Menachot 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

One who says: It is incumbent upon me

to bring a meal-offering made

in a pan—

he may not bring

a meal-offering made

in a deep pan.

And likewise, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

in a deep pan—

he may not bring it in a pan.

What is the difference between a pan and a deep pan?

A deep pan has a cover, whereas a pan has no cover -

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says:

A deep pan is deep, and its contents are agitated,

for when one touches the meal-offering baked in oil, the oil moves and trembles within it, like a creeping creature that moves and trembles; the translation of remes is rahshin. Since the oil is in a deep vessel, it remains concentrated together and does not spread out,

and

therefore the meal-offerings baked in it emerge

soft.

Whereas

a pan

is not deep, but

shallow,

flat, so that the oil spreads over the entire flat surface,

and

therefore

its contents,

i.e., the meal-offerings baked upon it, emerge

hard.

GEMARA:

We learned in the Mishna that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili distinguishes between a pan and a deep pan in that the pan has no cover, whereas the deep pan has a cover.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason,

i.e., from where did Rabbi Yosei derive this distinction between the vessels based on their having or lacking a cover?

If you say

that he learned this from the implication of the name of the meal-offering

“deep pan,”

which implies

that it comes

to atone for

the agitation of the heart,

for sinful thoughts of the heart, which is something concealed,

as it is written: “My heart is agitated by a good matter,”

and therefore the deep pan, too, is covered.

And

if the meal-offering

of a pan

is a meal-offering

that comes

to atone

for the concealments of the mouth,

as one sins through gossip, and

as people say

[with regard to human speech]:

“It barks and barks,”

and therefore it is called a pan and is exposed, just as a person’s mouth is exposed.

If so,

say the opposite: The pan

is the one that ought to be covered, since its implication is

that it comes to atone for the concealments of the heart, as it is written: “Why did you conceal yourself to flee?”

i.e., why did you hide and conceal yourself, similar to the heart, which is hidden and concealed. Whereas the implication of

“deep pan”

is

that it comes for agitation, as people say: “His lips were moving.”

The movement of the lips is exposed, and if so, the deep pan is the one that ought to be uncovered.

And we answer: We do not derive this from an exposition of the verses, nor from what people say,

but it is a received tradition,

learned through transmission from one generation to the next, that the deep pan is covered and the pan is uncovered.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says:

A deep pan is deep, and a pan is shallow.

And we explain:

A deep pan is deep—

as it is written: “And whatever is made in a deep pan,”

which implies that the meal-offering is made inside it, proving that it has a receptacle and is deep.

A pan is shallow—

as it is written: “And upon a pan,”

which implies that the meal-offering is baked upon it and not inside it, as it is flat and has no receptacle.

The Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a deep pan”

[and did not say “in a deep pan,” in which case his words would mean a meal-offering made in a deep pan]—

his vow shall remain pending

until

Elijah comes,

and clarifies for us the meaning of a vow expressed in this manner.

And we explain:

It is uncertain to them

to Beit Shammai

whether they were named on account of their vessels

the meal-offerings of the deep pan and the pan—that is, whether there is a vessel called a pan and a vessel called a deep pan, with the pan meal-offering named after the vessel in which it is made and the deep-pan meal-offering likewise named after the vessel in which it is made—

or on account of their contents,

as the contents of the deep-pan meal-offering are agitated and soft, while the contents of the pan meal-offering are shallow and hard.

Therefore, Beit Shammai were uncertain about the meaning of the vow to bring a deep pan:

For if we say that the deep-pan meal-offering is named after the vessel, then only when he says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a deep-pan meal-offering,” or “It is incumbent upon me to bring it in a deep pan,” is he obligated to bring a deep-pan meal-offering. But when he merely says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a deep pan,” his words mean that he vows to bring a service vessel called a deep pan.

But if we say that the deep-pan meal-offering is named on account of the fact that its contents are agitated, then one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a deep pan” means to bring a deep-pan meal-offering, whose contents are agitated.

And Beit Hillel say:

The deep-pan meal-offering was named after the vessel, because

there was a vessel in the Temple

called a deep pan ,

and it resembled a deep dog-trough,

similar to our pan,

and when dough was placed inside it, it resembled the shape of the apples of the bereitim and the acorns of the Greeks,

as the bottom wall of the vessel had many indentations resembling the apples of the bereitim and the acorns of the Greeks [see Rashi], and the dough entered those indentations.

And

the verse

states: “And whatever is made in a deep pan and upon a pan,”

and from the fact that the verse changed its wording between the deep pan and the pan—regarding the deep pan it says “in a deep pan,” while regarding the pan it says “upon a pan,” and it did not say, “And whatever is made in a deep pan or pan,”

it is evident that they were named on account of their vessels, and not on account of their contents.

Therefore it says “in a deep pan,” i.e., inside a deep vessel, and “upon a pan,” i.e., upon a flat vessel.

MISHNA:

One who says

“It is incumbent upon me

to bring a meal-offering baked

in an oven,” may not

bring a baked offering made in a kufah oven,

which is a small oven with room to place only one pot.

And he may not

bring

a baked offering made on roof tiles, or a baked offering made in the ovens of the Arabs,

in which they would kindle fires and bake.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A kufah oven is a type of oven, and therefore, if he

wishes, he may bring

a

kufah baked offering.

One who says

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal-offering,”

shall bring ten loaves or ten wafers, but

he may not bring half

[five]

loaves and half

[five]

wafers.

Rabbi Shimon permits

bringing even half loaves and half wafers,

because it is one offering.

GEMARA:

The Sages taught: The Torah says, “An oven-baked offering”

and not an offering baked

in a kufah oven, and not an offering

baked on

roof tiles, and not an offering made in the ovens of the Arabs.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is stated

“oven”—

“oven” twice—

to render a kufah baked offering fit!

That is, the product of a kufah oven is also called an oven-baked offering.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is stated

“oven”—

“oven” twice,

to teach you:

one, that their baking must be in an oven; and one, that their consecration must be in an oven.

For the oven consecrates them, and a service vessel does not consecrate them.

And we raised a question:

Does Rabbi Shimon really hold this

principle,

that an oven consecrates any offering?

But we learned: Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say: The two loaves and the showbread,

even after they have been baked, have still not been consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel so as to become disqualified if they leave the Temple courtyard. Therefore they are

fit

when they are located

in the courtyard, and

they are

fit

even when they are located outside the courtyard,

in Beit Pagi.

This proves that the oven does not consecrate them, and therefore they are not yet disqualified if they leave the courtyard.

Rava said:

Do not say that their consecration must be in the oven. Rather,

say:

It is necessary

that their consecration be

when he consecrates the flour, saying, “I consecrate it

for the sake of

baking it

in an oven.”

And Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains the Gemara’s difficulty differently. He first cites what is explained in the Gemara below [95]: if the two loaves and the showbread are consecrated in the oven, then it is permitted to bake them on Shabbat and festivals, since it is impossible to bake them on the eve of Shabbat and the festival, for then they would become disqualified through remaining overnight; but if the oven does not consecrate, then their baking does not override Shabbat, since it is possible to bake them on the eve of Shabbat, and they would not become disqualified through remaining overnight. If so, the Gemara’s difficulty is that since they are valid outside, it is demonstrated that it is not specifically necessary to consecrate them at the time of baking, since outside they certainly were not consecrated, as stated above. If so, it is also impossible to say that when they are baked inside, they become consecrated in the oven, since certainly their baking would not override Shabbat and the festival, because it is possible to bake them outside on the eve of Shabbat, in which case they would not become disqualified through remaining overnight. And baking them inside on the eve of Shabbat is also impossible, since afterward they would become disqualified through remaining overnight. Necessarily, then, even when they are baked inside, they are not consecrated in the oven.

We learned in the Mishna:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring an oven-baked meal-offering”; he may not bring half

loaves and half wafers.

The Sages taught: “When a person brings an offering of a meal-offering, an oven-baked offering: fine flour, loaves of unleavened bread mixed with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread smeared with oil.”

And this is how we expound this verse:

“When you bring”—

when you bring!

For this is not obligatory; rather, the verse comes

to make

it

a voluntary matter,

so that if he does not wish, he need not bring a meal-offering.

“An offering of a meal-offering”—

Rabbi Yehuda said: From where is it derived that one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring an oven-baked meal-offering,” may not bring half loaves and half wafers

but must bring either loaves or wafers?

The verse states: “An offering of a meal-offering”—

I told you to bring one offering

[loaves or wafers],

and not two or three offerings!

And if he brings half loaves and half wafers, it is found that his offering consists of two separate offerings.

Rabbi Shimon said

to Rabbi Yehuda: