Menachot 75b — the Talmud in English

He said

he answered

Rabba: What is a matter that requires two exclusions

“upon it” and “it,”

you must say: this is the baked meal-offering,

which contains two types.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains how the breaking into pieces is performed, and distinguishes among the meal-offerings:

a.

The Israelite’s meal-offering,

which requires kemitza,

he folds

breaks

one

each cake out of the ten cakes made in every meal-offering, as below, 76a

into two, and

the

two

he folds

into four,

to fulfill the mitzva of breaking into pieces,

and separates

separates the pieces completely, so that they are fit for kemitza.

b.

The priests’ meal-offering,

which does not require kemitza, since all of it is burned on the altar,

he folds one into two, and two into four, but does not separate,

because the breaking into pieces is fulfilled through the folding, while the separation is only for the sake of kemitza, and here there is no kemitza. c.

The anointed priest’s meal-offering

“the griddle-cake meal-offering”

he did not fold

into four, but into two, as the Gemara explains, and there the reason is clarified: because one breaking into pieces was stated concerning it, and not two. And he also does not separate, since it does not require kemitza, but rather “it shall be burned entirely.”

Rabbi Shimon says

[he comes to dispute with the first tanna in two matters]:

a.

The priests’ meal-offering and the anointed priest’s meal-offering do not contain breaking into pieces

at all, not even folding into two,

because

they do not have kemitza.

they do not involve taking a handful.

And anything that does not have kemitza does not have breaking into pieces.

b.

And

all the meal-offerings

all of them

that require breaking into pieces —

he breaks them

into small pieces

like olives. Unlike the words of the first tanna, according to whom he breaks only one into four.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It was stated concerning the griddle meal-offering: “Break it into pieces, and pour oil upon it; it is a meal-offering”:

If Scripture had said

“break”,

which implies one breaking,

one might have thought

that

into two

only he folds it; therefore

the verse says

“pieces,”

so that there should be two breakings in it, namely, breaking into four.

If

“pieces,”

one might have thought he should make it into crumbs? —

The verse says

“it,”

to teach:

it

the meal-offering he should break

into pieces, and not

break the

pieces into pieces.

How

does he do it?

The Israelite’s meal-offering —

he folds one into two, and two into four —

and separates.

But

the anointed priest’s meal-offering —

he would fold it, and so on.

And we challenge what we learned, that the anointed priest’s meal-offering would be folded:

But we learned in the Mishna

in our Mishna: “The anointed priest’s meal-offering

was not folded”!

was not folded”!?

He said

he answered

Rabba:

The anointed priest’s meal-offering

is not folded into four, but is folded into two,

because it is said concerning it [Leviticus 6:14]: “On a griddle, with oil you shall make it. Baked, a meal-offering of pieces. And the anointed priest in his place, from among his sons, shall make it,” but it does not say concerning it, “Break it into pieces.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The priests’ meal-offering and the anointed priest’s meal-offering contain no breaking into pieces.

And all of them he breaks into olive-sized pieces:

Rav Yosef said: This havitzat

[a dish in which bread is crumbled], this is its law with regard to the blessing:

If there are in it

[if there are in it]

crumbs

the size of

an olive,

we recite over it

“Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

And

if there are no olive-sized crumbs in it, we recite over it

“Who creates various kinds of nourishment.”

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this

[from where did I learn this law]? From that

which was taught: There was

an Israelite

standing and offering

[giving it to a priest to offer]

meal-offerings in Jerusalem,

if the Israelite had not yet offered a meal-offering in his lifetime:

he says,

the Israelite recites the blessing,

“Who has kept us alive, sustained us,

and brought us

to this time.”

this time.”

He took them

the priest

to eat them

[the remnants of the meal-offerings],

and says,

the priest recites

“Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

And Rav Yosef proves his words from this beraita:

And

behold,

we learned

in our Mishna

“all of them,

all the meal-offerings, he breaks into

olive-sized pieces,”

so we have learned that over pieces the size of an olive one recites “Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

Abaye said

challenged

him, Abaye

to Rav Yosef:

But according to the school of Rabbi Ishmael, who says

that in all meal-offerings requiring breaking into pieces,

he crumbles them

after their baking

until he returns them to their flour state,

is it

also so that he does not recite

“Who brings forth bread from the earth,”

since there are no olive-sized crumbs there?!

And if you would say that this is indeed so [that is, yes], nevertheless there is a difficulty:

[действительно так], всё же возникает трудность:

But it was taught

in another beraita:

“If he gathered from all of them

, from pieces that did not contain an olive-sized amount , and together he had

an olive-sized amount, and he ate them

on Passover, then

if it is leavened bread—

he is liable to excision.

If it is matza—

a person fulfills his obligation with them on Passover

.” This shows that even crumbs that do not contain an olive-sized amount are significant; the same should apply concerning a blessing, and one should recite over them, “Who brings forth bread from the earth” !?

And we answer:

“Here, what are we dealing with? With

a case in which he

kneaded them together

, kneading and joining the crumbs into one complete olive-sized amount. The Gemara raises an objection to this resolution:

“If so

, there is a difficulty:

this is why it taught concerning it

that in that beraita, which states that he is liable to excision for eating them and fulfills his obligation with them on Passover:

‘And this is when he ate them

within the measure of

the time required to eat a peras.”

But if

you say that the beraita is dealing

with

a case in which he

kneaded them together

and they became one loaf, then it should have said, ‘And this is when he

ate it

’ [the singular form]

was required

to say, rather than “ate them,” which is plural and implies that the crumbs remained separate!?

Rather, the Gemara resolves the beraita differently—the beraita that explicitly indicates that even crumbs smaller than an olive-sized amount are significant:

“Here, in the beraita of ‘he gathered from all of them,’

what are we dealing with? With pieces that came from a large loaf.

He broke pieces smaller than an olive-sized amount from a large loaf, and they are significant because of their original whole. For when he broke them, the loaf contained more than an olive-sized amount. Therefore, he must recite HaMotzi over the pieces that he took from the loaf.”

.

Он разломал крошки меньше кезаита от большого хлеба, и они имеют значение благодаря своему источнику: ведь в момент, когда он разламывал их, в хлебе было больше кезаита, поэтому он обязан произнести благословение «выводящий хлеб» над крошками, которые взял от хлеба.

The Gemara asks:

“What conclusion was reached

concerning havitzah [what is the law of havitzah]?”

Rav Sheshet said: “Even for crumbs that do not contain an olive-sized amount,

one recites HaMotzi over them.”

Rava said: “This is so only when there is

the appearance of bread

upon them

” [provided that the crumbs still have the appearance of bread].