Menachot 38: מִצְוָה לְהַקְדִּים לָבָן לַתְּכֵלֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The fourth perek of Massekhet Menaḥot, Perek HaTekhelet, which begins on today’s daf continues discussing a number of loosely related commandments that have two or more parts.

Unlike the previous perek, which dealt with commandments whose different parts depend on one another, (e.g. the four parshiyot in tefillin or the four tzitziyot on a four-cornered garment) this perek focuses on mitzvot that do not depend on each other, so that each part is viewed as a separate commandment that can be fulfilled in-and-of itself (e.g. the tefillin of the arm and the tefillin of the head, or the tekhelet of tzitzit and the tzitzit themselves).

We explore the controversial emergence of the use of techelet in modern times

Menachot 37: שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּבְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת תְּלָא רַחֲמָנָא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Torah tefillin are worn on the “hand” and “between the eyes” (see Shemot 13:9). The Gemara defines the tefillin of the “hand” as being placed on the kiboret – the bicep, the muscle between the elbow and the shoulder – and the tefillin “between the eyes” as being placed on the skull on the location of the fontanel, the soft area of a baby’s head.

Various derivations are offered explaining why halakha rules that neither “hand” nor “between the eyes” are understood literally by the Sages. When the Gemara suggests that perhaps “tefillin of the hand” should be actually placed on the hand, and that “between the eyes” should be understood literally, it is not only a theoretical discussion. According to the Mishna in Massekhet Megilla (24a) during the time of the Mishna there were Jewish sects that disagreed with the traditional interpretations of the Sages and actually performed the commandmentof tefillin in a literal manner. Among these sects, apparently, were early Christians.

We explore the inter-testamental evidence for proto-tefillin in Wadi Muraba’at Qumran.

Menachot 36: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בַּתְּפִילִּין בְּכׇל שָׁעָה

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The general approach of the Gemara is that tefillin are a mitzvat aseh she-hazeman gerama – a positive time-bound commandment. When do we refrain from wearing tefillin?

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili points to the passage that commands that tefillin be worn mi-yamim yamimah – from day to day (see Ex 13:10).

He suggests that we can learn from here that it is only appropriate to wear tefillin during the day, and only on some of the days – excluding Shabbat and holidays.

Rabbi Akiva argues that the basic source to limit the commandment of tefillin to weekdays is the previous passage about tefillin “…and they shall be a sign (ot) on your hand and a remembrance between your eyes” (Shemot 13:9), which he understands to mean that tefillin are only necessary when there is a need for an ot – a sign. On days that are considered in and of themselves an ot, there is no need to don tefillin.

Our passage, ostensibly concerned with the practical halakhot of tefillin—donning order, timing of the blessing, endpoint of the mitzvah, and status during nighttime and Shabbat—discloses, upon closer analysis, a series of irreducible conceptual tensions regarding the nature of covenantal signification itself.

Menachot 35: שֶׁהֶרְאָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִילִּי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although the requirement that tefillin be made square is clearly presented by the Gemara as a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, nevertheless, it appears from the discussion of the rishonim that this was only viewed as a necessity with regard to the tefillin shel rosh, but that the single parchment of the tefillin shel yad – tefillin worn on the arm – could be placed in a cylindrical leather covering if placed on a square base. Evidence of this practice can be found by examining the tefillin found in the Cairo geniza and in other illustrated manuals from the Medieval period.

We explore further the Halacha and especially the most arresting anthropomorphic images in rabbinic literature is the claim that God wears tefillin—and more radically, that God showed Moses the knot of His tefillin. In Menachot35b, the Gemara reads the enigmatic verse “Va-hasiroti et kappi v’ra’ita et achorai” (Exod. 33:23) not as a metaphysical abstraction but as a concrete pedagogical act: God reveals to Moses the acherai, His “back,” identified specifically as the knot of the head-tefillin.

Menachot 34: כּוֹתְבָן עַל אַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת וּמַנִּיחָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים בְּעוֹר אֶחָד

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (daf 28a) all four of the parshiyot, or chapters, of the Torah that are placed in tefillin (Shema and ve-haya im shamo’a, as in mezuzot, as well as the two other parshiyot where the mitzva of tefillin appears in Sefer Shemot, Chapter 13 – kadesh and ve-hayah ki yevi’akhah), must be included in order for the tefillin be valid.

This ruling leads the Gemara to segue from its discussion of mezuzot to a discussion of tefillin.

The Gemara quotes baraitot that describe the differences between the tefillin shel rosh – the one placed on the head – and the tefillin shel yad – the one placed on the arm. The tefillin shel rosh is made up of four separate pieces of parchment on which the different parshiyot are written.

We explore differences between the parsha and Halachah.

Menachot 33: עֲבָדָיו יוֹשְׁבִין מִבִּפְנִים וְהוּא מְשַׁמְּרָן מִבַּחוּץ

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Protection of the Mezuza teaches that we are commanded to place the mezuza on the doorpost facing the public domain within the tefaḥ closest to the outside.

In discussing why this is the requirement, the Rabanan say that it is simply so that the mezuza will be reached immediately upon entering a house. Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura suggested that it is so that it will protect the entire house. In this context, the Gemara quotes the following in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina:

Come and see how the character of the Holy One, blessed be He, differs from that of men of flesh and blood. According to human standards, the king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him from without; but with the Holy One, blessed be He, it is not so, for it is His servants that dwell within and He keeps guard over them from without; as it is said, The Lord is thy keeper; the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand (Tehillim 121:5).

What is this protection?

We explore the mythic / magical side of this discussion.

Menachot 32: הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי – תְּפִילִּין עַל הַקְּלָף, וּמְזוּזָה עַל דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara discusses the writing of the Parshiyos of Mezuzos and whether they are to be written "Pesuchos" or "Setumos."

What constitutes a Parshah Pesuchah and a Parshah Setumah?

(a) TOSFOS and the ROSH maintain that a Parshah Pesuchah refers to any section of the Torah that ends with space left at the end of the last line of the preceding section (#1 in Graphic), or that has blank space at the beginning of the new section, or both.

A Parshah Setumah refers to any section that ends on the same line on which the next section begins (#4 in Graphic), such that the empty space is in the middle of a line.

(b) The RAMBAM explains that a Parshah Pesuchah refers only to a section that ends with space at the end of the line (#1 in Graphic).

A Parshah Setumah is a section that is followed by empty space at the beginning of the next line, whether the section ends at the end of the line before the line with the empty space or whether it ends in the middle of the line before the line with the empty space . In addition, a Parshah is considered Setumah when the Parshah ends on the same line on which the next section begins (#4 in Graphic), such that the empty space is in the middle of a line.

Much of what is discussed is based on Halacha leMoshe miSinai which we discuss at length.

Menachot 31: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר חוֹלְצִין בְּמִנְעָל

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Beginning on our daf, the discussion in the Gemara moves away from the laws of a Sefer Torah and turns its focus on the laws of mezuza, which was mentioned in the previous Mishna (daf 28a).

A number of the laws distinguish specifically between the way a Torah must be written and the way a mezuza is written. For example, certain parts of the Torah, like Parashat Ha’azinu and Shirat HaYam – the song sung by the Children of Israel upon crossing the Red Sea – are written as song or poetry. These special songs must be written in a unique fashion, and the rest of the Torah cannot be written in that way, while a mezuza can be written in poetic form, even though that is not the ordinary way of writing it. Another example is the length of a given line. A line in the Torah must have at least 30 letters in the line (the word lemishpeḥoteikhem written out three times), while a mezuza may have even two words on a given line.

Menachot 30: הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר וּמֹשֶׁה כּוֹתֵב בְּדֶמַע

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yehoshua bar Abba quotes Rav Giddel in the name of Rav, as teaching that the last eight pesukim of the Torah have a unique status – that “an individual reads them in the synagogue” – that they are a unique single unit. What is special about these last eight pesukim?

Rabbi Yehuda says that Moshe could not possibly have written the last eight pesukim of the Torah, which open with the words “So Moshe the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab” (Devarim 34:5). How could Moshe be alive and writing that he had died!? Therefore he concludes that Yehoshua completed the last few verses of the Torah.

Rabbi Shimon rejects the possibility that the Torah was not completed by Moshe in its entirety, since the Torah describes Moshe handing the complete book to the children of Levi (see Devarim 31:26). The picture that he paints of the writing of the Torah, is Moshe writing according to the instructions of God, and beginning with the last eight pesukim, God told Moshe what to write, and Moshe wrote according to those instructions be-dema.

This term, be-dema – apparently a reference to tears – is the subject of discussion among the rishonim and aḥaronim which we explore.

Menachot 29: שְׁתוֹק, כָּךְ עָלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה לְפָנַי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the most well-known anachronistic scenes of the Talmud appears on our daf.

R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav: When Moshe ascended on high he found the Holy One, blessed be He, engaged in affixing crowns to the letters of the Torah. Said Moshe, “Master of the Universe, who is preventing you from giving the Torah without these additions?” He answered, “There will arise a man, at the end of many generations, Akiva ben Yosef by name, who will derive from each thorn of these crowns mounds and mounds of laws.” “Master of the Universe,” said Moshe, “permit me to see him.” He replied, “Turn around.” Moshe went and sat down behind eight rows and listened to the teachings presented by Rabbi Akiva to his students. Not being able to follow their arguments he became weak and ill at ease, but when they came to a certain subject and the disciples said to Rabbi Akiva “What is the source for this teaching?” and he replied, “It is a law given unto Moshe at Mount Sinai;” he was comforted.

We explore the underlying narrative and meaning behind this most enigmatic midrash.

Menachot 28: מַר קְרָא ״תֵּיעָשֶׂה״, לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf the Gemara has shifted its focus from meal offerings to mitzvot whose different parts are all essential for performing the mitzva. The Mishna on today’s daf discusses several such commandments, including the four tzitzit on a garment, the four Torah portions in tefillin and the seven branches of the menora – the candelabrum – in the Temple.

Regarding the menora, the Mishna mentions two separate parts – both the seven branches and the seven lamps. The branches refer to the six arms that branch out from the center branch of the menora, three on each side (see Sefer Shemot 25:32); the lamps are the bowls at the top of each one of the branches that hold the oil and the wicks.

We explore the rabbinic interpretation of the verses dealing with its construction and how far they departed in their speculation and how this extended into the rishonim.

Menachot 27: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה – חוּקָּה

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As often happens in the Gemara, which records actual conversations, discussion of a given topic may segue in a different direction. The first Mishna on our daf continues discussing the laws of meal offerings, teaching that the different parts of the minḥa require each other, such that the flour cannot be brought without the oil, nor the oil without the flour; the kometz (the fistful of flour taken by the kohen for sacrifice on the altar) cannot be brought without the frankincense, nor can the frankincense be brought without the kometz.

This leads to the laws that appear in the second Mishna that are not at all related to the laws of meal offerings, rather they are a list of other religious rituals whose different parts make up a greater whole and cannot be divided. It is in this context that we learn that the four different species taken on Sukkot – the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot (see Sefer Vayikra 23:40) – require one another and that from a halakhic standpoint, bringing one without the other serves no purpose.

We examine the work of E J Rowe and how it might apply his four-category ontology to talmudic offerings.

Menachot 26: עוֹבְדָהּ בְּיָמִין, כְּחַטָּאת. בִּכְלִי – עוֹבְדָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל, כְּאָשָׁם

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Much of the Temple service involves collecting parts of sacrifices in a keli sharet – a special Temple vessel – an act that sanctifies that part of the offering and prepares it for its intended use as part of the service.

What if the kohen performed the service, but neglected to sanctify the offering in a keli sharet?

The Mishna on our daf rules that if the kometz – the fistful of flour removed by the kohen from the meal offering for sacrifice on the altar – was not placed in a keli sharet, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon disagrees, ruling that it remains valid nevertheless.

Rashi explains that according to all opinions, the original meal offering must be brought in a keli sharet in order to sanctify it in the first place. The disagreement focuses only on the second stage, when the kometz is taken from the meal offering, when it is placed in another keli sharet to be sanctified for placement on the altar. Nevertheless, from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishna it appears that he views the disagreement even in the first stage of preparation.

Menachot 25: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna shares what should be done when the kometz, the handful of meal-offering taken by a priest, becomes tamei, ritually impure. The Mishna teaches that the offering is valid even if it is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity. This is because the tzitz, the frontplate worn by the high priest, provides atonement for ritual defilement in the Temple. If, however, the meal-offering was removed from the Temple grounds and thus became tamei, the tzitz will not atone for the ritual impurity.

The fact that the Mishna presented the rule in the past tense – that a ritually defiled kometz that was sacrificed – rather than stating that the kometz could be brought even under these circumstances, would seem to indicate that in this case it really should not be brought; only after-the-fact, if it was sacrificed, would it be accepted as valid. Rashi in Massekhet Gittin (54a) suggests that on a biblical level sacrificial blood that had become tameh could be sprinkled, and similarly, the kometz could be sacrificed, even le-ḥatekhila – ab initio – and it is only a rabbinic ordinance that limits this and permits it only after-the-fact. At the same time, from Rashi in Massekhet Pesaḥim 34b it appears that the tzitz only offers atonement for ritual defilement in the Temple after-the-fact, but it cannot permit sacrifices to be brought le-ḥatekhila.

We explore the role of the Tzitz and its use in our daf.

Menachot 24: עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ, וְנִטְמָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּבִיסָא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On occasion, the vessel used to hold the flour for a meal offering was made in such a way that there were different compartments. The Gemara on our daf teaches that in such a case although the vessel holding the meal offerings separates it, nevertheless it is considered a single, valid offering, since it is held together in a single vessel.

We examine the halakhic concept of tumah saturation through a comparative analysis of Menachot 24 and Mishnah Kelim 27–29. The central inquiry concerns whether ritual impurity can “saturate” an object, thereby preventing subsequent forms of impurity from taking effect.

Menachot 23: תִּיבְּלָהּ בְּקֶצַח בְּשׁוּמְשְׁמִין וּבְכׇל מִינֵי תַּבְלִין

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, if two meal offerings became mixed together before the kometz – the fistful of flour – was taken to be sacrificed, then the offerings will remain valid as long as it is possible to take the kometz from each one separately. If the two offerings were so mixed together that a separate kometz could not be taken from each, then the offerings are invalid.

In the course of discussing this law, the Gemara quotes a baraita that discusses the baking of matza. According to the baraita, if the dough that was prepared for baking matza was mixed with ketzaḥ or sesame or other types of spice, the matza remains valid for fulfilling the mitzva of eating matza on the night of the Pesaḥ seder, since it is simply “flavored matza.”

The ketzaḥ spice referred to in the Gemara is Nigella Sativa of the Ranunculaceae family, which, English is variously in called fennel flower, nutmeg flower, Roman coriander, blackseed or black cumin. It is an annual plant that reaches a height up to 30 cm.

We explore the world of talmudic spices.

Menachot 22: דָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁדָּמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר מְרוּבֶּה מִדָּמוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If the handful of flour from one offering became mixed with the handful from another offering, or with the flour offering of a regular kohen, or with the daily offering of the High Priest, they are all still valid and can be burned on the Altar. Rabbi Yehudah disagrees with regard to the High Priest's offering, which contains three times as much oil. Since it is loose like batter, it will mix with our less oily handful and nullify it.

But Rabbi Yehudah's own opinion everywhere in the Talmud is that like substances never nullify each other, so how can he rule differently here? He will answer that our case is different: we view the oil in our handful as if not present, and then the oil in the High Priest's offering nullifies our flour.

We explore the halachic ramifications of min bemino.

Menachot 21: הָבֵא מֶלַח שֶׁאֵינָהּ שׁוֹבֶתֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ ? מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Salt was an integral part of each and every sacrifice, as the Torah clearly states in Sefer Vayikra (2:13), that the covenant of salt should never be left out when bringing sacrifices.

According to the baraita quoted on our daf there were three places where the salt was applied in the Temple:

In the Chamber of the Salt in the Temple where salt was applied to the hides of the sacrifices that were given to the kohanim as their share in the sacrifice (see Lev 7:8)

On the ramp leading up to the altar where the parts of the offering that were to be sacrificed were prepared

On the top of the altar itself, where various offerings were salted, including a variety of different types of meal offerings – the kometz and levona (the fistful of flour prepared by the kohen for sacrifice together with the frankincense), the meal-offering of the kohen and of the kohen gadol, as well as others.

We continue to explore the history of salt with particular attention to the melach Sedomit—the salt of Sodom, identified geographically with the Dead Sea region.

Menachot 20: עַל כל קרְבָּנְך תַּקְרִיב מֶלַח

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the examples in the Mishna is the need to salt the meal offering before placing it on the altar. Since salt is not repeated, the tanna of the Mishna does not deem it an essential part of the minḥa offering.

The Gemara on our daf points out that this ruling regarding salt and the korban minḥa is not agreed upon by all. A baraita is quoted where we find that Rabbi Yehuda understands a passage in the Torah to require that all sacrifices be brought with salt (according to the reading in our Gemara, the passage in question is from Sefer Bamidbar 18:19.

Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot argues that that passage does not relate to sacrifices, and suggests an alternative reading, which has Rabbi Yehuda’s source as Vayikra 2:13, where it clearly states that the covenant of salt should never be left out when bringing sacrifices).

We explore the talmudic insistence on the biblical law of salt accompanying korbanot and the mythical meaning of salt in other cultural rituals.

Menachot 19: כל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav said, "Wherever the Torah stated 'law' and 'decree', it means to make the step essential, so that if it is omitted, the whole procedure has to be repeated.”

The Talmud asked Rav questions, based on the laws of Nazir, thanksgiving offering, and Yom Kippur, and changed the understanding of what Rav said to: only 'decree' indicates the requirement, but 'law', although similar, does not.

The mnemonic preserved in the sugya—נת"ץ יקמ"ל—serves as an organizing principle revealing the deliberate textual architecture underlying rabbinic legal reasoning.

Through careful analysis of the Gemara's integration of verses from Leviticus, Numbers, and other Biblical sources, we show the artistry inherent in Talmudic discourse, where linguistic precision, analogical reasoning, and dialectical method combine to yield authoritative religious law.