Menachot 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in tractate Chullin [74b]: If one slaughters an animal and finds within it a nine-month-old fetus alive, the Sages say that its mother’s slaughter renders it pure and it does not require slaughter again [and it is called a “ben peku'a”] 61 .

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if

that “ben peku'a” grew and became

five years old,

and it

plows in the field,

it does not require slaughter, because

its mother’s slaughter renders it pure [

and the Gemara there explains the matter of the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri].

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

And we reject this:

It was stated concerning it,

concerning this law in tractate Chullin,

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

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

he,

Ravin bar Ḥinnena,

should also say

his statement together with Ze'iri. Why was his statement not mentioned there, in tractate Chullin!?

Rather, it is concerning this:

Ravin bar Ḥinnena stated his words concerning what we learned in tractate Gittin:

At first they would say:

A man being led 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 presumably revealed his intention that it be given as well, that they should 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 yavam, and he wants her to be divorced.

They later said that even one who sets sail

at sea

and one who sets out with a caravan,

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

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even one who is dangerously ill [

a sick person] who says, “Write,” they give the bill of divorce to his wife

! Alternatively, it is concerning this:

Ravin bar Ḥinnena stated his words concerning this Mishna: [

It is established that with regard to the obligation of tithes, the year of produce is determined by blossoming, the year of vegetables by picking, and the year of legumes by rooting]. And we learned in tractate Demai:

The tithe-offering of doubtfully tithed produce that returned to its place

and became mixed with the produce for which it had been separated , and the produce for which it had been separated contains only ninety-nine parts corresponding to the tithe-offering, so that everything is medumma, for the teruma is not nullified and renders all the produce forbidden, and there is no remedy for the produce—

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even on a weekday, the purchaser asks

the seller whether he tithed the produce,

and eats it on his word,

if he tells him that the produce was tithed. The Sages were lenient and permitted reliance on an am ha-aretz when the tithe-offering became mixed with ordinary produce, because of the loss of the ordinary produce; he is therefore trusted concerning it even on a weekday!

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

And we reject this:

Was it not stated concerning it: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri concerning one who is dangerously ill

with regard to a bill of divorce

and concerning the tithe-offering of doubtfully tithed produce!

And if it is so,

that Ravin bar Ḥinnena was speaking 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 Ḥinnena did not state his words concerning this.

Rather, it is concerning this:

Rabbi Ḥanina stated his words: [

It is established concerning the obligation of tithes that in the case of produce, the year of the tithe is determined by blossoming; in the case of vegetables, by picking; and in the case of legumes, by rooting].

Rabbi Yosei ben Kifar said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri: The Egyptian bean [

a type of legume whose green pods and seeds are eaten. Some ordinarily sow it for its green produce, while others sow it in order to eat its seeds. Therefore, if it was sown for its seed, the year of the tithe is determined by rooting, as its status is that of a legume. If it was sown for its green produce, the year of the tithe is determined by picking, as its status is that of a vegetable]. And if it happened

that it was sown for seed, and part of the

field

in which the bean was planted took root before Rosh HaShana, while another part took root after Rosh HaShana,

then

one may not separate teruma

that is, separate

from this

which took root before Rosh HaShana

for that

which took root after Rosh HaShana, and vice versa. 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 should he do?

For it is burdensome to separate for each part individually.

He gathers his granary into it

and thoroughly mixes it in the middle of the granary so that it is all as one; thereby

it turns out that he separates teruma and tithes from

the seed

of the new

year that is within the teruma

for

the seed

of the new

year,

and from

the seed

of the old year for the seed of the old year.

For we rely on the mixture and assume that he tithed both from the old and from the new proportionately, to the extent that he is required to separate tithes and teruma.

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

And we reject this:

Was it not stated concerning it

concerning the law of the Egyptian bean,

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

And if it is so,

that Ravin bar Ḥinnena stated his words concerning this law,

he should also say

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

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Ravin bar Ḥinnena’s statement that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri was stated concerning

the

ruling of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri

concerning a chest.

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

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The statement of Ravin bar Ḥinena was said

with regard to

the statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri concerning the halakha of

wine,

as the Gemara will explain shortly.

Initially, the Gemara explains the halakha of a chest (shida).

Ravina explains his uncertainty:

the prohibition of a non-priest,

that is, the prohibition of “No non-priest shall eat sacred food” [Leviticus 22:10

is not what I am asking about,

for I have no doubt that the priest who ate them certainly transgresses it, since even a priest is considered a non-priest with regard to the sacrificial portions.

What I am asking about is the following:

What I am uncertain about concerns the

prohibition of

“It shall be entirely burned”,

“you shall not eat it.”

What is the law?

Does one who eats the sacrificial portions transgress this prohibition, like one who eats from the offering of a priest, which is entirely burned, or was this prohibition stated only with regard to the offering of a priest?

He said

that

Rav Aharon resolved the matter for Ravina: Come and hear

a proof from a beraita that one transgresses the prohibition “you shall not eat it,” from the following:

As it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: Concerning anything that is

“entirely burned,”

the verse

comes to impose a prohibition against eating it,

and the sacrificial portions are included.

Mishna: Our Mishna continues detailing the laws of the various meal-offerings. Since the previous Mishna explained which meal-offerings are divided between the altar and the priests, this Mishna explains which meal-offerings are not divided between them, but belong either exclusively to the altar or exclusively to the priests. The offering of priests [

brought by a priest],

and the offering of a anointed priest [

brought by the High Priest every day, the “pan-offering”],

and the libation offering

brought together with the offering—all of them

are for the altar, and the priests have no share in them

at all.

And in this respect,

with regard to these meal-offerings,

the altar has an advantage over the priests,

since only the altar has a share in them, and the priests do not eat them.

But

the two loaves

brought on Shavuot,

and the showbread

distributed every Shabbat,

are eaten

entirely

by the priests, and the altar has no share in them

at all.

And in this respect,

with regard to these meal-offerings,

the priests have an advantage over the altar,

since the priests eat all of them, and the altar has no share in them at all.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The offering of priests, the offering of an anointed priest, and the libation offering. And in this respect the altar has an advantage over the priests”:

We ask:

And furthermore, is there nothing else!?

Are there no additional offerings that the altar consumes in their entirety, while the priests do not eat them, such that you say, “In this respect the altar has an advantage,” implying that this applies only to this offering and not to others!?

But there is

the

olah,

which is entirely burned for God, and the priests do not eat from it!?

But there is an

offering of

And we answer:

There is the hide,

of the olah, which is given to the priests. We continue to ask:

But there is the bird olah,

in which the altar has an advantage over the priests, since 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. The bird olah, however, is not entirely burned upon the altar, since

there are the crop [

the bird’s craw]

and the feathers [

its entrails], which are not burned upon the altar, but 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.”

We continue to ask:

But there are libations [

wine libations], which belong entirely to the altar, and the priests have no share in them, since all the wine is poured into the bowls!?

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

they go to the channels [

the hollow beneath the altar, opposite the bowls adjacent to the corners of the altar, into which they descend], and they do not go upon the altar itself.

The Gemara further explains the wording of the Mishna:

And what does

“in this”

mean? What does the wording “In this respect the altar has an advantage over the priests” come to exclude, implying “in this” and not in another matter!?

We explain: Our Mishna comes

to exclude the opinion of Shmuel [

to reject Shmuel’s view].

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

upon the fire of the altar]. According to Shmuel, there is another offering in which the altar has an advantage over the priests—

it teaches us

that our Mishna excludes all the other offerings,

for

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

it goes to the channels [

that is, he pours it into the bowls, from which it goes to the channels like the other libations brought with an offering], and the altar has no share in it either.

On the other hand, it supports the wording of our Mishna, which says “in this,” implying “and not in others,” with regard to another statement of Shmuel. For Shmuel said: One who vows to bring oil

that even wine brought as a personal offering does not go upon the fires; rather,

it goes to the channels [

that is, it is poured into the basins, and from there it goes to the channels like the other libations that come with an offering], and even the altar has no portion in it.

does not bring all of it to the fires; rather,

he takes a handful,

and burns the handful of oil,

and its remainder

of the oil

is eaten

by the priests.

Our Mishna supports him, since it says “in this respect the altar has an advantage,” implying that there is no other offering in which the altar has an advantage over the priests. Therefore, even in the case of one who vows to bring oil, only the handful goes 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 respect the priests have an advantage over the altar: We ask: And furthermore, is there nothing else, that is, are there no additional offerings that only the priests eat, from which nothing is burned upon the altar!? But there is the bird sin-offering, which is eaten entirely by the priests, and nothing from it is burned upon the altar!?

is removed and the handful of oil is burned, while

its remainder,

the remainder of the oil,

is eaten

by the kohanim. The Mishna supports him by saying, “With regard to these, the altar has an advantage,” implying that there is no other offering with regard to which the altar has an advantage over the kohanim. Therefore, even when one vows to bring oil, only its handful goes upon the altar, while its remainder is given to the kohanim.

And we answer:

There is its blood,

which is sprinkled upon the altar.

We continue to ask:

But there is also

the

log of oil of a leper

who has become pure, from which nothing is burned upon the altar, while the priests eat what remains after the portions of it that are placed “before God” and upon the leper have been given. Thus, in this offering the priests have an advantage over the altar!?

And we answer:

There are its applications,

which are sprinkled from it seven times “before God.”

The Gemara continues to explain: And what does “in this” “the priests have an advantage over the altar” mean? What does the tanna teach by saying “in this”?

But there is

also

the log of oil of a leper

who has become purified. Nothing from it is burned on the altar, and the kohanim eat what remains after some of it is applied “before God” and to the leper. Thus, with regard to it, the kohanim have an advantage over the altar!?

And we answer:

There are its applications,

for some of it is sprinkled seven times “before God.”

The Gemara further explains:

And what is meant by

“these”

“with regard to these, the kohanim have an advantage over the altar”? What does the tanna—a sage of the Mishnaic era—intend to teach by saying “these”?

To exclude the opinion of one who says [

above, 46b],

that the two loaves that come on their own [

for example, when they have no sheep, according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that the sheep do not prevent the offering of the two loaves]

are brought to be burned [

they are brought to be burned].

It teaches us that our Mishna does not say so,

but rather,

in this case [

with regard to the two loaves],

the power of the kohanim is superior forever:

they eat them whether they were brought together with the sheep or whether they were brought alone.

Mishna:

All meal-offerings prepared in a vessel [

apart from the meal-offering baked in an oven, as will be explained in the Gemara],

require three applications of oil:

the measure of oil that he brings for each tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The three applications are listed in the Mishna in the reverse order of their performance:

pouring

at the end,

and mixing

precedes it,

and placing oil in the vessel precedes their preparation [

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

This is how he prepares the meal-offering of fine flour:

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

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

The meal-offerings prepared on a griddle and in a deep pan likewise contain three “applications of oil,” but Rabbi and the Sages disagree concerning the second application, which is the “mixing”: when is it performed?

And the cakes—

he mixes them—

the ten cakes that he makes on a griddle or in a deep pan, he places the oil on them a second time [and this is the “mixing”] after baking, after breaking apart the baked cakes, and he mixes the pieces of the cakes with the oil; he does not mix them while the meal-offering is still fine flour.

These are the words of Rabbi.

a. So explained Rashi from a manuscript. In the commentary attributed to Rashi he explains it as referring both to cakes of the meal-offering prepared on a griddle or in a deep pan and to cakes of the meal-offering baked in an oven ; and:

And the Sages say:

he mixes the meal-offerings prepared on a griddle and in a deep pan with oil while they are

fine flour;

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

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

The Mishna now explains the law of the meal-offering baked in an oven, which comes either as cakes or as wafers, and explains the difference between the cakes and the wafers:

The cakes

of the meal-offering baked in an oven

require mixing

with oil. That is, he places oil on the fine flour [according to the opinion of the Sages], and mixes the fine flour and oil; afterward he bakes it, breaks it apart, and performs kemitza.

But

if

the wafers

of the meal-offering baked in an oven require

anointing,

he does not place oil on the fine flour in order to mix it. Rather, he first bakes the ten wafers, and afterward anoints them with oil while they are whole; then he breaks them apart and performs kemitza from them.

How does he anoint them?—

In the form of “

chi,”

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

And the remainder of the oil

that remains after the anointing

is eaten by the kohanim.

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:

And the Gemara explains: “Prepared in a vessel,”

to exclude what?

Said

Rab Pappa, explaining:

to exclude the meal-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 75b]. The Gemara now cites a beraita in which the sources for the three applications of oil in the meal-offering prepared on a griddle and in a deep pan are explained:

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

mixed with oil,

and wafers of unleavened bread

anointed with oil.”

And it is stated concerning the meal-offering prepared on a griddle [Leviticus 2:5]: “And if your offering is a meal-offering prepared 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 the meal-offering prepared in a deep pan [Leviticus 2:7]: “And if your offering is a meal-offering prepared in a deep pan,

fine flour with oil

you shall prepare it.”

And it is stated concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [Leviticus 7:12]: “If he offers it for thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the thanksgiving-offering cakes of unleavened bread

mixed with oil,

and wafers of unleavened bread

anointed with oil,

and scalded fine flour, cakes

mixed with oil.”

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the meal-offering prepared in a deep pan,

“You shall prepare fine flour with oil,”

which implies that the fine flour of the meal-offering is to be placed within the oil.

The verse teaches

that

the

meal-offering prepared in a deep pan

requires

first

placing oil in a vessel,

before he places the fine flour into it, upon the oil.

From here we learn the law of the first placing of oil: oil must be placed in a vessel before the preparation of the meal-offering, in the meal-offering prepared on a griddle.

Likewise, we derive by means of the expression

“your offering” [

which is stated concerning the meal-offering prepared in a deep pan] the expression

“your offering” [

which is stated concerning the meal-offering prepared on a griddle]

by means of a gezerah shavah: