This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of Avram Baime. “He was my husband’s chavruta who shared his ahavat torah whether learning pirkei avot with our children on Shabbatot or founding the English Kollel for Anglos to learn Talmud. Learning the daf with his gemarot is a zchut. Yehi zichro baruch.”
Menachot 89
וְלֶיעְבֵּד זָהָב כֹּל דְּהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
and consequently, let the mouth of the lamps be fashioned from gold of any quality, not necessarily from pure gold. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even the mouth of the lamps must be fashioned from pure gold.
חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה.
§ The mishna teaches: A half-log of oil was used to measure oil for the thanks offering. The thanks offering was accompanied by four different types of loaves; three types were unleavened and one was leavened, as the verse states: “If he offers it for a thanks offering, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering: Unleavened loaves mixed with oil; and unleavened wafers spread with oil; and poached fine flour, loaves mixed with oil. With loaves of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12–13).
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ אֶחָד, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁכָּתַב ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says: Why must the verse state: “With oil,” “with oil,” writing it twice; why was the first time not sufficient? Because were the term “with oil” stated only once, I would have said that, with regard to the amount of oil required, the meal offerings that accompany the thanks offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all of them together.
רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי?! חַד רִיבּוּי הוּא.
The Gemara interjects the citation of the baraita to ask: Is this a case of one amplification following another amplification? It would appear that there is only one amplification, as according to the baraita the first mention of the term “with oil” is necessary to teach the basic requirement that the meal offerings of the thanks offering require oil, like other meal offerings. How then can it be considered an amplification?
אֶלָּא, אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ כׇּל עִיקָּר, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be emended, as follows: Were the term “with oil,” not written at all, I would still have said that the thanks offering meal offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all three together.
יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲצִי לוֹג זֶה מִתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת מִינִין, לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין וְלָרְבִיכָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ בָּרְבִיכָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, רִיבָּה שֶׁמֶן לָרְבִיכָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וְחוֹצֵיהוּ [חֶצְיוֹ] לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין, וְחֶצְיוֹ לָרְבִיכָה.
The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Once it has been established that the meal offerings require only a half-log of oil, one might have thought that this half-log should be equally divided between the three types of unleavened meal offerings, i.e., one-sixth of a log for the loaves, one-sixth for the wafers, and one-sixth for the poached loaves. When the verse states: “With oil,” with regard to the poached loaves, that is seemingly superfluous, as there is no need for the verse to state the requirement to use part of the half-log of oil, being that this requirement has already been established. It must therefore serve to amplify the amount of oil used for a poached loaf as opposed to the other two types. How so? One brings a half-log of oil and divides it equally into two. Half of it is further divided and used both for the ten regular loaves and for the ten wafers, and the other half of it is used entirely for the ten poached loaves.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, אִם אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לָךְ, אֶלָּא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה, וּרְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן לְנָזִיר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁבֵּין נִדָּה לְנִדָּה – הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Akiva, even if you were to amplify halakhot the entire day from the terms “with oil,” “with oil,” I would not listen to you and accept your claims. Rather, the halakha that a half-log of oil is required for the thanks offering, and similarly, the halakha that a quarter-log of oil is required for the loaves of a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one seven-day period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; they are not derived from verses.
בְּלוֹג הָיָה מוֹדֵד.
§ The mishna states that with the vessel of one log one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings. It then cites a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that one log of oil is required for each tenth of an ephah of flour used, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that each meal offering, irrespective of its size, requires only one log of oil.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּמְצוֹרָע עָנִי כְּתִיב ״עִשָּׂרוֹן … בָּלוּל … וְלֹג״, לִימֵּד עַל עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁטָּעוּן לוֹג, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a poor leper, who cannot afford the standard offerings that are required as part of the purification process and is instead required to bring one lamb as a guilt offering and a tenth of an ephah of flour as a meal offering, it is written: “And a tenth–part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The verse juxtaposes the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it teaches about each tenth of an ephah of flour that it requires one log of oil; this is the statement of the Rabbis.
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״.
Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer say: Each meal offering, irrespective of its size, and even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to offering of a leper: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil.” The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.
וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל וְלֹג״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לַיְיתֵי חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they do with this verse: “And a tenth–part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering and a log of oil,” which links the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour? The Gemara explains: That verse is required to teach the matter itself, as the Merciful One states: Let a poor leper bring an offering of just a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it cannot be used to teach a principle about meal offerings.
וְאִידָּךְ, לְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע שְׁלֹשָׁה קׇרְבָּנוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, הָכָא דְּחַד קׇרְבָּן – חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And as for the other, i.e., the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that it is not necessary to teach the matter itself, as from the fact that the Merciful One revealed with regard to a leper who is not poor that he must bring three animal offerings and a meal offering of three-tenths of an ephah as part of his purification process, it may be inferred that here, with regard to a poor leper, who brings only one offering, that he similarly brings a meal offering of only a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the fact that the verse mentions that his offering is only a tenth of an ephah is superfluous and can teach a principle for all meal offerings.
וְאִידַּךְ – אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלֵיהּ לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּדַלּוּת, אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי (מנה) [מִנְחָה] כְּלָל. וְאִידַּךְ – לִגְמָרֵי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
The Gemara continues to ask: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, how would they respond to this claim? They maintain that it was necessary for the verse to state the size of his meal offering, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One spared the money of the poor leper by allowing him to bring an offering affordable in poverty, one might say that the Merciful One does not require from him to bring any meal offering at all. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, the Rabbis, how would they respond to this? They claim that we do not find that the Torah entirely exempts a poor person from the offerings of the purification process, only that it provides a less expensive way to complete that process.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחוֹת מִדָּבָר הַטָּעוּן לוֹג, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? עִשָּׂרוֹן. וְאִידַּךְ, תַּרְתֵּי שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with the juxtaposition in the end of this verse: “For a meal offering and a log of oil,” from which Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer derive the principle that each meal offering requires only one log of oil? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain that the juxtaposition teaches about one who donates a meal offering, without specifying its size, that he should not bring less than an amount of flour that requires one log. And what is this amount? A tenth of an ephah. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, from where do they derive that halakha, as they maintain the verse teaches the principle for all meal offerings? The Gemara explains: They maintain that two halakhot can be derived from this verse.
שִׁשָּׁה לַפָּר, אַרְבָּעָה לָאַיִל, שְׁלֹשָׁה לַכֶּבֶשׂ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם חֲצִי הַהִין יִהְיֶה לַפָּר״.
§ The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. Six log, i.e., one-half of a hin, for those of a bull; and four log, i.e., one-third of a hin, for those of a ram; and three log, i.e., one-quarter of a hin, for those of a lamb. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these quantities? We derive them from a verse, as it is written: “And their libations shall be one-half of a hin of wine for a bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for a lamb” (Numbers 28:14).
הִין – תְּרֵיסַר לוּגֵּי הָוַיִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין״, וּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״, זֶה בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תְּרֵיסַר הָוַיִין.
The Gemara elaborates: Now, one hin is twelve log, as it is written: “And of olive oil a hin” (Exodus 30:24), and it is written afterward in the same verse: “Sacred anointing oil, this [zeh] shall be for Me, throughout your generations.” The numerical value [gimatriyya] of zeh is twelve. Once it is established that one hin is twelve log, it is possible to calculate how may log are in one-half, one-third, and one-quarter of a hin.
שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמֶחֱצָה לַמְּנוֹרָה, חֲצִי לוֹג לְכׇל נֵר. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לוֹג מֵאוּרְתָּא וְעַד צַפְרָא.
§ The mishna teaches: Three and a half log of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half-log was required for each lamp. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Candelabrum: “Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning, before the Lord” (Exodus 27:21). This indicates that you shall put into each lamp its required quantity of oil so that it will continue burning from evening until morning. Alternatively, the phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that the mitzva is fulfilled throughout the night, and you have no other rite that is valid from evening until morning except for this one alone. And the Sages calculated that a half-log of oil for each lamp is necessary to ensure that they continue burning from evening until morning.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ.
How did the Sages reach the conclusion that a half-log of oil is needed? There are those who say that the Sages calculated it by initially using a large quantity of oil, more than necessary to burn throughout the night, and then decreasing the quantity by a small amount each night until they saw that at the end of the night there was no oil remaining. And there are those who say that they calculated it by initially using a small quantity of oil and then increasing the quantity each night until they saw that the quantity was sufficient to allow the lamps to burn throughout the night.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ – הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ – אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת.
The Gemara elaborates: The one who said that they calculated it by increasing the quantity each night holds that they did so in accordance with the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, so the Sages wished to minimize the financial cost of their experimentation. And the one who said that they calculated it by decreasing the quantity each night holds that in the Temple one’s actions should not be motivated by a concern for the financial cost, as in a place of wealth there is no poverty.
מַתְנִי׳ מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי פָרִים בְּנִסְכֵי אֵילִים, נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים, שֶׁל יָחִיד בְּשֶׁל צִיבּוּר,
MISHNA: Many animal offerings are brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. These additions are collectively referred to as libations. One may mix together the libations of bulls with the libations of rams; the meal offerings may be mixed as they both share the same ratio of flour to oil, i.e., two log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. Likewise, one may mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of other lambs, as the meal offerings both share the same ratio of three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. And one may mix together the libations of the offering of an individual with those of a communal offering.
שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ.
And one may mix together the libations of an offering brought on one day with those of the day before, if the meal offerings have the same ratio of oil to flour.
אֲבָל אֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וְאִם בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ – כְּשֵׁרִים, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּלַל – פָּסוּל.
But one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or the libations of rams, as the meal offerings have different ratios of oil to flour. And nevertheless, if one intermingled the flour and oil of these lamb offerings by themselves and the flour and oil of these bull or ram offerings by themselves, and only then were they mixed together, then they remain fit to be sacrificed. If they were mixed together before the oil and flour of each offering were independently intermingled to form the meal offering, then they are disqualified.
הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה – לֹא הָיוּ נְסָכָיו כְּפוּלִים.
With regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering, which is accompanied by another meal offering and a wine libation, even though the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, its oil and wine libations were not doubled; rather, three log of oil and three log of wine were used, per the standard quantities used for a lamb.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהוּ:
GEMARA: The mishna states that different types of libations may be mixed together provided that the meal offerings have the same flour to oil ratio. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita discussing the verse: “And he shall sacrifice, from the peace offerings, a fire to the Lord: The fat covering the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is over the loins; and the diaphragm with the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away. And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar, apart from the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is a fire of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 3:3–5).
״וְהִקְטִירוֹ״, שֶׁלֹּא יְעָרֵב חֲלָבִים בַּחֲלָבִים.
The direct object of the term: “And they shall burn,” i.e., the pronoun “it,” is singular, despite referring to the many types of fats listed in the verse. This indicates that one may not mix fats of one offering with the fats of a different offering, but should burn the parts from each offering separately. Similarly, it follows that the libations accompanying different animal offerings should not be mixed together.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ״ קָא אָמַר.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna stated only that if libations of different offerings were mixed together one may still sacrifice them, but not that this is permitted ab initio. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and baraita.
אִי הָכִי, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִתְעָרְבוּ נָמֵי לָא? וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ כְּשֵׁרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לְכַתְּחִלָּה קָא אָמַר!
The Gemara infers: If that is so, then when the mishna states in its first clause: And one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or the libations of rams, the intention is that even after the fact, if they were mixed together, they are also not valid. The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If one intermingled the flour and oil of these lamb offerings by themselves and the flour and oil of these bull or ram offerings by themselves and only then were they mixed together then they remain fit to be sacrificed, which is explicitly referring to the halakha after the fact, it may be inferred that the first clause stated the halakha ab initio.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר, מְעָרְבִין יֵינָן, אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן.
Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: When different animal offerings are sacrificed, their wine libations may be mixed together ab initio, but only if their fine flour and their oil from their respective meal offerings were already mixed together, albeit improperly.
וְיֵינָן לְכִתְחִלָּה לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּסֹלֶת וָשֶׁמֶן, אֲבָל יַיִן מְעָרְבִין.
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that one may not mix together the wine libations of different offerings ab initio unless their flour and oil were already mixed? But isn’t it taught in the continuation of the baraita just cited: In what case is this statement, that one may not mix together parts from different offerings, said? It is said only with regard to flour and oil. But one may mix together the wine libations of different offerings. The implication is that this is the halakha even if their meal offerings had not been mixed together.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר – הֵיכָא דְּהוּקְטַר סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין יַיִן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. הֵיכָא דְּלָא הוּקְטַר – אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין נָמֵי יֵינָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְעָרְבִין, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹבֵי סֹלֶת וְשֶׁמֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
Rather, Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to offerings of similar types of animals, where their fine flour and their oil from their respective meal offerings have been burned on the altar, one may mix together the wine libations ab initio. And even where their fine flour and their oil have not been burned, if their fine flour and their oil have at least been mixed together, one may mix together their wine libations ab initio. But if the fine flour and oil have not been mixed together, then one may not mix the libations together. The reason is that if one does mix the libations, perhaps one will come to mix together their flour and oil ab initio, which is prohibited.
כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים״, לִימֵּד עַל כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering, the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, but the quantities of oil and wine are not doubled. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the omer meal offering: “And its meal offering shall be two tenths” (Leviticus 23:13). This verse teaches about the lamb that comes with the omer that the size of its meal offering is doubled.
יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, כָּךְ יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ יַיִן רְבִיעִית הַהִין״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ, אֲבָל יְהֵא שַׁמְנוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁנִּבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״ – כׇּל נְסָכָיו לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית.
One might have thought that just as its meal offering is doubled, so too its wine libation should be doubled, i.e., instead of using a quarter-hin, as is generally done for lambs, one should use a half-hin. To counter this, the verse states, in its continuation: “And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-hin” (Leviticus 23:13). One might have thought that it is only its wine libation that should not be doubled, as it is not intermingled with the flour of its meal offering, but its oil should be doubled, as it is intermingled with the flour of its meal offering. To counter this, the verse states: “And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-hin,” which teaches that all of its libations shall be only a quarter–hin, but no more.
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּתִיב ״וְנִסְכָּהּ״, וְקָרֵינַן ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״.
The Gemara elaborates on the final proof in the baraita: What is the biblical derivation here? Rabbi Elazar says: There is an ambiguity as to whether the possessive pronoun in the term “and its libation” is referring to the lamb offering or the meal offering, both of which are mentioned previously in the verse. This is due to a disparity between the way the Hebrew word for the term is written and the way it is vocalized. It is written as veniskah, with the possessive pronoun in the feminine form. This would be referring to the meal offering [minḥa], which is a feminine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the meal offering, and it is referring to the oil that is intermingled in the meal offering. And we read it as venisko, with the possessive pronoun in the masculine form. This would be referring to the lamb offering itself [keves], which is a masculine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the lamb offering, which is a reference to the wine libation that accompanies the lamb offering.
כֵּיצַד? ״נִסְכָּהּ״ דְּמִנְחָה כְּ״נִסְכּוֹ״ דְּיַיִן – מָה יַיִן רְבִיעִית, אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי רְבִיעִית.
How can this be explained? It teaches that the libation of the meal offering, i.e., its oil, is like the libation of the lamb of wine: Just as the quantity of wine used is a quarter–hin, so too, the quantity of oil used is a quarter–hin and no more.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, טָעוּן נְסָכִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
§ The Gemara cites a related discussion: A guilt offering brought by a leper as part of his purification process is distinct from other guilt offerings in that there is an additional requirement that it must be brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake, although the leper can therefore no longer fulfill his obligation with it, the offering continues to be regarded as a guilt offering of a leper and still requires libations, i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. To bring it without libations one would have to regard it as a standard guilt offering, but the halakha is that an offering may not be sacrificed for a different purpose than the one for which it was originally consecrated.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, תְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
Rav Menashya bar Gadda objects to this: If that is so, that whenever an offering is consecrated for a specific purpose that requires various additional conditions to be fulfilled beyond those normally required for that type of offering, then even if it is then slaughtered not for its own sake those conditions must still be fulfilled in order for the offering to be valid; then with regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering the halakha should likewise be that if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, the flour in its meal offering should still be doubled in quantity, as normally required for the omer meal offering, because it continues to be regarded as an omer meal offering, as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it.
וְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ. וְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בִּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
And similarly, with regard to the daily morning offering, if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should still require the arrangement of two logs of wood on the fire on the altar by one priest, because it continues to be regarded as a daily morning offering; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. And similarly, with regard to the daily afternoon offering, if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should still require the arrangement of two logs of wood on the fire on the altar by two priests, because it continues to be regarded as a daily afternoon offering; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. The fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not mention these halakhot suggests that he holds they are not correct, but then his opinion is logically inconsistent.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט.
The Gemara deflects the objection: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling should be extended to other cases, as Rav Menashya bar Gadda claimed. Rather, Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan mentioned just one of them as an example, even though they are all correct.
רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנָךְ, עוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ,
Rabbi Abba said that there is a different resolution: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is limited to a guilt offering of a leper. The other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid even if the additional conditions that originally applied to them were not fulfilled. The reason for this is as follows: Granted, these other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid, as they are burnt offerings;
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.
Menachot Daf 87-93- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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 began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
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.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Minneapolis, MN, United States
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 began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
Berlin, Germany
Menachot 89
וְלֶיעְבֵּד זָהָב כֹּל דְּהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
and consequently, let the mouth of the lamps be fashioned from gold of any quality, not necessarily from pure gold. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even the mouth of the lamps must be fashioned from pure gold.
חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה.
§ The mishna teaches: A half-log of oil was used to measure oil for the thanks offering. The thanks offering was accompanied by four different types of loaves; three types were unleavened and one was leavened, as the verse states: “If he offers it for a thanks offering, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering: Unleavened loaves mixed with oil; and unleavened wafers spread with oil; and poached fine flour, loaves mixed with oil. With loaves of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12–13).
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ אֶחָד, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁכָּתַב ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says: Why must the verse state: “With oil,” “with oil,” writing it twice; why was the first time not sufficient? Because were the term “with oil” stated only once, I would have said that, with regard to the amount of oil required, the meal offerings that accompany the thanks offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all of them together.
רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי?! חַד רִיבּוּי הוּא.
The Gemara interjects the citation of the baraita to ask: Is this a case of one amplification following another amplification? It would appear that there is only one amplification, as according to the baraita the first mention of the term “with oil” is necessary to teach the basic requirement that the meal offerings of the thanks offering require oil, like other meal offerings. How then can it be considered an amplification?
אֶלָּא, אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ כׇּל עִיקָּר, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be emended, as follows: Were the term “with oil,” not written at all, I would still have said that the thanks offering meal offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all three together.
יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲצִי לוֹג זֶה מִתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת מִינִין, לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין וְלָרְבִיכָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ בָּרְבִיכָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, רִיבָּה שֶׁמֶן לָרְבִיכָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וְחוֹצֵיהוּ [חֶצְיוֹ] לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין, וְחֶצְיוֹ לָרְבִיכָה.
The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Once it has been established that the meal offerings require only a half-log of oil, one might have thought that this half-log should be equally divided between the three types of unleavened meal offerings, i.e., one-sixth of a log for the loaves, one-sixth for the wafers, and one-sixth for the poached loaves. When the verse states: “With oil,” with regard to the poached loaves, that is seemingly superfluous, as there is no need for the verse to state the requirement to use part of the half-log of oil, being that this requirement has already been established. It must therefore serve to amplify the amount of oil used for a poached loaf as opposed to the other two types. How so? One brings a half-log of oil and divides it equally into two. Half of it is further divided and used both for the ten regular loaves and for the ten wafers, and the other half of it is used entirely for the ten poached loaves.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, אִם אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לָךְ, אֶלָּא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה, וּרְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן לְנָזִיר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁבֵּין נִדָּה לְנִדָּה – הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Akiva, even if you were to amplify halakhot the entire day from the terms “with oil,” “with oil,” I would not listen to you and accept your claims. Rather, the halakha that a half-log of oil is required for the thanks offering, and similarly, the halakha that a quarter-log of oil is required for the loaves of a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one seven-day period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; they are not derived from verses.
בְּלוֹג הָיָה מוֹדֵד.
§ The mishna states that with the vessel of one log one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings. It then cites a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that one log of oil is required for each tenth of an ephah of flour used, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that each meal offering, irrespective of its size, requires only one log of oil.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּמְצוֹרָע עָנִי כְּתִיב ״עִשָּׂרוֹן … בָּלוּל … וְלֹג״, לִימֵּד עַל עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁטָּעוּן לוֹג, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a poor leper, who cannot afford the standard offerings that are required as part of the purification process and is instead required to bring one lamb as a guilt offering and a tenth of an ephah of flour as a meal offering, it is written: “And a tenth–part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The verse juxtaposes the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it teaches about each tenth of an ephah of flour that it requires one log of oil; this is the statement of the Rabbis.
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״.
Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer say: Each meal offering, irrespective of its size, and even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to offering of a leper: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil.” The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.
וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל וְלֹג״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לַיְיתֵי חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they do with this verse: “And a tenth–part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering and a log of oil,” which links the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour? The Gemara explains: That verse is required to teach the matter itself, as the Merciful One states: Let a poor leper bring an offering of just a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it cannot be used to teach a principle about meal offerings.
וְאִידָּךְ, לְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע שְׁלֹשָׁה קׇרְבָּנוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, הָכָא דְּחַד קׇרְבָּן – חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And as for the other, i.e., the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that it is not necessary to teach the matter itself, as from the fact that the Merciful One revealed with regard to a leper who is not poor that he must bring three animal offerings and a meal offering of three-tenths of an ephah as part of his purification process, it may be inferred that here, with regard to a poor leper, who brings only one offering, that he similarly brings a meal offering of only a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the fact that the verse mentions that his offering is only a tenth of an ephah is superfluous and can teach a principle for all meal offerings.
וְאִידַּךְ – אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלֵיהּ לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּדַלּוּת, אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי (מנה) [מִנְחָה] כְּלָל. וְאִידַּךְ – לִגְמָרֵי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
The Gemara continues to ask: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, how would they respond to this claim? They maintain that it was necessary for the verse to state the size of his meal offering, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One spared the money of the poor leper by allowing him to bring an offering affordable in poverty, one might say that the Merciful One does not require from him to bring any meal offering at all. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, the Rabbis, how would they respond to this? They claim that we do not find that the Torah entirely exempts a poor person from the offerings of the purification process, only that it provides a less expensive way to complete that process.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחוֹת מִדָּבָר הַטָּעוּן לוֹג, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? עִשָּׂרוֹן. וְאִידַּךְ, תַּרְתֵּי שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with the juxtaposition in the end of this verse: “For a meal offering and a log of oil,” from which Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer derive the principle that each meal offering requires only one log of oil? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain that the juxtaposition teaches about one who donates a meal offering, without specifying its size, that he should not bring less than an amount of flour that requires one log. And what is this amount? A tenth of an ephah. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, from where do they derive that halakha, as they maintain the verse teaches the principle for all meal offerings? The Gemara explains: They maintain that two halakhot can be derived from this verse.
שִׁשָּׁה לַפָּר, אַרְבָּעָה לָאַיִל, שְׁלֹשָׁה לַכֶּבֶשׂ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם חֲצִי הַהִין יִהְיֶה לַפָּר״.
§ The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. Six log, i.e., one-half of a hin, for those of a bull; and four log, i.e., one-third of a hin, for those of a ram; and three log, i.e., one-quarter of a hin, for those of a lamb. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these quantities? We derive them from a verse, as it is written: “And their libations shall be one-half of a hin of wine for a bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for a lamb” (Numbers 28:14).
הִין – תְּרֵיסַר לוּגֵּי הָוַיִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין״, וּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״, זֶה בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תְּרֵיסַר הָוַיִין.
The Gemara elaborates: Now, one hin is twelve log, as it is written: “And of olive oil a hin” (Exodus 30:24), and it is written afterward in the same verse: “Sacred anointing oil, this [zeh] shall be for Me, throughout your generations.” The numerical value [gimatriyya] of zeh is twelve. Once it is established that one hin is twelve log, it is possible to calculate how may log are in one-half, one-third, and one-quarter of a hin.
שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמֶחֱצָה לַמְּנוֹרָה, חֲצִי לוֹג לְכׇל נֵר. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לוֹג מֵאוּרְתָּא וְעַד צַפְרָא.
§ The mishna teaches: Three and a half log of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half-log was required for each lamp. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Candelabrum: “Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning, before the Lord” (Exodus 27:21). This indicates that you shall put into each lamp its required quantity of oil so that it will continue burning from evening until morning. Alternatively, the phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that the mitzva is fulfilled throughout the night, and you have no other rite that is valid from evening until morning except for this one alone. And the Sages calculated that a half-log of oil for each lamp is necessary to ensure that they continue burning from evening until morning.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ.
How did the Sages reach the conclusion that a half-log of oil is needed? There are those who say that the Sages calculated it by initially using a large quantity of oil, more than necessary to burn throughout the night, and then decreasing the quantity by a small amount each night until they saw that at the end of the night there was no oil remaining. And there are those who say that they calculated it by initially using a small quantity of oil and then increasing the quantity each night until they saw that the quantity was sufficient to allow the lamps to burn throughout the night.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ – הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ – אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת.
The Gemara elaborates: The one who said that they calculated it by increasing the quantity each night holds that they did so in accordance with the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, so the Sages wished to minimize the financial cost of their experimentation. And the one who said that they calculated it by decreasing the quantity each night holds that in the Temple one’s actions should not be motivated by a concern for the financial cost, as in a place of wealth there is no poverty.
מַתְנִי׳ מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי פָרִים בְּנִסְכֵי אֵילִים, נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים, שֶׁל יָחִיד בְּשֶׁל צִיבּוּר,
MISHNA: Many animal offerings are brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. These additions are collectively referred to as libations. One may mix together the libations of bulls with the libations of rams; the meal offerings may be mixed as they both share the same ratio of flour to oil, i.e., two log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. Likewise, one may mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of other lambs, as the meal offerings both share the same ratio of three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. And one may mix together the libations of the offering of an individual with those of a communal offering.
שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ.
And one may mix together the libations of an offering brought on one day with those of the day before, if the meal offerings have the same ratio of oil to flour.
אֲבָל אֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וְאִם בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ – כְּשֵׁרִים, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּלַל – פָּסוּל.
But one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or the libations of rams, as the meal offerings have different ratios of oil to flour. And nevertheless, if one intermingled the flour and oil of these lamb offerings by themselves and the flour and oil of these bull or ram offerings by themselves, and only then were they mixed together, then they remain fit to be sacrificed. If they were mixed together before the oil and flour of each offering were independently intermingled to form the meal offering, then they are disqualified.
הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה – לֹא הָיוּ נְסָכָיו כְּפוּלִים.
With regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering, which is accompanied by another meal offering and a wine libation, even though the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, its oil and wine libations were not doubled; rather, three log of oil and three log of wine were used, per the standard quantities used for a lamb.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהוּ:
GEMARA: The mishna states that different types of libations may be mixed together provided that the meal offerings have the same flour to oil ratio. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita discussing the verse: “And he shall sacrifice, from the peace offerings, a fire to the Lord: The fat covering the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is over the loins; and the diaphragm with the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away. And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar, apart from the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is a fire of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 3:3–5).
״וְהִקְטִירוֹ״, שֶׁלֹּא יְעָרֵב חֲלָבִים בַּחֲלָבִים.
The direct object of the term: “And they shall burn,” i.e., the pronoun “it,” is singular, despite referring to the many types of fats listed in the verse. This indicates that one may not mix fats of one offering with the fats of a different offering, but should burn the parts from each offering separately. Similarly, it follows that the libations accompanying different animal offerings should not be mixed together.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ״ קָא אָמַר.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna stated only that if libations of different offerings were mixed together one may still sacrifice them, but not that this is permitted ab initio. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and baraita.
אִי הָכִי, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִתְעָרְבוּ נָמֵי לָא? וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ כְּשֵׁרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לְכַתְּחִלָּה קָא אָמַר!
The Gemara infers: If that is so, then when the mishna states in its first clause: And one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or the libations of rams, the intention is that even after the fact, if they were mixed together, they are also not valid. The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If one intermingled the flour and oil of these lamb offerings by themselves and the flour and oil of these bull or ram offerings by themselves and only then were they mixed together then they remain fit to be sacrificed, which is explicitly referring to the halakha after the fact, it may be inferred that the first clause stated the halakha ab initio.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר, מְעָרְבִין יֵינָן, אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן.
Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: When different animal offerings are sacrificed, their wine libations may be mixed together ab initio, but only if their fine flour and their oil from their respective meal offerings were already mixed together, albeit improperly.
וְיֵינָן לְכִתְחִלָּה לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּסֹלֶת וָשֶׁמֶן, אֲבָל יַיִן מְעָרְבִין.
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that one may not mix together the wine libations of different offerings ab initio unless their flour and oil were already mixed? But isn’t it taught in the continuation of the baraita just cited: In what case is this statement, that one may not mix together parts from different offerings, said? It is said only with regard to flour and oil. But one may mix together the wine libations of different offerings. The implication is that this is the halakha even if their meal offerings had not been mixed together.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר – הֵיכָא דְּהוּקְטַר סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין יַיִן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. הֵיכָא דְּלָא הוּקְטַר – אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין נָמֵי יֵינָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְעָרְבִין, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹבֵי סֹלֶת וְשֶׁמֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
Rather, Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to offerings of similar types of animals, where their fine flour and their oil from their respective meal offerings have been burned on the altar, one may mix together the wine libations ab initio. And even where their fine flour and their oil have not been burned, if their fine flour and their oil have at least been mixed together, one may mix together their wine libations ab initio. But if the fine flour and oil have not been mixed together, then one may not mix the libations together. The reason is that if one does mix the libations, perhaps one will come to mix together their flour and oil ab initio, which is prohibited.
כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים״, לִימֵּד עַל כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering, the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, but the quantities of oil and wine are not doubled. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the omer meal offering: “And its meal offering shall be two tenths” (Leviticus 23:13). This verse teaches about the lamb that comes with the omer that the size of its meal offering is doubled.
יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, כָּךְ יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ יַיִן רְבִיעִית הַהִין״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ, אֲבָל יְהֵא שַׁמְנוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁנִּבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״ – כׇּל נְסָכָיו לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית.
One might have thought that just as its meal offering is doubled, so too its wine libation should be doubled, i.e., instead of using a quarter-hin, as is generally done for lambs, one should use a half-hin. To counter this, the verse states, in its continuation: “And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-hin” (Leviticus 23:13). One might have thought that it is only its wine libation that should not be doubled, as it is not intermingled with the flour of its meal offering, but its oil should be doubled, as it is intermingled with the flour of its meal offering. To counter this, the verse states: “And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-hin,” which teaches that all of its libations shall be only a quarter–hin, but no more.
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּתִיב ״וְנִסְכָּהּ״, וְקָרֵינַן ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״.
The Gemara elaborates on the final proof in the baraita: What is the biblical derivation here? Rabbi Elazar says: There is an ambiguity as to whether the possessive pronoun in the term “and its libation” is referring to the lamb offering or the meal offering, both of which are mentioned previously in the verse. This is due to a disparity between the way the Hebrew word for the term is written and the way it is vocalized. It is written as veniskah, with the possessive pronoun in the feminine form. This would be referring to the meal offering [minḥa], which is a feminine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the meal offering, and it is referring to the oil that is intermingled in the meal offering. And we read it as venisko, with the possessive pronoun in the masculine form. This would be referring to the lamb offering itself [keves], which is a masculine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the lamb offering, which is a reference to the wine libation that accompanies the lamb offering.
כֵּיצַד? ״נִסְכָּהּ״ דְּמִנְחָה כְּ״נִסְכּוֹ״ דְּיַיִן – מָה יַיִן רְבִיעִית, אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי רְבִיעִית.
How can this be explained? It teaches that the libation of the meal offering, i.e., its oil, is like the libation of the lamb of wine: Just as the quantity of wine used is a quarter–hin, so too, the quantity of oil used is a quarter–hin and no more.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, טָעוּן נְסָכִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
§ The Gemara cites a related discussion: A guilt offering brought by a leper as part of his purification process is distinct from other guilt offerings in that there is an additional requirement that it must be brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake, although the leper can therefore no longer fulfill his obligation with it, the offering continues to be regarded as a guilt offering of a leper and still requires libations, i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. To bring it without libations one would have to regard it as a standard guilt offering, but the halakha is that an offering may not be sacrificed for a different purpose than the one for which it was originally consecrated.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, תְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
Rav Menashya bar Gadda objects to this: If that is so, that whenever an offering is consecrated for a specific purpose that requires various additional conditions to be fulfilled beyond those normally required for that type of offering, then even if it is then slaughtered not for its own sake those conditions must still be fulfilled in order for the offering to be valid; then with regard to the lamb offering that comes with the omer meal offering the halakha should likewise be that if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, the flour in its meal offering should still be doubled in quantity, as normally required for the omer meal offering, because it continues to be regarded as an omer meal offering, as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it.
וְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ. וְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בִּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.
And similarly, with regard to the daily morning offering, if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should still require the arrangement of two logs of wood on the fire on the altar by one priest, because it continues to be regarded as a daily morning offering; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. And similarly, with regard to the daily afternoon offering, if one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should still require the arrangement of two logs of wood on the fire on the altar by two priests, because it continues to be regarded as a daily afternoon offering; as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. The fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not mention these halakhot suggests that he holds they are not correct, but then his opinion is logically inconsistent.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט.
The Gemara deflects the objection: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling should be extended to other cases, as Rav Menashya bar Gadda claimed. Rather, Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan mentioned just one of them as an example, even though they are all correct.
רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנָךְ, עוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ,
Rabbi Abba said that there is a different resolution: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is limited to a guilt offering of a leper. The other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid even if the additional conditions that originally applied to them were not fulfilled. The reason for this is as follows: Granted, these other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid, as they are burnt offerings;
