Menachot 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

All the meal-offerings require three hundred rubbings—

rubbing the wheat three hundred times, between his hands.

And

so too,

five hundred kicks,

kicking them with the thickness of his fist, in the manner of dough-kneaders.

And the tanna’im disputed this matter: According to the first tanna,

rubbing

and kicking

these are performed

with the wheat,

so that the wheat will be easy to strip of its husks.

Rabbi Yosei says: With the dough

he does this, so that it will be attractive.

All the meal-offerings come as ten ten

loaves, he makes from the meal-offering dough ten loaves and bakes them,

except for the shewbread

on the Table,

and the griddle-cakes of the High Priest

—

“the meal-offering of the anointed priest”—

which come as twelve

loaves,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir

disagrees and

says: All of them come as twelve

loaves,

except for the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [

forty loaves: thirty matza loaves of three kinds—loaves, wafers, and scalded loaves—and another ten loaves of leavened bread]

and

loaves

of the nazirite [of two kinds, loaves and wafers, which the nazirite brings on the day when the days of the nazirite vow he undertook are completed],

which come as ten ten

of each kind.

of each kind.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All the meal-offerings require three hundred rubbings and five hundred kicks:

The tanna

in a beraita taught: This is the order of the rubbing and kicking:

He rubs

once,

one,

and

he kicks twice.

He rubs twice and kicks three times.

Thus, for every three rubbings there are five kicks. He then again rubs once and kicks twice, rubs twice and kicks three times, until he completes three hundred rubbings and five hundred kicks.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma

concerning the rubbing, in which he moves his hand forward and backward:

the forward movement and the backward movement together count as one?

Does

moving forward and moving backward count as one [

the forward and backward movement of the hand for rubbing is counted as one]—

or perhaps: moving forward and moving backward count as two,

the forward and backward movement is counted as two?

What —how does he count them?

And we conclude:

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rubbing and kicking are performed with the wheat; Rabbi Yosei says: With the dough:

They raised a dilemma [

the members of the academy were uncertain about the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei’s statement]: Did Rabbi Yosei come to disagree and say that

with the dough

alone does he rub and kick,

but not with the wheat?

Or perhaps

Rabbi Yosei came to add, saying that

also with the dough

he performs three hundred rubbings and five hundred kicks, in addition to what he performs with the wheat?

Come and hear

that he does not do so also, but only with the dough, from that

which was taught:

Rubbing and kicking are performed with the wheat.

Rabbi Yosei

says: Rubbing and kicking are performed with the dough. It follows that rubbing and kicking are performed with the dough and not with the wheat, unlike the first tanna. We learned in the Mishna:

It is thus implied: rubbing and striking on dough and not on wheat, like the words of the first tanna.

All the meal-offerings come as ten ten, except for the shewbread and the griddle-cakes of the High Priest, which come as twelve:

A. It is written concerning the shewbread [Leviticus 24:5]: “You shall take fine flour and bake it into twelve loaves; two tenths of an ephah shall be in each loaf. You shall place them in two rows. You shall place pure frankincense on each row, and it shall be for the bread as a memorial portion [the frankincense of the shewbread is like the handful of a meal-offering, which is also called a ‘memorial portion.’ Through the burning of the frankincense, the bread becomes permitted for eating, just as a meal-offering becomes permitted through the burning of its handful], a fire-offering to the Lord. It shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a sacred place, for it is most holy to him from the fire-offerings of the Lord, an eternal statute.”

B. And it is written concerning the griddle-cakes [Leviticus 6:12]: “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons that he shall offer to the Lord on the day he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular meal-offering; half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. It shall be made on a griddle with oil, scalded and brought; you shall offer it as a meal-offering of broken pieces, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. The priest who is anointed in his place from among his sons shall prepare it; it is an eternal statute for the Lord, it shall be entirely burned.”

C. It is written concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [Leviticus 7:12]: “If he offers it for a thanksgiving-offering, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering unleavened loaves mixed with oil, unleavened wafers spread with oil, and scalded loaves of fine flour mixed with oil. With loaves of leavened bread he shall offer his offering, together with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offering. He shall offer one from each offering [one loaf from each kind] as a gift to the Lord; it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offering [and the remainder is eaten by the owners].” And below, on folio 77b, we derive: Here it says “a gift,” and with regard to the gift of the tithe it says “a gift”; just as there, one out of ten, so here one out of ten; and we learn that there are ten loaves of each kind.

the shewbread,

which is made as twelve loaves, since

it is explicitly written concerning it,

the verse explicitly says, “twelve loaves.”

And it also works with regard to

the griddle-cakes of the High Priest,

which come as twelve, because

it is derived by means of the term “

statute” [“an eternal statute”]

from

“statute” [“an eternal statute”]

with regard to the shewbread,

and we learn: Just as the shewbread consists of twelve loaves, so too the griddle-cake meal-offering consists of twelve loaves.

But with regard to what we learned concerning the other meal-offerings,

that

they

come

as ten ten

loaves, from where

do we derive this?

And we answer:

He derives

all the meal-offerings

from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering: Just as there

in the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

ten

loaves of each kind,

so too here,

with all the meal-offerings,

ten

loaves are brought.

And we object: Before you derive all the meal-offerings from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

let us derive

all the meal-offerings

from the shewbread,

and say:

Just as there,

with the shewbread,

twelve

loaves,

so too here,

all the meal-offerings,

twelve

loaves!?

And we answer:

It is more logical to derive it from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

for all the meal-offerings,

since

there are six similarities between them:

A.

An individual

brings all the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, and they are not communal meal-offerings like the shewbread.

B.

That he vowed to bring it: The other meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are brought voluntarily; can you say the same of the shewbread, which is a communal obligation?

C. Oil: All the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering require oil, whereas the shewbread does not require oil. D. It becomes disqualified: The other meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering become disqualified through being left overnight, whereas the shewbread does not become disqualified, since it remains on the Table for eight days.

On the contrary, it would have been more appropriate to derive all the meal-offerings from the Showbread,

since they resemble it in four ways:

E.

They are not brought on Shabbat: The meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are not brought on Shabbat, whereas the shewbread overrides Shabbat.

F.

And they are not brought in a state of ritual impurity: They are brought only in purity, whereas the shewbread overrides ritual impurity.

And we object:

On the contrary, it would have been preferable to derive it from the shewbread,

for all the meal-offerings,

since

they resemble it in four respects:

A.

Sanctity.

The meal-offerings and the shewbread are most holy; can you say the same of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, which are of lesser sanctity?

B.

And frankincense:

The meal-offerings and the shewbread require it, unlike the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering.

C.

Matza:

They come as matza, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering include leavened bread.

D.

And intrinsically:

They are brought on account of themselves, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are brought on account of a sacrifice.

And we answer:

These

similarities between the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

are more numerous [

they are more numerous] than the similarities to the shewbread.

The Gemara further asks: This works well if we hold that “a matter learned through a gzera shava cannot subsequently teach through a binyan av,” for then the following question would not arise.

are brought as twelve

loaves, and not ten!?

And we answer:

It is more reasonable

to derive all the meal-offerings

from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [we have grounds to derive them], and not from the griddle-offering,

since

they resemble them in six ways: 1. A non-priest brings the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, whereas the griddle-offering is brought by the High Priest. 2. They are vowed offerings: they are brought voluntarily, whereas the griddle-offering is obligatory. 3. In halves: the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are not brought in halves, whereas the griddle-offering is brought half in the morning and half in the evening. 4. With regard to an offering subject to piggul: all the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering can become piggul, meaning that if one offered what permits them with a thought of piggul, they become piggul. The griddle-offering, however, has no permitting component, since it is entirely burned; and anything that has no permitting component cannot become piggul.

But

if we hold

that

a matter learned through a gzera shava—such as the griddle-cake meal-offering, which consists of twelve loaves as learned through a gzera shava from the shewbread—

can subsequently teach

to others

through a binyan av [

through “what do we find”], then the following difficulty arises:

Let us derive

all the meal-offerings

from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest,

and say:

Just as there—

in the griddle-cake meal-offering, which was learned through a gzera shava from the shewbread—

twelve

loaves,

so too here,

with all the meal-offerings,

twelve

loaves are brought and not ten!?

And we answer:

It is more logical

that all the meal-offerings

should be derived from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [

we should derive them], and not from the griddle-cake meal-offering,

since

they resemble them in six respects:

A.

A non-priest

brings the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, whereas the griddle-cake meal-offering is brought by the High Priest.

B.

That he vowed to bring it: They are brought voluntarily, whereas the griddle-cake meal-offering is obligatory.

C.

In halves: The meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering do not come in halves, whereas the griddle-cake meal-offering comes half in the morning and half in the evening.

D.

With regard to piggul—that is, there is piggul in all the meal-offerings and in the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering: If one offered their permitting element with a thought of piggul, they become piggul; whereas the griddle-cake meal-offering has no permitting element, since it is entirely burned, and anything that has no permitting element has no piggul.

E.

They are not brought on Shabbat,

whereas the griddle-cake meal-offering is brought every day and overrides Shabbat.

F.

And they are not brought in a state of ritual impurity,

whereas the griddle-cake meal-offering overrides ritual impurity.

And we object:

On the contrary,

all the meal-offerings

should have been derived from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest, since

they resemble one another in eight respects:

A.

One tenth of an ephah

is the measure with which they come, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering come from several tenths of an ephah.

B.

A vessel: That is, Temple vessels sanctify the meal-offerings and the griddle-cake meal-offering, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are sanctified through the slaughter of the sacrifice.

C.

Sanctity: They are most holy, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are of lesser sanctity.

D.

And frankincense: The meal-offerings and the griddle-cake meal-offering require it, but the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering do not.

E.

Matza:

They come as matza, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering include leavened bread.

F.

And intrinsically:

They are brought on account of themselves, unlike the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, which are brought on account of the sacrifice.

G.

The presentation

to the altar is required for all the meal-offerings and for the griddle-cake meal-offering, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering do not require presentation.

H.

And fire-offerings:

A handful of all the meal-offerings and the entire griddle-cake meal-offering are burned on the fire-offerings, whereas the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are all eaten by the priests—

And

behold,

these

similarities between all the meal-offerings and the griddle-cake meal-offering

are more numerous

than the similarities between all the meal-offerings and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering; and all the more so, we should derive all the meal-offerings from the griddle-cake meal-offering and not from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering!?

And we answer: Nevertheless, a sacrifice

of a non-priest from

a sacrifice

of a non-priest is preferable for him to derive

from, rather than from the griddle-cake meal-offering, which is the offering of the High Priest. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: All of them come as twelve

loaves, except for the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and of the nazirite, which come as ten ten:

The Gemara explains his reasoning in two ways:

A.

If

Rabbi Meir

holds

that a matter learned through a gzera shava can subsequently teach through a binyan av, then his reason is that he

derives it from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest [which themselves were learned through a gzera shava from the shewbread]—

and therefore he derives all the meal-offerings from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest and not from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, because

these

similarities between all the meal-offerings and the griddle-cakes of the High Priest

are more numerous [

they are more numerous] than the similarities to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, as explained above.

B.

If Rabbi Meir holds

that a matter learned through a gzera shava cannot subsequently teach through a binyan av,

and it is impossible to derive all the meal-offerings from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest, since they too consist of twelve loaves only by virtue of a gzera shava, then Rabbi Meir’s reason is as follows:

learned through a gzera shava returns and teaches through a binyan av,

then his reason is that he

learns from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest [

which are learned through a gzera shava from the showbread] -

And therefore he learns all the meal-offerings from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest and not from the thanksgiving loaves, because

these

comparisons between all the meal-offerings and the griddle-cakes of the High Priest

are more numerous [

they are more numerous] than the comparisons with the thanksgiving loaves, as was explained above.

b.

If he holds

R. Meir

that a matter learned through a gzera shava does not return and teach through a binyan av,

and it is impossible to learn all the meal-offerings from the griddle-cakes of the High Priest, since they too come twelve only by virtue of a gzera shava, then R. Meir’s reason is:

because

he derives

for all the meal-offerings

from the showbread

which consists of twelve loaves, and not from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, which consist of ten, because

deriving the sacred from the sacred

sacred offerings from sacred offerings

is preferable to him

as a basis for derivation, rather than deriving it from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity, even though, in the totality of the comparisons, there is greater similarity to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering than to the showbread, as explained above.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

except for the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten each:

And the Gemara explains the source of this:

It is explicitly written with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering that they must be ten.

And the loaves of the

nazirite-offering

also consist of ten each, like the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, because

the Master said:

This is what the verse says concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering: “Along with loaves of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings,”

This is what the verse says concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering: “Along with loaves of leavened bread he shall offer his offering with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings,”

to include the peace-offerings of a nazirite,

so that the loaves brought with them must likewise consist of ten of each type, like the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering.

Rav Tovi bar Kisna said in the name of Shmuel: The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

which, by law, should consist of forty loaves, ten of each type—

if he baked four loaves,

one large loaf for each type—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And we challenge this:

But we require

forty

loaves!?

And we answer: Only

as a mitzva

must he bring forty; this number does not invalidate the offering.

And we challenge this:

But he must separate the portion from them,

for he must separate one loaf as the portion from each type, namely, one out of ten; and since he does not have ten loaves, how can he separate it!?

And if you would say that he separates from each and every one, that is, you might say that he cuts off one-tenth from each loaf and gives it to the kohen—

But “he shall offer from it

one

from each offering” [which implies an entire loaf

the Merciful One said], and we learn

that one may not take a piece

[one may not break off a piece]!?

And we answer: With what are we dealing here? With a case

where he separated

the portion

while kneading

—he took one out of ten as the portion, and of the remaining nine for the owner from each and every type, he baked one loaf.

Meitivи

He took one out of ten as the gift, and baked the remaining nine belonging to the owner from each type in a single loaf.

Shmuel from that which is taught in a beraita:

All

the meal-offerings in which he increased the measure [

in number]

of their loaves, or in which he decreased the measure [

in number]

of their loaves,

they are

valid, except for the showbread, the griddle-offering of the High Priest, and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite-offering,

for the number of their loaves is indispensable.

because the number of their loaves is an essential requirement.

It is explicitly evident, then, that the number of loaves is indispensable for the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, contrary to Shmuel’s statement?