Menachot 75b (עה:) — the Talmud in English

? He said

he answered:

What is the matter that requires two exclusions? [“

for it” and “itself”],

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

which contains two types.

Mishna:

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

a.

The meal-offering of an Israelite,

which requires kemitza,

he folds

and breaks

one [each loaf of the ten loaves made for every meal-offering, as explained below, on page 76a]

one [each loaf of the ten loaves prepared for every meal-offering, as explained below, on 76a]

into two, and

the

two

he folds

into four,

to fulfill the mitzva of breaking into pieces,

and separates them,

completely separating the pieces from one another so that they will be fit for kemitza.

b.

The priests’ meal-offering,

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

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

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

The meal-offering of the anointed priest [“

the griddle-cake offering”]

he did not fold it

into four, but only into two, as the Gemara explains, and there it explains that the reason is that only one breaking into pieces is stated with regard to it, and not two. He also does not separate it, since it does not require kemitza, but rather “it shall be burned in its entirety.”

Rabbi Shimon says [he comes to dispute the first tanna in two matters]:

he disagrees with the first sage in two matters]:

a.

The priests’ meal-offering and the meal-offering of the anointed priest do not involve breaking into pieces

at all, not even folding into two,

because

they do not undergo kemitza.

they do not involve taking a handful.

And anything that does not undergo kemitza does not involve breaking into pieces.

b.

And

all the meal-offerings

entirely,

that require breaking into pieces,

he breaks them

into small pieces

the size of olives. This is unlike the first tanna, according to whom he breaks only one into four.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

with regard to the griddle meal-offering it is stated: “Break it into pieces, and you shall pour oil upon it; it is a meal-offering”:

If Scripture had said

“break”,

which implies one act of breaking,

I might

have said that

into two

alone he folds it. Therefore,

the verse states

“pieces,”

indicating that it must contain two acts of breaking, namely, breaking it into four.

If

“pieces,”

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

the verse states

“it,”

to teach that

it [the meal-offering] is to be broken

into pieces,

but

its

pieces are not to be broken into further pieces.

How,

then,

does he do it? The meal-offering of an Israelite—

he folds one into two, and two into four—

and separates them.

But

the meal-offering of the anointed priest—

he would fold it, etc.

And we raise a difficulty concerning what we learned, that the meal-offering of the anointed priest was folded:

but did we not learn

in our Mishna, “The meal-offering of the anointed priest

was not folded”?

was not folded”!?

He said

he answered,

Rabba:

The meal-offering of the anointed priest

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

because it is written with regard to it [Leviticus 6:14]: “On a griddle, with oil shall it be made. You shall bring 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 with regard to it, “Break it into pieces.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The priests’ meal-offering and the meal-offering of the anointed priest do not involve breaking into pieces.

And all of them are broken into pieces the size of olives:

Rav Yosef said: This cooked dish called havitza [a dish in which bread is broken into pieces],

this is its law with regard to the blessing:

if it contains

[if there are in it]

pieces

the size of

an olive,

we recite over it

“Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

And

if it does not contain an olive-sized piece, we recite over it

“Who creates varieties of nourishment.”

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this [from where did I learn this law]? From

From the following:

that which was taught in a beraita: If

an Israelite

was standing and offering [giving it to a priest to offer]

handing it to a priest to offer]

meal-offerings in Jerusalem,

if that Israelite had never previously offered a meal-offering:

he says,

the Israelite recites the blessing:

“Who has given us life and sustained us”

and brought us

“to this time.”

this time.”

He took them

the priest

to eat them [the remainder of the meal-offerings], and

The priest took them

said,

the priest recites:

“Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

Rav Yosef proves his position from this beraita:

And

indeed,

we learned

in our Mishna:

“All of them,

all the meal-offerings, he breaks into

pieces the size of olives,”

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

Abaye said

he challenged

Rav Yosef:

But according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says

that with all meal-offerings requiring breaking into pieces,

he crumbles them

after they have been baked

until he restores them to their original fine-flour state,

and is it

indeed also the case that he does not recite

“Who brings forth bread from the earth,”

since there are no olive-sized pieces there?!

And if you say, this too is so [indeed so], nevertheless, the following difficulty remains:

And it was taught

in another beraita:

If he gathered from all of them,

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

an olive-bulk, and he ate them

on Passover, then

if it is leaven—

he is liable to karet.

If it is matza—

a person fulfills his obligation with them on Passover—

for this shows that even crumbs that do not contain an olive-bulk are significant; and the same should apply with regard to the blessing: one recites HaMotzi, who brings forth bread from the earth over them

!? And we answer:

Here, what are we dealing with? With

such a case as

he kneaded them—

he kneaded and joined the crumbs together into one complete olive-bulk. And we raise a difficulty against this resolution:

If so,

the following difficulty arises:

This is why it teaches about it

that in that beraita he is liable to karet for them and fulfills his obligation with them on Passover:

and that is when he ate them

within the measure of time of

the time required to eat a peras.

And if

you maintain that the beraita is discussing

a

case in which

he kneaded them

and they became a single loaf, then “and that is when he

ate it” [the singular wording

],

it should have said

this, 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-bulk are significant:

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

what are we dealing with? With a case in which they came from a large loaf.

He broke pieces smaller than an olive-bulk from a large loaf, and they are significant by virtue of their original whole, since at the time he broke them, the loaf contained more than an olive-bulk. Therefore, he is obligated to recite the blessing HaMotzi over the pieces that he took from the loaf

.

The Gemara asks:

What has become of it—of the havitzah [what is the law of the havitzah

]?

Rav Sheshet said: Even crumbs that do not contain an olive-bulk

he recites HaMotzi over them.

Rava said: And that is provided that there is “

the appearance of bread”

upon them [provided that the crumbs retain the appearance of bread].

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