Study Guide Menachot 77. What were the amounts used in the breads that were brought with the thanksgiving offering? How much flour? How many loaves? How were these laws derived?
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Menachot 77
עשרה לחמץ עשרון לחלה ועשרה למצה ובמצה שלש מינין חלות רקיקין ורבוכה נמצאו שלשה עשרונים ושליש לכל מין ומין ושלש חלות לעשרון
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.
ובמדה ירושלמית היו שלשים קב חמשה עשר לחמץ וחמשה עשר למצה חמשה עשר לחמץ קב ומחצה לחלה חמשה עשר למצה ובמצה שלש מינין חלות ורקיקין ורבוכה נמצאו חמשת קבין לכל מין ומין ושתי חלות לקב:
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.
גמ׳ התודה היתה באה חמש סאין ירושלמיות מנא הני מילי אמר רב חסדא דאמר קרא (יחזקאל מה, יא) האיפה והבת תוכן אחד יהיה (לכם) מה בת שלש סאין אף איפה שלש סאין
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.
ובת גופא מנלן אילימא מדכתיב (יחזקאל מה, יא) לשאת (את) מעשר החומר הבת איפה נמי הכתיב (יחזקאל מה, יא) ועשירית החומר האיפה אלא חומר לא ידענא כמה הכא נמי לא ידענא כמה
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.
אלא מהכא (יחזקאל מה, יד) וחק השמן הבת השמן ומעשר הבת מן הכור עשרת הבתים חומר כי עשרת הבתים חומר
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.
אמר שמואל אין מוסיפין על המדות יותר משתות ולא על המטבע יותר משתות והמשתכר לא ישתכר יותר משתות
§ 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.
מאי טעמא אילימא משום אפקועי תרעא אי הכי שתות נמי לא
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.
אלא משום אונאה כי היכי דלא ליהוי ביטול מקח והא אמר רבא כל דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין אפילו פחות מכדי אונאה חוזר
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.
אלא משום תגרא כי היכי דלא למטייה דיאנה דיאנה הוא דלא לימטייה רוחא לא בעי זבן וזבין תגרא איקרי
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.
אלא אמר רב חסדא שמואל קרא אשכח ודרש (יחזקאל מה, יב) השקל עשרים גרה עשרים שקלים חמשה ועשרים שקלים עשרה וחמשה שקל המנה יהיה לכם מנה מאתן וארבעין הוו
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.
אלא שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה מנה של קודש כפול היה ושמע מינה מוסיפין על המדות ואין מוסיפין יותר משתות ושמע מינה שתותא מלבר
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.
אמר רבינא מתני’ נמי דיקא דקתני תודה היתה באה חמש סאין ירושלמיות שהן שש מדבריות שמע מינה:
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.
מתני׳ מכולם היה נוטל אחד מעשרה תרומה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, יד) והקריב ממנו אחד מכל קרבן תרומה לה’ אחד שלא יטול פרוס מכל קרבן שיהו כל הקרבנות שוות שלא יטול מקרבן על חבירו (ויקרא ז, יד) לכהן הזורק את דם השלמים לו יהיה והשאר נאכל לבעלים:
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.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן והקריב ממנו מן המחובר אחד שלא יטול פרוס מכל קרבן שיהו כל הקרבנות שוות שלא יטול מן הקרבן על חבירו תרומה לה’ איני יודע מכמה היא
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.
הריני דן נאמר כאן תרומה ונאמר בתרומת מעשר (במדבר יח, כד) תרומה מה להלן אחד מעשרה אף כאן אחד מעשרה
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.
או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן תרומה ונאמר בבכורים (במדבר יח, כד) תרומה מה להלן אין לה שיעור אף כאן אין לה שיעור
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.
נראה למי דומה דנין תרומה שאין אחריה תרומה מתרומה שאין אחריה תרומה ואל יוכיח בכורים שיש אחריהן תרומה
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.
או כלך לדרך זו דנין תרומה הנאכלת במקום קדוש מתרומה הנאכלת במקום קדוש ואל תוכיח תרומת מעשר שנאכלת בכל מקום
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.
תלמוד לומר ממנו תרומה לה’ וכתיב בתרומת מעשר ממנו תרומה לגזירה שוה
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.
למדנו לתרומה שהיא אחד מעשרה אבל איני יודע מכמה היא חלה הריני דן נאמר כאן לחם ונאמר להלן בשתי הלחם (ויקרא כג, יז) לחם מה להלן עשרון לחלה אף כאן עשרון לחלה
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.
או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן לחם ונאמר בלחם הפנים (ויקרא כד, ז) לחם מה להלן שני עשרונות אף כאן שני עשרונות
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.
נראה למי דומה דנין מנחה הבאה חמץ עם הזבח ממנחה הבאה חמץ עם הזבח ואל יוכיח לחם הפנים שאינו בא חמץ עם הזבח
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.
או כלך לדרך זו דנין מנחה הבאה מארץ וחוצה לארץ מן החדש ומן הישן ממנחה הבאה מארץ וחוצה לארץ מן החדש ומן הישן ואל יוכיחו שתי הלחם שאין באות אלא מן החדש ומן הארץ
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.
תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כג, יז) ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים שאין תלמוד לומר תביאו ומה תלמוד לומר תביאו שכל מה שאתה מביא ממקום אחר הרי הוא כזה מה להלן עשרון לחלה אף כאן עשרון לחלה
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.
אי מה להלן שני עשרונות אף כאן שני עשרונות תלמוד לומר תהיינה
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.
למדנו עשרה לחמץ עשרה למצה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, יג) על חלות לחם חמץ
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).
נגד חמץ הבא מצה נמצאו עשרים עשרונות לחמי תודה עשרה לחמץ ועשרה למצה
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.
יכול עשרה שבמצה לא יהו כולן אלא ממין אחד תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, יב) אם על תודה יקריבנו והקריב על זבח התודה חלות מצות בלולות בשמן ורקיקי מצות משחים בשמן סלת מרבכת וגו’ נמצאו שלשה עשרונים ושליש לכל מין ומין ושלש חלות לעשרון ונמצאו לחמי תודה ארבעים נוטל מהן ארבע ונותן לכהן והשאר נאכלים לבעלים
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.
אמר מר והקריב ממנו מן המחובר אלא מעתה דכתיב (ויקרא ד, יט) ואת כל חלבו ירים ממנו התם מאי מחובר איכא
§ 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?
כדרב חסדא אמר אבימי דאמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי שלא ינתח בשר קודם שיטול אימורין
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.
אמר מר נאמר כאן תרומה ונאמר בתרומת מעשר תרומה
§ 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.
ונילף מתרומת (במדבר לא, כט) מדין דנין תרומה הנוהגת לדורות מתרומה הנוהגת לדורות ואל תוכיח תרומת מדין שאינה נוהגת לדורות
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.
ונילף מתרומת (במדבר טו, כ) חלה תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל דנין דבר שנאמר בו ממנו (תרומת ה’ מדבר שנאמר בו תרומה לה’) לאפוקי תרומת חלה דלא נאמר בו ממנו תרומה לה’
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.
בעי רבא תרומת לחמי תודה חייבין עליהן מיתה וחומש או אין חייבין עליהן מיתה וחומש
§ 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?
כיון דאיתקש לתרומת מעשר כתרומת מעשר דמי או דלמא (ויקרא כב, יד) בו וחמשיתו מיעט רחמנא
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.
מדמעת או אינה מדמעת תיקו
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.
אמר מר תלמוד לאמר תהיינה מאי תלמודא
§ 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”?
Follow 
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.
The Death Penalty in the Second Temple Period – On Second Thought
02.10.2025 | י״ב בשבט תשפ״ה
Sukkah 23: Would You Really Use an Elephant as a Sukkah Wall?
07.30.2021 | כ״א באב תשפ״א
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.
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
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!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
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.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
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.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Menachot 77
עשרה לחמץ עשרון לחלה ועשרה למצה ובמצה שלש מינין חלות רקיקין ורבוכה נמצאו שלשה עשרונים ושליש לכל מין ומין ושלש חלות לעשרון
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.
ובמדה ירושלמית היו שלשים קב חמשה עשר לחמץ וחמשה עשר למצה חמשה עשר לחמץ קב ומחצה לחלה חמשה עשר למצה ובמצה שלש מינין חלות ורקיקין ורבוכה נמצאו חמשת קבין לכל מין ומין ושתי חלות לקב:
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.
גמ׳ התודה היתה באה חמש סאין ירושלמיות מנא הני מילי אמר רב חסדא דאמר קרא (יחזקאל מה, יא) האיפה והבת תוכן אחד יהיה (לכם) מה בת שלש סאין אף איפה שלש סאין
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.
ובת גופא מנלן אילימא מדכתיב (יחזקאל מה, יא) לשאת (את) מעשר החומר הבת איפה נמי הכתיב (יחזקאל מה, יא) ועשירית החומר האיפה אלא חומר לא ידענא כמה הכא נמי לא ידענא כמה
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.
אלא מהכא (יחזקאל מה, יד) וחק השמן הבת השמן ומעשר הבת מן הכור עשרת הבתים חומר כי עשרת הבתים חומר
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.
אמר שמואל אין מוסיפין על המדות יותר משתות ולא על המטבע יותר משתות והמשתכר לא ישתכר יותר משתות
§ 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.
מאי טעמא אילימא משום אפקועי תרעא אי הכי שתות נמי לא
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.
אלא משום אונאה כי היכי דלא ליהוי ביטול מקח והא אמר רבא כל דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין אפילו פחות מכדי אונאה חוזר
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.
אלא משום תגרא כי היכי דלא למטייה דיאנה דיאנה הוא דלא לימטייה רוחא לא בעי זבן וזבין תגרא איקרי
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.
אלא אמר רב חסדא שמואל קרא אשכח ודרש (יחזקאל מה, יב) השקל עשרים גרה עשרים שקלים חמשה ועשרים שקלים עשרה וחמשה שקל המנה יהיה לכם מנה מאתן וארבעין הוו
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.
אלא שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה מנה של קודש כפול היה ושמע מינה מוסיפין על המדות ואין מוסיפין יותר משתות ושמע מינה שתותא מלבר
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.
אמר רבינא מתני’ נמי דיקא דקתני תודה היתה באה חמש סאין ירושלמיות שהן שש מדבריות שמע מינה:
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.
מתני׳ מכולם היה נוטל אחד מעשרה תרומה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, יד) והקריב ממנו אחד מכל קרבן תרומה לה’ אחד שלא יטול פרוס מכל קרבן שיהו כל הקרבנות שוות שלא יטול מקרבן על חבירו (ויקרא ז, יד) לכהן הזורק את דם השלמים לו יהיה והשאר נאכל לבעלים:
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.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן והקריב ממנו מן המחובר אחד שלא יטול פרוס מכל קרבן שיהו כל הקרבנות שוות שלא יטול מן הקרבן על חבירו תרומה לה’ איני יודע מכמה היא
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.
הריני דן נאמר כאן תרומה ונאמר בתרומת מעשר (במדבר יח, כד) תרומה מה להלן אחד מעשרה אף כאן אחד מעשרה
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.
או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן תרומה ונאמר בבכורים (במדבר יח, כד) תרומה מה להלן אין לה שיעור אף כאן אין לה שיעור
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.
נראה למי דומה דנין תרומה שאין אחריה תרומה מתרומה שאין אחריה תרומה ואל יוכיח בכורים שיש אחריהן תרומה
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.
או כלך לדרך זו דנין תרומה הנאכלת במקום קדוש מתרומה הנאכלת במקום קדוש ואל תוכיח תרומת מעשר שנאכלת בכל מקום
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.
תלמוד לומר ממנו תרומה לה’ וכתיב בתרומת מעשר ממנו תרומה לגזירה שוה
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.
למדנו לתרומה שהיא אחד מעשרה אבל איני יודע מכמה היא חלה הריני דן נאמר כאן לחם ונאמר להלן בשתי הלחם (ויקרא כג, יז) לחם מה להלן עשרון לחלה אף כאן עשרון לחלה
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.
או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן לחם ונאמר בלחם הפנים (ויקרא כד, ז) לחם מה להלן שני עשרונות אף כאן שני עשרונות
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.
נראה למי דומה דנין מנחה הבאה חמץ עם הזבח ממנחה הבאה חמץ עם הזבח ואל יוכיח לחם הפנים שאינו בא חמץ עם הזבח
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.
או כלך לדרך זו דנין מנחה הבאה מארץ וחוצה לארץ מן החדש ומן הישן ממנחה הבאה מארץ וחוצה לארץ מן החדש ומן הישן ואל יוכיחו שתי הלחם שאין באות אלא מן החדש ומן הארץ
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.
תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כג, יז) ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים שאין תלמוד לומר תביאו ומה תלמוד לומר תביאו שכל מה שאתה מביא ממקום אחר הרי הוא כזה מה להלן עשרון לחלה אף כאן עשרון לחלה
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.
אי מה להלן שני עשרונות אף כאן שני עשרונות תלמוד לומר תהיינה
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.
למדנו עשרה לחמץ עשרה למצה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, יג) על חלות לחם חמץ
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).
נגד חמץ הבא מצה נמצאו עשרים עשרונות לחמי תודה עשרה לחמץ ועשרה למצה
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.
יכול עשרה שבמצה לא יהו כולן אלא ממין אחד תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, יב) אם על תודה יקריבנו והקריב על זבח התודה חלות מצות בלולות בשמן ורקיקי מצות משחים בשמן סלת מרבכת וגו’ נמצאו שלשה עשרונים ושליש לכל מין ומין ושלש חלות לעשרון ונמצאו לחמי תודה ארבעים נוטל מהן ארבע ונותן לכהן והשאר נאכלים לבעלים
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.
אמר מר והקריב ממנו מן המחובר אלא מעתה דכתיב (ויקרא ד, יט) ואת כל חלבו ירים ממנו התם מאי מחובר איכא
§ 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?
כדרב חסדא אמר אבימי דאמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי שלא ינתח בשר קודם שיטול אימורין
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.
אמר מר נאמר כאן תרומה ונאמר בתרומת מעשר תרומה
§ 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.
ונילף מתרומת (במדבר לא, כט) מדין דנין תרומה הנוהגת לדורות מתרומה הנוהגת לדורות ואל תוכיח תרומת מדין שאינה נוהגת לדורות
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.
ונילף מתרומת (במדבר טו, כ) חלה תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל דנין דבר שנאמר בו ממנו (תרומת ה’ מדבר שנאמר בו תרומה לה’) לאפוקי תרומת חלה דלא נאמר בו ממנו תרומה לה’
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.
בעי רבא תרומת לחמי תודה חייבין עליהן מיתה וחומש או אין חייבין עליהן מיתה וחומש
§ 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?
כיון דאיתקש לתרומת מעשר כתרומת מעשר דמי או דלמא (ויקרא כב, יד) בו וחמשיתו מיעט רחמנא
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.
מדמעת או אינה מדמעת תיקו
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.
אמר מר תלמוד לאמר תהיינה מאי תלמודא
§ 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”?
Follow
