Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 22, 2018 | 讬状讚 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 104

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 注诇 驻诇讟专 住诪讬讱

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜专讬讬谞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 讜讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 讻砖诪注转讬讛

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.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚诐 谞讘讬诇讜转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讟讛专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讟诪讗讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讟诪讗讜 讗诇讗 讘专讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇拽专讜砖 讜诇注诪讜讚 注诇 讻讝讬转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诇讜讙 砖谞讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讘诇 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讜砖砖讛 讜诪砖砖讛 讜诇诪注诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬砖 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐

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?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 讞诪砖讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 诪砖讬讱 讜诪拽专讬讘 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讜讬 谞讚讘讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 注讚 讚诪诪诇讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 拽专讘讬

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.

诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖砖讛 诇谞讚讘讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讻谞讙讚 诪讬 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 讞讟讗转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诪讜转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬谉 讜诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转拽讬谉 砖讜驻专 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讛谞讱 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 讛谞讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讗驻砖专 讚诪爪讟专驻讬 讚诪专 讜讚诪专 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜拽专讘讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗讝专讞 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜讻诪讛 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: The Torah states with regard to libations: 鈥淎ll 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鈥 (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive halakhot. The term 鈥渉ome born鈥 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.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讬讜住讬祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛 讬讻讜诇 讬驻讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讻讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous 鈥渟hall be鈥 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: 鈥淎ll that are home born shall do these things, in this manner鈥 (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three log of wine.

诪讗讬 讬讜住讬祝 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讘注讛 讜砖砖讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讞讝讜 诇讻讘砖 讗专讘注讛 讜砖砖讛 谞诪讬 讞讝讜 诇讗讬诇 讜驻专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讞诪砖讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诇讜讙 砖谞讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖谞讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讻诇诇 讗祝 讞诪砖讛 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讻诇诇

Rav Ashi said: But didn鈥檛 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.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 讛讗 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 注讚 注砖专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讗讞讚 注砖专

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,

诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 诪讗讬 讙讘专讗 诇砖谞讬 驻专讬诐 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜注讚 讚诪诪诇讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 拽专讘讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讜讻讘砖 讗讞讚 拽诪讻讜讜讬谉 转专讬 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 讜讞讚 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讬讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讬讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讞讜讘讛 讜讘讗 谞讚讘讛 讗祝 砖诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讞讜讘讛 讘讗 谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬讬谉 砖讻谉 拽专讘 注诐 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 转讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 砖讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 注诐 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

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?

讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 注砖专讜谉 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜注讜祝 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 谞诇诪讜讚 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讙诇讬 讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 诪谞讞讜转 讗讬谉 讟驻讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘住转诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻专讬砖 驻专讬砖

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 转拽专讬讘 注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讬拽专讬讘

搂 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: 鈥淎nd when an individual brings a meal offering鈥 (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: 鈥淲hen any man of you brings an offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.

讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇注诇转讬讻诐 诪谞讞讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇诪谞讞转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淭hese you shall offer鈥eside your burnt offerings [le鈥檕loteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: 鈥淵our meal offerings [lemin岣teikhem].鈥 Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: 鈥淎nd when an individual brings a meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘 拽专讘谞讜 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 讜诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 讛讻诇 讘讗讬谉 讘砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 住讬诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞驻砖

This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: 鈥淎nyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd when an individual brings a meal offering.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬转 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛 谞驻砖 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讬 讚专讻讜 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 注谞讬 诪注诇讛 讗谞讬 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘 谞驻砖讜 诇驻谞讬

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 Yitz岣k says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term 鈥渁n individual [nefesh]鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬转 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬 讟讬讙讜谉 讛诇诇讜 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖注砖讛 诇讜 讗讜讛讘讜 住注讜讚讛 讜讬讜讚注 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 注谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 诇讬 诪谉 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬 讟讬讙讜谉 讻讚讬 砖讗讛谞讛 诪诪讱

搂 The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitz岣k about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛谞住讻讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 注诇讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 讗讞讚 注砖专讜谞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉

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.

讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讬讝讜 砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 砖讛讬讗 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讘诪谞讞讜转

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.

诪谞讞讛 讗讜 诪讬谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讞转 诪谞讞讜转 讗讜 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 讞诪砖转谉

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.

驻讬专砖转讬 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 注砖专讜谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇 注砖专讜谞讜转 诪讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖砖讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 注砖专讜谞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬注讜讟 注砖专讜谞讜转 砖转讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗

搂 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?

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讛讗诪专 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇 注砖专讜谞讜转 诪讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖砖讬诐

岣zkiyya 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鈥檛 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?

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讘讗讜诪专 驻讬专砖转讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讘注转讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬讬转讬 砖讬转讬谉 注砖专讜谞讜转 讘砖讬转讬谉 诪讗谞讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬专爪讛 [讜讻讜壮] 转谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

搂 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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 讘谉 讘拽专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 104

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 104

讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 注诇 驻诇讟专 住诪讬讱

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜专讬讬谞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讛 讜讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 讻砖诪注转讬讛

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.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚诐 谞讘讬诇讜转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讟讛专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讟诪讗讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讟诪讗讜 讗诇讗 讘专讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇拽专讜砖 讜诇注诪讜讚 注诇 讻讝讬转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诇讜讙 砖谞讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讘诇 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讜砖砖讛 讜诪砖砖讛 讜诇诪注诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬砖 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐

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?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 讞诪砖讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 诪砖讬讱 讜诪拽专讬讘 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讞讝讬 诇讗讬诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讜讬 谞讚讘讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 注讚 讚诪诪诇讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 拽专讘讬

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.

诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖砖讛 诇谞讚讘讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讻谞讙讚 诪讬 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 讞讟讗转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诪讜转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬谉 讜诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转拽讬谉 砖讜驻专 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讛谞讱 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 讛谞讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讗驻砖专 讚诪爪讟专驻讬 讚诪专 讜讚诪专 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜拽专讘讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗讝专讞 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜讻诪讛 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: The Torah states with regard to libations: 鈥淎ll 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鈥 (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive halakhot. The term 鈥渉ome born鈥 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.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 讬讜住讬祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛 讬讻讜诇 讬驻讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讻讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous 鈥渟hall be鈥 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: 鈥淎ll that are home born shall do these things, in this manner鈥 (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three log of wine.

诪讗讬 讬讜住讬祝 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讘注讛 讜砖砖讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讞讝讜 诇讻讘砖 讗专讘注讛 讜砖砖讛 谞诪讬 讞讝讜 诇讗讬诇 讜驻专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讞诪砖讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诇讜讙 砖谞讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖谞讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讻诇诇 讗祝 讞诪砖讛 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讻诇诇

Rav Ashi said: But didn鈥檛 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.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 讛讗 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 拽讘注 诇谞住讻讬诐 注讚 注砖专讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讗讞讚 注砖专

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,

诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 诪讗讬 讙讘专讗 诇砖谞讬 驻专讬诐 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜注讚 讚诪诪诇讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 拽专讘讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讜讻讘砖 讗讞讚 拽诪讻讜讜讬谉 转专讬 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 讜讞讚 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讬讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讬讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讞讜讘讛 讜讘讗 谞讚讘讛 讗祝 砖诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讞讜讘讛 讘讗 谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬讬谉 砖讻谉 拽专讘 注诐 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 转讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 砖讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 注诐 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

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?

讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 注砖专讜谉 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜注讜祝 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 谞诇诪讜讚 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讙诇讬 讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讬 讞诪砖讛 诪谞讞讜转 讗讬谉 讟驻讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘住转诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻专讬砖 驻专讬砖

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 转拽专讬讘 注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讬拽专讬讘

搂 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: 鈥淎nd when an individual brings a meal offering鈥 (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: 鈥淲hen any man of you brings an offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.

讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇注诇转讬讻诐 诪谞讞讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇诪谞讞转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淭hese you shall offer鈥eside your burnt offerings [le鈥檕loteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: 鈥淵our meal offerings [lemin岣teikhem].鈥 Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: 鈥淎nd when an individual brings a meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘 拽专讘谞讜 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 讜诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 讛讻诇 讘讗讬谉 讘砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 住讬诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞驻砖

This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: 鈥淎nyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd when an individual brings a meal offering.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬转 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛 谞驻砖 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讬 讚专讻讜 诇讛讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 注谞讬 诪注诇讛 讗谞讬 注诇讬讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘 谞驻砖讜 诇驻谞讬

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 Yitz岣k says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term 鈥渁n individual [nefesh]鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬转 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬 讟讬讙讜谉 讛诇诇讜 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖注砖讛 诇讜 讗讜讛讘讜 住注讜讚讛 讜讬讜讚注 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 注谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 诇讬 诪谉 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬 讟讬讙讜谉 讻讚讬 砖讗讛谞讛 诪诪讱

搂 The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitz岣k about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛谞住讻讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 注诇讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 讗讞讚 注砖专讜谞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉

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.

讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讬讝讜 砖讬专爪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 砖讛讬讗 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讘诪谞讞讜转

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.

诪谞讞讛 讗讜 诪讬谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讞转 诪谞讞讜转 讗讜 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 讞诪砖转谉

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.

驻讬专砖转讬 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 注砖专讜谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇 注砖专讜谞讜转 诪讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖砖讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 注砖专讜谞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬注讜讟 注砖专讜谞讜转 砖转讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗

搂 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?

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讛讗诪专 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇 注砖专讜谞讜转 诪讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖砖讬诐

岣zkiyya 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鈥檛 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?

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讘讗讜诪专 驻讬专砖转讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讘注转讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬讬转讬 砖讬转讬谉 注砖专讜谞讜转 讘砖讬转讬谉 诪讗谞讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬专爪讛 [讜讻讜壮] 转谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

搂 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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 讘谉 讘拽专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘

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

Scroll To Top