Menachot 63a — 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 does not have a cover -

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says:

A deep pan is deep, and its products move,

for when one touches the meal-offering baked in oil, the oil moves and shifts within it, like a creature that moves and shifts—for the translation of a moving creature is rakhshin—since the oil is in a deep vessel, it is concentrated together and does not spread out,

and

therefore the meal-offerings baked in it turn out

soft.

But

a pan

is not deep but

shallow,

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

and

therefore

its products,

that is, the meal-offerings baked upon it, turn out

hard.

Gemara:

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

And we raised a difficulty about it:

What is the reason,

that is, from where does Rabbi Yosei derive this distinction concerning the vessel’s cover?

If you say

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

“deep pan,”

which implies

that it comes,

that it comes to atone for

the stirrings of the heart,

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

as it is written: “My heart stirs with 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,

for one who sins through gossip, and

as people say [

with regard to a person’s speech]—

“he barks his barks,”

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

If so,

say the opposite: a pan

is the one that should be covered, since its significance is

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

that is, why did you hide and conceal yourself, like the heart, which is hidden and concealed. Whereas the significance of

“deep pan”

is

that it comes for stirrings, as people say: “His lips were moving,” [

they were stirring their lips]. And the stirring of the lips is exposed; if so, the deep pan is the one that should be exposed.

And we answer: We do not expound this from the interpretation of the verses, nor from what people say,

but it is a tradition,

thus it was learned through a received tradition, from one generation to the next, that a deep pan is covered and a pan is exposed.

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 everything made in a deep pan,”

which implies that the meal-offering is made within it, and it is thereby demonstrated that it has an interior, meaning that it 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 within it, that it is flat and has no interior.

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

and he did not say “in a deep pan,” in which case the meaning of his words would have been a meal-offering made in a deep pan]—

his vow shall remain set aside

his vow

until Elijah comes,

and resolves for us what the meaning of the vow is in this wording.

And we explain:

It is uncertain to them

for the School of Shammai

whether they were named on account of their vessels

whether the meal-offerings of the deep pan and the pan were named after their vessels—that there is a vessel whose name is pan and a vessel whose name is deep pan, and the pan meal-offering is called after the vessel in which it is made, and the deep-pan meal-offering too is called after the vessel in which it is made—

or on account of their products

they were so named because the products of the deep-pan meal-offering move and are soft, while the products of the pan meal-offering are shallow and hard.

Therefore the School of Shammai were uncertain as to 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,” the meaning of his words is that he vows to bring a service vessel whose name is deep pan.

But if we say that the deep-pan meal-offering is named because its products move, then the meaning of one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a deep pan,” is that he is to bring a deep-pan meal-offering, whose products move.

And the School of Hillel says:

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

there was a vessel in the Temple

and “deep pan” was its name ,

and it resembled a deep dog-trap,

like our pan,

and when dough was placed inside it, it resembled the kind of figs and the kind of Greek acorns,

for on the bottom wall of the vessel there were hollows resembling “the figs” and “the Greek acorns” [see Rashi], and the dough entered those hollows.

And

the verse says

“And everything made in a deep pan and upon a pan,”

and from the fact that Scripture changed the wording between the deep pan and the pan—that with the deep pan it wrote “in a deep pan,” while with the pan it wrote “upon a pan,” and it did not write “and everything made, deep pan or pan”—

it follows that they were named on account of their vessels and not on account of their products.

Therefore it says “in a deep pan,” that is, within a deep vessel, and “upon a pan,” that is, upon a flat vessel.

Mishna:

One who says

“It is incumbent upon me

a meal-offering baked

in an oven,” he may not

bring a baked offering from a small oven,

which is a small oven in which there is room to place only one cooking pot.

And he may not

bring

a baked offering from roof tiles, or a baked offering from the ovens of the Arabs,

in which they would kindle fires and bake.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

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

wishes, he brings

it

as a baked offering from a small oven.

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: “A baked offering from an oven”

the Torah said,

and not a baked offering from a small oven, and not a baked offering

baked upon

roof tiles, and not a baked offering from the ovens of the Arabs.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is stated

“oven”—

“oven” twice—

to validate a baked offering from a small oven!

That is, the product of a small oven too is called a baked offering from an oven.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is stated

“oven”—

“oven” twice,

to teach you:

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

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

And we raised a difficulty:

Does Rabbi Shimon indeed have this

reasoning,

that the 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, they have still not been consecrated with the sanctity of a service vessel so as to become disqualified through leaving; therefore they are

valid

when they are found

in the Temple courtyard, and

they are

valid

even when they are found outside the courtyard,

in Beit Pagi.

And it is demonstrated that the oven does not consecrate them, and therefore they are still not disqualified through leaving.

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, that he say, “I consecrate it

for the sake of

its being baked

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 a baked meal-offering; he may not bring half

loaves and half wafers.”

The Sages taught: “When you bring a meal-offering, a baked offering from an oven: fine flour, unleavened loaves mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers smeared with oil.”

And thus we expound this verse:

“When you bring”—

when you bring!

For this is not obligatory; rather, the verse comes

to make

it

a matter of permission,

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

“A meal-offering”—

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

but either loaves or wafers?

The verse states: “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 turns out that his offering is made of two separate offerings.

Rabbi Shimon said

to Rabbi Yehuda: