Menachot 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

a gzera shava:

a gzera shava:

like the two loaves, which are leavened and come with offerings, as the verse states concerning the two loaves [Leviticus 23:18]: “And you shall present with the bread seven yearling lambs, and two rams as a peace offering”—

The meal-offering that comes

whether

from

the produce of

the Land and

whether from the produce of

outside the Land,

whether

from the new new produce

or

whether

from the old—

From the meal-offering that comes,

it too

may be from the Land or outside the Land, from the new or from the old—

And the two loaves cannot refute this, for they come only from the new and from

the produce of

the Land,

as we learned below [83b]: All the communal and individual offerings [meal-offerings] may come from the Land or outside the Land, from the new or from the old, except for the omer and the two loaves, which may come only from the new and from the Land.

The verse states

with regard to the two loaves:

“From your dwelling places you shall bring two loaves of wave-offering”,

which need not state

“you shall bring” as it need not have said “you shall bring,”

and what does

“you shall bring”

teach?

That whatever any leavened substance like it

that you bring from another place is like this in equal measure to it. We have therefore learned:

Just as there—

with the two loaves—

an issaron for

each

loaf

of leavened bread,

so here—

with the leavened loaves of the thanksgiving-offering—

an issaron per loaf.

You might say: We should not learn from the two loaves that there must be an issaron for each loaf, in which case one would bring ten issaron measures for the ten leavened loaves; rather, let us say:

What is there—

with the two loaves—

two issaron measures,

one brought for all the loaves—

so here—

with the leavened loaves—

two issaron measures,

one should bring for all the loaves, and make ten loaves from them—

The verse states

with regard to the two loaves, “The fine flour

shall be,”

and below it will be explained that from the superfluous yod [whose numerical value is ten] we learn that the leavened loaves as a whole consist of ten issaron measures.

We have learned: ten

issaron measures

for

the

leavened

loaves of the thanksgiving-offering—

Ten

issaron measures

for

the

unleavened

loaves of the thanksgiving-offering—

from where?

The verse states: “If he offers it for a thanksgiving-offering, and he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering

unleavened loaves mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil, and fine flour made into scalded loaves [of unleavened bread] mixed with oil.” And adjacent to it is stated:

“With leavened loaves of bread

he shall offer his offering,” teaching that

corresponding to

the quantity of fine flour that you bring for

leavened bread, bring

an equal quantity of fine flour for

unleavened bread.

It follows that there are twenty issaron measures

in all

the loaves

of the

thanksgiving-offering: ten

issaron measures

for leavened bread, and ten

issaron measures

for unleavened bread.

One might have thought that those

ten

issaron

measures

of unleavened bread need consist entirely of one type,

meaning: if he wishes, he brings loaves; if he wishes, he brings wafers; if he wishes, he brings scalded loaves—

The verse states:

“If he offers it for a thanksgiving-offering, and he shall offer with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering

unleavened loaves mixed with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil, and fine flour made into scalded loaves [of unleavened bread] mixed with oil.” Thus

there are found three and one-third issaron measures for each type—

And

there are

three loaves per issaron,

for from three and one-third issaron measures one makes ten loaves—

And there are found

a total of

the loaves

of the

thanksgiving-offering: forty

loaves.

This

he takes four of them—

one from each type—

and gives them to the priest, while the remainder are eaten by the owners.

The Master said

in the beraita taught above:

It is written:

“And he shall offer from it

one from each offering,” teaching that it must be

from the attached whole:

And we raise an objection to this:

But if that is so,

this

which is written [Leviticus 4:19]:

“And he shall remove all its fat from it”

And according to the beraita, it also follows that he must remove it from the attached whole; but

there—

with regard to the sacrificial portions—

what possibility of “attached” is there!?

And we answer: Indeed, “from the attached whole” is possible in this case,

as Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi; for Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi:

One may not dismember

the

flesh before removing

the

sacrificial portions,

so that the sacrificial portions remain attached to all the flesh when he removes them.

The Master said

in the aforementioned beraita:

“I do not know from how many [loaves] it comes [the portion]; I reason as follows:

It is stated here

‘a portion’

and it is stated with regard to the portion of the tithe

‘a portion’;

just as there it is one of ten, so here it is one of ten”:

And we raise an objection to this:

Let us derive

the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves

from the portion

of the spoils of the

war of Midian,

as it is stated there [Numbers 31]: “You shall raise a levy for the Lord from [half of the spoils that belonged to] the men of war who went out to battle, one person out of five hundred, from the people and from the cattle, the donkeys, and the flocks; from their half you shall take and give it to Elazar the priest as the Lord’s portion.”

And we answer:

We derive a portion that applies for all generations

like the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves,

from a portion that applies

for all generations

like the portion of the tithe,

but the portion of Midian cannot refute this, as it does not apply for all generations.

The Gemara still asks:

Let us derive it from the portion of dough

concerning which it is stated: “From the first of your kneading-bowl you shall give a portion as a portion,” as we maintain that one takes one twenty-fourth.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

We cannot derive the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves from the portion of dough, because

we derive a matter concerning which it is stated

“from it, a portion for the Lord” “And he shall offer from it one from each offering, a portion for the Lord,”

from a matter concerning which it is stated

“from it, the portion

of the Lord” [“And you shall raise from it the portion of the Lord, the tithe from the tithe”]—

This excludes the portion of dough, concerning which it is not stated

“from it, a portion for the Lord.”

a. A non-priest who intentionally eats teruma gedola or the portion of the tithe is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:9]: “They shall keep My charge, lest they bear sin because of it and die through it when they profane it; I am the Lord who sanctifies them. And no non-priest shall eat sacred food [teruma],” and we learn that a non-priest who eats teruma is liable to death.

b. A non-priest who inadvertently eats teruma or the portion of the tithe, even if it belongs to him [for example, he inherited it from his maternal grandfather, who was a priest], must repay the principal and an additional fifth, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:14]: “And if a person eats sacred food [teruma] inadvertently, he shall add its fifth to it and give the sacred food to the priest.” That is, he repays with something fit to become sacred: he does not pay money, but unconsecrated produce, which becomes teruma.

c. Teruma that becomes mixed with unconsecrated produce is not nullified by a majority, as are other prohibitions. Rather, it requires one hundred parts of unconsecrated produce against the teruma in order for the teruma to be permitted [“it is raised by one hundred and one”]; but if there is less than this, everything is prohibited, and this is called dimua in the language of the Sages.

Rava raised the following dilemma:

The portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves:

whether

one is liable to death for them

when a non-priest eats them intentionally,

and an additional fifth

if he eats them inadvertently, as is the law with teruma—

or is one not liable to death or an additional fifth?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Perhaps we say:

Since it was juxtaposed to the portion of the tithe—

as we derived in the beraita above, the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves by means of a gezerah shavah from the portion of the tithe—

it is considered like the portion of the tithe,

and just as one is liable to death and an additional fifth for the portion of the tithe, so too one is liable for the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves.

Or perhaps:

Since, concerning a non-priest who eats teruma, the verse says

“through it” “and die through it when they profane it,” and concerning eating teruma inadvertently it says

“its fifth,”

the Merciful One excluded

it, meaning: this law applies to teruma, but not to another substance; it teaches that this law applies only to the teruma of produce, and not to the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves.

The Gemara further raises a dilemma: Does the portion of the thanksgiving-offering loaves

cause a mixture forbidding what becomes mixed with it, and is it nullified only by one hundred and one, as ordinary teruma—

or does it not cause a mixture

like teruma, but is nullified by a majority, like other prohibited substances?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

The Master said

in the beraita: “I do not know from how many it comes; I reason: ‘A portion’ is stated here, and ‘a portion’ is stated with regard to the portion of the tithe”—

I do not know how much is required for each loaf. I reason: It says here “bread,” and it says elsewhere, with regard to the two loaves, “bread.” Just as there, there is one issaron per loaf, so here, there is one issaron per loaf -

Or follow this line of reasoning: the verse states, “From your settlements you shall bring two loaves as a wave offering.” And what does “you shall bring” teach? That everything you bring from another place is like this. Just as there, there is one issaron per loaf, so here, there is one issaron per loaf. Could it be that just as there are two issaronim there, so here there are two issaronim

It teaches “

they shall be”:

The Gemara asks

What is the textual basis?

How can it be learned from “they shall be,” with regard to the thank-offering loaves, that they too are one issaron per loaf, as with the two loaves, and not say that all the thank-offering loaves consist of two issaronim, like all the loaves of the two-loaf offering?