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.

Menachot 60: מִנְחַת חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה

For the source text click/tap here: Menachoot 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Aside from the different ingredients that may have been included in meal offerings, as described in the Mishna on yesterday’s daf, there also were different activities that were done to the menaḥot as part of the ceremonial Temple service, not all of which applied to each meal offering. Specifically, the two activities were hagasha – bringing the offering to the altar – and tenufa – lifting or “waving” the offering.

The Mishna on our daf teaches –

Some meal offerings require hagasha – bringing near to the altar -but not tenufa – waving – some require bringing near to the altar and also waving, some require waving but not bringing near to the altar, and some require neither bringing near to the altar nor waving.

The sugya investigates several interrelated questions:

1. Why do certain meal offerings require hagashah while others do not?

2. What is the relationship between kemitzah (the removal of a handful) and hagashah?

3. How do scriptural derivations expand the requirement of hagashah to various types of offerings?

4. What conceptual principles underlie the distinctions between voluntary offerings (nedavah) and obligatory offerings (chovah)?

Through the debates between the Tanna Kama, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yehuda, and the baraita, the Talmud articulates an intricate legal theory of sacrificial procedure. The classification of offerings becomes a lens through which broader issues of ritual logic and hermeneutics emerge.

Menachot 59: אַדְּרַבָּה, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Menachot 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned in the introduction to Massekhet Menaḥot, there are a variety of different types of meal offerings. The Mishna on our daf teaches some of the basic rules of menaḥot:

Some meal offerings require oil and frankincense, some require oil but not frankincense, some frankincense but not oil, and some neither oil nor frankincense.

Our daf centers on the taxonomy of meal offerings in the Mishna and the Gemara's extended dialectical analysis of which offerings require oil, frankincense, both, or neither — offers an unusually transparent window onto this negotiation. Here, within a relatively contained legal domain, we can observe the rabbis deploying arguments from analogy, formal logical inference (kal va-chomer), counter-analogy, and ultimately returning to the scriptural text as the final arbitration. The text does not simply apply Scripture; its reasons against it, around it, and then with it, in a pattern that reveals a nuanced epistemological hierarchy.

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.