json/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Menachot/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "Mishnah Menachot",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Menachot",
    "text": [
        [
            "When one brings a meal offering to the Temple, the priest removes a handful from it, places the handful into a service vessel, conveys it to the altar, and burns it. At that point, the remainder is permitted to the priests for consumption and the owner has fulfilled his obligation. In this context, the mishna teaches: <b>All the meal offerings</b> from <b>which a handful was removed not for their sake</b> but for the sake of another meal offering <b>are fit</b> for sacrifice. <b>But</b> these offerings <b>did not satisfy the obligation of the owner,</b> who must therefore bring another offering. This is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to all meal offerings <b>except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy,</b> which is brought as part of the rite of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [<i>sota</i>]. In those cases, if the priest removed the handful not for its own sake, the offering is disqualified. With regard to <b>the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy</b> from <b>which</b> the priest <b>removed a handful not for their sake,</b> or where <b>he placed</b> a handful from them <b>in a vessel, or conveyed</b> the handful to the altar, <b>or burned</b> the handful on the altar, <b>not for their sake, or for their sake and not for their sake, or not for their sake and for their sake,</b> they <b>are disqualified.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>How</b> are these rites performed <b>for their sake and not for their sake?</b> It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: <b>For the sake of the meal offering of a sinner and for the sake of a voluntary meal offering.</b> How are these rites performed <b>not for their sake and for their sake?</b> It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: <b>For the sake of a voluntary meal offering and for the sake of the meal offering of a sinner.</b>",
            "<b>Both the meal offering of a sinner and all</b> other <b>meal offerings</b> with regard to <b>which</b> the one who <b>removed their handful</b> was <b>a non-priest,</b> or a priest who was <b>an acute mourner,</b> i.e., whose relative died and was not yet buried, or a priest who was ritually impure <b>who immersed that day</b> and was waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, or a priest <b>lacking</b> the requisite priestly <b>vestments,</b> or a priest <b>who had not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering to complete the purification process, or a priest <b>who did not wash his hands and feet</b> from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service, or <b>an uncircumcised</b> priest, or <b>a ritually impure</b> priest, or a priest who removed the handful while <b>sitting,</b> or while <b>standing</b> not on the floor of the Temple but <b>upon vessels,</b> or <b>upon an animal,</b> or <b>upon the feet of another</b> person; in all these cases the meal offerings are <b>unfit</b> for sacrifice. If the priest <b>removed the handful with</b> his <b>left</b> hand the meal offering is <b>unfit. Ben Beteira says: He must return</b> the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering <b>and again remove the handful,</b> this time <b>with</b> his <b>right</b> hand. If a priest <b>removed the handful</b> of flour, <b>and a stone, a grain of salt, or a pinch [<i>koret</i>] of frankincense emerged in his hand,</b> the meal offering is <b>unfit due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> the Sages <b>said: The handful that is outsized or that is lacking</b> is <b>unfit.</b> The existence of one of these foreign items in the handful means that the requisite measure of flour is lacking. <b>And which is the outsized</b> handful? It is one <b>where he removed the handful overflowing [<i>mevoratz</i>]</b> in a manner in which his fingers do not hold the flour. <b>And</b> which is the <b>lacking</b> handful? It is one <b>where he removed the handful with the tips of his fingers.</b> <b>How does</b> the priest <b>perform</b> the removal of a handful? <b>He extends his fingers onto the palm of his hand.</b> ",
            "If <b>one increased its oil, decreased its oil,</b> or <b>decreased its frankincense,</b> beyond the appropriate measures, the meal offering is <b>unfit.</b> With regard to <b>one who removes a handful from the meal offering</b> with the intent <b>to partake</b> of <b>its remainder outside</b> the Temple courtyard <b>or</b> to partake of <b>an olive-bulk of its remainder outside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>to burn its handful outside</b> the Temple courtyard <b>or</b> to burn <b>an olive-bulk</b> of <b>its handful outside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>or to burn its frankincense outside</b> the Temple courtyard, in all these cases the offering is <b>unfit, but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i></b> for one who partakes of <b>it.</b> If one had the intent <b>to partake</b> of <b>its remainder on the next day or</b> to partake of <b>an olive-bulk of its remainder on the next day, to burn its handful on the next day or</b> to burn <b>an olive-bulk of its handful on the next day, or to burn</b> its <b>frankincense on the next day,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i>, and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> partaking of the remainder of that meal offering. <b>This is the principle:</b> In the case of <b>anyone who removes the handful, or places</b> the handful <b>in the vessel,</b> or <b>who conveys</b> the vessel with the handful to the altar, or <b>who burns</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent <b>to partake of an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>partakes</b> of it, e.g., the remainder, <b>or to burn an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>burns</b> it on the altar, e.g., the handful or the frankincense, <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> the meal offering is <b>unfit but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i>.</b> If his intent was to do so <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> on account of it, provided that the permitting</b> factor, i.e., the handful, <b>was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b> If the permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, although the meal offering is unfit, the prohibition of <i>piggul</i> does not apply to it. <b>How</b> is <b>the permitting factor</b> considered to have been <b>sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva?</b> If one <b>removed the handful in silence,</b> i.e., with no specific intent, and <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or</b> if one <b>removed the handful</b> with the intent to partake of the or burn the handful or frankincense <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> and <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, and conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar <b>in silence,</b> with no specific intent; <b>or</b> if one <b>removed the handful</b> and <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, that is</b> the case of an offering <b>whose permitting factor was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva,</b> and one is liable to receive <i>karet</i> for partaking of it due to <i>piggul</i>.",
            "<b>How</b> is <b>the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva?</b> If one <b>removed the handful</b> with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> or <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or</b> if one <b>removed the handful</b> with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> and <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area; or</b> if one <b>removed the handful</b> and <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, and conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area, that is</b> the case of an offering <b>whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b> <b>The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy</b> brought by a <i>sota</i> <b>that one removed their handful not for their sake</b> and <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or that one removed the handful</b> with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time</b> or <b>placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, <b>not for their sake; or that one removed the handful, and placed</b> it <b>in the vessel, and conveyed</b> it, <b>and burned</b> the handful on the altar, <b>not for their sake, that is</b> the case of an offering <b>whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b> If one performed one of these rites with the intent <b>to partake of an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area and <b>an olive-bulk the next day,</b> or <b>an olive-bulk the next day</b> and <b>an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area, or <b>half an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area and <b>half an olive-bulk the next day,</b> or <b>half an olive-bulk the next day</b> and <b>half an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area, the offering is <b>unfit but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i>.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda says</b> that <b>this is the principle: If the intent</b> with regard to <b>the time preceded the intent</b> with regard to <b>the area,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> on account of it. If the intent</b> with regard to <b>the area preceded the intent</b> with regard to <b>the time,</b> the offering is <b>unfit but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i>. And the Rabbis say:</b> In both <b>this</b> case, where the intent with regard to time was first, <b>and that</b> case, where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is <b>unfit but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i>.</b> If one’s intent was <b>to partake of half an olive-bulk</b> of the remainder <b>and to burn half an olive-bulk</b> of it not at the appropriate time or not in the appropriate area, the offering is <b>fit, because eating and burning do not join together.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "In the case of a priest <b>who removes a handful from the meal offering</b> with the intent <b>to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful</b> on <b>the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this</b> instance <b>that it is</b> a case of <b><i>piggul</i> and he is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> partaking of <b>it.</b> But if the priest’s intent was <b>to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says:</b> The meal offering is <b>unfit but</b> partaking of it <b>does not include</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i>. And the Rabbis say:</b> It is a case of <b><i>piggul</i> and he is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> partaking of the meal offering. The Rabbis <b>said to</b> Rabbi Yosei: In <b>what</b> manner does <b>this differ from</b> an animal <b>offering,</b> where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day, it is <i>piggul</i>? Rabbi Yosei <b>said to</b> the Rabbis: There is a difference, <b>as</b> in <b>the</b> case of an animal <b>offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions</b> consumed on the altar are all <b>one</b> entity. Consequently, intent with regard to any one of them renders the entire offering <i>piggul</i>. <b>But</b> the <b>frankincense is not</b> part <b>of the meal offering.</b>",
            "If <b>one slaughtered</b> the <b>two lambs</b> that accompany the two meal offering loaves sacrificed on <i>Shavuot</i> with the intent <b>to partake of one of the</b> two <b>loaves the next day,</b> or if <b>one burned</b> the <b>two bowls</b> of frankincense accompanying the shewbread with the intent <b>to partake of one of the arrangements</b> of the shewbread <b>the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: That loaf and that arrangement of which he intended</b> to partake the next day are <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> their consumption, <b>and the second</b> loaf and arrangement are <b>unfit, but there is no</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> their consumption. <b>And the Rabbis say: This</b> loaf and arrangement <b>and that</b> loaf and arrangement are both <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> their consumption. If <b>one of the</b> two <b>loaves</b> of <i>Shavuot</i> <b>or one of the</b> two <b>arrangements</b> of the shewbread <b>became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning</b> like any other disqualified offering, <b>as no communal offering is divided.</b> That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. <b>And the Rabbis say: The impure one</b> remains <b>in its</b> state of <b>impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.</b>",
            "<b>The thanks offering renders the</b> accompanying <b>loaves <i>piggul</i> but the loaves do not render the thanks offering <i>piggul</i>. How so?</b> If <b>one slaughtered the thanks offering,</b> which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent <b>to partake of it the next day,</b> the offering <b>and the</b> accompanying <b>loaves are rendered <i>piggul</i>.</b> If he slaughtered it with the intent <b>to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered <i>piggul</i> and the thanks offering is not <i>piggul</i>.</b> Likewise, <b>the lambs</b> sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on <i>Shavuot</i> <b>render the</b> accompanying <b>loaves <i>piggul</i>, but the loaves do not render the lambs <i>piggul</i>. How so?</b> If <b>one slaughtered the lambs,</b> which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent <b>to partake of them the next day,</b> the lambs <b>and the</b> accompanying <b>loaves are rendered <i>piggul</i>.</b> If he did so with the intent <b>to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered <i>piggul</i> and the lambs are not <i>piggul</i>.</b>",
            "<b>The</b> animal <b>offering renders the</b> accompanying <b>libations</b> and meal offerings <b><i>piggul</i> from</b> the moment <b>that they were consecrated in the vessel,</b> but not before; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. The libations do not render the</b> animal <b>offering <i>piggul</i>. How so?</b> In the case of <b>one who slaughters the offering</b> with the intent <b>to partake of it the next day,</b> the offering <b>and its libations are rendered <i>piggul</i>.</b> But if one slaughters the offering with the intent <b>to sacrifice its libations the next day, the libations are rendered <i>piggul</i>,</b> while <b>the offering is not <i>piggul</i>.</b>",
            "With regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for consumption: If the priest had an intention that can <b>render</b> the offering <b><i>piggul</i> during</b> the burning of <b>the handful but not during</b> the burning of <b>the frankincense,</b> or <b>during</b> the burning of <b>the frankincense but not during</b> the burning of <b>the handful,</b> i.e., he burned one of them with the intention to eat the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> The offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one</b> who eats it is <b>liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i></b> for its consumption. <b>And the Rabbis say: There is no</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i> in this</b> case <b>unless he renders</b> the offering <b><i>piggul</i> during</b> the sacrifice of <b>the entire permitting factor,</b> i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense. <b>And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in</b> the case of <b>a meal offering of a sinner and in</b> the case of <b>a meal offering of jealousy</b> of a <i>sota</i> <b>that if one had intent of <i>piggul</i> during</b> the burning of <b>the handful, that</b> the meal offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i></b> for its consumption, <b>as</b> here <b>the handful is the</b> sole <b>permitting factor.</b> If <b>one slaughtered one of the</b> two <b>lambs</b> sacrificed with the two loaves on <i>Shavuot</i> with the intent <b>to partake of</b> the <b>two loaves the next day,</b> or if <b>one burned one of the bowls</b> of frankincense with the intent <b>to partake of two arrangements</b> of shewbread <b>the next day, Rabbi Meir says:</b> The meal offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i></b> for its consumption, <b>and the Rabbis say: There is no</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i> unless he has intent of <i>piggul</i> during</b> the sacrifice of <b>the entire permitting factor.</b> If <b>one slaughtered one of the lambs</b> with the intent <b>to partake of it the next day, that</b> lamb is <b><i>piggul</i> and the other is a fit</b> offering. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent <b>to partake of the other the next day, both</b> lambs <b>are fit</b> offerings, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor <i>piggul</i>."
        ],
        [
            "In the case of <b>one who removes a handful from the meal offering</b> with the intent <b>to consume</b>, beyond its designated time, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>not consume</b> it, i.e., the handful, <b>or to burn,</b> beyond its designated time, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>not burn</b> it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is <b>fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems</b> it <b>unfit,</b> although it is not <i>piggul</i>, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [<i>karet</i>]. In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent <b>to consume,</b> beyond its designated time, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>consume</b> it, <b>or to burn,</b> beyond its designated time, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>burn</b> it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly <b>less than an olive-bulk,</b> the offering is <b>fit.</b> If his intent was both <b>to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk</b> beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless <b>fit, because eating and burning do not join together.</b>",
            "If one <b>did not pour</b> the oil onto the meal offering, or <b>did not mix</b> the oil into the meal offering, <b>or did not break</b> the loaves into pieces, <b>or did not</b> add <b>salt, or did not wave</b> the <i>omer</i> meal offering or the meal offering of a <i>sota</i>, or <b>did not bring</b> the meal offering to the altar, <b>or</b> if it happened <b>that</b> the priest <b>broke</b> the meal offerings that require breaking into <b>greater pieces</b> than appropriate, <b>or did not smear</b> oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is <b>fit.</b> If <b>a handful</b> of one meal offering, which is to be burned on the altar, <b>was intermingled with a handful of another</b> meal offering, or <b>with the meal offering of priests,</b> or <b>with the meal offering of</b> the <b>anointed priest,</b> i.e., the High Priest, or <b>with the meal offering of libations</b> accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings, all of which are burned in their entirety on the altar, it is <b>fit</b> for sacrifice, and the mixture is burned on the altar. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> If the handful was intermingled <b>with the meal offering of</b> the <b>anointed priest,</b> or <b>with the meal offering of libations,</b> the mixture is <b>unfit because</b> with regard to <b>this,</b> the handful from the standard meal offering, <b>its mixture is thick,</b> one <i>log</i> of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, <b>and</b> with regard to <b>that,</b> the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, <b>its mixture is loose,</b> three <i>log</i> of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. <b>And</b> the mixtures, which are not identical, <b>absorb from each other,</b> increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.",
            "In the case of <b>two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and</b> that <b>were intermingled with each other, if</b> the priest <b>can remove a handful from this</b> meal offering <b>by itself and from that</b> meal offering <b>by itself, they are fit</b> meal offerings, <b>but if not, they are unfit,</b> as the handful of each meal offering must be taken from its original source. In the case of <b>a handful that was intermingled with a meal offering from which a handful was not removed,</b> the priest <b>should not burn</b> the mixture on the altar. <b>And if he burned</b> it, <b>this</b> meal offering <b>from which the handful was taken satisfies the obligation of the owner and that</b> meal offering <b>from which the handful was not taken does not satisfy the obligation of the owner.</b> If, after it was removed, <b>its handful was intermingled with its remainder or with the remainder of another</b> meal offering, the priest <b>should not burn</b> the mixture on the altar, <b>but if he burned</b> it, <b>it satisfies the obligation of the owner.</b> If <b>the handful became ritually impure and</b> despite this the priest <b>sacrificed it, the frontplate</b> worn by the High Priest <b>effects acceptance</b> of the meal offering, and the remainder is eaten by the priests. If the handful <b>left</b> its designated area <b>and</b> despite this the priest then <b>sacrificed it, the frontplate does not effect acceptance.</b> The reason is <b>that the frontplate effects acceptance for</b> offerings sacrificed when <b>ritually impure and does not effect acceptance for</b> offerings <b>that leave</b> their designated areas.",
            "If after the handful was removed <b>the remainder of</b> the meal offering <b>became ritually impure,</b> or if <b>the remainder of</b> the meal offering <b>was burned,</b> or if <b>the remainder of</b> the meal offering <b>was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer,</b> who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling even if there is no meat that can be eaten, the meal offering is <b>fit,</b> and the priest burns the handful. <b>But according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua,</b> who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling only if there is meat that can be eaten, it is <b>unfit</b> and the priest does not burn the handful, as the handful serves to render permitted the remainder. A handful of a meal offering <b>that was not</b> sanctified <b>in a service vessel</b> is <b>unfit, and Rabbi Shimon deems</b> it <b>fit.</b> If the priest <b>burned the handful of</b> a meal offering <b>twice,</b> i.e., in two increments, it is <b>fit.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the handful,</b> failure to sacrifice <b>the minority of it prevents the majority of it,</b> which was sacrificed, from rendering it permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice <b>the minority of it prevents the majority of it,</b> which was sacrificed, from qualifying as a proper meal offering. With regard to <b>the wine</b> poured as a libation, failure to pour <b>the minority of it prevents the majority of it,</b> which was poured, from qualifying as a proper libation. With regard to <b>the</b> <i>log</i> of <b>oil</b> that is required for the meal offering, failure to add <b>the minority of it prevents the majority of it,</b> which was added, from being a sufficient measure of oil. With regard to <b>the fine flour and the oil,</b> failure to bring <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to <b>the handful and the frankincense,</b> failure to burn <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the two goats of Yom Kippur,</b> the absence of <b>each</b> goat <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to <b>the two sheep</b> brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on <b><i>Shavuot</i>,</b> failure to bring <b>each</b> of the sheep <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to the <b>two loaves</b> brought on <i>Shavuot</i>, failure to bring <b>each</b> of the loaves <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to the <b>two arrangements</b> of the shewbread, failure to place <b>each</b> of the arrangements <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to the <b>two bowls</b> of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place <b>each</b> of the bowls <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to <b>the arrangements</b> of the shewbread <b>and the bowls</b> of frankincense, failure to bring <b>each</b> of them <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> With regard to the <b>two types</b> of loaves <b>that</b> accompany the offerings <b>of a nazirite:</b> The bread and wafers (see Numbers 6:15); the <b>three</b> species <b>that</b> are part of the rite <b>of the</b> red <b>heifer:</b> The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool (see Numbers 19:6); <b>and</b> the <b>four</b> types of loaves <b>that</b> accompany <b>the thanks offering:</b> The loaves, wafers, loaves soaked in hot water, and leavened bread (see Leviticus 7:12); <b>and</b> the <b>four</b> species <b>of the <i>lulav</i>:</b> The <i>lulav</i>, <i>etrog</i>, myrtle, and willow (see Leviticus 23:40); <b>and</b> the <b>four</b> species <b>that are</b> used <b>in</b> the purification process of <b>the leper:</b> The cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds (see Leviticus 14:4), failure to bring <b>each</b> of the components <b>prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.</b> With regard to the <b>seven sprinklings</b> of the blood <b>of the</b> red <b>heifer</b> that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary (see Numbers 19:4), failure to sprinkle <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.</b> With regard to the <b>seven sprinklings</b> of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur <b>that</b> are sprinkled <b>on</b> the Ark <b>between the staves</b> (see Leviticus 16:14–15), the seven sprinklings <b>that</b> are sprinkled <b>on the Curtain</b> separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings <b>that</b> are sprinkled <b>on the golden altar</b> on Yom Kippur, and from all other inner sin offerings, failure to sprinkle <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.</b>",
            "With regard to the <b>seven branches of the Candelabrum</b> (see Exodus 25:32), the absence of <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.</b> With regard to <b>its seven lamps</b> atop the branches, the absence of <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.</b> With regard to the <b>two passages that are in the <i>mezuza</i>,</b> which are the first (Deuteronomy 6:1–9) and second (Deuteronomy 11:13–21) paragraphs of <i>Shema</i>, the absence of <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.</b> Furthermore, the absence of <b>even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with</b> the rest of <b>them.</b> With regard to the <b>four passages that are in the phylacteries,</b> which are the two passages in the <i>mezuza</i> and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1–10, 11–16), the absence of <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.</b> Furthermore, the absence of <b>even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with</b> the rest of <b>them.</b> With regard to the <b>four ritual fringes</b> on a garment, the absence of <b>each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them</b> constitute <b>one mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four</b> discrete <b>mitzvot,</b> and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest."
        ],
        [
            "The absence of <b>the sky-blue [<i>tekhelet</i>]</b> strings <b>does not prevent</b> fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with <b>the white</b> strings, <b>and the</b> absence of <b>white</b> strings <b>does not prevent</b> fulfillment of the mitzva with <b>the sky-blue</b> strings. If one has only one, he wears it without the other. Absence of the <b>phylacteries of</b> the <b>arm does not prevent</b> fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries <b>of</b> the <b>head, and</b> absence of the phylacteries <b>of</b> the <b>head does not prevent</b> fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries <b>of</b> the <b>arm.</b> If one has only one, he dons it without the other. The mishna returns to discussing the <i>halakhot</i> of meal offerings, which are the central theme of this tractate. The absence of <b>the fine flour and the oil</b> for the meal offering accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings <b>does not prevent</b> libation of <b>the wine, and</b> the absence of <b>the wine</b> for libation <b>does not prevent</b> sacrifice of the flour and the oil. Failure to perform some of <b>the placements</b> of blood <b>on the external altar does not prevent</b> fulfillment of the mitzva with <b>the other</b> placements, as even if the priest performed only one placement of blood, the offering effects atonement after the fact.",
            "Failure to sacrifice one of <b>the bulls, the rams, the sheep, or the goats</b> of the additional offerings brought on Festivals <b>does not prevent</b> the sacrifice of <b>the others. Rabbi Shimon says: If</b> the Temple treasurers <b>had</b> sufficient funds for the <b>numerous bulls</b> that are required to be sacrificed on that day <b>but they did not</b> also <b>have</b> sufficient funds for the accompanying <b>libations,</b> they should rather <b>bring one bull and</b> its <b>libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.</b>",
            "On <i>Shavuot</i> there is an obligation to sacrifice burnt offerings, a sin offering, and peace offerings together with the offering of the two loaves. The burnt offerings consists of a bull, two rams, and seven sheep. A goat is brought for the sin offering. Two sheep are brought as peace offerings and waved together with the two loaves. Failure to sacrifice <b>the bull, the rams, and the sheep,</b> which are all brought as burnt offerings, <b>and the goat</b> that is brought as a sin offering, <b>does not prevent</b> the bringing of <b>the</b> two <b>loaves,</b> and they are sacrificed nevertheless. Failure to bring <b>the</b> two <b>loaves does not prevent</b> sacrifice of the accompanying animal offerings. Failure to bring <b>the</b> two <b>loaves prevents</b> sacrifice of <b>the</b> accompanying peace offering of two <b>sheep, but</b> failure to sacrifice <b>the</b> two <b>sheep does not prevent</b> the bringing of <b>the</b> two <b>loaves;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: No, rather</b> the opposite is true. Failure to sacrifice <b>the</b> peace offering of two <b>sheep prevents</b> the bringing of <b>the</b> two <b>loaves, but</b> failure to bring <b>the</b> two <b>loaves does not prevent</b> sacrifice of <b>the</b> accompanying peace offering of two <b>sheep. As we found that when the Jewish people were in the wilderness</b> for <b>forty years</b> after the exodus from Egypt, <b>they sacrificed</b> the two <b>sheep</b> as a peace offering on <i>Shavuot</i> <b>without</b> the two <b>loaves,</b> as the two loaves may be brought only from wheat grown in Eretz Yisrael after the Jewish people entered the land. <b>Here too,</b> whenever wheat is unavailable, <b>they</b> should <b>sacrifice</b> the two <b>sheep</b> without the two <b>loaves.</b> However, the two loaves are not sacrificed without the peace offering of two sheep. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> The <b><i>halakha</i></b> is <b>in accordance with the statement of</b> Rabbi Shimon <b>ben Nannas</b> that failure to sacrifice the two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, <b>but the reason</b> for that ruling <b>is not in accordance with his statement.</b> <b>As all</b> the offerings that must be sacrificed on <i>Shavuot</i> <b>that</b> are <b>stated in the book of Numbers</b> (see 28:27), i.e., two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep as additional offerings and a goat as a sin offering, were <b>sacrificed</b> when the Jewish people were <b>in the wilderness. But all</b> the offerings <b>stated in Leviticus</b> (see 23:18–20), i.e., the offerings accompanying the two loaves, were <b>not sacrificed</b> when the Jewish people were <b>in the wilderness.</b> Not only were the two loaves not sacrificed, but the accompanying offerings, including the peace offering of the two sheep, were also not sacrificed, because it was only <b>when they arrived in Eretz</b> Yisrael that <b>these</b> additional offerings <b>and those</b> offerings accompanying the two loaves <b>were sacrificed.</b> Neither the additional offerings of <i>Shavuot</i> nor the two loaves, and the offerings that accompany them, were sacrificed in the wilderness, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas. Rather, <b>for what</b> reason <b>do I</b> nevertheless <b>say that the sheep should be sacrificed without</b> the <b>loaves,</b> in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas? It is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that the sheep permit themselves,</b> as the sprinkling of their blood and the burning of the portions consumed on the altar renders it permitted to partake of their meat. <b>And</b> why are <b>the loaves not</b> sacrificed <b>without the sheep?</b> It is <b>because there is no</b> item <b>to permit</b> the loaves, as the loaves are permitted only after the sheep are sacrificed.",
            "Failure to sacrifice <b>the daily offerings does not prevent</b> sacrifice of <b>the additional offerings, and</b> likewise, failure to sacrifice <b>the additional offerings does not prevent</b> sacrifice of <b>the daily offerings. And</b> failure to sacrifice some of <b>the additional offerings</b> on a day when more than one is sacrificed, e.g., if it was both Shabbat and the New Moon, <b>does not prevent</b> sacrifice of the <b>other</b> additional offerings. If the priests <b>did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning</b> as the daily offering, nevertheless, <b>they should sacrifice</b> a lamb <b>in the afternoon</b> as the daily offering, as failure to sacrifice one daily offering does not prevent sacrifice of the other. In all of these cases, if they failed to sacrifice one offering, they should still sacrifice the other. <b>Rabbi Shimon said: When</b> does this <i>halakha</i> apply? It applies <b>at a time when</b> the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because <b>they were</b> prevented from sacrificing it due to <b>circumstances beyond their control or</b> they failed to sacrifice it <b>unwittingly. But if</b> the priests acted <b>intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning</b> as the daily offering, <b>they should not sacrifice</b> a lamb <b>in the afternoon</b> as the daily offering. Incense was burned twice a day, half a measure in the morning and half a measure in the afternoon. If <b>they did not burn</b> the half-measure of <b>incense in the morning, they should burn</b> the half-measure <b>in the afternoon.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon said: And</b> in such a case, <b>the entire</b> measure <b>was sacrificed in the afternoon.</b> The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is <b>that</b> the daily service on a new <b>golden altar is initiated only with</b> the burning of <b>the incense of the spices</b> in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. <b>And the</b> daily service on a new <b>altar of the burnt offering,</b> on which the daily offerings were sacrificed, is initiated <b>only with the daily morning offering. And</b> use of a new <b>Table</b> was initiated <b>only with</b> the arrangement of <b>the shewbread on Shabbat, and</b> use of a new <b>Candelabrum</b> was initiated <b>only with</b> the kindling <b>of its seven lamps in the afternoon.</b>",
            "The twelve loaves of <i>matza</i> prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour of the <b>griddle-cake</b> offering <b>of the High Priest did not come</b> from the house of the High Priest <b>in halves. Rather,</b> the High Priest <b>brings</b> from his house <b>a complete tenth</b> of an ephah of flour (see Leviticus 6:13) <b>and divides it</b> in half, and he <b>sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.</b> In the case of a High <b>Priest who brings</b> and sacrifices <b>half in the morning and dies, and they appointed another</b> High <b>Priest in his stead,</b> the replacement High Priest <b>should neither bring half of a tenth</b> of an ephah of flour <b>from his house nor</b> sacrifice the remaining <b>half of</b> the <b>tenth of an ephah of</b> his <b>predecessor. Rather, he brings</b> from his house <b>an entire tenth</b> of an ephah <b>and divides it</b> in half, <b>sacrifices half, and</b> the other <b>half</b> is not sacrificed and <b>is lost. Consequently, two halves</b> of a tenth of an ephah <b>are sacrificed,</b> one-half of what was brought by each priest, <b>and</b> the other <b>two halves are lost.</b> If <b>they did not appoint another</b> High <b>Priest in his stead, from whose</b> property <b>was</b> the griddle-cake offering brought and <b>sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon says:</b> It is brought and sacrificed <b>from</b> the property <b>of the community. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> It is brought and sacrificed <b>from</b> the property <b>of the heirs</b> of the High Priest. <b>And</b> for the duration of the period until a new High Priest was appointed, the griddle-cake offering <b>was sacrificed</b> as <b>a complete</b> tenth of an ephah of fine flour."
        ],
        [
            "<b>All the meal offerings come</b> to be offered as <b><i>matza</i>,</b> with care taken to prevent leavening, <b>except for</b> ten loaves of <b>leavened bread</b> among the forty loaves <b>that</b> accompany <b>the thanks offering, and</b> the meal offering of <b>the two loaves</b> that are brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>as they come</b> to be offered as <b>leavened bread.</b> The Sages disagree as to the manner in which those meal offerings are leavened. <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> With regard to <b>the leaven</b> added to the dough to facilitate leavening, <b>one separates [<i>bodeh</i>]</b> part of the flour <b>for</b> the meal offerings <b>from within</b> the flour of the meal offerings themselves, causes it to become leaven, <b>and leavens</b> the meal offerings with it. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: That is also not the optimal</b> manner in which to fulfill the mitzva, as aged leaven is a more effective leavening agent. <b>Rather, one brings the leaven</b> from another, aged, dough <b>and places it into the measuring</b> vessel, <b>and</b> then he adds flour until he <b>fills the measuring</b> vessel, to ensure the appropriate measure of a tenth of an ephah of flour. The Rabbis <b>said to</b> Rabbi Yehuda: <b>That too</b> is inappropriate, as in that manner the meal offering <b>will</b> either be <b>lacking</b> the requisite measure <b>or</b> be <b>greater</b> than the required measure, as the Gemara will explain.",
            "<b>All the meal-offerings</b> that come as <i>matza</i> <b>are</b> to be <b>kneaded with lukewarm</b> water so that the dough will bake well, as only a small amount of oil is added. <b>And one must watch over them</b> to ensure <b>that they do not</b> become <b>leaven</b> while kneading and shaping them, <b>and if</b> a meal offering or even only <b>its remainder becomes leaven, one violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “No meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven;</b> as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). <b>And one is liable</b> to be flogged <b>for kneading</b> the meal offering, <b>and for shaping</b> it, <b>and for baking</b> it, if the meal offering becomes leaven.",
            "<b>There are</b> four types of meal offerings: Those <b>that require</b> both <b>oil and frankincense,</b> those that require <b>oil but not frankincense,</b> those that require <b>frankincense but not oil,</b> and those that require <b>neither frankincense nor oil.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>And these</b> are the meal offerings that <b>require</b> both <b>oil and frankincense: The fine-flour meal offering,</b> as it is stated: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon” (Leviticus 2:1); <b>the</b> meal offering prepared in <b>a pan</b> (see Leviticus 2:5–6); <b>the</b> meal offering prepared in <b>a deep pan</b> (see Leviticus 2:7–10); <b>and the</b> meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of <b>loaves or</b> in the form of <b>wafers</b> (see Leviticus 2:4). Additional meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense are <b>the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest,</b> i.e., the griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest every day, half in the morning and half in the evening; <b>the meal offering of a gentile; a meal offering</b> brought <b>by women;</b> and <b>the <i>omer</i> meal offering</b> (see Leviticus 23:15). <b>The meal offering</b> brought with <b>libations</b> that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings <b>requires oil but does not require frankincense. The shewbread requires frankincense but does not require oil.</b> <b>The two loaves</b> brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> (see Leviticus 23:17), <b>the meal offering of a sinner, and the meal offering of jealousy</b> brought by a <i>sota</i> <b>require neither oil nor frankincense.</b> The two loaves do not require oil or frankincense because these additions are not mentioned with regard to it. The meal offering of a sinner does not require them, as it is written: “He shall not put oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). With regard to the meal offering brought by a <i>sota</i>, it is similarly written: “He shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).",
            "<b>And</b> if one places oil or frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner or on the meal offering of jealousy brought by a <i>sota</i>, he is <b>liable</b> to be flogged <b>for</b> violating the prohibition against placing <b>the oil by itself, and</b> he is <b>liable</b> to be flogged <b>for</b> violating the prohibition against placing <b>the frankincense by itself,</b> as these are two separate prohibitions. If <b>one placed oil upon</b> the meal offering <b>he has disqualified it,</b> but if one placed <b>frankincense</b> upon the meal offering <b>he should gather</b> the frankincense and remove <b>it.</b> In this manner, the meal offering can be salvaged. Furthermore, one violates the prohibition only by placing oil on the meal offering prior to the removal of the handful; if <b>he placed oil on its remainder he does not violate a prohibition.</b> If <b>one placed a vessel</b> with oil <b>on top of a vessel</b> that contains a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering brought by a <i>sota</i> <b>he did not disqualify</b> the meal offering, as the oil was not placed on the meal offering itself.",
            "<b>There are</b> four categories of meal offerings: Those that <b>require bringing near,</b> a rite that requires the priests to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the southwest corner of the altar, <b>but do not require waving;</b> those that require both <b>bringing near and waving;</b> those that require <b>waving but not bringing near;</b> and those that require <b>neither waving nor bringing near.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>And these</b> are the meal offerings that <b>require bringing near but do not require waving: The fine-flour meal offering; the</b> meal offering prepared in <b>a pan; the</b> meal offering prepared in <b>a deep pan; the</b> meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of <b>loaves or</b> in the form of <b>wafers; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest; the meal offering of gentiles; a meal offering</b> brought <b>by women; and the meal offering of a sinner.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon says: The meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest do not require bringing</b> of the meal offering <b>near</b> to the altar, <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that there is no removal of a handful in their</b> sacrifice, <b>and</b> there is a principle that with regard to <b>any</b> meal offering <b>where there is no removal of a handful in their</b> sacrifice, <b>there is</b> also <b>no bringing near.</b>",
            "<b>These</b> are the items that <b>require waving and do not require bringing near</b> to the altar: <b>The <i>log</i> of oil</b> that accompanies the guilt offering <b>of</b> a recovered <b>leper and his guilt offering</b> itself, as it is written: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs and sacrifice it for a guilt offering, and the <i>log</i> of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12); <b>and the first fruits, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov; and the sacrificial portions of the peace offerings of an individual and their breast and thigh,</b> as it is written: “The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they bring with the offerings of the portions consumed by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:15). This requirement applies to peace offerings belonging <b>both</b> to <b>men and</b> to <b>women, by</b> male <b>Jews and not by others.</b> The Gemara will explain this seemingly contradictory statement on 61b. In addition, <b>the two loaves and</b> the accompanying peace offering of <b>two lambs</b> brought on <b><i>Shavuot</i></b> also do not require bringing near but do require waving, as it is written: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs” (Leviticus 23:20). <b>How does one perform</b> this waving? <b>He places the two loaves on top</b> of the <b>two lambs and places his two hands below</b> the loaves and the lambs, <b>extends</b> the offerings to each of the four directions <b>and brings</b> them <b>back,</b> then <b>raises and lowers</b> them, <b>as it is stated</b> with regard to the waving of the ram of the inauguration of the priests: <b>“Which is waved, and which is heaved up”</b> (Exodus 29:27); i.e., waved back and forth, and heaved up and down. <b>Waving was</b> able to be performed <b>to the east</b> of the altar, <b>but</b> the <b>bringing near</b> of meal offerings had to be done <b>to the west,</b> i.e., the southwest corner of the altar. Also, with regard to all meal offerings, <b>the wavings precede the</b> actions of <b>bringing near.</b> <b>The <i>omer</i> meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy</b> brought by a <i>sota</i> <b>require</b> both <b>bringing near and waving.</b> The meal offering of the <i>omer</i> requires waving, as it is written: “And he shall wave the <i>omer</i> before the Lord” (Leviticus 23:11), and likewise with regard to the meal offering brought by a <i>sota</i> it is written: “And the priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the meal offering before the Lord” (Numbers 5:25). The requirement of bringing near is derived as explained earlier. <b>The shewbread and the meal offering</b> brought with <b>libations require neither bringing near nor waving.</b>",
            "<b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> There are <b>three types</b> of offerings that <b>require</b> performance of <b>three mitzvot. Two</b> mitzvot are performed <b>on each and every one</b> of them, <b>but the third</b> mitzva <b>is not</b> performed <b>in their</b> sacrifice, meaning that each of these offerings requires two out of the same three mitzvot, but not necessarily the same two as the others. <b>And these are the</b> three offerings: <b>Peace offerings</b> brought as gift offerings by an <b>individual, communal peace offerings,</b> i.e., the two lambs brought with the two loaves on <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>and the guilt offering of a leper</b> (see Leviticus 14:12–14). <b>Peace offerings</b> brought by <b>individuals require placing hands</b> on the head of the animals while the animals are still <b>alive, and waving</b> when they are <b>slaughtered, but there is no</b> obligation of <b>waving them</b> while they are <b>alive. Communal peace offerings require waving</b> both while the animals are still <b>alive and</b> after they are <b>slaughtered, but there is no</b> obligation of <b>placing hands</b> on them. <b>And the guilt offering of a leper requires placing hands and waving</b> while the animal is still <b>alive, but there is no</b> obligation of <b>waving</b> it after it is <b>slaughtered.</b>",
            "<b>One who</b> takes a vow to bring a meal offering to the Temple and <b>says: It is</b> incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring a meal offering prepared <b>in a <i>maḥavat</i>, may not bring</b> one prepared <b>in a <i>marḥeshet</i>.</b> Similarly, if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared <b>in a <i>marḥeshet</i>, he may not bring</b> one prepared <b>in a <i>maḥavat</i>.</b> The mishna clarifies: <b>What is</b> the difference <b>between a <i>maḥavat</i> and a <i>marḥeshet</i>? A <i>marḥeshet</i> has a cover,</b> whereas <b>a <i>maḥavat</i> does not have a cover;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A <i>marḥeshet</i> is deep, and</b> due to the large amount of oil, <b>its product</b> is soft because it <b>moves about [<i>roḥashin</i>]</b> in the oil. <b>A <i>maḥavat</i></b> is flat, as the sides of the pan are <b>level</b> with the pan, <b>and</b> due to the small amount of oil, <b>its product is hard.</b>",
            "If one says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring a meal offering baked <b>in an oven, he may not bring</b> a meal offering <b>baked</b> on <b>a small oven [<i>kupaḥ</i>], nor a</b> meal offering <b>baked</b> on roofing <b>tiles, nor</b> a meal offering <b>baked</b> in the baking <b>pits</b> of <b>the Arabs. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> If he so <b>wishes,</b> he may <b>bring</b> a meal offering <b>baked</b> on <b>a <i>kupaḥ</i>.</b> If one says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a baked meal offering,</b> without specifying loaves or wafers, <b>he may not bring half</b> the required offering in the form of <b>loaves and</b> the other <b>half</b> in the form of <b>wafers;</b> rather, they must all be of one form or the other. <b>Rabbi Shimon deems</b> this <b>permitted, due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> both loaves and wafers are written with regard to this meal offering, which indicates that <b>it is one offering</b> of two possible forms."
        ],
        [
            "<b>And these are the meal offerings</b> from which <b>a handful is removed and</b> the <b>remainder</b> of the offering is eaten <b>by the priests: The meal offering of fine flour; and the</b> meal offering prepared in a <b>pan; and the</b> meal offering prepared in a <b>deep pan;</b> and <b>the</b> meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of <b>loaves; and the</b> meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of <b>wafers;</b> the <b>meal offering of gentiles; and</b> the <b>meal offering of women; and the <i>omer</i> meal offering,</b> i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; <b>and the meal offering of a sinner; and</b> the <b>meal offering of jealousy,</b> brought by a <i>sota</i>. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Although its remainder is not eaten by priests, as meal offerings of priests are burned in their entirety, as it is written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), nevertheless, with regard to the <b>meal offering of a sinner</b> brought <b>by</b> one of the <b>priests, a handful is removed. And the handful is sacrificed</b> on the altar <b>by itself, and</b> the <b>remainder is sacrificed</b> on the altar <b>by itself.</b>",
            "<b>The meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest,</b> i.e., the High Priest, <b>and the meal offering</b> brought with <b>libations</b> that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings are burned in their entirety <b>on the altar, and there is no</b> part <b>of them for the priests. And in</b> the case of those offerings, <b>the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests. The two loaves,</b> i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves baked from new wheat, <b>and the shewbread,</b> i.e., the twelve loaves that were placed on the sacred Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, <b>are eaten by the priests, and there is no part of them</b> burned <b>on the altar. And in</b> the case of those offerings, <b>the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar.</b>",
            "<b>All the meal offerings that are prepared in a vessel,</b> e.g., the offerings prepared in a pan or deep pan, <b>require three placements of oil,</b> listed here in the reverse order of their placement: <b>Pouring</b> oil on the cakes after they have been cooked, <b>and mixing</b> oil into the flour, <b>and placement of oil into the vessel prior to preparation</b> of the meal offerings. In the meal offerings that come as loaves, it is after the flour has been baked into <b>loaves</b> that one breaks them into pieces and <b>mixes them</b> with oil; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> It is with <b>fine flour</b> that one mixes the oil. Although <b>the loaves</b> of the meal offering baked in an oven <b>require mixing</b> of their flour with oil, <b>wafers</b> do not require mixing, but rather a <b>smearing</b> of oil on them after baking. <b>How does one smear</b> oil on <b>them?</b> He does so in a shape <b>similar</b> to the Greek letter <b>chi,</b> Χ, <b>and the rest</b> of the oil remaining after smearing is <b>eaten by priests.</b> ",
            "<b>All the meal offerings that are prepared in a vessel require breaking</b> into pieces. In breaking <b>the meal offering of an Israelite</b> into pieces, the priest <b>folds [<i>kofel</i>] one</b> into two <b>and two into four and separates</b> it at the folds. In breaking into pieces <b>the meal offering of priests,</b> the priest <b>folds one into two and two into four and does not separate</b> it at the folds. Because no handful is removed, separation is unnecessary. In the case of the griddle-cake <b>meal offering of the anointed priest, he would not fold it. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> In neither <b>the meal offering of priests nor the meal offering of the anointed priest is there breaking</b> into pieces, <b>because in</b> those meal offerings <b>there is no removal of a handful. And any</b> meal offering <b>in which there is no removal of a handful there is no breaking</b> into pieces. <b>And</b> in <b>all</b> meal offerings that are broken into pieces, the priest <b>breaks them</b> into <b>olive-bulk-</b>sized pieces.",
            "<b>All the meal offerings require rubbing three hundred</b> times <b>and striking five hundred</b> times with one’s fist or palm. <b>Rubbing and striking</b> are performed <b>on the wheat</b> kernels to remove their husks prior to grinding them into flour. <b>And Rabbi Yosei says:</b> They are performed <b>on the dough</b> to ensure a smooth product. <b>All of the meal offerings come</b> as <b>ten</b> loaves or <b>ten</b> wafers from each one tenth of an ephah of flour, <b>except for the shewbread and the griddle-cake</b> offering <b>of the High Priest, which come</b> as <b>twelve</b> loaves or wafers; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They all come</b> as <b>twelve</b> loaves <b>except for</b> the four types of <b>loaves</b> that accompany <b>the thanks offering and</b> the two types of loaves that accompany the peace offering of <b>naziriteship, which come</b> as <b>ten each.</b> ",
            "<b>The <i>omer</i> offering,</b> i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, <b>would come</b> from <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah of flour sifted <b>from three <i>se’a</i></b> of barley. <b>The two loaves</b> would come from <b>two-tenths</b> of an ephah of flour sifted <b>from three <i>se’a</i></b> of wheat. <b>The shewbread</b> would come from <b>twenty-four tenths</b> of an ephah of flour sifted <b>from twenty-four <i>se’a</i></b> of wheat.",
            "The flour of <b>the <i>omer</i> was sifted with thirteen sifters,</b> each finer than its predecessor, and the flour that emerged from the final sifter was sacrificed. The flour of <b>the two loaves</b> was sifted <b>with twelve</b> sifters, <b>and</b> the flour of <b>the shewbread</b> was sifted <b>with eleven</b> sifters. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: They have no fixed</b> number of sifters; <b>rather,</b> it was <b>fine flour</b> that was <b>completely sifted</b> that <b>one would bring</b> for all of these offerings, <b>as it is stated: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it”</b> (Leviticus 24:5), indicating that one does not fulfill his obligation <b>until</b> the flour <b>will be completely sifted.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "The flour for the loaves accompanying <b>the thanks offering would come</b> from a measure of <b>five Jerusalem <i>se’a</i> offering, which are</b> equivalent to <b>six wilderness</b> <i>se’a</i>. The <i>se’a</i> referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the <i>se’a</i> used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to <b>two ephahs,</b> each <b>ephah</b> being <b>three</b> wilderness <b><i>se’a</i>.</b> These two ephahs are <b>twenty</b> measures of <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah. <b>Ten</b> of these tenths were used <b>to</b> make <b>leavened</b> loaves <b>and ten</b> of these tenths were used <b>to</b> make unleavened loaves, i.e., <b><i>matza</i>.</b> The mishna elaborates: There are <b>ten</b> tenths <b>for the</b> loaves of <b>leavened bread, a tenth</b> of an ephah <b>per loaf. And</b> there are <b>ten</b> tenths <b>for the</b> loaves of <b><i>matza</i>. And among</b> the loaves of <b><i>matza</i></b> there are <b>three types: Loaves, wafers, and</b> those <b>poached in water,</b> ten loaves of each type. <b>Consequently,</b> there are <b>three-and-one-third tenths</b> of an ephah <b>for each and every type, three loaves per tenth</b> of an ephah. <b>And in the Jerusalem measure there were thirty <i>kav</i>, fifteen</b> <i>kav</i> <b>for</b> the loaves of <b>leavened bread and fifteen for</b> the loaves of <b><i>matza</i>.</b> The mishna elaborates: There are <b>fifteen</b> <i>kav</i> <b>for</b> the loaves of <b>leavened bread, one and one-half <i>kav</i> per loaf.</b> And there are <b>fifteen</b> <i>kav</i> <b>for</b> the loaves of <b><i>matza</i>. And among</b> the loaves of <b><i>matza</i></b> there are <b>three types: Loaves, wafers, and</b> those <b>poached in water. Consequently,</b> there are <b>five <i>kav</i> for each and every type, two loaves per <i>kav</i>.</b>",
            "The loaves that accompanied the ram of <b>the inauguration</b> of the Tabernacle <b>would come parallel to the</b> three types of <b><i>matza</i> that</b> accompany <b>the thanks offering: Loaves, wafers, and</b> loaves <b>poached</b> in water and made with oil (see Leviticus 8:26). The loaves of leavened bread that accompany the thanks offering were not brought with the ram of inauguration. The loaves that accompany the offering that the nazirite brings upon completion of his period of <b>naziriteship would come</b> with only <b>two parts</b> of the three types of <i>matza</i> that accompany the thanks offering, namely, <b>loaves and wafers, but there is no</b> <i>matza</i> <b>poached</b> in water (see Numbers 6:15). <b>Consequently,</b> the loaves of the offering of a nazirite are from <b>ten <i>kav</i></b> of fine flour according to the <b>Jerusalem</b> measure, as taught in the previous mishna that each type of the loaves of <i>matza</i> comes from five <i>kav</i> of flour, <b>which</b> equal <b>six-and-two-thirds tenths</b> of an ephah according to the wilderness measure, as each type of the loaves of <i>matza</i> comes from three-and-one-third tenths of an ephah. <b>From all</b> of the four types of loaves accompanying the thanks offering, <b>one takes one</b> loaf <b>from</b> each set of <b>ten as <i>teruma</i>,</b> to be given to a priest, <b>as it is stated: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a <i>teruma</i> unto the Lord;</b> to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given” (Leviticus 7:14). The verse is analyzed: <b>“One”</b> indicates <b>that one should not take a sliced</b> loaf; <b>“of each offering”</b> indicates <b>that all the offerings should be equal,</b> i.e., <b>that one should not take</b> a loaf <b>from</b> one type of <b>offering for another</b> type; <b>“to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given,” and the rest</b> of the loaves are <b>eaten by the owner.</b> ",
            " In the case of <b>one who slaughters the thanks offering</b> in its proper place <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>and</b> at that time <b>its</b> forty <b>loaves were outside the wall, the loaves were not consecrated.</b> Likewise, <b>if he slaughtered</b> the thanks offering <b>before the surface</b> of the loaves <b>formed a crust in the oven, and even</b> if the surface of all the loaves <b>formed a crust except for one of them, the loaves were not consecrated.</b> If one <b>slaughtered</b> the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time or outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> and the offering was rendered <i>piggul</i> or was disqualified, respectively, <b>the loaves were consecrated</b> and either rendered <i>piggul</i> or disqualified. If one <b>slaughtered</b> the thanks offering <b>and it was discovered</b> that it was <b>an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>], the loaves were not consecrated,</b> as the cause of the animal’s disqualification preceded its slaughter. If one <b>slaughtered</b> the thanks offering <b>and it was discovered</b> that it is <b>a blemished</b> animal that may not be sacrificed <i>ab initio</i> but if it ascended the altar it may be sacrificed, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> He has <b>consecrated</b> the loaves, since if the offering ascends the altar it is sacrificed. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> He has <b>not consecrated</b> the loaves, since it may not be sacrificed <i>ab initio</i>. If one <b>slaughtered</b> the thanks offering <b>not for its sake</b> but for the sake of another offering, <b>and likewise,</b> if one slaughtered <b>the ram of inauguration</b> not for its sake, <b>and likewise,</b> if one <b>slaughtered the</b> communal peace offering of <b>two sheep</b> that accompany the two loaves on <b><i>Shavuot</i> not for their sake, the loaves were not consecrated.</b> ",
            "In a case where <b>the libations</b> that accompany the offerings <b>were sanctified in</b> a service <b>vessel</b> when the animal was slaughtered <b>and the offering was discovered</b> to be <b>unfit, if there is another offering</b> that was slaughtered and requires libations, the libations <b>should be sacrificed with</b> that offering; <b>and if not, they should be disqualified by</b> being <b>left overnight,</b> and then burned. With regard to <b>the offspring</b> of an animal designated as <b>a thanks offering, or</b> an animal that is <b>its substitute;</b> or in a case where <b>one separated</b> an animal as <b>a thanks offering and it was lost and he separated another in its stead,</b> and the first animal was then found, in all three cases, the second animal, i.e., the offspring, the substitute, or the replacement, is sacrificed, but it <b>does not require</b> the bringing of accompanying <b>loaves.</b> This is <b>as it is stated:</b> “If he sacrifices it for a thanks offering, <b>then he shall sacrifice with the thanks offering</b> unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached” (Leviticus 7:12). The verse indicates that <b>the</b> initial <b>thanks offering requires loaves, but neither its offspring, nor its replacement, nor its substitute requires loaves.</b> ",
            "<b>One who says: It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a thanks offering, must bring it and its loaves from non-sacred</b> money in his possession and not second-tithe money. Since he said: It is incumbent upon me, bringing the offering is an obligation, and one may not fulfill an obligation with second-tithe money. If one said: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a thanks offering from non-sacred</b> money <b>and its loaves from</b> second-<b>tithe</b> money, <b>he must bring</b> the thanks offering <b>and its loaves from non-sacred</b> money. If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a thanks offering from</b> second-<b>tithe</b> money <b>and its loaves from non-sacred</b> money, <b>he may bring</b> it in that manner. Likewise, if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering <b>and its loaves from</b> second-<b>tithe</b> money, <b>he may bring</b> it in that manner. <b>And he may not bring</b> the loaves <b>from second-tithe wheat; rather,</b> he purchases the flour <b>with second-tithe money.</b>",
            "<b>From where</b> is it derived with regard to <b>one who says: It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a thanks offering, that he may bring</b> it <b>only from non-sacred</b> money? It is derived from a verse, as <b>the verse states: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd”</b> (Deuteronomy 16:2). The verse is difficult: <b>Doesn’t the Paschal offering come only from lambs and goats? If so, why does the verse state: “The flock and the herd”?</b> It is <b>to juxtapose all</b> offerings <b>that come from the flock and from the herd to</b> the <b>Paschal offering,</b> teaching that <b>just as</b> the <b>Paschal offering</b> is <b>a matter of obligation and comes only from non-sacred</b> money, <b>so too any matter of obligation comes only from non-sacred</b> money. <b>Therefore,</b> in the case of <b>one who says: It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a thanks offering,</b> or: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a peace offering, since</b> these offerings <b>come</b> as <b>an obligation</b> due to his vow, <b>they may be brought only from non-sacred</b> money. <b>And libations, in any case, may be brought only from non-sacred</b> money, and not from second-tithe money, because second-tithe money must be used to purchase items eaten by people, while libations are poured out next to the altar."
        ],
        [
            "<b>All communal and individual</b> meal <b>offerings</b> may <b>come from</b> produce grown in <b>Eretz</b> Yisrael <b>and from outside Eretz</b> Yisrael, <b>from the new</b> crop, i.e., the current year’s crop, <b>and from the old</b> crop from previous years. This is the <i>halakha</i> of all meal offerings <b>except for the <i>omer</i>,</b> i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, <b>and the two loaves,</b> i.e., the communal offering brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>as they come only from the new</b> crop <b>and from Eretz</b> Yisrael. <b>And all</b> meal offerings <b>come only from the optimal-</b>quality grain. <b>And which</b> places have the <b>optimal</b> grain <b>for them?</b> Fields in <b>Makhnis and Zateḥa</b> are the <b>primary [<i>alfa</i>]</b> source <b>for fine flour. Secondary to them</b> is <b>Aforayim in the valley.</b> A<b>ll the regions were valid</b> as the source of the grain<b>, but</b> it is <b>from here,</b> the primary and secondary places, that <b>they would bring</b> grain, because it was of optimal quality.",
            "Even when selecting grain for meal offerings from the locations mentioned in the previous mishna, <b>one may not bring</b> as a meal offering grain <b>from a fertilized field, nor from an irrigated field, nor from a field of trees,</b> as such fields do not produce grain of optimal quality. <b>But if</b> one <b>did bring</b> a meal offering of grain from such fields, it is <b>fit.</b> <b>How does one produce</b> optimal-quality grain? <b>He plows</b> the field during the <b>first year,</b> but he does not sow it, <b>and in the second year, he sows it seventy days before Passover, and</b> in that manner <b>it produces</b> grain that will provide <b>an abundance of fine,</b> high-quality, <b>flour.</b> <b>How does</b> the Temple treasurer <b>inspect</b> the flour to determine whether it is of sufficiently high quality? <b>The treasurer inserts his hand into</b> the flour. If, when he removes his hand, flour <b>powder covers it,</b> the flour is <b>unfit, until one sifts it</b> with a fine sifter, so that no powder will remain. <b>And if</b> the flour <b>became wormy,</b> it is <b>unfit</b> for use in a meal offering. ",
            "Olive trees in <b>Tekoa</b> are the <b>primary</b> source <b>of oil</b> to be used in meal offerings. <b>Abba Shaul says: Secondary to</b> Tekoa <b>is Regev on the</b> east <b>bank of the Jordan</b> River. <b>All the regions were valid</b> for oil to be brought from them, <b>but</b> it was <b>from here</b> that <b>they would bring</b> it. <b>One may not bring</b> a meal offering containing oil from olives taken <b>from a fertilized</b> olive <b>grove, nor</b> from olives taken <b>from an irrigated</b> olive <b>grove, nor</b> from olives taken <b>from</b> an olive grove where grain <b>was sown between</b> the trees. <b>But if one did bring</b> a meal offering containing oil from such groves, it is <b>valid. One may not bring</b> a meal offering containing oil from <b>unripe olives [<i>anpiktan</i>], but if one did bring</b> it, it is <b>not valid. One may not bring</b> a meal offering containing oil <b>from olives that were soaked in water, nor from pickled</b> olives, <b>nor from boiled</b> olives, <b>and</b> even if <b>one did bring</b> it, it is <b>not valid.</b>",
            "<b>There are three</b> harvests of <b>olives</b> each year, <b>and in each</b> of <b>them, three</b> different grades of <b>oils</b> are produced. How is <b>the first olive</b> harvest processed? <b>One picks</b> the ripe olives <b>at the top of the olive</b> tree, as those are the first to ripen, <b>and crushes</b> them in a mortar <b>and places</b> them <b>inside</b> the bottom of a wicker <b>basket</b> that has many small holes in it. The oil will then drip from the olives through those holes into a vessel placed underneath the basket. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> One positions the olives on the walls, <b>surrounding the basket.</b> This produces more refined oil, as the dregs stick to the walls of the basket. <b>This is the first</b> grade of oil produced from the first harvest. After the oil ceases to seep from the crushed olives, <b>one then presses down with</b> a wooden <b>beam</b> upon them, causing additional oil to flow from the basket into the vessel. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The excessive pressure produced by pressing down with a beam would cause some of the flesh of the olives to get mixed in with the oil, compromising its quality. Rather, one applies pressure <b>by</b> placing <b>stones</b> upon the olives. <b>This is the second</b> grade of oil. <b>One then ground</b> the olives with a millstone <b>and pressed down</b> with a beam on those olives to extract any remaining oil; <b>this is the third</b> grade of oil. <b>The first</b> grade is fit <b>for</b> kindling <b>the Candelabrum,</b> which requires: “Refined olive oil” (Leviticus 24:2), <b>and the rest</b> are fit <b>for</b> use in <b>meal offerings.</b> How is <b>the second</b> olive harvest processed? <b>One picks</b> the crop of olives that is accessible while one is standing <b>on the rooftop.</b> This was the second lot of olives to ripen. <b>And one crushes</b> it in a mortar <b>and places</b> those olives <b>into</b> a wicker <b>basket,</b> allowing the oil to drip through the holes into a vessel underneath. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> One positions the olives on the walls, <b>surrounding the basket. This</b> is the <b>first</b> grade of oil from the second harvest. <b>One</b> then <b>presses down</b> upon those olives <b>with</b> a wooden <b>beam,</b> thereby producing more oil. <b>And Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> One applies pressure only <b>by</b> placing <b>stones</b> upon them. <b>This</b> is the <b>second</b> grade of oil. <b>One then ground</b> the olives with a millstone <b>and pressed down</b> upon them with a beam, thereby extracting any remaining oil; <b>this</b> is the <b>third</b> grade of oil. <b>The first</b> grade is fit <b>for</b> kindling <b>the Candelabrum, and the rest</b> are fit <b>for</b> use in <b>meal offerings.</b> How is the <b>third</b> olive harvest processed? This harvest consists of all the olives that still remain on trees. <b>One packs it into a vat [<i>oteno</i>] in</b> the building that houses <b>the olive press [<i>beit habbad</i>]</b> where it remains <b>until it softens, and</b> then <b>one raises</b> it <b>up</b> to the roof <b>and dries it on the rooftop</b> to remove the foul-smelling liquid secreted from the olives while in the vat. Then, <b>one crushes</b> the olives in a mortar <b>and places</b> them <b>into</b> a wicker <b>basket,</b> allowing the oil to drip through the holes into a vessel underneath. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> One positions them on the walls, <b>surrounding the basket. This</b> is <b>the first</b> grade of oil. <b>One</b> then <b>presses down</b> on those olives <b>with</b> a wooden <b>beam,</b> thereby producing more oil. <b>And Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> One applies pressure only <b>by</b> placing <b>stones</b> upon them. <b>This</b> is the <b>second</b> grade of oil. <b>One would then grind</b> the olives with a millstone <b>and press down</b> upon them with a beam, thereby extracting any remaining oil; <b>this</b> is the <b>third</b> grade of oil. <b>The first</b> grade is fit <b>for</b> kindling <b>the Candelabrum, and the rest</b> are fit <b>for</b> use in <b>meal offerings.</b>",
            "Having enumerated the nine grades of oils in the previous mishna, this mishna proceeds to rank them by their quality: As for <b>the first</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the first</b> harvest, <b>there is none superior to it. The second</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the first</b> harvest <b>and the first</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the second</b> harvest are of <b>equal</b> quality; there is no reason to choose one over the other. <b>The third</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the first</b> harvest <b>and the second</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the second</b> harvest <b>and the first</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the third</b> harvest are of <b>equal</b> quality. <b>The third</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the second</b> harvest <b>and the second</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the third</b> harvest are of <b>equal</b> quality. As for <b>the third</b> grade of oil <b>that is</b> produced <b>from the third</b> harvest, <b>there is none inferior to it.</b> <b>Also,</b> with regard to <b>all the meal offerings, it was logical that they should require</b> the highest quality of <b>refined olive oil,</b> just like the Candelabrum. Because <b>if</b> the <b>Candelabrum, whose</b> oil <b>is not to be consumed</b> on the altar, <b>requires refined olive oil,</b> then <b>meal offerings, which</b> are <b>to be consumed</b> on the altar, <b>is it not logical that they should require refined olive oil?</b> To dispel this notion, <b>the verse states: “Refined pounded</b> olive oil <b>for illumination”</b> (Leviticus 24:2), which indicates that the high-quality, refined, pounded oil is required for the Candelabrum, <b>but there is no</b> need for <b>refined pounded</b> olive oil <b>for meal offerings.</b>",
            "<b>From where would they bring the wine</b> for libations? <b>Keduḥim and Attulin</b> are the <b>primary</b> sources <b>for wine. Secondary to them</b> is <b>Beit Rima and Beit Lavan,</b> located <b>in the mountain, and</b> the <b>village of Signa,</b> located <b>in the valley. All the regions were valid</b> sources for wine; <b>but</b> it was <b>from here,</b> i.e., the aforementioned locations, that <b>they would bring</b> the wine. <b>One may not bring</b> libations of wine that come <b>from a fertilized vineyard, or from an irrigated vineyard, or from</b> a vineyard in <b>which</b> grain <b>was sown between</b> the vines. <b>But if one did bring</b> a libation from such wine, it is <b>valid. One may not bring</b> libations from <b>sweet wine made from sun-dried grapes [<i>hilyasteyon</i>], but if one did bring</b> a libation from such wine, it is <b>valid. One may not bring</b> wine <b>aged</b> for one year; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi, <b>but the Rabbis deem it valid. One may not bring</b> libations from <b>sweet</b> wine, <b>nor</b> from wine produced from <b>smoked</b> grapes, <b>nor</b> libations <b>from boiled</b> wine, <b>and if one did bring</b> a libation from such wine, it is <b>not valid. And one may not bring</b> wine produced from <b>grapes suspended</b> on stakes or trees; <b>rather,</b> one brings it <b>from grapes at foot</b> height, i.e., that rest on the ground, which are superior-quality grapes, and from <b>vineyards that are cultivated,</b> i.e., where one hoes beneath the vines twice a year.",
            "<b>And</b> when producing wine for libations, <b>one should not collect</b> the wine <b>into large barrels,</b> as it causes the wine to spoil; <b>rather,</b> it should be placed <b>in small casks. And one does not fill up</b> the cask <b>until its mouth;</b> rather, one leaves some empty space <b>so that its fragrance will</b> collect there and <b>diffuse</b> when the lid is opened. <b>One should not bring</b> libations <b>from</b> wine that rests at the <b>mouth of</b> the cask <b>due to</b> <b>the flour-</b>like white scum that floats on the surface, <b>nor from</b> the wine at <b>bottom of</b> the cask <b>due to the sediment</b> that collects there. <b>Rather, one brings from</b> the wine in <b>its middle third.</b> <b>How does</b> the Temple treasurer <b>inspect</b> the wine to determine that it is from the middle of the cask? <b>The treasurer sits</b> alongside the cask <b>and</b> has <b>the</b> measuring <b>reed in his hand.</b> The spigot is opened and the wine begins to flow. When he sees that the wine emerging <b>draws</b> with it <b>chalk</b>-like scum <b>[<i>hagir</i>], he</b> immediately <b>knocks with the reed</b> to indicate that the spigot should be closed. <b>Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:</b> Wine <b>in which there is flour-</b>like white scum is <b>unfit</b> for libations, <b>as it is stated</b> with regard to animal offerings: <b>“Unblemished they shall be for you…and their meal offering</b> shall be fine flour mixed with <b>oil…unblemished they shall be for you, and their libations”</b> (Numbers 28:19–20, 31). This indicates that animal offerings, meal offerings, and libations must all be brought from flawless products. Therefore, the presence of flour-like white scum in wine renders it unfit."
        ],
        [
            "<b>Two</b> sizes of <b>measuring vessels for dry</b> substances <b>were</b> used <b>in the Temple</b> for measuring flour for the meal offerings. One held <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah <b>and</b> the other held <b>one-half of a tenth</b> of an ephah. <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> There were three measuring vessels; one that held <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah, another one that also held <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah, <b>and</b> a third one that held <b>one</b>-<b>half of a tenth</b> of an ephah. <b>What</b> purpose <b>did</b> the <b>tenth</b> of an ephah measuring vessel <b>serve?</b> It was the vessel <b>with which one would measure</b> flour <b>for all the meal offerings. One would not measure</b> the flour by using a measuring vessel of a size that held the entire volume of flour required at once, i.e., <b>neither with</b> a vessel of <b>three-</b>tenths of an ephah <b>for</b> the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of <b>a bull, nor with</b> a vessel of <b>two</b>-tenths of an ephah <b>for</b> the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice of <b>a ram. Rather, one measures</b> the flour for <b>them</b> by repeatedly using the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel to measure the required number of <b>tenths.</b> <b>What</b> purpose <b>did</b> the <b>one</b>-<b>half of a tenth</b> of an ephah measuring vessel <b>serve?</b> It was the vessel <b>with which one would measure</b> the flour for the <b>High Priest’s griddle-cake</b> offering. A tenth of an ephah was required each day; he sacrificed <b>half</b> of it <b>in the morning and</b> the other <b>half</b> of it <b>in the afternoon.</b>",
            "<b>There were seven measuring vessels for liquids in the Temple.</b> There was a vessel of one <b><i>hin</i>,</b> i.e., twelve <i>log</i>. Three vessels were used to measure the oil and wine for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. For a bull there was a vessel of <b>one</b>-<b>half of a <i>hin</i>,</b> i.e., six <i>log</i>; <b>and</b> for a ram there was one of <b>one-third of a <i>hin</i>,</b> i.e., four <i>log</i>; <b>and</b> for a lamb there was one of <b>one-quarter of a <i>hin</i>,</b> i.e., three <i>log</i>. In addition, there was a vessel that held one <b><i>log</i></b> to measure the oil for all standard meal offerings; <b>and</b> another one that held <b>one</b>-<b>half of a <i>log</i></b> for measuring the water used in the rite of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [<i>sota</i>] and also for the oil used in the loaves accompanying the thanks offering (see 88a); <b>and</b> another one that held <b>one-quarter of a <i>log</i></b> for measuring the water used in the purification of a leper and also for the oil used in the wafers and loaves that the nazirite brings on the day that his term of naziriteship ends. <b>Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says:</b> It was not necessary to have several vessels of different sizes; rather, <b>there were graduations [<i>shenatot</i>] on</b> the vessel that held one <b><i>hin</i></b> indicating that <b>until here</b> is the quantity needed <b>for the bull, and until here</b> is the quantity needed <b>for the ram,</b> and <b>until here</b> is the quantity needed <b>for the lamb.</b> <b>Rabbi Shimon says: There was no</b> vessel <b>there</b> in the Temple that held one <b><i>hin</i>, as what</b> purpose <b>could</b> a one<b>-hin</b> vessel <b>serve?</b> That volume of liquid was never used in an offering. <b>Rather, there was an additional measuring vessel of one and a half <i>log</i> there,</b> in the Temple, which completed the tally of seven vessels, <b>with which one would measure</b> the oil used <b>for the</b> griddle-cake <b>meal offering of the High Priest; one and a half <i>log</i></b> were used <b>in the morning and one and a half <i>log</i> in the afternoon.</b> ",
            "<b>What</b> purpose <b>did</b> the <b>quarter-</b><i>log</i> measuring vessel <b>serve?</b> It was used to measure <b>a quarter-</b><i>log</i> <b>of water for</b> the purification of <b>the leper, and a quarter-</b><i>log</i> <b>of oil for</b> the wafers and loaves that <b>the nazirite</b> brings on the day that his term of naziriteship ends. <b>What</b> purpose <b>did</b> the <b>half</b>-<i>log</i> measuring vessel <b>serve?</b> It was used to measure <b>a half-</b><i>log</i> <b>of water for</b> the rite of <b>the <i>sota</i> and a half-</b><i>log</i> <b>of oil for</b> the three types of loaves of <i>matza</i> accompanying <b>the thanks offering.</b> <b>And with</b> the vessel of one <b><i>log</i>, one would measure</b> the oil <b>for all the</b> standard <b>meal offerings.</b> Each tenth of an ephah of flour requires one <i>log</i> of oil. Accordingly, <b>even</b> if one brings <b>a meal offering of sixty tenths</b> of an ephah of flour, <b>one adds to it sixty <i>log</i></b> of oil. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> Each meal offering, irrespective of its volume, <b>even a meal offering of sixty tenths</b> of an ephah of flour, requires <b>only its</b> single <b><i>log</i></b> of oil, <b>as it is stated</b> with regard to the offering brought by a poor leper on the day of his purification: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil <b>for a meal offering, and a <i>log</i> of oil”</b> (Leviticus 14:21). The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a <i>log</i> of oil” teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one <i>log</i> of oil. The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. <b>Six</b> <i>log</i>, i.e., one<b>-</b>half of a <i>hin</i>, <b>for</b> those of <b>a bull; and four</b> <i>log</i>, i.e., one-third of a <i>hin</i>, <b>for</b> those of <b>a ram; and three</b> <i>log</i>, i.e., one-quarter of a <i>hin</i>, <b>for</b> those of <b>a lamb.</b> In addition, <b>three and a half</b> <i>log</i> of oil were required <b>for the Candelabrum,</b> as there were seven lamps and <b>a half-<i>log</i></b> was required <b>for each lamp.</b> ",
            "Many animal offerings are brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. These additions are collectively referred to as libations. <b>One may mix together the libations of bulls with the libations of rams;</b> the meal offerings may be mixed as they both share the same ratio of flour to oil, i.e., two <i>log</i> of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. Likewise, one may mix together <b>the libations of lambs with the libations of</b> other <b>lambs,</b> as the meal offerings both share the same ratio of three <i>log</i> of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. And one may mix together the libations <b>of</b> the offering of <b>an individual with</b> those <b>of a communal</b> offering. And one may mix together the libations <b>of</b> an offering brought on one <b>day with</b> those <b>of the day before,</b> if the meal offerings have the same ratio of oil to flour. <b>But one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or</b> the libations of <b>rams,</b> as the meal offerings have different ratios of oil to flour. <b>And</b> nevertheless, <b>if one intermingled</b> the flour and oil of <b>these</b> lamb offerings <b>by themselves and</b> the flour and oil of <b>these</b> bull or ram offerings <b>by themselves, and</b> only then <b>were they mixed together,</b> then they remain <b>fit</b> to be sacrificed. <b>If</b> they were mixed together <b>before</b> the oil and flour of each offering <b>were</b> independently <b>intermingled</b> to form the meal offering, then they are <b>disqualified.</b> With regard to <b>the lamb</b> offering <b>that comes with the <i>omer</i></b> meal offering, which is accompanied by another meal offering and a wine libation, <b>even though</b> the quantity of flour used in <b>its meal offering is doubled,</b> i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, <b>its</b> oil and wine <b>libations were not doubled;</b> rather, three <i>log</i> of oil and three <i>log</i> of wine were used, per the standard quantities used for a lamb. ",
            "<b>All measuring vessels that were in the Temple were</b> such that they held the volume that they measured when their contents were <b>heaped</b> above the rim, <b>except for</b> the measuring vessel used to measure the flour for the griddle-cake offering <b>of the High Priest, as its heaped</b> measure, i.e., the quantity of flour held by a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel when heaped, <b>was contained within its</b> walls when the flour was leveled with the rim. This was due to the fact that the measuring vessel for the griddle-cake offering was slightly larger than the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel. With regard to <b>measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows,</b> i.e., that which flows onto the outside of vessel’s walls, <b>are sacred, but</b> with regard to <b>measuring vessels for dry</b> substances, <b>their overflows are non-sacred.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva says</b> that the reason for this difference is that since the <b>measuring vessels for liquids</b> are themselves <b>sacred, therefore their overflows are sacred,</b> and since the <b>measuring vessels for dry</b> substances are <b>non-sacred, therefore their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Yosei says:</b> The difference is <b>not due to that</b> factor. <b>Rather,</b> it is <b>because the</b> overflow of <b>liquid</b> was originally inside the vessel, where it became consecrated, and <b>was</b> then <b>displaced,</b> whereas <b>the</b> overflow of <b>a dry</b> substance <b>was not displaced</b> from inside the vessel, so it had not become consecrated. ",
            "<b>All offerings,</b> whether <b>communal or individual, require libations,</b> i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation, <b>except for the firstborn</b> offering, <b>the</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offering, <b>the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering,</b> with which libations are not brought. <b>But</b> the exception to this exception is <b>that</b> the <b>sin offering of a leper and his guilt offering</b> do <b>require libations.</b> ",
            "For <b>all communal offerings there is no</b> mitzva of <b>placing hands</b> on the head of the offering, <b>except for the bull that comes</b> to atone <b>for</b> a community-wide violation of <b>any</b> one <b>of the mitzvot</b> that was perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, where the judges of the Sanhedrin are required to place their hands upon its head (see Leviticus 4:13–21); <b>and the scapegoat</b> brought on Yom Kippur, upon which the High Priest places his hands (see Leviticus, chapter 16). <b>Rabbi Shimon says: Also</b> in the case of the <b>goat</b> that comes to atone for a community-wide perpetration of <b>idol worship</b> that occurred due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, the judges of the Sanhedrin are required to place their hands upon its head (see Numbers 15:22–26). <b>All offerings of an individual require placing hands, except for the firstborn</b> offering, <b>the</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offering, <b>and the Paschal offering.</b> The mitzva of placing hands is performed by the owner of the offering. The mishna adds: <b>And</b> if the owner died, then <b>the heir</b> is regarded as the offering’s owner and so he <b>places</b> his <b>hands</b> on the offering <b>and brings</b> the accompanying <b>libations. And</b> furthermore, <b>he can substitute</b> a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred. ",
            "<b>Everyone</b> who brings an animal offering <b>places hands</b> upon its head, <b>except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile,</b> a Canaanite <b>slave, the agent</b> of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, <b>and a woman.</b> <b>And</b> the requirement of <b>placing hands is a non-essential mitzva;</b> therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement. The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning <b>on the head</b> of the offering <b>with two hands. And in the</b> same <b>location</b> in the Temple <b>that one places hands, one slaughters</b> the animal. <b>And immediately following</b> the rite of <b>placing hands,</b> the <b>slaughter</b> is performed. ",
            "There is an aspect of greater <b>stringency with regard to placing hands than</b> there is <b>with regard to waving, and</b> there is an aspect of greater stringency <b>with regard to waving than</b> there is <b>with regard to placing hands.</b> The stringency with regard to placing hands is <b>that</b> if several people are partners in bringing an offering, <b>one</b> of them <b>waves</b> the offering <b>on behalf of all the</b> other <b>partners, but one cannot</b> fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone <b>places hands on behalf of all the</b> other <b>partners;</b> rather, each member must place hands himself. <b>The stringency with regard to waving</b> is <b>that waving is practiced in</b> the cases of both <b>offerings of an individual,</b> e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, <b>and in</b> the cases of <b>communal offerings,</b> e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on <i>Shavuot</i>, which are waved together with the two loaves; and it is practiced both <b>in</b> the cases of offerings when they are <b>alive,</b> e.g., the guilt offering of a leper and the lambs of <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>and in</b> the cases of offerings after they are <b>slaughtered,</b> e.g., the breast and thigh. By contrast, placing hands is practiced with a live animal. A further stringency is that waving is practiced both <b>in</b> the case of <b>an item in which there is a living spirit,</b> i.e., an animal offering, <b>and in</b> the case of <b>an item in which there is not a living spirit,</b> e.g., the <i>omer</i> offering, the <i>sota</i> meal offering, and the loaves accompanying a thanks offering and the ram of the nazirite, whereas placing hands is only ever performed upon living beings."
        ],
        [
            "<b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> When the day of the sacrifice of the <b><i>omer</i></b> meal offering <b>would</b> occur <b>on Shabbat,</b> the labors performed that would otherwise be prohibited were kept to a minimum, and the one-tenth of an ephah of flour that was <b>brought</b> as an offering was processed <b>from three <i>se’a</i></b> of reaped barley. <b>And</b> if it occurred <b>during the week,</b> the flour was processed <b>from five</b> <i>se’a</i> of reaped barley. <b>And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and</b> during the <b>week,</b> the <i>omer</i> offering <b>would come from three</b> <i>se’a</i> of reaped barley. <b>Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat</b> the barley <b>was reaped by an individual and with one sickle and with one basket</b> into which the barley was placed; <b>and during the week,</b> it was reaped <b>by three</b> people <b>with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and</b> during the <b>week,</b> it was reaped <b>by three</b> people <b>with three baskets and with three sickles.</b>",
            "<b>The mitzva of the <i>omer</i> is to bring</b> the barley reaped for the meal offering <b>from</b> fields <b>proximate</b> to Jerusalem. If the barley <b>did not ripen</b> in <b>the</b> fields <b>proximate to Jerusalem, one brings it from any place</b> in Eretz Yisrael. There was <b>an incident where the <i>omer</i> came from Gaggot Tzerifin and</b> the wheat for <b>the two loaves</b> on <i>Shavuot</i> came <b>from the valley of Ein Sokher.</b>",
            "<b>How would they perform</b> the rite of the harvest of the <i>omer</i>? <b>Emissaries of the court</b> would <b>emerge on the eve of the festival</b> of Passover <b>and fashion</b> the stalks of barley into <b>sheaves while</b> the stalks were still <b>attached to the ground, so that it would be convenient to reap</b> them. The residents of <b>all the towns adjacent to</b> the site of the harvest <b>would assemble there, so that it would be harvested with great fanfare.</b> <b>Once it grew dark,</b> the court emissary <b>says to</b> those assembled: <b>Did the sun set?</b> The assembly <b>says</b> in response: <b>Yes.</b> The emissary repeats: <b>Did the sun set?</b> They again <b>say: Yes.</b> The court emissary next says to those assembled: Shall I reap the sheaves with <b>this sickle?</b> The assembly <b>says</b> in response: <b>Yes.</b> The emissary repeats: With <b>this sickle?</b> The assembly <b>says: Yes.</b> The court emissary then says to those assembled: Shall I place the gathered sheaves in <b>this basket?</b> The assembly <b>says</b> in response: <b>Yes.</b> The emissary repeats: In <b>this basket?</b> The assembly <b>says: Yes.</b> If the sixteenth of Nisan occurs <b>on Shabbat,</b> the court emissary <b>says to</b> the assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on <b>this Shabbat?</b> The assembly <b>says</b> in response: <b>Yes.</b> The emissary repeats: On <b>this Shabbat?</b> The assembly <b>says: Yes.</b> The court emissary says to those assembled: <b>Shall I cut</b> the sheaves? <b>And they say to him</b> in response: <b>Cut.</b> The emissary repeats: <b>Shall I cut</b> the sheaves? <b>And they say</b> to him: <b>Cut.</b> The emissary asks <b>three times with regard to each and every matter, and</b> the assembly <b>says to him: Yes, yes, yes.</b> The mishna asks: <b>Why do I</b> need those involved to publicize each stage of the rite <b>to that extent?</b> The mishna answers: It is <b>due to the Boethusians, as they</b> deny the validity of the Oral Law and <b>would say: There is no harvest of the <i>omer</i> at the conclusion of the</b> first <b>Festival</b> day of Passover unless it occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat. The publicity was to underscore that the sixteenth of Nisan was the proper time for the <i>omer</i> harvest.",
            "After <b>they harvested</b> the <i>omer</i> <b>and placed it in</b> the <b>baskets, they brought it to the</b> Temple <b>courtyard. And they would singe in</b> the <b>fire</b> the kernels of barley while they were still on the stalks, <b>in order to fulfill the mitzva of parched</b> grain, as it is written: “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” (Leviticus 2:14). This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> Prior to parching the kernels, they would remove them from the stalks by <b>beating</b> them <b>with</b> soft, moist <b>reeds and with cabbage stalks,</b> not with sticks, <b>so that</b> the kernels <b>would not be crushed.</b> <b>They</b> then <b>placed</b> the grain <b>into a hollow vessel [<i>le’abuv</i>], and</b> this <b>vessel was perforated so that the fire would take hold of</b> the grain <b>in its entirety.</b> After parching the kernels, <b>they</b> would <b>spread</b> the kernels <b>in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard and the wind would blow upon</b> the kernels, cooling and drying them. <b>They</b> then <b>placed</b> the kernels <b>in a mill</b> used <b>to</b> grind <b>grits,</b> so that the barley would not be ground so fine that the shell would be mixed with the grain. <b>And they produced from</b> the ground barley <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah of barley flour <b>that was sifted through thirteen sifters, and the rest is redeemed and</b> may be <b>eaten by any person. And</b> dough from this barley flour <b>is obligated in</b> the separation of <b><i>ḥalla</i>, and</b> the grain is <b>exempt from the</b> separation of <b>tithe. Rabbi Akiva deems</b> this flour <b>obligated in</b> having <b><i>ḥalla</i> and tithes</b> separated from it. After daybreak, the priest sacrificing the <i>omer</i> <b>came to the</b> sifted <b>tenth</b> of an ephah, <b>placed in</b> the vessel in his hand some of <b>its</b> <i>log</i> of <b>oil, and</b> placed <b>its frankincense</b> on the side of the vessel. He then <b>poured</b> some more oil from the <i>log</i> onto the high-quality flour <b>and mixed</b> them together, <b>waved and brought</b> the meal offering to the corner of the altar, and <b>removed the handful and burned</b> it on the altar. <b>And the rest</b> of the meal offering <b>is eaten by the priests.</b>",
            "<b>Once the <i>omer</i> was sacrificed</b> people would <b>emerge and find the marketplace of Jerusalem full of the flour</b> from the <b>parched grain</b> of the new crop that was permitted by the waving and the sacrifice of the <i>omer</i> offering. That filling of the marketplace with the new crop was performed <b>not with the approval of the Sages;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They would do</b> so <b>with the approval of the Sages.</b> <b>From</b> the moment <b>that the <i>omer</i></b> offering <b>was sacrificed,</b> the produce of the <b>new</b> crop <b>was permitted immediately.</b> For those <b>distant</b> from Jerusalem, the new crop <b>is permitted from midday and beyond. From</b> the time <b>that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of waving</b> the <i>omer</i>, the sixteenth of Nisan, <b>is entirely prohibited,</b> i.e., one may partake of the new crop only the next day. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn’t it forbidden by Torah law, as it is stated:</b> “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, <b>until this selfsame day,</b> until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14)? This means that the new crop is prohibited on the day of the waving unless permitted by sacrifice of the offering. <b>And</b> if so, <b>for what</b> reason is it <b>permitted</b> for those <b>distant</b> to eat the new crop <b>from midday and beyond,</b> when the Temple is standing? It is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that they know that the</b> members of the <b>court are not indolent in its</b> sacrifice, and certainly by midday the sacrifice of the <i>omer</i> offering has been completed.",
            "Sacrifice of <b>the <i>omer</i></b> offering <b>would permit</b> consumption of the new crop <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country</b> outside the Temple, <b>and the two loaves</b> offering would permit the sacrifice of the new crop <b>in the Temple. One may not bring meal offerings, or first fruits, or the meal offering</b> brought with libations accompanying <b>animal</b> offerings, from the new crop <b>prior to</b> the sacrifice of <b>the <i>omer</i>, and if he brought</b> them from the new crop they are <b>unfit.</b> After the <i>omer</i> but <b>prior to the two loaves one may not bring</b> these offerings from the new crop, but <b>if he brought</b> them from the new crop, they are <b>fit.</b>",
            "<b>Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye; these are obligated in</b> the separation of <b><i>ḥalla</i>, and</b> each <b>one</b> of them <b>joins together with the others</b>to constitute the measure that obligates one to separate <i>ḥalla</i>. <b>And they are prohibited</b> due to the prohibition of partaking <b>of</b> the <b>new</b> crop <b>prior to the Passover</b> Festival, <b>and</b> likewise it is prohibited <b>to reap</b> them <b>prior to the <i>omer</i></b> offering. <b>If</b> these grains <b>took root prior the <i>omer</i></b> offering, <b>the <i>omer</i> permits their</b> consumption; <b>and if not, they are prohibited until the next <i>omer</i> is brought</b> and sacrificed the following year. ",
            "Even before the <i>omer</i> offering is brought, <b>one may reap</b> a crop that grows in <b>an irrigated field in the valleys, but one may not arrange</b> the reaped stalks in <b>a pile. The residents of Jericho,</b> whose fields were categorized as irrigated fields in a valley, <b>reaped</b> the crops <b>with the approval of the Sages and arranged</b> the crops <b>in a pile without the approval of the Sages, but</b> the Sages <b>did not reprimand them. One may</b> reap crops in any field <b>for fodder</b> and <b>feed it to an animal. Rabbi Yehuda said: When</b> may one do so? <b>At a time when he begins</b> reaping <b>before</b> the crop reaches <b>one-third</b> of its potential growth. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: One may reap and feed</b> the crops to animals <b>even after they reached one-third</b> of their potential growth. ",
            "<b>And one may reap</b> crops prior to the <i>omer</i> <b>due to</b> potential damage to <b>saplings</b> growing alongside the crops; and <b>due to the place of mourning,</b> i.e., to create room for those consoling mourners, who would bless them upon their return from the cemetery; and <b>due to</b> the need to create room for students to study, as failure to do so would lead to <b>dereliction of</b> Torah study in <b>the study hall.</b> After reaping the crops for any of these reasons, <b>one may not fashion them</b> into <b>sheaves, but he leaves them unbound.</b> <b>The mitzva of the <i>omer</i></b> is for the barley <b>to come from standing grain.</b> If <b>one did not find</b> standing grain, <b>he brings from sheaves. Its mitzva is</b> for it <b>to come from</b> fresh, <b>moist</b> grain. If <b>one did not find</b> moist grain, <b>he brings from dry</b> grain. <b>Its mitzva is</b> for one <b>to reap</b> the grain <b>at night,</b> but if <b>it was reaped during the day,</b> it is <b>fit. And</b> reaping the grain for the <i>omer</i> <b>overrides Shabbat.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>The two loaves</b> that are brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> from the new wheat are each made from a tenth of an ephah of fine flour. They <b>are kneaded one</b> by <b>one and they are baked one</b> by <b>one,</b> i.e., each loaf is placed separately in the oven. <b>The</b> loaves of the <b>shewbread are kneaded one</b> by <b>one and baked two</b> by <b>two,</b> i.e., two loaves are placed in the oven at the same time. <b>And</b> the baker <b>would prepare</b> the shewbread <b>in a mold [<i>defus</i>]</b> when he made the dough. <b>When he removes</b> the shewbread from the oven <b>he</b> again <b>places</b> the loaves <b>in a mold so that their</b> shape <b>will not be ruined.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>both the two loaves and the shewbread, the kneading of their</b> dough <b>and the forming of their</b> loaves take place <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>but their baking</b> takes place <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard. <b>And their</b> preparation <b>does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: All of the procedures</b> involved in <b>their</b> preparation take place <b>inside</b> the courtyard. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> One <b>should always be accustomed to say</b> that <b>the two loaves and the shewbread are fit</b> if they were prepared <b>in the Temple courtyard and they are</b> also <b>fit</b> if they were prepared <b>in Beit Pagei,</b> outside the Temple Mount, as he maintains that they may be baked outside the Temple courtyard.",
            "With regard to the twelve loaves of the <b>High Priest’s griddle-cake</b> offering, of which six are offered in the morning and six in the evening, <b>their kneading, the forming of their</b> loaves, <b>and their baking</b> take place <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>and</b> all types of labor involved in those actions <b>override Shabbat.</b> These labors cannot be performed prior to Shabbat, as once the loaves are consecrated in a service vessel they are disqualified if they are left overnight. <b>Grinding their</b> flour <b>and sifting their</b> flour <b>do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat, but</b> one <b>that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat.</b>",
            "<b>All</b> preparatory procedures of <b>the meal offerings</b> that take place <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard, e.g., kneading and forming the High Priest’s griddle cakes, <b>involve</b> the <b>use</b> of a service <b>vessel</b> that consecrates the offerings. <b>But</b> any preparatory procedures that take place <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard, e.g., kneading and forming the two loaves and the shewbread, <b>do not involve</b> the <b>use</b> of a service <b>vessel.</b> With regard to <b>the two loaves, their length is seven handbreadths, their width is four handbreadths, and</b> they have hornlike <b>protrusions</b> made of dough that is attached to each of their corners, which are <b>four fingerbreadths</b> high. With regard to the loaves of <b>shewbread, their length is ten handbreadths, their width is five handbreadths, and</b> each loaf’s hornlike <b>protrusions</b> is <b>seven fingerbreadths</b> high. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The following letters are a mnemonic so <b>that you will not err</b> and forget the dimensions of the two loaves: <b><i>Zayin</i>, <i>dalet</i>, <i>dalet</i>.</b> The numerical value of the letter <i>zayin</i> is seven and the numerical value of the letter <i>dalet</i> is four. The mnemonic therefore represents the length of seven handbreadths, the width of four handbreadths, and the height of four fingerbreadths, respectively. The following letters are a mnemonic for the dimensions of the shewbread: <b><i>Yod</i>, <i>heh</i>, <i>zayin</i>,</b> which stand for the length of ten handbreadths, the width of five handbreadths, and the height of seven fingerbreadths, respectively. <b>Ben Zoma says</b> that it is written: <b>“And you shall set upon the Table shewbread [<i>leḥem panim</i>] before Me always”</b> (Exodus 25:30). The term <b><i>leḥem panim</i></b> indicates <b>that it should have</b> vertical <b>sides [<i>panim</i>]</b> rather than a rounded shape.",
            "As for <b>the Table, its length is ten</b> handbreadths <b>and its width is five</b> handbreadths, as the Torah states that the Table is two cubits long and one cubit wide (see Exodus 25:23), and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the cubit used as the unit of measurement for the construction of the Temple vessels was equal to five handbreadths. With regard to <b>the shewbread, its length is ten</b> handbreadths <b>and its width is five</b> handbreadths. The priest <b>places the length</b> of the two shewbread arrangements <b>across the width of</b> the <b>Table,</b> which leaves five handbreadths of each loaf protruding from the Table. <b>And he folds</b> the protruding <b>two and a half handbreadths</b> upward <b>on this</b> side of the Table, <b>and</b> the protruding <b>two and a half handbreadths</b> upward <b>on that</b> side of the Table. One <b>finds,</b> therefore, that <b>the length</b> of the shewbread <b>covers the width of the Table.</b> Similarly, since the width of each loaf is five handbreadths, the width of the two loaves filled the entire length of the Table. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> With regard to <b>the Table, its length is twelve</b> handbreadths <b>and its width is six</b> handbreadths, as the measure of a cubit used in the construction of the Temple vessels was equal to six handbreadths. Concerning <b>the shewbread, its length is ten</b> handbreadths <b>and its width is five</b> handbreadths. Rabbi Meir continues: The priest <b>places the length</b> of the shewbread <b>across the width of</b> the <b>Table,</b> which leaves four handbreadths of each loaf protruding from the Table. <b>He folds</b> the protruding <b>two handbreadths</b> upward <b>on this</b> side of the Table, <b>and</b> the protruding <b>two handbreadths</b> upward <b>on that</b> side of the Table. The width of the two arrangements of shewbread occupies only ten of the twelve handbreadths of the length of the Table, <b>and</b> this leaves <b>a space of two handbreadths in the middle,</b> between the two arrangements, <b>so that the wind will blow between them</b> and prevent the loaves from becoming moldy. <b>Abba Shaul says: There,</b> in the space between the two arrangements, the priests <b>would place</b> the <b>two bowls of frankincense that</b> accompany <b>the shewbread.</b> The Sages <b>said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And you shall place pure frankincense upon [<i>al</i>] each arrangement,</b> that it may be for the bread as a memorial part, an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 24:7)? The verse indicates that the frankincense is placed upon the shewbread and not next to it. Abba Shaul <b>said to</b> the Sages in response: <b>Isn’t it already stated: “And next to him [<i>alav</i>] shall be the tribe of Manasseh”</b> (Numbers 2:20)? Just as the preposition “<i>alav</i>” in this verse means that the tribe of Manasseh pitched camp next to the tribe of Ephraim and not upon it, so too, the preposition “<i>al</i>” means that the frankincense was placed next to the arrangements of the shewbread.",
            "The mishna continues to describe the shewbread Table: <b>And there were four panels of gold there,</b> which stood on the ground and rose above the height of the Table, and <b>they split up at their upper ends,</b> above the Table, so <b>that</b> the rods upon which the shewbread was placed could rest upon the panels. In this manner the panels <b>would support</b> the shewbread. There were <b>two</b> panels <b>for this arrangement and two</b> panels <b>for that arrangement, and</b> there were <b>twenty-eight rods,</b> each of which was shaped <b>like half of a hollow reed.</b> There were <b>fourteen</b> rods <b>for this arrangement and fourteen</b> rods <b>for that arrangement.</b> <b>Neither</b> the <b>arranging of</b> the <b>rods</b> for the new shewbread, <b>nor their removal</b> from the arrangement of the old shewbread, <b>overrides Shabbat. Rather,</b> a priest <b>enters</b> the Sanctuary <b>on Shabbat eve,</b> i.e., Friday before sundown, <b>and removes</b> each of the rods from between the loaves. <b>And</b> according to Rabbi Meir he then <b>places</b> each rod in the space between the two arrangements, <b>along the length of the Table.</b> Then, on Shabbat, he places the new shewbread on the Table without the rods, and he inserts the rods between the loaves at the conclusion of Shabbat. The mishna concludes: <b>All the vessels that were in the Temple,</b> including the Table, were placed so that <b>their length was</b> from east to west, <b>along the length of</b> the <b>Temple.</b>",
            "<b>There were two tables in the Entrance Hall, on the inside</b> of the Entrance Hall, next <b>to the entrance to the Temple,</b> i.e., next to the entrance to the Sanctuary. <b>One</b> was <b>of marble and one</b> was <b>of gold. On</b> the table <b>of marble,</b> the priests <b>place the</b> new <b>shewbread</b> that has been baked, <b>before its entrance</b> into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven and not spoil. <b>And</b> when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed <b>on</b> the table <b>of gold upon its exit</b> from the Sanctuary, where it remains until the frankincense is burned on the altar. The reason the shewbread is placed on a gold table when it is removed, rather than on a marble or silver table, is <b>that one elevates</b> to a higher level <b>in</b> matters of <b>sanctity and one does not downgrade.</b> Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a marble or silver table upon its removal. <b>And</b> there was <b>one</b> Table <b>of gold within</b> the Sanctuary, <b>upon which the shewbread</b> is <b>always</b> found. The mishna describes the manner in which it is ensured that the shewbread is constantly on the Table: <b>And four priests enter, two</b> with the <b>two arrangements</b> of the new shewbread <b>in their hands and two</b> with the <b>two bowls</b> of frankincense <b>in their hands. And four</b> priests <b>precede</b> them, entering the Sanctuary <b>before them, two to take</b> the <b>two arrangements</b> of the old shewbread from the Table, <b>and two to take</b> the <b>two bowls</b> of frankincense. <b>Those bringing</b> the new shewbread <b>into</b> the Sanctuary <b>stand in the north and their faces are to the south, and those removing</b> the old shewbread <b>stand in the south and their faces are to the north. These</b> priests <b>draw</b> the old shewbread from the Table <b>and those</b> priests <b>place</b> the new shewbread on the Table, <b>and for</b> each <b>handbreadth of this</b> old shewbread that is removed from the Table a <b>handbreadth of that</b> new shewbread is placed upon the Table, so that the Table is never without loaves upon it, <b>as it is stated:</b> “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread <b>before Me always”</b> (Exodus 25:30). <b>Rabbi Yosei says: Even</b> if <b>these</b> priests were to <b>remove</b> the shewbread from the Table entirely, <b>and</b> only afterward <b>those</b> priests were to <b>place</b> the new shewbread upon the Table, this <b>too would</b> fulfill the requirement that the shewbread <b>always</b> be on the Table. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the shewbread upon the Table, as long as it does not remain a single night without shewbread upon it. The mishna describes the manner in which the shewbread is distributed: The priests who carried the old shewbread loaves <b>came out</b> of the Sanctuary <b>and placed them on the table of gold that was in the Entrance Hall.</b> The priests then <b>burned</b> on the altar <b>the</b> frankincense that was in the <b>bowls. And the loaves were</b> subsequently <b>distributed to the priests.</b> This occurred on Shabbat, the day that the priestly watch that served in the Temple during the preceding week was replaced by the priestly watch that would serve during the following week. The shewbread was distributed to the priests of both watches. If <b>Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed at night,</b> at the conclusion of the fast, since they may not be eaten during the day. If Yom Kippur <b>occurs on Friday,</b> i.e., when the holy day begins on Thursday evening, <b>the goat</b> sin offering <b>of Yom Kippur is eaten</b> by the priests <b>at night,</b> i.e., on Friday night, as it may be eaten only on the day that it is sacrificed or during the following night, until midnight. <b>And</b> since there is no possibility of cooking the meat, as one may not cook on Yom Kippur or Shabbat, <b>the Babylonians,</b> i.e., priests who had emigrated from Babylonia, <b>eat it when it is raw, due to</b> the fact <b>that they are broad-minded</b> with regard to their food, i.e., they are not particular and will eat meat even when it is not cooked.",
            "If one <b>arranged the bread</b> on the Table <b>on Shabbat but</b> arranged <b>the bowls</b> of frankincense only <b>after Shabbat,</b> then if he subsequently <b>burned</b> the frankincense placed in <b>the bowls on the</b> following <b>Shabbat,</b> the loaves are <b>unfit</b> for consumption, since the frankincense had not been on the Table for the entire week. Since the burning of the frankincense did not render the loaves permitted for consumption, <b>one is not</b> ever <b>liable for</b> eating <b>them due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i></b> or <b><i>notar</i>, or</b> for partaking of the shewbread when one is <b>ritually impure.</b> One violates these prohibitions only if the frankincense is burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread. If one <b>arranged the bread and the bowls</b> of frankincense <b>on Shabbat but</b> then <b>burned</b> the frankincense that was in <b>the bowls after the</b> following <b>Shabbat,</b> that burning of the frankincense is <b>not valid</b> and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. <b>And</b> since the frankincense was not burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread, <b>one is not</b> ever <b>liable for</b> eating <b>them due to</b> violation of the prohibitions of <b><i>piggul</i></b> or <b><i>notar</i>, or</b> for partaking of the shewbread when one is <b>ritually impure.</b> If <b>one arranged the bread and the bowls</b> of frankincense <b>after Shabbat and burned</b> the frankincense that was in <b>the bowls on the</b> subsequent <b>Shabbat,</b> the burning of the frankincense is <b>not valid</b> and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. <b>How should</b> one <b>act</b> to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread and frankincense from the Table on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, <b>he should leave it</b> on the Table <b>until the following Shabbat,</b> so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, <b>as even</b> if <b>it is on the Table</b> for <b>many days</b> there is <b>nothing</b> wrong <b>with that,</b> i.e., it is not rendered unfit.",
            "<b>The two loaves</b> that are brought on <i>Shavuot</i> <b>are eaten</b> by the priests <b>no less than two</b> days <b>and no more than three</b> days after they were baked. <b>How so? They are</b> generally <b>baked on the eve of the festival</b> of <i>Shavuot</i> and <b>they are eaten on the</b> day of the <b>Festival,</b> which is <b>on the second</b> day. If <b>the Festival occurs after Shabbat,</b> on Sunday, the loaves are baked on Friday, in which case <b>they are eaten on the third</b> day. <b>The shewbread is eaten no less than nine</b> days <b>and no more than eleven</b> days after it is baked. <b>How so? It is</b> generally <b>baked on Shabbat eve and eaten on the</b> following <b>Shabbat,</b> which is <b>on the ninth</b> day. If <b>a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve</b> the shewbread is baked on the eve of the Festival, on Thursday, in which case <b>it is eaten on the tenth</b> day. If the <b>two festival days of Rosh HaShana</b> occur on Thursday and Friday, the shewbread is baked on Wednesday, in which case <b>it is eaten on the eleventh</b> day. <b>And</b> this is because the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread <b>overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy</b> High Priest: Their preparation <b>overrides a Festival but does not override</b> the <b>fast day</b> of Yom Kippur."
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>the</b> fine flour for <b>meal offerings or the</b> wine for <b>libations that became ritually impure,</b> as long as they <b>have not yet been consecrated in</b> a service <b>vessel</b> and assumed inherent sanctity, <b>their redemption</b> is possible. If they are redeemed, their sanctity will be transferred to the redemption money. <b>Once they have been consecrated in</b> a service <b>vessel</b> and have assumed inherent sanctity, <b>their redemption</b> is <b>no</b> longer possible, and they are burned like any other offerings that became ritually impure. With regard to consecrated <b>birds, wood</b> for the altar, <b>frankincense, and service vessels, once</b> they <b>became ritually impure they have no</b> possibility of <b>redemption, as redemption</b> of items consecrated for the altar <b>was stated only with regard to</b> a consecrated <b>animal</b> that developed a blemish, not with regard to other consecrated items.",
            "In the case of <b>one who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring a meal offering prepared <b>in</b> a shallow <b>pan, and he brought</b> a meal offering prepared <b>in a deep pan</b> instead; or if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared <b>in a deep pan, and he brought</b> a meal offering prepared <b>in</b> a shallow <b>pan</b> instead, the meal offering <b>that he brought, he brought</b> as a voluntary meal offering, <b>but he has not fulfilled his obligation</b> that he undertook with his vow and he must therefore bring another meal offering. If he said: <b>This</b> tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering <b>to bring in</b> a shallow <b>pan, and he brought</b> it prepared <b>in a deep pan</b> instead; or if he said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring <b>in a deep pan, and he brought</b> a meal offering prepared <b>in</b> a shallow <b>pan, this</b> offering <b>is not valid,</b> because he did not fulfill what he had stated concerning that tenth of an ephah of flour. In the case of <b>one who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me to bring</b> one meal offering of <b>two tenths</b> of an ephah <b>in one vessel, and he</b> divided it and <b>brought</b> it <b>in two vessels,</b> removing a handful from each; or if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenths of an ephah for two meal offerings <b>in two vessels, and he brought</b> one meal offering of two tenths of an ephah <b>in one vessel</b> and removed one handful from it, then the meal offering <b>that he brought, he brought</b> as a voluntary meal offering, <b>but he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b> If he says: <b>These</b> two tenths of an ephah before me are a meal offering <b>in one vessel, and he</b> divided them and <b>brought</b> them <b>in two vessels,</b> removing a handful from each; or if he says: These tenths of an ephah are two meal offerings <b>in two vessels, and he brought</b> them <b>in one vessel,</b> both of <b>these</b> offerings <b>are not valid,</b> because in both cases he deviated from the number of handfuls that he vowed to remove. In the case of one who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring a meal offering of <b>two tenths</b> of an ephah <b>in one vessel, and he</b> divided them and <b>brought</b> them <b>in two vessels,</b> and others <b>said to him: You vowed</b> to bring a meal offering <b>in one vessel,</b> then if <b>he sacrificed</b> the two tenths of an ephah <b>in two vessels</b> they are <b>not valid</b> even as voluntary meal offerings, and he must bring another meal offering to fulfill his obligation. His failure to respond and explain that it was not his intention to fulfill his vow with this offering indicates that he does intend to fulfill his vow with it. Since he deviated from his vow, the offering is not valid. If he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah <b>in one vessel</b> after he was reminded, it is <b>valid,</b> as he fulfilled his vow. Likewise, in a case where one says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring two meal offerings totaling <b>two tenths</b> of an ephah <b>in two vessels, and he brought</b> it all <b>in one vessel,</b> and others <b>said to him: You vowed</b> to bring meal offerings <b>in two vessels,</b> then if <b>he sacrificed</b> the two tenths of an ephah <b>in two vessels</b> as he had originally vowed, they are <b>valid.</b> If <b>he placed it</b> all <b>in one vessel,</b> its halakhic status is <b>like</b> that of <b>two meal offerings that were intermingled</b> prior to removal of the handfuls. Therefore, if one can remove a handful from each meal offering in and of itself, they are valid. If not, they are not valid, as the Gemara explained on 23a.",
            "<b>One who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a meal offering from barley, should bring</b> the meal offering <b>from wheat,</b> as voluntary meal offerings are brought exclusively from wheat. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from <b>flour, should bring</b> the meal offering from <b>fine flour,</b> as it is written: “His offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). If one vows to bring a meal offering <b>without oil and without frankincense, he should bring</b> it with <b>oil and frankincense,</b> as voluntary meal offerings require oil and frankincense. If one vows to bring as a meal offering <b>half a tenth</b> of an ephah, <b>he should bring a complete tenth</b> of an ephah, the minimum measure of a voluntary meal offering. If one vows to bring a meal offering of <b>a tenth and a half</b> an ephah, <b>he should bring two</b> tenths, as there are no partial tenths of an ephah brought in meal offerings. <b>Rabbi Shimon deems</b> one <b>exempt</b> from bringing a meal offering in all these cases. This is because the vow does not take effect, <b>as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge.</b>",
            "<b>A person</b> may <b>pledge a meal offering of sixty tenths</b> of an ephah of fine flour, <b>and bring</b> all sixty tenths <b>in one vessel. If he says: It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>sixty tenths</b> of an ephah, <b>he brings it in one vessel. If he says: It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>sixty-one</b> tenths of an ephah, <b>he brings sixty</b> tenths <b>in one vessel and one</b> tenth <b>in another vessel, as</b> the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that <b>the community brings</b> as meal offerings in one day is <b>on the first festival day of <i>Sukkot</i> when</b> it <b>occurs on Shabbat,</b> when <b>sixty-one</b> tenths of an ephah of fine flour are brought. It <b>is sufficient for an individual that</b> the maximum amount he can bring at once is <b>one</b> tenth of an ephah <b>less than</b> that of <b>the community.</b> When the first day of <i>Sukkot</i> occurs on Shabbat, thirteen bulls, two goats, and fourteen lambs are sacrificed as the additional offerings of <i>Sukkot</i>, two lambs are sacrificed as the daily offerings, and two lambs are sacrificed as the additional offering of Shabbat. Three tenths of an ephah are brought for each bull, two tenths for each goat, and a tenth for each lamb. Altogether, that is sixty-one tenths of an ephah. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on <i>Sukkot</i> that occurs on Shabbat? <b>Aren’t these</b> meal offerings <b>for bulls and those for lambs, and they are not mixed with each other</b> (see 89a)? <b>Rather,</b> the reason that one may not bring more than sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel is because <b>up to sixty</b> tenths of fine flour can <b>be mixed</b> with one <i>log</i> of oil. The Rabbis <b>said to him:</b> Is it so that <b>sixty</b> tenths of flour <b>can be mixed</b> with a <i>log</i> of oil, <b>but sixty-one</b> tenths <b>cannot be mixed?</b> Rabbi Shimon <b>said to them: All the measures of the Sages</b> are <b>so:</b> For example, <b>in</b> a ritual bath containing <b>forty <i>se’a</i></b> of water, <b>one immerses</b> for purification, <b>and in</b> a ritual bath with <b>forty <i>se’a</i> less</b> the small measure of <b>a <i>kortov</i>, one cannot immerse in it</b> for purification. <b>One does not pledge</b> a libation of one <b><i>log</i>, two</b> <i>log</i>, <b>or five</b> <i>log</i> of wine, because there are no existing libations with those measures of wine. <b>But one pledges</b> a libation of <b>three</b> <i>log</i>, which is the measure of wine brought with a lamb, <b>or four</b> <i>log</i>, which is the measure of wine brought with a ram, <b>or six</b> <i>log</i>, which is the measure of wine brought with a bull. <b>And</b> one may pledge a libation of <b>six</b> <i>log</i> <b>and beyond,</b> as any greater amount can be composed of combinations of these three. ",
            "<b>One may pledge</b> to bring independent libations of <b>wine, but one may not pledge oil</b> alone; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may pledge oil</b> as well. <b>Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes</b> as <b>an obligation and comes</b> as <b>a gift offering</b> independent of any offering, <b>so too,</b> we find <b>that oil comes</b> as <b>an obligation and comes</b> as <b>a gift</b> offering. <b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said</b> that this is true <b>with regard to wine, as</b> it is <b>sacrificed with its obligatory</b> offering <b>by itself, shall you</b> also <b>say</b> that this is also the case <b>with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory</b> offering <b>by itself but only</b> mixed with the flour? The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: <b>Two</b> people <b>do not pledge</b> a meal offering of <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah as partners, <b>but they may pledge a burnt offering and a peace offering. And</b> they may pledge to bring even <b>an individual bird,</b> not only a pair."
        ],
        [
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a tenth</b> of an ephah for a meal offering, <b>must bring</b> a meal offering of <b>one</b>-tenth. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>tenths</b> of an ephah, <b>he must bring two</b>-tenths, as that is the minimum plural amount. If he says: <b>I specified</b> several tenths of an ephah <b>but I do not know which</b> number <b>I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths,</b> as that is the maximum amount of a meal offering. The flour beyond the amount that he actually specified is rendered a voluntary meal offering. If one says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a meal offering, he may bring whichever</b> meal offering <b>that he wishes,</b> i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, the shallow-pan or deep-pan meal offering, or the meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: He must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the</b> most <b>notable of the meal offerings.</b>",
            "If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a meal offering, or:</b> It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a type of meal offering, he must bring one</b> meal offering. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>meal offerings, or:</b> It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>meal offerings of</b> a certain <b>type, he must bring two.</b> If he says: <b>I specified</b> a meal offering <b>but I do not know which</b> meal offering <b>I specified, he must bring all five</b> types of meal offerings. If one says: <b>I specified a meal offering of tenths</b> of an ephah <b>but I do not know how many</b> tenths <b>I specified, he must bring</b> a meal offering of <b>sixty-tenths</b> of an ephah. <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says:</b> His obligation is satisfied only when <b>he brings meal offerings of</b> all sizes, in increments of <b>tenths</b> of an ephah, ranging <b>from one</b>-tenth of an ephah <b>to sixty</b>-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs. He fulfills his vow with one of the meal offerings, and the rest are rendered voluntary meal offerings.",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate pieces of <b>wood</b> as fuel for the altar, <b>must</b> donate <b>no fewer than two logs.</b> One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>frankincense, must</b> bring <b>no less than a handful.</b> The mishna states tangentially: <b>There are five</b> <i>halakhot</i> pertaining to <b>handfuls. One who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring an offering of <b>frankincense, may not</b> bring <b>less than a handful. One who pledges</b> to bring <b>a meal offering must bring with it a handful of frankincense. One who</b> intentionally <b>offers up a handful</b> of a meal offering <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>liable</b> to receive excision from the World-to-Come [<i>karet</i>]. The <b>two bowls</b> of frankincense that accompany the shewbread are <b>required</b> to have <b>two handfuls</b> of frankincense.",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>gold</b> to the Temple treasury, <b>must</b> give <b>no less than a gold dinar.</b> One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>silver</b> to the Temple treasury, <b>must</b> give <b>no less than</b> the value of <b>a silver dinar.</b> One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>copper</b> to the Temple maintenance, <b>must</b> give <b>no less than</b> the value of <b>a silver <i>ma’a</i>.</b> One who says: <b>I specified</b> the amount of gold, silver, or copper, <b>but I do not know what I specified, must bring</b> the maximum amount of gold, silver, or copper, <b>until</b> it reaches an amount <b>where he says:</b> I am certain that <b>I did not intend to</b> donate <b>that</b> much.",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring a libation of <b>wine, must</b> bring <b>no less than three <i>log</i>,</b> as that is the minimum amount of wine brought as a libation accompanying an animal offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>oil, must</b> bring <b>no less than a <i>log</i>,</b> as the smallest meal offering includes one <i>log</i> of oil. <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says:</b> He must bring no less than <b>three <i>log</i>,</b> as that is the amount of oil in the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of a lamb, which is the smallest amount in any of the meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of an animal. One who says: <b>I specified</b> how many <i>log</i> I vowed to bring <b>but I do not know what</b> amount <b>I specified, must bring</b> an amount of oil <b>equivalent to</b> the amount brought on the <b>day</b> that the <b>largest</b> amount of oil is sacrificed in the Temple.",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a burnt offering, must bring a lamb,</b> which is the least expensive land animal sacrificed as an offering. <b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:</b> He may bring <b>either a dove or a pigeon,</b> as a bird burnt offering. One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering, and <b>I specified</b> that it would be <b>from the herd, but I do not know what</b> animal <b>I specified, must bring a bull and a male calf,</b> as a burnt offering is brought only from male animals. One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering and I specified that it would be <b>from the animals but I do not know what</b> animal <b>I specified, must bring a bull and a male calf, a ram, a large male goat, a small male goat, and a male lamb.</b> One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering, and <b>I specified</b> what type of burnt offering it would be, <b>but I do not know what I specified,</b> <b>adds a dove and a pigeon</b> to the previous list.",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a thanks offering and a peace offering, must bring a lamb,</b> which is the least expensive land animal sacrificed as an offering. One who says: I vowed to bring a peace offering <b>and I specified</b> that it would be <b>from the herd but I do not know what</b> animal <b>I specified, must bring a bull and a cow,</b> and <b>a male calf and a female calf.</b> One who says: I vowed to bring a burnt offering and specified that it would be <b>from the animals, but I do not know what</b> animal <b>I specified, must bring a bull and a cow, a male calf and a female calf, a ram and a ewe, a large,</b> i.e., adult, <b>male goat and a large female goat, a small,</b> i.e., young, <b>male goat and a small female goat,</b> and <b>a male lamb and a female lamb.</b>",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a bull</b> as a burnt offering or peace offering, <b>must bring</b> the bull, its accompanying meal offering, <b>and its libations, with</b> the total value of <b>one hundred dinars.</b> One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a calf, must bring</b> the calf, its accompanying meal offering, <b>and its libations, with</b> the total value of <b>five</b> <i>sela</i>, which equal twenty dinars. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a ram, must bring</b> the ram, its accompanying meal offering, <b>and its libations, with</b> the value of <b>two</b> <i>sela</i>, which equal eight dinars. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a lamb, must bring</b> the lamb, its accompanying meal offering, <b>and its libations, with</b> the value of one <b><i>sela</i>,</b> which equals four dinars. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a bull with</b> the value of <b>one hundred dinars</b> as a burnt offering or peace offering, <b>must bring</b> the bull <b>with</b> the value of <b>one hundred dinars excluding its</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations.</b> One who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a calf with</b> the value of <b>five</b> <i>sela</i> as a burnt offering or peace offering, <b>must bring</b> the calf <b>with</b> the value of <b>five</b> <i>sela</i> <b>excluding its</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations.</b> One who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a ram with</b> the value of <b>two</b> <i>sela</i> as a burnt offering or peace offering, <b>must bring</b> the ram <b>with</b> the value of <b>two</b> <i>sela</i> <b>excluding its</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations.</b> One who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a lamb with</b> the value of one <b><i>sela</i></b> as a burnt offering or peace offering, <b>must bring</b> the lamb <b>with</b> the value of one <b><i>sela</i> excluding its</b> accompanying meal offering and <b>libations.</b> If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a bull with</b> the value of <b>one hundred dinars</b> as a burnt offering or peace offering, <b>and he brought two</b> bulls <b>with</b> a combined value of <b>one hundred dinars,</b> he <b>has not fulfilled</b> his obligation. <b>And</b> that is the <i>halakha</i> <b>even</b> if <b>this</b> bull has the value <b>of one hundred dinars less one dinar and that</b> bull has the value <b>of one hundred dinars less one dinar.</b> If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a black</b> bull, <b>and he brought a white</b> bull; or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a white</b> bull, <b>and he brought a black</b> bull; or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a large</b> bull, <b>and he brought a small</b> bull, in all these cases <b>he has not fulfilled</b> his obligation. But if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring <b>a small</b> bull, <b>and he brought a large</b> bull, <b>he has fulfilled</b> his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says: He has not fulfilled</b> his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.",
            "With regard to one who said: <b>This bull is</b> hereby <b>a burnt offering, and</b> subsequently <b>it became blemished [<i>venista’ev</i>]</b> and was disqualified from sacrifice, he should redeem the bull and with that money purchase another bull as an offering in its stead. <b>If he wishes, he may bring two</b> bulls <b>with its</b> redemption <b>money</b> instead of one. If one says: <b>These two bulls are</b> hereby <b>a burnt offering, and</b> subsequently <b>they became blemished,</b> if <b>he wishes he may bring one</b> bull <b>with their</b> redemption <b>money. And Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>deems</b> this <b>prohibited,</b> and holds that he must bring two bulls. In a case where one said: <b>This ram is</b> hereby <b>a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its</b> redemption <b>money.</b> In a case where one said: <b>This lamb is</b> hereby <b>a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its</b> redemption <b>money. And Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>deems</b> it <b>prohibited</b> for one to bring one type of animal with redemption money from another type of animal. With regard to <b>one who says: One of my lambs is consecrated, or: One of my bulls is consecrated, and he has two</b> lambs or bulls, <b>the larger of them is consecrated.</b> If he has <b>three</b> lambs or bulls, <b>the middle-sized</b> animal <b>among them is consecrated.</b> If one says: <b>I specified</b> the lamb or bull that is to be consecrated <b>but I do not know what</b> animal <b>I specified</b> in my vow, <b>or</b> he says <b>that: My father said to me</b> before his death that he consecrated one of the lambs or the bulls, <b>but I do not know what</b> animal he consecrated, <b>the largest of them is consecrated.</b>",
            "One who says: <b>It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a burnt offering, must sacrifice it in the Temple</b> in Jerusalem. <b>And if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias</b> in Egypt, <b>he has not fulfilled</b> his obligation. One who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to bring <b>a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, must sacrifice it in the Temple</b> in Jerusalem, <b>but if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled</b> his obligation. <b>Rabbi Shimon says</b> that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, <b>it is not</b> consecrated as <b>a burnt offering;</b> such a statement does not consecrate the animal at all. If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite,</b> then when his term of naziriteship is completed <b>he must shave</b> the hair of his head and bring the requisite offerings <b>in the Temple</b> in Jerusalem; <b>and if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled</b> his obligation. If one says: <b>I am hereby a nazirite</b> provided <b>that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple</b> in Jerusalem; <b>but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled</b> his obligation. <b>Rabbi Shimon says</b> that one who says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, <b>is not a nazirite</b> at all, as his vow does not take effect. <b>The priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say,</b> if they served <b>for something else,</b> a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. <b>As it is stated: “Nevertheless the priests of the private altars did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat <i>matza</i> among their brethren”</b> (II Kings 23:9). The halakhic status of <b>these</b> priests is <b>like</b> that of <b>blemished</b> priests in that <b>they receive a share</b> in the distribution of the meat of the offerings <b>and partake</b> of that meat, <b>but they do not sacrifice</b> offerings or perform any of the sacrificial rites.",
            "<b>It is stated with regard to an animal burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing</b> to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), <b>and with regard to a bird burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing</b> to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:17), <b>and with regard to a meal offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing</b> to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2). The repetitive language employed concerning all of these different offerings is <b>to say to you</b> that <b>one who brings a substantial</b> offering <b>and one who brings a meager</b> offering have equal merit, <b>provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven.</b>"
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "William Davidson Edition - English",
            "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "משנה מנחות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}