Menachot 77
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Debi & Elie & Ava, Yaelle & Daniel, Aliza & Sam, Koby & Dina in honor of Barbara Goldschlag’s 60th birthday.” Also in honor of your dedication to Daf Yomi.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Jill Shames in loving memory of her mother, Seena Baker, Shifra bat Bracha v’Zala. “We miss your wisdom, compassion and strength. Yet, we are grateful, in these days of uncertainty and threat, that distance and time no longer separate us. Am Yisrael Chai v’Kayam!
Menachot 77
עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ – עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, וַעֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה – וּבְמַצָּה שָׁלֹשׁ מִינִין: חַלּוֹת, רְקִיקִין, וּרְבוּכָה. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים וּשְׁלִישׁ לְכׇל מִין וּמִין, וְשָׁלֹשׁ חַלּוֹת לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
The mishna elaborates: There are ten tenths for the loaves of leavened bread, a tenth of an ephah per loaf. And there are ten tenths for the loaves of matza. And among the loaves of matza there are three types: Loaves, wafers, and those poached in water, ten loaves of each type. Consequently, there are three-and-one-third tenths of an ephah for each and every type, three loaves per tenth of an ephah.
וּבְמִדָּה יְרוּשַׁלְמִית הָיוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים קַב, חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְחָמֵץ וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְמַצָּה. חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְחָמֵץ – קַב וּמֶחֱצָה לְחַלָּה, חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְמַצָּה. וּבְמַצָּה שָׁלֹשׁ מִינִין: חַלּוֹת, וּרְקִיקִין, וּרְבוּכָה. נִמְצְאוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת קַבִּין לְכׇל מִין וּמִין, וּשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לְקַב.
And in the Jerusalem measure there were thirty kav, fifteen kav for the loaves of leavened bread and fifteen for the loaves of matza. The mishna elaborates: There are fifteen kav for the loaves of leavened bread, one and one-half kav per loaf. And there are fifteen kav for the loaves of matza. And among the loaves of matza there are three types: Loaves, wafers, and those poached in water. Consequently, there are five kav for each and every type, two loaves per kav.
גְּמָ׳ הַתּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הָאֵיפָה וְהַבַּת תֹּכֶן אֶחָד יִהְיֶה (לָכֶם)״. מָה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, אַף אֵיפָה שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem se’a, which are equivalent to six wilderness se’a. The se’a referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the se’a used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness se’a. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that there are three se’a in an ephah, derived? Rav Ḥisda said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: “The ephah and the bat shall be of one measure” (Ezekiel 45:11). Therefore, just as the bat, a measure for liquids, is three se’a, so too the ephah, a measure for dry goods, is three se’a.
וּבַת גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״לָשֵׂאת (אֶת) מַעְשַׂר הַחֹמֶר הַבָּת״, אֵיפָה נָמֵי הָכְתִיב ״וַעֲשִׂירִית הַחֹמֶר הָאֵיפָה״! אֶלָּא חוֹמֶר לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה.
The Gemara asks: And as for the bat itself, from where do we derive its measure? If we say that we derive it from that which is written in the same verse: “That the bat may contain the tenth-part of a ḥomer,” and since one ḥomer consists of thirty se’a, one bat is equivalent to three se’a, there is a difficulty: With regard to an ephah as well, isn’t it written in the same verse: “And the ephah the tenth-part of a ḥomer”? Why, then, must the measure of an ephah be derived from that of a bat? Rather, I do not know how much the measure of a ḥomer is; consequently, when the verse states that the ephah is one-tenth of one ḥomer, this does not demonstrate the measure of the ephah. Here too, I do not know how much the measure of the bat is.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְחֹק הַשֶּׁמֶן הַבַּת הַשֶּׁמֶן וּמַעְשַׂר הַבַּת מִן הַכּוֹר עֲשֶׂרֶת הַבַּתִּים חוֹמֶר כִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת הַבַּתִּים חוֹמֶר״.
Rather, derive the volume of the ephah from here, from a subsequent verse, where it is written with regard to separating teruma: “And the set portion of oil, the bat of oil, shall be the tithe of the bat out of the kor, which is ten bat, even a ḥomer; for ten bat are a ḥomer” (Ezekiel 45:14). The verse states that there are ten bat in one kor and ten bat in one ḥomer. Since it is known that one kor is equivalent to thirty se’a, the verse indicates that there are also thirty se’a in one ḥomer. It can therefore be derived from the verse that there are three se’a in one bat, and consequently, three se’a in one ephah.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת, וְלֹא עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת, וְהַמִּשְׂתַּכֵּר לֹא יִשְׁתַּכֵּר יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת.
§ The mishna teaches that the Sages increased the size of the measures so that five Jerusalem measures are equal to six wilderness measures. With regard to the practice of augmenting measures, Shmuel says: If the residents of a certain place want to change the standard of their measures and augment them by a certain fraction, they may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, and they may not increase the value of a coin by more than one-sixth of its previous value. And one who profits from his sales may not profit by more than one-sixth.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם אַפְקוֹעֵי תַּרְעָא – אִי הָכִי, שְׁתוּת נָמֵי לָא!
The Gemara analyzes these statements. When Shmuel said: They may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, what is the reason for this? If we say it is because doing so causes market prices to rise, the same concern should apply to raising the prices by one-sixth, and therefore that should also not be allowed.
אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אוֹנָאָה, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לֶיהֱוֵי בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח, וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה – חוֹזֵר!
Rather, one might say that the prohibition is due to concern for exploitation; and they may increase the measures only by up to one-sixth so that there will not be nullification of the transaction, as the transaction is nullified only when the disparity is more than one-sixth of the value of the item. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed? A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the details of the item are easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction. The statement of Shmuel concerns sales involving measures.
אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם תַּגָּרָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִמְטְיֵיהּ דְּיָאנָה. דְּיָאנָה הוּא דְּלָא לִימְטְיֵיהּ, רְוָחָא לָא בָּעֵי? זְבֵן וְזַבֵּין – תַּגָּרָא אִיקְּרִי?!
Rather, the prohibition is for the benefit of the merchant, so that there will not be a loss suffered by a merchant who might not realize that a new standard was issued, and might sell in accordance with the old standard. Since a merchant usually enjoys a profit of one-sixth of the value of an item, if the standard is not increased by more than this amount he will not suffer a loss, as at worst he will forfeit his profit margin. The Gemara notes: This explanation is also difficult, since even if the aim is to ensure that there will not be a loss for the merchant, does he not need to earn a profit? There is a well-known adage in this regard: If you buy and sell without earning any profit, will you be called a merchant? A merchant must profit from his sales; therefore, if this decree was instituted for the protection of merchants, the Sages should have ensured that they earn a profit.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁמוּאֵל קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ, ״הַשֶּׁקֶל עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה עֶשְׂרִים שְׁקָלִים חֲמִשָּׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים שְׁקָלִים עֲשָׂרָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁקֶל הַמָּנֶה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, מָנֶה מָאתָן וְאַרְבְּעִין הָווּ.
Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: The prohibition is not based on logical reasoning. Instead, Shmuel found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: “And the shekel shall be twenty gera; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your maneh” (Ezekiel 45:12). According to this verse, the sum of all of these numbers, sixty shekels, is equivalent to a maneh. This is problematic: How can a maneh consist of sixty shekels? Since each biblical shekel is equivalent to four dinars, if a maneh is equal to sixty shekels, a maneh is two hundred and forty dinars. But a maneh is actually equal to twenty-five shekels, which are one hundred dinars.
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל הָיָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר.
Rather, one can learn from the verse three matters: Learn from it that the sacred maneh was doubled, so that it equaled two hundred, not one hundred, dinars. And furthermore, as Ezekiel stated that the maneh will be sixty shekels, not fifty, learn from it that a community may increase measures, but they may not increase them by more than one-sixth. And learn from it that the one-sixth is calculated from the outside, i.e., it is one-sixth of the final sum, which is one-fifth of the previous sum.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: תּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Ravina said: The mishna is also precisely formulated so as to reflect the fact that the one-sixth increase is calculated from the outside, as it teaches: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem se’a of flour, which are equivalent to six wilderness se’a. One can infer that the se’a could be increased by only one-sixth from the outside. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the halakha.
מַתְנִי׳ מִכּוּלָּם הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֶחָד מִכׇּל קׇרְבָּן תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, ״אֶחָד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס, ״מִכׇּל קׇרְבָּן״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שָׁוִין, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל מִקׇּרְבָּן עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. ״לַכֹּהֵן הַזֹּרֵק אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה״, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַבְּעָלִים.
MISHNA: From all of the four types of loaves accompanying the thanks offering, one takes one loaf from each set of ten as teruma, to be given to a priest, as it is stated: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord; to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given” (Leviticus 7:14). The verse is analyzed: “One” indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf; “of each offering” indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type; “to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given,” and the rest of the loaves are eaten by the owner.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ״ – מִן הַמְחוּבָּר, ״אֶחָד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס, ״מִכׇּל קׇרְבָּן״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת (שָׁווֹת) [שָׁוִוין], שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, ״תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִכַּמָּה הִיא,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches some of the halakhot of teruma to be taken from the loaves of the thanks offering that are derived from the verse: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord.” The Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the same verse: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase “And he shall present from it” indicates that the loaves must all be as one, i.e., teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. “One” indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf. “Of each offering” indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type. When the verse states: “As a teruma unto the Lord,” I do not know from how many loaves the teruma is taken.
הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״תְּרוּמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אַף כָּאן אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה.
I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves describing the thanks offering: “Teruma,” and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “Then you shall set apart from it a teruma for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). Just as below, with regard to teruma of the tithe, one out of every ten is separated as teruma, so too here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, one out of every ten loaves is separated as teruma.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּבִכּוּרִים ״תְּרוּמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר, אַף כָּאן אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר.
Or perhaps, go this way and derive the measure from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here: “Teruma,” and it is stated with regard to first fruits: “Teruma” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Just as below, with regard to first fruits, it has no measure, so too here, say that it has no measure.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה: דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, מִתְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בִּכּוּרִים, שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה.
The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, teruma of the tithe or the first fruits, the case of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of a teruma that is not followed by another teruma, such as teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, from a teruma that is not followed by another teruma, such as teruma of the tithe. And the case of the first fruits will not serve as proof, since they are followed by another teruma, as teruma and tithes are taken after the first fruits are separated.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, מִתְּרוּמָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem, from teruma of the first fruits, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem. And the case of teruma of the tithe will not serve as proof, as it may be eaten anywhere.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, וּכְתִיב בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה״ – לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “From it…a teruma unto the Lord,” and, similarly, it is written with regard to teruma of the tithe: “From it a teruma,” to indicate that there is a verbal analogy between the two, from which it can be derived that one separates one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering as teruma.
לָמַדְנוּ לִתְרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִכַּמָּה הִיא חַלָּה. הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לֶחֶם״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם ״לֶחֶם״, מָה לְהַלָּן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, אַף כָּאן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.
The baraita continues: We have learned with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that its measure is one out of every ten. But I do not know from this verbal analogy from how much flour each leavened loaf is to be prepared. I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage concerning the loaves of the thanks offering: “Bread” (Leviticus 7:13), and it is stated there, with regard to the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat: “Bread” (Leviticus 23:17). Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, with regard to the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לֶחֶם״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים ״לֶחֶם״, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת.
Or perhaps, go this way and derive the halakha from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “Bread,” and it is stated there, with regard to the shewbread: “Bread” (Leviticus 24:7). One can conclude that just as there, with regard to the shewbread, each of the twelve loaves is baked from two-tenths of an ephah flour, so too here, each of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering should be baked from two-tenths of an ephah of flour.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח.
The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, the two loaves or the shewbread, the case of the leavened loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, from another meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, such as the two loaves, which are also leavened, and which come with animal offerings (see Leviticus 23:17–19). And the shewbread will not serve as proof, since it does not come as leavened bread, nor does it come with an animal offering.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ, דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה מֵאָרֶץ וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה מֵאָרֶץ וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁאֵין בָּאוֹת אֶלָּא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הָאָרֶץ.
Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or of outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain; from the halakha of the shewbread, which is also a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or from outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain. And the two loaves will not serve as proof, since they can come only from new grain and from Eretz Yisrael.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה שְׁתַּיִם״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״? שֶׁכׇּל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּזֶה, מַה לְּהַלָּן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה אַף כָּאן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.
Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states concerning the two loaves: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving” (Leviticus 23:17). As there is no need for the verse to state: “You shall bring,” what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall bring”? This indicates that whatever, i.e., any meal offering, you bring from a different place, it must be like this, i.e., the two loaves. Therefore, just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
But if so, perhaps one can derive that just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the entire measure for the two loaves is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the entire measure for all ten loaves of leavened bread is two-tenths. To exclude this possibility, the same verse states: “They shall be,” to indicate that each leavened loaf is prepared from a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the ten loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering are prepared with a total of ten tenths of an ephah.
לָמַדְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ, עֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ״.
The baraita continues: We have learned that there are ten tenths of an ephah of flour for the loaves of leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. From where is it derived that there are ten tenths of an ephah for the thirty loaves of matza? The verse states: “If he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Leviticus 7:12–13).
נֶגֶד חָמֵץ, הָבֵא מַצָּה. נִמְצְאוּ עֶשְׂרִים עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ, וַעֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה.
By mentioning all the loaves of unleavened bread in one verse and the loaves of leavened bread in the subsequent verse, it is indicated that one must bring the matza in a measure corresponding to the measure of the loaves of leavened bread. Consequently, there are twenty tenths of flour for the loaves of the thanks offering, ten for the loaves of leavened bread, and ten for the matza.
יָכוֹל עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁבְּמַצָּה לֹא יְהוּ כּוּלָּן אֶלָּא מִמִּין אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת מַצּוֹת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן סֹלֶת מֻרְבֶּכֶת וְגוֹ׳״. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים וּשְׁלִישׁ לְכׇל מִין וּמִין, וְשָׁלֹשׁ חַלּוֹת לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, וְנִמְצְאוּ לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה אַרְבָּעִים. נוֹטֵל מֵהֶן אַרְבַּע וְנוֹתֵן לְכֹהֵן, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָלִים לַבְּעָלִים.
One might have thought that one brings ten loaves of matza, and that all of them shall be of only one type. Therefore, the verse states: “If he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering.” The verse indicates that one must bring three types of matza. Consequently, there are three-and-one-third of a tenth of an ephah of flour for each and every type, and three loaves to a tenth of an ephah. And consequently, there are a total of forty loaves of the thanks offering. The owner of the offering takes four of them, one loaf of each type, and gives them to the priest, and the remaining loaves are eaten by the owner and any ritually pure Jew to whom he wishes to give the loaves. This concludes the baraita.
אָמַר מָר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ״ – מִן הַמְחוּבָּר. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֶת כׇּל חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ״ – הָתָם מַאי מְחוּבָּר אִיכָּא?
§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: “And he shall present from it,” indicates that the teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then concerning that which is written in the verse with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar: “And all the fat thereof he shall take off from it and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 4:19), there, what is there to be joined together?
כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: שֶׁלֹּא יְנַתֵּחַ בָּשָׂר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֵימוּרִין.
The Gemara responds: The sacrificial portions of the sin offering must be sacrificed from that which is joined together, in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says, as Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The priest may not cut up the meat of the offering before taking from it the sacrificial portions that are to be burned upon the altar.
אָמַר מָר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״תְּרוּמָה״.
§ The Master said: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves of the thanks offering: “Teruma,” and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “Teruma.” Just as one-tenth of the tithe is separated as teruma of the tithe, so too one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering is separated as teruma.
וְנֵילַף מִתְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן? דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת מִתְּרוּמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma that was taken following the war of the Jewish people against Midian, where the word teruma also appears (see Numbers 31:28–30). The measure of the teruma there was not one of ten. The Gemara responds: One derives the halakha with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is practiced for all generations, from teruma of the tithe, which is also practiced for all generations. And teruma of Midian shall not serve as proof, as it is not practiced for all generations.
וְנֵילַף מִתְּרוּמַת חַלָּה? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳״ מִדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, לְאַפּוֹקֵי תְּרוּמַת חַלָּה דְּלֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״.
The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma of ḥalla, i.e., the portion of dough given to the priest, as the verse refers to it as a teruma (see Numbers 15:19–20). That measure is one in twenty-four. The Gemara responds: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that one derives a matter, i.e., teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, of which it is stated: “From it a teruma unto the Lord” (Leviticus 7:14), from a matter, i.e., teruma of the tithe, of which it is stated: “From it a teruma for the Lord” (Numbers 18:26). This serves to exclude teruma of ḥalla, of which it is not stated: From it a teruma for the Lord.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אוֹ אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?
§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, is a non-priest who intentionally partakes of it liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who intentionally consumes teruma of the tithe? And similarly, is a non-priest who unwittingly partakes of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering liable to pay the value of what he consumed as well as an additional one-fifth of that value, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who partakes of teruma of the tithe unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:9, 14)? Or is one not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for their consumption?
כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, כִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״בּוֹ״ וַ״חֲמִשִּׁיתוֹ״ מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא?
Rava elaborates: Since teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is compared to teruma of the tithe, perhaps it is considered like teruma of the tithe, and the same penalties are incurred. Or perhaps, since the verse uses restrictive terms with regard to teruma of the tithe, as the verse states of one who intentionally partakes of it: “They shall die due to it” (Leviticus 22:9), and the verse states with regard to one who unwittingly partakes of it: “Then he shall put its fifth-part unto it” (Leviticus 22:14), the Merciful One restricted this halakha specifically to the case of teruma of the tithe.
מְדַמַּעַת, אוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת? תֵּיקוּ.
Rava raises another dilemma based on the comparison of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering and teruma of the tithe: Does teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that fell into non-sacred produce render the mixture forbidden, as is the halakha concerning teruma of the tithe? Or does the comparison of teruma of the loaves to teruma of the tithe apply only with regard to the proper measure, and it does not render the mixture forbidden? The Gemara comments: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר מָר: תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּהְיֶינָה״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא?
§ The Master said in the baraita: The verse states: “They shall be,” indicating that each leavened loaf must come from a tenth of an ephah, so that the loaves of matza of the thanks offering are prepared from ten tenths of an ephah. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this? How is this derived from “they shall be”?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: Non-Jews and the Beit Mikdash- The Case of Korbanot
Menahot 69: Elephants, Wolves, and the Things They Swallow Whole
Menahot 68: More Omer and the Decrees of R. Yohanan ben Zakkai
Practical Solutions or Conceptual Distinctions? A Chatzitzah in Tenufah
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Menachot 77
Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ β Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ.
The mishna elaborates: There are ten tenths for the loaves of leavened bread, a tenth of an ephah per loaf. And there are ten tenths for the loaves of matza. And among the loaves of matza there are three types: Loaves, wafers, and those poached in water, ten loaves of each type. Consequently, there are three-and-one-third tenths of an ephah for each and every type, three loaves per tenth of an ephah.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ·Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ β Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ.
And in the Jerusalem measure there were thirty kav, fifteen kav for the loaves of leavened bread and fifteen for the loaves of matza. The mishna elaborates: There are fifteen kav for the loaves of leavened bread, one and one-half kav per loaf. And there are fifteen kav for the loaves of matza. And among the loaves of matza there are three types: Loaves, wafers, and those poached in water. Consequently, there are five kav for each and every type, two loaves per kav.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ (ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ)Χ΄. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem seβa, which are equivalent to six wilderness seβa. The seβa referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the seβa used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness seβa. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that there are three seβa in an ephah, derived? Rav αΈ€isda said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states: βThe ephah and the bat shall be of one measureβ (Ezekiel 45:11). Therefore, just as the bat, a measure for liquids, is three seβa, so too the ephah, a measure for dry goods, is three seβa.
ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧͺ (ΧΦΆΧͺ) ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧ΄, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧΧ΄! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the bat itself, from where do we derive its measure? If we say that we derive it from that which is written in the same verse: βThat the bat may contain the tenth-part of a αΈ₯omer,β and since one αΈ₯omer consists of thirty seβa, one bat is equivalent to three seβa, there is a difficulty: With regard to an ephah as well, isnβt it written in the same verse: βAnd the ephah the tenth-part of a αΈ₯omerβ? Why, then, must the measure of an ephah be derived from that of a bat? Rather, I do not know how much the measure of a αΈ₯omer is; consequently, when the verse states that the ephah is one-tenth of one αΈ₯omer, this does not demonstrate the measure of the ephah. Here too, I do not know how much the measure of the bat is.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨Χ΄.
Rather, derive the volume of the ephah from here, from a subsequent verse, where it is written with regard to separating teruma: βAnd the set portion of oil, the bat of oil, shall be the tithe of the bat out of the kor, which is ten bat, even a αΈ₯omer; for ten bat are a αΈ₯omerβ (Ezekiel 45:14). The verse states that there are ten bat in one kor and ten bat in one αΈ₯omer. Since it is known that one kor is equivalent to thirty seβa, the verse indicates that there are also thirty seβa in one αΈ₯omer. It can therefore be derived from the verse that there are three seβa in one bat, and consequently, three seβa in one ephah.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΌΧͺ.
Β§ The mishna teaches that the Sages increased the size of the measures so that five Jerusalem measures are equal to six wilderness measures. With regard to the practice of augmenting measures, Shmuel says: If the residents of a certain place want to change the standard of their measures and augment them by a certain fraction, they may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, and they may not increase the value of a coin by more than one-sixth of its previous value. And one who profits from his sales may not profit by more than one-sixth.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧͺ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara analyzes these statements. When Shmuel said: They may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, what is the reason for this? If we say it is because doing so causes market prices to rise, the same concern should apply to raising the prices by one-sixth, and therefore that should also not be allowed.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΧΦ±ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨!
Rather, one might say that the prohibition is due to concern for exploitation; and they may increase the measures only by up to one-sixth so that there will not be nullification of the transaction, as the transaction is nullified only when the disparity is more than one-sixth of the value of the item. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesnβt Rava say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed? A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the details of the item are easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction. The statement of Shmuel concerns sales involving measures.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ β ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ?!
Rather, the prohibition is for the benefit of the merchant, so that there will not be a loss suffered by a merchant who might not realize that a new standard was issued, and might sell in accordance with the old standard. Since a merchant usually enjoys a profit of one-sixth of the value of an item, if the standard is not increased by more than this amount he will not suffer a loss, as at worst he will forfeit his profit margin. The Gemara notes: This explanation is also difficult, since even if the aim is to ensure that there will not be a loss for the merchant, does he not need to earn a profit? There is a well-known adage in this regard: If you buy and sell without earning any profit, will you be called a merchant? A merchant must profit from his sales; therefore, if this decree was instituted for the protection of merchants, the Sages should have ensured that they earn a profit.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ©Χ, Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧ§ΦΆΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ.
Rather, Rav αΈ€isda said: The prohibition is not based on logical reasoning. Instead, Shmuel found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: βAnd the shekel shall be twenty gera; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your manehβ (Ezekiel 45:12). According to this verse, the sum of all of these numbers, sixty shekels, is equivalent to a maneh. This is problematic: How can a maneh consist of sixty shekels? Since each biblical shekel is equivalent to four dinars, if a maneh is equal to sixty shekels, a maneh is two hundred and forty dinars. But a maneh is actually equal to twenty-five shekels, which are one hundred dinars.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧͺ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ€ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨.
Rather, one can learn from the verse three matters: Learn from it that the sacred maneh was doubled, so that it equaled two hundred, not one hundred, dinars. And furthermore, as Ezekiel stated that the maneh will be sixty shekels, not fifty, learn from it that a community may increase measures, but they may not increase them by more than one-sixth. And learn from it that the one-sixth is calculated from the outside, i.e., it is one-sixth of the final sum, which is one-fifth of the previous sum.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ.
Ravina said: The mishna is also precisely formulated so as to reflect the fact that the one-sixth increase is calculated from the outside, as it teaches: The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem seβa of flour, which are equivalent to six wilderness seβa. One can infer that the seβa could be increased by only one-sixth from the outside. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the halakha.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄, Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘, Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ. Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
MISHNA: From all of the four types of loaves accompanying the thanks offering, one takes one loaf from each set of ten as teruma, to be given to a priest, as it is stated: βAnd he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord; to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be givenβ (Leviticus 7:14). The verse is analyzed: βOneβ indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf; βof each offeringβ indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type; βto the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given,β and the rest of the loaves are eaten by the owner.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨, Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘, Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ (Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ) [Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ], Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ, Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches some of the halakhot of teruma to be taken from the loaves of the thanks offering that are derived from the verse: βAnd he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord.β The Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the same verse: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase βAnd he shall present from itβ indicates that the loaves must all be as one, i.e., teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. βOneβ indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf. βOf each offeringβ indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type. When the verse states: βAs a teruma unto the Lord,β I do not know from how many loaves the teruma is taken.
ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves describing the thanks offering: βTeruma,β and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: βThen you shall set apart from it a teruma for the Lord, even a tithe of the titheβ (Numbers 18:26). Just as below, with regard to teruma of the tithe, one out of every ten is separated as teruma, so too here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, one out of every ten loaves is separated as teruma.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉ: Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨.
Or perhaps, go this way and derive the measure from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here: βTeruma,β and it is stated with regard to first fruits: βTerumaβ (Deuteronomy 12:17). Just as below, with regard to first fruits, it has no measure, so too here, say that it has no measure.
Χ Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, teruma of the tithe or the first fruits, the case of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of a teruma that is not followed by another teruma, such as teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, from a teruma that is not followed by another teruma, such as teruma of the tithe. And the case of the first fruits will not serve as proof, since they are followed by another teruma, as teruma and tithes are taken after the first fruits are separated.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ.
Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem, from teruma of the first fruits, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem. And the case of teruma of the tithe will not serve as proof, as it may be eaten anywhere.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ.
Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: βFrom itβ¦a teruma unto the Lord,β and, similarly, it is written with regard to teruma of the tithe: βFrom it a teruma,β to indicate that there is a verbal analogy between the two, from which it can be derived that one separates one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering as teruma.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
The baraita continues: We have learned with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that its measure is one out of every ten. But I do not know from this verbal analogy from how much flour each leavened loaf is to be prepared. I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage concerning the loaves of the thanks offering: βBreadβ (Leviticus 7:13), and it is stated there, with regard to the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat: βBreadβ (Leviticus 23:17). Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, with regard to the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉ, Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
Or perhaps, go this way and derive the halakha from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: βBread,β and it is stated there, with regard to the shewbread: βBreadβ (Leviticus 24:7). One can conclude that just as there, with regard to the shewbread, each of the twelve loaves is baked from two-tenths of an ephah flour, so too here, each of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering should be baked from two-tenths of an ephah of flour.
Χ Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ? ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ.
The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, the two loaves or the shewbread, the case of the leavened loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, from another meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, such as the two loaves, which are also leavened, and which come with animal offerings (see Leviticus 23:17β19). And the shewbread will not serve as proof, since it does not come as leavened bread, nor does it come with an animal offering.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯.
Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or of outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain; from the halakha of the shewbread, which is also a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or from outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain. And the two loaves will not serve as proof, since they can come only from new grain and from Eretz Yisrael.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧ΄? Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states concerning the two loaves: βYou shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of wavingβ (Leviticus 23:17). As there is no need for the verse to state: βYou shall bring,β what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: βYou shall bringβ? This indicates that whatever, i.e., any meal offering, you bring from a different place, it must be like this, i.e., the two loaves. Therefore, just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄.
But if so, perhaps one can derive that just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the entire measure for the two loaves is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the entire measure for all ten loaves of leavened bread is two-tenths. To exclude this possibility, the same verse states: βThey shall be,β to indicate that each leavened loaf is prepared from a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the ten loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering are prepared with a total of ten tenths of an ephah.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯, Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯Χ΄.
The baraita continues: We have learned that there are ten tenths of an ephah of flour for the loaves of leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. From where is it derived that there are ten tenths of an ephah for the thirty loaves of matza? The verse states: βIf he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksβ (Leviticus 7:12β13).
Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯, ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ₯, ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ.
By mentioning all the loaves of unleavened bread in one verse and the loaves of leavened bread in the subsequent verse, it is indicated that one must bring the matza in a measure corresponding to the measure of the loaves of leavened bread. Consequently, there are twenty tenths of flour for the loaves of the thanks offering, ten for the loaves of leavened bread, and ten for the matza.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ»ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ Χ‘ΦΉΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ»Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ. Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
One might have thought that one brings ten loaves of matza, and that all of them shall be of only one type. Therefore, the verse states: βIf he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering.β The verse indicates that one must bring three types of matza. Consequently, there are three-and-one-third of a tenth of an ephah of flour for each and every type, and three loaves to a tenth of an ephah. And consequently, there are a total of forty loaves of the thanks offering. The owner of the offering takes four of them, one loaf of each type, and gives them to the priest, and the remaining loaves are eaten by the owner and any ritually pure Jew to whom he wishes to give the loaves. This concludes the baraita.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ?
Β§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: βAnd he shall present from it,β indicates that the teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then concerning that which is written in the verse with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar: βAnd all the fat thereof he shall take off from it and make it smoke upon the altarβ (Leviticus 4:19), there, what is there to be joined together?
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara responds: The sacrificial portions of the sin offering must be sacrificed from that which is joined together, in accordance with that which Rav αΈ€isda says that Avimi says, as Rav αΈ€isda says that Avimi says: The priest may not cut up the meat of the offering before taking from it the sacrificial portions that are to be burned upon the altar.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄.
Β§ The Master said: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves of the thanks offering: βTeruma,β and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: βTeruma.β Just as one-tenth of the tithe is separated as teruma of the tithe, so too one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering is separated as teruma.
ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ.
The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma that was taken following the war of the Jewish people against Midian, where the word teruma also appears (see Numbers 31:28β30). The measure of the teruma there was not one of ten. The Gemara responds: One derives the halakha with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is practiced for all generations, from teruma of the tithe, which is also practiced for all generations. And teruma of Midian shall not serve as proof, as it is not practiced for all generations.
ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧ³Χ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄.
The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma of αΈ₯alla, i.e., the portion of dough given to the priest, as the verse refers to it as a teruma (see Numbers 15:19β20). That measure is one in twenty-four. The Gemara responds: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that one derives a matter, i.e., teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, of which it is stated: βFrom it a teruma unto the Lordβ (Leviticus 7:14), from a matter, i.e., teruma of the tithe, of which it is stated: βFrom it a teruma for the Lordβ (Numbers 18:26). This serves to exclude teruma of αΈ₯alla, of which it is not stated: From it a teruma for the Lord.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ?
Β§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, is a non-priest who intentionally partakes of it liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who intentionally consumes teruma of the tithe? And similarly, is a non-priest who unwittingly partakes of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering liable to pay the value of what he consumed as well as an additional one-fifth of that value, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who partakes of teruma of the tithe unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:9, 14)? Or is one not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for their consumption?
ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ΄ ΧΦ·Χ΄ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧͺΧΦΉΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ?
Rava elaborates: Since teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is compared to teruma of the tithe, perhaps it is considered like teruma of the tithe, and the same penalties are incurred. Or perhaps, since the verse uses restrictive terms with regard to teruma of the tithe, as the verse states of one who intentionally partakes of it: βThey shall die due to itβ (Leviticus 22:9), and the verse states with regard to one who unwittingly partakes of it: βThen he shall put its fifth-part unto itβ (Leviticus 22:14), the Merciful One restricted this halakha specifically to the case of teruma of the tithe.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ? ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ΧΦΌ.
Rava raises another dilemma based on the comparison of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering and teruma of the tithe: Does teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that fell into non-sacred produce render the mixture forbidden, as is the halakha concerning teruma of the tithe? Or does the comparison of teruma of the loaves to teruma of the tithe apply only with regard to the proper measure, and it does not render the mixture forbidden? The Gemara comments: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ?
Β§ The Master said in the baraita: The verse states: βThey shall be,β indicating that each leavened loaf must come from a tenth of an ephah, so that the loaves of matza of the thanks offering are prepared from ten tenths of an ephah. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this? How is this derived from βthey shall beβ?
