Menachot Daf 89 (מנחות דף פ״ט)
Daf: 89 | Amudim: 89a – 89b | Date: 9 Nisan 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (89a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion of the previous discussion: the mouth of the Menorah lamps must be pure gold
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֶיעְבֵּד זָהָב כֹּל דְּהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
and consequently, let the mouth of the lamps be fashioned from gold of any quality, not necessarily from pure gold. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even the mouth of the lamps must be fashioned from pure gold.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief concluding statement wraps up the previous daf’s discussion about the construction requirements of the Menorah. The Gemara clarifies that one might have assumed that only the main body of the Menorah needed to be made of pure gold, while the mouths of the individual lamps could be made from any quality of gold. The baraita teaches us that even the lamp mouths must be of pure gold, reflecting the principle that the entire Menorah, in all its components, must maintain the highest standard of material quality.
Key Terms:
- זָהָב כֹּל דְּהוּ = Gold of any quality; i.e., not necessarily pure gold
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = This teaches us; a standard Talmudic phrase introducing a novel legal insight
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The mishna’s ruling: a half-log of oil for the thanks offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: A half-log of oil was used to measure oil for the thanks offering. The thanks offering was accompanied by four different types of loaves; three types were unleavened and one was leavened, as the verse states: “If he offers it for a thanks offering, than he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering: Unleavened loaves mixed with oil; and unleavened wafers spread with oil; and poached fine flour, loaves mixed with oil. With loaves of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12–13).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now transitions to a new topic from the mishna on the previous daf: the oil quantities required for various offerings. The thanks offering (todah) was unique in that it was accompanied by forty loaves — ten of each of four types, three unleavened and one leavened. The total amount of oil required for the three unleavened types was only a half-log, which is notably less than the standard one log required for regular meal offerings. This reduced quantity and how it is derived becomes the subject of the ensuing discussion.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹדָה = Thanks offering; a type of peace offering brought to express gratitude
- חֲצִי לוֹג = Half a log; a liquid measure (approximately 172 cc according to Shiurei Torah)
- רְקִיקִין = Wafers; thin unleavened cakes spread with oil
- רְבִיכָה = Poached loaves; a type of unleavened bread made with scalded fine flour mixed with oil
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Akiva derives the half-log requirement from the principle of ribbui achar ribbui
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ אֶחָד, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁכָּתַב ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says: Why must the verse state: “With oil,” “with oil,” writing it twice; why was the first time not sufficient? Because were the term “with oil” stated only once, I would have said that, with regard to the amount of oil required, the meal offerings that accompany the thanks offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all of them together.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva employs a classic hermeneutical principle: when the Torah uses an amplifying expression (ribbui) twice in succession, it actually serves to restrict rather than expand the halakha. Since the Torah repeats “with oil” regarding the thanks offering loaves, Rabbi Akiva argues that this double amplification limits the oil requirement to a half-log, rather than the standard full log used for other meal offerings. This is a characteristic application of the Akivan school of exegesis, which derives halakhot from seemingly redundant words in the Torah.
Key Terms:
- רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי = One amplification following another; a hermeneutical principle that when the Torah amplifies twice, it actually restricts
- מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב = The verse restricted it; the Torah limited the quantity
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara challenges: there is only one amplification, not two
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי?! חַד רִיבּוּי הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara interjects the citation of the baraita to ask: Is this a case of one amplification following another amplification? It would appear that there is only one amplification, as according to the baraita the first mention of the term “with oil” is necessary to teach the basic requirement that the meal offerings of the thanks offering require oil, like other meal offerings. How then can it be considered an amplification?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a sharp logical objection. If the first “with oil” is needed simply to establish that the thanks offering loaves require oil at all (just as all meal offerings do), then it is not an amplification but rather a necessary statement. That leaves only the second “with oil” as an amplification — but one amplification alone cannot trigger the principle of ribbui achar ribbui. This challenge forces a reformulation of Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning.
Key Terms:
- חַד רִיבּוּי = A single amplification; insufficient to trigger the hermeneutical principle
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Emended version of Rabbi Akiva’s derivation: both mentions of “with oil” are amplifications
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ כׇּל עִיקָּר, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be emended, as follows: Were the term “with oil,” not written at all, I would still have said that the thanks offering meal offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they requires one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all three together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reformulates Rabbi Akiva’s argument to address the challenge. Even without any mention of “with oil,” we would already know that the thanks offering loaves require oil, since they are a type of meal offering and all meal offerings require oil. Therefore, both mentions of “with oil” are genuinely superfluous amplifications, making the application of the ribbui achar ribbui principle valid. This emendation preserves the logical structure of the derivation while avoiding the objection that the first mention was necessary.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל עִיקָּר = At all; entirely
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Distribution of the half-log: the poached loaves receive half
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲצִי לוֹג זֶה מִתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת מִינִין, לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין וְלָרְבִיכָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ בָּרְבִיכָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, רִיבָּה שֶׁמֶן לָרְבִיכָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וְחוֹצֵיהוּ [חֶצְיוֹ] לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין, וְחֶצְיוֹ לָרְבִיכָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Once it has been established that the meal offerings require only a half-log of oil, one might have thought that this half-log should be equally divided between the three types of unleavened meal offerings, i.e., one-sixth of a log for the loaves, one-sixth for the wafers, and one-sixth for the poached loaves. When the verse states: “With oil,” with regard to the poached loaves, that is seemingly superfluous, as there is no need for the verse to state the requirement to use part of the half-log of oil, being that this requirement has already been established. It must therefore serve to amplify the amount of oil used for a poached loaf as opposed to the other two types. How so? One brings a half-log of oil and divides it equally into two. Half of it is further divided and used both for the ten regular loaves and for the ten wafers, and the other half of it is used entirely for the ten poached loaves.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the total quantity of oil, the baraita now addresses its distribution among the three unleavened types. The extra mention of “with oil” specifically for the poached loaves (revukhah) is superfluous — and so it must teach that the poached loaves receive a larger share of oil. The practical result is a 50-50 split: half the oil goes to the ten poached loaves, and the other half is shared between the ten regular loaves and the ten wafers. This makes sense given that poached loaves are made by scalding flour in boiling oil, requiring more oil than simple mixing or spreading.
Key Terms:
- חַלּוֹת = Loaves; thick unleavened cakes mixed with oil
- רְקִיקִין = Wafers; thin unleavened cakes spread with oil
- רְבִיכָה = Poached loaves; scalded flour mixed with oil, requiring more oil in preparation
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya rejects Rabbi Akiva’s derivation: these are halakha leMoshe miSinai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, אִם אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לָךְ, אֶלָּא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה, וּרְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן לְנָזִיר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁבֵּין נִדָּה לְנִדָּה – הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Akiva, even if you were to amplify halakhot the entire day from the terms “with oil,” “with oil,” I would not listen to you and accept your claims. Rather, the halakha that a half-log of oil is required for the thanks offering, and similarly, the halakha that a quarter-log of oil is required for the loaves of a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one seven-day period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; they are not derived from verses.
קלאוד על הדף:
This dramatic exchange between two great Tannaim captures a fundamental methodological disagreement. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya dismisses Rabbi Akiva’s exegetical approach entirely, insisting that the half-log measure for the thanks offering is not derived from scriptural interpretation but rather is a halakha leMoshe miSinai — an oral tradition transmitted directly from Sinai alongside the Written Torah. He groups it with two other halakhot that share this status: the quarter-log of oil for a nazirite’s loaves and the eleven-day interval between menstrual periods. This reflects a broader philosophical tension: Rabbi Akiva seeks textual anchors for every halakha, while Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that some laws stand independent of scriptural derivation.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי = A halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; an oral tradition not derived from textual exegesis
- נָזִיר = Nazirite; one who takes a vow of abstinence, whose completion offerings include loaves
- נִדָּה = Menstruant; a woman during her period of ritual impurity
- זָבָה = A woman with abnormal uterine bleeding during the eleven days between menstrual periods
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
Transition to the dispute about oil quantities for standard meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּלוֹג הָיָה מוֹדֵד.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states that with the vessel of one log one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings. It then cites a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that one log of oil is required for each tenth of an ephah of flour used, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that each meal offering, irrespective of its size, requires only one log of oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a new segment of the mishna concerning the standard oil measurement for meal offerings. The dispute centers on a practical question with significant implications: does a meal offering of, say, sixty tenths of an ephah require sixty log of oil (one per tenth, per the Rabbis), or just one log total (per Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov)? The difference in oil quantity would be enormous, and the Gemara now explores the scriptural basis for each position.
Key Terms:
- לוֹג = Log; a liquid measure equal to the volume of six eggs (approximately 345 cc)
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah; the standard flour measure for a meal offering
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The Rabbis derive from the poor leper’s offering: one log per tenth of an ephah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּמְצוֹרָע עָנִי כְּתִיב ״עִשָּׂרוֹן … בָּלוּל … וְלֹג״, לִימֵּד עַל עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁטָּעוּן לוֹג, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a poor leper, who cannot afford the standard offerings that are required as part of the purification process and is instead required to bring one lamb as a guilt offering and a tenth of an ephah of flour as a meal offering, it is written: “And a tenth-part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The verse juxtaposes the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it teaches about each tenth of an ephah of flour that it requires one log of oil; this is the statement of the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis build their position on the verse describing a poor leper’s offering. By juxtaposing “a tenth of an ephah” with “a log of oil,” the Torah establishes a fixed ratio: one log of oil for every tenth of an ephah of flour. This ratio is then extended as a general principle for all meal offerings. The leper’s offering serves as the paradigm because it explicitly links the two quantities in a single verse, making the proportional relationship clear.
Key Terms:
- מְצוֹרָע עָנִי = A poor leper; one who cannot afford the standard three-animal purification offering
- בָּלוּל = Mixed; referring to flour mixed with oil
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer: only one log per meal offering regardless of size
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer say: Each meal offering, irrespective of its size, and even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to offering of a leper: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil.” The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer read the same verse differently from the Rabbis. They focus on the juxtaposition of “a meal offering” (lemincha) with “a log of oil,” deriving that each meal offering as a whole requires only one log, irrespective of how many tenths of flour it contains. This would mean that even the largest voluntary meal offering of sixty tenths would need only one log of oil — a dramatically different practical outcome from the Rabbis’ view, which would require sixty log. The dispute ultimately hinges on whether “a log” modifies “a tenth” or “a meal offering.”
Key Terms:
- שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים = Sixty tenths of an ephah; the maximum size of a single meal offering (a full vessel)
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
What do Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer do with the phrase linking isaron to log?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל וְלֹג״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לַיְיתֵי חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they do with this verse: “And a tenth-part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering and a log of oil,” which links the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour? The Gemara explains: That verse is required to teach the matter itself, as the Merciful One states: Let a poor leper bring an offering of just a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it cannot be used to teach a principle about meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the minority position. Since the verse mentions both “a tenth” and “a log” together, it seemingly supports the Rabbis’ view that the two quantities are linked proportionally. Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer respond that this verse is needed for its plain meaning — to establish that a poor leper brings only one tenth of flour — and cannot be used to derive a general principle. The verse is “consumed” by its local context, leaving it unavailable for broader exegetical use.
Key Terms:
- לְגוּפֵיהּ = For the matter itself; needed to teach the straightforward halakha of the verse
- רַחֲמָנָא = The Merciful One; a Talmudic designation for God (literally: the Compassionate)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
The Rabbis respond: the verse is not needed for the plain meaning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידָּךְ, לְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע שְׁלֹשָׁה קׇרְבָּנוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, הָכָא דְּחַד קׇרְבָּן – חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the other, i.e., the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that it is not necessary to teach the matter itself, as from the fact that the Merciful One revealed with regard to a leper who is not poor that he must bring three animal offerings and a meal offering of three-tenths of an ephah as part of his purification process, it may be inferred that here, with regard to a poor leper, who brings only one offering, that he similarly brings a meal offering of only a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the fact that the verse mentions that his offering is only a tenth of an ephah is superfluous and can teach a principle for all meal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis counter that the verse’s mention of “a tenth” is actually redundant, since the quantity can already be inferred by comparison with the wealthy leper’s offering. A wealthy leper brings three animal offerings and three tenths of flour; by analogy, a poor leper who brings only one animal offering would logically bring only one tenth. Since the explicit mention is superfluous, the verse is available for deriving the general ratio principle linking each tenth to one log of oil.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא = Since the Merciful One revealed; i.e., since the Torah already made clear elsewhere
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Counter-argument: perhaps the poor leper is entirely exempt from a meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידַּךְ – אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלֵיהּ לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּדַלּוּת, אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי (מנה) [מִנְחָה] כְּלָל. וְאִידַּךְ – לִגְמָרֵי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to ask: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, how would they respond to this claim? They maintain that it was necessary for the verse to state the size of his meal offering, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One spared the money of the poor leper by allowing him to bring an offering affordable in poverty, one might say that the Merciful One does not require from him to bring any meal offering at all. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, the Rabbis, how would they respond to this? They claim that we do not find that the Torah entirely exempts a poor person from the offerings of the purification process, only that it provides a less expensive way to complete that process.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the back-and-forth between the two positions. Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer argue that without the verse, one might think the poor leper is entirely exempt from bringing a meal offering, since God showed compassion for his poverty. The Rabbis dismiss this possibility with a broad principle: the Torah never fully exempts a poor person from the purification offerings — it only reduces the cost. This fundamental disagreement about whether the verse is needed for its plain meaning or is available for exegesis drives the entire dispute about oil quantities.
Key Terms:
- בְּדַלּוּת = In poverty; referring to the reduced offering requirements for the poor
- לִגְמָרֵי = Entirely; completely
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Final exchange: what does each side do with the other part of the verse?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחוֹת מִדָּבָר הַטָּעוּן לוֹג, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? עִשָּׂרוֹן. וְאִידַּךְ, תַּרְתֵּי שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with the juxtaposition in the end of this verse: “For a meal offering and a log of oil,” from which Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer derive the principle that each meal offering requires only one log of oil? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain that that the juxtaposition teaches about one who donates a meal offering, without specifying its size, that he should not bring less than an amount of flour that requires one log. And what is this amount? A tenth of an ephah. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, from where do they derive that halakha, as they maintain the verse teaches the principle for all meal offerings? The Gemara explains: They maintain that two halakhot can be derived from this verse.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes the exegetical exchange by showing how each side accounts for the portions of the verse that their opponents use. The Rabbis use the juxtaposition of “meal offering” and “log” to derive a minimum donation size: one who pledges a meal offering without specifying a quantity must bring at least one tenth of an ephah, which is the minimum amount that requires a log. Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer simply derive both halakhot from the single verse, a common Talmudic move when a verse is rich enough to support multiple derivations.
Key Terms:
- מִתְנַדֵּב = One who donates voluntarily; a person who pledges an offering without specifying details
- תַּרְתֵּי שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ = You can derive two halakhot from it; a verse can teach multiple lessons simultaneously
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
Oil and wine quantities for animal offering libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁשָּׁה לַפָּר, אַרְבָּעָה לָאַיִל, שְׁלֹשָׁה לַכֶּבֶשׂ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם חֲצִי הַהִין יִהְיֶה לַפָּר״.
English Translation:
§ The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. Six log, i.e., one-half of a hin, for those of a bull; and four log, i.e., one-third of a hin, for those of a ram; and three log, i.e., one-quarter of a hin, for those of a lamb. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these quantities? We derive them from a verse, as it is written: “And their libations shall be one-half of a hin of wine for a bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for a lamb” (Numbers 28:14).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now moves to the mishna’s listing of the specific oil and wine quantities required for the libations accompanying animal offerings. Each type of animal has a graduated scale: bulls require the most (six log), followed by rams (four log), then lambs (three log). The scriptural source is Numbers 28:14, which explicitly states these fractions of a hin for each animal type. The Gemara proceeds to explain how the fractional hin measurements translate into log.
Key Terms:
- נְסָכִים = Libations; the wine and meal offering that accompany animal sacrifices
- הִין = Hin; a liquid measure equal to twelve log
- פָּר = Bull; the largest of the three categories of animal offerings
- אַיִל = Ram; the medium-sized animal offering
- כֶּבֶשׂ = Lamb; the smallest animal offering
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
A hin equals twelve log, derived from the gematria of “zeh”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִין – תְּרֵיסַר לוּגֵּי הָוַיִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין״, וּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״, זֶה בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תְּרֵיסַר הָוַיִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: Now, one hin is twelve log, as it is written: “And of olive oil a hin” (Exodus 30:24), and it is written afterward in the same verse: “Sacred anointing oil, this [zeh] shall be for Me, throughout your generations.” The numerical value [gimatriyya] of zeh is twelve. Once it is established that one hin is twelve log, it is possible to calculate how may log are in one-half, one-third, and one-quarter of a hin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a fascinating derivation for the size of a hin using gematria (numerical values of Hebrew letters). The word “zeh” (זה) has a numerical value of 12 (zayin = 7, heh = 5), and this is linked to the verse about the anointing oil, which mentions both “a hin” and “this.” With this equivalence established — one hin equals twelve log — the Gemara can easily calculate: half a hin = six log (for a bull), a third of a hin = four log (for a ram), and a quarter of a hin = three log (for a lamb).
Key Terms:
- גִימַטְרִיָּא = Gematria; a method of deriving meaning from the numerical values of Hebrew letters
- זֶה = This; numerically equal to 12 (ז=7, ה=5)
- שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ = Sacred anointing oil; used in the Tabernacle consecration ceremony
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Oil for the Menorah: half a log per lamp, measured to last from evening to morning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמֶחֱצָה לַמְּנוֹרָה, חֲצִי לוֹג לְכׇל נֵר. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לוֹג מֵאוּרְתָּא וְעַד צַפְרָא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Three and a half log of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half-log was required for each lamp. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Candelabrum: “Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning, before the Lord” (Exodus 27:21). This indicates that you shall put into each lamp its required quantity of oil so that it will continue burning from evening until morning. Alternatively, the phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that the mitzva is fulfilled throughout the night, and you have no other rite that is valid from evening until morning except for this one alone. And the Sages calculated that a half-log of oil for each lamp is necessary to ensure that they continue burning from evening until morning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the oil requirements for the Menorah. Unlike the meal offering oil quantities, which are Torah-mandated, the half-log per lamp is a rabbinic calculation based on practical experimentation. The verse “from evening to morning” sets the requirement: the lamps must burn throughout the longest winter night. The Sages calibrated the oil quantity by testing during the nights of Tevet (the longest nights of the year), determining that a half-log per lamp was sufficient. The baraita also derives from this phrase that the Menorah lighting is the only Temple service that spans the entire nighttime period.
Key Terms:
- מְנוֹרָה = Candelabrum; the seven-branched golden lampstand in the Temple
- מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר = From evening until morning; the duration the Menorah lamps must burn
- שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים = The Sages calculated/estimated; determined through empirical testing
Segment 18
TYPE: מחלוקת
Two approaches to how the Sages calculated the oil quantity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ.
English Translation:
How did the Sages reach the conclusion that a half-log of oil is needed? There are those who say that the Sages calculated it by initially using a large quantity of oil, more than necessary to burn throughout the night, and then decreasing the quantity by a small amount each night until they saw that at the end of the night there was no oil remaining. And there are those who say that they calculated it by initially using a small quantity of oil and then increasing the quantity each night until they saw that the quantity was sufficient to allow the lamps to burn throughout the night.
קלאוד על הדף:
This dispute reveals a fascinating glimpse into the empirical methodology used in the Temple. Both approaches involved trial and error — essentially an ancient experiment to determine the minimum amount of oil needed for all-night burning. The “top-down” approach (starting with excess and reducing) would have guaranteed the lamps never went out during testing, while the “bottom-up” approach (starting small and increasing) would have been more economical but risked the lamps going out on some nights before the correct measure was found.
Key Terms:
- מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה = From above to below; starting with a large quantity and decreasing
- מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה = From below to above; starting with a small quantity and increasing
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The underlying principles: Torah spares money vs. no poverty in a place of wealth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ – הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ – אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: The one who said that they calculated it by increasing the quantity each night holds that they did so in accordance with the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, so the Sages wished to minimize the financial cost of their experimentation. And the one who said that they calculated it by decreasing the quantity each night holds that in the Temple one’s actions should not be motivated by a concern for the financial cost, as in a place of wealth there is no poverty.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two competing principles emerge from this seemingly practical dispute. Those who favor the bottom-up approach invoke the principle that the Torah is sensitive to the financial burden placed on the Jewish people, so even the experimental process of determining oil quantities should minimize waste. Those who favor the top-down approach invoke a different principle: the Temple is a place of grandeur and generosity, where financial considerations should not drive decisions. This tension between fiscal responsibility and dignified abundance recurs throughout discussions of Temple practice.
Key Terms:
- הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל = The Torah spared the money of the Jewish people; a principle that the Torah avoids imposing unnecessary financial burdens
- אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת = There is no poverty in a place of wealth; the Temple should reflect abundance, not frugality
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: the rules for mixing libations of different offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי פָרִים בְּנִסְכֵי אֵילִים, נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים, שֶׁל יָחִיד בְּשֶׁל צִיבּוּר,
English Translation:
MISHNA: Many animal offerings are brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. These additions are collectively referred to as libations. One may mix together the libations of bulls with the libations of rams; the meal offerings may be mixed as they both share the same ratio of flour to oil, i.e., two log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. Likewise, one may mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of other lambs, as the meal offerings both share the same ratio of three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. And one may mix together the libations of the offering of an individual with those of a communal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna introduces the rules governing when libations from different offerings can be combined. The key principle is that libations with the same flour-to-oil ratio can be mixed: bulls and rams share a 2:1 ratio (two log of oil per tenth of flour), while lambs have a 3:1 ratio (three log per tenth). Libations with different ratios — such as those for lambs versus bulls — cannot be mixed, as this would corrupt the specific proportions required for each offering. The mishna further clarifies that individual and communal offerings can be combined, as can offerings from different days.
Key Terms:
- מְעָרְבִין = One may mix together; combining the libations of different offerings
- נִסְכֵי = Libations of; the meal offerings and wine libations accompanying animal sacrifices
- יָחִיד = Individual; a private person’s offering
- צִיבּוּר = Community; the public/communal offering
Amud Bet (89b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Continuation: one may mix libations from different days
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ.
English Translation:
And one may mix together the libations of an offering brought on one day with those of the day before, if the meal offerings have the same ratio of oil to flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna completes the list of permissible combinations by noting that libations prepared on one day can be mixed with those from the previous day, so long as the flour-to-oil ratio is the same. This accommodates practical situations where leftover prepared libation material from one day might be combined with freshly prepared material the next day, preventing waste while maintaining halakhic integrity.
Key Terms:
- אֶמֶשׁ = Last night; the previous evening/day
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
Restriction: libations of different ratios may not be mixed; post-facto rules
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל אֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וְאִם בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ – כְּשֵׁרִים, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּלַל – פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
But one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or the libations of rams, as the meal offerings have different ratios of oil to flour. And nevertheless, if one intermingled the flour and oil of these lamb offerings by themselves and the flour and oil of these bull or ram offerings by themselves, and only then were they mixed together, then they remain fit to be sacrificed. If they were mixed together before the oil and flour of each offering were independently intermingled to form the meal offering, then they are disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna draws a critical distinction. Libations with different flour-to-oil ratios (lambs vs. bulls/rams) may not be intentionally mixed. However, if each set of libations was first properly prepared (flour and oil intermingled according to its own ratio) and only then accidentally mixed together, the offerings remain valid. The reasoning is that each component has already achieved its required form. But if the raw materials were mixed before the individual libations were prepared, the offerings are disqualified because the correct ratios can no longer be maintained.
Key Terms:
- בָּלַל = Intermingled; the process of mixing flour with oil to form the meal offering
- כְּשֵׁרִים = Fit; valid for sacrifice
- פָּסוּל = Disqualified; invalid for sacrifice
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
The omer lamb: its meal offering is doubled but its libations are not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה – לֹא הָיוּ נְסָכָיו כְּפוּלִים.
English Translation:
With regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering, which is accompanied by another meal offering and a wine libation, even though the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, its oil and wine libations were not doubled; rather, three log of oil and three log of wine were used, per the standard quantities used for a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna introduces an anomalous case: the lamb brought with the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan. While its meal offering uses two tenths of an ephah of flour (double the standard one tenth for a lamb), the oil and wine remain at the standard quarter-hin (three log). This asymmetry — doubled flour but standard liquid quantities — will be explored in the Gemara, which examines the scriptural basis for this distinction.
Key Terms:
- עוֹמֶר = Omer; the barley offering brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, the second day of Pesach
- כְּפוּלָה = Doubled; twice the standard quantity
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara raises a contradiction between the mishna and a baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהוּ:
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna states that different types of libations may be mixed together provided that the meal offerings have the same flour to oil ratio. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita discussing the verse: “And he shall sacrifice, from the peace offerings, a fire to the Lord: The fat covering the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is over the loins; and the diaphragm with the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away. And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar, apart from the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is a fire of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 3:3–5).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the mishna’s implication that mixing libations of similar types is permitted ab initio. It cites a baraita based on Leviticus 3:3-5, which discusses the burning of sacrificial fats. The verse uses a singular pronoun (“it”) when commanding the burning, which the baraita interprets as prohibiting the mixing of fats from different offerings. If fats — which are all burned on the altar — may not be mixed, then certainly libations should not be mixed either. This sets up a tension that requires resolution.
Key Terms:
- וּרְמִינְהוּ = And we raise a contradiction; a standard Talmudic formula for presenting a conflicting source
- חֲלָבִים = Fats; the portions of animal offerings burned on the altar
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
The baraita: “and they shall burn it” — do not mix fats from different offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְהִקְטִירוֹ״, שֶׁלֹּא יְעָרֵב חֲלָבִים בַּחֲלָבִים.
English Translation:
The direct object of the term: “And they shall burn,” i.e., the pronoun “it,” is singular, despite referring to the many types of fats listed in the verse. This indicates that one may not mix fats of one offering with the fats of a different offering, but should burn the parts from each offering separately. Similarly, it follows that the libations accompanying different animal offerings should not be mixed together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives from the singular pronoun “it” (referring to a single offering’s fats) that each offering’s parts should be processed and burned separately, not mixed with those of another offering. This principle of maintaining the individual identity of each offering would seem to prohibit the mixing of libations as well, directly contradicting the mishna’s permission to mix libations of similar types. The Gemara must now reconcile these two sources.
Key Terms:
- וְהִקְטִירוֹ = And they shall burn it; the singular pronoun implies separation of offerings
- יְעָרֵב = Mix; combine parts from different offerings
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yohanan resolves the contradiction: the mishna permits mixing only after the fact
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ״ קָא אָמַר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna stated only that if libations of different offerings were mixed together one may still sacrifice them, but not that this is permitted ab initio. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yohanan resolves the contradiction by reinterpreting the mishna. When the mishna says “one may mix together” the libations, it does not mean ab initio (lekhathila), but rather after the fact (bediavad) — if they were already mixed, they remain valid. This harmonizes the mishna with the baraita: ideally, each offering’s components should be kept separate, but if accidental mixing occurred between compatible types, the offerings are not disqualified.
Key Terms:
- אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ = If they were mixed together; indicating after-the-fact validity
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה = Ab initio; ideally, in the first instance
- בְּדִיעֲבַד = After the fact; post-facto
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge to Rabbi Yohanan: the mishna’s structure implies ab initio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִתְעָרְבוּ נָמֵי לָא? וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ כְּשֵׁרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לְכַתְּחִלָּה קָא אָמַר!
English Translation:
The Gemara infers: If that is so, then when the mishna states in its first clause: And one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or the libations of rams, the intention is that even after the fact, if they were mixed together, they are also not valid. The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If one intermingled the flour and oil of these lamb offerings by themselves and the flour and oil of these bull or ram offerings by themselves and only then were they mixed together then they remain fit to be sacrificed, which is explicitly referring to the halakha after the fact, it may be inferred that the first clause stated the halakha ab initio.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a structural argument against Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation. If the first clause of the mishna (permitting mixing of similar types) is only about after-the-fact validity, then the second clause (prohibiting mixing of different types) should also be only about after-the-fact situations. But the latter clause explicitly discusses an after-the-fact scenario (if they were already mixed, they are fit), which implies that the prohibition in the preceding clause must be speaking about ab initio. This structural inference undermines Rabbi Yohanan’s resolution.
Key Terms:
- רֵישָׁא = The first clause of the mishna
- סֵיפָא = The latter clause of the mishna
- מִכְּלָל = By inference; it follows from
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye’s first resolution: wine may be mixed ab initio if flour and oil were already mixed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר, מְעָרְבִין יֵינָן, אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן.
English Translation:
Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: When different animal offerings are sacrificed, their wine libations may be mixed together ab initio, but only if their fine flour and their oil from their respective meal offerings were already mixed together, albeit improperly.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye offers a nuanced reinterpretation of the mishna. He distinguishes between the wine libation and the meal offering (flour and oil). The wine may be mixed together ab initio, but only in a specific circumstance: when the flour and oil components have already been (accidentally) mixed. This reading preserves the baraita’s prohibition against intentional mixing of the flour-and-oil components while allowing a more lenient approach to the wine portion.
Key Terms:
- יֵינָן = Their wine; the wine libations of the offerings
- סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן = Their flour and their oil; the meal offering components
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from a baraita: wine may always be mixed ab initio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיֵינָן לְכִתְחִלָּה לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּסֹלֶת וָשֶׁמֶן, אֲבָל יַיִן מְעָרְבִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that one may not mix together the wine libations of different offerings ab initio unless their flour and oil were already mixed? But isn’t it taught in the continuation of the baraita just cited: In what case is this statement, that one may not mix together parts from different offerings, said? It is said only with regard to flour and oil. But one may mix together the wine libations of different offerings. The implication is that this is the halakha even if their meal offerings had not been mixed together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Abaye’s initial resolution by citing the very baraita that triggered the discussion. This baraita explicitly states that the prohibition against mixing applies only to flour and oil, while wine may always be mixed — with no precondition about the flour and oil being already mixed. This broader permission for wine mixing contradicts Abaye’s conditional approach.
Key Terms:
- בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים = In what case is this stated; a standard Talmudic formula for limiting a ruling’s scope
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye’s revised resolution: a three-tiered framework for mixing libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר – הֵיכָא דְּהוּקְטַר סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין יַיִן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. הֵיכָא דְּלָא הוּקְטַר – אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין נָמֵי יֵינָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְעָרְבִין, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹבֵי סֹלֶת וְשֶׁמֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
English Translation:
Rather, Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to offerings of similar types of animals, where their fine flour and their oil from their respective meal offerings have been burned on the altar, one may mix together the wine libations ab initio. And even where their fine flour and their oil have not been burned, if their fine flour and their oil have at least been mixed together, one may mix together their wine libations ab initio. But if the fine flour and oil have not been mixed together, then one may not mix the libations together. The reason is that if one does mix the libations, perhaps one will come to mix together their flour and oil ab initio, which is prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye now presents a refined three-tiered framework. If the meal offering components have already been burned on the altar, wine may freely be mixed. If they have been mixed (even accidentally) but not yet burned, wine may still be mixed. But if the meal offering components have not yet been mixed, the wine should not be mixed either — not because there is an inherent prohibition, but as a preventive measure (gezerah) to avoid people thinking it is also permissible to mix the flour and oil ab initio. This approach harmonizes all sources while introducing a rabbinic safeguard.
Key Terms:
- הוּקְטַר = Was burned on the altar; the meal offering was already sacrificed
- דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹבֵי = Lest one come to mix; a preventive rabbinic safeguard (gezerah)
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
The omer lamb: scriptural basis for doubling only the flour
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים״, לִימֵּד עַל כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering, the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, but the quantities of oil and wine are not doubled. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the omer meal offering: “And its meal offering shall be two tenths” (Leviticus 23:13). This verse teaches about the lamb that comes with the omer that the size of its meal offering is doubled.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the omer lamb mentioned at the end of the mishna. The explicit verse in Leviticus 23:13 states that the omer’s meal offering is “two tenths” — double the standard single tenth for a lamb. This straightforward textual basis leaves no ambiguity about the flour being doubled. The question that follows is whether the oil and wine should also be doubled to match the increased flour quantity.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים = Two tenths of an ephah; double the standard flour quantity for a lamb offering
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
The verse teaches that neither wine nor oil are doubled for the omer lamb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, כָּךְ יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ יַיִן רְבִיעִית הַהִין״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ, אֲבָל יְהֵא שַׁמְנוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁנִּבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״ – כׇּל נְסָכָיו לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית.
English Translation:
One might have thought that just as its meal offering is doubled, so too its wine libation should be doubled, i.e., instead of using a quarter-hin, as is generally done for lambs, one should use a half-hin. To counter this, the verse states, in its continuation: “And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-hin” (Leviticus 23:13). One might have thought that it is only its wine libation that should not be doubled, as it is not intermingled with the flour of its meal offering, but its oil should be doubled, as it is intermingled with the flour of its meal offering. To counter this, the verse states: “And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-hin,” which teaches that all of its libations shall be only a quarter-hin, but no more.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents a carefully structured logical argument. First, it addresses the reasonable assumption that if flour is doubled, wine should be doubled too — the verse explicitly states the wine remains at a quarter-hin. Then it considers a more nuanced argument: perhaps the oil should be doubled since it is physically mixed into the flour (unlike the wine, which is poured separately on the altar). The verse rebuts this too, using the comprehensive term “its libation” to indicate that all liquid components — both wine and oil — remain at a quarter-hin.
Key Terms:
- רְבִיעִית הַהִין = A quarter of a hin; three log, the standard liquid quantity for a lamb offering
- נִבְלָל = Intermingled; physically mixed together
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
The textual basis: the written/read disparity of veniskah/venisko
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּתִיב ״וְנִסְכָּהּ״, וְקָרֵינַן ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates on the final proof in the baraita: What is the biblical derivation here? Rabbi Elazar says: There is an ambiguity as to whether the possessive pronoun in the term “and its libation” is referring to the lamb offering or the meal offering, both of which are mentioned previously in the verse. This is due to a disparity between the way the Hebrew word for the term is written and the way it is vocalized. It is written as veniskah, with the possessive pronoun in the feminine form. This would be referring to the meal offering [minḥa], which is a feminine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the meal offering, and it is referring to the oil that is intermingled in the meal offering. And we read it as venisko, with the possessive pronoun in the masculine form. This would be referring to the lamb offering itself [keves], which is a masculine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the lamb offering, which is a reference to the wine libation that accompanies the lamb offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar identifies a remarkable feature of the biblical text: a ketiv/keri disparity (a difference between how the word is written and how it is read aloud). The written form “veniskah” (feminine) refers to the meal offering’s libation, i.e., the oil. The vocalized form “venisko” (masculine) refers to the lamb’s libation, i.e., the wine. This deliberate ambiguity in the Torah allows a single word to address both components simultaneously, teaching that neither the oil nor the wine should be doubled.
Key Terms:
- כְּתִיב = Written; the ketiv — the consonantal text as written in the Torah scroll
- קָרֵינַן = We read; the keri — the vocalized pronunciation tradition
- וְנִסְכָּהּ = And her/its libation (feminine); referring to the meal offering (mincha)
- וְנִסְכּוֹ = And his/its libation (masculine); referring to the lamb (keves)
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Practical application: the oil of the meal offering is like the wine — a quarter-hin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד? ״נִסְכָּהּ״ דְּמִנְחָה כְּ״נִסְכּוֹ״ דְּיַיִן – מָה יַיִן רְבִיעִית, אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי רְבִיעִית.
English Translation:
How can this be explained? It teaches that the libation of the meal offering, i.e., its oil, is like the libation of the lamb of wine: Just as the quantity of wine used is a quarter-hin, so too, the quantity of oil used is a quarter-hin and no more.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws the practical conclusion from the ketiv/keri disparity. By equating the feminine written form (referring to oil) with the masculine read form (referring to wine), the Torah establishes that both liquid components are governed by the same measure: a quarter-hin. This elegant derivation uses a single word to teach two halakhot — that neither oil nor wine is doubled for the omer lamb, despite its doubled flour quantity.
Key Terms:
- נִסְכָּהּ דְּמִנְחָה = The libation of the meal offering; i.e., the oil component
- נִסְכּוֹ דְּיַיִן = The libation of wine; i.e., the wine component
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yohanan: a leper’s guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake still requires libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, טָעוּן נְסָכִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites a related discussion: A guilt offering brought by a leper as part of his purification process is distinct from other guilt offerings in that there is an additional requirement that it must be brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake, although the leper can therefore no longer fulfill his obligation with it, the offering continues to be regarded as a guilt offering of a leper and still requires libations, i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. To bring it without libations one would have to regard it as a standard guilt offering, but the halakha is that an offering may not be sacrificed for a different purpose than the one for which it was originally consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yohanan addresses a paradoxical situation. A leper’s guilt offering (asham metzora) is unique among guilt offerings because it requires libations. If such an offering is slaughtered not for its intended purpose, the leper cannot fulfill his obligation, but the animal cannot simply be reclassified as a standard guilt offering (which does not require libations), because an offering may not be changed from one type to another. Therefore, the offering retains its original identity as a leper’s guilt offering and must still be accompanied by libations, even though it no longer serves its intended purpose.
Key Terms:
- אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע = Guilt offering of a leper; unique in requiring libations
- שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ = Not for its own sake; slaughtered with intent for a different type of offering
- פְּסַלְתּוֹ = You have disqualified it; rendered it invalid
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Menashya bar Gadda objects: apply the same logic to other offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, תְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Menashya bar Gadda objects to this: If that is so, that whenever an offering is consecrated for a specific purpose that requires various additional conditions to be fulfilled beyond those normally required for that type of offering, then even if it is then slaughtered not for its own sake those conditions must still be fulfilled in order for the offering to be valid; then with regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering the halakha should likewise be that if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, the flour in its meal offering should still be doubled in quantity, as normally required for the omer meal offering, because it continues to be regarded as an omer meal offering, as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Menashya bar Gadda raises a powerful objection by extending Rabbi Yohanan’s logic to other cases. If a leper’s guilt offering retains its special requirements even when slaughtered for the wrong purpose, the same should apply to the omer lamb — its doubled flour requirement should persist even if slaughtered not for its own sake. Rabbi Yohanan did not mention this case, which suggests either his principle is more limited than it appears, or he simply chose one example without listing all applications.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = Objects to it; raises a challenge
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Extension of the objection: the daily morning and afternoon offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ. וְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בִּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
And similarly, with regard to the daily morning offering, if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should still require the arrangement of two logs of wood on the fire on the altar by one priest, because it continues to be regarded as a daily morning offering; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. And similarly, with regard to the daily afternoon offering, if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should still require the arrangement of two logs of wood on the fire on the altar by two priests, because it continues to be regarded as a daily afternoon offering; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. The fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not mention these halakhot suggests that he holds they are not correct, but then his opinion is logically inconsistent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Menashya bar Gadda broadens his challenge further with two more cases involving the daily tamid offerings. The morning tamid requires two logs of wood arranged by one priest, while the afternoon tamid requires two logs arranged by two priests. If Rabbi Yohanan’s principle holds — that an offering slaughtered not for its sake retains all its special requirements — then these conditions should also persist even when the tamid is slaughtered for the wrong purpose. The accumulation of unaddressed cases makes the objection increasingly forceful.
Key Terms:
- תָּמִיד = Daily offering; the lamb sacrificed each morning and afternoon in the Temple
- גְזִירִין = Logs of wood; two logs were placed on the altar fire alongside each tamid offering
- שַׁחַר = Morning; the morning tamid
- בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם = Between the evenings; the afternoon tamid
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: Rabbi Yohanan cited only one example; the principle applies broadly
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט.
English Translation:
The Gemara deflects the objection: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling should be extended to other cases, as Rav Menashya bar Gadda claimed. Rather, Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan mentioned just one of them as an example, even though they are all correct.
קלאוד על הדף:
According to Abaye, there is no inconsistency in Rabbi Yohanan’s position. Rabbi Yohanan indeed holds that the principle applies to all the cases Rav Menashya bar Gadda listed — the omer lamb, the morning tamid, and the afternoon tamid all retain their special requirements even when slaughtered for the wrong purpose. Rabbi Yohanan simply chose the leper’s guilt offering as a representative example, a common rhetorical practice in the Talmud where one case stands for a broader category.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט = He mentioned one of them; citing a single example to represent a general principle
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Abba offers an alternative: the principle applies only to the leper’s guilt offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנָךְ, עוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ,
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba said that there is a different resolution: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is limited to a guilt offering of a leper. The other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid even if the additional conditions that originally applied to them were not fulfilled. The reason for this is as follows: Granted, these other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid, as they are burnt offerings;
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba proposes a fundamentally different approach from Abaye. Rather than extending Rabbi Yohanan’s principle to all cases, he limits it to the leper’s guilt offering alone. His reasoning distinguishes between burnt offerings (olot) — like the tamid and the omer lamb — and guilt offerings (ashamot). Burnt offerings that are slaughtered for the wrong purpose can still be offered as voluntary burnt offerings (olat nedavah), which do not carry the special requirements. But a guilt offering cannot be reclassified as a voluntary guilt offering (there is no such category), making the leper’s guilt offering uniquely trapped: it must retain its leper identity and therefore its libation requirement. This segment is cut off mid-argument, continuing on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלוֹת = Burnt offerings; offerings entirely consumed on the altar
- עוֹלַת נְדָבָה = Voluntary burnt offering; a generic burnt offering that carries no special requirements