Menachot 58: שְׂאֹר בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Torah, two things cannot be brought as meal offerings – se’or, leaven, and dvash, honey (see Vayikra 2:11). The Gemara on our daf quotes a baraita that explains that both of these must be emphasized since each one contains something that we would not know based on the other. Se’or is occasionally permitted in the Temple, e.g. the shtei ha-leḥem – the two loaves brought on Shavuot – but dvash is never permitted in the Temple. Dvash can be mixed with the remnants of meal offerings that are eaten, but those remnants cannot be allowed to become leavened.

Why are se’or and dvash forbidden?

In his commentary on the Torah, the Ramban suggests that pagan sacrifice usually included offerings that had risen and become leavened, and were mixed with honey, leading the Torah to forbid such practices.

The Talmudic sugya on our daf arises from a deceptively simple biblical prohibition. Leviticus 2:11 states: 'No meal offering that you offer to the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord.' The verse seems clear enough. Yet the Gemara's engagement with this text in tractate Menahot opens onto a sustained legal inquiry that encompasses the minimum quantity of a prohibition, the identity of substances in mixed states, and the structural conditions under which a biblical prohibition can generate corporal punishment.

Menachot 57: הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל מִצַּד אֶחָד כְּמַאֲכָל בֶּן דְּרוֹסַאי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one who placed meat on top of coals on Shabbat, if he subsequently turned over the meat, he is liable for cooking on Shabbat, and if he did not turn over the meat, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that this was a situation where if he does not turn over the meat it would not cook, then it is obvious that if he does not turn it over, he is exempt. Rather, it must be referring to a case where even if he does not turn over the meat it would nevertheless cook.But if so, why isn’t he liable for merely placing the meat on the coals, despite the fact that he did not turn it over?

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where if he does not turn over the meat it would cook on one side only partially, roughly one-third of the ordinary process of cooking, like the food of ben Derosai. And now that he turns it over, it cooks on both sides like the food of ben Derosai. And Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that any meat roasted on only one side like the food of ben Derosai is nothing, i.e., this is not a violation of the prohibited labor of cooking on Shabbat. If it was roasted on both sides like the food of ben Derosai this is classified as cooking, and he is liable for cooking on Shabbat.

Who is the ben Derosai ? this bandit who never had enough time to cook his meat since he was always on the run!

We learn of him elsewhere on Shabbat 20a, 38a, 102b and Pesachim 41a….and explore who was this character from the perspective of Shamm Friedman’s analysis.

Menachot 56: אֶלָּא, ״אוֹתוֹ״ טָעוּן צָפוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Se'irei Avodah Zarah require Semichah. The Se'irei Chatas of the Nesi'im did not require Semichah, according to Rebbi Shimon.

According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Se'irei Chatas of the Nesi'im also required Semichah.

The blood of a Korban Chatas must be received in the north of the Azarah by a Kohen who is also standing in the north. However, if the one who slaughters the Korban Chatas is not standing in the north, the Korban is valid.

The Shechitah and the Kabalas ha'Dam of an Olas ha'Of may be done in the south of the Azarah.

The Shechitah and the Kabalas ha'Dam of a Korban Pesach may be done in the south of the Azarah.

The altar of burnt offering was substantial in size; northern slaughter required that the animal be positioned north of the altar's midpoint, but the priest might be positioned to the east, west, or south while reaching across to slaughter the animal to the north. The question of whether the priest's body must also be in the northern zone, or whether only the animal must be, is a question of considerable practical consequence in a system where even minor ritual errors could invalidate an offering.

Menachot 55: וְאֵימָא: ״לֹא תֵעָשֶׂה״ – כָּלַל, ״לֹא תֵאָפֶה״ – פָּרַט

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Most of the meal offerings brought in the Temple were baked as matza and were not permitted to rise and become ḥametz (see Vayikra 2:11). According to the Mishna on our daf, the flour was mixed with lukewarm water, and care was taken to ensure that it did not become ḥametz. 

In the event that it became ḥametz, the kohen would be liable separately for each of the stages of preparation – for kneading the dough, for setting it out and for baking it.

We explore Rav Amnon Bazak’s analysis of  the peshat (plain meaning) of the text and midrashim, and the relationship between peshat and midrash Halakha, which is to say between the simple reading of the text and the readings of classical works which mine the Biblical verses for their practical halakhic significance.

This complexity arises from the fact that the way in which we interpret "halakhic" verses would appear to have practical, normative significance.

We also review the approach of the SHADAL to the same issues.

Menachot 54: יָבֹא יָדִיד בֶּן יָדִיד, וְיִבְנֶה יָדִיד לְיָדִיד בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יָדִיד

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara records that Avraham was called yadid – “God’s beloved” – and then continues by offering a midrashic interpretation of the passages in Sefer Yirmiyahu (11:15-16) where we find a conversation between God and the yadid.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said, At the time of the destruction of the Temple the Holy One, blessed be He, found Avraham standing in the Temple. Said He, ‘What is My beloved doing in My house?’ Avraham replied, ‘I have come concerning the fate of my children.’

and so the dialogue continues….

we explore this divine love that survives catastrophe and its implications for future tragedies.

Menachot 53: אֵין לְךָ הַקָּשָׁה לִקְמִיצָה יוֹתֵר מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara records that Avraham was called yadid – “God’s beloved” – and then continues by offering a midrashic interpretation of the passages in Sefer Yirmiyahu (11:15-16) where we find a conversation between God and the yadid.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said, At the time of the destruction of the Temple the Holy One, blessed be He, found Avraham standing in the Temple. Said He, ‘What is My beloved doing in My house?’ Avraham replied, ‘I have come concerning the fate of my children.’

and so the dialogue continues….

we explore this divine love that survives catastrophe and its implications for future tragedies.

Menachot 52: אַף הִיא אֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The fifth chapter of Menachos begins by informing us that all minchah offerings were brought as matzah, unleavened, except for two cases.  Ten of the forty loaves brought with a todah were chametz, and the two loaves brought on Shavuos, the shtei halechem, were chametz. How was this leavening process conducted?  

Rabbi Meir explains that sourdough, an agent used to ferment the dough, was selected from within the dough itself rather than using an external pieced of sourdough, thus ensuring that the required volume of the dough will not be exceeded.  

We examine the Matza/Chametz directives. 

Menachot 51: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbinic hermeneutics represents one of the most sophisticated and aesthetically compelling systems of textual interpretation ever devised by human civilization. We examine the art and beauty of the rabbinic practice of "dancing between verses"—the deliberate, disciplined oscillation between scriptural passages to extract, construct, and validate halakhic practice.

Drawing upon our daf and its treatment of the High Priest's minhat havitin offering, as well as broader methodological sources from the Sifra, Midrash halakha, and contemporary scholarship in rabbinic hermeneutics, we argue that the rabbinic interpretive dance is neither arbitrary creative play nor mechanical deduction, but rather a form of sacred choreography—a structured, aesthetically governed practice in which legal meaning emerges through the tension, resonance, and dialogue between scriptural texts.

Menachot 50: הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If the korban tamid was not brought in the morning, the Tanna Kamma permits the afternoon korban tamid to be offered at its proper time. Rabbi Shimon only allows the kohanim to bring the korban tamid in the afternoon if it had been neglected in the morning by accident. If, however, they had purposefully neglected to bring it in the morning, they cannot bring the afternoon sacrifice.

On our daf, Rava explains Rabbi Shimon’s position as meaning that the kohanim who neglected the morning korban tamid are punished, but the sacrifice is still brought, albeit by other kohanim.

we focus on the claim לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּמְעַתְּרָא, חֲבִיבָא לְהוּ וְלָא פָּשְׁעִי.

By contrast, if the priests acted intentionally and did not burn the incense in the morning, even those same priests may burn it in the afternoon. The reason for this is that since burning the incense is uncommon and causes those who do so to become wealthy, it is dear to the priests, and they will not be negligent in the performance of this rite.

and assess greed motivation vs sacred duty.

Menachot 49: הַתְּמִידִין אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמּוּסָפִין, וְלֹא הַמּוּסָפִין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַתְּמִידִין

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, on Shabbat or a holiday when a special korban musaf – an additional sacrifice – was brought, the korban musaf and the korban tamid – the daily sacrifice – were independent of one-another, and if one was not brought, it did not keep the other one from being offered on the altar.

One of the issues raised in the Gemara regarding this ruling is the fact that the morning korban tamid is the sacrifice that opens the Temple service in the morning and that no other sacrifice can be brought before it. Thus, it would certainly appear that if the korban tamid is not brought it will keep the korban musaf from being sacrificed, inasmuch as no sacrifice can precede the korban tamid.

We explore the koran mussaf and its transition into liturgy with the help of the scholarship of Prof Reuven Kimelman.

Menachot 48: תְּנָא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that if four loaves were prepared for the Shtei ha'Lechem instead of two loaves, two are taken in order to perform the Tenufah (waving the loaves together with the Kevasim, when the Kevasim are alive and after they are slaughtered), and two are "redeemed" and eaten by the Kohanim. The Gemara suggests that the Beraisa may be consistent even with the view of Rebbi, who maintains that it is the Shechitah of the Kevasim which sanctifies the Shtei ha'Lechem.

The Gemara asks that the Beraisa does not seem to follow the view of Rebbi. If, as Rebbi maintains, the loaves become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf at the time of the Shechitah of the Kevasim, then how can the extra two loaves be redeemed? 

The Beraisa cannot mean that they may be redeemed outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, because it is forbidden to bring them outside ("Yotzei") since they are Kadosh. On the other hand, the Beraisa cannot mean that they may be redeemed inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, because they would then become Chulin in the Azarah, and one may not bring Chulin into the Azarah. The Gemara answers that Rebbi maintains there is no prohibition against redeeming an object of Kedushah which is already inside the Azarah and making it Chulin. The prohibition applies only to bringing a Chulin object into the Azarah

We continue our exploration of the showbread in bible vs rabbinics.

Menachot 47: זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf quotes a baraita that teaches that the kivsei atzeret do not sanctify and thereby permit the shtei ha-leḥem to be eaten until they are slaughtered. Thus, if they were properly slaughtered and their blood was properly collected and sprinkled, the shtei ha-leḥem can be eaten.

What if the preparatory sacrifice and subsequent sprinkling of the blood was not completed properly?

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that if the animals were slaughtered properly but the blood was not sprinkled with the proper intentions, then the shtei ha-leḥem is kadosh ve-eino kadosh – it is only partially sanctified (Abaye and Rava disagree about the defining the level of sanctification). Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon argues, ruling that the shtei ha-leḥem will only become sanctified if both the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood is done properly.

We continue our exploration of the lechem hapanim.

Menachot 46: שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא קַרְיַיהּ ״שְׁלָמִים״

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf teaches us that each of these offerings was offered independently excepting the loaves and the burnt offerings which are meant to be brought together. Some rabbis argue whether or not the loaves must be brought with other offerings. We learn that the loaves could not be eaten until the slaughters were completed and the blood was collected and sprinkled.

The rabbis discuss what to do if the sacrifices and/or sprinkling of blood were not done properly. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that sprinting with the wrong intention means that the animal has been only partially sanctified. Abaye and Rava argue about how to define the level of sanctification. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimonarguies rules that the loaves are sanctified only if the slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood are both done properly. A number of different proof texts are presented to defend each opinion.

We explore the Shavuot offerings and the interdependence of the loaves and the lambs.

Menachot 45: אִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִגְנַז סֵפֶר יְחֶזְקֵאל

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Following the Gemara’s interpretation of a series of difficult passages from Sefer Yeḥezkel, Rav Yehuda quoted Rav as saying:

That man is to be remembered for good, and Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya is his name; for were it not for him the Book of Yeḥezkel would have been suppressed, since its sayings contradicted the words of the Torah. What did he do? He took up with him three hundred jugs of oil and remained there in the upper chamber until he had explained away everything.

Ḥanina (or Ḥananya) ben Ḥizkiyya ben Garon (or Guryon) was one of the important scholars who lived in the generation following Hillel and Shammai. Ḥanina’s attic served as an important meeting place for the Sages of that time, where significant issues were discussed and decided. Among his most noteworthy works was Ḥanina’s collection of Megillat Ta’anit, the first time Rabbinic oral traditions were set into writing. In this effort he was assisted by his son, Rabbi Eliezer, who may, in fact, have done most of the work in organizing and producing that material.

We explore the canonization of the Tanach and how this story fits in.

Menachot 44: בָּאוּ אַרְבַּע צִיצִיּוֹתָיו וְטָפְחוּ לוֹ עַל פָּנָיו

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara relates one concluding story about the power of fulfilling the commandment of tzitzit.

Once a man, who was very scrupulous about the precept of tzitzit, heard of a certain harlot in one of the towns by the sea who accepted four hundred gold dinars for her hire. He sent her four hundred gold dinars and made an appointment with her.

we explore just how repentance based on love of God can successfully turn sins into merits to the extent that the sinner can reach the heights of holiness.

We cite Rav Dr Feintuch essay in comparing our daf with the midrash Sifre Bamidbar, showing subtle differences in the tale produced different theological messages.

Menachot 43: שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּוִד לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וְרָאָה עַצְמוֹ עוֹמֵד עָרוֹם

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Seeing brings to remembering, and remembering brings to doing. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Whoever is quick to do this mitzvah will merit meeting the Shechinah. The verse here states, and you will see it and it says elsewhere, Hashem your G-d you should fear and Him you should serve. (Rashi explains that regarding tzitzis the word “him” is used for “it,” similar to the word Him used in the second verse regarding Hashem. 

This teaches that one who serves Him will see Him through keeping the mitzvah of tzitzis.) The braisa states: The Jewish people are clearly loved by Hashem, as He surrounded them with mitzvos. He put tefillin on their heads and arms, tzitzis on their clothes, and mezuzos on their doorposts. Regarding these (King) David said, Seven (two tefillin, four tzitzis, and one mezuzah) a day I have praised You on your charitable laws. 

We explore the use of the techelies color in distinguishing the light of day to pray and how modern science has altered the way we measure time.

Menachot 42: וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Ḥinnana the son of Rava from Pashronya taught: A Sefer Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzot that were written by a min (heretic), kuti, goy, eved (non-Jewish slaves), ishah (women), katan (minors) and Yisrael meshummad (apostate) are invalid, based on the passage in Sefer Devarim (6:8-9) that connects laying tefillin and writing mezuzot. This passage is understood to teach that only those obligated in laying tefillin can be involved with writing them.

The Ritva explains that this teaching is applied to tefillin and mezuzot about which the passage is speaking, as well as Sefer Torah which has a higher level of sanctity.

We continue our exploration of the techeiles dye.

Menachot 41: מִי סָבְרַתְּ חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא הוּא? חוֹבַת טַלִּית הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Generally speaking, there is no Biblical punishment for neglecting to perform a positive commandment; only transgressing negative commandments are grounds to be punished according to the Torah.

With regard to tzitzit it would appear that there should be no punishment if someone did not choose to wear them. In this context the Gemara relates the following story:

An angel once found Rav Ketina wearing a linen wrap, and he exclaimed, ‘Ketina, Ketina, a wrap in summer and a cloak in winter (apparently, neither of these had four corners, and so they were not obligated in tzitzit), and what is to happen to the law of tzitzit?’ ‘And do you punish’, asked Rav Ketina, ‘a person who neglects to perform a positive precept?’ ‘In a time of divine anger and judgment’, replied the angel, ‘we do’.

We explore divine anger in the bible.

Menachot 40: אֶלָּא גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם טְעִימָה

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learned earlier that the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, or shaatnez, is allowed in tzitzit, because the two commandments follow each other in the Torah, forming a "this is prohibited, [but] this is allowed" pattern. However, this is only the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai, who do not derive conclusions from the proximity of phrases, consequently, do not allow Shaatnez in the tzitzit.

But practically, anybody who would put a blue woolen thread in his linen tzitzit, aroused astonishment in Jerusalem of old. Jerusalem was the place of especially pious people, and they did not use the Beit Hillel's permission. Why not? Must be that in practice Beit Hillel also forbade this.

The sugya in our daf presents what appears, at first glance, to be a deceptively technical debate. A baraita records a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning whether a linen garment (sadin) is obligated in the mitzvah of tzitzit. The crux of the disagreement is straightforward: the tekhelet (sky-blue) thread required for tzitzit must be made of wool, and attaching wool threads to a linen garment would produce shaatnez—a prohibited mixture of wool and linen (Deut. 22:11). Beit Shammai, sensitive to this prohibition, exempt the linen garment from tzitzit entirely. Beit Hillel, by contrast, obligate it, invoking the principle that the positive commandment of tzitzit overrides the prohibition of shaatnez. The halakha is declared in accordance with Beit Hillel.

Menachot 39: לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשֶּׁבַע, כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The standard method of tying tzitzit today is to take four strings, placing them through the hole at the bottom of each corner of the four-cornered garment so that they are eight strands, with one strand longer than the rest. Five knots are made, with the longer strand twisted around the rest between each of the knots.

Rabba argues that one of the knots is a Torah obligation – the kesher elyon, or “uppermost knot.” His proof for this is that the Torah offers specific dispensation that allows woolen tzitzit with tekehlet (see yesterday’s daf) to be placed on a linen garment, the prohibition of sha’atnez (which prohibits the mixing of wool and linen) notwithstanding. Were there no requirement to actually knot the tzitziyot onto the garment, then this could be done by simply inserting the woolen tzitziyot which by itself would not be prohibited according to the laws of sha’atnez.

We explore the paradox of shaatnez and tzitzit.