Menachot 74b — the Talmud in English

We learned in tractate Chullin [74b]: One who slaughters an animal and finds within it a nine-month-old offspring alive—the Sages say that the slaughtering of its mother purifies it, and it no longer requires slaughtering [and it is called a “fallen calf”]. 61.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even

if that “fallen calf” grew and became

five years old,

and it

plows in the field,

it does not require slaughtering, because

the slaughtering of its mother purifies it [and the Gemara there explains in what matter the Sages and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagree].

And concerning this Ravin bar Chinena said, in the name of Ulla, that Rabbi Chanina ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

And we reject this:

We have already stated concerning it,

“It was stated concerning it,”

concerning this ruling in tractate Chullin,

Ze'iri said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri! And if it is so,

if Ravin bar Chinena was also referring to that ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri,

he,

Ravin bar Chinena,

should also say

his words together with Ze'iri; why were his words not mentioned there in tractate Chullin!?

Rather, regarding this

Ravin bar Chinena stated his words: For we learned in tractate Gittin:

At first they used to say:

One who is going out in chains to be executed

and said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,”

even though he did not say, “Give it” to my wife,

they shall write

a bill of divorce for him

and give it.

Since he said “Write,” he evidently revealed his intention that it be for delivery, that they should also give the bill of divorce to her; since he is going out to be executed, he does not want his wife to fall before a levir, and wishes her to be divorced.

They later said: Even one who sets sail

at sea

and one who goes out with a caravan,

who said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife”—they shall give the bill of divorce.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even one who is dangerously ill

[ill] who said “Write”—they give the bill of divorce to his wife

! Alternatively, regarding this

Mishna Ravin bar Chinena stated his words: [It is established for us that one who purchases demai produce—that is, produce belonging to an am ha-aretz who is not trustworthy regarding tithes—is obligated to tithe the produce. If he forgot and did not tithe the produce, and Shabbat entered, he asks the am ha-aretz whether he separated the tithes, and he eats on the basis of his word. The Sages were lenient with him for the sake of the enjoyment of Shabbat, since most ammei ha-aretz tithe. At the conclusion of Shabbat he may not eat until he tithes. And we learned in tractate Demai:

The tithe-offering of demai that returned to its place

and became mixed with the produce for which it had been separated ;

there are only ninety-nine portions in the produce for which it was separated, corresponding to the tithe-offering, and consequently everything is rendered demai, since the offering is not nullified, and it prohibits all the produce, and there is no remedy for the produce. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even on a weekday he asks

the purchaser to ask the seller whether he tithed the produce,

and eats it on the basis of his word

if he tells him that the produce has been tithed, for they were lenient to rely on an am ha-aretz when the tithe-offering became mixed with non-sacred produce, because of the loss of the non-sacred produce; he is trustworthy concerning it even on a weekday! ]

And concerning this Ravin bar Chinena came to say that the halakha is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

And we reject this:

But it was stated concerning it: Rabbi Yochanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill

concerning a bill of divorce

and concerning the tithe-offering of demai!

And if it is so,

that Ravin bar Chinena spoke about these cases,

he should also say

there that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; why was he not mentioned there? Rather, certainly Ravin bar Chinena did not state his words concerning this.

Rather, regarding this

Rabbi Chanina stated his words: [It is established for us concerning the obligation of tithes that in the case of produce, the year of the tithe is determined by budding; in the case of vegetables, by gathering; and in the case of legumes, the year is determined by rooting.]

Rabbi Yose ben Kifer says in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: The Egyptian bean

[a type of legume whose vegetable and seeds are eaten. Some customarily sow it for its vegetable, and some sow it in order to eat its seeds. Therefore, if they sowed it for seed, the year of the tithe is determined by rooting, since its law is that of a legume. And if they sowed it for its vegetable, the year of the tithe is determined by gathering, since its law is that of a vegetable]. If it happened

that they sowed it for seed, and part of the

field

of the bean took root before Rosh HaShanah, while part took root after Rosh HaShanah,

then

one may not separate tithes

from

this

which took root before Rosh HaShanah

for that

which took root after Rosh HaShanah, and likewise in the reverse case. For one may not

separate tithes neither from

the produce

of the new

year,

for

the produce

of the old

year,

nor from the old for the new! What shall he do?

For it is burdensome to separate for each portion individually.

He gathers his grain-heap into it

and mixes it well in the middle of the grain heap so that it is all one, and through this

it is found that he separates tithes from

the seed

of the new within it

which is within the offering

for

the seed

of the new within it, and from

the seed

of the old within it for

the seed

of the old within it.

For we rely on what he mixed, and assume that he tithed both from the old and from the new proportionately, to the extent that he is required to tithe and separate an offering.

And concerning this Ravin bar Chinena said in the name of Ulla that here Rabbi Chanina ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

And we reject this:

It was stated concerning it

concerning the ruling about the Egyptian bean,

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri!

And if it is so, that Ravin bar Chinena stated his words concerning this ruling,

that Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri!

he should also say

his words together with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani! Rather, certainly Ravin bar Chinena did not state his words concerning this.

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Ravin bar Chinena’s words, in which he ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, were stated

concerning

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri’s ruling regarding

a chest.

A chest is a large box containing more than forty seah, and it is established for us that large wooden vessels containing forty seah [of liquid, which are two kor when dry] do not become impure with the impurity of vessels, because they are not comparable to a sack: on account of their size, they cannot be carried when full and when empty, and they have exited the category of a vessel. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed how those forty seah of the chest are measured, from the inside or from the outside. And Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said there that according to Beit Hillel they measure even the empty airspace between the legs of the chest, if the height of the legs is not a tefach.

a chest.

A chest is a large wooden box containing more than forty se'a. It is established that large wooden vessels containing forty se'a [of liquid, which is two kor of dry measure] do not contract ritual impurity as vessels, because they are not comparable to a sack: due to their size, they cannot be carried full and empty, and therefore they lose the status of a vessel. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed over how to measure those forty se'a of the chest, whether from the inside or from the outside. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri said there that according to Beit Hillel, one measures even the empty space between the legs of the chest, provided that the legs are not one handbreadth high.

And Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

the words of Ravin bar Hinena were said

A

the words of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri concerning the law of

wine,

as the Gemara will explain shortly.

And initially the Gemara explains the law of a chest.

And Ravina explains his uncertainty:

the prohibition of foreignness—

that is, the prohibition of “No foreigner shall eat holy food” [Leviticus 22:10 exact page location]]

is not a question for me:

I have no doubt that the priest who ate it certainly violates it, because even a priest, with regard to the sacrificial portions, is considered like a foreigner.

For what is a question for me

What I am uncertain about is concerning the

prohibition of “

It shall be entirely offered

, you shall not eat,”

what is the law?

Does one who eats the sacrificial portions violate this prohibition, like one who eats from the priest’s meal-offering, which is entirely offered, or perhaps this prohibition was stated only concerning the priest’s meal-offering?

Rav

answered

Ravina: Come and hear

a proof from a beraita that he violates the prohibition of “he shall not eat,” from this:

as it was taught, Rabbi Eliezer says: Everything that is “

it shall be entirely offered,”

the verse came

to impose a prohibition against eating it

, and the sacrificial portions are likewise included.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues with the detailed laws of the meal-offerings, in their various kinds. And since the preceding Mishna explained which meal-offerings have a portion both for the altar and for the priests, here the Mishna explains which are the meal-offerings that have no portion for both of them together, but are for the altar alone, or for the priests alone.

The priests’ meal-offering

[which a priest brings],

and the meal-offering of the anointed priest

[which the High Priest brings every day, “the griddle meal-offering”],

and the libation meal-offering

which comes with the offering, all are

for the altar, and there is nothing in them for the priests

at all.

And in this case,

in these meal-offerings,

the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests

, for only the altar has a portion in them, and the priests do not eat.

But

the two loaves

that come on the Festival of Assembly,

and the showbread

which is divided every Shabbat,

are eaten

all

by the priests, and there is nothing in them for the altar

at all.

And in this case,

in these meal-offerings,

the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar

, for the priests eat all of them, and the altar has no portion in them at all.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The priests’ meal-offering, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and the libation meal-offering. And in this case the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests:

And we raise an objection:

And

for

further, is there not!?

Is it the case that there are no additional offerings that the altar consumes all of, while the priests do not eat, such that you say, “in this case the power of the altar is greater,” implying that only in this offering and not in others!?

But there is

an offering of

an olah,

which is entirely offered to the Lord, and the priests do not eat from it!?

And we answer: There is, after all,

the hide

of the olah, which is given

to the priests.

And we still ask:

But there is the bird olah,

in which the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests, for even its hide is burned upon the altar!?

And we answer: Our Mishna speaks only of an offering that is entirely burned upon the altar, whereas the bird olah is not entirely burned upon the altar, for

there is the crop

[the gizzard]

and the feathers

[its intestines], which are not burned upon the altar; rather, they are placed beside the altar, as it is stated [Leviticus 1:16]: “And he shall remove its crop with its feathers, and cast it beside the altar eastward, to the place of the ashes.”

And we still ask:

But there are the libations

[wine libations], all of which are for the altar, and there is nothing in them for the priests, for all the wine is poured into the bowls!?

And we answer: Our Mishna speaks of things burned upon the altar, whereas libations are not burned upon the altar; rather,

they go to the channels

[to the hollow beneath the altar, opposite the bowls adjacent to the corners of the altar; they go down there], and they do not rise upon the altar itself.

The Gemara adds to explain the wording of the Mishna:

And what is “

in this,”

what does the wording of the Mishna come to exclude by saying, “in this case the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests,” implying “in this,” and not in another matter!?

And we explain: Our Mishna comes

to exclude the view of Shmuel

[to exclude Shmuel’s opinion].

For Shmuel said: One who vows to bring wine brings it and sprinkles it upon the fires

[upon the fire of the altar]. And according to Shmuel, there is another offering in which the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests—

it teaches us

that our Mishna excludes all the other offerings,

that

even one who vows to bring wine does not place it upon the fires; rather,

it goes to the channels

[that is, he pours it into the bowls, and from there it goes to the channels like the other libations that come with the offering], and even the altar has no portion in it.

But on the other hand,

it supports him

the wording of our Mishna, which says “in this,” implying, and not in others,

to

another statement of

Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: One who vows to bring oil,

it does not all go upon the fires; rather,

he takes a handful of it,

and burns the handful of oil,

and its remainder

of the oil

is eaten

by the priests. And our Mishna supports him, for it said, “in this the power is greater,” implying that there is no other offering in which the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests. Therefore, even one who vows to bring oil has only its handful go up to the altar, while its remainder goes to the priests.

We learned in the Mishna:

The two loaves and the showbread.

And in this case the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar:

And we ask:

And further, is there not

additional offerings that only the priests eat, and none of them is burned upon the altar!?

But there is the bird sin-offering,

which is entirely eaten by the priests, and nothing from it is burned upon the altar!?

And we answer: There is

its blood,

which is sprinkled upon the altar.

And we still ask:

But there is

also

the log of oil of the leper

who became pure, from which nothing is burned upon the altar, and the priests eat what remains of it after the portions taken from it are given “before the Lord” and upon the leper. Thus, in it the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar!?

And we answer:

There are its portions,

which are sprinkled from it seven times “before the Lord.”

The Gemara adds to explain:

And what is “

in this

the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar”? What does the tanna come to teach by saying “in this”?

To exclude the opinion of the one who says [

above, 46b],

the two loaves that come on their own [

when they have no lambs, according to Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that the lambs do not prevent the bringing of the two loaves]

come to be burned [

they are brought to be burned].

This teaches us that our Mishna does not follow that view:

our Mishna teaches that this is not so,

for with regard to these [

the two loaves],

the power of the priests is superior in every respect:

they eat them whether they were brought together with the lambs or were brought on their own.

Mishna:

All meal-offerings prepared in a vessel [

except for a meal-offering baked in an oven, as the Gemara will explain],

require three applications of oil:

the measure of oil that one brings for each tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The Mishna lists the three applications in the reverse order from the order in which they are performed:

pouring,

at the end;

and kneading,

precedes it;

and placing oil in the vessel precedes their preparation [

at the beginning of the preparation, before placing the fine flour in it].

This is how one prepares a meal-offering of fine flour:

a. One places a small amount of the oil in the vessel [“placing oil in the vessel precedes their preparation”], places the fine flour of the offering on it, and kneads the oil and flour together with lukewarm water. b. He then places oil on the offering a second time, and mixes it [“mixing”].

c. He then pours the remainder of the oil over the mixture [“pouring”].

Likewise, a griddle-offering and a pan-offering contain three “applications of oil.” However, Rabbi and the Sages disagree concerning the second application, which is the “mixing,” as to when it is performed:

And the loaves—

he mixes them,

the ten loaves that he makes in a griddle or a pan, he places the oil for the second time [which is the “mixing”] after baking, after breaking the baked loaves into pieces, and he mixes the pieces of the loaves with the oil; he does not mix them while the offering is still fine flour,

the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say:

he mixes the griddle-offering and the pan-offering with oil while they are

fine flour:

before baking, he places the second application of oil on them in order to mix them; afterward, he bakes the fine flour mixed with oil.

The Gemara will explain in a beraita the order of their preparation according to Rabbi and according to the Sages. The Gemara will also explain that Rabbi conceded the point to the Sages.

The Mishna now explains the law of an offering baked in an oven. It can come either as loaves or as wafers, and the Mishna explains the difference between the loaves and the wafers:

The loaves

of an offering baked in an oven

require mixing

with oil. That is, one places oil on the fine flour [according to the Sages], mixes the fine flour and oil, and afterward bakes, breaks into pieces, and takes a handful.

But

if the

wafers

of an offering baked in an oven

require anointing,

one does not place oil on the fine flour in order to mix it. Rather, one first bakes the ten wafers and afterward anoints them with oil while they are whole, breaks them into pieces, and takes a handful from them.

How does he anoint them?—

In the form of

“ki”,

in the shape of the Greek letter “ki,” as the Gemara explains.

And the remainder of the oil

that remains after the anointing

is eaten by the priests.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All meal-offerings prepared in a vessel require three applications of oil: pouring, mixing, and placing oil in the vessel before their preparation:

The Gemara explains: The phrase “prepared in a vessel”—

what does it exclude?

Rav Pappa said:

He explained:

It excludes an offering baked in an oven,

which is baked in an oven, as it does not require pouring [as will be derived from the verses below, on 75a]. The Gemara now cites a beraita in which the sources for the three applications of oil in a griddle-offering and a pan-offering are explained:

It is stated concerning an offering baked in an oven [Leviticus 2:4]: “And when you bring an offering of a meal-offering baked in an oven, fine flour, loaves of unleavened bread

mixed with oil,

and wafers of unleavened bread

anointed with oil.”

And it is stated concerning a griddle-offering [Leviticus 2:5]: “And if your offering is a meal-offering on a griddle, fine flour

mixed with oil,

it shall be unleavened. Break it into pieces

and pour

over it

oil;

it is a meal-offering.”

And it is stated concerning a pan-offering [Leviticus 2:7]: “And if your offering is a pan-offering,

fine flour with oil

you shall prepare it.”

And it is stated concerning the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering [Leviticus 7:12]: “If he brings it for a thanksgiving-offering, then together with the thanksgiving sacrifice he shall bring loaves of unleavened bread

mixed with oil,

and wafers of unleavened bread

anointed with oil,

and scalded fine-flour loaves

mixed with oil.”

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a pan-offering,

“Fine flour with oil you shall prepare,”

which implies that the fine flour of the offering is to be placed inside the oil.

The verse teaches

that

the

pan-offering

requires

first

placing oil in a vessel,

before one places the fine flour into the oil.

From here we learn the law of the first application of oil: one must place oil in a vessel before preparing the offering, in the case of a griddle-offering.

Likewise, we derive from the expression

“your offering” [

which is stated concerning a pan-offering],

“your offering” [

which is stated concerning a griddle-offering],

a derivation based on the identical expression: