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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 9, 2018 | 诇壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • 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 60

Study Guide Menachot 60. Which types of meal offerings need to be brought to the southwestern corner of the altar? From where do we derive which ones are including un this category? By logical arguments or by聽drashot聽from the verses?


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

讛讜讬 专讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讘讜讬 讜讗讬谉 专讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讘讜讬 讗诇讗 诇诪注讟

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 诪砖讛讜 砖诪谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讝讬转 诪谞讞讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬诪讛 讻谞转讬谞讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it,鈥 whereas with regard to frankincense it states: 鈥淣either shall he give any frankincense upon it,鈥 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.

谞转谉 砖诪谉 注诇 砖讬专讬讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 讬讻讜诇 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,鈥 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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜诇讗 讘讻讛谉

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淯pon it,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬转谉 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 讜讗诐 谞转谉 驻住诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 转谞讜驻讛 讛讙砖讛 讜转谞讜驻讛 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讙砖讛 诇讗 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讙砖讛

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.

讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 讜讛诪讞讘转 讜诪专讞砖转 讜讛讞诇讜转 讜讛专拽讬拽讬谉 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬诐 诪谞讞转 谞砖讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讛讙砖讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 拽诪讬爪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 拽诪讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讛讙砖讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞谉 注砖专 转谞谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Mena岣t: 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?

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讗转 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讗诇讛 诇讛壮 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讜讛讙讬砖讛 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 砖讟注讜谉 讛讙砖讛 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 讘诇讘讚

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诪谞讞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛

From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the entire meal offering? The verse states the superfluous term: 鈥淭he meal offering,鈥 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: 鈥淭he meal offering.鈥 The addition of the definite article serves to include the meal offering of a sinner.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讛讻讗

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,

诪谞讞转 讞讜讘讛 讜谞讗诪专 讛讻讗 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛

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.

诪讛 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 讗祝 诪谞讞转 讞讜讘讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 转讜讻讬讞

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.

诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 转讜讻讬讞

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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖砖讜讜 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讜砖讜讜 诇讛讙砖讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇拽诪讬爪讛 转砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讛讙砖讛

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.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讘讗 讘注砖讬专 讻讘注谞讬 转讗诪专 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讘讗 讘注砖讬专 讻讘注谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛

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鈥11)? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:8), with the addition of the definite article, to include the meal offering of a sinner in the requirement of bringing near.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讛讙砖讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 讗转 注诪专 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讻诐 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讛讙砖讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转讛 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Shimon adds to the logical inference and says that other cases are included in the derivation from the verse, as the term 鈥渁nd you shall bring鈥 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: 鈥淭hen you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 23:10). Furthermore, 鈥渁nd it shall be drawn near鈥 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: 鈥淎nd draw it near to the altar鈥 (Numbers 5:25).

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 讞讬讟讬谉

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.

诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 转讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 转讜讻讬讞

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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖砖讜讜 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讜砖讜讜 诇讛讙砖讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖砖讜讜转讛 诇讛谉 诇拽诪讬爪讛 转砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讛讙砖讛

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.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讘讗 拽诪讞 转讗诪专 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讘讗 拽诪讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘讛

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: 鈥淎nd draw it near,鈥 which serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讛讙砖讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讬讗 讗转 拽专讘谞讛 注诇讬讛

It was stated that Rabbi Shimon derives from the term 鈥渁nd you shall bring鈥 (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 鈥渁nd you shall bring鈥 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: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Numbers 5:15).

讗讘诇 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚讬谞讗 拽讗 讗转讬讗 讜诪讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛

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?

诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 讞讬讟讬谉 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 转讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 诇讘专专 注讜谉 讚诪讝讻专转 注讜谉 讛讬讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 转讜讻讬讞

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: 鈥淏ringing iniquity to remembrance,鈥 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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 砖讜讜 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讜砖讜讜 诇讛讙砖讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 砖砖讜讜转讛 诇讛谉 诇拽诪讬爪讛 转砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讛讙砖讛

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.

讜诪讗讬 驻专讻转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讬讱 讛讻讬 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd you shall bring.鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讛 讛讗 诪爪讜讬讬讛 讟驻讬 讛谞讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻诇诇

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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转 讗诇讗 砖讬讞讬讚 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 讗讞专转 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讛 砖讘注谞讬谉

The Gemara cites a baraita: Or perhaps when the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bring,鈥 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鈥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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讜诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讗祝 讬讞讬讚 砖诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 谞讚讘讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 谞讚讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:8), which teaches: I have nothing other than these five meal offerings as individual meal offerings.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讗诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 砖诪讘讬讗 讞诪讬砖转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗诇讛 专爪讛 讗讞转 诪讘讬讗 专爪讛 讞诪讬砖转谉 诪讘讬讗

The baraita raises a difficulty: Or perhaps the verse states 鈥渢hese鈥 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: 鈥淥f these,鈥 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 讻讙讜谉 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬诐 诪谞讞转 谞砖讬诐 诇讛讙砖讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗诇讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: When the verse states: 鈥淭he meal offering鈥 (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: 鈥淥f these,鈥 which indicates that not all meal offerings are included in the requirement of bringing near.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 砖讬砖 诪讛谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讛谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讜讛诇讗 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讻讜诇讛 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讜讛拽专讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐

The baraita asks: But didn鈥檛 you already derive from the term: 鈥淎nd it shall be drawn near,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd it shall be drawn near,鈥 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?

  • 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 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 60

讛讜讬 专讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讘讜讬 讜讗讬谉 专讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讘讜讬 讗诇讗 诇诪注讟

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 诪砖讛讜 砖诪谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讝讬转 诪谞讞讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬诪讛 讻谞转讬谞讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it,鈥 whereas with regard to frankincense it states: 鈥淣either shall he give any frankincense upon it,鈥 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.

谞转谉 砖诪谉 注诇 砖讬专讬讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 讬讻讜诇 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,鈥 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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜诇讗 讘讻讛谉

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淯pon it,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬转谉 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 讜讗诐 谞转谉 驻住诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 转谞讜驻讛 讛讙砖讛 讜转谞讜驻讛 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讙砖讛 诇讗 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讙砖讛

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.

讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 讜讛诪讞讘转 讜诪专讞砖转 讜讛讞诇讜转 讜讛专拽讬拽讬谉 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬诐 诪谞讞转 谞砖讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讛讙砖讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 拽诪讬爪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 拽诪讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讛讙砖讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞谉 注砖专 转谞谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Mena岣t: 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?

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讗转 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讗诇讛 诇讛壮 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讜讛讙讬砖讛 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 砖讟注讜谉 讛讙砖讛 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 讘诇讘讚

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诪谞讞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛

From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the entire meal offering? The verse states the superfluous term: 鈥淭he meal offering,鈥 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: 鈥淭he meal offering.鈥 The addition of the definite article serves to include the meal offering of a sinner.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讛讻讗

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,

诪谞讞转 讞讜讘讛 讜谞讗诪专 讛讻讗 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛

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.

诪讛 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 讗祝 诪谞讞转 讞讜讘讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 转讜讻讬讞

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.

诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 转讜讻讬讞

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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖砖讜讜 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讜砖讜讜 诇讛讙砖讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇拽诪讬爪讛 转砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讛讙砖讛

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.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讘讗 讘注砖讬专 讻讘注谞讬 转讗诪专 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讘讗 讘注砖讬专 讻讘注谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛

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鈥11)? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:8), with the addition of the definite article, to include the meal offering of a sinner in the requirement of bringing near.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讛讙砖讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 讗转 注诪专 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讻诐 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讛讙砖讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转讛 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Shimon adds to the logical inference and says that other cases are included in the derivation from the verse, as the term 鈥渁nd you shall bring鈥 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: 鈥淭hen you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the priest鈥 (Leviticus 23:10). Furthermore, 鈥渁nd it shall be drawn near鈥 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: 鈥淎nd draw it near to the altar鈥 (Numbers 5:25).

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 讞讬讟讬谉

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.

诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 转讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 转讜讻讬讞

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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖砖讜讜 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讜砖讜讜 诇讛讙砖讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖砖讜讜转讛 诇讛谉 诇拽诪讬爪讛 转砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讛讙砖讛

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.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讘讗 拽诪讞 转讗诪专 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讘讗 拽诪讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘讛

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: 鈥淎nd draw it near,鈥 which serves to include the meal offering brought by a sota in the requirement of bringing near.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讛讙砖讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讬讗 讗转 拽专讘谞讛 注诇讬讛

It was stated that Rabbi Shimon derives from the term 鈥渁nd you shall bring鈥 (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 鈥渁nd you shall bring鈥 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: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Numbers 5:15).

讗讘诇 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚讬谞讗 拽讗 讗转讬讗 讜诪讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 砖讟注讜谞讛 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛

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?

诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 讞讬讟讬谉 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 转讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 诇讘专专 注讜谉 讚诪讝讻专转 注讜谉 讛讬讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 转讜讻讬讞

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: 鈥淏ringing iniquity to remembrance,鈥 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.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 砖讜讜 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讜砖讜讜 诇讛讙砖讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 砖砖讜讜转讛 诇讛谉 诇拽诪讬爪讛 转砖讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讛讙砖讛

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.

讜诪讗讬 驻专讻转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讬讱 讛讻讬 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd you shall bring.鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讛 讛讗 诪爪讜讬讬讛 讟驻讬 讛谞讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻诇诇

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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转 讗诇讗 砖讬讞讬讚 诪转谞讚讘 讜诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 讗讞专转 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讛 砖讘注谞讬谉

The Gemara cites a baraita: Or perhaps when the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall bring,鈥 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鈥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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讜诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讗祝 讬讞讬讚 砖诪讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 谞讚讘讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讘讬讗 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 谞讚讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:8), which teaches: I have nothing other than these five meal offerings as individual meal offerings.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 讗诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 砖诪讘讬讗 讞诪讬砖转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗诇讛 专爪讛 讗讞转 诪讘讬讗 专爪讛 讞诪讬砖转谉 诪讘讬讗

The baraita raises a difficulty: Or perhaps the verse states 鈥渢hese鈥 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: 鈥淥f these,鈥 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 讻讙讜谉 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬诐 诪谞讞转 谞砖讬诐 诇讛讙砖讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗诇讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: When the verse states: 鈥淭he meal offering鈥 (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: 鈥淥f these,鈥 which indicates that not all meal offerings are included in the requirement of bringing near.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 砖讬砖 诪讛谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讛谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讜讛诇讗 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讻讜诇讛 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讟注讜谞讛 讛讙砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讜讛拽专讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 砖讗专 诪谞讞讜转 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐

The baraita asks: But didn鈥檛 you already derive from the term: 鈥淎nd it shall be drawn near,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd it shall be drawn near,鈥 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?

Scroll To Top