, if their disagreement were stated only with regard to that matter of the Paschal offering, one might think that only with regard to that matter Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one is liable even if the leavened bread is not inside the Temple courtyard, since wherever there is leavened bread, its owner stands in violation of the prohibition against owning leavened bread at that time. But with regard to the matter of the consecration of the loaves of the thanks offering, one could say that he concedes to Reish Lakish that if the loaves are inside the Temple courtyard when the thanks offering is slaughtered, they are consecrated, but if they are outside, they are not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains why both disputes are necessary. If we only knew R. Yohanan’s position regarding the Paschal offering, we might limit it to that context: hametz on Pesach is inherently prohibited wherever it exists, so “al” naturally extends beyond the courtyard. But for consecrating the todah loaves — a positive act of sanctification — we might think R. Yohanan would agree with Reish Lakish that physical proximity is required. The todah case teaches that R. Yohanan’s lenient reading of “al” applies even to consecration.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא (Tzrikha) = “It is necessary” — the standard term explaining why both statements of a dispute are needed
- בְּאִיסּוּרָא קָאֵי = “He stands in violation” — referring to the inherent prohibition of possessing hametz
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Second side of the tzrikha: Why the Pesach case is needed beyond the todah case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
And if their disagreement were stated only with regard to this matter of the loaves of the thanks offering, one might think that only with regard to this matter Reish Lakish says that the loaves are consecrated only if they were within the walls of the Temple courtyard. But with regard to that matter of the Paschal offering, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan that one is liable for slaughtering the Paschal offering while in possession of leavened bread even if it was not with him inside the Temple courtyard, as wherever there is leavened bread, its owner stands in violation of the prohibition against owning leavened bread at that time. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute concerning both matters.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse reasoning: if we only had the todah dispute, we might limit Reish Lakish’s strict “al = nearby” reading to consecration contexts (where physical proximity seems more relevant) but think he would agree with R. Yohanan regarding the Pesach prohibition (where the hametz is inherently forbidden). The Pesach case teaches that Reish Lakish maintains his strict proximity requirement even for prohibitions. Both disputes are therefore necessary (tzrikha), as neither can be derived from the other.
Key Terms:
- מוֹדֶה (Modeh) = Concedes — one sage might agree with the other in a different context
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita supports R. Yohanan: “outside the walls of Beit Pagei”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לִפְנִים, וְלַחְמָהּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פָּאגֵי – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of one who slaughters the thanks offering inside the Temple courtyard, and at that time its loaves were outside the walls of Beit Pagei, the loaves were not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita explicitly supports R. Yohanan’s position by specifying “outside the walls of Beit Pagei” — not “outside the courtyard” as Reish Lakish would have it. This is significant because a baraita (tannaitic teaching) carries more weight than an amoraic statement. The Rambam follows R. Yohanan’s ruling, as codified in Hilkhot Pesulei Ha-Mukdashin 12:16.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ (Tanya k’vatei) = “A baraita was taught in accordance with his view” — Talmudic formula indicating tannaitic support
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Return to the mishna: Conditions for consecration — crusting, slaughter, and proper intent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ בַּתַּנּוּר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: If he slaughtered the thanks offering before the surface of the loaves formed a crust in the oven, the loaves were not consecrated. The next mishna also teaches: If one slaughtered the thanks offering not for its sake, the loaves were not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to analyze additional conditions for the consecration of the todah loaves mentioned in the mishna. Beyond location, the loaves must have reached a minimum baking stage — their surface must have formed a crust (karmu paneiha). Additionally, the slaughter must have been performed for the sake of a thanks offering. These three conditions — location, baking status, and proper intent — will be derived from a single verse.
Key Terms:
- קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ (Karmu paneiha) = The surface formed a crust — the minimum baking threshold
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Three conditions derived from Leviticus 7:13: crust, slaughter, and for its sake
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל חַלּוֹת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ יַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּנוֹ עַל זֶבַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ בַּתַּנּוּר. ״יַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּנוֹ עַל זֶבַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַזֶּבַח. ״זֶבַח תּוֹדַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
English Translation:
The Gemara seeks to clarify: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to the loaves accompanying the thanks offering: “With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Leviticus 7:13). This teaches that the loaves are not consecrated unless the surface of the loaves formed a crust in the oven, as only then can they be considered “cakes of leavened bread.” The phrase “he shall present his offering with the sacrifice” teaches that the loaves are consecrated only upon the slaughtering of the offering. The phrase “the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” teaches that if one slaughtered the offering not for its sake, the loaves were not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
A masterful baraita extracts three independent conditions from a single verse (Leviticus 7:13). First, “cakes of leavened bread” (hallot lehem hametz) implies the loaves must actually be “bread” — meaning they must have crusted in the oven. Second, “he shall present his offering with the sacrifice” establishes that the act of consecration occurs at the moment of slaughter. Third, “the sacrifice of his thanks offering” (zevah todat) means the slaughter must be performed specifically for the sake of the thanks offering. Each phrase contributes a distinct legal requirement.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם חָמֵץ (Lehem hametz) = “Leavened bread” — the loaves must qualify as bread (crusted) to be consecrated
- שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן (Shelo lishman) = “Not for its sake” — performing the slaughter with incorrect intent
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
Half-done matza (na) is valid for the Pesach obligation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יוֹצְאִין בְּמַצָּה נָא, וּבְמַצָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה בְּאִילְפָּס. מַאי מַצָּה נָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁפּוֹרְסָהּ וְאֵין חוּטִין נִמְשָׁכִין הֵימֶנָּה.
English Translation:
§ On a similar note, the Sages taught: One fulfills the obligation to eat matza on Passover with half-done, i.e., not fully baked, matza, and with matza made in a stewpot [ilpas] rather than baked in an oven. The Gemara asks: What constitutes half-done matza? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is any matza that is sufficiently baked such that if one breaks it, threads of dough are not drawn from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a related topic from the laws of Passover. A baraita teaches that one may fulfill the matza obligation with partially baked matza (matza na) or matza made in a stewpot rather than an oven. Shmuel defines “matza na”: when you break it, if no dough threads stretch out, it is sufficiently baked. This definition is important because it establishes the minimum baking threshold — and will be applied to the todah loaves in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- מַצָּה נָא (Matza na) = Half-done or partially baked matza
- אִילְפָּס (Ilpas) = A stewpot or frying pan used for baking
- חוּטִין נִמְשָׁכִין (Hutin nimshakin) = Dough threads that stretch — their absence indicates sufficient baking
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rava: The same standard applies to todah loaves — half-done is sufficient
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא ״לֶחֶם״ כְּתִיב, וְהָכָא ״לֶחֶם״ כְּתִיב.
English Translation:
Rava said: And so this is the halakha with regard to the matter of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., if the loaves were already half-done at the time of the slaughter of the thanks offering, they are consecrated. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for Rava to state this? Isn’t it obvious? Here, with regard to matza, the term “bread” is written (Deuteronomy 16:3), and here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, the term “bread” is written.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava extends the rule about half-done matza to the todah loaves: if the loaves reached the “no-thread” stage at the time of slaughter, they are consecrated even though they are not fully baked. The Gemara challenges: this seems obvious, since both contexts use the word “lehem” (bread)! The challenge implies that a simple verbal analogy already teaches this. Rava’s statement must be adding something new, which the next segment explains.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא (Peshita) = “It is obvious!” — the Gemara’s standard challenge when a statement seems self-evident
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s novelty: Half-done bread is not considered “sliced” and remains valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״אֶחָד״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס, וְהָא כְּמַאן דִּפְרִיסָא דָּמְיָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Lest you say that since the Merciful One states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift unto the Lord” (Leviticus 7:14), this indicates that one may not take sliced bread for the thanks offering, and this half-done bread is considered like one that is sliced, as it will break apart upon being lifted, and it should consequently be disqualified for the bread of the thanks offering, therefore Rava teaches us that once it is baked to that point, it is considered as one loaf and it is valid for the thanks offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s statement is not as obvious as it seems. The Torah requires “one” (ehad) loaf — not sliced (parus). One might think half-done bread, being fragile and prone to crumbling, should be treated as “sliced” and disqualified. Rava teaches that once the dough has passed the “no-thread” threshold, it is considered a complete loaf despite not being fully baked. The bread’s structural integrity at that point is sufficient to qualify as “one” loaf for teruma separation purposes.
Key Terms:
- פָּרוּס (Parus) = Sliced or broken bread, which is disqualified for the thanks offering teruma
- קָמַשְׁמַע לַן (Ka-mashma lan) = “He teaches us” — indicating the novelty of the statement
Segment 15
TYPE: מחלוקת
Todah slaughtered on 80 loaves: Hizkiyya says 40 consecrated; R. Yohanan says none
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר, תּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת: חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים.
English Translation:
§ It was stated that there is a dispute among the amora’im with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. Ḥizkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fascinating case: someone brings double the required number of loaves. The Torah requires exactly forty. What happens to the excess? Hizkiyya rules that forty of the eighty are consecrated — the offering “worked” for its proper quota. R. Yohanan rules that none are consecrated — since the person brought eighty, and eighty cannot all be consecrated, nothing is consecrated at all. This dispute will be analyzed through three different explanatory frameworks in the following segments.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת (Shemonim hallot) = Eighty loaves — double the required forty
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
R. Zeira: Both agree on explicit cases; they dispute the default intent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים, הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״לִיקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים״ – קָדְשׁוּ, ״אַל יִקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יִקְדְּשׁוּ שְׁמוֹנִים״ – לֹא קָדְשׁוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּסְתָמָא, מָר סָבַר: לְאַחְרָיוּת קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, וּמָר סָבַר: לְקׇרְבָּן גָּדוֹל קָא מִיכַּוֵּין.
English Translation:
With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Zeira says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yoḥanan, concedes that in a case where the individual bringing the offering said: Let forty of the eighty loaves be consecrated, that forty are consecrated. Likewise, everyone concedes that where he said: Forty should not be consecrated unless eighty will be consecrated, that they were not consecrated. They disagree when one brings eighty loaves without specification. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds: He intends to consecrate only forty of them, but he brought eighty in order to guarantee that there will be sufficient loaves. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds: He intends to bring a large offering of eighty loaves; consequently, none of the loaves are consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Zeira narrows the dispute to the case of default intent (b’stama — without specification). If the person explicitly says “consecrate forty from the eighty,” both agree forty are consecrated. If he says “only if all eighty are consecrated,” both agree none are. The dispute is about what we presume when the person says nothing: Hizkiyya presumes the extra loaves are insurance (ahrayut — a backup), while R. Yohanan presumes the person wanted a larger offering. This is fundamentally a question about presumed intent.
Key Terms:
- סְתָמָא (Stama) = Without specification — the default case where no explicit intent was stated
- אַחְרָיוּת (Ahrayut) = Guarantee/insurance — bringing extra loaves to ensure sufficient valid ones
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s explanation: They disagree about whether service vessels consecrate without intent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְאַחְרָיוּת קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, וּבִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, וּמָר סָבַר: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת.
English Translation:
Abaye offered another explanation of the dispute and said: Everyone agrees that he intends to guarantee that there will be sufficient loaves, and they disagree with regard to whether service vessels consecrate the appropriate measure without the intention of the one bringing the offering. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that service vessels consecrate items without intention. Accordingly, the knife that slaughters the thanks offering and consecrates its accompanying loaves consecrates forty of the eighty. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that service vessels do not consecrate items without intention.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye reframes the dispute entirely. Both sages agree the person brought extra loaves as insurance. The question is mechanical: does the slaughtering knife (as a service vessel) automatically consecrate the proper number of loaves regardless of explicit intent? Hizkiyya says yes — the knife consecrates forty loaves by default, even without the person specifying which forty. R. Yohanan says no — without intent, the service vessel cannot select and consecrate a subset of the loaves.
Key Terms:
- כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת (Klei sharet) = Service vessels — sacred implements used in the Temple that have the power to consecrate items placed in them
- שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת (Shelo mi-da’at) = Without intention — consecration occurring automatically
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa: They disagree about whether the knife is a service vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, וְהָכָא בְּסַכִּין קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: סַכִּין מְקַדֶּשֶׁת כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וּמָר סָבַר: סַכִּין, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תּוֹךְ, אֵינָהּ מְקַדֶּשֶׁת כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa offered another explanation of the dispute and said: Everyone agrees that service vessels consecrate items without intention, and here they disagree with regard to whether this is also the halakha with regard to the slaughtering knife. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that the knife consecrates items as a service vessel does. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that since the knife has no inside, it does not consecrate items as a service vessel does.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa offers yet another framework. He agrees that service vessels consecrate without intent, but shifts the dispute to a more fundamental question: is the slaughtering knife considered a “service vessel” (kli sharet) at all? Hizkiyya says yes — the knife functions like any other Temple implement. R. Yohanan says no — a proper service vessel must have an interior cavity (tokh), like a bowl or basin. A knife is flat with no interior space, so it cannot consecrate items. This is a debate about the very definition of a “vessel.”
Key Terms:
- סַכִּין (Sakin) = Slaughtering knife
- תּוֹךְ (Tokh) = Interior/inside — a defining characteristic of a vessel according to R. Yohanan’s view
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative version of Rav Pappa: The knife is stronger than regular service vessels
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת, וְהָכָא בְּסַכִּין קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר: סַכִּין אַלִּימָא מִכְּלִי שָׁרֵת, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לַיהּ תּוֹךְ – מְיקַדְּשָׁה, וּמָר סָבַר: סַכִּין לָא אַלִּימָא (לַיהּ) מִכְּלִי שָׁרֵת.
English Translation:
And there are those who say that Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that service vessels consecrate items only with intention, and here they disagree with regard to the ability of the slaughtering knife to consecrate without intention. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that the power of the knife to consecrate items is stronger than that of other service vessels, as even though it has no inside it consecrates items, and therefore it also consecrates items without intention. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the power of the knife to consecrate items is not stronger than that of other service vessels, and like all service vessels, it does not consecrate items without intention.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative version of Rav Pappa’s explanation inverts the premises. Here, both sages agree that standard service vessels only consecrate WITH intent. The dispute is whether the knife is MORE powerful than ordinary service vessels. Hizkiyya holds the knife has a unique consecrating power: despite lacking an interior, it consecrates items (and even does so without intent) because the act of slaughter is inherently a consecrating event. R. Yohanan denies any special status to the knife. The two versions of Rav Pappa’s explanation represent opposite starting assumptions about service vessels generally.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּימָא (Alima) = Stronger/more powerful — the knife may have greater consecrating force than other vessels
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה
Disqualification after slaughter: Beyond time or place — loaves consecrated. Tereifa — not consecrated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם, שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, and the offering was rendered piggul or was disqualified, respectively, the loaves were consecrated and either rendered piggul or disqualified. If one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it was an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], the loaves were not consecrated, as the cause of the animal’s disqualification preceded its slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna introduces a critical principle: the timing of the disqualification determines whether the loaves are consecrated. If the disqualification occurs at or after slaughter (improper intent regarding time or place), the act of slaughter still constitutes a valid sacrificial act that consecrates the loaves — even though the offering itself is rendered piggul or pasul. But if the disqualification pre-existed (tereifa — a fatal wound that existed before slaughter), the slaughter was never a valid sacrificial act, and the loaves are not consecrated.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (Piggul) = An offering disqualified by improper intent regarding time
- טְרֵיפָה (Tereifa) = An animal with a pre-existing wound that would cause death within twelve months
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
Blemished animal: R. Eliezer says loaves consecrated; the Rabbis say not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קָדַשׁ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא קָדַשׁ.
English Translation:
If one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it is a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed ab initio but if it ascended the altar it may be sacrificed, Rabbi Eliezer says: He has consecrated the loaves, since if the offering ascends the altar it is sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: He has not consecrated the loaves, since it may not be sacrificed ab initio.
קלאוד על הדף:
A tannaitic dispute about a borderline case: a blemished animal (ba’alat mum). Unlike a tereifa, a blemish does not necessarily render the slaughter invalid — if the offering already ascended the altar, it is not removed. R. Eliezer leverages this: since the offering has some validity (it is not taken down from the altar), the slaughter consecrates the loaves. The Rabbis disagree: since the animal may not be offered initially (l’khathila), the slaughter lacks sufficient validity to consecrate the loaves. This reflects the deeper question of whether partial validity suffices.
Key Terms:
- בַּעֲלַת מוּם (Ba’alat mum) = A blemished animal
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה (L’khathila) = Ab initio / from the outset — the ideal standard
Segment 22
TYPE: משנה
Slaughtered not for its sake — loaves not consecrated; applies to ram of inauguration and Shavuot lambs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, וְכֵן אֵיל הַמִּילּוּאִים, וְכֵן שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
English Translation:
If one slaughtered the thanks offering not for its sake but for the sake of another offering, and likewise, if one slaughtered the ram of inauguration not for its sake, and likewise, if one slaughtered the communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on Shavuot not for their sake, the loaves were not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna extends the “not for its sake” disqualification beyond the thanks offering to two parallel cases: the ram of inauguration and the two lambs of Shavuot (which accompany the Two Loaves). In all three cases, the animal sacrifice is linked to accompanying bread, and the bread’s consecration depends on the slaughter being performed with correct intent. Improper intent — slaughtering the todah as a shelamim, or the Shavuot lambs as ordinary peace offerings — severs the connection between the animal and its bread.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת (Shnei kivsei atzeret) = The two lambs of Shavuot that accompany the Two Loaves
- שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ (Shelo lishmah) = Not for its sake — performing the sacrificial act with incorrect intent
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna follows R. Meir’s principle about the timing of disqualification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ – מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the loaves become consecrated. The mishna also teaches that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and it was discovered that it was a tereifa, the loaves were not consecrated, but if it was discovered to have a blemish, Rabbi Eliezer says that the loaves were consecrated, and the Rabbis say that they were not. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the mishna as following R. Meir’s view. R. Meir draws a clear line: disqualifications that arise at or after slaughter (improper intent, piggul) still allow the loaves to be consecrated, because the slaughter itself was a valid act. Disqualifications that pre-existed (tereifa) mean the slaughter was never effective. R. Meir’s principle provides the organizing framework for the entire mishna’s rulings on when consecration does and does not occur.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי מֵאִיר (R. Meir) = A prominent Tanna whose principle about timing of disqualification underlies this mishna
Segment 24
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Meir’s principle stated explicitly: Pre-slaughter disqualification = not consecrated; post-slaughter = consecrated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁפִּיסּוּלוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם; פִּיסּוּלוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם; שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any instance in which the disqualification of the thanks offering preceded its slaughter, the loaves were not consecrated, and any instance in which its disqualification came into existence after its slaughter, the loaves were consecrated. Therefore, if one slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the loaves were consecrated, as the offering remained fit until after its slaughter. But if one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it was a tereifa, the loaves were not consecrated, as the cause of the animal’s disqualification preceded its slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita states R. Meir’s principle explicitly as a general rule (zeh ha-klal). The principle is elegant in its simplicity: the moment of slaughter is the dividing line. If the animal was fit at that moment and the disqualification arose only through the act of slaughter itself (improper intent) or afterwards, the slaughter still consecrated the loaves. If the animal was already unfit before the knife touched it (tereifa), the slaughter was never a valid sacrificial act and cannot consecrate anything. This principle governs all the cases in the mishna and provides a unified framework for understanding when accompanying bread acquires sanctity.
Key Terms:
- זֶה הַכְּלָל (Zeh ha-klal) = “This is the principle” — introducing a general halakhic rule
- פִּיסּוּלוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה = “Its disqualification preceded its slaughter” — the key criterion