Menachot Daf 83 (מנחות דף פ״ג)
Daf: 83 | Amudim: 83a — 83b | Date: 10 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (83a)
Segment 1
TYPE: דחייה
The rules about male kohanim eating chatas and asham are explicitly written
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב!
English Translation:
this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22), and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:6).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the notion that we need the heikesh of “zot ha-torah” (Leviticus 7:37) to teach that chatas and asham are eaten only by male kohanim. This rule is already stated explicitly in Scripture for each offering individually. This rejection sets up the real question: what, then, does the heikesh actually teach about these offerings? The Gemara will now explore what novel derivations can be extracted from each offering type mentioned in the verse.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֶדְיָא (B’hedya) = Explicitly — indicating a law that is directly stated in Scripture rather than derived through hermeneutics
- הֶיקֵּשׁ (Heikesh) = Scriptural juxtaposition — a hermeneutical principle deriving laws by comparing offerings mentioned together in a single verse
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Communal shelamim (kivsei atzeret) eaten by male kohanim — derived from amplification in Numbers 18:10
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מֵרִבּוּיָא דִּקְרָאֵי אָתֵי: ״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ כׇּל זָכָר (בַּכֹּהֲנִים) יֹאכַל אֹתוֹ״, לִימֵּד עַל זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִים אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה!
English Translation:
If one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: “In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it” (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara considers whether the heikesh might be needed to teach that communal shelamim (the two lambs of Shavuot, known as kivsei atzeret) are eaten exclusively by male kohanim. Normally shelamim are eaten by anyone, but communal shelamim have a unique status as kodshei kodashim. The Gemara rejects this too, noting that this rule is derived from a separate verse in Numbers (Parshat Korach) that amplifies the categories of offerings eaten by male kohanim to include communal shelamim. Tosafot explain the connection: since communal shelamim are called “kodesh” (Leviticus 23:20) and the Numbers verse references “kodesh kodashim,” the derivation applies to them.
Key Terms:
- זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר (Zivchei Shalmei Tzibbur) = Communal peace offerings — the two lambs brought on Shavuot alongside the two loaves
- כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת (Kivsei Atzeret) = The lambs of Shavuot — another name for the communal shelamim of Shavuot
- רִבּוּיָא (Ribbuy’a) = Amplification — a hermeneutical technique that expands the scope of a verse beyond its literal meaning
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
A tannaitic dispute: one tanna derives from the mincha heikesh, another from the Numbers verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, אִיכָּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im. There is one tanna who cites it, the halakha that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, from here, i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; and there is one tanna who cites it from there, i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the question by explaining that the source for the rule about communal shelamim is a tannaitic dispute. One tanna derives it from the heikesh in Leviticus 7:37 (where communal shelamim are compared to mincha/chatas), while another derives it from the amplification of Numbers 18:10. This is a common Talmudic resolution: when multiple derivations exist for the same halakha, it may reflect different tannaitic approaches to the same underlying principle. Tosafot note that there is actually a third tanna in Zevachim 55a who derives it from a different heikesh.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא (Tanna’ei Hi) = It is a tannaitic dispute — a standard Talmudic formula indicating that the disagreement traces back to the tannaitic period
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Chatas in the heikesh: Just as chatas sanctifies through absorption, so all offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״חַטָּאת״ – מָה חַטָּאת מְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ, אַף כֹּל מְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִלּוּעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues expounding the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings.” “Sin offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.
קלאוד על הדף:
This begins the systematic exposition of the heikesh in Leviticus 7:37. Each offering named in the verse teaches a unique law that is then applied to all offerings. The sin offering (chatas) teaches about bilua — sanctification through absorption. When the meat of a chatas is cooked in an earthenware vessel, the absorbed flavor sanctifies the vessel, requiring it to be broken (Leviticus 6:21). Through this heikesh, this principle of absorption-based sanctification extends to all offerings. Tosafot connect this to Chullin 98b, noting the broader implications for the principle of ta’am k’ikar (flavor is like the substance itself) in the context of kodashim.
Key Terms:
- בִּלּוּעַ (Bilua) = Absorption — the phenomenon where flavor or substance of an offering penetrates into a vessel or food it contacts
- מְקַדֶּשֶׁת (Mekaddeshet) = Sanctifies — transfers the sacred status of the offering to whatever absorbs it
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Asham: Just as asham has no shafir/shilya, so all offerings — implication for offspring of kodashim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אָשָׁם״ – מָה אָשָׁם אֵין שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא קָדוֹשׁ בּוֹ, אַף כֹּל אֵין שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא קָדוֹשׁ בּוֹ. קָסָבַר: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, וְדָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר.
English Translation:
“Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it, because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, so too for any of the offerings mentioned in the verse, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred if found within it. The Gemara notes: Evidently, this tanna holds that with regard to offspring of sacrificial animals, they are sanctified only as they are from the moment of their births, but not in utero. And he also holds that one derives the possible from the impossible, so that the halakha of a fetal sac and a placenta in the case of female animals may be derived from the halakha of a male animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The asham (guilt offering) contributes a remarkable derivation. Since an asham is always male, it can never actually contain a fetal sac (shafir) or placenta (shilya). Yet through the heikesh, this “impossible” scenario teaches about all offerings: even female sacrificial animals that could theoretically carry offspring — their fetal sacs and placentas have no sanctity. This works only if we accept two premises: (1) that offspring of sacrificial animals are sanctified at birth, not in utero (so the fetus itself has no sanctity before birth); and (2) the hermeneutical principle of danin efshar mi-she’i efshar — one may derive the possible from the impossible. These are significant and debated principles in Talmudic jurisprudence.
Key Terms:
- שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא (Shafir v’Shilya) = Fetal sac and placenta — the membranes surrounding a fetus in the womb
- וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים (Valdot Kodashim) = Offspring of sacrificial animals — the question of whether their sanctity begins in utero or at birth
- בַּהֲוָיָיתָן (Ba-havayatan) = At their existence/birth — the position that sanctity begins at the moment of birth
- דָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר (Danin Efshar mi-She’i Efshar) = One derives the possible from the impossible — the principle that a law applying to an impossible case can teach about possible cases
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Miluim (inauguration offering): Leftovers are burned, but live animals are not burned as leftovers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִלּוּאִים״ – מָה מִלּוּאִים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, אַף כׇּל מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.
English Translation:
“Inauguration offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the inauguration offering, the rams and the bread of which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, their leftovers were disposed of by incineration, as is stated: “And if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire” (Exodus 29:34), and there were no living animals counted among their leftovers disposed of by incineration, so too for all offerings mentioned, their leftovers are disposed of by incineration, and there are no living animals counted among their leftovers disposed of by incineration. Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The inauguration offering (miluim) teaches a double principle about leftovers. First, the positive rule: leftovers of offerings must be burned (a rule about notar, the prohibition against leaving sacrificial meat beyond its permitted time). Second, the negative qualifier: “leftovers” refers only to slaughtered meat, not to living animals. This has a practical implication: if someone designates a backup animal in case the first is lost, and the first is successfully offered, the backup animal is not burned alive. It must be treated differently — typically allowed to graze until it develops a blemish and then sold. This protects the principle that living animals are never subject to the incineration rule.
Key Terms:
- מִלּוּאִים (Miluim) = Inauguration offerings — the special offerings brought during the seven-day inauguration of the Tabernacle
- מוֹתְרֵיהֶן (Motreihen) = Their leftovers/remainders — sacrificial meat or designated animals that remain after the offering is completed
- בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים (Ba’alei Chayyim) = Living animals — as opposed to slaughtered meat
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Shelamim: Just as shelamim components render piggul and are rendered piggul, so all offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שְׁלָמִים״ – מָה שְׁלָמִים מְפַגְּלִין וּמִתְפַּגְּלִין, אַף כֹּל מְפַגְּלִין וּמִתְפַּגְּלִין.
English Translation:
“Peace offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the peace offering, its components may render components of the offering piggul and are rendered piggul, so too with regard to all offerings mentioned in this verse, their components render components of the offering piggul and are rendered piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The shelamim (peace offering) contributes the law of piggul — the disqualification that occurs when a priest performs a sacrificial service with the improper intention of consuming the offering beyond its permitted time. The shelamim teaches that the components of an offering (blood, sacrificial portions, meat) have a reciprocal relationship with piggul: they can both cause piggul (mefaggelin) and be affected by piggul (mitpaggelin). Through the heikesh, this reciprocal piggul-relationship extends to all offerings. Tosafot cross-reference Zevachim 28b and 44a where alternative derivations for this law are presented, noting the precision that “mefaggelin” refers to the fact that the blood-service can invalidate the meat, while “mitpaggelin” means the meat itself is rendered piggul.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (Piggul) = Improper intention — a disqualification caused by intending to eat or burn an offering’s components beyond their permitted time
- מְפַגְּלִין (Mefaggelin) = They render piggul — components that cause the disqualification
- מִתְפַּגְּלִין (Mitpaggelin) = They are rendered piggul — components that become disqualified
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Akiva’s version: derives absorption from MINCHA, not chatas
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה כּוּ׳ מִנְחָה״ – מָה מִנְחָה מְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ, אַף כֹּל מְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ.
English Translation:
It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva that the verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). From the term “meal offering” it is derived: Just as with regard to a meal offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, as it is stated: “Whatever shall touch them shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:11), so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita presents Rabbi Akiva’s alternative version of the heikesh exposition. While the previous exposition (segments 4-7) derived absorption (bilua) from the chatas, Rabbi Akiva derives it from the mincha (meal offering). This is not a mere substitution — it reflects a different understanding of what each offering in the verse teaches. In Rabbi Akiva’s scheme, the chatas is freed up to teach other laws (as we will see in segment 10), since the mincha now carries the burden of the bilua derivation. The next segment explains why both sources — mincha and chatas — are actually needed.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַתְנִיתָא (B’Matnitah) = In a baraita — a tannaitic teaching not included in the Mishna
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Both mincha and chatas sources needed: mincha absorbs because soft, chatas because fatty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב בְּחַטָּאת, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב בְּמִנְחָה. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמִנְחָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּרַכִּיכָא בָּלְעָה, אֲבָל חַטָּאת אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטָּאת – מִשּׁוּם דְּבָשָׂר אַגַּב דְּשַׁמִּין (קָדִיר) [קָרִיר], אֲבָל מִנְחָה אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a sin offering, and it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a meal offering. As, had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a meal offering, I would say that since it is soft, it is absorbed and therefore sanctifies what it touches; but with regard to the meat of a sin offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. And had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, I would say that it is because, on account of its fattiness, the meat penetrates [kadeir] into whatever it touches and sanctifies it; but with regard to a meal offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to write both.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a classic tzrikhi (necessity) argument explaining why both the mincha and chatas sources for bilua are needed. Each has a unique physical property that could explain its absorption: the mincha is soft (rakhikha) and therefore easily absorbed, while the chatas meat is fatty (shammin) and penetrates into surfaces. If only one were stated, we might think the other does not have this property. By teaching both, the Torah establishes that absorption-based sanctification is a universal principle of kodashim, regardless of the physical mechanism. This is a beautiful example of how the Gemara uses physical reasoning to explain why multiple scriptural sources are not redundant.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא (Tzrikha) = It is necessary — a standard formula concluding that both sources are needed and neither is redundant
- רַכִּיכָא (Rakhikha) = Soft — describing the texture of the mincha that facilitates absorption
- שַׁמִּין (Shammin) = Fatty — describing the property of meat that causes it to penetrate surfaces
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
In Rabbi Akiva’s version: chatas teaches that offerings must come from chullin, by day, with right hand
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״חַטָּאת״ – מָה חַטָּאת אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית, אַף כֹּל אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית.
English Translation:
The cited baraita continues: “Sin offering” teaches: Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and its service must be performed with the priest’s right hand, so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each one’s service must be performed with the priest’s right hand.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since Rabbi Akiva used the mincha for the bilua derivation (segment 8), his version assigns different laws to the chatas. In his scheme, the chatas teaches three rules applicable to all offerings: (1) they must come from chullin (non-sacred funds, not from ma’aser money); (2) they must be offered during the day; (3) the priestly service must be performed with the right hand. Tosafot note that this tanna derives two things from chatas — bilua in one version, and chullin/day/right-hand in Rabbi Akiva’s version — highlighting how the same verse can yield different derivations depending on which overall interpretive scheme is followed.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין (Chullin) = Non-sacred property — animals or funds that have no prior sanctity, as opposed to ma’aser sheni money
- בַּיּוֹם (Ba-yom) = During the day — sacrificial services must be performed in daylight
- יָמִין (Yamin) = Right hand — the priestly requirement to perform certain services with the right hand
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Source for chatas itself being from chullin: Rav Chisda derives from “asher lo”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחַטָּאת גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – ״לוֹ״ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
And with regard to a sin offering itself, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his” (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come from his cattle, and not from money with which the second tithe has been redeemed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara traces the chullin requirement back to its root. Since the heikesh derives the chullin rule for all offerings from the chatas, we need to know how the chatas itself is known to require chullin. Rav Chisda provides the source: the verse describing Aaron’s Yom Kippur sin offering specifies “asher lo” (which is his), emphasizing ownership from personal non-sacred funds. The word “lo” (his) is read as “from his own property” — excluding ma’aser sheni funds, which have their own sacred status and cannot be used for purchasing sacrificial animals. This verse about the High Priest’s bull of Yom Kippur serves as the paradigm for all chatas offerings.
Key Terms:
- אֲשֶׁר לוֹ (Asher Lo) = “Which is his” — the textual basis for requiring that offerings come from personal, non-sacred property
- מַעֲשֵׂר (Ma’aser) = Tithe — specifically ma’aser sheni money, which has a sanctified status and cannot be used for purchasing offerings
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
“By day” is already known from “beyom tzavoto” — mentioned incidentally (kdei nasbah)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּיּוֹם – מִ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ״ נָפְקָא! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Isn’t this principle derived from the expression: “On the day of His commanding” (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason [kedi], and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a redundancy in the baraita: the daytime requirement is already known independently from the very next verse in Leviticus (7:38), “beyom tzavoto” (on the day He commanded). There is no need to derive it from the chatas through the heikesh. The answer is “kdei nasbah” — the daytime rule was mentioned incidentally, bundled together with the chullin and right-hand rules, even though it has its own independent source. This is a recognized Talmudic phenomenon where a teaching includes items “for the ride” — they are true but not actually derived from the source being discussed.
Key Terms:
- כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ (Kdei Nasbah) = Mentioned incidentally/for no reason — a principle was included in a list even though it has an independent derivation elsewhere
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
“Right hand” already known from Rabba bar bar Chana/Reish Lakish — also kdei nasbah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית – מִדְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶצְבַּע וּכְהֻנָּה – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא יָמִין! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita teach that the halakha of the sin offering teaches that the rites of offerings must be performed with the priest’s right hand? Isn’t this derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Reish Lakish says: In any place in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger, or that it is performed by priesthood, the halakha is that the rite is performed only with the right hand. This is derived from the Torah’s statement with regard to the leper: “And the priest shall dip his right finger” (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason, since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement.
קלאוד על הדף:
Like the daytime rule, the right-hand requirement also has an independent source and is only mentioned incidentally (kdei nasbah) in the baraita. Rabba bar bar Chana, citing Reish Lakish, teaches a general principle: wherever Scripture mentions “finger” (etzba) and “priesthood” (kehuna), the right hand is required. This is derived from the laws of the metzora (leper) purification, where the Torah explicitly specifies “right finger.” Through this general principle, right-hand performance extends to all sacrificial services involving fingers and priestly action. Tosafot engage in a significant discussion about whether this derivation works via gezera shava or heikesh, which matters for the principle of whether something learned from a gezera shava can then be taught via a heikesh.
Key Terms:
- אֶצְבַּע (Etzba) = Finger — a reference to finger-based sacrificial services like sprinkling blood
- כְהוּנָּה (Kehuna) = Priesthood — a reference to the priestly role in sacrificial services
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
Asham: bones of offerings are permitted (have no sanctity)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אָשָׁם״ – מָה אָשָׁם עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף כֹּל עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין.
English Translation:
The cited baraita continues: “Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, its bones have no sanctity and are permitted for any use, so too with regard to any mentioned offering, its bones are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Rabbi Akiva’s version of the heikesh exposition, the asham teaches a different law from the earlier version (which used asham for shafir/shilya). Here, the asham teaches that the bones of offerings have no sanctity and may be used for any purpose. The logic is that since the asham’s meat is eaten by the kohanim, and notar (the prohibition against leftover meat) only applies to edible portions (“the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice” — Leviticus 7:18), the inedible bones are inherently permitted. Through the heikesh, this extends even to the olah (burnt offering), whose meat is entirely consumed on the altar — even its bones are permitted. Tosafot provide an extensive analysis of the scriptural source for this rule, connecting it to “lo yihyeh” (it shall be his) in the asham passage and the gezera shava between asham and olah in Zevachim 86a.
Key Terms:
- עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין (Atzmotav Muttarin) = Its bones are permitted — the bones of offerings have no sanctity and may be used freely
- נוֹתָר (Notar) = Leftover — sacrificial meat remaining beyond its permitted eating time, which must be burned
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Transition: What does Rabbi Akiva do with the pesach verse (Deut 16:2)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח״
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that the verse that states: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:2), indicates by juxtaposition that every obligatory offering, like the Paschal offering, may be brought only from non-sacred money. The Gemara therefore asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who derives this from the verse: “This is the law of…the sin offering,” that verse: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering,”
קלאוד על הדף:
This transitional segment bridges amud aleph and amud bet. The mishna (on the previous daf) derived the chullin requirement from the pesach verse in Deuteronomy 16:2. But Rabbi Akiva already derived this rule from the chatas via the heikesh (segment 10). The Gemara now asks: since Rabbi Akiva has no need for the pesach verse for the chullin rule, what does he do with it? This question drives the discussion that opens amud bet, where Rabbi Akiva’s alternative use of the pesach verse is revealed — the rule about leftover pesach offerings becoming shelamim.
Key Terms:
- וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח (V’zavachta Pesach) = “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering” — Deuteronomy 16:2, the verse in question
Amud Bet (83b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Akiva uses the pesach verse for Rav Nachman/Rabba bar Avuh: leftover pesach becomes shelamim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מִנַּיִן לְמוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח שֶׁקָּרֵב שְׁלָמִים? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ צֹאן וּבָקָר״, וַהֲלֹא אֵין פֶּסַח בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים! אֶלָּא מוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח יְהֵא לְדָבָר הַבָּא מִן הַצֹּאן וּמִן הַבָּקָר.
English Translation:
what does he make of it, i.e., what does he derive from it? He requires it for that which was stated by Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: From where is it derived that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated but not ultimately sacrificed on Passover eve, is sacrificed as a peace offering afterward? It is derived from that which is stated: “And you shall sacrifice the Passover offering unto the Lord, your God, of the flock and the herd.” The verse is difficult: But isn’t a Paschal offering brought only from the sheep and from the goats? Rather, it is derived from here that a leftover Paschal offering should be sacrificed as an offering brought both from the flock and from the herd, i.e., a peace offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer to the question from 83a:15 is revealed. Rabbi Akiva uses the pesach verse for an entirely different derivation: the law of motar ha-pesach (leftover Paschal offering). The verse “you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering…of the flock and the herd” poses a difficulty — the pesach comes only from sheep and goats (tzon), never from cattle (bakar). Why mention “herd”? The answer is that a leftover pesach animal (one that was designated but not ultimately sacrificed on Erev Pesach) must be offered as a shelamim, which is an offering that can come from both flock and herd. This elegant reading resolves the textual anomaly while establishing a practical halakha.
Key Terms:
- מוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח (Motar HaPesach) = Leftover Paschal offering — an animal designated for the pesach but not ultimately sacrificed on Erev Pesach
- צֹאן וּבָקָר (Tzon U-Vakar) = Flock and herd — sheep/goats and cattle, the categories of domesticated sacrificial animals
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
But this is already derived from Shmuel’s father (Leviticus 3:6)!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מִדַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל נָפְקָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם מִן הַצֹּאן קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים״, וְאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הַצֹּאן יְהֵא לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But is it derived from here that a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering? It is derived from the verse that Shmuel’s father cites: As it is written: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord is of the flock” (Leviticus 3:6); and Shmuel’s father said: This teaches that an offering that is brought only from the flock, i.e., the Paschal offering, will be a sacrifice of peace offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges: why does Rabbi Akiva need the Deuteronomy verse for motar ha-pesach when this law is already derivable from Leviticus 3:6? Shmuel’s father (Abba bar Abba) reads “if his offering for a sacrifice of shelamim is of the flock” as teaching that an offering exclusively from the flock (i.e., the pesach) becomes a shelamim. If this source already establishes the law, the Deuteronomy verse is superfluous for Rabbi Akiva’s purpose. The Gemara is building toward showing that multiple verses address different scenarios of leftover pesach offerings.
Key Terms:
- אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל (Avuh d’Shmuel) = Shmuel’s father — Abba bar Abba, a prominent amora who frequently provides legal derivations
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
And from another baraita: “kevesh” includes pesach in the alya (fat tail) requirement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַכַּתִּי מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפֶּסַח לְאַלְיָה.
English Translation:
But still it must be asked: Is it derived from here? It is derived from there, from the verse cited in the following baraita. And isn’t it taught in a baraita: Even though the verse already states that peace offerings come from the flock, as it is written: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord be of the flock, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish” (Leviticus 3:6), the verse goes on to specify: “If he bring a lamb for his offering…and if his offering be a goat” (Leviticus 3:7-12). The word “lamb” is written to include the Paschal offering in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar, which is written subsequently with regard to a peace offering (Leviticus 3:9), since this halakha is not mentioned in the verses concerning the Paschal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further: there is yet a third source — a baraita deriving from the word “kevesh” (lamb) in Leviticus 3:7 that the pesach requires the alya (fat tail) to be offered on the altar. This baraita also implies that the pesach has the status of a shelamim. With three apparent sources for the same law, the Gemara needs to explain why all three are necessary, which leads to the resolution in segments 6-8.
Key Terms:
- אַלְיָה (Alya) = Fat tail — a specific portion of the lamb that must be offered on the altar for shelamim
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
“Im kevesh”: includes pesach that passed its year and shelamim from pesach in all shelamim mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם כֶּבֶשׂ״ – לְהָבִיא פֶּסַח שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וּשְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִים מֵחֲמַת פֶּסַח, לְכׇל מִצְוַת שְׁלָמִים: שֶׁיִּטְעֲנוּ סְמִיכָה, וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: When the verse states: “If he brings a lamb,” it is to include in all the mitzvot of peace offerings a Paschal offering whose first year has passed and is therefore too old to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and peace offerings brought due to a Paschal offering. Specifically, this indicates that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita specifies what the pesach-turned-shelamim inherits from the shelamim laws. When a pesach’s year has passed (making it ineligible for pesach), or when a shelamim is brought on account of a pesach obligation, it requires all the mitzvot of shelamim: semicha (leaning hands on the animal’s head before slaughter), nesachim (accompanying wine libations), and tenufat chazeh va-shok (waving of the breast and thigh). These are all requirements of shelamim that do not apply to the pesach itself, demonstrating the complete transformation in the offering’s status. Tosafot engage in a detailed discussion about what “shelamim brought due to pesach” means, disagreeing with Rashi who identifies it as the chagigat 14 (the supplementary offering of the 14th of Nisan).
Key Terms:
- סְמִיכָה (Semicha) = Leaning/placing hands — the ritual of pressing both hands on the animal’s head before slaughter
- נְסָכִים (Nesachim) = Libations — wine and flour offerings that accompany certain animal sacrifices
- תְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק (Tenufat Chazeh va-Shok) = Waving of the breast and thigh — portions given to the kohanim after waving
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
“Ve’im ez” (and if a goat): interrupts to teach goat does not require alya
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְאִם עֵז״ – הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן, לִימֵּד עַל הָעֵז שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה אַלְיָה.
English Translation:
And when the verse states: “And if his offering is a goat,” it interrupted the previous matter and taught that the sacrifice of a goat does not require that the fat tail be burned on the altar. In any event, the verse indicates that a Paschal offering that was disqualified as such because it has reached its second year, i.e., the leftover of a Paschal offering, is sacrificed as a peace offering. It may therefore be asked: Why are there three verses to indicate this one halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Torah’s interruption “and if a goat” in the shelamim passage serves a specific purpose: it teaches that goats, unlike lambs, do not have the alya (fat tail) requirement. Goats anatomically have smaller, less prominent tails, so the Torah separates the goat section to exclude it from the alya rule that applies to lambs. The Gemara then frames the core question: we now have three separate verses all indicating that a leftover pesach is sacrificed as a shelamim. Are they redundant? The answer in the next segments will show that each addresses a different scenario.
Key Terms:
- הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן (Hifsik Ha-Inyan) = Interrupted the topic — a literary break in the Torah’s text that signals a legal distinction
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Three verses needed for three cases: (1) time AND year passed, (2) time passed not year, (3) neither passed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיב: חַד לְעִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וְחַד לְעִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וְחַד לְלֹא עִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, none of these derivations are superfluous, as three verses are written that teach the halakha that a Paschal offering that is sacrificed not on Passover eve is sacrificed as a peace offering. One verse teaches this halakha in a case where its time of sacrifice, Passover eve, has passed, and its first year has also passed, disqualifying it for sacrifice as a Paschal offering. And one verse teaches the halakha in a case where its time of sacrifice has passed, but not its first year. And the third one teaches a case where neither its time of sacrifice nor its first year has passed, but it was sacrificed before Passover eve.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is elegant: three verses, three distinct cases. Each scenario represents a different degree of “rejection” from pesach status: (1) both time and year have passed — the animal is completely ineligible for pesach in every way; (2) the time has passed (Erev Pesach is over) but the year has not — the animal could theoretically be used for Pesach Sheni; (3) neither has passed — the animal is still fully eligible for pesach but is being offered before its time. Without all three verses, we might think the shelamim rule only applies in certain scenarios. Tosafot add that even cases where the animal was never fit for pesach (e.g., designated as a female, or a two-year-old male) also fall under shelamim rules.
Key Terms:
- עִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ (Ivrah Zmano) = Its time has passed — Erev Pesach has come and gone
- עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ (Ivrah Shnato) = Its year has passed — the animal is past its first year and ineligible for pesach
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Tzrikhi: If only time+year passed, maybe time-only (still fit for Pesach Sheni) would not require shelamim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִידְּחִי לֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי, אֲבָל עִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, דַּחֲזֵי לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, אֵימָא לָא.
English Translation:
And all these verses are necessary. As had the Merciful One written only the case where both its first year and its time of sacrifice have passed, one could say that only such a Paschal offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering, as it was completely rejected from its status as a Paschal offering; but in a case where its time of sacrifice has passed but its first year has not passed, in which case it is still fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on the second Pesah, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins the tzrikhi (necessity) analysis, showing why we cannot derive one case from another. If the Torah only taught the first case (both time and year passed), we might think the shelamim rule applies only because the animal is totally rejected from pesach status. But where only the time has passed while the year has not, the animal is still eligible for Pesach Sheni (the make-up pesach one month later). We might think it should be held for Pesach Sheni rather than being offered as a shelamim. Therefore a separate verse is needed for this intermediate case.
Key Terms:
- פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי (Pesach Sheni) = Second Pesach — the make-up Paschal offering on the 14th of Iyyar for those who could not bring it in Nisan
- אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי (Idchi Lei L’Gamrei) = Completely rejected — an animal that has no remaining eligibility for its original purpose
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
If only time passed, maybe when NEITHER passed (still fit for Pesach Rishon), wouldn’t require shelamim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, דְּאִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן, אֲבָל לֹא עִבְּרָה זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְפֶסַח רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי חֲזֵי, אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
English Translation:
And if the Torah had taught us only that a leftover Paschal offering whose time has passed but whose year has not passed is sacrificed as a peace offering, one might think that this is because the Paschal offering was rejected from the first Pesah; but in a case where neither its time of sacrifice nor its first year have passed, in which case it is still fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on Passover eve, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, all three verses are necessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second step of the tzrikhi analysis: even knowing the second case (time passed, year not), we cannot derive the third (neither passed). In the second case, the animal was at least rejected from Pesach Rishon (the first Pesach), giving reason to reassign it. But where neither time nor year has passed, the animal is still perfectly eligible for the upcoming Erev Pesach. Why would it become a shelamim? Perhaps the owner should simply wait. The Torah teaches that even in this case, if the owner wishes to offer it before Erev Pesach, it takes on shelamim status. This completes the comprehensive coverage of all possible scenarios for pesach-designated animals.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא (Tzrikha) = It is necessary — concluding that all three verses are non-redundant
Segment 9
TYPE: הדרן
End of Chapter 7: HaTodah Hayta Ba’ah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַתּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה.
English Translation:
We will return to you, “The Thanks Offering Was Brought.” This marks the conclusion of the seventh chapter of Menachot.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the hadran — the formal closing formula for the seventh chapter of Menachot, known as “HaTodah Hayta Ba’ah” (The Thanks Offering Was Brought). This chapter dealt extensively with the todah (thanks offering), the heikesh of Leviticus 7:37 comparing all offerings, and the relationship between the pesach and shelamim. The transition to chapter 8 marks a shift from theoretical derivations about sacrificial law to a more practical topic: the sources and quality requirements for grain used in meal offerings, beginning with the new mishna about which regions produce optimal flour.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (Hadran Alakh) = We will return to you — the traditional formula recited upon completing a section of Talmud, expressing the hope to revisit the material
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
Menachot 8:1: All communal and individual offerings from Eretz Yisrael or chutz la’aretz, new or old — except omer and shtei halechem
Hebrew/Aramaic:
MISHNA: All communal and individual meal offerings may come from produce grown in Eretz Yisrael and from outside Eretz Yisrael, from the new crop, i.e., the current year’s crop, and from the old crop from previous years. This is the halakha of all meal offerings except for the omer, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the two loaves, i.e., the communal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot, as they come only from the new crop and from Eretz Yisrael.
English Translation:
כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד בָּאִין מִן הָאָרֶץ וּמֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן, חוּץ מִן הָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הָאָרֶץ.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the opening mishna of the eighth chapter of Menachot, which shifts focus to the practical regulations governing the sources of grain for meal offerings. The mishna establishes the general rule: all meal offerings, whether communal or individual, may use grain from anywhere (Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora) and from any year (new or old crop). Two exceptions are carved out: the omer (the barley offering of the 16th of Nisan) and the shtei halechem (the two wheat loaves of Shavuot). These must come specifically from the new crop and from Eretz Yisrael. The reason is their agricultural-symbolic function: the omer inaugurates the new barley harvest, and the shtei halechem inaugurates the new wheat harvest.
Key Terms:
- עוֹמֶר (Omer) = A measure of barley — the communal offering brought on the 16th of Nisan marking the beginning of the new grain harvest
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (Shtei HaLechem) = The Two Loaves — the communal wheat bread offering of Shavuot
- חָדָשׁ (Chadash) = New crop — grain from the current year’s harvest
- יָשָׁן (Yashan) = Old crop — grain from previous years’ harvests
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
All must come from optimal quality (muvchar): Best is Michmas and Zoneha; second is Aforayim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
And all meal offerings come only from the optimal-quality grain. And which places have the optimal grain for them? Fields in Makhnis and Zateha are the primary [alfa] source for fine flour. Secondary to them is Aforayim in the valley.
English Translation:
וְכוּלָּן אֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מוּבְחָר שֶׁלָּהֶם? (מִכְנֵיס וְזַטְחָא) [מִכְמָס וְזוֹנֵחָא] — אַלְפָּא לַסֹּלֶת, שְׁנִיָּיה לָהֶן — עֲפוֹרַיִים בַּבִּקְעָה.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna introduces the concept of muvchar — that offerings should come from optimal-quality sources. It then provides a geographic ranking of flour-producing regions. Michmas (or Makhnis) and Zoneha are ranked first (alfa — a Greek loanword meaning “first/primary”) for fine flour (solet). Aforayim in the valley is ranked second. Tosafot identify Aforayim as the city mentioned in II Chronicles 13 that Abijah captured from Jeroboam. This preference for specific regions reflects a broader halakhic value: “hiddur mitzva” — enhancing a commandment by using the finest available materials.
Key Terms:
- מוּבְחָר (Muvchar) = Optimal quality — the finest available materials for offerings
- סֹּלֶת (Solet) = Fine flour — the high-quality flour used for meal offerings
- אַלְפָּא (Alfa) = Primary/first — a Greek loanword used in the Mishna for ranking
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
All regions are valid, but from here they would bring
Hebrew/Aramaic:
All the regions were valid as the source of the grain, but it is from here, the primary and secondary places, that they would bring grain, because it was of optimal quality.
English Translation:
כׇּל הָאֲרָצוֹת הָיוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת, אֶלָּא מִכָּאן הָיוּ מְבִיאִין.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna concludes with an important qualifier: while Michmas and Aforayim are preferred, all regions of Eretz Yisrael are technically valid (ksherot) as sources for meal offering grain. The preference for certain regions is l’khatchila (the ideal standard) but not m’akeiv (an essential requirement). This distinction between preferred and valid sources reflects a balanced approach: the Torah demands quality, but does not invalidate offerings brought from less optimal sources. The practical effect was that the Temple administration routinely sourced grain from these regions, establishing standard supply chains for the sacrificial system.
Key Terms:
- כְּשֵׁרוֹת (Ksherot) = Valid/fit — technically acceptable even if not optimal
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Our mishna disagrees with the baraita tanna: omer from old crop valid, shtei halechem from old valid, but lacks mitzva
Hebrew/Aramaic:
GEMARA: The mishna states that the omer meal offering and the two loaves are prepared only from the new crop. The wording of the mishna indicates that this is an essential requirement. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: An omer meal offering that comes from the old crop is valid. Similarly, the two loaves that come from the old crop are valid, but by bringing them from the old crop one lacks the proper fulfillment of its mitzva.
English Translation:
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: עוֹמֶר הַבָּא מִן הַיָּשָׁן — כָּשֵׁר, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הַבָּאוֹת מִן הַיָּשָׁן — כְּשֵׁרוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּר מִצְוָה.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a disagreement between our mishna and a baraita. The mishna states categorically that the omer and shtei halechem come “only from the new crop and from Eretz Yisrael,” implying that using old grain would invalidate them. The baraita, however, takes a more lenient position: old grain is valid (kasher), but using it means one has “diminished the mitzva” (chiser mitzva) — failing to achieve the ideal fulfillment. This is a classic l’khatchila vs. b’dieved distinction. Tosafot explain that the mishna’s language “she’einan ba’in ella” (they come only from) indicates an essential requirement, while the baraita treats the new-crop rule as merely the optimal fulfillment.
Key Terms:
- חִיסֵּר מִצְוָה (Chiser Mitzva) = Diminished the mitzva — failed to fulfill the commandment in its optimal manner, though the offering remains valid
- מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא (Matnitin d’Lo k’Hai Tanna) = Our mishna is not in accordance with this tanna — a standard formula identifying disagreement
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Source for omer from old crop being valid: “takriv et minchat bikureicha” — even from the attic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The Gemara provides the biblical sources for the rulings of the baraita: The source for the ruling concerning the omer meal offering is as it is written: “And when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, it is ripened grain, toasted over fire, even groats of the fresh ear, you shall bring the meal offering of your first fruits” (Leviticus 2:14). The superfluous repetition of the term “you shall bring” teaches that the omer is valid even if brought from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.
English Translation:
עוֹמֶר — דִּכְתִיב ״תַּקְרִיב אֵת מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרֶיךָ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides the scriptural basis for the baraita’s lenient ruling about the omer. The verse in Leviticus 2:14 contains a seemingly redundant repetition of “takriv” (you shall bring). The additional mention expands the scope: the omer is valid “even from the attic” (afilu min ha-aliyah) — meaning even from grain stored away from a previous year. The attic metaphor is vivid: old grain would be stored in upper rooms, precisely the kind of aged stock that the omer ordinarily should not use. The extra word teaches that while not ideal, such grain is technically valid.
Key Terms:
- עֲלִיָּיה (Aliyah) = Attic/upper room — metaphor for old grain stored away from previous harvests
- בִּכּוּרִים (Bikkurim) = First fruits — here used in the context of the omer as the “first” grain offering
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Source for shtei halechem: “mi-moshvoteichem tavi’u” = from Eretz Yisrael; also from the attic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The source for the ruling concerning the two loaves is as it is written: “And you shall offer a new meal offering to the Lord. From your dwellings you shall bring two wave-loaves” (Leviticus 23:16-17). The term “your dwellings” is a reference to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the verse indicates that the two loaves must be brought from grain grown there, and not from outside of Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, the term “from your dwellings” teaches that the offering may come from any grain grown in Eretz Yisrael and even from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.
English Translation:
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם — דִּכְתִיב: ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ״, וְלֹא מִן חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״ — וַאֲפִילּוּ מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.
קלאוד על הדף:
For the shtei halechem (two loaves), the Gemara derives two rules from the verse “from your dwellings you shall bring” (Leviticus 23:16-17). First, “mi-moshvoteichem” (from your dwellings) restricts the source to Eretz Yisrael, excluding the Diaspora. Second, the same term also teaches that even old grain stored “in the attic” of dwellings in Eretz Yisrael is valid. This double derivation from a single phrase will be challenged in the next segments, as the Gemara questions whether one expression can yield two distinct halakhot.
Key Terms:
- מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם (Mi-Moshvoteichem) = From your dwellings — interpreted as referring to Eretz Yisrael, the “dwelling place” of Israel
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
But you already used “mi-moshvoteichem” for Eretz Yisrael! Answer: “tavi’u” (plural) teaches a second thing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The Gemara asks how two halakhot can be derived from the same term: Didn’t you already expound that term to teach that one can use grain only if it is grown in Eretz Yisrael? How can you also derive from it that the grain can be brought from an old crop? The Gemara explains: That is derived from the next term, as the verse states: “From your dwellings you shall bring” (Leviticus 23:17), which teaches that one may bring them from any grain grown in Eretz Yisrael and even from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.
English Translation:
הָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ? אָמַר קְרָא ״תָּבִיאּוּ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a valid objection: if “mi-moshvoteichem” is already used to derive the Eretz Yisrael requirement, it cannot also teach about old grain. The answer redirects the second derivation to a different word in the verse: “tavi’u” (you shall bring — in plural form). The word “tavi’u” itself teaches about the permissibility of old grain. This is a common Talmudic technique: when one word in a verse is “used up” for one derivation, the Gemara looks for another textual hook in the same verse to support the additional teaching.
Key Terms:
- הָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ (Ha Afiktei) = You already expounded it — a standard objection when a word is used for two derivations
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
But “tavi’u” is needed to teach about other leavened offerings! Answer: “tavi” (singular) would suffice; “tavi’u” (plural) teaches TWO things
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The Gemara questions this answer: But that term is necessary to teach that any leavened bread offering that you bring in another instance, i.e., the loaves of the thanksgiving offering, is to be like this offering of the two loaves, i.e., the same requirements apply to it (see 77b). How, then, can you expound the term to also teach that grain from an old crop can be used for the two loaves? The Gemara explains: If so, that the term is written only to teach about the requirements for other leavened bread offerings, then let the verse write: You shall bring [tavi], using the singular form. For what reason then, does it write: “You shall bring [tavi’u],” using the plural form? It is written so that one can learn from it two different halakhot.
English Translation:
וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, שֶׁכֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר — הֲרֵי הוּא כָּזֶה! אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״תָּבִיא״, מַאי ״תָּבִיאּוּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further: “tavi’u” is already needed for a different derivation (from 77b) — that other leavened offerings (like the todah loaves) must follow the same rules as the shtei halechem. How can the same word teach two things? The resolution is elegant: the plural form “tavi’u” carries extra letters compared to the singular “tavi.” If the Torah only needed to teach about other leavened offerings, the singular “tavi” would suffice. The plural form “tavi’u” is textually “heavier” and therefore carries an additional derivation — the permissibility of old grain. This is a fine example of the principle shma mina tartei — “derive from it two things.”
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי (Shma Mina Tartei) = Derive from it two things — a word or phrase supports multiple derivations
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
But “reishit” (first) is written! Answer: only l’mitzvah (ideal), not l’akeiv (essential)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita that the omer and the two loaves are valid even if brought from an old crop: But isn’t the term “first” written with regard to both the omer and the two loaves? This indicates they must come from the new crop. The omer is referred to as “the first of your harvest” (Leviticus 23:10), and the two loaves are referred to as “an offering of the first” (Leviticus 2:12). The Gemara answers: The term indicates that only the new crop should be used, but that is only for the proper fulfillment of the mitzva. If an old crop was used, the offerings are still valid.
English Translation:
וְהָכְתִיב ״רֵאשִׁית״? לְמִצְוָה.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a straightforward challenge: if old grain is valid, why does the Torah call the omer “reishit” (first) of your harvest, implying it must be the first, new grain? The answer employs the l’mitzvah/l’akeiv distinction: “reishit” establishes the ideal (l’mitzvah) — one should use new grain. But it does not create an essential requirement (l’akeiv) that would invalidate old grain. This distinction between the ideal fulfillment and the minimum valid performance is fundamental to many areas of halakha, allowing the system to maintain high standards while still validating offerings that fall short of the ideal.
Key Terms:
- לְמִצְוָה (L’Mitzvah) = For the [optimal] mitzva — the ideal standard, but not essential
- לְעַכֵּב (L’Akeiv) = Essential/indispensable — a requirement without which the offering is invalid
- רֵאשִׁית (Reishit) = First — implying priority and newness
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
But “chadasha” (new) is written! Answer: R. Natan and R. Akiva say it means the two loaves must be FIRST of all menachot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the two loaves: “A new meal offering” (Leviticus 23:16), which indicates that only the new crop can be used? The fact that with regard to the two loaves the Torah repeats this requirement twice suggests that it is indispensable. The Gemara answers: The word “new” cannot teach that the use of the new crop is essential, as it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Akiva said that even if the two loaves are brought from the old crop, they are valid. How do I realize the meaning of: “A new meal offering”? This teaches that the two loaves are to be the first of all the other meal offerings. No other meal offerings may be brought from the new crop until the meal offering of the two loaves has been brought.
English Translation:
הָכְתִיב ״חֲדָשָׁה״? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אָמְרוּ: שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הַבָּאוֹת מִן הַיָּשָׁן — כְּשֵׁרוֹת, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״חֲדָשָׁה״? שֶׁתְּהֵא חֲדָשָׁה לְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת.
קלאוד על הדף:
The strongest challenge yet: the Torah explicitly calls the shtei halechem a “mincha chadasha” (new meal offering — Leviticus 23:16), using the very word “new” (chadasha). Surely this makes the new-crop requirement essential? Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Akiva offer a brilliant reinterpretation: “chadasha” does not mean the grain must be new. Rather, it means the shtei halechem must be the FIRST (new) meal offering from the new crop — no other menachot may be offered from new grain until the shtei halechem are brought on Shavuot. This transforms “new” from a requirement about the grain’s age into a requirement about the offering’s chronological priority. Tosafot note that this more forceful challenge from “chadasha” is what prevents the Gemara from simply answering “l’mitzvah” as it did for “reishit.”
Key Terms:
- חֲדָשָׁה (Chadasha) = New — reinterpreted by R. Natan and R. Akiva as “first” in temporal priority rather than “new” in grain age
- שֶׁתְּהֵא חֲדָשָׁה לְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת (She-tehei Chadasha l’Khol HaMenachot) = That it shall be “new” (first) relative to all meal offerings — no new-crop menachot before the shtei halechem
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
The dispute between the mishna and baraita is only about the new-crop requirement (chadash)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
The Gemara defines the limits of the dispute between the mishna and baraita: They disagree only with regard to whether it is essential for the omer and the two loaves to be brought from the new crop.
English Translation:
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּחָדָשׁ,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes by precisely defining the scope of the disagreement. The mishna and the baraita agree on many points — both accept that the omer and shtei halechem should ideally come from new grain grown in Eretz Yisrael. Their dispute is narrow: is the new-crop requirement essential (m’akeiv), as the mishna holds, or merely ideal (l’mitzvah), as the baraita in the name of R. Natan and R. Akiva holds? This precision in defining the scope of a dispute is characteristic of the Gemara’s analytical method — isolating the exact point of disagreement while acknowledging the wide area of agreement.
Key Terms:
- עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי (Ad Kan Lo Pligi) = Up to this point they do not disagree — the standard formula for narrowing the scope of a dispute