Menachot 80: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If one separated an animal to be used as a purification offering, but then lost it, and he brought another animal in its place, and then found the first one, it should die. If one separates coins to be used [to purchase] a purification offering, then lost them, and bought an offering with [other coins], and then found the [original] coins, they should be brought [i.e., thrown into] the Salt Sea.

Tractate Temurah deals with substitutions—what happens when one animal is brought to the Temple in place of another as a sacrifice? The first animal has already been designated for sacred service and cannot simply be used for normal needs. Yet if the sacrifice was a chatat (purification offering), and the owner has already been purified, what should be done with the first animal? This mishnah says that no benefit can come from an animal or coins once they are designated for God.

We explore these areas like the salt sea and how they function in Halacha and as a conceptual repository for sacred objects that have become legally irresolvable.

Menachot 79: כל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What if the sacrifice was found to have a mum – a blemish? According to Rabbi Meir this question is the subject of disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the loaves become sanctified, and Rabbi Yehoshua who rules that they do not.

The Gemara searches for an explanation for the position of Rabbi Eliezer, according to Rabbi Meir. If an animal was a tereifa we recognize that the sacrifice is invalid and the loaves do not become sanctified; why should the case of a blemish be different?

The Gemara answers that this follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who permits certain types of mumim to be brought on the altar, or at least that the sacrifice is not removed from the altar if it had already been brought to it.

The case discussed is when the blemish was dukin she-ba-ayin. Since dukin she-ba-ayin is a relatively minor condition – in fact, it is not considered a blemish if it is found in a sacrifice brought from fowl – an animal with such a blemish is permitted, if it found its way to the altar.

Dukin she-ba-ayin is some kind of an eye condition; Rashi explains that it is a cataract on the eye. Another possible explanation presented by Rashi is that it is a blemish on the eyelid.

We explore both this condition as well as the status of the fetus from the Mishnah.

Menachot 78: חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פָּאגֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our Daf a Mishna discusses the thanksgiving sacrifice – the korban toda. That korban is made up of an animal sacrifice brought together with 40 hallot matzot – non-hametz loaves. The Mishna teaches that if the sacrifice is slaughtered inside the azara – the Temple courtyard, as is proper – but the hallot were outside the wall at that time, then the hallot do not become holy; since at the time of the shechita they were in a place where they could not be eaten, they therefore cannot become part of the korban. A question was raised with regard to this mishna: What is the meaning of the phrase outside the wall? Rabbi Yohanan said: It means outside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outermost wall around Jerusalem, but if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has been sanctified, as we do not require that the bread, described as “with” the offering, be next to it in order to be sanctified.

There are many opinions, but it appears that Beit Pagei represented the “third wall” that surrounded the “new city” of Jerusalem. Some say that Beit Pagei is from the Latin root meaning “to eat.” According to this opinion, it was so named because within that wall was still considered Jerusalem with regard to the mitzva of eating korbanot that had to be consumed within the city walls. There also was a small village just outside of Jerusalem that was called Beit Pagei – perhaps because of the figs (pagim) that grew there. According to some opinions that is the Beit Pagei referred to by Rabbi Yohanan.

We explore both the rishonim as well as archeological views of the walls around the Mikdash over time.

Menachot 77: אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The eighth perek of Massekhet Menaḥot begins on today’s daf. Its focus is the korban toda – the thanksgiving offering – which is a type of korban shelamim (peace offerings) discussed in Massekhet Zevaḥim with the other animal sacrifices.

Nevertheless its unique character brings it into Massekhet Menaḥot, as well, since every korban toda was accompanied by four meal offerings, some made of matza and some made of ḥametz (see Sefer Vayikra 7:11-15).

This chapter is dedicated to explaining the laws pertaining to these menaḥot, how they are made, their size, and so forth.

Among the unique halakhot connected with these meal offerings was the requirement to offer teruma – a gift to the kohen – from them (see Vayikra 7:14).

We explore the notion of thanksgiving and gratitude.

Menachot 76: הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf quotes a baraita that derives other laws from the passage quoted by Rabbi Shimon. Based on this pasuk the baraita suggests that the solet for the leḥem ha-panim could be purchased as either prepared flour – as was the case for all other meal offerings – or in their raw form as wheat. Rabbi Elazar explains that this stems from the Torah’s desire to be frugal with money belonging to the Jewish people.

Since the volume of flour required to prepare the 12 loaves of leḥem ha-panim on a weekly basis was quite large in comparison to the amount needed for the once-a-year minḥat ha-omer or shetei ha-leḥem, the Torah permitted its purchase in raw form, which made it cheaper.

According to the Gemara, Rabbi Elazar’s source for the idea that God is concerned about the finances of the Jewish people comes from the story in Sefer Bamidbar (Chapter 20) when there was no water to drink, and God supplied a miracle whose purpose was to allow the people – and their cattle – to drink.

Clearly, according to the Torah, the possessions belonging to the Jewish people merited a miracle, as well.

We explore the notion of the Torah being worried for our finances in performing Mitzvot.

Menachot 75: אוֹתָהּ לִפְתִיתִים, וְלֹא פְּתִיתָה לִפְתִיתִים

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 75

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah (74b) teaches that when the Kohen performs Meshichah with Rekikin, he smears the oil on the loaves (after they are baked) in the shape of a "Ki." The Gemara here quotes Rav Kahana who explains that this refers to the Greek letter, "Xi" (see TOSFOS DH k'Min Ki, for various opinions about the exact shape).

Why is the oil supposed to smeared on the Rekikin specifically in the shape of a Greek letter?

The Mishnah in Shekalim (8a) similarly says that the letters Alef, Beis, and Gimel were written on the three boxes used for the Terumas ha'Lishkah to denote which box was separated first. Rebbi Yishmael notes that the three letters on the boxes were written in Greek -- Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.

The presence of Greek language and script in rabbinic literature — from the smearing of oil kemein ki (in the form of the Greek letter Xi) described in tractate Menachot, to the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma inscribed on the Temple treasury chests in tractate Shekalim — signals far more than incidental cultural borrowing. We argue that these instances represent a coherent and theologically motivated strategy of selective appropriation: a disciplined openness to Hellenistic aesthetic forms precisely insofar as they could be consecrated to divine service.

Menachot 74: וְהָא אִיכָּא נְסָכִים! לְשִׁיתִין אָזְלִי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Cases where the altar receives the entire offering are:

Minḥat kohen – The meal offering brought by a kohen, whether it was voluntary or obligatory

Minḥat kohen mashi’aḥ – The daily meal offering brought by the kohen gadol in the morning and afternoon (see Vayikra 6:15).

Minḥat nesakhim – The meal offering that accompanied libations

The Gemara points out that it appears that there are other sacrifices, as well, where the entire offering remains on the altar with none given to the kohanim. In each example brought, however, the Gemara argues that the altar does not receive everything. Thus, for example, regarding an ola – a burnt offering – the kohanim do receive the skin of the animal. Regarding libations, which are poured on the altar and the kohanim receive nothing, the Gemara explains that they are not actually poured on the altar, rather they are poured into the shittin under the altar.

The shittin were pipes and hollow spaces in and beneath the altar. They opened as two small holes on the south-west corner of the altar and the blood and wine libations would run from them to the water tunnel under the Temple Mount and from there to the Kidron Valley. According to a tradition of the Ge’onim, the shittin were a cubit in width and 600 cubits in depth. Based on this tradition, when the Gemara in Massekhet Sukka (49a) describes how once every 70 years young kohanim would descend and remove the solidified remnants of wine, it is clear that they did not descend to the very bottom of the pipe, rather they went as far down as they could or used special implements to clean the passageway.

Menachot 73: גּוֹי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf states that if a Nochri brings a Korban Shelamim as a Nedavah, and he vows, "I am bringing it so that a Yisrael who made a Neder to bring a Shelamim will fulfill his obligation with this Korban," it is brought as a Shelamim and eaten by the Yisrael.

If however a Nochri sends a Korban Olah to Yerushalayim from overseas together with wine for the Nesachim, the wine that he sends is offered as Nesachim. If he sends no Nesachim, then money from the public funds is used to buy Nesachim for his Korban.

We explore the next statement that Peace offerings volunteered by gentiles are sacrificed as burnt offerings, which are burned completely upon the altar.

With regard to the source for this halakha, if you wish, cite a verse; and if you wish, propose a logical argument. If you wish, propose a logical argument: Concerning a gentile who volunteers an offering, the intent of his heart is that the offering should be entirely sacred to Heaven, and he does not intend for any of it to be eaten.

When do we rely on verse citations versus logic and what weight do we give to the “heart” or intentionality?

Menachot 72: אִיכָּא מִנְחָה דְּמִיקַּמְצָא וְלָא מִיתְאַכְלָא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The seventh perek of Massekhet Menaḥot begins on our daf. Perek “Elu Menaḥot” deals mainly with clarifying the way the different meal offerings are brought: the activities done to prepare for each type of minḥa, the offering itself, and the laws pertaining to the remainder of the meal offering that is left over after the fistful of flour is taken to the altar.

For example, the Torah requires kemitza as a prerequisite for the minḥa offering, and that the remnants of the flour are to be given to the kohanim to eat (see Sefer Vayikra 2:1-10). The Torah does not specify, however, whether these rules apply to each and every meal offering, or whether kemitza applies in those cases where the entire meal offering is sacrificed on the altar.

We explore the implications of the biblical laws of Lev 2 and how chazal worked through to the mishnaic codification.

Menachot 71: וּפוֹרְצִין פְּרָצוֹת בְּגַנּוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפַרְדְּסוֹתֵיהֶן כְּדֵי לְהַאֲכִיל נֶשֶׁר לַעֲנִיִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf there were places where reaping the new crop was permitted even before the korban ha-omer that permitted the new harvest was brought on Passover.

In irrigated fields found in the valleys early harvest was permitted, either because the heat in those places led the grain to ripen early, and it would become ruined if it was not harvested, or because what grew in these places was low quality and unfit for the omer offering, so the Sages’ injunction against harvest did not apply to them.

The Mishna relates that in the city of Yeriḥo the farmers followed this policy and harvested early with Rabbinic approval; nevertheless when they stacked the harvested grain it was done without the approval of the Sages, who, nonetheless, did not stop them from doing so.

We continue our exploration of sefirat hammer with particular attention to the innovations of the ARI z’l.

Menachot 70: לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnayot in this perek have been discussing the laws of ḥadash – the new grains that are permitted only after the second day of Passover. The Mishna on our daf enumerates the types of grain that fall into this category – wheat, rye, oats, barley and spelt – all of which are also obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla.

In the Gemara Reish Lakish explains that the Mishna specifically comes to exclude orez – rice (oryza sativa) – and doḥan– millet (panicum miliaceum). He derives this from the parallel between the commandment to separate ḥalla when eating leḥem (see Bamidbar 15:19-21), and the commandment to eat matza – leḥem oni – for it is specifically from these types of grains that matza can be made. The Gemara learns this from the passage (Devarim 16:3) that forbids the eating of ḥametz in the same context as the command to eat matza, connecting the two to one-another.

We explore the halachic ramifications of the definition of the 5 grains for such issues as Pesach, rice and kitnyot.

Menachot 69: פִּיל שֶׁבָּלַע כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf teaches that there are some types of utensils that do not become ritually defiled, neither on a Biblical nor on a Rabbinic level. These are klei avanim, klei gelalim and klei adama, which retain their “earthiness” and are not considered to be full-fledged utensils that would render them important enough to become tameh.

Klei avanim are stone utensils. Klei adama are utensils made from earth. Some explain that they are made from stones that have been sanded down, others suggest that they are earthenware that never was placed in a furnace to be finished. Klei gelalim may be made from a large stone that can only be moved by rolling; others suggest that these are made from animal excrement.

In this context the Gemara brings a question posed by Rami bar Ḥama – if an elephant swallows a kefifah Mitzrit – an Egyptian wicker basket – and excretes it whole, is it considered klei gelalim to the extent that it would no longer be considered tameh?

While the Gemara rejects this possibility, it does consider whether if the elephant ate the reeds themselves and then excretes them that they may be considered gelalim so that a basket made from them would be considered klei gelalim.

We explore the other reference to Rav Adda bar Abba in Bava Metzia and his controversial life.

Menachot 68: הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When the Torah teaches that it is forbidden to eat grain from the new harvest (see Vayikra 23:14), it appears to offer two separate mechanisms for permitting the new crop.

According to the Torah “…neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears” can be eaten –

– until this selfsame day,

– until you have brought the offering of your God.

Thus it appears that the arrival of the day itself permits the new harvest, yet there is also the element of waiting until after the korban ha-omer is brought.

Rav and Shmuel both explain the passage as follows. When the Temple stood and the omer offering was brought on the second day of Pesaḥ (the 16th day of Nisan), the new crop became permitted only after the korban ha-omer. Following the destruction of the Temple, the dawn of the 16th day of Nisan permitted the new crop to be eaten.

According to the Mishna, during the time of the Temple, Jews who were far from the Temple could assume that by mid-day the korban ha-omer would have been brought, and they were permitted to begin eating from the new crop. Following the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai established a rule that forbade eating from the new crop until the morning of the 17th day of Nisan.

We explore his other innovations following the destruction of the Temple.

Menachot 67: חָדָשׁ – בָּדֵיל מִינֵּיהּ, חָמֵץ

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Anybody could perform the last steps in the barley offering. He takes the one-tenth of an ephah (about 5 pounds) of flour prepared for this purpose, puts the oil in an empty vessel, together with the frankincense on the side, and adds the flour. He pours more oil into the flour and mixes them. He then waves the mixture in all for directions of the compass, as well as up and down.

Then a kohen takes off a handful and burns it, together with frankincense, on the Altar. The remainder of the flour is eaten by the kohanim in the Temple Courtyard.

Once the Omer was offered, all harvest of this year became permitted. People would go out into the marketplaces of Jerusalem and find them full of regular flour of the new crop, as well as oven-dried grain - but this was against the wishes of the Sages, says Rabbi Meir.

We explore the scholarship of the late Prof Yitzchak Baer on the ritual harvesting of the Omer offering as a window into the social, legal, and political dimensions of Temple practice in late Second Temple Judaism.

Menachot 66: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְהַבְהֲבִין אוֹתוֹ בָּאֵשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Now they would reap the barley and put it into baskets. They would bring it into the Courtyard of the Temple and roast it over fire, in order to fullfill the mitzvah of toasting - these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that before roasting the barley they would beat it with soft reeds and stems, to remove the kernels from the stalks without crushing them, and then they would put it into a copper pipe to be roasted. The pipe was perforated to spread the fire over all of it.

After the barley was threshed and roasted, they spread it out in the Courtyard, to let the wind blow over it to dry it. They would then put it into a bean mill and grind it coarsely. Then they would sift it with thirteen sieves, extracting one-tenth of the total volume as fine flour. The remainder had to be redeemed with money and then could be eaten by anyone.

“And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14). “Grain in the ear”; this is a reference to the grain, i.e., the barley kernel. “Parched [kalui] with fire”; this teaches that the Jewish people would singe it in fire, in order to fulfill the love of the mitzva of bringing parched grain.

We explore the way Am Yisrael expresses its burning love for the Divine.

Menachot 65: שׁוֹטִים, מִנַּיִן לָכֶם

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf describes how the barley was harvested and prepared for the korban ha-omer brought on the second day of the Passover holiday –

The emissaries of the beit din used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped barley in sheaves to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the nearby towns assembled there, so that it would be harvested with great fanfare.

And why was all this?

Because of the Baitusim who maintained that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the first day of the festival.

The Gemara explains that the Baitusim were a religious sect that disagreed with the tradition of the Sages regarding the korban ha-omer. The Sages interpreted the passage in Sefer Vayikra 23:11 that says that the omer must be brought on the day following “Shabbat,” as referring to the first day of the Passover holiday. The Baitusim argued that the korban ha-omer was always brought on Sunday, so that Shavuot could only fall out on Sunday, as well.

We continue our exploration of the Boethusians and their differences from Saduccees.

Menachot 64: הָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מַכִּיר בְּחׇכְמַת יְוָונִית

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, although ideally the minḥat ha-omer sacrifice brought on the second day of Passover was to be harvested near the Temple, once it was brought from Gaggot Tzerifin, a place far from Jerusalem. The Gemara quotes a baraita that attributes this to a particular historical event.

After the death of Shelomtzion ha-malka who bequeathed her kingdom to her son Hyrcanus, his brother Aristoblus contested the decision and succeeded in ousting his elder brother. With the encouragement of Herod’s father, Antipater, Hyrcanus gathered an army and attacked the city, forcing Aristoblus and his supporters to barricade themselves in Jerusalem. During this siege, which took place in 65 BCE, the Jews inside the city offered to purchase animals for daily sacrifices in the Temple in exchange for large sums of money.

The baraita relates that someone who was there who was knowledgeable in Greek wisdom hinted to the men outside the city that it was only the Temple service that kept Jerusalem from falling. The next day, in exchange for the coins that were sent down, instead of the promised sacrifice the soldiers sent back a pig, which reached out with its hooves halfway up the wall and caused the ground to shake. At that point the Sages established an enactment forbidding the raising of pigs in Israel and teaching Greek wisdom to children.

We explore the value of Greek wisdom according to the Rabbis.

Menachot 63: דְּלֵיכָּא פַּרְסוֹמֵי מִילְּתָא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The sixth perek of Massekhet Menaḥot begins on our daf, and it is devoted, in its entirety, to the laws of minḥat ha-omer – the meal offering brought on the second day of Passover – and the laws of ḥadash – the new grain – associated with it (see Sefer Vayikra 23:9-16).

The minḥat ha-omer differs from other meal offerings in a number of ways, all of which are discussed in this perek. Aside from the ordinary commandment to sacrifice the meal offering, the minḥat ha-omer also must be harvested in a special way. It is also brought from barley, rather than from wheat, and involves a unique process of preparation before it is brought. Much of the discussion in this perek focuses on harvesting and bringing the omer, since the Torah offers little information about how it was done. From the passages in the Torah we do not know how much had to be brought, how it was to be harvested, whether it can be done on Shabbat, and so forth.

We explore the Saduceean conflict regarding mimochorat hashabat: Originally, each farmer marked the start of their harvest by bringing the first sheaf to the priest, then working for seven consecutive weeks, culminating in an offering of new grain. Later, when this offering was transformed into the national festival of Shavuot and Shabbat observance became central, the count was anchored in מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת—“the day after Shabbat”—to avoid harvesting on the new day of rest.

Menachot 62: גִּירָא בְּעֵינָא דְשִׂטְנָא

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (daf 61a), the special Shavuot sacrifices – the shtei ha-leḥem and the kivsei atzeret – the two loaves and the lambs brought for sacrifice – needed tenufa (waving) done to them. Tenufa is defined in the Mishna as extending them to the four directions and bringing them back then raising and lowering them.

The Gemara brings a number of explanations for this practice –

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one extends them and brings them back to dedicate them to He to Whom the four directions belong; one raises and lowers them to dedicate them to He to Whom the heaven and earth belong.

In the West (in the Land of Israel) it was taught as follows: Rav Ḥama bar Ukva said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina that one extends the lambs and brings them back in order to keep off harmful winds; raises and lowers, in order to keep off harmful dews.

Rava said it is the same reason with the lulav. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov would extend and bring it back and say, ‘I am shooting an arrow in the eye of Satan!’ But it is not proper to do so, for this will induce Satan to incite the Jewish people to sin.

Menachot 61: יָכוֹל יָנִיף וְיַחְזִיר וְיָנִיף

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that the tenufa was performed in the east, while the hagasha was performed in the west; the tenufa was performed before the hagasha.

The “east” and “west” mentioned refer to the eastern side of the altar – where the entrance from the ezrat yisrael to the ezrat kohanim was located – and the western side of the altar which was referred to as bein ha-ulam la-mizbe’aḥ, between the sanctuary and the altar, which had a higher level of holiness.

Rashi explains that there is no obligation to perform tenufa on the eastern side of the altar, the Mishna is teaching that even the eastern side is considered lifnei HaShem – before God – as required by the Torah (see Vayikra 6:7), and tenufa on that side would be sufficient. The western side of the altar would certainly be appropriate for tenufa, as well.

The sugya addresses a complex typology of sacrificial rites, delineating which offerings require waving alone, which require both waving and bringing near, and which require neither. Drawing on the Mishna, the baraita tradition, Amoraic debate, and gezerah shavah (analogical biblical interpretation), the text constructs a nuanced theology of ritual gesture whose import extends far beyond technical halakhic prescription.