Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This is the daf for Shabbat.
There is a contradiction raised against Rav Bibi, who testified about a case where the blood of a carcass was measured to see if there was enough to convey impurity. This contradicts a Mishna in Eduyot, where others testified that the blood of a dead animal is pure. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that there is a tannaitic debate on the matter and clarifies why those who declare it impure set the requisite amount at a quarter-log (revi’it).
One may offer voluntary wine libations in the Temple, but only in the volumes used for obligatory offerings: three, four, or six log (or a combination thereof). A question is raised: must the pledged libations be offered all at once, or can they be split? This question is asked egarding someone who pledged five log (an invalid single amount): can one “divide” the five – meaning offer four and redeems the fifth or gives it away – or must one wait until one acquires another log to complete a set of six? Although Abaye and Rava both attempted to bring proofs to resolve this, their answers were rejected as inconclusive.
Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree over whether one can offer voluntary oil libations. Their debate centers on whether the laws of oil can be derived from the laws of wine.
Regarding ownership, a mincha cannot be brought if it is jointly owned by partners. The Gemara explores why this differs from animal and bird sacrifices, which can be brought by partners.
There are five (or six, according to Rabbi Shimon) types of voluntary mincha offerings: solet (no pre-baking/frying), machavat (pan), marcheshet (deep pan), rekikim (wafers), and challot (loaves). The Mishna delves into various ambiguous formulations used in vows and explains what specific type and quantity the individual is obligated to bring to ensure they fulfill their commitment.
Today’s daily daf tools:
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
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.
Menachot Daf 102-110- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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.
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
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!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
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.
Tekoa, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
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
