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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 7, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 58

Items that part of them are burned on the altar are forbidden to be聽burned on the altar and possibly even on the ramp. From where are these laws derived? How are the verses explained according to each opinion? Some even say that it refers to any item that can be called a “korban” and isn’t meant to be sacrificed. What is the requisite amount that one is obligated in if one did burn it? If one offered leavened dough and honey together on the altar, how many sets of lashes (if any) would one receive?


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

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讗转诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yo岣nan, who maintains that the prohibition against bringing leftover portions up to the ramp applies to all of the items listed in the baraita, do with this term: 鈥淭hem,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎s an offering of first produce you may bring them鈥 (Leviticus 2:12), from which Rabbi Elazar learns that only first fruits and the two loaves are included in the prohibition?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讬讞讬讚 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 谞讚讘讛 讜拽讜专讗 讗谞讬 讘讛 诪讜爪讗 砖驻转讬讱 转砖诪专 讜注砖讬转

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that an individual may donate and bring to the Temple a gift offering similar to those two loaves brought by the community, and in support I will read with regard to this offering the verse that deals with other gift offerings: 鈥淭hat which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:24), which would mean that the offering is consecrated and he must bring it as he declared.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 专讗砖讬转 转拽专讬讘讜 爪讬讘讜专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讬讞讬讚

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎s an offering of first produce you may bring.鈥 The phrase: 鈥淵ou may bring,鈥 is written in the plural, meaning that it is addressed to the community. Therefore, it is interpreted to mean: I said to you that a community may consecrate and bring the two loaves, which are an offering of first produce, but an individual may not consecrate and bring two loaves of this nature.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讞讬讚 诪讘讬讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转诐 讜诪讛 讬砖 诇讱 诇讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪谉 讛砖讗讜专 讜讘讻讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛讚讘砖

The baraita continues: One might have thought that only an individual may not bring two loaves as a gift offering, as an individual does not bring his obligatory offering in a manner similar to those two loaves, i.e., perhaps specifically an individual, who never has an obligatory offering of two loaves, may not bring two loaves as a gift offering. But the community shall bring two loaves as a gift offering, as the community does bring its obligatory offering in a manner similar to those two loaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou may bring them,鈥 to exclude the possibility of a communal gift offering of two loaves. The baraita concludes: And what is there left for you to bring as offerings that come from leaven and honey? The two loaves that comes from leaven, and the first fruits that come from honey, i.e., sweet fruits.

讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 谞讚讘讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗专 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘砖 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘砖 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘砖讗讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讚讘砖 讜讬砖 讘讚讘砖 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖讗讜专

The Gemara asks: And may the two loaves not be sacrificed as communal gift offerings? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎s any leaven, and any honey, you shall not burn any of it鈥 (Leviticus 2:11): If it is stated: 鈥淎ny leaven,鈥 why is it stated: 鈥淎ny honey鈥? And if it is stated: 鈥淎ny honey,鈥 why is it stated: 鈥淎ny leaven鈥? In other words, why is it necessary for the verse to repeat the inclusive term 鈥渁ny,鈥 from which it is derived that offering an insufficient quantity of honey or leaven is included in the prohibition? The baraita answers: Both of these terms had to be stated, because there is a halakha that applies to leaven that is not applicable to honey, and there is another halakha that applies to honey that is not applicable to leaven.

砖讗讜专 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讚讘砖 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖

The baraita explains: In the case of leaven, although it may not be sacrificed on the altar, its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances in the Temple, as the two loaves and the bread of the thanks offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were eaten by the priests, are leavened bread. By contrast, with regard to honey, there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted in the Temple.

讚讘砖 讛讜转专 讘砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖讗讜专 诇讗 讛讜转专 讘砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘砖讗讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讚讘砖 讜讬砖 讘讚讘砖 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖讗讜专 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗专 讜讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘砖

There is a halakha that applies to honey but not to leaven, as the prohibition concerning honey is permitted in the case of the remainder of meal offerings, meaning that the priests may eat their portion of meal offerings with honey, whereas the prohibition concerning leaven is not permitted in the case of the remainder of meal offerings, since one may not leaven this remainder. The baraita summarizes: Due to the fact that there is a halakha that applies to leaven that is not applicable to honey, and there is a halakha that applies to honey that is not applicable to leaven, it was necessary for the verse to state: 鈥淎ny leaven,鈥 and it was also necessary for it to state: 鈥淎ny honey.鈥

砖讗讜专 讚讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇讗讜 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚拽专讘讛 谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 诇讗 诇讬拽专讘 注诪讛诐

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. When the baraita states concerning leaven that its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances in the Temple, what is this? Isn鈥檛 this referring to the halakha that the meal offering of the two loaves may be sacrificed by the community as a gift offering on the altar, as the two loaves of the communal offering themselves were not sacrificed on the altar? This would mean that two loaves may be brought as a gift offering by the community, which contradicts this claim of the previous baraita. Rav Amram said: No, the baraita is referring to the fact that the two loaves, which were leaven, are brought as an offering with the two lambs, which are brought up onto the altar as communal peace offerings. Since they are brought together, the two loaves and the two lambs are considered a single offering, and the lambs are sacrificed on the altar.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 讚转谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇讜转 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛住诇讬谉 讛讬讜 注讜诇讜转 讜讛住诇讬诐 砖讘讬讚诐 谞讬转谞讬谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛谞讛讜 诇注讟专 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of first fruits also, the fruits should be considered part of the offering that was brought with them. As we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:5): As for the fledglings that were placed on top of the baskets that contained the first fruits brought to the Temple, they would sacrifice these as burnt offerings, and the baskets themselves that were in the possession of those bringing the first fruits would be given to the priests. Accordingly, with regard to honey as well, its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, as these first fruits containing honey are included with the sacrifice of burnt offerings. The Gemara answers: These fledglings came only to decorate the first fruits, despite the fact that they were later sacrificed as burnt offerings. Bringing the fledglings is not obligatory, and therefore cannot be considered part of the same offering as first fruits.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讘砖专 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the prohibition against bringing leftover parts of offerings up to the altar after the sacrificial parts have been burned. Rami bar 岣ma asked Rav 岣sda: With regard to one who offers up on the altar some of the meat of a bird sacrificed as a sin offering, which is meant to be eaten by the priests, what is the halakha? Is he liable to receive lashes for this action?

讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮

The Gemara clarifies the possibilities: The Merciful One states with regard to any item that has already had some portion of it burned in the fire on the altar that one who sacrifices any leftover part of it violates the prohibition. And as no part of this bird sacrificed as a sin offering is burned in the fire on the altar, is he therefore exempt? Or perhaps, any item that is called an offering is included in the prohibition, and since this bird is also called an offering, one is liable. Rav 岣sda said to Rami bar 岣ma: Any item that is called an offering is included in the prohibition, and this bird sacrificed as a sin offering is also called an offering.

讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮

The Gemara notes: Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Only any item that has already had some portion of it burned in the fire on the altar is included in the prohibition: Do not burn. Rabbi Akiva says: Any item that is called an offering is included in this prohibition.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘砖专 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? Rav 岣sda said: The difference between them concerns the case discussed earlier, of one who brings some of the meat of a bird sin offering up to the altar. Rabbi Akiva maintains that he is liable, as it is called an offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that he is exempt, as no portion of it is burned on the altar.

专讘 讗诪专 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 诇专讘讜转 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

Rav said: The difference between them concerns the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, as Levi teaches: Concerning the consecrated items given to priests as gifts, the verse states: 鈥淓very offering of theirs鈥hall be most holy for you and for your sons鈥 (Numbers 18:9). The phrase 鈥渆very offering鈥 serves to include the log of oil of a leper. This oil is not burned on the altar. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva would deem one who brings some of this log up to the altar liable, as it is called an offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer would deem him exempt, since no part of it is burned in the fire.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讜 诪拽爪转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇

搂 The Gemara returns to the discussion about the prohibition against sacrificing leaven. The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Torah states with regard to leaven: Do not burn it (see Leviticus 2:11), I have derived only that one who burns all of it is liable, as will be explained. From where is it derived that one who burns only part of it is also included in the prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淎ny [kol] leaven,鈥 which serves to include such a case. The baraita adds: This halakha has been derived only with regard to leaven in a pure state; from where is it derived that the same applies to one who sacrifices it in its mixed state, i.e., mixed with another substance? The verse states the additional expression: 鈥淎s [ki] any leaven.鈥

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讝讬转 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What is it saying? What is the meaning of the term: All of it, and the term: Part of it? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: When the verse states about leaven: Do not burn it, I have derived only that this prohibition applies to an olive-bulk of leaven. From where is it derived that this prohibition applies if it is only half an olive-bulk? The verse states: 鈥淎ny leaven.鈥 Furthermore, from where is it derived that one is liable not only for leaven by itself, but also for leaven in its mixed state? The verse states: 鈥淎s any leaven.鈥

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 讞爪讬 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇

Rava said that there is a different interpretation of the baraita: This is what the baraita is saying: When the verse states about leaven: Do not burn it, I have derived only that this prohibition applies to the entire handful that is removed from the meal offering. From where is it derived that this prohibition applies to half of the handful? The verse states: 鈥淎ny leaven.鈥 Furthermore, from where is it derived that one is liable not only for leaven by itself, but also for its mixed state? The verse states: 鈥淎s any leaven.鈥

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讘讬讬 住讘专 讬砖 拽讜诪抓 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Abaye and Rava disagree? The Gemara answers: Abaye holds: There is such an entity as a handful that is less than the volume of two olives.

讜讬砖 讛拽讟专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转

And Abaye consequently maintains that there is such a matter as a halakhically significant burning of a handful even if it is less than the volume of an olive-bulk. It follows that the phrase 鈥渁ny leaven鈥 teaches that if one sacrificed less than an olive-bulk of a handful that was leaven, he is liable.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讜诪抓 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转

And Rava says: There is no such entity as a handful that is less than the size of two olives, and consequently the mitzva not to burn leaven is referring initially to a full handful of two olive-bulks. And Rava holds that there is no such matter as a halakhically significant burning of a handful if it is less than the volume of an olive-bulk. Therefore, one cannot derive from the phrase 鈥渁s any leaven鈥 that one can be liable for sacrificing leaven of less than one olive-bulk. Instead, the phrase must be referring to a case where half the handful is leaven.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪注诇讛 诪砖讗讜专 讜诪讚讘砖 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讜专 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘砖 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 砖讗讜专 讜诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 讚讘砖

搂 The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: It was stated: With regard to one who offers up a mixture made of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says: He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: 鈥淎s any leaven and any honey, you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He is flogged one set due to the prohibition against sacrificing leaven, and he is flogged a second set due to the prohibition against sacrificing honey, and he is flogged a third set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of leaven, and he is flogged a fourth set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of honey.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转

Abaye says: One is not flogged for a general prohibition, i.e., a single mitzva in the Torah that includes many different prohibited acts. Since all these actions are covered by the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not burn,鈥 it is considered a general prohibition, for which one is not flogged.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讛讗 诇拽讬

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the opinion of Abaye. There are those who say that Abaye concedes that in any event the offender is flogged with one set of lashes for sacrificing leaven, and he is also flogged a second set of lashes for sacrificing honey, as these are not considered general prohibitions. Since the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not burn,鈥 is referring to both leaven and honey, it is as though it were written: You shall not burn leaven; you shall not burn honey.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讚 诇讗讜讬讛 讻诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛

And there are those who say that Abaye maintains that the offender is not even flogged with one set of lashes, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling. The principle that one is liable to be flogged for violating a prohibition is derived from the juxtaposition of the mitzva: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4), with the verses that mention lashes. It is inferred from this juxtaposition that one is not liable to be flogged for violating prohibitions whose circumstances are not similar to that of muzzling, e.g., a general prohibition that is not referring to one specific action.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 58

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讗转诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yo岣nan, who maintains that the prohibition against bringing leftover portions up to the ramp applies to all of the items listed in the baraita, do with this term: 鈥淭hem,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎s an offering of first produce you may bring them鈥 (Leviticus 2:12), from which Rabbi Elazar learns that only first fruits and the two loaves are included in the prohibition?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讬讞讬讚 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 谞讚讘讛 讜拽讜专讗 讗谞讬 讘讛 诪讜爪讗 砖驻转讬讱 转砖诪专 讜注砖讬转

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that an individual may donate and bring to the Temple a gift offering similar to those two loaves brought by the community, and in support I will read with regard to this offering the verse that deals with other gift offerings: 鈥淭hat which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:24), which would mean that the offering is consecrated and he must bring it as he declared.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 专讗砖讬转 转拽专讬讘讜 爪讬讘讜专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讬讞讬讚

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎s an offering of first produce you may bring.鈥 The phrase: 鈥淵ou may bring,鈥 is written in the plural, meaning that it is addressed to the community. Therefore, it is interpreted to mean: I said to you that a community may consecrate and bring the two loaves, which are an offering of first produce, but an individual may not consecrate and bring two loaves of this nature.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讞讬讚 诪讘讬讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转诐 讜诪讛 讬砖 诇讱 诇讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪谉 讛砖讗讜专 讜讘讻讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛讚讘砖

The baraita continues: One might have thought that only an individual may not bring two loaves as a gift offering, as an individual does not bring his obligatory offering in a manner similar to those two loaves, i.e., perhaps specifically an individual, who never has an obligatory offering of two loaves, may not bring two loaves as a gift offering. But the community shall bring two loaves as a gift offering, as the community does bring its obligatory offering in a manner similar to those two loaves. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou may bring them,鈥 to exclude the possibility of a communal gift offering of two loaves. The baraita concludes: And what is there left for you to bring as offerings that come from leaven and honey? The two loaves that comes from leaven, and the first fruits that come from honey, i.e., sweet fruits.

讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜 谞讚讘讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗专 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘砖 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘砖 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘砖讗讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讚讘砖 讜讬砖 讘讚讘砖 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖讗讜专

The Gemara asks: And may the two loaves not be sacrificed as communal gift offerings? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎s any leaven, and any honey, you shall not burn any of it鈥 (Leviticus 2:11): If it is stated: 鈥淎ny leaven,鈥 why is it stated: 鈥淎ny honey鈥? And if it is stated: 鈥淎ny honey,鈥 why is it stated: 鈥淎ny leaven鈥? In other words, why is it necessary for the verse to repeat the inclusive term 鈥渁ny,鈥 from which it is derived that offering an insufficient quantity of honey or leaven is included in the prohibition? The baraita answers: Both of these terms had to be stated, because there is a halakha that applies to leaven that is not applicable to honey, and there is another halakha that applies to honey that is not applicable to leaven.

砖讗讜专 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讚讘砖 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖

The baraita explains: In the case of leaven, although it may not be sacrificed on the altar, its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances in the Temple, as the two loaves and the bread of the thanks offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were eaten by the priests, are leavened bread. By contrast, with regard to honey, there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted in the Temple.

讚讘砖 讛讜转专 讘砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖讗讜专 诇讗 讛讜转专 讘砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘砖讗讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讚讘砖 讜讬砖 讘讚讘砖 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖讗讜专 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗专 讜讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘砖

There is a halakha that applies to honey but not to leaven, as the prohibition concerning honey is permitted in the case of the remainder of meal offerings, meaning that the priests may eat their portion of meal offerings with honey, whereas the prohibition concerning leaven is not permitted in the case of the remainder of meal offerings, since one may not leaven this remainder. The baraita summarizes: Due to the fact that there is a halakha that applies to leaven that is not applicable to honey, and there is a halakha that applies to honey that is not applicable to leaven, it was necessary for the verse to state: 鈥淎ny leaven,鈥 and it was also necessary for it to state: 鈥淎ny honey.鈥

砖讗讜专 讚讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇讗讜 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚拽专讘讛 谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 诇讗 诇讬拽专讘 注诪讛诐

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. When the baraita states concerning leaven that its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances in the Temple, what is this? Isn鈥檛 this referring to the halakha that the meal offering of the two loaves may be sacrificed by the community as a gift offering on the altar, as the two loaves of the communal offering themselves were not sacrificed on the altar? This would mean that two loaves may be brought as a gift offering by the community, which contradicts this claim of the previous baraita. Rav Amram said: No, the baraita is referring to the fact that the two loaves, which were leaven, are brought as an offering with the two lambs, which are brought up onto the altar as communal peace offerings. Since they are brought together, the two loaves and the two lambs are considered a single offering, and the lambs are sacrificed on the altar.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 讚转谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇讜转 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛住诇讬谉 讛讬讜 注讜诇讜转 讜讛住诇讬诐 砖讘讬讚诐 谞讬转谞讬谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛谞讛讜 诇注讟专 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of first fruits also, the fruits should be considered part of the offering that was brought with them. As we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:5): As for the fledglings that were placed on top of the baskets that contained the first fruits brought to the Temple, they would sacrifice these as burnt offerings, and the baskets themselves that were in the possession of those bringing the first fruits would be given to the priests. Accordingly, with regard to honey as well, its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, as these first fruits containing honey are included with the sacrifice of burnt offerings. The Gemara answers: These fledglings came only to decorate the first fruits, despite the fact that they were later sacrificed as burnt offerings. Bringing the fledglings is not obligatory, and therefore cannot be considered part of the same offering as first fruits.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讘砖专 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the prohibition against bringing leftover parts of offerings up to the altar after the sacrificial parts have been burned. Rami bar 岣ma asked Rav 岣sda: With regard to one who offers up on the altar some of the meat of a bird sacrificed as a sin offering, which is meant to be eaten by the priests, what is the halakha? Is he liable to receive lashes for this action?

讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮

The Gemara clarifies the possibilities: The Merciful One states with regard to any item that has already had some portion of it burned in the fire on the altar that one who sacrifices any leftover part of it violates the prohibition. And as no part of this bird sacrificed as a sin offering is burned in the fire on the altar, is he therefore exempt? Or perhaps, any item that is called an offering is included in the prohibition, and since this bird is also called an offering, one is liable. Rav 岣sda said to Rami bar 岣ma: Any item that is called an offering is included in the prohibition, and this bird sacrificed as a sin offering is also called an offering.

讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 壮拽专讘谉壮

The Gemara notes: Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Only any item that has already had some portion of it burned in the fire on the altar is included in the prohibition: Do not burn. Rabbi Akiva says: Any item that is called an offering is included in this prohibition.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘砖专 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? Rav 岣sda said: The difference between them concerns the case discussed earlier, of one who brings some of the meat of a bird sin offering up to the altar. Rabbi Akiva maintains that he is liable, as it is called an offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that he is exempt, as no portion of it is burned on the altar.

专讘 讗诪专 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 诇专讘讜转 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

Rav said: The difference between them concerns the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, as Levi teaches: Concerning the consecrated items given to priests as gifts, the verse states: 鈥淓very offering of theirs鈥hall be most holy for you and for your sons鈥 (Numbers 18:9). The phrase 鈥渆very offering鈥 serves to include the log of oil of a leper. This oil is not burned on the altar. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva would deem one who brings some of this log up to the altar liable, as it is called an offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer would deem him exempt, since no part of it is burned in the fire.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讜 诪拽爪转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇

搂 The Gemara returns to the discussion about the prohibition against sacrificing leaven. The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Torah states with regard to leaven: Do not burn it (see Leviticus 2:11), I have derived only that one who burns all of it is liable, as will be explained. From where is it derived that one who burns only part of it is also included in the prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淎ny [kol] leaven,鈥 which serves to include such a case. The baraita adds: This halakha has been derived only with regard to leaven in a pure state; from where is it derived that the same applies to one who sacrifices it in its mixed state, i.e., mixed with another substance? The verse states the additional expression: 鈥淎s [ki] any leaven.鈥

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讝讬转 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What is it saying? What is the meaning of the term: All of it, and the term: Part of it? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: When the verse states about leaven: Do not burn it, I have derived only that this prohibition applies to an olive-bulk of leaven. From where is it derived that this prohibition applies if it is only half an olive-bulk? The verse states: 鈥淎ny leaven.鈥 Furthermore, from where is it derived that one is liable not only for leaven by itself, but also for leaven in its mixed state? The verse states: 鈥淎s any leaven.鈥

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 讞爪讬 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇

Rava said that there is a different interpretation of the baraita: This is what the baraita is saying: When the verse states about leaven: Do not burn it, I have derived only that this prohibition applies to the entire handful that is removed from the meal offering. From where is it derived that this prohibition applies to half of the handful? The verse states: 鈥淎ny leaven.鈥 Furthermore, from where is it derived that one is liable not only for leaven by itself, but also for its mixed state? The verse states: 鈥淎s any leaven.鈥

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讘讬讬 住讘专 讬砖 拽讜诪抓 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Abaye and Rava disagree? The Gemara answers: Abaye holds: There is such an entity as a handful that is less than the volume of two olives.

讜讬砖 讛拽讟专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转

And Abaye consequently maintains that there is such a matter as a halakhically significant burning of a handful even if it is less than the volume of an olive-bulk. It follows that the phrase 鈥渁ny leaven鈥 teaches that if one sacrificed less than an olive-bulk of a handful that was leaven, he is liable.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讜诪抓 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讻讝讬转

And Rava says: There is no such entity as a handful that is less than the size of two olives, and consequently the mitzva not to burn leaven is referring initially to a full handful of two olive-bulks. And Rava holds that there is no such matter as a halakhically significant burning of a handful if it is less than the volume of an olive-bulk. Therefore, one cannot derive from the phrase 鈥渁s any leaven鈥 that one can be liable for sacrificing leaven of less than one olive-bulk. Instead, the phrase must be referring to a case where half the handful is leaven.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪注诇讛 诪砖讗讜专 讜诪讚讘砖 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讜专 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘砖 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 砖讗讜专 讜诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 讚讘砖

搂 The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: It was stated: With regard to one who offers up a mixture made of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says: He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: 鈥淎s any leaven and any honey, you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He is flogged one set due to the prohibition against sacrificing leaven, and he is flogged a second set due to the prohibition against sacrificing honey, and he is flogged a third set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of leaven, and he is flogged a fourth set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of honey.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转

Abaye says: One is not flogged for a general prohibition, i.e., a single mitzva in the Torah that includes many different prohibited acts. Since all these actions are covered by the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not burn,鈥 it is considered a general prohibition, for which one is not flogged.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 诪讬讛讗 诇拽讬

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the opinion of Abaye. There are those who say that Abaye concedes that in any event the offender is flogged with one set of lashes for sacrificing leaven, and he is also flogged a second set of lashes for sacrificing honey, as these are not considered general prohibitions. Since the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not burn,鈥 is referring to both leaven and honey, it is as though it were written: You shall not burn leaven; you shall not burn honey.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讚 诇讗讜讬讛 讻诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛

And there are those who say that Abaye maintains that the offender is not even flogged with one set of lashes, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling. The principle that one is liable to be flogged for violating a prohibition is derived from the juxtaposition of the mitzva: 鈥淵ou shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:4), with the verses that mention lashes. It is inferred from this juxtaposition that one is not liable to be flogged for violating prohibitions whose circumstances are not similar to that of muzzling, e.g., a general prohibition that is not referring to one specific action.

Scroll To Top