What are the halachot regarding voluntary offerings of wine and oil – can they be brought voluntarily? Are there specific quantities? Can one bring a voluntary meal offering of the type that were brought with sacrifices or does it need to be one of the five mentioned in the Torah? What happens if one specifies to bring a meal offering but doesn’t specify how many measures of fine flour? Or if one specifies how many but forgets what he/she specified?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Menachot 104
וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא עַל פַּלְטֵר סָמֵיךְ.
Rabbi Beivai concludes: And that man, i.e., I, relies on a baker. Therefore, my mind is not sufficiently settled to answer the question properly.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹרְיָינָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה, וְאוֹרִי לֵיהּ כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this question? Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic decisor of the house of the Nasi, and he instructed them according to his tradition that the blood of an animal carcass is impure.
דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. דַּם נְבֵילוֹת – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁטִּמְּאוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא טִמְּאוּ אֶלָּא בִּרְבִיעִית, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לִקְרוֹשׁ וְלַעֲמוֹד עַל כְּזַיִת.
As we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that six matters are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel. They include the blood of a carcass, which Beit Shammai deem ritually pure, as in their opinion only the flesh of a carcass imparts impurity; and Beit Hillel deem it ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed it impure only when it is in the quantity of at least a quarter-log, since that amount, were it to congeal, could constitute an olive-bulk, which is the minimum amount of the flesh of a carcass that is deemed impure.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג, שְׁנַיִם, וַחֲמִשָּׁה, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאַרְבָּעָה, וְשִׁשָּׁה, וּמִשִּׁשָּׁה וּלְמַעְלָה.
MISHNA: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine, because there are no existing libations with those measures of wine. But one pledges a libation of three log, which is the measure of wine brought with a lamb, or four log, which is the measure of wine brought with a ram, or six log, which is the measure of wine brought with a bull. And one may pledge a libation of six log and beyond, as any greater amount can be composed of combinations of these three.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ – יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים, אוֹ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים?
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is there a fixed amount for libations, in that when one vows to bring a certain number of log of wine they are not offered separately, or is there no fixed amount for libations, and it is permitted to divide them and offer them in smaller amounts?
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּאַיְיתִי חַמְשָׁה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – מָשֵׁיךְ וּמַקְרֵיב אַרְבְּעָה מִינַּיְיהוּ, דַּחֲזֵי לְאַיִל, וְאִידַּךְ הָוֵי נְדָבָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – עַד דִּמְמַלֵּי לְהוּ לָא קׇרְבִי.
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? It is a case where he brought five log of wine. If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then he removes and offers four of them, as those are suitable for the libations of a ram, and the other log, which is not of sufficient volume, is allocated for communal gift offerings. Either it itself is offered, or it is redeemed and the money is used to buy offerings for the repletion of the altar, i.e., for times when the altar is idle. But if you say that there is a fixed amount for libations and the wine may not be divided and offered separately, then it is not offered itself or redeemed with money and offered until he adds to the existing measurement such that the total number of log may be offered as an independent libation.
מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תָּא שְׁמַע, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, וְאָמְרִינַן: כְּנֶגֶד מִי? כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר חַטָּאת, וּמוֹתַר אֲשָׁמוֹת, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם נָזִיר, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר קִינִּין, וּמוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
What is the halakha? Abaye said: Come and hear the answer from a mishna (Shekalim 6:5): There were six collection horns for communal gift offerings, and we say: For what were they designated? They were designated for funds left over from the purchase of sin offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of guilt offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of a guilt offering of a nazirite, for funds left over from the purchase of the guilt offering of a leper, for funds left over from the purchase of pairs of birds, and for funds left over from the purchase of the meal offering of a sinner.
וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתַקֵּין שׁוֹפָר אַחֲרִינָא כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר נְסָכִים!
And if it is so that there is no fixed amount for libations, and if one vowed to bring five log then four are offered as a ram’s libation and the fifth can be redeemed and its money used for a communal gift offering, then let them institute an additional collection horn in the Temple for funds left over from the purchase of libations.
הָנָךְ לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר אָזְלִי, הָנֵי שְׁכִיחִי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִצְטָרְפִי דְּמָר וּדְמָר בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְקָרְבִי.
The Gemara responds: These six horns are dedicated to funds that go to communal gift offerings, and these log of wine left over from libations are common, so there is no need to store them, since it is possible that the libation of this person will be combined with the libation of another person together in order to reach the desired amount, and then it is offered immediately. Therefore, no additional horn was necessary for the money from the redemption of libations.
אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״אֶזְרָח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין נְסָכִים, וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין.
Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: The Torah states with regard to libations: “All that are home born shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive halakhot. The term “home born” teaches that one may pledge libations even when they are not sacrificed together with an offering. And how much is the minimum volume that is offered? Three log, which is the smallest measurement of a libation in the Torah, i.e., the libation that is offered with a lamb.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף יוֹסִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיֶה״. יָכוֹל יִפְחוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״.
And from where is it derived that if one desires to add to this amount he may add? The verse states with regard to libations associated with the additional offerings for the New Moon: “And their libations: Half a hin of wine shall be for the bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for the lamb” (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous “shall be” one may understand that there are others, and derive that independent libations may also be brought. Can one decrease the amount of wine in a libation to less than three log? The verse states: “All that are home born shall do these things, in this manner” (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three log of wine.
מַאי ״יוֹסִיף״? אִילֵּימָא אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה – מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה? דַּחֲזוּ לְכֶבֶשׂ – אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה נָמֵי חֲזוּ לְאַיִל וּפַר! אֶלָּא לָאו, חֲמִשָּׁה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies: What does the baraita mean when it says that one may add to the minimum of three log for an independent libation? If we say it means that it is permitted to offer four or six log, then what is different about three log that it was specified? It is because it is suitable for the libations of a lamb. If so, then four or six log are also suitable, as four log is offered as the libation for a ram and six log is offered as the libation for a bull. Rather, in saying that one may add, isn’t the baraita referring to five log of wine, despite the fact that it is not a measurement used with any of the offerings? And learn from this baraita that there is no fixed amount for libations. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the baraita that this is so.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אֲנַן לָא תְּנַן הָכִי? אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג שְׁנַיִם וַחֲמִשָּׁה. קָתָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׁנַיִם, מָה שְׁנַיִם דְּלָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל, אַף חֲמִשָּׁה נָמֵי דְּלָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל.
Rav Ashi said: But didn’t we learn this in the mishna: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine? Rav Ashi continues: In phrasing the mishna in this manner, the tanna teaches that the status of five log is similar to the status of two log: Just as two log are not suitable at all to be offered independently, so too, five log are also not suitable at all to offer, as there are no libations of this size. This demonstrates that there is a fixed amount to libations, and one may not divide them into two.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.
The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This, two log, is as it is, and that, five log, is as it is, and there is no reason to compare them. Four of the five log are offered, with the fifth allocated for a communal gift offering.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – הָא אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים, אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – עַד עֲשָׂרָה פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, אַחַד עָשָׂר
Abaye said: If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then there is no fixed amount for libations, and no further discussion is necessary. If you say that there is a fixed amount for libations, then the halakha of up to ten log of wine is obvious to me. One log, two log, or five log may not be brought, since these amounts are not offered as standard libations, but three, four, or six log are brought, as their amount is equivalent to those of standard libations. Between six and ten log may also be brought, since these amounts can be composed of a combination of the various wine libations. With regard to eleven log,
מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, מַאי: גַּבְרָא לִשְׁנֵי פָּרִים קָא מְכַוֵּין, וְעַד דִּמְמַלֵּי לְהוּ לָא קׇרְבִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא לִשְׁנֵי אֵילִים וְכֶבֶשׂ אֶחָד קָמְכַוֵּוין? תְּרֵי מֵחַד מִינָא וְחַד מֵחַד מִינָא אָמְרִינַן, אוֹ לָא? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
I ask, what is the halakha? Does the man who vowed to bring eleven log intend to bring an amount of wine corresponding to that which is brought in association with an offering of two bulls, i.e., twelve log, and until he accumulates that amount, the libation is not brought? Or perhaps he intends to bring an amount equal to that associated with two rams and one lamb, i.e., four for each ram and three for the lamb, totaling eleven. Do we say that he intended to bring two libations associated with one type, i.e., a ram, and one libation associated with another type, i.e., a lamb, or not? What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדְּבִין יַיִן, וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.
MISHNA: One may pledge to bring independent libations of wine, but one may not pledge oil alone; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may pledge oil as well.
אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: מָה מָצִינוּ בְּיַיִן, שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה וּבָא נְדָבָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה בָּא נְדָבָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּיַיִן שֶׁכֵּן קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, תֹּאמַר בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ?
Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering independent of any offering, so too, we find that oil comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that this is true with regard to wine, as it is sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself, shall you also say that this is also the case with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself but only mixed with the flour?
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, וְעוֹף – אֲפִילּוּ פְּרֵידָה אַחַת.
The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: Two people do not pledge a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah as partners, but they may pledge a burnt offering and a peace offering. And they may pledge to bring even an individual bird, not only a pair.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמוֹד, מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva about whether one can pledge oil, Rava said: From the statements of both of them, we learn that a person may pledge a meal offering like those brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings every day.
פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִנְחַת נְדָבָה גַּלִּי בַּהּ רַחֲמָנָא – הָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה מְנָחוֹת אִין, טְפֵי לָא! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְתָמָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּפָרֵישׁ – פָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: It needed to be said, lest you say that the Merciful One revealed the nature of a voluntary meal offering (see Leviticus, chapter 2). Perhaps only those five meal offerings detailed there are indeed brought as voluntary offerings, but any additional types, such as a meal offering brought with libations, are not. Rava therefore teaches us that these matters in the Torah apply only where his pledge of a meal offering was unspecified, but where he specified that the oil and flour about which he vows should be brought in the manner of a meal offering with libations, then he has specified, and the vow takes effect.
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״תַּקְרִיב״, עוֹלָה נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״יַקְרִיב״!
§ The mishna stated that two people do not pledge a tenth of an ephah together. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), in the singular, that is not a proof, as with regard to a burnt offering as well, it is written in the singular: “When any man of you brings an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.
אֶלָּא עוֹלָה מַאי טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם״, מִנְחָה נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״לְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
Rather, what is the reason that a burnt offering is brought by two people? The reason is that it is written in second person plural: “These you shall offer…beside your burnt offerings [le’oloteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: “Your meal offerings [leminḥoteikhem].” Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״ – הַכֹּל בָּאִין בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, לֹא סִילֵּק הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִנְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: “Anyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). It is evident from the use of the plural in the second part of the verse that any offering can be brought in a partnership, and the verse excludes only a meal offering from this principle, as it is stated: “And when an individual brings a meal offering.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מִי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהָבִיא מִנְחָה? עָנִי, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב נַפְשׁוֹ לְפָנַי.
The Gemara cites another comment about the fact that the Torah introduces the voluntary meal offering by emphasizing that it is brought by an individual. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term “an individual [nefesh]” is stated with regard to it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Whose practice is it to bring a meal offering? It is that of a poor individual; and I will ascribe him credit as if he offered up his soul [nafsho] in front of Me.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה, (שנאמר) [שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ] בָּהּ חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן הַלָּלוּ? מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וְדָם שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ סְעוּדָה, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָנִי. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה לִי מִן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֵהָנֶה מִמְּךָ.
§ The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitzḥak about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason that the meal offering is differentiated from other offerings in that the Torah stated these five types of preparations with oil with regard to it? The five types of voluntary meal offerings are: A meal offering of fine flour, a meal offering in a shallow pan, a meal offering in a deep pan, a meal offering of loaves baked in an oven, and a meal offering of wafers baked in an oven. All are brought with oil. This can be explained by a parable of a flesh-and-blood king whose friend made a festive meal for him, but the king knows that the friend is poor. The king said to him: Make for me foods from five types of fried dishes, so that I may benefit from you.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמְּנָחוֹת וְהַנְּסָכִים.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא אֶחָד, ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן.
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of one-tenth. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah, he must bring two-tenths, as that is the minimum plural amount. If he says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know which number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths, as that is the maximum amount of a meal offering. The flour beyond the amount that he actually specified is rendered a voluntary meal offering.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, שֶׁהִיא מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת.
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, he may bring whichever meal offering that he wishes, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, the shallow-pan or deep-pan meal offering, or the meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers. Rabbi Yehuda says: He must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings.
״מִנְחָה״ אוֹ ״מִין הַמִּנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אַחַת. ״מְנָחוֹת״ אוֹ ״מִין מְנָחוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חֲמִשְׁתָּן.
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one meal offering. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two. If he says: I specified a meal offering but I do not know which meal offering I specified, he must bring all five types of meal offerings.
פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not know how many tenths I specified, he must bring a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: His obligation is satisfied only when he brings meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs. He fulfills his vow with one of the meal offerings, and the rest are rendered voluntary meal offerings.
גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מִיעוּט עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of a tenth. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Why is it necessary to teach this in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the mishna to mention this case as a preamble to the following halakha, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah he must bring two-tenths. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that the minimum amount that the word tenths is used in reference to is two-tenths.
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. מַאן תַּנָּא?
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know what number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּאִי רַבִּי, הָאָמַר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
Ḥizkiyya said: This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mentioned at the end of the mishna. As if it was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn’t he say that such a person must bring meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths?
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, בְּאוֹמֵר ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אֲבָל לֹא קְבַעְתִּים בִּכְלִי״, דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת בְּשִׁיתִּין מָאנֵי.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: You may even say that this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because the case at the end of the mishna is a case where one specified that he would bring the tenths of an ephah in a single vessel. In such a case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one must bring sixty different amounts in sixty different vessels. By contrast, the former case in the mishna is one where the person says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I did not establish that they must be brought in one vessel. In such a case all agree that he must bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in sixty vessels, a tenth in each vessel.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, the first tanna holds he may bring whichever meal offering he wishes, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, since in the passage of the Torah that discusses the meal offering (Leviticus, chapter 2) the verse opens with the fine-flour meal offering first, mentioning it before the other meal offerings.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יָבִיא בֶּן בָּקָר, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal, must bring a young bull as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Yoma 49: Vying for Bragging Rights: The Most Difficult Service
05.30.2021 | י״ט בסיון תשפ״א
Din & Daf: Close, Yet Creative Readings- Understanding Chazal’s Halakhic Parshanut
02.20.2025 | כ״ב בשבט תשפ״ה
Zevahim 46: Excluding Blood and Being Cut Off – 3 Lessons and 3 Verses
10.30.2025 | ח׳ בחשון תשפ״ו
Breaking Bones
02.15.2021 | ג׳ באדר תשפ״א
Avodah Zarah 67: Enhancing or Destroying the Taste of Food
08.23.2025 | כ״ט באב תשפ״ה
Zevahim 22: Talmudic Science (again); Also, the Elders of the South
10.06.2025 | י״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
Menachot 104
וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא עַל פַּלְטֵר סָמֵיךְ.
Rabbi Beivai concludes: And that man, i.e., I, relies on a baker. Therefore, my mind is not sufficiently settled to answer the question properly.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹרְיָינָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה, וְאוֹרִי לֵיהּ כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this question? Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic decisor of the house of the Nasi, and he instructed them according to his tradition that the blood of an animal carcass is impure.
דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. דַּם נְבֵילוֹת – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁטִּמְּאוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא טִמְּאוּ אֶלָּא בִּרְבִיעִית, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לִקְרוֹשׁ וְלַעֲמוֹד עַל כְּזַיִת.
As we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that six matters are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel. They include the blood of a carcass, which Beit Shammai deem ritually pure, as in their opinion only the flesh of a carcass imparts impurity; and Beit Hillel deem it ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed it impure only when it is in the quantity of at least a quarter-log, since that amount, were it to congeal, could constitute an olive-bulk, which is the minimum amount of the flesh of a carcass that is deemed impure.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג, שְׁנַיִם, וַחֲמִשָּׁה, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאַרְבָּעָה, וְשִׁשָּׁה, וּמִשִּׁשָּׁה וּלְמַעְלָה.
MISHNA: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine, because there are no existing libations with those measures of wine. But one pledges a libation of three log, which is the measure of wine brought with a lamb, or four log, which is the measure of wine brought with a ram, or six log, which is the measure of wine brought with a bull. And one may pledge a libation of six log and beyond, as any greater amount can be composed of combinations of these three.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ – יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים, אוֹ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים?
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is there a fixed amount for libations, in that when one vows to bring a certain number of log of wine they are not offered separately, or is there no fixed amount for libations, and it is permitted to divide them and offer them in smaller amounts?
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּאַיְיתִי חַמְשָׁה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – מָשֵׁיךְ וּמַקְרֵיב אַרְבְּעָה מִינַּיְיהוּ, דַּחֲזֵי לְאַיִל, וְאִידַּךְ הָוֵי נְדָבָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – עַד דִּמְמַלֵּי לְהוּ לָא קׇרְבִי.
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? It is a case where he brought five log of wine. If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then he removes and offers four of them, as those are suitable for the libations of a ram, and the other log, which is not of sufficient volume, is allocated for communal gift offerings. Either it itself is offered, or it is redeemed and the money is used to buy offerings for the repletion of the altar, i.e., for times when the altar is idle. But if you say that there is a fixed amount for libations and the wine may not be divided and offered separately, then it is not offered itself or redeemed with money and offered until he adds to the existing measurement such that the total number of log may be offered as an independent libation.
מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תָּא שְׁמַע, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, וְאָמְרִינַן: כְּנֶגֶד מִי? כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר חַטָּאת, וּמוֹתַר אֲשָׁמוֹת, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם נָזִיר, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר קִינִּין, וּמוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
What is the halakha? Abaye said: Come and hear the answer from a mishna (Shekalim 6:5): There were six collection horns for communal gift offerings, and we say: For what were they designated? They were designated for funds left over from the purchase of sin offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of guilt offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of a guilt offering of a nazirite, for funds left over from the purchase of the guilt offering of a leper, for funds left over from the purchase of pairs of birds, and for funds left over from the purchase of the meal offering of a sinner.
וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתַקֵּין שׁוֹפָר אַחֲרִינָא כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר נְסָכִים!
And if it is so that there is no fixed amount for libations, and if one vowed to bring five log then four are offered as a ram’s libation and the fifth can be redeemed and its money used for a communal gift offering, then let them institute an additional collection horn in the Temple for funds left over from the purchase of libations.
הָנָךְ לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר אָזְלִי, הָנֵי שְׁכִיחִי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִצְטָרְפִי דְּמָר וּדְמָר בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְקָרְבִי.
The Gemara responds: These six horns are dedicated to funds that go to communal gift offerings, and these log of wine left over from libations are common, so there is no need to store them, since it is possible that the libation of this person will be combined with the libation of another person together in order to reach the desired amount, and then it is offered immediately. Therefore, no additional horn was necessary for the money from the redemption of libations.
אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״אֶזְרָח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין נְסָכִים, וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין.
Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: The Torah states with regard to libations: “All that are home born shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive halakhot. The term “home born” teaches that one may pledge libations even when they are not sacrificed together with an offering. And how much is the minimum volume that is offered? Three log, which is the smallest measurement of a libation in the Torah, i.e., the libation that is offered with a lamb.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף יוֹסִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיֶה״. יָכוֹל יִפְחוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״.
And from where is it derived that if one desires to add to this amount he may add? The verse states with regard to libations associated with the additional offerings for the New Moon: “And their libations: Half a hin of wine shall be for the bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for the lamb” (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous “shall be” one may understand that there are others, and derive that independent libations may also be brought. Can one decrease the amount of wine in a libation to less than three log? The verse states: “All that are home born shall do these things, in this manner” (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three log of wine.
מַאי ״יוֹסִיף״? אִילֵּימָא אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה – מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה? דַּחֲזוּ לְכֶבֶשׂ – אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה נָמֵי חֲזוּ לְאַיִל וּפַר! אֶלָּא לָאו, חֲמִשָּׁה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies: What does the baraita mean when it says that one may add to the minimum of three log for an independent libation? If we say it means that it is permitted to offer four or six log, then what is different about three log that it was specified? It is because it is suitable for the libations of a lamb. If so, then four or six log are also suitable, as four log is offered as the libation for a ram and six log is offered as the libation for a bull. Rather, in saying that one may add, isn’t the baraita referring to five log of wine, despite the fact that it is not a measurement used with any of the offerings? And learn from this baraita that there is no fixed amount for libations. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the baraita that this is so.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אֲנַן לָא תְּנַן הָכִי? אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג שְׁנַיִם וַחֲמִשָּׁה. קָתָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׁנַיִם, מָה שְׁנַיִם דְּלָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל, אַף חֲמִשָּׁה נָמֵי דְּלָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל.
Rav Ashi said: But didn’t we learn this in the mishna: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine? Rav Ashi continues: In phrasing the mishna in this manner, the tanna teaches that the status of five log is similar to the status of two log: Just as two log are not suitable at all to be offered independently, so too, five log are also not suitable at all to offer, as there are no libations of this size. This demonstrates that there is a fixed amount to libations, and one may not divide them into two.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.
The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This, two log, is as it is, and that, five log, is as it is, and there is no reason to compare them. Four of the five log are offered, with the fifth allocated for a communal gift offering.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – הָא אֵין קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים, אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ קֶבַע לִנְסָכִים – עַד עֲשָׂרָה פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, אַחַד עָשָׂר
Abaye said: If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then there is no fixed amount for libations, and no further discussion is necessary. If you say that there is a fixed amount for libations, then the halakha of up to ten log of wine is obvious to me. One log, two log, or five log may not be brought, since these amounts are not offered as standard libations, but three, four, or six log are brought, as their amount is equivalent to those of standard libations. Between six and ten log may also be brought, since these amounts can be composed of a combination of the various wine libations. With regard to eleven log,
מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, מַאי: גַּבְרָא לִשְׁנֵי פָּרִים קָא מְכַוֵּין, וְעַד דִּמְמַלֵּי לְהוּ לָא קׇרְבִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא לִשְׁנֵי אֵילִים וְכֶבֶשׂ אֶחָד קָמְכַוֵּוין? תְּרֵי מֵחַד מִינָא וְחַד מֵחַד מִינָא אָמְרִינַן, אוֹ לָא? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
I ask, what is the halakha? Does the man who vowed to bring eleven log intend to bring an amount of wine corresponding to that which is brought in association with an offering of two bulls, i.e., twelve log, and until he accumulates that amount, the libation is not brought? Or perhaps he intends to bring an amount equal to that associated with two rams and one lamb, i.e., four for each ram and three for the lamb, totaling eleven. Do we say that he intended to bring two libations associated with one type, i.e., a ram, and one libation associated with another type, i.e., a lamb, or not? What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדְּבִין יַיִן, וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.
MISHNA: One may pledge to bring independent libations of wine, but one may not pledge oil alone; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may pledge oil as well.
אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: מָה מָצִינוּ בְּיַיִן, שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה וּבָא נְדָבָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה בָּא נְדָבָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּיַיִן שֶׁכֵּן קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, תֹּאמַר בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ?
Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering independent of any offering, so too, we find that oil comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that this is true with regard to wine, as it is sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself, shall you also say that this is also the case with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself but only mixed with the flour?
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, וְעוֹף – אֲפִילּוּ פְּרֵידָה אַחַת.
The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: Two people do not pledge a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah as partners, but they may pledge a burnt offering and a peace offering. And they may pledge to bring even an individual bird, not only a pair.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמוֹד, מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva about whether one can pledge oil, Rava said: From the statements of both of them, we learn that a person may pledge a meal offering like those brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings every day.
פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִנְחַת נְדָבָה גַּלִּי בַּהּ רַחֲמָנָא – הָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה מְנָחוֹת אִין, טְפֵי לָא! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְתָמָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּפָרֵישׁ – פָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: It needed to be said, lest you say that the Merciful One revealed the nature of a voluntary meal offering (see Leviticus, chapter 2). Perhaps only those five meal offerings detailed there are indeed brought as voluntary offerings, but any additional types, such as a meal offering brought with libations, are not. Rava therefore teaches us that these matters in the Torah apply only where his pledge of a meal offering was unspecified, but where he specified that the oil and flour about which he vows should be brought in the manner of a meal offering with libations, then he has specified, and the vow takes effect.
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״תַּקְרִיב״, עוֹלָה נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״יַקְרִיב״!
§ The mishna stated that two people do not pledge a tenth of an ephah together. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), in the singular, that is not a proof, as with regard to a burnt offering as well, it is written in the singular: “When any man of you brings an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.
אֶלָּא עוֹלָה מַאי טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם״, מִנְחָה נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב ״לְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
Rather, what is the reason that a burnt offering is brought by two people? The reason is that it is written in second person plural: “These you shall offer…beside your burnt offerings [le’oloteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: “Your meal offerings [leminḥoteikhem].” Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״ – הַכֹּל בָּאִין בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, לֹא סִילֵּק הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִנְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: “Anyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). It is evident from the use of the plural in the second part of the verse that any offering can be brought in a partnership, and the verse excludes only a meal offering from this principle, as it is stated: “And when an individual brings a meal offering.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מִי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהָבִיא מִנְחָה? עָנִי, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב נַפְשׁוֹ לְפָנַי.
The Gemara cites another comment about the fact that the Torah introduces the voluntary meal offering by emphasizing that it is brought by an individual. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term “an individual [nefesh]” is stated with regard to it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Whose practice is it to bring a meal offering? It is that of a poor individual; and I will ascribe him credit as if he offered up his soul [nafsho] in front of Me.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה, (שנאמר) [שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ] בָּהּ חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן הַלָּלוּ? מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וְדָם שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ סְעוּדָה, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָנִי. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה לִי מִן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֵהָנֶה מִמְּךָ.
§ The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitzḥak about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason that the meal offering is differentiated from other offerings in that the Torah stated these five types of preparations with oil with regard to it? The five types of voluntary meal offerings are: A meal offering of fine flour, a meal offering in a shallow pan, a meal offering in a deep pan, a meal offering of loaves baked in an oven, and a meal offering of wafers baked in an oven. All are brought with oil. This can be explained by a parable of a flesh-and-blood king whose friend made a festive meal for him, but the king knows that the friend is poor. The king said to him: Make for me foods from five types of fried dishes, so that I may benefit from you.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמְּנָחוֹת וְהַנְּסָכִים.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא אֶחָד, ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן.
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of one-tenth. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah, he must bring two-tenths, as that is the minimum plural amount. If he says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know which number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths, as that is the maximum amount of a meal offering. The flour beyond the amount that he actually specified is rendered a voluntary meal offering.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, שֶׁהִיא מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת.
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, he may bring whichever meal offering that he wishes, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, the shallow-pan or deep-pan meal offering, or the meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers. Rabbi Yehuda says: He must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings.
״מִנְחָה״ אוֹ ״מִין הַמִּנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אַחַת. ״מְנָחוֹת״ אוֹ ״מִין מְנָחוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חֲמִשְׁתָּן.
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one meal offering. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two. If he says: I specified a meal offering but I do not know which meal offering I specified, he must bring all five types of meal offerings.
פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not know how many tenths I specified, he must bring a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: His obligation is satisfied only when he brings meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs. He fulfills his vow with one of the meal offerings, and the rest are rendered voluntary meal offerings.
גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מִיעוּט עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of a tenth. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Why is it necessary to teach this in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the mishna to mention this case as a preamble to the following halakha, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah he must bring two-tenths. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that the minimum amount that the word tenths is used in reference to is two-tenths.
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. מַאן תַּנָּא?
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know what number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּאִי רַבִּי, הָאָמַר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
Ḥizkiyya said: This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mentioned at the end of the mishna. As if it was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn’t he say that such a person must bring meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths?
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, בְּאוֹמֵר ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אֲבָל לֹא קְבַעְתִּים בִּכְלִי״, דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת בְּשִׁיתִּין מָאנֵי.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: You may even say that this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because the case at the end of the mishna is a case where one specified that he would bring the tenths of an ephah in a single vessel. In such a case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one must bring sixty different amounts in sixty different vessels. By contrast, the former case in the mishna is one where the person says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I did not establish that they must be brought in one vessel. In such a case all agree that he must bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in sixty vessels, a tenth in each vessel.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, the first tanna holds he may bring whichever meal offering he wishes, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, since in the passage of the Torah that discusses the meal offering (Leviticus, chapter 2) the verse opens with the fine-flour meal offering first, mentioning it before the other meal offerings.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יָבִיא בֶּן בָּקָר, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal, must bring a young bull as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it
Follow
