Menachot 63b (סג:) — the Talmud in English

And was it stated “offering, offering” twice

so that you could say that an offering of loaves is called an offering in its own right, and an offering of wafers is called an offering in its own right?

But was only one offering stated [

and two types were written about it]—

and loaves and wafers were stated regarding it,

which proves that these two types are called one offering. Therefore,

from now on, if he wishes to bring loaves, he brings

loaves. If he wishes to bring

wafers, he brings

wafers. If he wishes to bring

half loaves and half wafers, he brings

half loaves and half wafers. And after baking them, he breaks them into pieces,

and mixes them

together,

and he takes a handful from both of them. And if he took a handful and only

one

of the two came into his hand, he has fulfilled his obligation,

because both the loaves and the wafers are one offering.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: From where is it derived that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal-offering may not bring half loaves and half wafers?

The verse states: “And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven,”

and it is written afterward:

“And every one made in a pan or on a griddle shall be the priest’s who offers it; it shall be his. And every meal-offering mixed with oil

[a freewill meal-offering]

and dry

[a sinner’s meal-offering]

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron.”

And we expound it as follows:

Just as “every” stated below

refers to two distinct types

—namely, a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan, and likewise a freewill meal-offering and a sinner’s meal-offering are two distinct types that do not combine if he brings half of one type and half of the other—

so too, “every” stated above

with regard to a meal-offering baked in the oven, namely, loaves and wafers,

refers to two distinct types,

and half of one cannot combine with half of the other.

We raise a question:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives from the phrase “one offering,” as I told you, and not two offerings—

doesn’t

he

offer a valid argument to Rabbi Shimon,

for where is it indicated that loaves and wafers should be considered two separate offerings!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda could say

that

since it is written

twice

“with oil—

with oil,”

this interruption separates the matter, teaching us that they do not come together; and this is

as though it were written

with regard to them twice

“offering—

offering.”

And we say:

And Rabbi Shimon

holds that

if “with oil—

with oil”

had not been written, meaning, “with oil” for each of them,

I might have said

since there is no interruption between them,

he should specifically bring half loaves and half wafers,

but

as for loaves by themselves or wafers by themselves, I might say that he may not bring them

therefore

it teaches us “with oil—with oil,” that “with oil” interrupts between them, to say that he may also bring wafers alone or loaves alone. But as for half loaves and half wafers, it is obvious that he may bring them.

And further we raise a question:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who disputes Rabbi Shimon,

is

identical to

Rabbi Yehuda,

his father,

who also disputes Rabbi Shimon; and what did he add beyond his father!?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them—

if he did so after the fact,

if he made half loaves and half wafers. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the reason from “one offering” and not two, this applies only initially, but after the fact they are fit. But according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who derives it from the comparison to “mixed” and “dry,” which are two types, just as when he mixed a sinner’s meal-offering with a freewill meal-offering they are unfit, so too, if he mixed them and made half loaves and half wafers, all the loaves are unfit, even after the fact.

We will return to you, chapter “All the Meal-Off ers Are Brought Unleavened.”

A. The chapter before us deals with the Omer offering, which was brought on the sixteenth of Nisan. By means of it, eating from the new grain outside the Temple was permitted [but not in the Temple, where offering a meal-offering from the new grain was not permitted until the bringing of the Two Loaves on Shavuot], as the verse states [Leviticus 23:9]: "

When you enter the land that I give you, and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the Omer of the first of your harvest to the priest.

And he shall wave the Omer before the Lord for acceptance on your behalf; on the day after the first Festival day of Passover, the priest shall wave it.

And on the day that you wave the Omer, you shall offer a year-old male lamb without blemish as an elevation-offering to the Lord. Its meal-offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire-offering to the Lord, a pleasing fragrance; and its libation shall be a quarter of a hin of wine.

You shall not eat bread, roasted grain, or fresh grain [made from the new grain] until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your God; it is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your settlements."

B. The verse also states [Leviticus 2:14]:

"And if you bring [like 'when you bring,' for this 'if' expresses an obligation] a meal-offering of first fruits to the Lord [the verse is speaking of the Omer offering],

spring grain [

it is brought as 'spring grain,' at the time when the grain ripens],

roasted in fire,

crushed grain [

an expression denoting breaking and grinding; the grain must be ground in a mill, 'crushed'],

fresh grain [

soft grain that can be rubbed by hand]; you shall bring the meal-offering of your first fruits.

And you shall put oil upon it and place frankincense on it; it is a meal-offering. The priest shall burn its memorial portion, some of its crushed grain and some of its oil, together with all its frankincense, a fire-offering to the Lord.'"

C. The Omer offering consisted of one tenth of an ephah of fine barley flour.

D. The grain for the Omer offering was harvested on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan, and its harvesting overrides Shabbat.

E. The Boethusians, who disputed the received teaching of the Sages, interpreted "the day after Shabbat" according to the plain meaning of the verse: the day after the Shabbat following the first Festival day of Passover. In order to refute the Boethusian view, the Sages instituted that the Omer be harvested with great publicity.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: The Omer was brought

when the sixteenth of Nisan fell

on Shabbat,

and its harvesting, grinding, and sifting were performed on Shabbat,

from three se'a

of barley alone. They would grind and sift it repeatedly until they obtained from all three se'a one select tenth of an ephah of fine flour, which they offered as the Omer meal-offering.

But

if the sixteenth of Nisan fell

on a weekday,

they would offer the tenth of an ephah brought

from five

se'a of barley. They would take a small amount of fine flour from each se'a, namely, the fine flour that emerges first from the sieve. The Gemara explains the reason for the distinction between Shabbat and a weekday.

And the Sages say: Whether on Shabbat or on a weekday, it came from three

se'a alone;

it was brought.

Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy of the priests, says: On Shabbat it was harvested by

one

person, with one sickle and in one basket,

into which they placed the harvested grain.

But

if

on a weekday

it was harvested, it was harvested by

three

people,

with three baskets and three sickles,

in order to publicize the harvesting and refute the view of the Boethusians, who interpreted "the day after Shabbat" according to its plain meaning, namely, on Sunday of the week [called "the day after Shabbat"] that falls after the first Festival day of Passover, contrary to the Sages, who received the interpretation that it means the day after the first Festival day of Passover.

And the Sages say: Whether on Shabbat or on a weekday

the harvesting was performed

by three

people,

with three baskets and three sickles,

meaning that even on Shabbat they harvested publicly.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yishmael says: The Omer was brought on Shabbat from three se'a, and on a weekday from five; and the Sages say: Whether on Shabbat or on a weekday, it was brought from three:

The Gemara discusses this:

Granted, according to the Rabbis,

who hold that whether on a weekday or on Shabbat the Omer was brought from three se'a, their reasoning is understandable, because

they hold

that

a select tenth of an ephah

can even

be obtained from three se'a [

it can be produced],

and

therefore,

there is no difference whether on a weekday or on Shabbat; it was brought from three se'a.

it would come from three seahs.

But Rabbi Yishmael,

who distinguishes between a weekday and Shabbat,

what does he hold?

If he holds that a select tenth of an ephah can be obtained only from five,

so that it is impossible to produce it in a select form except from five se'a, because only from at least five se'a can one take the fine flour that emerges first [which is the highest-quality flour], so that there will be a tenth of an ephah for the Omer, then

even on Shabbat as well

he should bring the Omer from five se'a, because it must be brought from the finest.

But

if

Rabbi Yishmael holds that a select tenth of an ephah can be obtained even

from three

se'a,

be obtained, then

if so,

even on a weekday as well

they should need to bring it only from three se'a!?

Rava said,

he explained

Rabbi Yishmael's

reason:

Rabbi Yishmael holds: A select tenth of an ephah without labor [

with only a small amount of sifting]

is obtained from five

se'a. But

with labor [

through extensive sifting] it

can be obtained

even

from three

se'a. That is, a tenth obtained from five se'a is not absolutely superior to one obtained from three se'a, since through labor one can produce a select tenth even from three se'a. Nevertheless, the tenth obtained from five se'a is of higher quality than the one obtained from three, since from each se'a one takes only the fine flour that emerges first; therefore:

On a weekday, we bring it from five,

on a weekday they bring a tenth from five se'a, since

that is the more superior procedure [

the matter is thereby more excellent]. But

on Shabbat

he harvests only three se'a and sifts them extensively, because

it is preferable that he increase one type of labor, in sifting [

sifting, which is a primary category of labor called "sifting"],

rather than increase many types of labor,

in harvesting, winnowing, selecting, grinding, and sifting the additional two se'a. That is, although reducing the amount of se'a on Shabbat does not result in an overall reduction of labor, since in exchange for what he saves in harvesting and grinding, he increases the sifting of the small amount he harvests, nevertheless, since the advantage of five se'a over three is only that it is "the more superior procedure," we say that it is preferable to reduce the number of different types of labor.

Rabba said: Rabbi Yishmael

in our Mishna,

and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,

in the beraita brought below,

stated the same matter [

the same rationale for their respective statements]:

The Paschal offering was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on the fourteenth of Nisan, and its sacrificial portions were likewise burned on the fourteenth, even when it fell on Shabbat, and it was eaten on the night of the fifteenth.

As it was taught: When the fourteenth

of Nisan

falls on Shabbat,

the sacrificial portions are burned on Shabbat. In order to remove the sacrificial portions from the animal, its hide must be flayed. Although flaying the hide is a primary category of labor among the thirty-nine primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, labor required for the Temple service was permitted on Shabbat. Here, the sacrificial portions cannot be offered without flaying the animal's hide; therefore, he

flays the Paschal offering

on Shabbat [by way of its legs]

only as far as the breast,

since this amount of flaying suffices to remove its sacrificial portions,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

And the Sages say:

He continues flaying

until he flays it entirely,

because if he flays it only as far as the breast, this constitutes contempt for consecrated property, leaving the Paschal offering partially flayed until nightfall, since in this respect it resembles an animal carcass.

Rabba infers that they stated the same matter—

Did Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, not say there,

concerning the Paschal offering,

wherever it is possible,

with only a partial flaying,

we do not trouble ourselves

on Shabbat to flay it entirely, although this entails contempt for consecrated property—

here,

concerning the Omer,

as well, since it is possible

to perform one type of labor many times,

we do not trouble ourselves

to perform many types of labor, although the tenth would be of higher quality had he troubled himself with many types of labor.

But the Gemara rejects Rabba's proof:

From where [

do you know that one who prohibits this also prohibits that]!?

For perhaps

Rabbi Yishmael said only here

not to trouble oneself with five se'a,

because

through reducing the exertion

there is no contempt for consecrated property; but there,

concerning flaying the Paschal offering,

there is contempt for consecrated property

if he does not flay it entirely, since it resembles an animal carcass,