Menachot Daf 87 (מנחות דף פ״ז)
Daf: 87 | Amudim: 87a – 87b | Date: 10 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (87a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Wine from the middle third of the cask — not from top or bottom
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַקְּמָחִין, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּלֶיהָ – מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁמָרִים, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא מִשְּׁלִישָׁהּ מֵאֶמְצָעָהּ.
English Translation:
the flour-like white scum that floats on the surface, nor from the wine at bottom of the cask due to the sediment that collects there. Rather, one brings from the wine in its middle third.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues directly from the end of the previous daf (86b). The mishna completes its description of wine quality standards for libations: one avoids the top of the cask (where flour-like scum floats) and the bottom (where sediment collects). Only the middle third — the cleanest portion — is used. This reflects the same quality-consciousness seen in the oil grading system: the Temple demanded the purest possible offering materials, free from impurities at either extreme.
Key Terms:
- קְמָחִין = Flour-like white scum; a film that forms on the surface of stored wine
- שְׁמָרִים = Sediment; dregs that settle to the bottom of the cask
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The treasurer’s inspection method: knocking with a reed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד הוּא בּוֹדֵק? הַגִּזְבָּר יוֹשֵׁב, וְהַקָּנֶה בְּיָדוֹ, זָרַק הַגִּיר, הִקִּישׁ בַּקָּנֶה.
English Translation:
How does the Temple treasurer inspect the wine to determine that it is from the middle of the cask? The treasurer sits alongside the cask and has the measuring reed in his hand. The spigot is opened and the wine begins to flow. When he sees that the wine emerging draws with it chalk-like scum [hagir], he immediately knocks with the reed to indicate that the spigot should be closed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna describes a practical quality-control procedure. The treasurer (gizbar) monitors the wine flowing from a spigot. As wine flows from the middle of the cask, it is initially clear and pure. Once the wine level drops to the point where chalk-like scum (gir) begins to appear — indicating the wine is now drawing from the sediment zone — the treasurer signals by knocking with a reed. The use of a knock rather than spoken words will become significant in the Gemara’s discussion below.
Key Terms:
- גִּזְבָּר = Temple treasurer; official responsible for inspecting and purchasing offering materials
- קָנֶה = Reed; used as a signaling instrument
- גִּיר = Chalk-like scum; sediment residue that appears when wine quality degrades
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda: wine with scum is pasul based on “temimim”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קְמָחִין – פָּסוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ לָכֶם״, ״וּמִנְחָתָם״, ״תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ לָכֶם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Wine in which there is flour-like white scum is unfit for libations, as it is stated with regard to animal offerings: “Unblemished they shall be for you…and their meal offering shall be fine flour mixed with oil…unblemished they shall be for you, and their libations” (Numbers 28:19-20, 31). This indicates that animal offerings, meal offerings, and libations must all be brought from flawless products. Therefore, the presence of flour-like white scum in wine renders it unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda takes a stricter position: any wine containing flour-like scum is entirely pasul, not merely suboptimal. His proof text is striking — he extends the concept of “temimim” (unblemished), which primarily applies to animal offerings, to libations as well. The verse’s structure links animal offerings, meal offerings, and libations together under the same standard of flawlessness. This is a broader application of the blemish concept than typical, extending it from living creatures to liquids.
Key Terms:
- תְּמִימִים = Unblemished, flawless; a standard that applies to all categories of offerings
- נִסְכֵּיהֶם = Their libations; wine offerings that accompany animal sacrifices
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction in the mishna: sweet wine — sometimes valid, sometimes not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אֵין מְבִיאִין לֹא מָתוֹק וְלֹא מְבוּשָּׁל וְלֹא מְעוּשָּׁן, וְאִם הֵבִיא – פָּסוּל. וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: אֵין מְבִיאִין אֶת הֶלִיסְטְיוֹן, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not bring libations from sweet wine, nor from boiled wine, nor from wine produced from smoked grapes, and if one did bring a libation from such wine, it is not valid. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the first clause teach: One may not bring libations from sweet wine made from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring a libation from such wine it is valid? How can one clause teach that a libation of one type of sweet wine is valid, and the other clause teach that a libation of another type of sweet wine is not valid?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies an apparent contradiction within the mishna (from the previous daf). One clause says helistyon (sun-dried sweet wine) is kasher bedieved, while another clause says sweet wine (matok) is pasul even bedieved. Since both deal with sweet wine, how can one be valid after the fact and the other invalid? This sets up the Amoraic dispute between Ravina and Rav Ashi about how to read the mishna.
Key Terms:
- הֶלִיסְטְיוֹן = Wine from sun-dried grapes; a specific type of sweet wine
- מָתוֹק = Sweet wine; naturally sweet wine from the fruit itself
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravina and Rav Ashi: two approaches to the sweet wine contradiction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּרוֹךְ וְתָנֵי. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: חוּלְיָא דְּשִׁימְשָׁא – לָא מְאִיס, חוּלְיָא דְּפֵירָא – מְאִיס.
English Translation:
Ravina said: The text of the mishna is corrupt. To correct it, combine the two clauses into one and teach with regard to all the wines mentioned that they are unfit to be used for libations. Rav Ashi said: The text of the mishna is correct. The reason for the difference between the two wines is that the sweetness of grapes sweetended by the sun is not objectionable, so libations of wine made from such grapes are valid, while sweetness that results from the sugars of the fruit itself is objectionable, so libations of wine made from such grapes are not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two fundamentally different approaches to resolving the contradiction. Ravina takes a textual-critical approach — the mishna is corrupt and should be emended by combining the clauses, making all sweet wine equally invalid. Rav Ashi preserves the mishna as-is and offers a substantive distinction: sun-induced sweetness (from helistyon grapes) produces an acceptable flavor, while natural fruit sweetness (matok) produces an objectionable taste. The distinction is between an externally induced modification and an inherent quality of the fruit itself.
Key Terms:
- כְּרוֹךְ וְתָנֵי = Combine and teach; a textual emendation that merges two clauses
- חוּלְיָא דְּשִׁימְשָׁא = Sweetness from the sun; external sweetening
- חוּלְיָא דְּפֵירָא = Sweetness from the fruit; inherent natural sweetness
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reasoning for disqualifying aged wine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין מְבִיאִין יָשָׁן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? אָמַר קְרָא ״לַכֶּבֶשׂ יָיִן״, מָה כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ, אַף יַיִן בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: One may not bring wine aged for one year; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but the Rabbis deem it valid. The Gemara provides the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling. Rabbi Hizkiyya said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The verse states with regard to the libations that accompany the New Moon offering: “And their libations: Half a hin for a bull, a third of a hin for a ram, and a quarter of a hin for a lamb, of wine” (Numbers 28:14). The juxtaposition of the terms lamb and wine teaches that just as a lamb is fit to be used as an offering only if brought in its first year, so too wine is fit to be used as a libation only if it is in its first year.
קלאוד על הדף:
Hizkiyya proposes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s source is a textual juxtaposition (hekesh) between “lamb” (kevesh) and “wine” (yayin) in Numbers 28:14. Since a lamb must be in its first year to qualify as an offering, the adjacent mention of wine teaches that wine too must be “in its first year.” This is an elegant derivation but, as the Gemara will show, it proves too much — potentially disqualifying second-year wine entirely, not just ab initio.
Key Terms:
- יָשָׁן = Aged wine; wine that has been stored for over a year
- הֶקֵּשׁ = Juxtaposition; a hermeneutical principle deriving law from the proximity of biblical terms
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: the analogy proves too much — second-year wine should be pasul entirely
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים – פָּסוּל, אַף יַיִן בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים – פָּסוּל! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: יַיִן בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר! מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר ״לֹא יָבִיא״? רַבִּי, וְקָאָמַר: אִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר.
English Translation:
The Gemara ask: If so, take the analogy further and conclude that just as if one offers a lamb in its second year, it is not valid, so too a libation of wine in its second year is not valid. And if you would say that this is indeed the halakha, that is difficult: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that wine in its second year may not be brought ab initio, but if one did bring it as a libation, it is valid? That baraita certainly expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as whom did you hear who said that aged wine may not be brought? Only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who explicitly states this opinion in the mishna. And yet he says in the baraita: If one did bring a libation of aged wine, it is valid. According to Rabbi Hizkiyya’s explanation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, such an opinion is illogical.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara exposes a fatal flaw in Hizkiyya’s derivation. If wine is truly analogous to a lamb regarding age, then just as a second-year lamb is completely pasul (not just ab initio disqualified), second-year wine should be completely pasul too. But a baraita — which must represent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s view since he alone disqualifies aged wine — explicitly says second-year wine is valid bedieved. This internal contradiction within Rabbi’s own position proves that Hizkiyya’s hekesh cannot be the correct source for the ruling.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים = In its second year; a lamb at this age is entirely disqualified as an offering
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: the real reason is the loss of redness (Proverbs 23:31)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי, דִּכְתִיב ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava said: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: As it is written in the verse exhorting a person not to be enticed by fine wines: “Look not upon the wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31). Evidently, the redness of wine is indicative of its quality. After a year, wine begins to lose its redness and so it should not be used, ab initio. Nevertheless, it is still of a sufficient quality to be acceptable, after the fact.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers an alternative source that better explains Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s nuanced position. Proverbs 23:31 associates wine quality with redness, and aged wine progressively loses its red color. This explains why Rabbi disqualifies it ab initio (the color has degraded) but accepts it bedieved (it is still wine of acceptable quality, just not at its peak). Unlike the lamb analogy, which would create an absolute disqualification, the color-based reasoning supports a distinction between lekhatchila and bedieved.
Key Terms:
- יִתְאַדָּם = When it is red; the redness of wine as an indicator of quality and freshness
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Cultivated vineyards means hoeing twice a year
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין מְבִיאִין לֹא מִן הַדָּלִיּוֹת כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: כְּרָמִים הָעֲבוּדִים פַּעֲמַיִם בַּשָּׁנָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: One may not bring wine produced from grapes suspended on stakes or trees; rather, one brings wine produced from grapes at foot height and from vineyards that are cultivated. The definition of vineyards that are cultivated is clarified in a baraita that taught: Vineyards that are cultivated twice a year. This is done by hoeing the earth underneath the vines.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita defines the mishna’s requirement of “cultivated vineyards” (kramim ha’avudim): the earth beneath the vines must be hoed twice yearly. This double cultivation aerates the soil, promotes root health, and produces stronger, more concentrated grapes. The specification of “twice a year” sets a clear standard for what qualifies as proper viticulture for Temple wine.
Key Terms:
- כְּרָמִים הָעֲבוּדִים = Cultivated vineyards; vineyards hoed twice annually
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Yosef’s vineyard: extra hoeing produced wine requiring double dilution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב יוֹסֵף הֲוָה לֵיהּ קַרְנָא דְּפַרְדֵּיסָא, דְּרָפֵיק בֵּיהּ טְפֵי רִיפְקָא, וְעָבֵד חַמְרָא דְּדָרֵי מַיָּא עַל חַד תְּרֵין.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates the efficacy of cultivating the land twice a year: Rav Yosef had a tract of land that was used an orchard [depardeisa] to which he used to give an extra hoeing, and consequently it produced wine of such superior quality that when preparing the wine for drinking it required a dilution using twice the amount of water than that which is usually used to dilute wine.
קלאוד על הדף:
This anecdote illustrates the practical impact of thorough cultivation. Rav Yosef’s extra hoeing produced wine so concentrated and potent that it required double the usual water dilution — a mark of exceptional quality in the ancient world, where wine was always diluted before drinking. This practical example validates the mishna’s insistence on cultivated vineyards and shows that agricultural diligence directly correlates with wine quality.
Key Terms:
- פַּרְדֵּיסָא = Orchard/vineyard; from the Persian word for a walled garden
- רִיפְקָא = Hoeing; cultivation of the soil beneath vines
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Casks are medium-sized flasks from Lod
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא הָיוּ כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתָן בַּחֲצָבִין גְּדוֹלִים, תָּנָא: חָבִיּוֹת כַּדִּיּוֹת לוּדִיּוֹת וּבֵינוֹנִיּוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: When people produced wine for libations they would not collect the wine into large barrels, as it causes the wine to spoil; rather, it would be placed in small casks. The Sages taught in a baraita: The casks referred to by the mishna are flasks that are made in Lod and that are medium-sized.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita identifies the specific type of cask used for Temple wine: medium-sized flasks manufactured in the city of Lod (Lydda). Lod was apparently known for producing quality ceramic vessels of a standardized size — not too large (which would cause spoilage) and not too small (which would be impractical). The specificity reflects the Temple’s standardized procurement practices.
Key Terms:
- לוּדִיּוֹת = From Lod (Lydda); flasks of a specific manufacture from this city
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Store casks singly, not stacked
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, אֶלָּא אַחַת אַחַת.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds another halakha: When storing casks containing wine for libations, they should not be placed in twos, i.e., one atop the other, but rather singly, i.e., each one should be placed separately.
קלאוד על הדף:
This practical storage rule ensures wine quality by preventing the weight of stacked casks from disturbing the wine below or compromising the seal of the lower vessel. Storing casks individually also facilitates air circulation around each container, helping maintain proper temperature and preventing spoilage. Every detail of the Temple wine supply chain was regulated to preserve quality.
Key Terms:
- אַחַת אַחַת = One by one, singly; each cask stored separately
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Clarification: the treasurer knocks when chalk from the sediment appears
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד בּוֹדֵק גִּזְבָּר? יוֹשֵׁב וְקָנֶה בְּיָדוֹ. זָרַק הַגִּיר – הִקִּישׁ בַּקָּנֶה. תָּנָא: זָרַק הַגִּיר שֶׁל שְׁמָרִים – גִּזְבָּר הִקִּישׁ בַּקָּנֶה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: How does the Temple treasurer inspect wine to determine that it is from the middle of the cask? The treasurer sits alongside the cask and has the measuring reed in his hand. The spigot is opened and the wine begins to flow. If he sees that the wine emerging draws with it chalk-like scum, he immediately knocks with the reed to indicate that the spigot should be closed. The precise point at which he knocks is clarified in a baraita that taught: If the wine draws with it chalk-like scum, which comes from the sediment, he knocks with the reed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita clarifies a potential ambiguity in the mishna. The “chalk” (gir) that triggers the knock is specifically the chalk that rises from the sediment (shemarim) at the bottom — not the surface scum (kemachin) at the top. This means the treasurer monitors the wine as it flows from the spigot (which drains from the bottom of the cask), watching for the moment when the flowing wine begins to carry sediment residue upward, indicating the wine level has dropped too low.
Key Terms:
- גִּיר שֶׁל שְׁמָרִים = Chalk from the sediment; residue that rises from the bottom of the cask
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Why knock instead of speak? Speech harms wine, benefits spices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ מֵימָר? מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַדִּיבּוּר יָפֶה לַבְּשָׂמִים, כָּךְ דִּיבּוּר רַע לַיַּיִן.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Why does the treasurer knock with the reed; let him simply speak. The Gemara explains: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan, as Rabbi Yohanan said: Just as speech is beneficial to the incense spices, so is speech detrimental to wine, and so the treasurer avoids speaking.
קלאוד על הדף:
This fascinating statement by Rabbi Yoḥanan reflects an ancient understanding — or perhaps folk belief — about the physical effect of sound vibrations on different substances. Speaking near spices was believed to enhance their fragrance (perhaps through the warm breath dispersing volatile oils), while speech near wine was believed to hasten spoilage. Whether understood scientifically or practically, this principle dictated that the treasurer communicated through knocking rather than speaking during the wine inspection, combining quality control with careful preservation of the product.
Key Terms:
- דִּיבּוּר יָפֶה לַבְּשָׂמִים = Speech is beneficial to spices; an ancient principle about the effect of speech on aromatic substances
- דִּיבּוּר רַע לַיַּיִן = Speech is detrimental to wine; hence the use of non-verbal signals during inspection
Segment 15
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Yoḥanan: does consecrating wine with scum violate the blemish prohibition? Teku
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִקְדִּישׁוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּלְקֶה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם? כֵּיוָן דְּפָסוּל – כְּבַעַל מוּם דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין בַּעַל מוּם אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Wine in which there is flour-like white scum is unfit for libations. Rabbi Yohanan raises a dilemma concerning such wine: If one consecrated it to be used as a libation, what is the halakha with regard to whether he should be flogged for consecrating it due to the prohibition against consecrating a flawed item as an offering? Does one say that since it is unfit, it is comparable to a blemished animal? Or perhaps, the prohibition to consecrate a flawed item applies only to an animal. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the wine counterpart to Rava’s identical question about oil on 86a. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises the same conceptual issue: does the baal mum (blemish) prohibition extend from animals to wine? If wine with scum is considered “blemished,” consecrating it would violate a biblical prohibition carrying lashes. But perhaps “blemish” is a category that applies only to living creatures. The parallel teku highlights a genuine unresolved area of halakha regarding the scope of offering-quality prohibitions beyond the animal kingdom.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיקוּ = Unresolved; the same outcome as the parallel question about oil on 86a
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Best offering animals: rams from Moab, lambs from Hebron, calves from Sharon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵילִים מִמּוֹאָב, כְּבָשִׂים מֵחֶבְרוֹן, עֲגָלִים מִשָּׁרוֹן, גּוֹזָלוֹת מֵהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ.
English Translation:
§ Having discussed which flours, oils, and wine are fit to be offered in the Temple, the Gemara considers which animals are of sufficient quality to be used as offerings. The Sages taught in a baraita: The choicest rams are those from Moab; the choicest lambs are those from Hebron; the choicest calves are those from Sharon; and the choicest fledglings, i.e., doves and pigeons, are those from the King’s Mountain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions from plant-based offering materials (flour, oil, wine) to animals, completing a comprehensive survey of the best sources for all Temple offerings. Each region was known for producing a specific type of exceptional livestock: Moab’s rams, Hebron’s lambs, Sharon’s calves, and King’s Mountain’s doves. This geographic catalog reflects both the agricultural specialization of different regions and the Temple’s commitment to sourcing the finest possible offerings from across the land.
Key Terms:
- אֵילִים מִמּוֹאָב = Rams from Moab; the region east of the Dead Sea known for premium rams
- הַר הַמֶּלֶךְ = King’s Mountain; a location known for raising quality doves
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda: lambs should be as wide as they are tall
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאִין כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁגׇּבְהָן כְּרׇחְבָּן. אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״יִרְעֶה מִקְנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כַּר נִרְחָב״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: One should bring lambs whose height is like their width, i.e., they are so robust that they are as wide as they are tall. Rava bar Rav Sheila said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “And He will give the rain for your seed, with which you sow the ground, and bread of the produce of the ground, and it shall be fat and bountiful; your cattle shall graze in wide pastures [kar nirchav] on that day” (Isaiah 30:23). The word “kar” can also mean a lamb, and “nirchav” means wide. Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda interprets this verse, on a homiletical level, to be alluding to robust sheep.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda’s vivid description of ideal sacrificial lambs — as wide as they are tall — conjures an image of exceptionally robust, well-fed animals. Rava bar Rav Sheila finds a biblical basis in Isaiah 30:23, where “kar nirchav” can be read not only as “wide pastures” but also as “wide/broad lambs.” This homiletical reading connects agricultural prosperity with the quality of offerings, suggesting that in the ideal future described by Isaiah, even the livestock will be so well-nourished as to be “as wide as they are tall.”
Key Terms:
- כַּר נִרְחָב = Wide pasture, or homiletically: a broad/robust lamb
Segment 18
TYPE: אגדתא
The watchmen on Jerusalem’s walls: what do they say?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתִיב: ״עַל חוֹמֹתַיִךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם הִפְקַדְתִּי שֹׁמְרִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם וְכׇל הַלַּיְלָה תָּמִיד לֹא יֶחֱשׁוּ הַמַּזְכִּירִים אֶת ה׳ אַל דֳּמִי לָכֶם״. מַאי אָמְרִי? הָכִי אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: ״אַתָּה תָקוּם תְּרַחֵם צִיּוֹן״.
English Translation:
The chapter concludes by quoting an additional prophecy of Isaiah concerning the rebuilding of Eretz Yisrael: It is written: “I have set watchmen upon your walls, Jerusalem; they shall never be silent day nor night; those who remind the Lord, take no rest” (Isaiah 62:6). This is referring to the angels appointed by God to bring the redemption. The Gemara asks: What do these watchmen say to remind the Lord? This is what Rava bar Rav Sheila said: They recite the verse: “You will arise and have compassion upon Zion; for it is time to be gracious to her, for the appointed time has come” (Psalms 102:14).
קלאוד על הדף:
As the chapter (“Kol Korbenot HaTzibbur”) draws to its close, the Gemara transitions to a beautiful aggadic passage about the spiritual “watchmen” on Jerusalem’s walls. Isaiah describes tireless advocates who constantly remind God of His promise to redeem Zion. Rava bar Rav Sheila identifies their prayer as Psalms 102:14 — a plea for compassion upon Zion, asserting that the appointed time for redemption has arrived. This passage transforms the chapter’s conclusion into an expression of messianic hope.
Key Terms:
- שֹׁמְרִים = Watchmen; angelic advocates who ceaselessly petition God for Jerusalem’s redemption
- אַתָּה תָקוּם תְּרַחֵם צִיּוֹן = You will arise and have compassion upon Zion (Psalms 102:14)
Segment 19
TYPE: אגדתא
Additional verses recited by the watchmen — before and after the destruction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: ״בּוֹנֵה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם ה׳״. וּמֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי הֲווֹ אָמְרִי? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: ״כִּי בָחַר ה׳ בְּצִיּוֹן אִוָּהּ לְמוֹשָׁב לוֹ״.
English Translation:
Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak says: They recite the verse: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem, He gathers together the dispersed of Israel” (Psalms 147:2). The Gemara asks: And initially, when the Temple still stood and the Jewish people were gathered together in Eretz Yisrael, what would the watchmen say? Rava bar Rav Sheila says: They would say: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. This is My resting place forever; here will I dwell for I have desired it” (Psalms 132:13-14).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explores the content of the watchmen’s prayers across different eras. After the destruction, they plead for rebuilding and ingathering. But what did they say when the Temple still stood? Rava bar Rav Sheila answers: they celebrated God’s eternal choice of Zion as His dwelling place. The shift from celebration (“He has chosen Zion”) to supplication (“Build up Jerusalem, gather the dispersed”) poignantly captures the transformation wrought by exile. This passage provides a moving conclusion to the chapter that dealt with the detailed specifications of Temple offerings.
Key Terms:
- בּוֹנֵה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם = He who builds Jerusalem; a prayer for future restoration
- אִוָּהּ לְמוֹשָׁב לוֹ = He has desired it for His habitation; God’s choosing of Zion
Segment 20
TYPE: הדרן
Hadran — Conclusion of chapter “Kol Korbenot HaTzibbur”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Hadran marks the formal conclusion of Perek 9, “Kol Korbenot HaTzibbur” (All communal offerings). This chapter dealt extensively with the sources and quality standards for flour, oil, and wine used in Temple offerings. The Hadran formula (“We will return to you”) expresses the commitment to review and revisit this material, reflecting the cyclical nature of Talmudic study.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ = We will return to you; the traditional formula marking the completion of a chapter
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
New chapter: two dry measuring vessels in the Temple
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁתֵּי מִדּוֹת שֶׁל יָבֵשׁ הָיוּ בְּמִקְדָּשׁ, עִשָּׂרוֹן וַחֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: עִשָּׂרוֹן, עִשָּׂרוֹן, וַחֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Two sizes of measuring vessels for dry substances were used in the Temple for measuring flour for the meal offerings. One held a tenth of an ephah and the other held one-half of a tenth of an ephah. Rabbi Meir says: There were three measuring vessels; one that held a tenth of an ephah, another one that also held a tenth of an ephah, and a third one that held one-half of a tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
This opens Perek 10, which shifts from the source materials for offerings to the measuring instruments used in the Temple. The Tanna Kamma holds there were two dry-measure vessels: one tenth of an ephah (for standard meal offerings) and one half-tenth (for the High Priest’s daily offering). Rabbi Meir holds there were three: two tenth-measures of different sizes (one heaped, one leveled) plus the half-tenth. The dispute centers on how many distinct vessels the Torah requires.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah; the standard flour measure, approximately 2.4 liters
- חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן = Half of a tenth of an ephah; used for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering
- מִדּוֹת שֶׁל יָבֵשׁ = Dry measuring vessels; used for flour as opposed to liquid measures
Segment 22
TYPE: משנה
The tenth-ephah vessel: measuring flour one tenth at a time
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עִשָּׂרוֹן, מֶה הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ? שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה מוֹדֵד לְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת, לֹא הָיָה מוֹדֵד לֹא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה לַפָּר, וְלֹא בְּשֶׁל שְׁנַיִם לָאַיִל, אֶלָּא מוֹדְדָן עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת.
English Translation:
What purpose did the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel serve? It was the vessel with which one would measure flour for all the meal offerings. One would not measure the flour by using a measuring vessel of a size that held the entire volume of flour required at once, i.e., neither with a vessel of three-tenths of an ephah for the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of a bull, nor with a vessel of two-tenths of an ephah for the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of a ram. Rather, one measures the flour for them by repeatedly using the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel to measure the required number of tenths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna establishes a critical principle: flour for meal offerings must be measured one tenth at a time, even when multiple tenths are required. A bull’s meal offering requires three-tenths, a ram’s requires two-tenths, but in both cases the priest measures each tenth individually using the standard vessel. There is no “bulk measure” vessel. This ensures precision and adds a deliberate, measure-by-measure intentionality to the preparation of each offering’s flour component.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֹשָׁה לַפָּר = Three-tenths for a bull; the flour quantity accompanying a bull offering
- שְׁנַיִם לָאַיִל = Two-tenths for a ram; the flour quantity accompanying a ram offering
Segment 23
TYPE: משנה
The half-tenth vessel: for the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן, מָה הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ? שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה מוֹדֵד חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
English Translation:
What purpose did the one-half of a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel serve? It was the vessel with which one would measure the flour for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. A tenth of an ephah was required each day; he sacrificed half of it in the morning and the other half of it in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The half-tenth vessel served a single, exclusive function: dividing the flour for the High Priest’s daily chavitin (griddle-cake) offering. The Torah requires a tenth of an ephah of flour each day, split into two equal portions — half in the morning and half in the afternoon. The existence of a dedicated half-measure vessel ensured precise equal division. As the Gemara will clarify, the vessel was used for dividing (not initial measuring), since the full tenth was measured first and then halved.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל = The High Priest’s griddle-cake offering; a daily personal offering of twelve loaves
Segment 24
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Meir’s view: “a tenth, a tenth” means two tenth-vessels — one heaped, one leveled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֶחָד גָּדוּשׁ וְאֶחָד מָחוּק.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara cites a baraita that clarifies Rabbi Meir’s opinion. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A tenth, a tenth, for every lamb” (Numbers 28:29)? The fact the word “tenth” appears twice teaches that there were two measuring vessels that each held a tenth of an ephah in the Temple. One of them held that volume when it was heaped, and the other one was slightly larger and held that same volume when the flour was leveled with the rim.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Meir derives his three-vessel opinion from the doubled word “issaron issaron” in Numbers 28:29. The repetition is not merely stylistic but teaches that two different tenth-ephah vessels existed: one where a “tenth” was achieved with a heaped measure (gadush — filled above the rim), and another, slightly larger vessel where the same volume was achieved with a flat, leveled measure (maḥuk — scraped level with the rim). The heaped vessel was used for standard menachot; the leveled vessel was used for the chavitin, where precise halving was required.
Key Terms:
- גָּדוּשׁ = Heaped; a measure filled above the rim
- מָחוּק = Leveled; a measure scraped flat with the rim
Segment 25
TYPE: ברייתא
The heaped vessel was for standard meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גָּדוּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה מוֹדֵד לְכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת,
English Translation:
The one that held a tenth of an ephah when heaped was the vessel with which one would measure the flour for all the meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief statement completes the description of Rabbi Meir’s system. The heaped vessel, which held a tenth of an ephah when piled above the rim, was the standard measure for all meal offerings. The continuation on the next amud will explain that the leveled vessel was reserved for the High Priest’s chavitin offering, where exactness in dividing was paramount.
Key Terms:
- גָּדוּשׁ = Heaped measure; the standard tenth-ephah vessel for menachot
Amud Bet (87b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
The leveled vessel was for the High Priest’s chavitin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָחוּק שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה מוֹדֵד לַחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
The one that held a tenth of an ephah when leveled was the vessel with which one would measure the flour for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, and then that flour would be divided into two equal parts.
קלאוד על הדף:
According to Rabbi Meir, the leveled (maḥuk) vessel was specifically designated for the chavitin offering. The leveled measure ensures precision — when the flour needs to be divided exactly in half (for the morning and afternoon portions), a flat, level surface provides a more reliable starting point than a heaped one. This reflects the principle that sacred measurements require the utmost accuracy.
Key Terms:
- מָחוּק = Leveled measure; provides greater precision for division
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The Rabbis’ view: only one tenth-vessel, “a tenth” teaches the half-tenth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן״? לְרַבּוֹת חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and say: There was only one measuring vessel that held a tenth of an ephah there in the Temple, as it is stated: “And one tenth-part for every lamb” (Numbers 29:4). But if so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “A tenth, a tenth, for every lamb” (Numbers 28:29)? Rabbi Meir derived from the repetition of “a tenth” that there were two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah. How do the Rabbis expound that? They hold it serves to include another measuring vessel for dry substances, one that holds one-half of a tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis counter Rabbi Meir with a different verse: “one tenth-part for every lamb” (Numbers 29:4), where the word “one” (eḥad) emphasizes that there was only one tenth-ephah vessel. They expound the doubled “issaron issaron” differently — not as teaching two tenth-vessels, but as including an additional vessel of a different size entirely: the half-tenth. This is a classic example of the same verse being expounded in diametrically opposed ways by different authorities.
Key Terms:
- וְעִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד = And one tenth-part; the Rabbis’ proof for a single tenth-ephah vessel
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Meir derives the half-tenth from the “and” prefix; the Rabbis don’t expound “and”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְּעִשָּׂרוֹן״. וְרַבָּנַן, וָי״ו לָא דָּרְשִׁי.
English Translation:
Having cited the baraita, the Gemara discusses each opinion: And as for Rabbi Meir, from where does he derive that there was a measuring vessel that held one-half of a tenth of an ephah? He derives it from the superfluous “and” in the phrase “and one tenth-part for every lamb.” The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, why don’t they expound this from the term “and”? They do not derive anything from “and.” They hold that the addition of the word is not significant enough to be expounded.
קלאוד על הדף:
This passage reveals a methodological disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis about hermeneutical principles. Rabbi Meir expounds the prefix vav (“and”) in “ve-issaron” as teaching an additional vessel (the half-tenth). The Rabbis hold that the vav is merely a grammatical connector without legal significance — “vav lo darshi” (they do not expound the vav). This is a recurring methodological divide in Talmudic hermeneutics: how much legal weight to assign to grammatical particles.
Key Terms:
- וָי״ו = The letter vav; a prefix meaning “and” in Hebrew
- וָי״ו לָא דָּרְשִׁי = They do not expound the vav; a methodological principle limiting derivation from grammatical connectors
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Meir: “one tenth-part” teaches not to use multi-tenth vessels
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַאי ״וְעִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הַהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִמְדּוֹד לֹא בְּשֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה לַפָּר, וְלֹא בְּשֶׁל שְׁנַיִם לָאַיִל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, this verse: “And one tenth-part for every lamb,” from which the Rabbis derive that there was only one measuring vessel of a tenth of an ephah, what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That verse teaches that one should not measure the flour by using a measuring vessel of a size that holds the entire volume of flour required, i.e., neither with a vessel that holds three-tenths of an ephah for the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of a bull, nor with a vessel that holds two-tenths of an ephah for the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of a ram. Rather, one measures the flour for them by using the tenth-ephah measuring vessel multiple times.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Meir repurposes the verse the Rabbis used to prove a single vessel. For him, “one tenth-part for every lamb” teaches a different principle: always measure in single tenths, never in bulk. This means the Temple had no two-tenth or three-tenth vessels — only the standard tenth was used, applied repeatedly as needed. Each tenth must be measured individually, reinforcing the precision and intentionality required for sacred measurements.
Key Terms:
- עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת = Tenths; flour must be measured one tenth at a time, not in bulk
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
The Rabbis derive the “no bulk measure” rule from a dotted vav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִנְּקוּדֵּי, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה נָקוּד וָי״ו שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע ״עִשָּׂרוֹן״ שֶׁל ״עִשָּׂרוֹן״ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג? שֶׁלֹּא יִמְדּוֹד לֹא בְּשֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה לְפַר וְלֹא בְּשֶׁל שְׁנַיִם לָאַיִל. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נְקוּדֵּי לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive that halakha? The Gemara explains: They derive it from its dot. In the Torah text, a dot appears above the term “a tenth.” This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Why is the letter vav in the middle of the term “a tenth [issaron]” dotted the first time that the term “a tenth” appears in the verse concerning the first festival day of the Festival of Sukkot? The verse there states: “And a tenth, a tenth, for every lamb of the fourteen lambs” (Numbers 29:15). This serves to teach that one should not measure flour using a vessel of a size that holds the entire volume required, i.e., neither with a vessel that holds three-tenths of an ephah for the meal offering of a bull, nor with a vessel that holds two-tenths of an ephah for the meal offering of a ram. And as for Rabbi Meir, what does he derive from the dot? He does not derive anything from its dot. He holds that the dot is not significant enough to be expounded.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis derive the “no bulk measure” rule from an unusual textual feature: a dot (nekudah) above the letter vav within the word “issaron” in Numbers 29:15. Such dots in the Torah scroll are rare and traditionally signal that the marked text carries additional significance. Rabbi Yosei interprets this dot as teaching the prohibition against measuring flour in multi-tenth vessels. Meanwhile, Rabbi Meir does not expound dots (“nekudei la dareish”), just as the Rabbis do not expound the vav prefix. Each side has a different set of hermeneutical tools they consider valid.
Key Terms:
- נְקוּדֵּי = Dots above letters in the Torah scroll; rare textual markers carrying exegetical significance
- נְקוּדֵּי לָא דָּרֵישׁ = He does not expound dots; Rabbi Meir’s methodological position
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Returning to the mishna: the half-tenth vessel for the chavitin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן, מָה הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ? שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה מוֹדֵד לַחֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: What purpose did the one-half of a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel serve? It was the vessel with which one would measure the flour for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. A tenth of an ephah was required each day; he sacrificed half in the morning and the other half in the afternoon. From the mishna it appears that each half-tenth is measured separately.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now focuses on the half-tenth vessel and its role in the chavitin offering. The mishna’s language (“with which one would measure”) implies that the flour was initially measured in half-tenth increments. But this will immediately be challenged by a contradictory source stating that the full tenth is measured first and then divided — setting up the next segment’s resolution.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל = The High Priest’s griddle-cake offering; twelve loaves baked daily from a tenth of an ephah
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction: another mishna says the chavitin flour comes as a full tenth, then is divided
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹדֵד? וּרְמִינְהִי: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִין חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ.
English Translation:
The mishna indicates that the half-tenth vessel was used for measuring. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a mishna (50b): The twelve loaves of matza, baked from a tenth of an ephah of flour, of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come from the house of the High Priest in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of flour (see Leviticus 6:13) and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon. It is apparent from this mishna that the tenth of an ephah is first measured in its entirety and only then divided.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradiction is clear: our mishna says the half-tenth vessel “measures” the flour, implying independent measurement of each half-portion. But the earlier mishna (50b) explicitly states that the flour comes as a complete tenth of an ephah and is then divided. These two approaches appear to conflict — does the half-tenth vessel measure the flour independently, or merely divide an already-measured whole?
Key Terms:
- לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִין חֲצָאִין = They did not come in halves; the flour was not brought in two separate half-portions
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Sheshet: “measuring” means dividing, not initial measurement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַאי ״מוֹדֵד״ נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי? מְחַלֵּק.
English Translation:
To resolve the contradiction Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of: Used for measuring, that the mishna here teaches? It means only that the High Priest would divide the tenth of an ephah into two equal portions using the half-tenth measure, but the quantity would initially be measured in its entirety, as the mishna on 50b states.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet harmonizes the sources by redefining “moded” (measures) as “meḥalek” (divides). The half-tenth vessel was not used to independently measure flour; rather, it served as a dividing tool. The process was: first measure a full tenth of an ephah using the standard tenth-vessel, then use the half-tenth vessel to divide that flour into two equal portions. This preserves both the requirement that flour “does not come in halves” and the role of the half-tenth vessel.
Key Terms:
- מְחַלֵּק = Divides; the half-tenth vessel’s true function was division, not initial measurement
Segment 9
TYPE: בעיא
Was the half-tenth vessel heaped or leveled?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – גָּדוּשׁ הָיָה אוֹ מָחוּק הָיָה?
English Translation:
§ In light of Rabbi Meir’s opinion that there were two vessels for measuring a tenth of an ephah, one that held its measure when leveled and one when it was heaped, Rami bar Hama raised a dilemma before Rav Hisda: With regard to the one-half of a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, was it one that held its measure when heaped or was it one that held its measure when leveled?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rami bar Ḥama’s question probes the logical implications of Rabbi Meir’s system. If there are two types of tenth-vessels (heaped and leveled), which type is the half-tenth vessel? Since the half-tenth is specifically used for the chavitin — the same offering that uses the leveled tenth-vessel — it seems logical that it should also be leveled. But this needs to be established explicitly.
Key Terms:
- רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא = Rami bar Ḥama; a prominent Amora known for his sharp dialectical questions
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Mnemonic for three dilemmas: half, griddle-cake, Table
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(סִימָן: חֲצִי, חֲבִיתֵּי, שֻׁלְחָן).
English Translation:
Before citing Rav Hisda’s response, the Gemara provides a mnemonic that alludes to the three dilemmas it will immediately present: Half; griddle-cake offering; Table. This alludes to one-half of a tenth of an ephah; the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering; and the shewbread Table.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mnemonic organizes the three sequential questions Rami bar Ḥama asks Rav Ḥisda: (1) whether the half-tenth vessel was heaped or leveled, (2) how the chavitin dough was divided into loaves, and (3) whether the shewbread Table can consecrate items not normally placed on it. These three dilemmas share a common theme — the precise nature and function of Temple vessels and their sanctifying capacity.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן = Mnemonic; a memory aid used to organize a series of related teachings
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The dilemma applies to the Rabbis too — but differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ לְרַבָּנַן? לְרַבָּנַן, עִשָּׂרוֹן גּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: גָּדוּשׁ הָיָה אוֹ מָחוּק הָיָה.
English Translation:
Rav Hisda said to Rami bar Hama: But why do you ask specifically with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rami bar Hama answered: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, it would be with regard to the measuring vessel of a tenth of an ephah itself that one raises the dilemma, asking whether it was one that held its measure when heaped or was one that held its measure when leveled. The dilemma I raised concerned the half-tenth vessel, which is pertinent specifically according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as he holds that there were both heaped and leveled measuring vessels of a tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda points out that the heaped-vs-leveled question is not unique to Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Rami bar Ḥama explains why he asked specifically about Rabbi Meir: for the Rabbis, who hold there was only one tenth-vessel, the question would be about that single vessel itself. But for Rabbi Meir, who has already established both types exist, the question narrows to the half-tenth — which category does it fall into? The question is more targeted and interesting within Rabbi Meir’s framework.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפֵיהּ = Itself; the Rabbis’ question would be about the tenth-vessel’s own nature
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ḥisda: from Rabbi Meir we can derive the answer for both opinions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמִדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר נִשְׁמַע לְרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
In answer to Rami bar Hama’s dilemma, Rav Hisda said to him: From the opinion of Rabbi Meir concerning the vessel of a tenth of an ephah we can extrapolate what Rabbi Meir holds concerning the vessel of one-half of a tenth of an ephah; and from that opinion of Rabbi Meir we can extrapolate what the Rabbis hold concerning both vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda proposes a chain of inference: first determine what Rabbi Meir holds about the half-tenth vessel (from his known position on the tenth-vessels), then use that conclusion to determine the Rabbis’ position too. This elegant reasoning builds one conclusion upon another, using Rabbi Meir’s more detailed framework as a key to unlock the answer for the Rabbis’ simpler system.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁמַע = We can extrapolate; deriving one ruling from another through logical inference
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
All vessels used for the chavitin were leveled — for both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: עִשָּׂרוֹן מָחוּק, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן נָמֵי מָחוּק; מִדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מָחוּק, לְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי מָחוּק.
English Translation:
Rav Hisda elaborates: From the fact that Rabbi Meir said that the vessel of a tenth of an ephah used for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering held its measure when leveled, we can extrapolate that the vessel of one-half of a tenth, as well, was such that it held its measure when leveled. It is reasonable that since both vessels were used for the same offering, they should be of the same type. And from the fact that Rabbi Meir holds that vessels used for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering held their measures when leveled, we can extrapolate that also according to the Rabbis, who hold that both vessels were used for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, both of them held their measures when leveled.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chain of reasoning concludes: (1) Rabbi Meir says the tenth-vessel for the chavitin was leveled. (2) Since the half-tenth is used for the same offering, it too must be leveled. (3) The Rabbis agree the chavitin requires precision, so their vessels were also leveled. The principle is consistency of purpose: all vessels serving the chavitin — an offering requiring precise halving — must be of the leveled (maḥuk) type, regardless of whose opinion we follow.
Key Terms:
- מָחוּק = Leveled; the type of measure used for all chavitin-related vessels
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא
Second dilemma: how was the chavitin dough divided into loaves?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בַּמֶּה מְחַלְּקָן לְחַלּוֹת, בַּיָּד אוֹ בִּכְלִי? פְּשִׁיטָא דִּבְיַד, דְּאִי בִּכְלִי – טוּרְטָנֵי יַכְנִיס?!
English Translation:
Rami bar Hama raised another dilemma before Rav Hisda: With regard to the dough used for the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, with what would one divide it into the loaves of the offering, six in the morning and six in the afternoon? Was the division done with one’s hand or with a measuring vessel? Rav Hisda said to him: It is obvious that it was divided with one’s hand, as if one suggests that it was done with a measuring vessel, would one bring scales [turtanei] into the Temple courtyard for this purpose?
קלאוד על הדף:
The second dilemma concerns a different stage of the chavitin preparation: dividing the dough into twelve equal loaves (six for morning, six for afternoon). Rav Ḥisda immediately answers that it was done by hand, finding the alternative — bringing scales into the Temple — absurd on its face. The rhetorical question “would one bring scales?” implies that precision instruments for measuring dough would be inappropriate in the sacred space.
Key Terms:
- טוּרְטָנֵי = Scales; a weighing instrument considered inappropriate for Temple use
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Why not scales? Because weighing bread is associated with a curse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיַכְנִיס! כֵּיוָן דְּבִקְלָלָה כְּתִיב, לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא.
English Translation:
Rami bar Hama responds: And let him bring scales into the courtyard. Rav Hisda explains: Since in God’s admonition of the Jewish people the act of weighing bread is written as part of a curse: “When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread again by weight; and you shall eat and not be satisfied” (Leviticus 26:26), as weighing bread is generally performed only at a time of famine, therefore it is not proper conduct to weigh the dough in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda provides a remarkable reason: weighing bread is associated with a biblical curse. Leviticus 26:26 describes famine conditions where bread must be weighed and rationed. Since weighing bread evokes this negative association, it would be unseemly to perform such an act in the Temple — a place of abundance, blessing, and divine favor. This principle demonstrates how the Sages were sensitive to symbolism and avoided bringing anything associated with curse or scarcity into the sacred space.
Key Terms:
- קְלָלָה = Curse; the biblical context where weighing bread is associated with famine
- לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא = It is not proper conduct; inappropriate for the Temple setting
Segment 16
TYPE: בעיא
Third dilemma: can the shewbread Table consecrate handfuls placed on it?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: שֻׁלְחָן מַהוּ שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ קְמָצִים בְּגוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁלּוֹ? מִדִּמְקַדֵּשׁ לֶחֶם, קְמָצִים נָמֵי מְקַדֵּשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ מְקַדֵּשׁ, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ לָא מְקַדֵּשׁ?
English Translation:
Rami bar Hama raised another dilemma before Rav Hisda: With regard to the shewbread Table, what is the halakha as to whether it consecrates handfuls removed from meal offerings or from frankincense that were not consecrated by being placed in a service vessel, as they should have been, but were instead placed on the upper part of the Table, between the rows of shewbread? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Does one say that from the fact that the Table consecrates the loaves of shewbread placed upon it, it follows that it also consecrates handfuls placed upon it? Or perhaps the Table consecrates only that which is fit for it, i.e., the loaves, but it does not consecrate that which is not fit for it, such as the handfuls.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third dilemma shifts to the shewbread Table’s consecrating power. A service vessel normally consecrates whatever is placed in it. The Table clearly consecrates the shewbread loaves — that is its designated purpose. But what about non-standard items, like handfuls of meal offering flour or frankincense, that are placed on top of the Table’s stack? Does the Table’s sanctifying power extend to items not normally associated with it? This raises the broader question of whether a sacred vessel’s consecrating capacity is limited to its designated items or is general.
Key Terms:
- שֻׁלְחָן = The shewbread Table; a sacred vessel in the Sanctuary
- קְמָצִים = Handfuls; the portion removed from a meal offering for burning on the altar
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ḥisda: it does not consecrate. Challenge from Rabbi Yoḥanan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר טִפְחַיִים וּמֶחֱצָה קוֹפֵל, נִמְצָא שֻׁלְחָן מְקַדֵּשׁ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר טֶפַח לְמַעְלָה. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר טִפְחַיִים קוֹפֵל, נִמְצָא שֻׁלְחָן מְקַדֵּשׁ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר טֶפַח לְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
Rav Hisda said to him: The Table does not consecrate these handfuls. Rami bar Hama retorted: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yohanan say: The shewbread loaves were longer than the length of the Table. Accordingly, it was necessary to fold the edges of the loaves in order that they would rest entirely upon the Table itself and not protrude past its edges. How much of each side needed to be folded up is subject to a tannaitic dispute concerning the length of the Table (see 96a). According to the statement of the one who says that one folds two and a half handbreadths from each side of the loaves, it emerges that the Table consecrates fifteen handbreadths above it, as there were six loaves on each side of the Table, which were each two and a half handbreadths high. And according to the statement of the one who says that one folds two handbreadths from each side of the loaves, it emerges that the Table consecrates twelve handbreadths above it. Rabbi Yohanan stated that the Table consecrates that which is placed above it, regardless of whether it is fit for the Table or not.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rami bar Ḥama challenges Rav Ḥisda with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement about the Table’s consecrating reach. The shewbread loaves were folded upward because they were longer than the Table, creating a tower of folded bread that extended 12-15 handbreadths above the Table surface. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the Table “consecrates” this entire vertical space implies a general consecrating power that extends beyond just the loaves themselves. If the Table’s sanctifying reach extends vertically, why wouldn’t it consecrate handfuls placed within that space?
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח = Handbreadth; a unit of measurement, approximately 8 cm
- קוֹפֵל = Folds; the upward bending of the shewbread edges
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Distinction: consecrates to disqualify but not to permit offering on the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ לִיקְרַב, אֲבָל מְקַדֵּשׁ לִיפָּסֵל.
English Translation:
Rav Hisda said to him: When I said that the Table does not consecrate the handfuls, I meant that it does not consecrate them to the extent that they can be sacrificed on the altar. But it certainly consecrates them to the extent that they will be disqualified by the same disqualifications that apply to handfuls that were consecrated by being placed in a service vessel, e.g., by being left overnight or by coming in contact with a ritually impure person who had immersed that day.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda introduces a crucial distinction between two levels of consecration. The Table consecrates non-standard items enough that they become subject to disqualification (e.g., they become pasul if left overnight or touched by a tevul yom). But this partial consecration does not make them fit to be actually offered on the altar. This nuanced ruling recognizes that the Table’s sanctifying power is real but limited: it can impose restrictions (negative consecration) without granting full sacrificial status (positive consecration).
Key Terms:
- מְקַדֵּשׁ לִיקְרַב = Consecrates for offering; full consecration enabling sacrifice on the altar
- מְקַדֵּשׁ לִיפָּסֵל = Consecrates to disqualify; partial consecration imposing restrictions without enabling offering
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: seven liquid measuring vessels in the Temple
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שֶׁבַע מִדּוֹת שֶׁל לַח הָיוּ בְּמִקְדָּשׁ, הִין, וַחֲצִי הִין, וּשְׁלִישִׁית הַהִין, וּרְבִיעִית הַהִין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: There were seven measuring vessels for liquids in the Temple. There was a vessel of one hin, i.e., twelve log. Three vessels were used to measure the oil and wine for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. For a bull there was a vessel of one-half of a hin, i.e., six log; and for a ram there was one of one-third of a hin, i.e., four log; and for a lamb there was one of one-quarter of a hin, i.e., three log.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna introduces the liquid measuring vessels, paralleling the dry measures discussed above. Seven vessels in total are enumerated, beginning with the four larger ones tied to the hin system. The hin itself (12 log) is the base unit, with the half-hin (6 log), third-hin (4 log), and quarter-hin (3 log) serving the specific requirements for bull, ram, and lamb libations respectively. Each animal sacrifice required a precisely measured accompaniment of wine and oil.
Key Terms:
- הִין = Hin; a liquid measure equal to 12 log (approximately 6 liters)
- מִדּוֹת שֶׁל לַח = Liquid measuring vessels; used for oil and wine
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה
Three smaller liquid measures: log, half-log, quarter-log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לוֹג, וַחֲצִי לוֹג, וּרְבִיעִית לוֹג.
English Translation:
In addition, there was a vessel that held one log to measure the oil for all standard meal offerings; and another one that held one-half of a log for measuring the water used in the rite of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota] and also for the oil used in the loaves accompanying the thanks offering (see 88a); and another one that held one-quarter of a log for measuring the water used in the purification of a leper and also for the oil used in the wafers and loaves that the nazirite brings on the day that his term of naziriteship ends.
קלאוד על הדף:
The three smaller liquid measures served diverse ritual purposes beyond standard offerings. The log measured oil for meal offerings. The half-log served the sotah ritual (bitter water mixed with dust) and the todah (thanks offering). The quarter-log measured water for the metzora (leper) purification rite and oil for the nazirite’s offerings upon completing his vow. These smaller measures demonstrate the range of Temple rituals that required precisely measured liquids.
Key Terms:
- לוֹג = Log; a liquid measure approximately 0.5 liters
- סוֹטָה = A woman suspected of infidelity; her ritual requires a half-log of water
- מְצוֹרָע = A person with tzaraat (leprosy); purification requires a quarter-log of water
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok: one hin vessel with graduated markings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: שְׁנָתוֹת הָיוּ בַּהִין, עַד כָּאן לַפָּר, וְעַד כָּאן לָאַיִל, עַד כָּאן לַכֶּבֶשׂ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: It was not necessary to have several vessels of different sizes; rather, there were graduations [shenatot] on the vessel that held one hin indicating that until here is the quantity needed for the bull, and until here is the quantity needed for the ram, and until here is the quantity needed for the lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok offers an innovative alternative: instead of multiple separate vessels for each hin-fraction, a single hin vessel had graduated markings (shenatot) indicating the levels for half-hin (bull), third-hin (ram), and quarter-hin (lamb). This is essentially the ancient equivalent of a modern graduated measuring cup. The Rabbis, however, reject this approach — presumably because separate vessels provide more reliable precision and because each measurement constitutes a distinct act of sanctification.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנָתוֹת = Graduations; marked lines on a single vessel indicating different volume levels
Segment 22
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon: no hin vessel existed; a 1.5 log vessel instead
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה שָׁם הִין, וְכִי מֶה הָיָה הִין מְשַׁמֵּשׁ? אֶלָּא מִדָּה יְתֵירָה שֶׁל לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה הָיְתָה שָׁם, שֶׁבָּהּ הָיָה מוֹדֵד לְמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בַּבּוֹקֶר, לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: There was no vessel there in the Temple that held one hin, as what purpose could a one-hin vessel serve? That volume of liquid was never used in an offering. Rather, there was an additional measuring vessel of one and a half log there, in the Temple, which completed the tally of seven vessels, with which one would measure the oil used for the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest; one and a half log were used in the morning and one and a half log in the afternoon.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon challenges the Tanna Kamma’s list: why include a hin vessel if no offering requires a full hin? No sacrifice uses 12 log of any liquid at once. He replaces it with a practical vessel — one-and-a-half log — used specifically for the High Priest’s daily chavitin oil (three log total, split equally between morning and afternoon). This substitution maintains the count of seven vessels while ensuring each one serves an actual function. The dispute reflects differing views on whether the hin vessel existed for completeness of the measuring system or must serve a specific purpose.
Key Terms:
- לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה = One and a half log; the oil measure for each half of the chavitin offering
Segment 23
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: the seven vessels listed in different orders by different tannaim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבַע מִדּוֹת שֶׁל לַח הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – רְבִיעִית לוֹג, וַחֲצִי לוֹג, וְלוֹג, וּרְבִיעִית הַהִין, וּשְׁלִישִׁית הַהִין, וַחֲצִי הִין, וְהִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הִין, וַחֲצִי הִין, וּשְׁלִישִׁית הַהִין, וּרְבִיעִית הַהִין, וְלוֹג, וַחֲצִי לוֹג, וּרְבִיעִית לוֹג. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה שָׁם הִין, וְכִי מָה הָיָה הִין מְשַׁמֵּשׁ?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: There were seven measuring vessels for liquids in the Temple. Listed in ascending order of size, they held: One-quarter of a log; one-half of a log; one log; one-quarter of a hin; one-third of a hin; one-half of a hin; and one hin. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says that there were these seven vessels but he lists them in descending order: One hin; one-half of a hin; one-third of a hin; one-quarter of a hin; one log; one-half of a log; and one-quarter of a log. Rabbi Shimon says: There was no vessel there in the Temple that held one hin, as what purpose could a one-hin vessel serve? That volume of liquid was never used in an offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents three opinions about the liquid measures. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir agree on the content but differ on the order of listing (ascending vs. descending), which may reflect different pedagogical approaches or views about which vessels were most significant. Rabbi Shimon reiterates his objection to the hin vessel. The different listing orders may hint at which vessels were considered primary — Rabbi Yehuda begins with the smallest (practical, building up) while Rabbi Meir begins with the largest (systematic, working down).
Key Terms:
- מִדּוֹת שֶׁל לַח = Liquid measures; the seven standardized vessels for oil and wine in the Temple