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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 12, 2018 | ג׳ במרחשוון תשע״ט

  • 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 63

What is the difference between a marcheshet and machavat meal offering? Details regarding the meal offering of the Omer are discussed. Is there a difference between the way it is done on Shabbat (in the event that the day after Pesach falls out on Shabbat) and the way it is done on a regular day?


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

מתני׳ האומר הרי עלי במחבת לא יביא במרחשת במרחשת לא יביא במחבת מה בין מחבת למרחשת מרחשת יש לה כיסוי מחבת אין לה כיסוי דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר מרחשת עמוקה ומעשיה רוחשין (רכין) מחבת צפה ומעשיה קשין

MISHNA: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering to the Temple and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a maḼavat, may not bring one prepared in a marḼeshet. Similarly, if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḼeshet, he may not bring one prepared in a maḼavat. The mishna clarifies: What is the difference between a maḼavat and a marḼeshet? A marḼeshet has a cover, whereas a maḼavat does not have a cover; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A marḼeshet is deep, and due to the large amount of oil, its product is soft because it moves about [roḼashin] in the oil. A maḼavat is flat, as the sides of the pan are level with the pan, and due to the small amount of oil, its product is hard.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי אילימא מרחשת דאתיא ארחושי הלב כדכתיב רחש לבי דבר טוב ומחבת דאתיא אמחבואי הפה כדאמרי אינשי מנבח נבוחי

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: As the Torah does not describe the different vessels, what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, explaining that a marḥeshet has a cover and a maḥavat does not have a cover? If we say that the term marḥeshet indicates that the offering comes to atone for the sinful musings [raḥashei] of the heart, as it is written: “My heart muses [raḥash] on a goodly matter” (Psalms 45:2), and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in a covered vessel just as the thoughts of the heart are hidden, this interpretation is insufficient. And if we say that the term maḥavat indicates that the offering comes to atone for transgressions committed with the corners of [ammaḥavo’ei] the mouth, as people say with regard to someone who speaks loudly: He is barking [minbaḥ nevuḥei], and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in an open vessel, this interpretation is also insufficient.

אימא איפכא מחבת דאתיא אמחבואי הלב דכתיב למה נחבאת לברח מרחשת דאתיא ארחושי כדאמרי אינשי הוה מרחשן שיפתותיה אלא גמרא גמירי לה

The reason these interpretations are insufficient is that one can also say the opposite, and suggest that the name maḥavat indicates that the offering must be prepared in a closed vessel, as it comes to atone for the secret musings of the heart, as it is written that Laban said to Jacob: “Why did you flee secretly [naḥbeita]” (Genesis 31:27). Likewise, with regard to marḥeshet, one can say that it must be prepared in an open vessel, as it comes to atone for whispers [reḥushei] of the mouth which are heard and revealed, as people say: His lips were whispering [meraḥashan]. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili cannot derive the meanings of the terms marḥeshet and maḥavat from the verses; rather, his interpretation is learned as a tradition.

רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר כו׳ מרחשת עמוקה דכתיב וכל נעשה במרחשת מחבת צפה דכתיב ועל מחבת

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says that a marḥeshet is deep, whereas a maḥavat is flat. The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: A marḥeshet is deep, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “in” indicates that this meal offering is prepared inside a vessel, i.e., a deep container. Conversely, a maḥavat is flat, with the sides of the pan level with the pan, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “on” indicates that it is prepared on the vessel, not inside it. Therefore, a flat vessel is required.

תנו רבנן בית שמאי אומרים האומר הרי עלי מרחשת יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

§ The mishna teaches that if one vows: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḼeshet, he is obligated to bring a meal offering of that type. With regard to this, the Sages taught that Beit Shammai say: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḼeshet, without using the term: Meal offering, or the preposition: In, in such a case the money for the meal offering should be placed in a safe place until the prophet Elijah comes heralding the Messiah, and clarifies what should be done.

מספקא להו אי על שום כלי נקראו או על שום מעשיהן

The Gemara elaborates: Beit Shammai are uncertain with regard to the source of the terms marḼeshet and maḼavat, whether the offerings are called these names due to the specific vessel in which each meal offering is prepared, or whether they are called these names due to the manner of their preparation. The significance of this distinction is that if the term marḼeshet is referring to a specific type of vessel, then if one takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḼeshet, he must bring an actual vessel of that type, whereas if the term is referring to the manner of preparation of the meal offering then he is obligated to bring that type of meal offering. Since Beit Shammai are uncertain which is the correct interpretation, they rule that he must wait until the prophet Elijah comes.

ובית הלל אומרים כלי היה במקדש ומרחשת שמה ודומה כמין כלבוס עמוק וכשבצק מונח בתוכו דומה כמין תפוחי הברתים וכמין בלוטי היוונים

And Beit Hillel say that there is no uncertainty about this matter, as there was a particular vessel in the Temple, and its name was marḼeshet. And this vessel resembled a type of deep kelabus, which is a vessel with indentations, and when dough is placed inside it, it gets pressed against the indentations and takes their shape. The dough resembles a type of apple of berotim trees, or a type of acorn [balutei] of the Greek oak trees. Therefore, one who takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḼeshet, must bring this type of vessel to the Temple as a donation.

ואומר וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת אלמא על שום הכלים נקראו ולא על שום מעשיהם

And the verse states two different prepositions with regard to these vessels: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet and on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). It does not state simply: And all that is made in the marḥeshet and the maḥavat. Since it seems from the verse that when using the marḥeshet the meal offering is prepared inside the vessel and when using the maḥavat it is prepared on the vessel, evidently they are called these names due to the vessel in which the meal offering is prepared, not due to the manner of their preparation.

מתני׳ הרי עלי בתנור לא יביא מאפה כופח ולא מאפה רעפים ומאפה יורות הערביים רבי יהודה אומר רצה מביא מאפה כופח

MISHNA: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering baked in an oven, he may not bring a meal offering baked on a small oven [kupaḼ], nor a meal offering baked on roofing tiles, nor a meal offering baked in the baking pits of the Arabs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he so wishes, he may bring a meal offering baked on a kupaḼ.

הרי עלי מנחת מאפה לא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין רבי שמעון מתיר מפני שהוא קרבן אחד

If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, without specifying loaves or wafers, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and the other half in the form of wafers; rather, they must all be of one form or the other. Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, due to the fact that both loaves and wafers are written with regard to this meal offering, which indicates that it is one offering of two possible forms.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מאפה תנור ולא מאפה כופח ולא מאפה רעפים ולא מאפה יורות הערביים

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4), this emphasizes that it must be prepared in an oven, and not baked on a kupaḥ, nor baked on roofing tiles, nor baked in the baking pits of the Arabs, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna.

רבי יהודה אומר תנור תנור שני פעמים להכשיר מאפה כופח רבי שמעון אומר תנור תנור שני פעמים אחד שתהא אפייתן בתנור ואחד שיהא הקדישן בתנור

Rabbi Yehuda says: In this verse it states “oven,” and it also states “oven” in another verse: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven” (Leviticus 7:9). Since it is written two times, and these terms are restrictions, one follows the hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. Consequently, this derivation serves to render fit a meal offering baked on a kupaḥ, and it too is deemed an oven. Rabbi Shimon says: The terms “oven” and “oven,” which are written a total of two times, serve to teach two halakhot: One instance teaches that their baking should be in an oven, and the other one teaches that their consecration is in an oven, i.e., meal offerings are not consecrated in service vessels but rather in the oven.

ומי אית ליה לרבי שמעון האי סברא והתנן רבי שמעון אומר לעולם הוי רגיל לומר שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים כשרות בעזרה וכשרות בבית פאגי

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold in accordance with this line of reasoning? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (95b) that Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are valid if they are kneaded, shaped, or baked in the Temple courtyard, and that they are also valid if they are prepared in the place called Beit Pagei, which is outside the walls of the Temple Mount? As these offerings are not disqualified by being taken outside the Temple, evidently they are not consecrated in the oven.

אמר רבא אימא שיהא הקדישן לשום תנור

Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the oven does not consecrate meal offerings, and as for his statement in the baraita concerning the two derivations, one should say that the other derivation from the term “oven” teaches that their consecration by the owner must be explicit, i.e., from the outset he must say that he is sanctifying his meal offering for the sake of a meal offering baked in an oven.

הרי עלי מנחת מאפה לא יביא מחצה [וכו׳] תנו רבנן וכי תקריב כשתקריב לעשות דבר רשות

§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers, whereas Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, as it is one offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4). The phrase: “And when you bring,” indicates that this offering is not obligatory. Rather, when you wish you may bring, i.e., the verse teaches how to perform the meal offering baked in an oven as a voluntary matter.

קרבן מנחה אמר רבי יהודה מנין לאומר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה שלא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין תלמוד לומר קרבן מנחה קרבן אחד אמרתי לך ולא שנים ושלשה קרבנות

With regard to the term: “A meal offering,” Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he must not bring half of the bread in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers? The verse states: “A meal offering,” which indicates: I told you to bring one offering, i.e., all ten loaves from one type, and not two or three offerings of different types, as allowed by Rabbi Shimon.

אמר לו רבי שמעון

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda:

וכי נאמר קרבן קרבן שני פעמים והלא לא נאמר אלא קרבן אחד ונאמר בו חלות ורקיקין

And is it stated with regard to a meal offering baked in an oven: “Offering,” and again: Offering, for a total of two times, once in connection to a meal offering of loaves and once in connection to a meal offering of wafers? If that were the case, it would indicate that these are two types of offerings. But doesn’t it actually say “offering” only one time: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4)? And it is stated with regard to this meal offering both loaves and wafers, which indicates that these are two varieties of the same offering.

מעתה רצה להביא חלות מביא רקיקין מביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין מביא ובוללן וקומץ משניהם ואם קמץ ועלה בידו מאחד על שניהם יצא

Rabbi Shimon continues: From now it may be inferred that if one wants to bring ten loaves he may bring ten loaves, and if he prefers to bring ten wafers, he may bring ten wafers, and if he decides that half of them should be loaves and half of them wafers, he may bring it in this manner. And if he brings part as loaves and part as wafers, how does he proceed? He mingles all of them and removes a handful from both of them. And if he removed a handful and it happened that only part of one type, either loaves or wafers, came up in his hand for both of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as they are both part of a single offering.

רבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר מנין לאומר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה שלא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין תלמוד לומר וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת לכהן המקריב אתה לו תהיה וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he may not bring half of the offering as loaves and half as wafers? He answers: The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in an oven, and every one that is made in the deep pan, and on the shallow pan, shall belong to the priest who sacrifices it. And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:9–10).

מה וכל האמור למטה שני מינין חלוקין אף וכל האמור למעלה שני מינין חלוקין

The verses juxtapose the meal offering baked in an oven to the meal offering prepared on the pan and the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and similarly to the meal offering brought as a gift, alluded to by the phrase: “Mixed with oil,” and to the meal offering of a sinner, which is called: “Dry.” This teaches that just as the term: “And every” (Leviticus 7:10), stated below with regard to those meal offerings, is referring to two different types of meal offering, so too, the term: “And every” (Leviticus 7:9), stated above, with regard to the two forms of meal offering baked in an oven, is referring to two different types of meal offering, and therefore one may not bring part as loaves and part as wafers.

ורבי יהודה שפיר קאמר רבי שמעון אמר לך כיון דכתיב בשמן בשמן כמאן דכתיב קרבן קרבן דמי

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that loaves and wafers are two different types of meal offerings baked in an oven, respond to Rabbi Shimon’s proof? After all, Rabbi Shimon is saying well when he points out that the verse mentions “offering” only once. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: Since it is written: “With oil,” and: “With oil,” in the verse: “It shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4), it is considered as though it is written “offering” and “offering,” and therefore these are deemed two different types of meal offering.

ורבי שמעון אי לא כתיב בשמן בשמן הוה אמינא דווקא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין אבל חלות לחודייהו ורקיקין לחודייהו אימא לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the repetition of the term “with oil” teaches a different halakha. If it were not written “with oil,” and again “with oil,” I would say that a meal offering baked in an oven must be specifically brought half as loaves and half as wafers, and if he wanted to bring only loaves alone or wafers alone, I would say that he may not bring a meal offering in this manner. The repetition of the term “with oil” teaches us that a meal offering baked in an oven can comprise ten loaves, or ten wafers, or a combination of both types.

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה היינו אבוה איכא בינייהו דאי עבד

The Gemara further inquires: The baraita states that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that loaves and wafers are two different types of meal offerings. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is the same as that of his father, Rabbi Yehuda, whose opinion is also mentioned in the baraita. Why is it necessary to cite Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion separately? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, because there is a practical difference between his ruling and that of his father; as, if someone transgressed and performed the sacrifice of a meal offering baked in an oven by bringing a mixture of loaves and wafers, according to Rabbi Yehuda the offering is valid after the fact, whereas Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda deems it not valid even after the fact.

הדרן עלך כל המנחות

 

מתני׳ רבי ישמעאל אומר עומר היה בא בשבת משלש סאין ובחול מחמש וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול משלש היה בא

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: When the day of the sacrifice of the omer meal offering would occur on Shabbat, the labors performed that would otherwise be prohibited were kept to a minimum, and the one-tenth of an ephah of flour that was brought as an offering was processed from three se’a of reaped barley. And if it occurred during the week, the flour was processed from five se’a of reaped barley. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a of reaped barley.

רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר בשבת היה נקצר ביחיד ובמגל אחד ובקופה אחת ובחול בשלשה בשלש קופות ושלש מגלות וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול בשלשה בשלש קופות ובשלש מגלות

Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual and with one sickle and with one basket into which the barley was placed; and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and with three sickles.

גמ׳ בשלמא רבנן קא סברי עשרון מובחר בשלשה סאין אתי ולא שנא בחול ולא שנא בשבת

GEMARA: Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to how many se’a of barley were reaped for the omer meal offering on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yishmael three se’a were reaped when the offering was brought on a Shabbat, and five se’a were reaped when the offering was brought on a weekday. The Rabbis maintain that both during the week and on Shabbat, three se’a were reaped. The Gemara asks: Granted the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they maintain that a select tenth of an ephah of flour comes from three se’a of reaped barley, and therefore there is no difference whether the barley is reaped during the week or whether it is reaped on Shabbat, as a select tenth is required.

אלא רבי ישמעאל מאי קסבר אי קסבר עשרון מובחר לא אתי אלא מחמש אפילו בשבת נמי אי משלש אתי אפילו בחול נמי

Rather, there is a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who differentiates between Shabbat and during the week. What does he hold? If he holds that a select tenth of an ephah of flour can come only from five se’a of reaped barley, then even on Shabbat five se’a should also be required. And if the select tenth of an ephah of flour can come from even three se’a, then even on a weekday three should suffice.

אמר רבא קסבר רבי ישמעאל עשרון מובחר בלא טירחא אתי מחמש בטירחא אתי משלש בחול מייתינן מחמש דהכי שביחא מילתא בשבת מוטב שירבה במלאכה אחת בהרקדה ואל ירבה במלאכות הרבה

Rava said: Rabbi Yishmael holds that a select tenth of an ephah of flour can come without exertion from five se’a, and with exertion from three. Therefore, on a weekday we reap and bring flour from five se’a, as this produces a better final product, since only the highest-quality flour of each se’a is selected. On Shabbat, it is preferable that one should increase the effort involved in one prohibited labor, that of sifting the flour numerous times, and one should not increase the number of prohibited acts involved in performing many prohibited labors, such as reaping and winnowing, which are required for the processing of five se’a.

אמר רבה רבי ישמעאל ורבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אמרו דבר אחד דתניא ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מפשיט את הפסח עד החזה דברי רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה וחכמים אומרים עד שיפשיט את כולו

§ Rabba said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi YoḼanan ben Beroka, said the same thing. As it is taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, when the Paschal offering is sacrificed but not roasted until Shabbat ends, one flays the Paschal offering up to the breast, to enable removal of the parts of the animal that are sacrificed upon the altar on Shabbat, and flays the rest of the animal after Shabbat. Further skinning is only to facilitate eating the animal and therefore it does not override Shabbat. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi YoḼanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One has not performed the obligation properly unless he flays it in its entirety.

מי לא אמר רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה התם כל היכא דאפשר לא טרחינן הכא נמי כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן

The Gemara explains why the statements of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, are the same. Didn’t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say there that anywhere that it is possible to perform the necessary task without an additional action, we do not exert ourselves on Shabbat? Here, too, since it is possible to perform the necessary task without the extra flaying, we do not exert ourselves.

ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי ישמעאל הכא אלא דליכא בזיון קדשים אבל התם דאיכא בזיון קדשים

The Gemara rejects this comparison: From where is this conclusion reached? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his ruling only here, in the case of reaping three se’a on Shabbat, where there is no degradation of consecrated items. But there, where there is degradation of consecrated items, as the animal will be left half-flayed overnight,

  • 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 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 63

מתני׳ האומר הרי עלי במחבת לא יביא במרחשת במרחשת לא יביא במחבת מה בין מחבת למרחשת מרחשת יש לה כיסוי מחבת אין לה כיסוי דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר מרחשת עמוקה ומעשיה רוחשין (רכין) מחבת צפה ומעשיה קשין

MISHNA: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering to the Temple and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a maḼavat, may not bring one prepared in a marḼeshet. Similarly, if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḼeshet, he may not bring one prepared in a maḼavat. The mishna clarifies: What is the difference between a maḼavat and a marḼeshet? A marḼeshet has a cover, whereas a maḼavat does not have a cover; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A marḼeshet is deep, and due to the large amount of oil, its product is soft because it moves about [roḼashin] in the oil. A maḼavat is flat, as the sides of the pan are level with the pan, and due to the small amount of oil, its product is hard.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי אילימא מרחשת דאתיא ארחושי הלב כדכתיב רחש לבי דבר טוב ומחבת דאתיא אמחבואי הפה כדאמרי אינשי מנבח נבוחי

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: As the Torah does not describe the different vessels, what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, explaining that a marḥeshet has a cover and a maḥavat does not have a cover? If we say that the term marḥeshet indicates that the offering comes to atone for the sinful musings [raḥashei] of the heart, as it is written: “My heart muses [raḥash] on a goodly matter” (Psalms 45:2), and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in a covered vessel just as the thoughts of the heart are hidden, this interpretation is insufficient. And if we say that the term maḥavat indicates that the offering comes to atone for transgressions committed with the corners of [ammaḥavo’ei] the mouth, as people say with regard to someone who speaks loudly: He is barking [minbaḥ nevuḥei], and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in an open vessel, this interpretation is also insufficient.

אימא איפכא מחבת דאתיא אמחבואי הלב דכתיב למה נחבאת לברח מרחשת דאתיא ארחושי כדאמרי אינשי הוה מרחשן שיפתותיה אלא גמרא גמירי לה

The reason these interpretations are insufficient is that one can also say the opposite, and suggest that the name maḥavat indicates that the offering must be prepared in a closed vessel, as it comes to atone for the secret musings of the heart, as it is written that Laban said to Jacob: “Why did you flee secretly [naḥbeita]” (Genesis 31:27). Likewise, with regard to marḥeshet, one can say that it must be prepared in an open vessel, as it comes to atone for whispers [reḥushei] of the mouth which are heard and revealed, as people say: His lips were whispering [meraḥashan]. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili cannot derive the meanings of the terms marḥeshet and maḥavat from the verses; rather, his interpretation is learned as a tradition.

רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר כו׳ מרחשת עמוקה דכתיב וכל נעשה במרחשת מחבת צפה דכתיב ועל מחבת

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says that a marḥeshet is deep, whereas a maḥavat is flat. The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: A marḥeshet is deep, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “in” indicates that this meal offering is prepared inside a vessel, i.e., a deep container. Conversely, a maḥavat is flat, with the sides of the pan level with the pan, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “on” indicates that it is prepared on the vessel, not inside it. Therefore, a flat vessel is required.

תנו רבנן בית שמאי אומרים האומר הרי עלי מרחשת יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו

§ The mishna teaches that if one vows: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḼeshet, he is obligated to bring a meal offering of that type. With regard to this, the Sages taught that Beit Shammai say: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḼeshet, without using the term: Meal offering, or the preposition: In, in such a case the money for the meal offering should be placed in a safe place until the prophet Elijah comes heralding the Messiah, and clarifies what should be done.

מספקא להו אי על שום כלי נקראו או על שום מעשיהן

The Gemara elaborates: Beit Shammai are uncertain with regard to the source of the terms marḼeshet and maḼavat, whether the offerings are called these names due to the specific vessel in which each meal offering is prepared, or whether they are called these names due to the manner of their preparation. The significance of this distinction is that if the term marḼeshet is referring to a specific type of vessel, then if one takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḼeshet, he must bring an actual vessel of that type, whereas if the term is referring to the manner of preparation of the meal offering then he is obligated to bring that type of meal offering. Since Beit Shammai are uncertain which is the correct interpretation, they rule that he must wait until the prophet Elijah comes.

ובית הלל אומרים כלי היה במקדש ומרחשת שמה ודומה כמין כלבוס עמוק וכשבצק מונח בתוכו דומה כמין תפוחי הברתים וכמין בלוטי היוונים

And Beit Hillel say that there is no uncertainty about this matter, as there was a particular vessel in the Temple, and its name was marḼeshet. And this vessel resembled a type of deep kelabus, which is a vessel with indentations, and when dough is placed inside it, it gets pressed against the indentations and takes their shape. The dough resembles a type of apple of berotim trees, or a type of acorn [balutei] of the Greek oak trees. Therefore, one who takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḼeshet, must bring this type of vessel to the Temple as a donation.

ואומר וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת אלמא על שום הכלים נקראו ולא על שום מעשיהם

And the verse states two different prepositions with regard to these vessels: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet and on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). It does not state simply: And all that is made in the marḥeshet and the maḥavat. Since it seems from the verse that when using the marḥeshet the meal offering is prepared inside the vessel and when using the maḥavat it is prepared on the vessel, evidently they are called these names due to the vessel in which the meal offering is prepared, not due to the manner of their preparation.

מתני׳ הרי עלי בתנור לא יביא מאפה כופח ולא מאפה רעפים ומאפה יורות הערביים רבי יהודה אומר רצה מביא מאפה כופח

MISHNA: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering baked in an oven, he may not bring a meal offering baked on a small oven [kupaḼ], nor a meal offering baked on roofing tiles, nor a meal offering baked in the baking pits of the Arabs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he so wishes, he may bring a meal offering baked on a kupaḼ.

הרי עלי מנחת מאפה לא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין רבי שמעון מתיר מפני שהוא קרבן אחד

If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, without specifying loaves or wafers, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and the other half in the form of wafers; rather, they must all be of one form or the other. Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, due to the fact that both loaves and wafers are written with regard to this meal offering, which indicates that it is one offering of two possible forms.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מאפה תנור ולא מאפה כופח ולא מאפה רעפים ולא מאפה יורות הערביים

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4), this emphasizes that it must be prepared in an oven, and not baked on a kupaḥ, nor baked on roofing tiles, nor baked in the baking pits of the Arabs, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna.

רבי יהודה אומר תנור תנור שני פעמים להכשיר מאפה כופח רבי שמעון אומר תנור תנור שני פעמים אחד שתהא אפייתן בתנור ואחד שיהא הקדישן בתנור

Rabbi Yehuda says: In this verse it states “oven,” and it also states “oven” in another verse: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven” (Leviticus 7:9). Since it is written two times, and these terms are restrictions, one follows the hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. Consequently, this derivation serves to render fit a meal offering baked on a kupaḥ, and it too is deemed an oven. Rabbi Shimon says: The terms “oven” and “oven,” which are written a total of two times, serve to teach two halakhot: One instance teaches that their baking should be in an oven, and the other one teaches that their consecration is in an oven, i.e., meal offerings are not consecrated in service vessels but rather in the oven.

ומי אית ליה לרבי שמעון האי סברא והתנן רבי שמעון אומר לעולם הוי רגיל לומר שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים כשרות בעזרה וכשרות בבית פאגי

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold in accordance with this line of reasoning? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (95b) that Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are valid if they are kneaded, shaped, or baked in the Temple courtyard, and that they are also valid if they are prepared in the place called Beit Pagei, which is outside the walls of the Temple Mount? As these offerings are not disqualified by being taken outside the Temple, evidently they are not consecrated in the oven.

אמר רבא אימא שיהא הקדישן לשום תנור

Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the oven does not consecrate meal offerings, and as for his statement in the baraita concerning the two derivations, one should say that the other derivation from the term “oven” teaches that their consecration by the owner must be explicit, i.e., from the outset he must say that he is sanctifying his meal offering for the sake of a meal offering baked in an oven.

הרי עלי מנחת מאפה לא יביא מחצה [וכו׳] תנו רבנן וכי תקריב כשתקריב לעשות דבר רשות

§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers, whereas Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, as it is one offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4). The phrase: “And when you bring,” indicates that this offering is not obligatory. Rather, when you wish you may bring, i.e., the verse teaches how to perform the meal offering baked in an oven as a voluntary matter.

קרבן מנחה אמר רבי יהודה מנין לאומר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה שלא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין תלמוד לומר קרבן מנחה קרבן אחד אמרתי לך ולא שנים ושלשה קרבנות

With regard to the term: “A meal offering,” Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he must not bring half of the bread in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers? The verse states: “A meal offering,” which indicates: I told you to bring one offering, i.e., all ten loaves from one type, and not two or three offerings of different types, as allowed by Rabbi Shimon.

אמר לו רבי שמעון

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda:

וכי נאמר קרבן קרבן שני פעמים והלא לא נאמר אלא קרבן אחד ונאמר בו חלות ורקיקין

And is it stated with regard to a meal offering baked in an oven: “Offering,” and again: Offering, for a total of two times, once in connection to a meal offering of loaves and once in connection to a meal offering of wafers? If that were the case, it would indicate that these are two types of offerings. But doesn’t it actually say “offering” only one time: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4)? And it is stated with regard to this meal offering both loaves and wafers, which indicates that these are two varieties of the same offering.

מעתה רצה להביא חלות מביא רקיקין מביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין מביא ובוללן וקומץ משניהם ואם קמץ ועלה בידו מאחד על שניהם יצא

Rabbi Shimon continues: From now it may be inferred that if one wants to bring ten loaves he may bring ten loaves, and if he prefers to bring ten wafers, he may bring ten wafers, and if he decides that half of them should be loaves and half of them wafers, he may bring it in this manner. And if he brings part as loaves and part as wafers, how does he proceed? He mingles all of them and removes a handful from both of them. And if he removed a handful and it happened that only part of one type, either loaves or wafers, came up in his hand for both of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as they are both part of a single offering.

רבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר מנין לאומר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה שלא יביא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין תלמוד לומר וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור וכל נעשה במרחשת ועל מחבת לכהן המקריב אתה לו תהיה וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he may not bring half of the offering as loaves and half as wafers? He answers: The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in an oven, and every one that is made in the deep pan, and on the shallow pan, shall belong to the priest who sacrifices it. And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:9–10).

מה וכל האמור למטה שני מינין חלוקין אף וכל האמור למעלה שני מינין חלוקין

The verses juxtapose the meal offering baked in an oven to the meal offering prepared on the pan and the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and similarly to the meal offering brought as a gift, alluded to by the phrase: “Mixed with oil,” and to the meal offering of a sinner, which is called: “Dry.” This teaches that just as the term: “And every” (Leviticus 7:10), stated below with regard to those meal offerings, is referring to two different types of meal offering, so too, the term: “And every” (Leviticus 7:9), stated above, with regard to the two forms of meal offering baked in an oven, is referring to two different types of meal offering, and therefore one may not bring part as loaves and part as wafers.

ורבי יהודה שפיר קאמר רבי שמעון אמר לך כיון דכתיב בשמן בשמן כמאן דכתיב קרבן קרבן דמי

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that loaves and wafers are two different types of meal offerings baked in an oven, respond to Rabbi Shimon’s proof? After all, Rabbi Shimon is saying well when he points out that the verse mentions “offering” only once. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: Since it is written: “With oil,” and: “With oil,” in the verse: “It shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4), it is considered as though it is written “offering” and “offering,” and therefore these are deemed two different types of meal offering.

ורבי שמעון אי לא כתיב בשמן בשמן הוה אמינא דווקא מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין אבל חלות לחודייהו ורקיקין לחודייהו אימא לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the repetition of the term “with oil” teaches a different halakha. If it were not written “with oil,” and again “with oil,” I would say that a meal offering baked in an oven must be specifically brought half as loaves and half as wafers, and if he wanted to bring only loaves alone or wafers alone, I would say that he may not bring a meal offering in this manner. The repetition of the term “with oil” teaches us that a meal offering baked in an oven can comprise ten loaves, or ten wafers, or a combination of both types.

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה היינו אבוה איכא בינייהו דאי עבד

The Gemara further inquires: The baraita states that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that loaves and wafers are two different types of meal offerings. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is the same as that of his father, Rabbi Yehuda, whose opinion is also mentioned in the baraita. Why is it necessary to cite Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion separately? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to cite the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, because there is a practical difference between his ruling and that of his father; as, if someone transgressed and performed the sacrifice of a meal offering baked in an oven by bringing a mixture of loaves and wafers, according to Rabbi Yehuda the offering is valid after the fact, whereas Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda deems it not valid even after the fact.

הדרן עלך כל המנחות

 

מתני׳ רבי ישמעאל אומר עומר היה בא בשבת משלש סאין ובחול מחמש וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול משלש היה בא

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: When the day of the sacrifice of the omer meal offering would occur on Shabbat, the labors performed that would otherwise be prohibited were kept to a minimum, and the one-tenth of an ephah of flour that was brought as an offering was processed from three se’a of reaped barley. And if it occurred during the week, the flour was processed from five se’a of reaped barley. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a of reaped barley.

רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר בשבת היה נקצר ביחיד ובמגל אחד ובקופה אחת ובחול בשלשה בשלש קופות ושלש מגלות וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול בשלשה בשלש קופות ובשלש מגלות

Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual and with one sickle and with one basket into which the barley was placed; and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and with three sickles.

גמ׳ בשלמא רבנן קא סברי עשרון מובחר בשלשה סאין אתי ולא שנא בחול ולא שנא בשבת

GEMARA: Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to how many se’a of barley were reaped for the omer meal offering on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yishmael three se’a were reaped when the offering was brought on a Shabbat, and five se’a were reaped when the offering was brought on a weekday. The Rabbis maintain that both during the week and on Shabbat, three se’a were reaped. The Gemara asks: Granted the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they maintain that a select tenth of an ephah of flour comes from three se’a of reaped barley, and therefore there is no difference whether the barley is reaped during the week or whether it is reaped on Shabbat, as a select tenth is required.

אלא רבי ישמעאל מאי קסבר אי קסבר עשרון מובחר לא אתי אלא מחמש אפילו בשבת נמי אי משלש אתי אפילו בחול נמי

Rather, there is a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who differentiates between Shabbat and during the week. What does he hold? If he holds that a select tenth of an ephah of flour can come only from five se’a of reaped barley, then even on Shabbat five se’a should also be required. And if the select tenth of an ephah of flour can come from even three se’a, then even on a weekday three should suffice.

אמר רבא קסבר רבי ישמעאל עשרון מובחר בלא טירחא אתי מחמש בטירחא אתי משלש בחול מייתינן מחמש דהכי שביחא מילתא בשבת מוטב שירבה במלאכה אחת בהרקדה ואל ירבה במלאכות הרבה

Rava said: Rabbi Yishmael holds that a select tenth of an ephah of flour can come without exertion from five se’a, and with exertion from three. Therefore, on a weekday we reap and bring flour from five se’a, as this produces a better final product, since only the highest-quality flour of each se’a is selected. On Shabbat, it is preferable that one should increase the effort involved in one prohibited labor, that of sifting the flour numerous times, and one should not increase the number of prohibited acts involved in performing many prohibited labors, such as reaping and winnowing, which are required for the processing of five se’a.

אמר רבה רבי ישמעאל ורבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אמרו דבר אחד דתניא ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מפשיט את הפסח עד החזה דברי רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה וחכמים אומרים עד שיפשיט את כולו

§ Rabba said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi YoḼanan ben Beroka, said the same thing. As it is taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, when the Paschal offering is sacrificed but not roasted until Shabbat ends, one flays the Paschal offering up to the breast, to enable removal of the parts of the animal that are sacrificed upon the altar on Shabbat, and flays the rest of the animal after Shabbat. Further skinning is only to facilitate eating the animal and therefore it does not override Shabbat. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi YoḼanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One has not performed the obligation properly unless he flays it in its entirety.

מי לא אמר רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה התם כל היכא דאפשר לא טרחינן הכא נמי כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן

The Gemara explains why the statements of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, are the same. Didn’t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say there that anywhere that it is possible to perform the necessary task without an additional action, we do not exert ourselves on Shabbat? Here, too, since it is possible to perform the necessary task without the extra flaying, we do not exert ourselves.

ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי ישמעאל הכא אלא דליכא בזיון קדשים אבל התם דאיכא בזיון קדשים

The Gemara rejects this comparison: From where is this conclusion reached? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his ruling only here, in the case of reaping three se’a on Shabbat, where there is no degradation of consecrated items. But there, where there is degradation of consecrated items, as the animal will be left half-flayed overnight,

Scroll To Top