This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Which types of meal offerings require hagasha – to be brought to the southwestern corner of the altar? From where do we derive which ones are including in this category? Are they derived by logical arguments or by drashot from the verses?
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabia and Oliver Mitchell in honor of their daughter, Rachel Mitchell, who is drafting into the IDF today. “Today also marks the first anniversary of Rachel making aliya. Rachel, you are fulfilling the dreams of your ancestors. Your grandfather, who heard Jabotinsky speak in Riga, Latvia, and all the members of our family who longed for a Jewish homeland are standing with you today in spirit. Although our flights were canceled, we are always with you and are infinitely proud of you.
יהי רצון מלפני אבינו שבשמים שישמור אותך מכל רע, יגן עלייך תחת כנפיו, ויחזיר אותך הביתה לשלום. ה׳ ישמור צאתך ובואך מעתה ועד עולם.”
Menachot 60
הָוֵי רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי, וְאֵין רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט.
this is one amplificatory expression after another, one in the context of the oil and the other in the context of the frankincense. And there is a principle that one amplificatory expression after another serves only to restrict. Consequently, the placement of frankincense on any amount of a meal offering of a sinner disqualifies the meal offering.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף: בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתַן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִנְחָה, מַהוּ? מִי בָּעֵינַן שִׂימָה כִּנְתִינָה אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.
And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If one placed oil of any amount on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Since the Torah states with regard to oil: “He shall place no oil upon it,” whereas with regard to frankincense it states: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” do we require that the placing of the oil must be like the giving of the frankincense, which must be an olive-bulk, or not? No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
נָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן״, יָכוֹל בִּשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים.
§ The mishna teaches: If one placed oil on the remainder of a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he does not violate a prohibition. Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” one might have thought that this separation into two distinct prohibitions applies only where two priests perform these actions, one of whom places oil on the meal offering while the other puts frankincense. Perhaps in this case each of them is separately liable to receive lashes, but if one priest put both oil and frankincense on a meal offering, one might have thought he receives only one set of lashes.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״, בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְלֹא בְּכֹהֵן.
Therefore, the verse states: “Upon it,” with regard to both the oil and the frankincense, which indicates that the verse is speaking of the meal offering itself, and it is not referring to the priest who performs the service. Since both prohibited actions can be performed on the same meal offering, an individual who does both is liable to receive two sets of lashes.
יָכוֹל לֹא יִתֵּן כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי, וְאִם נָתַן – פָּסַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״, בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Furthermore, one might have thought this verse means one may not even place a vessel containing oil or frankincense on top of a vessel that contains the meal offering, and that if one placed such a vessel on the meal offering he has thereby disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that the verse is speaking about the meal offering itself. One may not place oil or frankincense on the meal offering itself, but it is not prohibited to place a vessel containing oil or frankincense upon a vessel that contains the meal offering.
מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה, וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה. הַגָּשָׁה וּתְנוּפָה. תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא הַגָּשָׁה. לֹא תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא הַגָּשָׁה.
MISHNA: There are four categories of meal offerings: Those that require bringing near, a rite that requires the priests to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the southwest corner of the altar, but do not require waving; those that require both bringing near and waving; those that require waving but not bringing near; and those that require neither waving nor bringing near.
וְאֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין, מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם, מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require bringing near but do not require waving: The fine-flour meal offering; the meal offering prepared in a pan; the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest; the meal offering of gentiles; a meal offering brought by women; and the meal offering of a sinner.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ אֵין בָּהֶן הַגָּשָׁה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְמִיצָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְמִיצָה אֵין בָּהֶן הַגָּשָׁה.
Rabbi Shimon says: The meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest do not require bringing of the meal offering near to the altar, due to the fact that there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, and there is a principle that with regard to any meal offering where there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, there is also no bringing near.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר – תְּנַן. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us?
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
The Gemara explains: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מֵאֵלֶּה לַה׳ וְהִקְרִיבָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי שֶׁטָּעוּן הַגָּשָׁה אֶלָּא קוֹמֶץ בִּלְבָד.
§ The mishna teaches that the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest require the ritual of bringing near. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: A verse discussing the meal offering prepared in the pan states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). If the verse had stated only: And you shall bring that which is made of these to the Lord and it shall be drawn near to the priest and he shall bring it near to the altar, omitting the words: The meal offering, I would say: I have derived only that the handful that is sacrificed on the altar alone requires bringing near.
מִנְחָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִנְחָה״. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.
From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the entire meal offering? The verse states the superfluous term: “The meal offering,” which indicates that one must bring the entire meal offering to the altar prior to the removal of the handful. The baraita further asks: From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the meal offering of a sinner? The verse states: “The meal offering.” The addition of the definite article serves to include the meal offering of a sinner.
וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵא
The baraita raises a difficulty: Why is a verse necessary to teach that the requirement of bringing near applies to the meal offering of a sinner? But this halakha is capable of being derived by logical inference. The baraita elaborates: The procedure of bringing a meal offering is stated here, in the context of the meal offering of a sinner,
מִנְחַת חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה. מָה מִנְחַת נְדָבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה – אַף מִנְחַת חוֹבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!
which is an obligatory meal offering; and it is stated there, with regard to the deep-pan meal offering, which is a voluntary meal offering. Just as a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near, so too an obligatory meal offering, such as the meal offering of a sinner, requires bringing near.
מָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ!
The baraita rejects this inference: What is notable about a voluntary meal offering? It is notable in that it requires oil and frankincense upon it, rendering its halakha more stringent than that of the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil and frankincense. Therefore, it would be logical to suggest that a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near but the meal offering of a sinner does not. The baraita responds: The meal offering brought by a sota, i.e., the meal offering of jealousy, can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it does not include oil and frankincense either, and yet it requires bringing near.
מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מִנְחַת נְדָבָה תּוֹכִיחַ.
The baraita rejects this claim: One cannot derive the halakha of the meal offering of a sinner from the meal offering brought by a sota, as there is another requirement that applies to the meal offering brought by a sota but not to the meal offering of a sinner: What is notable about the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that it requires waving, whereas the meal offering of a sinner does not. The baraita responds: The voluntary meal offering can prove that waving is not the decisive factor, as a voluntary meal offering does not require waving and yet it requires bringing near.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁשָּׁוָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תַּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!
Therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and similarly they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the meal offering of a sinner, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי, תֹּאמַר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.
The baraita rejects this suggestion: What is notable about the common element of the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that they are suited to come as the meal offering of a wealthy person just as they are suited to come as the meal offering of a poor person. Shall you say the same with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which is not suitable to come either as the meal offering of a wealthy person or as the meal offering of a poor person, since a sinner who is not poor does not bring a meal offering but a different offering (see Leviticus 5:6–11)? Therefore, the verse states: “The meal offering” (Leviticus 2:8), with the addition of the definite article, to include the meal offering of a sinner in the requirement of bringing near.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״, ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
Rabbi Shimon adds to the logical inference and says that other cases are included in the derivation from the verse, as the term “and you shall bring” serves to include the omer meal offering in the requirement of bringing near to the altar; and so the verse states with regard to the omer meal offering: “Then you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). Furthermore, “and it shall be drawn near” serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near; and so the verse states with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota: “And draw it near to the altar” (Numbers 5:25).
וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת סוֹטָה, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין!
The baraita challenges: But this halakha is capable of being derived a fortiori by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner, which includes a lenient aspect, as it does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, then with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, which does require waving, is it not logical to conclude that it should require bringing near? The baraita rejects this logical inference, as there is a stringency that applies to the meal offering of a sinner which does not apply to the meal offering brought by a sota: What is notable about the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that it comes from wheat, whereas the meal offering brought by a sota comes from barley, an inferior product.
מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
The baraita responds: The omer meal offering can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it also comes from barley, and yet it requires bringing near. Therefore, the same should apply to the meal offering brought by a sota. The baraita rejects this claim: What is notable about the omer meal offering? It is notable in that it requires oil and frankincense, whereas the meal offering brought by a sota does not. The baraita answers: The meal offering of a sinner can prove that the requirement of oil and frankincense is not a decisive factor, as the meal offering of a sinner does not require oil and frankincense and yet it requires bringing near.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה – תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!
Consequently, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that both the omer meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the meal offering brought by a sota, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא קֶמַח, תֹּאמַר מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא קֶמַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.
The baraita rejects this suggestion: What is notable about the common element of the omer meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that they are both not suited to come as coarse flour, but only as fine flour. Shall you say the same with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, which is suited to come as coarse flour? Therefore, the verse states: “And draw it near,” which serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת קׇרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ״.
It was stated that Rabbi Shimon derives from the term “and you shall bring” (Leviticus 2:8), written in the context of the deep-pan meal offering, that the omer meal offering is included in the requirement of bringing near. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda says: The term “and you shall bring” serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near; and so the verse states with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota: “Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).
אֲבָל מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדִּינָא קָא אָתְיָא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!
But with regard to the omer meal offering, a verse is not needed to teach that it requires bringing near. The baraita asks: What is the reason that no verse is needed for the omer meal offering? It is because this halakha is derived a fortiori by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner, which includes a lenient aspect, as it does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, then with regard to the omer meal offering, which includes a stringent aspect, as it does require waving, is it not logical to conclude that it should require bringing near?
מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן, דְּ״מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״ הִיא! מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
The baraita rejects this inference: What is notable about the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that it comes from wheat, whereas the omer meal offering comes from barley. The baraita responds: The meal offering brought by a sota can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it comes from barley and yet it requires bringing near. The same should apply to the omer meal offering. The baraita rejects this claim: What is notable about the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that it comes to clarify whether or not the wife committed the transgression of adultery, as it is described with the phrase: “Bringing iniquity to remembrance,” whereas the omer meal offering does not come to clarify whether or not one transgressed. The baraita answers: The meal offering of a sinner can prove otherwise, as it does not come to clarify transgression and yet it requires bringing near.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן שָׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה.
Therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that both the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the omer meal offering, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near. In this manner the requirement of bringing the omer meal offering near to the altar is derived jointly from the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner.
וּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין.
The Gemara asks: And how would you refute this logical inference? In other words, there is no refutation of this claim, and it is therefore unclear why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to derive the requirement of bringing near concerning the omer meal offering from the term: “And you shall bring.” The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon refutes the claim in this manner: What is notable about the common element of the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that they are common offerings, i.e., they can be brought many times over the course of a year, whereas the omer offering is sacrificed only once a year.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַדְּרַבָּה, הָא מְצוּיָיה טְפֵי, הָנָךְ זִימְנִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּלָל.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? He maintains that this is not a valid refutation, as on the contrary, this omer meal offering is more common than the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner. The omer meal offering is definitely brought once a year, whereas in the case of these offerings, there may be times when you do not find it at all, if no poor sinners come forward and no women are accused of adultery by their husbands.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת, חוּץ מֵאֵלֶּה שֶׁבָּעִנְיָן.
The Gemara cites a baraita: Or perhaps when the verse states: “And you shall bring,” this does not serve to teach about the requirement of bringing near but rather is written for a different reason: To indicate that an individual Jew may donate and bring a different kind of meal offering, one made from barley, apart from these five meal offerings, all made from wheat, which the verse mentions with regard to this matter (see Leviticus 2:1–13). The five offerings are the fine-flour meal offering, the meal offering prepared in the pan, the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and the meal offering baked in the oven, either in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers.
וְדִין הוּא: צִיבּוּר מֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין חוֹבָה, וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין חוֹבָה, אַף יָחִיד שֶׁמֵּבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין נְדָבָה – יָכוֹל יָבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נְדָבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֵלֶּה.
And this halakha is necessary because the opposite conclusion could otherwise have been derived by logical inference based on juxtaposition: The community brings an obligatory meal offering from wheat, i.e., the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the community also brings an obligatory meal offering from barley, the omer meal offering. So too an individual, who brings a meal offering from wheat as a voluntary gift offering, can likewise bring a meal offering from barley as a voluntary gift offering. Therefore, to prevent this inference, the verse states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:8), which teaches: I have nothing other than these five meal offerings as individual meal offerings.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אֵלֶּה״ אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חֲמִישְׁתָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״ – רָצָה אַחַת מֵבִיא, רָצָה חֲמִישְׁתָּן מֵבִיא.
The baraita raises a difficulty: Or perhaps the verse states “these” not in order to exclude other individual meal offerings but rather to teach a halakha with regard to one who takes a vow to bring a meal offering and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, without specifying a particular type of meal offering, and it teaches that he must bring all five of them. The baraita explains: The verse states: “Of these,” which indicates that if the one who took a vow wants, he brings one meal offering, and if he wants, he brings all five of them.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, כְּגוֹן מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, לְהַגָּשָׁה. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: When the verse states: “The meal offering” (Leviticus 2:8), this serves to include the other meal offerings, for example the meal offering of gentiles and a meal offering brought by women, with regard to the requirement of bringing near. One might have thought that I should include from this verse even the two loaves and the shewbread. Therefore, the verse states: “Of these,” which indicates that not all meal offerings are included in the requirement of bringing near.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, וּלְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים.
The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near, and to exclude the two loaves and the shewbread from this halakha? One could suggest the opposite conclusion, to include these two offerings while excluding the others. The baraita answers: I include the other meal offerings, as there is a portion of them burned in the fire on the altar, and I exclude the two loaves and the shewbread from the requirement of bringing near, as there is no portion of them burned in the fire on the altar. Rather, they are eaten by the priests in their entirety.
וַהֲלֹא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים כּוּלָּהּ לָאִישִּׁים, יָכוֹל (יְהֵא) [תְּהֵא] טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.
The baraita asks: But with regard to the meal offering brought with libations, which is entirely burned in the fire, by this logic one might have thought that it should require bringing near. The baraita answers: The verse states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). This indicates that the requirement of bringing near applies only to those meal offerings listed in this chapter, not to the meal offering brought with libations, which is not mentioned.
וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ ״וְהִקְרִיב״ ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״, וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים?
The baraita asks: But didn’t you already derive from the term: “And it shall be drawn near,” that the meal offering brought by a sota is included in the requirement of bringing near? The baraita answers: As the verse could have stated: And shall be drawn near, and instead it states: “And it shall be drawn near,” this addition serves to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from the requirement of bringing near. The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near and to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from this requirement?
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.
Menahot 60: Bringing the Grain-Offering Near and/or Waving It
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.
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
New York, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, 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
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Menachot 60
הָוֵי רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי, וְאֵין רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט.
this is one amplificatory expression after another, one in the context of the oil and the other in the context of the frankincense. And there is a principle that one amplificatory expression after another serves only to restrict. Consequently, the placement of frankincense on any amount of a meal offering of a sinner disqualifies the meal offering.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף: בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתַן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִנְחָה, מַהוּ? מִי בָּעֵינַן שִׂימָה כִּנְתִינָה אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.
And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If one placed oil of any amount on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Since the Torah states with regard to oil: “He shall place no oil upon it,” whereas with regard to frankincense it states: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” do we require that the placing of the oil must be like the giving of the frankincense, which must be an olive-bulk, or not? No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
נָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן״, יָכוֹל בִּשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים.
§ The mishna teaches: If one placed oil on the remainder of a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he does not violate a prohibition. Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” one might have thought that this separation into two distinct prohibitions applies only where two priests perform these actions, one of whom places oil on the meal offering while the other puts frankincense. Perhaps in this case each of them is separately liable to receive lashes, but if one priest put both oil and frankincense on a meal offering, one might have thought he receives only one set of lashes.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״, בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְלֹא בְּכֹהֵן.
Therefore, the verse states: “Upon it,” with regard to both the oil and the frankincense, which indicates that the verse is speaking of the meal offering itself, and it is not referring to the priest who performs the service. Since both prohibited actions can be performed on the same meal offering, an individual who does both is liable to receive two sets of lashes.
יָכוֹל לֹא יִתֵּן כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי, וְאִם נָתַן – פָּסַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״, בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל מִנְחָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Furthermore, one might have thought this verse means one may not even place a vessel containing oil or frankincense on top of a vessel that contains the meal offering, and that if one placed such a vessel on the meal offering he has thereby disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that the verse is speaking about the meal offering itself. One may not place oil or frankincense on the meal offering itself, but it is not prohibited to place a vessel containing oil or frankincense upon a vessel that contains the meal offering.
מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה, וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה. הַגָּשָׁה וּתְנוּפָה. תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא הַגָּשָׁה. לֹא תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא הַגָּשָׁה.
MISHNA: There are four categories of meal offerings: Those that require bringing near, a rite that requires the priests to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the southwest corner of the altar, but do not require waving; those that require both bringing near and waving; those that require waving but not bringing near; and those that require neither waving nor bringing near.
וְאֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין, מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם, מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require bringing near but do not require waving: The fine-flour meal offering; the meal offering prepared in a pan; the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest; the meal offering of gentiles; a meal offering brought by women; and the meal offering of a sinner.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ אֵין בָּהֶן הַגָּשָׁה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְמִיצָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן קְמִיצָה אֵין בָּהֶן הַגָּשָׁה.
Rabbi Shimon says: The meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest do not require bringing of the meal offering near to the altar, due to the fact that there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, and there is a principle that with regard to any meal offering where there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, there is also no bringing near.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר – תְּנַן. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us?
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
The Gemara explains: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מֵאֵלֶּה לַה׳ וְהִקְרִיבָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי שֶׁטָּעוּן הַגָּשָׁה אֶלָּא קוֹמֶץ בִּלְבָד.
§ The mishna teaches that the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest require the ritual of bringing near. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: A verse discussing the meal offering prepared in the pan states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). If the verse had stated only: And you shall bring that which is made of these to the Lord and it shall be drawn near to the priest and he shall bring it near to the altar, omitting the words: The meal offering, I would say: I have derived only that the handful that is sacrificed on the altar alone requires bringing near.
מִנְחָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִנְחָה״. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.
From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the entire meal offering? The verse states the superfluous term: “The meal offering,” which indicates that one must bring the entire meal offering to the altar prior to the removal of the handful. The baraita further asks: From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the meal offering of a sinner? The verse states: “The meal offering.” The addition of the definite article serves to include the meal offering of a sinner.
וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵא
The baraita raises a difficulty: Why is a verse necessary to teach that the requirement of bringing near applies to the meal offering of a sinner? But this halakha is capable of being derived by logical inference. The baraita elaborates: The procedure of bringing a meal offering is stated here, in the context of the meal offering of a sinner,
מִנְחַת חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה. מָה מִנְחַת נְדָבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה – אַף מִנְחַת חוֹבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!
which is an obligatory meal offering; and it is stated there, with regard to the deep-pan meal offering, which is a voluntary meal offering. Just as a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near, so too an obligatory meal offering, such as the meal offering of a sinner, requires bringing near.
מָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ!
The baraita rejects this inference: What is notable about a voluntary meal offering? It is notable in that it requires oil and frankincense upon it, rendering its halakha more stringent than that of the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil and frankincense. Therefore, it would be logical to suggest that a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near but the meal offering of a sinner does not. The baraita responds: The meal offering brought by a sota, i.e., the meal offering of jealousy, can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it does not include oil and frankincense either, and yet it requires bringing near.
מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מִנְחַת נְדָבָה תּוֹכִיחַ.
The baraita rejects this claim: One cannot derive the halakha of the meal offering of a sinner from the meal offering brought by a sota, as there is another requirement that applies to the meal offering brought by a sota but not to the meal offering of a sinner: What is notable about the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that it requires waving, whereas the meal offering of a sinner does not. The baraita responds: The voluntary meal offering can prove that waving is not the decisive factor, as a voluntary meal offering does not require waving and yet it requires bringing near.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁשָּׁוָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תַּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!
Therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and similarly they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the meal offering of a sinner, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי, תֹּאמַר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.
The baraita rejects this suggestion: What is notable about the common element of the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that they are suited to come as the meal offering of a wealthy person just as they are suited to come as the meal offering of a poor person. Shall you say the same with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which is not suitable to come either as the meal offering of a wealthy person or as the meal offering of a poor person, since a sinner who is not poor does not bring a meal offering but a different offering (see Leviticus 5:6–11)? Therefore, the verse states: “The meal offering” (Leviticus 2:8), with the addition of the definite article, to include the meal offering of a sinner in the requirement of bringing near.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״, ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
Rabbi Shimon adds to the logical inference and says that other cases are included in the derivation from the verse, as the term “and you shall bring” serves to include the omer meal offering in the requirement of bringing near to the altar; and so the verse states with regard to the omer meal offering: “Then you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). Furthermore, “and it shall be drawn near” serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near; and so the verse states with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota: “And draw it near to the altar” (Numbers 5:25).
וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת סוֹטָה, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין!
The baraita challenges: But this halakha is capable of being derived a fortiori by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner, which includes a lenient aspect, as it does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, then with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, which does require waving, is it not logical to conclude that it should require bringing near? The baraita rejects this logical inference, as there is a stringency that applies to the meal offering of a sinner which does not apply to the meal offering brought by a sota: What is notable about the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that it comes from wheat, whereas the meal offering brought by a sota comes from barley, an inferior product.
מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
The baraita responds: The omer meal offering can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it also comes from barley, and yet it requires bringing near. Therefore, the same should apply to the meal offering brought by a sota. The baraita rejects this claim: What is notable about the omer meal offering? It is notable in that it requires oil and frankincense, whereas the meal offering brought by a sota does not. The baraita answers: The meal offering of a sinner can prove that the requirement of oil and frankincense is not a decisive factor, as the meal offering of a sinner does not require oil and frankincense and yet it requires bringing near.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה – תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!
Consequently, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that both the omer meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the meal offering brought by a sota, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near.
מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא קֶמַח, תֹּאמַר מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא קֶמַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.
The baraita rejects this suggestion: What is notable about the common element of the omer meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that they are both not suited to come as coarse flour, but only as fine flour. Shall you say the same with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, which is suited to come as coarse flour? Therefore, the verse states: “And draw it near,” which serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת קׇרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ״.
It was stated that Rabbi Shimon derives from the term “and you shall bring” (Leviticus 2:8), written in the context of the deep-pan meal offering, that the omer meal offering is included in the requirement of bringing near. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda says: The term “and you shall bring” serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near; and so the verse states with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota: “Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).
אֲבָל מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדִּינָא קָא אָתְיָא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!
But with regard to the omer meal offering, a verse is not needed to teach that it requires bringing near. The baraita asks: What is the reason that no verse is needed for the omer meal offering? It is because this halakha is derived a fortiori by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner, which includes a lenient aspect, as it does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, then with regard to the omer meal offering, which includes a stringent aspect, as it does require waving, is it not logical to conclude that it should require bringing near?
מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן, דְּ״מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״ הִיא! מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
The baraita rejects this inference: What is notable about the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that it comes from wheat, whereas the omer meal offering comes from barley. The baraita responds: The meal offering brought by a sota can prove that this factor is not decisive, as it comes from barley and yet it requires bringing near. The same should apply to the omer meal offering. The baraita rejects this claim: What is notable about the meal offering brought by a sota? It is notable in that it comes to clarify whether or not the wife committed the transgression of adultery, as it is described with the phrase: “Bringing iniquity to remembrance,” whereas the omer meal offering does not come to clarify whether or not one transgressed. The baraita answers: The meal offering of a sinner can prove otherwise, as it does not come to clarify transgression and yet it requires bringing near.
וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן שָׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה.
Therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point, as the aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that both the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner are equal with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to the requirement of bringing near. I will also bring the additional case of the omer meal offering, which is equal to them with regard to the requirement of the removal of a handful, and conclude that it should likewise be equal to them with regard to the requirement of bringing near. In this manner the requirement of bringing the omer meal offering near to the altar is derived jointly from the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner.
וּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין.
The Gemara asks: And how would you refute this logical inference? In other words, there is no refutation of this claim, and it is therefore unclear why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to derive the requirement of bringing near concerning the omer meal offering from the term: “And you shall bring.” The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon refutes the claim in this manner: What is notable about the common element of the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable in that they are common offerings, i.e., they can be brought many times over the course of a year, whereas the omer offering is sacrificed only once a year.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַדְּרַבָּה, הָא מְצוּיָיה טְפֵי, הָנָךְ זִימְנִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּלָל.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? He maintains that this is not a valid refutation, as on the contrary, this omer meal offering is more common than the meal offering brought by a sota and the meal offering of a sinner. The omer meal offering is definitely brought once a year, whereas in the case of these offerings, there may be times when you do not find it at all, if no poor sinners come forward and no women are accused of adultery by their husbands.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת, חוּץ מֵאֵלֶּה שֶׁבָּעִנְיָן.
The Gemara cites a baraita: Or perhaps when the verse states: “And you shall bring,” this does not serve to teach about the requirement of bringing near but rather is written for a different reason: To indicate that an individual Jew may donate and bring a different kind of meal offering, one made from barley, apart from these five meal offerings, all made from wheat, which the verse mentions with regard to this matter (see Leviticus 2:1–13). The five offerings are the fine-flour meal offering, the meal offering prepared in the pan, the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and the meal offering baked in the oven, either in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers.
וְדִין הוּא: צִיבּוּר מֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין חוֹבָה, וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין חוֹבָה, אַף יָחִיד שֶׁמֵּבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין נְדָבָה – יָכוֹל יָבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נְדָבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֵלֶּה.
And this halakha is necessary because the opposite conclusion could otherwise have been derived by logical inference based on juxtaposition: The community brings an obligatory meal offering from wheat, i.e., the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the community also brings an obligatory meal offering from barley, the omer meal offering. So too an individual, who brings a meal offering from wheat as a voluntary gift offering, can likewise bring a meal offering from barley as a voluntary gift offering. Therefore, to prevent this inference, the verse states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:8), which teaches: I have nothing other than these five meal offerings as individual meal offerings.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אֵלֶּה״ אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חֲמִישְׁתָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״ – רָצָה אַחַת מֵבִיא, רָצָה חֲמִישְׁתָּן מֵבִיא.
The baraita raises a difficulty: Or perhaps the verse states “these” not in order to exclude other individual meal offerings but rather to teach a halakha with regard to one who takes a vow to bring a meal offering and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, without specifying a particular type of meal offering, and it teaches that he must bring all five of them. The baraita explains: The verse states: “Of these,” which indicates that if the one who took a vow wants, he brings one meal offering, and if he wants, he brings all five of them.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, כְּגוֹן מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, לְהַגָּשָׁה. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: When the verse states: “The meal offering” (Leviticus 2:8), this serves to include the other meal offerings, for example the meal offering of gentiles and a meal offering brought by women, with regard to the requirement of bringing near. One might have thought that I should include from this verse even the two loaves and the shewbread. Therefore, the verse states: “Of these,” which indicates that not all meal offerings are included in the requirement of bringing near.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, וּלְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים.
The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near, and to exclude the two loaves and the shewbread from this halakha? One could suggest the opposite conclusion, to include these two offerings while excluding the others. The baraita answers: I include the other meal offerings, as there is a portion of them burned in the fire on the altar, and I exclude the two loaves and the shewbread from the requirement of bringing near, as there is no portion of them burned in the fire on the altar. Rather, they are eaten by the priests in their entirety.
וַהֲלֹא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים כּוּלָּהּ לָאִישִּׁים, יָכוֹל (יְהֵא) [תְּהֵא] טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.
The baraita asks: But with regard to the meal offering brought with libations, which is entirely burned in the fire, by this logic one might have thought that it should require bringing near. The baraita answers: The verse states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). This indicates that the requirement of bringing near applies only to those meal offerings listed in this chapter, not to the meal offering brought with libations, which is not mentioned.
וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ ״וְהִקְרִיב״ ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״, וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים?
The baraita asks: But didn’t you already derive from the term: “And it shall be drawn near,” that the meal offering brought by a sota is included in the requirement of bringing near? The baraita answers: As the verse could have stated: And shall be drawn near, and instead it states: “And it shall be drawn near,” this addition serves to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from the requirement of bringing near. The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near and to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from this requirement?
