Menachot Daf 90 (מנחות דף צ׳)
Daf: 90 | Amudim: 90a – 90b | Date: 10 Nisan 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (90a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Abba concludes: burnt offerings can become voluntary, but guilt offerings cannot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לָא חֲזוּ לְעוֹלַת חוֹבָה קׇרְבִי לְעוֹלַת נְדָבָה, אֶלָּא הָכָא, אִי לָא מוֹקְמֵית לֵיהּ בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ – אֲשַׁם נְדָבָה מִי אִיכָּא?
English Translation:
therefore, even if they are no longer fit to be sacrificed as obligatory burnt offerings, for which they were originally consecrated, having now been slaughtered not for their own sake they can still be sacrificed as voluntary burnt offerings, without the need to fulfill the additional conditions that originally applied to them. But here, with regard to the guilt offering of a leper, if you do not maintain it in accordance with its original status and require it to be brought together with its libations, it can no longer be considered a guilt offering at all, as is there a voluntary guilt offering?
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes Rabbi Abba’s distinction begun on the previous daf. Burnt offerings (olot) have a “safety net”: if slaughtered for the wrong purpose, they can still be offered as voluntary burnt offerings (olat nedavah), which exist as a halakhic category. Guilt offerings (ashamot) have no such recourse — there is no concept of a voluntary guilt offering. Therefore, the leper’s guilt offering is uniquely trapped: if you strip away its special identity (and its accompanying libation requirement), you cannot reclassify it as anything else, effectively disqualifying it entirely. This is why Rabbi Yohanan’s principle applies specifically and necessarily to the leper’s guilt offering.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלַת נְדָבָה = Voluntary burnt offering; a generic burnt offering category that any misdirected burnt offering can default to
- אֲשַׁם נְדָבָה = Voluntary guilt offering; a non-existent category, which is precisely the point of the argument
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita supports Rabbi Yohanan: a misdirected leper’s guilt offering still requires libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מִדָּמוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהוֹנוֹת – הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְטָעוּן נְסָכִים, וְצָרִיךְ אָשָׁם אַחֵר לְהַתִּירוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake, or in a case where one did not place some of its blood upon the leper’s right thumb and big toe, this guilt offering is still brought up upon the altar and requires libations, i.e., a meal offering and wine-libation; but since it was sacrificed incorrectly, the leper needs to bring another guilt offering to permit him to partake of offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita directly validates Rabbi Yohanan’s ruling. It addresses two scenarios where the leper’s guilt offering goes wrong: slaughter with wrong intent, or failure to apply the blood to the leper’s thumb and big toe. In both cases, the offering retains its identity and must be accompanied by libations. The leper, however, does not fulfill his obligation and must bring a replacement.
Key Terms:
- בְּהוֹנוֹת = Thumbs and big toes; the right thumb and right big toe where the leper’s guilt offering blood is applied (Leviticus 14:14)
- לְהַתִּירוֹ = To permit him; to allow the leper to eat sacred offerings
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: measuring vessels in the Temple were heaped, except the High Priest’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מִדּוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ נִגְדָּשׁוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהָיָה גּוֹדְשָׁהּ לְתוֹכָהּ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: All measuring vessels that were in the Temple were such that they held the volume that they measured when their contents were heaped above the rim, except for the measuring vessel used to measure the flour for the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, as its heaped measure, i.e., the quantity of flour held by a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel when heaped, was contained within its walls when the flour was leveled with the rim. This was due to the fact that the measuring vessel for the griddle-cake offering was slightly larger than the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna introduces a new topic: measurement standards for dry goods in the Temple. Standard measures were “heaped” — filled to overflowing above the rim. The exception was the measure for the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering (chavitin), which used a slightly larger vessel so that the “heaped” quantity of a standard tenth-ephah vessel would fit inside it when leveled flat. This ensured precision while accommodating the specific requirements of the High Priest’s offering.
Key Terms:
- נִגְדָּשׁוֹת = Heaped; filled above the rim of the vessel
- כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל = High Priest; who brought a daily griddle-cake offering (chavitin)
- גּוֹדְשָׁהּ לְתוֹכָהּ = Its heap was contained within it; the larger vessel held the heaped quantity when leveled
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Overflows: sacred for liquid measures, non-sacred for dry measures
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדֹּת הַלַּח, בֵּירוּצֵיהֶן קֹדֶשׁ; וּמִדֹּת הַיָּבֵשׁ, בֵּירוּצֵיהֶן חוֹל.
English Translation:
With regard to measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows, i.e., that which flows onto the outside of vessel’s walls, are sacred, but with regard to measuring vessels for dry substances, their overflows are non-sacred.
קלאוד על הדף:
This ruling establishes a fundamental distinction in Temple practice. When liquid (wine or oil) overflows the measuring vessel, the overflow retains sacred status. When dry goods (flour) overflow, the excess is non-sacred. The practical implications are significant: sacred overflow must be treated with the same restrictions as consecrated items, while non-sacred overflow can be used for ordinary purposes.
Key Terms:
- בֵּירוּצֵיהֶן = Their overflows; the excess that spills over the rim when filling a measuring vessel
- קֹדֶשׁ = Sacred; possessing sanctity and subject to Temple restrictions
- חוֹל = Non-sacred; ordinary, profane
Segment 5
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Yosei: why liquid overflow is sacred and dry is not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִדֹּת הַלַּח קֹדֶשׁ, לְפִיכָךְ בֵּירוּצֵיהֶן קֹדֶשׁ. מִדֹּת הַיָּבֵשׁ חוֹל, לְפִיכָךְ בֵּירוּצֵיהֶן חוֹל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִשּׁוּם זֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַלַּח נֶעֱקָר וְהַיָּבֵשׁ אֵינוֹ נֶעֱקָר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Akiva says that the reason for this difference is that since the measuring vessels for liquids are themselves sacred, therefore their overflows are sacred, and since the measuring vessels for dry substances are non-sacred, therefore their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Yosei says: The difference is not due to that factor. Rather, it is because the overflow of liquid was originally inside the vessel, where it became consecrated, and was then displaced, whereas the overflow of a dry substance was not displaced from inside the vessel, so it had not become consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two fundamentally different explanations are offered. Rabbi Akiva locates the distinction in the vessels themselves: liquid vessels are sacred (they were anointed), so anything touching them becomes sacred. Dry measure vessels are not sacred at all. Rabbi Yosei disagrees, maintaining that both types of vessels were anointed on the inside only. The difference lies in the physical behavior of the substances: liquid overflows by displacement from inside the vessel (where it was consecrated), while dry goods piled above the rim were never inside the vessel to begin with.
Key Terms:
- נֶעֱקָר = Displaced; pushed out from inside the vessel, as liquid rises and overflows
- נִמְשְׁחָה = Anointed; consecrated by application of sacred anointing oil
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Whose opinion is the mishna? Problem with both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – חַד גָּדוּשׁ הֲוָה, אִי רַבָּנַן – חַד מָחוּק הֲוָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna and Gemara on 87a cite a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir concerning the number and nature of the measuring vessels used for dry substances. In light of that dispute, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna here? If you suggest it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: He holds that there were two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah, but only one of them was such that it held its measure when heaped; the other one held its measure when leveled. And if you suggest it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: They hold there was only one measuring vessel that held a tenth of an ephah, and it held its measure when leveled. How can the mishna state that all measuring vessels in the Temple were heaped?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies an internal contradiction. The mishna states that “all measures” were heaped, but an earlier discussion (87a) presents two views — neither of which fully supports this sweeping statement. This discrepancy requires resolution.
Key Terms:
- גָּדוּשׁ = Heaped; filled above the rim
- מָחוּק = Leveled; smoothed flush with the rim
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Hisda: the mishna follows Rabbi Meir; “all measures” means “all measurements”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמַאי ״כׇּל מִדּוֹת״? כָּל מְדִידוֹת.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that only one of two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah was such that it held its measure when heaped. And what does the mishna means when it states: All measuring vessels [kol middot] in the Temple were heaped? It means that that all measurements [kol medidot] performed with that measuring vessel were done when its contents were heaped above its rim.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hisda resolves the difficulty through a clever rereading. The mishna does not mean “all measuring vessels” (kol middot) were heaped, but rather “all measurements” (kol medidot) — every time you used the heaped measuring vessel, the measurement was always heaped. The wordplay between middot (vessels) and medidot (measurements) is the key.
Key Terms:
- מִדּוֹת = Measures/measuring vessels
- מְדִידוֹת = Measurements; the act of measuring
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
What is the underlying dispute about overflow?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדֹּת הַלַּח בֵּירוּצֵיהֶן קֹדֶשׁ, בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
English Translation:
§ The mishna discusses the status of overflows: The first tanna states simply that with regard to measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows are sacred, but with regard to measuring vessels for dry substances, their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Akiva explains that this distinction is a function of whether the measuring vessel is itself sacred. Rabbi Yosei explains it is function of whether the overflow had initially been inside the vessel. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter do these three tanna’im disagree?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sets up a systematic analysis of the three positions in the mishna. All three Tannaim agree on the bottom line but disagree on the underlying reason. The Gemara now unpacks the theoretical framework behind each view.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי = With regard to what do they disagree; a standard Gemara formula for identifying the root of a dispute
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The first tanna: liquid vessels anointed inside and outside; dry vessels only inside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִדַּת הַלַּח נִמְשְׁחָה, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ; מִדַּת יָבֵשׁ נִמְשְׁחָה מִבִּפְנִים, וְלֹא נִמְשְׁחָה מִבַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: The first tanna holds that the measuring vessels for liquid items, e.g., wine for libations and oil, were anointed and thereby consecrated both on the inside and on the outside. Therefore, the overflow is consecrated as it comes in contact with the outside of the vessel’s walls. The measuring vessels for dry items, such as the flour for meal offerings, were anointed and consecrated only on the inside, but were not anointed on the outside. Therefore, the overflow is not consecrated when it comes into contact with the outside of the vessel’s walls.
קלאוד על הדף:
According to the first tanna, the key lies in the extent of the anointing. Liquid measuring vessels were anointed both inside and outside, making their exterior walls sacred. When liquid spills over and runs down the outside, it contacts a sacred surface and becomes consecrated. Dry measuring vessels were anointed only on the inside, so flour that sits on top of the heap — never contacting a sacred surface — remains non-sacred.
Key Terms:
- נִמְשְׁחָה מִבִּפְנִים = Anointed on the inside
- מִבַּחוּץ = On the outside; the exterior surface of the vessel
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Akiva: liquid vessels anointed; dry vessels not anointed at all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: מִדַּת הַלַּח נִמְשְׁחָה בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, מִדַּת יָבֵשׁ לֹא נִמְשְׁחָה כׇּל עִיקָּר.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Akiva, who states the difference is due to whether the vessel is sacred or non-sacred, holds that the measuring vessels for liquid items were anointed on the inside and were not anointed on the outside, whereas the measuring vessels for dry items were not anointed at all, and they remained non-sacred and so could not consecrate the overflow.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva takes a more radical position. He holds that dry measuring vessels were never anointed at all — they had no sacred status whatsoever. This means the dry measures were not service vessels (klei sharet) but ordinary implements. Since the vessels themselves are non-sacred, nothing they touch can become consecrated.
Key Terms:
- לֹא נִמְשְׁחָה כׇּל עִיקָּר = Not anointed at all; completely lacking sacred status
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei: both anointed inside only; liquid displacement is the key
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי נִמְשְׁחָה מִבִּפְנִים וְלֹא נִמְשְׁחָה מִבַּחוּץ, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – דְּלַח נֶעֱקָר וּמִגַּוֵּוהּ דְּמָנָא קָא אָתֵי, וְהַיָּבֵשׁ אֵינוֹ נֶעֱקָר.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yosei holds that this and that, i.e., both types of measuring vessels, were anointed only on the inside but were not anointed on the outside, and so here, this is the reason behind whether the overflow was sacred: As the overflow of liquid was originally inside the vessel and was then displaced, and it comes from the inside of the vessel, it is therefore consecrated. But the overflow of a dry substance was not originally inside the vessel and then displaced, and so it is never consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei offers the most nuanced explanation. Both vessel types were equally consecrated — anointed inside only. The difference lies in physics. Liquid in a full vessel is a continuous body; when more is added, the liquid that overflows was previously inside, touching the sacred interior, and was then pushed out. It retains the sanctity it acquired while inside. Flour heaped above the rim was never inside the vessel, so it never acquired sanctity.
Key Terms:
- מִגַּוֵּוהּ דְּמָנָא = From inside the vessel; the overflow originated within the consecrated interior
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: a person intends to consecrate only what he needs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי נֶעֱקָר מַאי הָוֵי? גַּבְרָא לְמַאי דִּצְרִיךְ קָא מְכַוֵּין.
English Translation:
The Gemara questions this explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: But even if the overflow was previously inside the vessel and then displaced, what of it? A person intends to consecrate only that which he requires, and so even if the overflow had been inside the vessel it would not have been consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a fundamental challenge. Even granting that the liquid overflow was once inside the sacred vessel, the person pouring intended to consecrate only the measured quantity — not the excess. Since intent (kavvanah) is normally required for consecration, the overflow should not be sacred regardless of displacement. This drives the Gemara toward a deeper question about whether service vessels can consecrate automatically.
Key Terms:
- גַּבְרָא לְמַאי דִּצְרִיךְ קָא מְכַוֵּין = A person intends only for what he needs; intent is limited to the required measure
Segment 13
TYPE: מחלוקת
Do service vessels consecrate without intent? Rav Dimi vs. Ravina
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר שִׁישְׁנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת. רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ, כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת, וּגְזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ מוֹצִיאִין מִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת לְחוֹל.
English Translation:
Rav Dimi bar Shishna said in the name of Rav: That is to say that service vessels consecrate their contents even without the intent of the person using them. Ravina said: Actually, I will say to you that service vessels consecrate their contents only with the intent of the person using them, and by Torah law the overflows are not sacred. But the Sages issued a decree to regard them as sacred, lest people say that one may transfer a substance that has been consecrated in a service vessel to non-sacred status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two fundamentally different approaches emerge. Rav Dimi derives from our mishna a Torah-level principle: service vessels automatically consecrate whatever is placed in them, regardless of human intent. Ravina disagrees, maintaining that intent is always required. The overflow’s sacred status is merely a rabbinic decree — if people saw liquid removed from a service vessel and treated as non-sacred, they might mistakenly conclude that one can “de-consecrate” items by removing them from service vessels.
Key Terms:
- כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת = Service vessels consecrate without intent
- גְּזֵרָה = Rabbinic decree; a preventive measure
- מוֹצִיאִין מִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת לְחוֹל = Transferring from service vessels to non-sacred status
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Zeira challenges Ravina from the shewbread mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: סִידֵּר אֶת הַלֶּחֶם וְאֶת הַבָּזִיכִין לְאַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהִקְטִיר אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין בַּשַּׁבָּת – פְּסוּלָה. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? יַנִּיחֶנּוּ לַשַּׁבָּת הַבָּאָה, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ הוּא עַל שֻׁלְחָן יָמִים רַבִּים – אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to this explanation from a mishna (100a): Each Shabbat, new shewbread and bowls of frankincense were arranged on the Table in the Sanctuary. They remained there until the following Shabbat, at which point the frankincense was burned, thereby permitting the shewbread to be eaten. If the priest arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense on the Table after Shabbat, during the week, and then he burned the frankincense in the bowls on the Shabbat at the end of that week, the bread is disqualified, as it had not been on the Table for a full seven days from one Shabbat to the next. How then should one proceed to prevent the disqualification? He should leave the bread on the Table until the following Shabbat, as even if it remained on the Table for many days, there is nothing wrong with that, provided that it is there for at least seven days. The frankincense may then be burned and it will permit the bread to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira challenges Ravina’s claim that the Sages issued decrees to prevent misleading appearances regarding service vessels. He cites the shewbread case: bread left on the Table (a service vessel) for extra days is permitted. If the Sages worried about appearances — that people might think one can store items in service vessels to prevent disqualification — they should have prohibited this practice too.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים = Shewbread; twelve loaves placed on the golden Table each Shabbat
- בָּזִיכִין = Bowls of frankincense
- לִינָה = Overnight disqualification
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Why no decree against storing items on the Table?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמַּאי? הָתָם נָמֵי לֵימָא: גְּזֵירָה, שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: מַפְקִידִין בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת!
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: But why is it permitted to leave the bread on the Table for more than seven days? There too, let us say that the Sages issued a decree disqualifying the bread lest people say that one can store sacred items in a service vessel overnight and that will prevent them becoming disqualified. Evidently, the Sages did not issue such decrees, and it follows that also with regard to using the measuring vessels they did not issue a decree.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira sharpens his challenge. If the Sages were concerned about misleading appearances regarding service vessels, they should also have worried about people thinking that placing items in a service vessel prevents overnight disqualification. The fact that the shewbread may remain extra days without such a concern proves that the Sages did not issue decrees of this type.
Key Terms:
- מַפְקִידִין בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת = One can store items in service vessels
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Inside vs. outside the Sanctuary: different levels of public awareness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּנִים אַחוּץ קָא רָמֵית?! פְּנִים – לָאו כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָדְעִי, חוּץ – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָדְעִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this claim: Are you raising a contradiction between a rite performed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., the arrangement of the shewbread, and a rite performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., using the measuring vessels? Since in the case of a rite performed inside the Sanctuary not everyone is aware of what is happening, there is no concern that people will misinterpret what is going on and so there is no need to issue a decree concerning it. In the case of a rite performed outside the Sanctuary everyone is aware of what is happening, and there is a need to issue a decree to prevent people from drawing mistaken conclusions.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes between the visibility of different Temple activities. The shewbread arrangement occurs inside the Sanctuary (the Heikhal), which is accessible only to priests and hidden from public view. There is no risk of misinterpretation. But the measuring of flour, oil, and wine takes place in the Temple courtyard (azarah), where everyone can see. Rabbinic decrees are needed only where public awareness creates a risk of error.
Key Terms:
- פְּנִים = Inside; within the Sanctuary building
- חוּץ = Outside; in the Temple courtyard, visible to all
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Surplus libations are used for supplementary altar offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the overflow of measures. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 10b): The surplus libations were sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings of the altar [keitz hamizbe’aḥ].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a related topic: what happens with surplus libation materials. The mishna in Shekalim states that surplus materials are sold and the proceeds buy voluntary burnt offerings to keep the altar active. This practice is called “supplementing the altar” (keitz hamizbeach).
Key Terms:
- מוֹתַר נְסָכִים = Surplus libations
- קֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ = Supplementing the altar; purchasing voluntary burnt offerings to ensure the altar is never idle
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
What are “surplus libations”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״מוֹתַר נְסָכִים״?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Surplus libations?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions the precise meaning of the term, setting up a dispute between two Amoraim about the source of these surplus materials.
Segment 19
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef vs. Rabbi Yohanan: overflows vs. price advantages
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בֵּירוּצֵי מִדּוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע וְעָמְדוּ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ – יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע,
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: It means the overflows of measuring vessels. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Surplus libations are like that which we learned in another mishna (Shekalim 13a): In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela, and its market price stood at three se’a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two explanations of “surplus libations” are offered. Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef connects it to our mishna’s topic — the sacred overflows from measuring vessels, which are gathered and eventually sold for supplementary offerings. Rabbi Yohanan offers a completely different explanation: the surplus comes from contractual price advantages when the Temple gets more flour than expected due to favorable market conditions.
Key Terms:
- בֵּירוּצֵי מִדּוֹת = Overflows of measures
- סְלָתוֹת = Fine flour
Amud Bet (90b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The Temple always gains: yad hekdesh al ha’elyonah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה.
English Translation:
If one committed to supply fine flour at three se’a for a sela, and its market price decreased until it stood at four se’a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. The reason for this halakha is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. In the latter case, the merchant ends up providing the Temple with a greater quantity of flour than had initially been intended. Consequently, the Temple has more flour than it requires. The extra amount is referred to as surplus libations, and it is sold in order to purchase supplementary offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The principle of “yad hekdesh al ha’elyonah” — the Temple treasury always gets the better end of any deal — is a distinctive feature of Temple commerce. Whether prices rise or fall, the Temple benefits. The extra flour beyond what is needed becomes the “surplus libations” that fund supplementary offerings.
Key Terms:
- יַד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה = The Temple treasury is at an advantage
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Both opinions have supporting baraitot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף, תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both Amoraic opinions have tannaitic support, meaning the term “surplus libations” in Shekalim is genuinely ambiguous and could refer to either source of surplus.
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Supporting Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef: procedure for overflow disposal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: בֵּירוּצֵי מִידּוֹת הַלָּלוּ מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן? אִם יֵשׁ זֶבַח אַחֵר – יַקְרִיבוּ עִמּוֹ, וְאִם לָנוּ – יִפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה, וְאִם לָאו – מְקַיְּצִין בָּהֶן אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְקַיִץ זֶה מַהוּ? עוֹלוֹת – הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef: These overflows of measuring vessels, what would be done with them? They are gathered, and if there is another offering to be sacrificed that day, the priests sacrifice this liquid with it as part of its libations. And if there is no other offering that day, and instead the overflows were left overnight without being sacrificed, they are disqualified by being left overnight. And if the overflows were not sacrificed with another offering and were not disqualified by being left overnight, they are sold, and the proceeds from their sale are used to purchase animals to supplement the offerings of the altar. And these supplementary offerings, what form do they take? They are burnt offerings; their flesh is entirely burned on the altar to God, and the hides are given to the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita provides a detailed procedural guide for handling measuring vessel overflows. The hierarchy is: (1) Use with another offering that day. (2) If left overnight, they become disqualified. (3) If neither used nor disqualified, sell them and buy burnt offerings. The supplementary offerings are wholly burned on the altar, with only the hides going to the priests. This ensures nothing consecrated goes to waste.
Key Terms:
- לִינָה = Overnight disqualification
- הָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים = The hides go to the priests
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Supporting Rabbi Yohanan: contractual surplus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, וְעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע. מִשָּׁלֹשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע – מְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקֵיץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela, and its market price stood at three se’a for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three se’a for a sela, and its market price decreased until it stood at four se’a for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se’a for a sela. The reason for this halakha is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. And it is to this later case that we referred when we learned in the mishna: The surplus libations were sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings of the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita directly identifies the Shekalim mishna’s “surplus libations” with the price-advantage surplus, confirming Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation with tannaitic backing.
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: which offerings require libations and which are exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד טְעוּנִין נְסָכִים, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר, וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר, וְהַפֶּסַח, וְהַחַטָּאת, וְהָאָשָׁם. אֶלָּא שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע וַאֲשָׁמוֹ טְעוּנִין נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
MISHNA: All offerings, whether communal or individual, require libations, i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation, except for the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, with which libations are not brought. But the exception to this exception is that the sin offering of a leper and his guilt offering do require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
This important mishna establishes the general rule and its exceptions for the libation requirement. The default is comprehensive: all animal offerings need accompanying libations. The five exempt categories share a common characteristic: they are purely obligatory offerings that cannot come as voluntary vows or gifts. The leper’s sin and guilt offerings are the exception to the exception — despite being obligatory, they uniquely require libations as part of the leper’s special purification process.
Key Terms:
- טְעוּנִין נְסָכִים = Require libations
- בְּכוֹר = Firstborn offering
- מְצוֹרָע = Leper; whose offerings uniquely require libations
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Introduction to the comprehensive derivation from Numbers 15
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita that derives each of the rulings of the mishna from the verses that state the requirement to accompany animal offerings with the sacrifice of libations. The Torah states: “And you will make a fire offering to the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice, in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift, or on your Festivals, to make a pleasing aroma to the Lord, of the herd or of the flock. And he who brings his offering to the Lord shall sacrifice a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter-hin of oil; and wine for a libation, a quarter-hin, you shall make it with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb” (Numbers 15:2–5). The Torah then proceeds to detail the quantities of flour, oil, and wine for a ram and a bull.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a comprehensive baraita that methodically derives the mishna’s rules from Numbers 15:2-5, the primary Torah source for the libation requirement. The step-by-step exegesis that follows analyzes virtually every word.
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
“Fire offering” includes broadly; “burnt offering” limits to animals; “sacrifice” adds peace and thanks offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הָעוֹלֶה לָאִישִּׁים יְהֵא טָעוּן נְסָכִים, אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹלָה״. שְׁלָמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶבַח״. תּוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ זֶבַח״.
English Translation:
The verse states: “And you will make a fire offering to the Lord.” Accordingly, one might have thought that any offering that is raised up on the altar as a fire offering shall require that libations be brought with it, even a meal offering. The verse then states: “A burnt offering,” which teaches that the requirement of libations applies only to animal burnt offerings, but not to meal offerings. If so, from where is it derived that a peace offering requires libations? The verse states: “A sacrifice.” From where is it derived that a thanks offering requires libations? The verse states: “Or a sacrifice.” The superfluous word “or” serves to include thanks offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita begins its step-by-step derivation. “Fire offering” might include everything burned on the altar, even meal offerings — but “burnt offering” (olah) limits it to animal offerings. “Sacrifice” (zevach) includes peace offerings. The seemingly redundant “or a sacrifice” adds thanks offerings. Each word is loaded with halakhic significance.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלָמִים = Peace offerings
- תּוֹדָה = Thanks offering
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
“In fulfillment of a vow or as a gift” — excludes five offering types
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף בְּכוֹר, וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וָפֶסַח, וְחַטָּאת, וְאָשָׁם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ בִנְדָבָה״ – בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה טָעוּן נְסָכִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה אֵין טָעוּן נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
One might have thought that I should include even the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. To counter this, the verse states: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift.” This teaches that an offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations, whereas each of these offerings, which do not come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering but only as obligatory offerings, do not require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse’s phrase “in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift” provides the key limiting principle. Only offerings brought voluntarily — as vows (neder) or gifts (nedavah) — require libations. The five excluded categories can only come as obligations, never as voluntary acts.
Key Terms:
- נֶדֶר = Vow; a voluntary commitment
- נְדָבָה = Gift offering; a spontaneous voluntary offering
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
“Or on your Festivals” re-includes Festival obligations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַשְׁמַע לְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ, אוֹצִיא אֶת חוֹבוֹת הַבָּאוֹת מֵחֲמַת הָרֶגֶל בָּרֶגֶל, וּמַאי נִינְהוּ? עוֹלוֹת רְאִיָּיה וְשַׁלְמֵי חֲגִיגָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״ – כׇּל הַבָּא בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם טָעוּן נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: It has been derived, then, that one should exclude these offerings from the requirement of libations, as they are obligatory. Perhaps then I will likewise exclude the obligatory offerings that come on account of the pilgrimage Festival, which are sacrificed on the pilgrimage Festival, and what are these? Burnt offerings of appearance in the Temple and Festival peace offerings, both of which are brought on the three pilgrimage Festivals. To counter this, the verse states: “Or on your Festivals,” which indicates that any offering that comes on your Festivals, even if it is obligatory, requires libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having excluded purely obligatory offerings, the baraita anticipates an over-exclusion. Festival obligations — the burnt offering of appearance and the festive peace offering — are technically obligatory but are re-included by the phrase “or on your Festivals.”
Key Terms:
- עוֹלוֹת רְאִיָּיה = Burnt offerings of appearance
- שַׁלְמֵי חֲגִיגָה = Festival peace offerings
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
Festival goat sin offerings excluded via the young bull verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַשְׁמַע לְהָבִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ, אָבִיא שְׂעִירֵי חַטָּאת, הוֹאִיל וּבָאִין חוֹבָה בָּרֶגֶל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכִי תַעֲשֶׂה בֶן בָּקָר״.
English Translation:
It has been derived, then, that one should include even these Festival offerings, despite the fact that they are obligatory. Perhaps then I will likewise include the goat sin offerings brought as part of the additional offerings on the Festivals, since they come as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival. To counter this, the verse states in the continuation of that passage: “And when you make a young bull as a burnt offering” (Numbers 15:8), and proceeds to state the requirement to bring libations with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues its careful calibration. Having re-included Festival offerings, it asks whether goat sin offerings (part of the musaf) should also be included. The verse provides a check by singling out “a young bull.”
Key Terms:
- שְׂעִירֵי חַטָּאת = Goat sin offerings; part of the Festival additional (musaf) offerings
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
The young bull paradigm: davar shehayah bikhlal veyatza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בֶּן בָּקָר בַּכְּלָל הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא? לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלָיו: מָה בֶּן בָּקָר מְיוּחָד בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה, אַף כֹּל בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה.
English Translation:
Now, the requirement to bring libations with a young bull was already included in the general requirement to bring libations with any fire offering, as stated in the beginning of that passage; and why, then, was it singled out and mentioned explicitly? This is in order to equate all other offerings to it, teaching that the requirement of libations applies only to offerings similar to a young bull: Just as a young bull is distinct in that it can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering, so too, any offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment employs the hermeneutical principle of “something that was included in the general rule but was then singled out to teach” (davar shehayah bikhlal veyatza). The bull’s separate mention must serve a didactic purpose: it establishes the neder/nedavah criterion as definitive, excluding goat sin offerings which can never come voluntarily.
Key Terms:
- בַּכְּלָל הָיָה = Was included in the general rule
- לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלָיו = To equate to it; to make it the paradigm
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yoshiya vs. Rabbi Yonatan: what does “of the herd or of the flock” teach?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לַעֲשׂוֹת רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳ מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״עֹלָה״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף בְּמַשְׁמַע, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: The verses at the beginning of the passage state: “To make a pleasing aroma to the Lord, of the herd or of the flock.” What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since in the previous verse it is stated: “A burnt offering,” I would derive that all types of burnt offerings require libations, and even a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering is indicated. Therefore, the verse states: “Of the herd or of the flock,” which limits the requirement to offerings of animals such as sheep or cattle, but not to bird offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoshiya explains that “of the herd or of the flock” serves to exclude bird offerings from the libation requirement. Since “burnt offering” could include all types, the verse specifies only cattle and sheep.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלַת הָעוֹף = Bird burnt offering
Segment 13
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yonatan: “or” teaches you may bring one type, not both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״זֶבַח״, וְעוֹף אֵינוֹ זֶבַח. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן״? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קׇרְבָּן לַה׳ מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן״, יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ יָבִיא מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן״ – רָצָה אֶחָד מֵבִיא, רָצָה שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is unnecessary, as the verse states: “A sacrifice,” and a bird offering is not referred to as a sacrifice. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Of the herd or of the flock”? Since it is stated with regard to a burnt offering: “A person, when he sacrifices from you an offering to the Lord, of the animals: Of the herd and of the flock, you shall sacrifice your offering” (Leviticus 1:2), one might have thought that one who takes a vow by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal he will bring, that he must bring animals of both of these two types, i.e., from the herd and the flock. To counter this, the verse states: “Of the herd or of the flock,” separating the two types with the word “or,” thereby indicating that if he wanted to bring one of them, he may bring just one, and if he wanted to bring two, he may bring two.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yonatan disagrees with Rabbi Yoshiya. He argues that birds are already excluded because “sacrifice” (zevach) never refers to birds. Instead, “of the herd or of the flock” teaches that one who vows a burnt offering without specifying the animal type may bring either cattle or sheep. Leviticus 1:2 uses “and” (possibly requiring both types); Numbers 15 uses “or,” clarifying that either suffices.
Key Terms:
- אוֹ = Or; the disjunctive, indicating either one suffices
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Rabbi Yonatan’s own principle already teaches this
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, לְמָה לִי קְרָא? הָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״יַחְדָּו״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, why do I need an independent verse to teach that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering does not have to bring both types? Didn’t Rabbi Yonatan himself say an exegetical principle that whenever the Torah mentions two details together with regard to a halakha, it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled even when only one of the details is realized, unless the verse specifies that both details are required by writing the word: Together, in the verse? Accordingly, when the verse states: “Of the herd or of the flock,” the intention is that either one is sufficient, and there should be no need for an independent verse to teach this.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies an internal inconsistency. Rabbi Yonatan has an established principle: when the Torah lists two items together, they are not both required unless the Torah says “together” (yachdav). He should already know that either cattle or sheep suffices without needing an explicit verse.
Key Terms:
- יַחְדָּו = Together; a keyword mandating both items
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Despite his principle, a verse was needed here
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Despite his principle, an independent verse was necessary to teach this, as it might enter your mind to say:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins to explain why Rabbi Yonatan’s general principle was insufficient here and an explicit verse was needed. The segment breaks off mid-sentence, with the continuation on daf 91a. The implication is that there was a particular reason to think both animal types might be required in this case, overriding the general principle.
Key Terms:
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = It might enter your mind; introducing a rejected line of reasoning