diff --git "a/txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot/English/merged.txt" "b/txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot/English/merged.txt" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot/English/merged.txt" @@ -0,0 +1,807 @@ +English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot +ביאור אנגלי על משנה מנחות +merged +https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Menachot +This file contains merged sections from the following text versions: +-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp +-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/ + +English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot + +Introduction + +Tractate Menahot deals with the minhah, or meal-offering. The main passage that deals with this offering is in Leviticus 2, but I have included here several other passages in Leviticus that mention how the minhah was offered. +Leviticus 2 1When a person presents an offering of meal to the LORD, his offering shall be of choice flour; he shall pour oil upon it, lay frankincense on it, 2 and present it to Aaron's sons, the priests. The priest shall scoop out of it a handful of its choice flour and oil, as well as all of its frankincense; and this token portion he shall turn into smoke on the altar, as an offering by fire, of pleasing odor to the LORD. 3 And the remainder of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, a most holy portion from the LORD's offerings by fire. 4 When you present an offering of meal baked in the oven, it shall be of choice flour: unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, or unleavened wafers spread with oil. 5 If your offering is a meal offering on a griddle, it shall be of choice flour with oil mixed in, unleavened. 6 Break it into bits and pour oil on it; it is a meal offering. 7 If your offering is a meal offering in a pan, it shall be made of choice flour in oil. 8 When you present to the LORD a meal offering that is made in any of these ways, it shall be brought to the priest who shall take it up to the altar. 9 The priest shall remove the token portion from the meal offering and turn it into smoke on the altar as an offering by fire, of pleasing odor to the LORD. 10 And the remainder of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, a most holy portion from the LORD's offerings by fire. 11 No meal offering that you offer to the LORD shall be made with leaven, for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering by fire to the LORD. 12 You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of choice products; but they shall not be offered up on the altar for a pleasing odor. 13 You shall season your every offering of meal with salt; you shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with God; with all your offerings you must offer salt. +Leviticus 6 7 And this is the ritual of the meal offering: Aaron's sons shall present it before the LORD, in front of the altar. 8 A handful of the choice flour and oil of the meal offering shall be taken from it, with all the frankincense that is on the meal offering, and this token portion shall be turned into smoke on the altar as a pleasing odor to the LORD. 9 What is left of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons; it shall be eaten as unleavened cakes, in the sacred precinct; they shall eat it in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting. 10 It shall not be baked with leaven; I have given it as their portion from My offerings by fire; it is most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. 11 Only the males among Aaron's descendants may eat of it, as their due for all time throughout the ages from the LORD's offerings by fire. Anything that touches these shall become holy. +Leviticus 7 9 Further, any meal offering that is baked in an oven, and any that is prepared in a pan or on a griddle, shall belong to the priest who offers it. 10 But every other meal offering, with oil mixed in or dry, shall go to the sons of Aaron all alike. +Leviticus 2 lists minhahs that are brought as voluntary offerings. There are five such minhahs: 1) A minhah of choice flour (verses 1-3) 2 + 3) A minhah baked in the oven (verse 4). There are two kinds of such minhahs: loaves, and wafers. 4) A minhah cooked on a griddle (verses 5-6) 5) A minhah cooked in a pan (verse 7). +In addition there are several cases where the Torah mandates that a person bring a minhah: 1) As a sin-offering for a poor person (Leviticus 5: 11-13). 2) The minhah of a Sotah (Numbers 5:15). 3) The minhah of the anointed priest (Leviticus 6:13-16). 4) A minhah that accompanies one of the following: a) a voluntary olah or shelamim (Numbers 15:2-16); b) the Tamid and Musaf offerings (Numbers 28:5); c) the olah bullock (Numbers 15:24); d) the Nazirite’s sacrifices (Numbers 6:15); e) with the omer sacrifices or two loaves of bread (Leviticus 23:13, 18); f) the metzora’s (one afflicted with skin-disease) sacrifice (Leviticus 14:10); g) the minhah of the omer (Leviticus 2:14-16; 23:10-11); h) the two loaves of bread (Leviticus 23: 16-17); i) the showbread (Leviticus 24:5-9). +Tractate Menahot deals with the laws governing the various types of minhahs as well as other bread-type offerings, such as the loaves of thanksgiving. +For those of you who learned Zevahim, many of the laws here should be familiar. The thoughts and actions that invalidate animal and bird sacrifices also invalidate minhahs. This means that if the priest intends to eat the minhah at the wrong time it is “piggul,” and one who eats it is liable for karet, and if he intends to eat it in the wrong place it is disqualified. When it came to animal sacrifices there were four actions that had to be performed with the right intent: slaughtering, receiving the blood, carrying the blood to the altar and sprinkling it on the altar. With the minhah there are also four critical actions, but they are different: 1) Removing the handful. 2) Putting the handful in a vessel. 3) Carrying it to the altar. 4) Turning it into smoke on the altar. +We can see here that the two lists create a clear parallel between the fistful of the minhah that is put on the altar and the blood. Each is the critical part of the offering and it is what effects atonement (in an expiatory sacrifice). Good luck learning Menahot! + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy.
A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid.
How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah.
And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.
Today’s mishnah discusses minhahs that are offered by the priest with the intent of their being a different type of minhah from that which the person bringing them intended them to be. For instance a voluntary minhah is offered with the intent of its being a sinner’s minhah. There are two issues at stake: 1) Does the owner get credit for having brought the sacrifice? 2) Can the sacrifice be eaten?
The discerning reader will note that this mishnah is nearly identical to the mishnah that began Zevahim, and also to Zevahim 1:4. So consider this a great opportunity for some review!
Section one: If the priest removes the handful from the minhah in order to burn it on the altar, but he thinks that the minhah is a different type than what it really was supposed to be, for instance it was supposed to be a voluntary minhah and he thought it was a sinner’s minhah, the minhah is valid. This means that the fistful can be put on the altar and the remainder of the minhah can be eaten. However, it does not discharge the owner of his obligation and the owner will have to bring another in its stead.
There are two exceptions to this rule: the sinner’s minhah (Leviticus 5:11) and the minhah of jealousy, which is the minhah brought by the Sotah, a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:15). In both of these cases if the priest offering the minhah thinks that the minhah is something else, the minhah is disqualified and cannot be offered on the altar, and the remainder cannot be eaten.
Section two: When it comes to the sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy if any of the four critical actions, or even a part thereof, are done with the intent of the minhah being a different sacrifice, the minhah is invalid.
Sections three and four: If while performing one of the four actions the priest had the correct intent and then when performing a subsequent action he thought that the minhah was something else, it is disqualified. The same holds true in the reverse: if he makes a mistake during one of the first actions but then subsequently corrects himself and offers it with the correct intent, it is still disqualified. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to teach cases in which the minhah is invalid. +As for both a sinner’s minhah and any other minhah if [one of the following] removed the handful: a non-priest; or [a priest] that was an onen; or one who immersed himself during the day; or was not wearing the priestly vestments, or whose atonement was lacking; or who had not washed his hands and feet; or that was uncircumcised; or unclean; or was sitting, or standing upon vessels or upon a beast or upon another's feet, it is invalid. This section contains a list of cases in which a priest who removes the handful from the minhah renders it invalid. The same list appears in Zevahim 2:1, so I am basically replicating my commentary here: Non-priest: only priests can perform these activities. An onen: Someone who had one of their close relatives die is considered an onen on the day of the death. A tebul yom: This is the word for an impure person who has immersed in a mikveh but before the end of the day (before the sun sets after he was made pure). See Leviticus 22:7. One lacking [priestly] vestments: A regular priest must wear four garments and the high priest must wear eight garments (see Yoma 7:5). Without the proper attire, the minhah is invalid. One lacking sacrificial atonement: In certain cases, when one’s period of impurity is over he must bring a sacrifice. If the priest has not brought the required sacrifice, he cannot take part in the sacrificial worship. One who had not washed his hands and feet: See Exodus 30:19. An uncircumcised [priest]: See Ezekiel 44:9. An unclean [priest]: one must be ritually pure to offer sacrifices. One who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified: the sacrificial procedure must be performed while standing on the floor of the Temple’s courtyard, not sitting or standing on something else. +If [a priest] removed the handful with his left hand it is invalid. Ben Batera says: he may put [the handful] back and take it out again with the right hand. The handful should be removed with the right hand. According to the first opinion, if he removes it with his left hand the minhah is invalid, whereas Ben Batera holds that he may put the handful back into the remainder and take it out again with his right hand. +If on taking the handful there came into his hand a small stone or a grain of salt or a drop of frankincense it is invalid, for they have said: if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid. If when taking the handful the priest removes the correct amount, but then finds that something else was in the handful, a stone, salt or frankincense, it is invalid, because as we shall see, it turns out that he didn’t take enough. +What is meant by “too much? If he took an overflowing handful. The mishnah now explains the meaning of the statement, “if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid.” If he took a heaping handful and it was overflowing, then it is too much and the fistful is invalid. +And ‘too little’? If he took the handful with the tips of his fingers only. If he took it just with his fingertips, without using his palm, then it is similarly invalid, because it is not enough. +How should he do it? He should stretch out his fingers on to the palm of his hand. The proper way of taking out the fistful is for the priest to use his whole hand, with outstretched fingertips. This way he uses his palm and fingers. + +Mishnah 3 + +If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid.
One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet.
[One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.
This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.
How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.
This mishnah is nearly similar to Zevahim 2:2-5. It deals with various ways in which the minhah offering is disqualified.
Section one: The amount of oil put into a minhah offering is one log for every tenth of an ephah of flour. If he puts in too much or too little oil the minhah is invalid. The amount of frankincense is two karots. If he puts in too little frankincense, the minhah is invalid, but it is not invalidated if he puts in too much.
Sections two-five: These sections are taught nearly word for word in Zevahim 2:2-4, so I have not rewritten my entire commentary here. The one difference is that here the mishnah discusses the four actions relevant to the minhah: taking out the fistful, putting it in a vessel, bringing it to the altar and burning it there. These are parallel to the four main activities with animal and bird sacrifices. Also, the fistful and the frankincense are parallel to the blood and the innards of the animal, such that the remainder of the minhah is parallel to the flesh of the animal.
Everything else in this mishnah is already explained in Zevahim 2:2-4. + +Mishnah 4 + +How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time.
If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else;
Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth.
In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law
But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet.
[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet.
[If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.
This mishnah is nearly identical to Zevahim 2:4-5, with the exception that the actions here are relevant to a minhah whereas Zevahim discussed animal sacrifices. For commentary, see there. + +Chapter 2 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +In this mishnah, Rabbi Yose and the sages disagree concerning a case where a priest offered a minhah and had a disqualifying intention with regard to the accompanying frankincense. +If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. This is the same case that was mentioned in mishnah three of the previous chapter. Since he had a disqualifying intention with regard to either eating the remainder of the minhah or burning the handful that he removes in order to burn on the altar, everyone agrees that the offering is piggul (forbidden) and the penalty for eating it is karet (extirpation). This section is mentioned here to note that in this case Rabbi Yose agrees, but he will disagree below about a similar case. +[If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. The debate concerns a case where the priest’s disqualifying intention was in connection with burning the frankincense that accompanies the minhah. Rabbi Yose holds that the minhah is merely invalid it is not piggul and therefore one who eats it is not liable for karet. The sages disagree and hold that this minhah is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet, just as he would be if the disqualifying intention was with regard to eating the remainder or burning the fistful (section one). +They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah. In this section the rabbis argue out their position. As we have seen, the fistful of the minhah is parallel to the blood of an animal offering and the frankincense is parallel to the innards of the animal that are burned on the altar (the emurim). If one sacrifices the animal with the intention of burning the innards on the following day, the sacrifice is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. So too, one who sacrifices the minhah with the intention of burning the innards on the following day, the minhah is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. Rabbi Yose responds by pointing out the difference between the parts of the animal sacrifice and the components of the minhah. The three parts of the animal, the flesh, the blood and the innards, are all from the same source. When it comes to the minhah, the fistful and the remains are from the same source, but the frankincense is not. Therefore, with regard to disqualifying intentions, the minhah is treated differently from the frankincense. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +In this mishnah Rabbi Yose and the sages continue to debate cases where a priest has a disqualifying intention concerning one of the components of a sacrifice. The question is: does this cause the entire sacrifice to become piggul or just the part over which he had a disqualifying intention. +If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for karet for it. But the sages say, both are piggul and he is liable for karet for both of them. On Shavuot there are two lambs offered on behalf of the community, and with them are brought two loaves of bread. When the lambs are sacrificed the loaves become sanctified (see Leviticus 23:17, 19-20). In the case here, when sacrificing the lamb the priest has the intention to eat one of the two loaves after the proper time. On top of the showbread the priest puts two dishes of frankincense. When he burns this frankincense on Shabbat, the showbread can be eaten that day and the following night. In the case here, the priest intends to eat one of the two rows of the showbread the following day, after its time has expired. The debate concerning these two circumstances is similar to the debate in yesterday’s mishnah. According to Rabbi Yose, a disqualifying intention with regard to one of the component parts does not cause the entire sacrifice to become piggul. Thus the loaf which he intended to eat the next day is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other loaf is invalid, but it is not piggul. The same is true with regard to the two rows of bread; only the one which he intended to eat the next day is piggul. The rabbis are consistent with their position in the previous mishnah. If the priest intends to eat one part of the sacrifice after its time has expired, then the whole sacrifice is piggul and one who eats any part of it is liable for karet. +If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the showbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten. Since the previous section dealt with the two loaves and the two rows of showbread, the mishnah relates another law concerning these sacrifices. If one of the two things (either loaves or rows) becomes impure and thus cannot be eaten, Rabbi Judah says they both must be burned. A sacrifice of the congregation cannot be divided in two, and therefore neither can be eaten. The rabbis say that only the part that was actually impure cannot be eaten. The other part is still permitted. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with cases where a priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to one part of a multi-part sacrifice and whether this renders the entire sacrifice piggul and the one who eats it liable for karet. +The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. When one brings a todah (thanksgiving) offering, he brings with it unleavened cakes of bread (see Leviticus 7:12). If the priest intends to eat the todah after its time has expired, the bread is also rendered piggul. This is because the todah is the main part and the loaves are ancillary to it. However, if he intends to eat the loaves after their time has expired, then the loaves alone are piggul and the todah is not. The rule is that the main part can render that which is ancillary to it piggul, but the ancillary part cannot render the main part of the sacrifice piggul. +The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not. This is the same rule as above but applied to the lambs that are sacrificed on Shavuot and the loaves that accompany them (see yesterday’s mishnah). The lambs are the main part and the bread is ancillary. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah contains another example of the same rule found in yesterday’s mishnah. +The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. When one offers an animal sacrifice, he must bring with it libations. This includes a minhah and a wine-libation (see Numbers 15). Rabbi Meir holds that if the priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to the animal offering, the libations become piggul as well, as long as they have already been sanctified by being put into a ministering vessel. The sages’ opinion with regard to this issue is not found in this mishnah. In Zevahim 4:3 we learn that the sages hold that the libations that accompany an animal offering cannot ever become piggul. Therefore, even if the priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to the animal, the libations can still be eaten. +But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not. Since the libations are ancillary to the animal-offering, even if the priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to them, the animal-offering is not piggul. + +Mishnah 5 + +If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. As we have explained on several occasions, there are two elements that allow the remainder of the minhah offering to be eaten: the removal of the fistful and its burning on the altar and the burning of the frankincense. These are the two “mattirs” for the remainder. According to Rabbi Meir, if while burning either the handful or the frankincense he has the intention of eating the remainder after its time has expired, the remainder is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other sages disagree and say that in order for something to be piggul and for one to be liable for karet for eating it, he has to have a disqualifying intention while all of the mattirs are being burned, in this case both the handful and the frankincense. +The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. There is no frankincense offered with the sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy (that brought by the Sotah). Therefore, the sages agree that if he has a disqualifying intention when burning the handful, the remainder is piggul, because the handful is the only mattir. +If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. Again the mishnah makes reference to the two lambs slaughtered on Shavuot and the two bowls of frankincense which allow the showbread to be eaten. The lambs are the “mattir” for the bread that is brought with them on Shavuot and the frankincense is the “mattir” for the showbread. Rabbi Meir holds that if the priest intends to eat the Shavuot bread after its time while sacrificing even one of the two lambs or intends to eat the showbread after its time while burning even one of the two bowls of frankincense, the bread is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other sages disagree because the bread can’t be piggul unless all of the mattirs (both lambs or both bowls) are offered with a disqualifying intention. +If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. Having a disqualifying intention with regard to one of the lambs brought on Shavuot does not affect the status of the other lamb. One lamb is not a “mattir” for the other. +If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid. If while slaughtering one of the lambs one has a disqualifying intention with regard to the other lamb, neither lamb is affected. He did not have the wrong intention with regard to the lamb he was actually sacrificing, so it is not affected. And while he did have a wrong intention with regard to the other lamb, he wasn’t actually slaughtering the other lamb when he had that intention. + +Chapter 3 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with various cases where the disqualifying intention does not cause the sacrifice to be invalid. The same mishnah concerning animal sacrifices appeared in Zevahim 3:3. +If he took the handful from the minhah intending to eat [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to burn, the offering is valid. But Rabbi Eliezer says it is invalid. Normally, having an intention to eat or burn something outside of the place or time it should be eaten or burned will invalidate the minhah. However, here he intends to burn or eat something that is not normally burned or eaten. Therefore, this improper intention does not render the sacrifice invalid. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that an improper intention even concerning that which is not normally eaten or burned will still render the sacrifice invalid. +If he intended to eat less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to eat, or to burn less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to burn, the offering is valid. Here his improper intention was to do the action with less than an olive’s worth of the minhah, and therefore the minhah is still valid. +If he intended to eat a half of an olive's worth and to burn a half of an olive’s worth, the offering is valid, for eating and burning cannot be reckoned together. As we learned in 1:4, improper intentions with regard to eating a minhah and burning the fistful taken out of it do not join together to add up to the requisite olive’s worth. Therefore, the minhah is still valid. + +Mishnah 2 + +If he did not pour in [the oil], or if he did not mix it, or if he did not break up [the minhah] into pieces, or if he did not salt it, or wave it, or if he did not draw it near, or if he broke it up into large pieces, or if he did not anoint it [with oil], it is valid. This section deals with a case where the priest preparing the minhah did not prepare it in the precisely correct way. With regard to each case I will first explain the correct way to prepare the minhah and then note what he did wrong. He brings a tenth [of an ephah] of flour and a log (a measure) of oil. He puts a little bit of the oil into a vessel and then he puts the flour on top of it and then he pours the rest of the oil on top and mixes it together. If he didn’t pour the oil on afterwards, but rather poured it all into the vessel before he put the flour in, the minhah is still valid. Similarly, if he didn’t mix it up, it is still valid. After having been mixed up, certain minhahs are kneaded in water and then baked in either a shallow or a deep pan. He would then make ten loaves. After the loaves have been baked, he breaks the loaves up into pieces, each about the size of an olive. If he doesn’t break the loaves up or he breaks them up into large pieces, the minhah is still valid. Before a minhah is burned on the altar, the priest salts it. If he doesn’t salt the minhah and only salts the handful, it is still valid (this is how some commentators understand the mishnah, because if the handful is not salted, it is invalid). Some minhah offerings, such as the minhah of jealousy, are waved before they are burned. If they are not waved, they are still valid. The minhah is brought to the altar before it is eaten. If it is not brought there, it is still valid (we will learn more about this in 5:5-6). Certain minhahs, specifically those made into wafers, are not mixed with oil before they are cooked, but rather afterwards. If he doesn’t anoint these minhah “wafers” they are still valid. +If the handful of one minhah was mixed with the handful of another, or with a priest’s minhah, or with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest, or with the minhah offered with the libations, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if [it was mixed] with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest or with the minhah offered with libations, it is invalid, for since the consistency of the one is thick and the consistency of the other is thin, each absorbs from the other. This section deals with various minhah offerings whose handfuls are mixed up with one another. According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter which handful is mixed up with which handful, they all remain valid and they can all be put on the altar. Rabbi Judah says that if the handful from a regular Israelite minhah gets mixed up with the handful from either the minhah of the high priest or the minhah of libations then the mixture cannot be offered because the consistency of these minhahs is different. The minhah of the high priest and the minhah of libations have three logs of oil per tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas the regular Israelite minhah has only one log per tenth of flour. If they are mixed together the Israelite minhah will absorb from the other minhahs and its mixture will become thinner, and the mixture of the high priest’s minhah or minhah of libations will become thicker. In other words, they will become of uniform viscosity, and neither of them will stay as they are required to be. + +Mishnah 3 + +Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid.
If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation.
If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation.
If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable,
But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable.
For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.
Section one: In order for the minhah to be validated, the handful must be removed. So if two minhahs are mixed in together and neither has their handful removed, each minhah will be permitted only if he can definitely remove a handful from each minhah, and he can tell that this handful comes from only one minhah. If it is impossible to tell which minhah is which, then neither is valid because he can’t tell whether he has removed a handful from each.
Section two: Here a handful from one minhah is mixed in with another minhah from which the handful has not been removed. He should not burn this entire mixture because only the handful is supposed to be burned, not the remainder of the minhah offering. He also cannot remove two handfuls because in each handful there may be flour from the other minhah.
However, if he does burn the entire mixture the minhah which had the handful removed counts as fulfilling the obligation of its owners because its handful was properly burned. The other minhah does not fulfill the owner’s obligation because it was completely burned and only the handful should have been burned. + +Mishnah 4 + +If the remainder of the minhah became unclean or was burnt or lost: According to the rule of Rabbi Eliezer it is valid [to burn the fistful], But according to the rule of Rabbi Joshua it is invalid. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the remainder became unclean, was burnt or lost, the handful can still be burned on the altar. However, Rabbi Joshua holds that if the remainder is no longer there or is no longer pure, then the fistful cannot be burned. +If [he did] not [put the fistful] into a ministering vessel it is invalid; But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. The fistful must be put into a ministering vessel before it is burned. If it is not, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. +If he burnt the handful twice, it is valid. If he divided the fistful into two and burned each half separately, it is still valid. + +Mishnah 5 + +Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.
Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.
This mishnah begins a series of mishnayot that continues through the fourth mishnah of the next chapter. In this series we learn that the absence of certain things prevents the fulfillment of a mitzvah.
In the first four sections of today’s mishnah we learn that if any of the following components of the minhah are missing even the smallest amount, then the whole is invalid: the handful removed from the minhah, the tenth of flour that constitutes the minhah, and the wine and oil libations that accompany the minhah.
In section five we learn that without the oil one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of offering the flour and vice versa. And in section six we learn that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of burning the handful without also burning the frankincense and vice versa.
The words of the mishnah themselves are straightforward, so you won’t find any additional commentary below. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to provide cases where the absence of one element of a mitzvah prevents the entire mitzvah from being fulfilled. +Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. On Yom Kippur two male goats are brought, one is sacrificed and one is sent to Azazel. The absence of one goat prevents the fulfillment of any mitzvah with the other goat. +Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. On Shavuot two lambs are brought, accompanied by two loaves of bread. If one of the lambs is missing, it prevents one from fulfilling any mitzvah with the other lamb. Similarly, with regard to the loaves. +Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. The showbread consisted of two rows of six loaves. On each row was placed a dish of frankincense. The absence of one of the rows or one of the dishes prevents the fulfillment of the other. And, the absence of the rows prevents one from being able to fulfill the mitzvah of the frankincense, and vice versa, the absence of the dishes prevents the fulfillment of the mitzvah of the showbread. +Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. The mishnah now lists a series of mitzvoth that have multiple components, the absence of which prevents the fulfillment of the others. I shall give biblical references for each: Two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite: loaves of matzah and wafers of matzah, see Numbers 6:15. The three kinds used for the red cow: cedar wood, hyssop and crimson thread, see Numbers 19:6. The four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah: loaves of matzah, wafers of matzah, boiled flour, and hametz, see Leviticus 7:12. The four kinds [of species] used for the lulav: palm, myrtle, willow and etrog, see Leviticus 23:40. And the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper: two birds, cedar wood, hyssop and crimson thread, see Leviticus 14:4. +Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. During the red cow purification ceremony, they sprinkle its blood seven times (see Numbers 19:4). If one of these sprinklings is not done, the entire ceremony is invalid. +Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. On Yom Kippur the blood is sprinkled seven times between the staves of the ark, seven times on the curtain and seven times on the golden altar (see Leviticus 16:14-15). If even one of these is not done, they are all invalid. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +The mishnah continues to list mitzvoth in which the absence of one element disqualifies the fulfillment of the entire mitzvah. The mishnah is quite simple to understand. Below I have mostly provided biblical references. +Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Exodus 25:31-32. +Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. The “lamps” refers to the cups that held the oil and the wicks. +Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. The two portions are Deuteronomy 6:4-9, the Shema, and Deuteronomy 11:13-21, Vehaya im Shamoa. If even one letter is missing or not written correctly, the mezuzah is invalid. +Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. The four portions are: the two portions that are in the mezuzah and Exodus 13:1-10 and Exodus 13:11-16. +Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot. Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12. According to the first opinion, if one corner of the garment does not have tzitzit, then the mitzvah has not been fulfilled. Rabbi Ishmael holds that each corner is its own mitzvah and therefore if one is missing he has fulfilled his mitzvah. + +Chapter 4 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +In this mishnah we learn of cases where the absence of a part of a certain mitzvah does not prevent the fulfillment of the whole mitzvah. +The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. Tzitzit consist of white and blue strands (Numbers 15:38). If one makes tzitzit with only white or only blue strands, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. Today most people wear tzitzit with only white threads because for many years rabbis did not know how to make the blue threads. However, recently people re-discovered how the blue threads were made. Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly more common to see people with tzitzit made of blue and white. +The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. Tefillin are worn on the head and arm. These are two separate mitzvoth, so if a person wears one and not the other, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of wearing that particular piece of tefillin. +The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. A minhah that is accompanied by libations comes with three elements: flour, oil and wine. If one offers one or two of these elements, but not the others, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of that which he offered. +The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest. Some sacrifices require the blood of the animal to be sprinkled on the outer altar, either four times or twice (see Zevahim 5:3-7). If he omits one of the sprinklings he has still fulfilled the mitzvah (see Zevahim 4:1). + +Mishnah 2 + +The [absence of either the] bullocks or the rams or the lambs does not invalidate the others. On Rosh Hodesh and festivals, bullocks, rams and lambs are offered, together with “drink-offerings” consisting of wine, flour and oil (see Numbers 28:11ff and Leviticus 23:18). If the community does not bring all of these, they can still fulfill the mitzvah of the offerings that they do bring. +Rabbi Shimon says: if they had [money enough to buy] many bullocks but not [enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings. Rabbi Shimon points out that it is preferable to bring one bullock with its drink-offerings than to bring more animals without drink-offerings. It seems that the drink-offerings, according to Rabbi Shimon, complete the sacrifice and therefore it is better to bring one completed sacrifice than multiple partial sacrifices. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with the sacrifices offered on Shavuot, and the absence of which sacrifices prevent the fulfillment of the other sacrifices. +I have brought here the relevant verses, Leviticus 23:17-20, for ease of reference: +17 You shall bring from your settlements two loaves of bread as an elevation offering; each shall be made of two-tenths of a measure of choice flour, baked after leavening, as first fruits to the LORD. +8 With the bread you shall present, as burnt offerings to the LORD, seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams, with their meal offerings and libations, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the LORD. +19 You shall also offer one he-goat as a sin offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. +20 The priest shall elevate these -- the two lambs -- together with the bread of first fruits as an elevation offering before the LORD; they shall be holy to the LORD, for the priest. +The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The absence of one of the sacrifices mentioned in verse 18, does not invalidate the bread mentioned in verses 17 and 20, neither does the absence of the bread invalidate them. They are separate sacrifices, each their own mitzvah. +The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. The two lambs mentioned in verses 19 and 20 are elevated (lifted up) with the bread. The bread and these lambs seem to go together. Rabbi Akiva holds that without the bread, the lambs are invalidated. However, since the bread is mentioned alone in verse 17, it is its own offering, and therefore, even if he doesn’t offer the lambs, the bread is still valid. +Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas holds an opposite opinion. Without the lambs, the bread cannot be offered, but without the bread, the lambs can still be offered. The reason is that when the Israelites were in the desert, they could not offer the bread, because the bread offering must come from grain grown in the land of Israel, as it says in verse 17, “from your settlements.” Since there is a precedent for offering lambs without bread, even after the Temple was built, the lambs could be offered without the bread. +Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Rabbi Shimon says that the halakhah is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, that without the lambs the bread cannot be offered but the lambs can be offered without the bread. However, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Ben Nanas’s reason. Rabbi Shimon holds that all offerings mentioned in Leviticus were not offered at all in the desert. So there is no precedent for offering the lambs without the bread. Only the offerings mentioned in Numbers 28:27ff. were offered in the desert. +Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible. Now Rabbi Shimon must explain why he agrees with the halakhah stated by Ben Nanas. The lambs can be offered without the bread, because burning the lambs’ innards allows the lambs to be eaten by the priests. In other words, we have a ritual that renders the lambs themselves permissible. In contrast, there is nothing that permits the bread to be eaten, except the sacrifice of the lambs. Therefore, without the lambs, the bread cannot be offered. + +Mishnah 4 + +The [absence of the] daily offerings ( does not invalidate the additional offerings (, neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Every day there are two daily offerings, called the “tamidin” one in the morning and one towards evening. On holidays and Shabbat there are additional offerings, called “musafin” (this is where the word musaf of the musaf service comes from). These sacrifices do not affect one another, so if one of them is not offered for whatever reason, the others can still be offered validly. +Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. The mishnah now deals with the two tamid offerings, and whether the absence of the first of them invalidates the other. According to the first opinion, it does not, and therefore if they don’t offer the lamb of the tamid in the morning, they can still offer the lamb towards evening. +Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon qualifies the previous opinion. If they didn’t offer the tamid in the morning because they could not, or due to some error, then they can offer the tamid in the evening. However, if they intentionally don’t offer it in the morning, then they are penalized and they can’t offer the other lamb in the evening. +If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Incense was burned on the golden altar twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening (see Exodus 30:7-8). If they did not burn it in the morning, they may still offer burn the evening incense. This opinion is a continuation of the opinion found in section two above. +Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. Rabbi Shimon says that if they didn’t burn the incense in the morning, in the evening they should burn all of the incense, both the evening incense and the incense that should have been burned in the morning. +For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening. This section is actually the explanation for the opinion of the sages found in section four. The reason that the evening incense must be offered even if the morning incense was not offered is that the dedication of the altar was done by burning the evening incense. When it comes to the altar for the olah, meaning the altar that stood in the courtyard, it was dedicated by the morning tamid offering. Thus, if the altar had not yet been dedicated, and the morning tamid was not offered on it, they could not offer on it the evening tamid. The mishnah also notes that the dedication of the table that stood in the courtyard was done by placing on it the Sabbath showbread. The menorah was dedicated when it was lit in the evening. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with the minhah offering that the high priest offers every day (Leviticus 6:13-15). This offering had to consist of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, half of which was offered in the morning and half in the evening. It was fried in oil on a pan, and hence they are called griddle-cakes. +The high priest’s griddle-cakes cannot be brought in [two separate] halves. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. The high priest is not allowed to bring the griddle-cakes in two halves, half of a tenth in the morning and half in the evening. Rather, he must bring the entire tenth in the morning and then divide it in half, offering a half in the morning and the other half in the evening. +If a [high] priest offered half in the morning and then died and they appointed another priest in his place, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house, neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [high priest]. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, and offer one half and leaving the other half goes to waste. It turns out that two halves are offered and two halves go to waste. If the high priest offers half in the morning and then dies, and the court appoints a new high priest, the new high priest must bring an entire tenth of flour, and only offer half of it. The second half of the previous high priest’s offering goes to waste, as does half of the new high priest’s offering. We should note that this is just the kind of scenario that the rabbis love to discuss. +If they did not appoint another priest in his place, at whose expense was it offered? Rabbi Shimon says, at the expense of the community; But Rabbi Judah says: at the expense of his heirs, And a whole [tenth] was offered. If the court didn’t appoint a new high priest, there is a debate as to who is responsible to offer the minhah. According to Rabbi Shimon, the community had to pay for the offering, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that the high priest’s heirs must offer it. Furthermore, in such a situation, in both the morning and evening a full tenth would be offered. + +Chapter 5 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This chapter teaches general rules with regard to the minhah offering. +All minhahs must be offered unleavened, with the exception of the leavened cakes of the todah and the two loaves [of Shavuot] which are offered leavened. There are only two minhah offerings that are offered as leavened bread and not unleavened matzot the leavened cakes that accompany the todah (Leviticus 7:13; these will be explained below in mishnah 7:1) and the two loaves of bread brought on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:17). +Rabbi Meir says: the leaven must be taken from [the minhahs] themselves and with this they are leavened. The rabbis now debate where the leaven (sour dough) that leavens these loaves comes from. According to Rabbi Meir, the leaven is taken out of the minhah of the todah. In other words, he uses some of the flour to make leavened dough, and then he uses this to leaven the entire dough for the minhah. In this way, he can ensure that he doesn’t use more flour than is called for. +Rabbi Judah says: that is not the best way, rather [first of all] he brings leaven and puts into the measuring vessel and then he fills the measuring vessel up [with flour]. Rabbi Judah says that the problem is that it won’t be enough leaven to cause the dough to rise properly. Rather, he first brings some leaven and puts it into the measuring vessel. Then he fills up the rest with flour until he gets to a tenth. This is what he uses for dough. +But they said to him: even so [it is not satisfactory], for it would be sometimes too little and sometimes too much. The other sages (or Rabbi Meir) respond that this way of leavening the bread is also problematic. For if the leaven was good leaven, then because it was soft and swollen up, there would actually be too low of a measure, for if the space that the leaven occupied was taken up by flour, there wouldn’t have been enough flour. The opposite is true if the leaven was low quality. If it was thick and dried up, it would take up too little space, and if there was flour in its place, there would be more flour than a tenth. Therefore, this method of leavening is also problematic. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +Our mishnah deals with the prohibition of allowing a minhah to become hametz, for as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, nearly all minhahs must be brought as matzot. +All minhahs must be kneaded with lukewarm water and must be watched lest they become leavened. In order to delay the leavening process, the minhah was kneaded with lukewarm water, and it was carefully watched so that it would not become leaven. +If one allowed the remainder to become leavened he has transgressed a negative commandment, for it is written, “No minhah which you shall bring to the Lord shall be made leavened” (Leviticus 2:11). Even the remainders of the minhah, the part of the minhah eaten by the priests, were not allowed to become leaven. If one did allow any part of the minhah to become leaven, he transgressed the negative commandment found in Leviticus 2:11. +One is liable for the kneading, and for rolling and for baking. If a minhah becomes leaven and one performs any one of these acts, kneading, rolling the dough or baking it, he is liable. + +Mishnah 3 + +Some [minhahs] require oil and frankincense, some require oil but not frankincense, some frankincense but not oil, and some neither oil nor frankincense.
These require oil and frankincense: the minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the cakes and the wafers, the minhah of the priests, the minhah of the anointed high priest, the minhah of a gentile, the minhah of women, and the minhah of the omer.
The minhah offered with the drink-offerings requires oil but not frankincense.
The showbread requires frankincense but not oil.
The two loaves, the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy require neither oil nor frankincense.
This mishnah teaches which minhah requires oil and frankincense, which requires one of the two, and which require neither.
Section one: As the mishnah typically loves to note, all of the possible combinations can actually occur. I shall give references for each of these types of minhahs.
Section two:
The minhah of fine flour; that prepared on a griddle; that prepared in a pan: Leviticus 2:1.
The cakes and the wafers: Leviticus 2:4.
The minhah of the priests: A priest who volunteers to bring one of these minhahs.
The minhah of the anointed high priest: See above 4:5.
The minhah of a gentile; the minhah of women: who volunteered to bring one of these minhahs.
And the minhah of the omer: Leviticus 2:14-15.
Section three: Numbers 15:4ff.
Section four: Leviticus 24:7.
Section five: The two loaves are those brought on Shavuot. The sinner’s minhah is referred to in Leviticus 5:11 and the minhah of jealousy is that brought by the suspected adultress (the Sotah (Numbers 5:15). In both cases the Torah specifically states not to put frankincense or oil on them. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with the consequences of adding oil or frankincense to a minhah that did not require it. +One is liable for the oil on its own and for the frankincense on its own. If one adds oil and frankincense to a sinner’s minhah or to a minhah of jealousy, neither of which require either oil or frankincense, he has transgressed two negative commandments, for with regard to both of these the Torah specifically says not to place either oil or frankincense. Each is its own separate prohibition. +If he put in oil, he has rendered it invalid, but if frankincense, he can remove it. If he put oil into a minhah that does not require oil, the minhah is invalid, and there is nothing he can do to remedy it. However, if he puts frankincense in, he can simply pick out the frankincense and the minhah will remain valid. +If he put oil on the remainder, he has not transgressed a negative commandment. If he put oil on the part of the minhah eaten by the priests, the “remainder”, then he has not transgressed the prohibition and the part offered on the altar remains valid. +If he put one vessel above the other vessel, he has not rendered it invalid. If he put a vessel that has in it oil or frankincense on top of a vessel that has in it the minhah, he has not transgressed or rendered the minhah invalid because the vessels separate the substances. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah begins to note which minhahs must be brought to the altar (see Leviticus 2:8, 6:7), which have to be waved, which require one and not the other, and which require both. “Bringing near” refers to bringing the minhah close to the southwestern corner of the altar before the handful is removed. Note that the structure of this mishnah is nearly identical to the structure of mishnah three. +Some [minhahs] require bringing near but not waving, some require bringing near and also waving, some require waving but not bringing near, and some require neither bringing near nor waving. As was the format in mishnah three, the mishnah begins by noting that all of the combinations with regard to requiring bringing near and waving are possible. +These require bringing near but not waving: the minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the cakes and the wafers, the minhah of the priests, the minhah of the anointed high priest, the minhah of a gentile, the minhah of women, and the minhah of the omer. These minhahs are brought near to the altar, but they are not waved. The list is the same as that in section one of mishnah three. +Rabbi Shimon says: the minhah of the priests and the minhah of the anointed high priest do not require bringing near, since no handful is taken out of them, and where no handful is taken out bringing near is not necessary. Rabbi Shimon says that since the minhahs of the priests and of the anointed high priest are not eaten at all, but rather are entirely burned, they need not be brought near to the altar. Rather they are just put on the altar and burned. + +Mishnah 6 + +These require waving but not bringing near: The log of oil of the leper and his guilt-offering, The first fruits, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, The innards of an individual’s shelamim and its breast and thigh, whether they are the offerings of men or of women, by Israelites but not by others; The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot. The mishnah now lists the minhahs that require waving but not bringing near. I will give references to these and brief explanations. The log of oil of the leper and his guilt-offering: Leviticus 14:12 states, “The priest shall take one of the male lambs and offer it with the log of oil as an asham, and he shall wave them as a wave offering before the Lord. The first fruits, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: see Bikkurim 3:6. The innards of an individual’s shelamim and its breast and thigh, whether they are the offerings of men or of women, by Israelites but not by others: The innards of the shelamim are burned on the altar and the breast and thigh are given to a priest. That they need to be waved is stated in Leviticus 7:30 and 10:15. These parts are waved whether the shelamim is brought by a man or a woman, but only if the man or woman is Jewish. A Gentile can bring a shelamim but it is not waved. The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot: see Leviticus 23:20. +How does he perform [the waving]? He places the two loaves upon the two lambs and puts his two hands beneath them and waves them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, “which is waved and which is lifted up” (Exodus 29:27). In describing how an offering is waved, the Torah states that it was waved and lifted up” which seems to be repetitive. The rabbis interpret “waving” as moving it forward and backward and “lifting up” to mean moving it upward and downward. +The waving was performed on the east side [of the altar] and the bringing near on the west side. The two ceremonies described in these sections were performed on opposite sides of the altar. +The ceremony of waving comes before that of bringing near. If the minhah is one that requires both waving and bringing near (these minhahs are listed in the next section) then first the minhah is waved and then it is brought near. This order is implied in Numbers 5:25, concerning the minhah of jealousy (brought by the suspected adulteress), “The priest shall take from the woman’s hand the minhah of jealousy, and wave the minhah before the Lord, and then bring it to the altar.” +The minhah of the omer and the minhah of jealousy require bringing near and waving. The two minhahs that require both waving and bringing near are the minhah of jealousy (see above) and the minhah of the omer, which is brought on the 16th of Nisan. +The showbread and the minhah with the libations require neither bringing near nor waving. The showbread and the minhah brought with libations do not require either waving or bringing near. + +Mishnah 7 + +Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third.
And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community and the asham of the leper.
The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive.
The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands.
The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.
In this mishnah Rabbi Shimon compares three sacrifices and three requirements, with each sacrifice requiring two of the three requirements. We should note that Rabbi Shimon seems more interested in the curious fact that three sacrifices can be compared in this manner than in the actual rules that apply to these sacrifices. Perhaps the mishnah is somewhat of a mnemonic, a means by which to remember certain rules. Alternatively it is just a neat fact that Rabbi Shimon enjoyed relating.
Instead of explaining the mishnah line by line, I will be explaining it all at once below.
The three sacrifices under discussion in this mishnah are 1) the shelamim brought by an individual (Leviticus 7:11ff); 2) the shelamim brought by the community on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:20); 3) and the asham brought by the leper (Leviticus 14:14). The three commandments are: 1) waving while the animal is alive; 2) waving after slaughtering; 3) laying on of the hands (see Leviticus 3:2). All three sacrifices require two of the three commandments, but none of the sacrifices require all three actions. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +Leviticus 7:9 mentions minhahs “prepared in a pan or on a griddle.” Our mishnah teaches the difference in how these two minhahs are prepared. +One who says, “I take upon myself [to offer a minhah] prepared on a griddle,” he must not bring one prepared in a pan; If [he says, I take upon myself to offer a minhah prepared] in a pan,” he must not bring one prepared on a griddle. The first thing the mishnah asserts is that a minhah prepared in a pan is indeed different from one prepared on a griddle. Therefore, one who vows to bring one type of minhah cannot bring the other. +What is the difference between a griddle [mahabat] and a pan [marheshet]? The pan has a lid to it, but the griddle has no lid, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: a pan is deep and what is prepared is spongy; a griddle is flat and what is prepared on it is hard. There are two opinions as to what the difference was between a griddle and a pan. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the pan had a lid but the griddle did not. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says that the pan was deep and since there was more oil, the cake prepared was softer than that prepared on the flat griddle. What is interesting to me is that these rabbis, living only one hundred years after the destruction of the Temple, already dispute how minhahs were prepared in the Temple. Clearly, they have no historical record to turn to, and therefore must decipher how things were done by reasoning out various verses in the Torah. This is probably quite common in Seder Kodashim and demonstrates well that much of the material in this Seder is not a record of what went on in the Temple but rather an interpretation of what the Torah says should have gone on in the Temple. + +Mishnah 9 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to teach the differences between how different menahot (pl. of minhah) are prepared. +[If a man said,] “I take upon myself [to offer a minhah baked] in an oven,” he must not bring what is baked in a stove or on tiles or in the cauldrons of the Arabs. Rabbi Judah says: he may bring what is baked in a stove. Leviticus 2:4 refers to a minhah baked in an oven. According to the first opinion, this means that the minhah must actually be baked inside an oven. This used to be done by placing the loaf on the sides of the hot oven where it would be baked, similar to the way in which pita is still made. He is not allowed to cook it on a stove or on tiles, or in the type of cauldrons that Arabs at the time of the Mishnah used to prepare their bread. These were holes dug in the ground, lined with plaster and then heated up to bake bread. Rabbi Judah says that when the Torah specifies a “minhah baked in an oven” it includes a minhah baked on a stove. +[If he said,] “I take upon myself [to offer] a baked minhah,” he may not bring half in loaves and half in wafers. Rabbi Shimon permits it for it is one kind. Leviticus 2:4 refers to loaves of matzah and matzah wafers. The mishnah interprets this to mean that the minhah can be brought either as loaves of matzah or matzah wafers. One cannot bring half as loaves and half as wafers. Rabbi Shimon says that since both the loaves and wafers are both “one kind” meaning they are essentially the same, one can bring half of his minhah as loaves and half as wafers. + +Chapter 6 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This chapter continues to teach general rules with regard to menahot. Today’s mishnah and tomorrow’s teaches which minhah has a handful removed and the rest eaten by the priests. +From the following menahot the handful must be taken and the remainder is for the priests: The minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the loaves and the wafers, the minhah of a Gentile, the minhah of women, the minhah of the omer, the sinners’ minhah, and the minhah of jealousy. All of these menahot have been explained already in mishnah three and five of the previous chapter. For all of them, a handful is removed and burned on the altar. The remainder is eaten by the priests. +Rabbi Shimon says: a sinners’ minhah brought by priests the handful is taken, and the handful is offered by itself and so also the remainder is offered by itself. Generally a minhah brought by priests is not also eaten by the priests. Rather it is all burned, as is stated explicitly in Leviticus 6:16. Therefore, it would seem that there is no reason to remove a handful, as is normally done with a sinners’ minhah. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon holds that first a handful is removed and burned by itself, and then the remainder is also burned by itself. In this way, the normal procedure is preserved. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah lists menahot that are either completely burned, or completely eaten. +The minhah of the priests, The minhah of the anointed high priest, And the minhah that is offered with the libations are [wholly] for the altar and the priests have no share in them; with these the altar is more privileged than the priests. These three menahot are burned and no part of them is eaten. This is always the case with menahot that are brought by priests. In addition, it is also true of the minhah brought with the libations (Numbers 15:4ff). +The two loaves and the showbread are eaten by the priests and the altar has no share in them; with these the priests are more privileged than the altar. The two loaves brought on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:20) and the showbread (Leviticus 24:9) are completely eaten by priests and no part is burned on the altar. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches how the oil was put into the minhah. +All menahot that are prepared in a vessel require three applications of oil: pouring, mixing and putting oil in the vessel, before they are completed. The menahot that are prepared in a vessel are those prepared in a pan or a griddle. These menahot had oil put in them on three occasions. First some oil was poured into the vessel, and then he would pour the flour into the vessel. Then he would pour more oil onto the flour and mix it all together. Then he would add in lukewarm water, knead the flour into dough and bake ten loaves. After they were baked he would break them into pieces and pour more oil onto the pieces. Note that the mishnah is in backwards order first they would put oil in the vessel, then they would mix it in with the flour, and the pouring only came at the very end. +The [baked] cakes were mixed [with oil], the words of Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi]. But the sages say: the fine flour [was mixed with oil]. Rabbi Judah Hanasi disagrees with the rabbis as to when the mixing occurs. According to the Rabbi, the mixing occurs after the cakes have been baked. He then breaks them into pieces and mixes them up with oil. The other sages say that the mixing occurs when the minhah is still flour, before it has been kneaded and baked, as we explained above. +The loaves were mixed and the wafers anointed. How did he anoint them? In the form of a “chi.” As explained above, the oil was mixed into the loaves, according to the sages when they were still flour, and according to Rabbi when they were already baked. If the minhah came in the form of wafers, the procedure was slightly different. Here they would anoint the wafers after they were baked by making an X over them. The letter “chi” in Greek is written as an X. [The Greeks would probably prefer that we say that the letter “ex” in English is written as a chi.] +And the rest of the oil was eaten by the priests. Whatever was left over from the oil could be eaten by the priests. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah teaches how menahot were broken into pieces once they were baked. This process is referred to in Leviticus 2:6, “Break it into bits and pour oil on it; it is a meal offereing.” Although this verse is stated specifically in reference to a minhah prepared on a griddle, the rabbis extend it to other menahot as well. +All menahot prepared in a vessel must be broken into pieces. As stated in the introduction, the rabbis derive from Leviticus 2:6 that all menahot that are prepared in a vessel must be broken into pieces. The remainder of the mishnah describes how this is done. +The minhah of an Israelite was folded into two and the two were folded into four, and it was severed [at each bend]. First he takes the flat loaf and folds it into two and then into four. He then severs the loaf at all of the folds. He would take a handful from these pieces (there would be forty of them, since there are ten loaves) and he would throw the handful onto the fires of the altar. +The minhah of priests was folded into two and the two were folded into four, but it was not severed. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, a minhah brought by a priest was folded, but it was not severed into pieces. Since the entire minhah was burned, it wasn’t necessary to take out a handful and put it on the altar. It seems that the folding was sufficient to count as having broken it into pieces. +The minhah of the anointed high priest was not folded. The Torah does not say that the minhah brought by the high priest has to be broken into pieces, although it is called a “minhah of pieces” (Leviticus 6:14). According to the mishnah, this minhah is not even folded, for it too is totally burned. +Rabbi Shimon says: neither the minhah of the priests nor the minhah of the anointed high priest was broken in pieces, since the handful was not taken from them, and whenever the handful is not taken [from a minhah] it is not to be broken in pieces. Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no process of breaking into pieces for any minhah brought by a priest since these menahot are completely burned. There is no need to break them into pieces because the purpose of doing so was to throw some of them pieces onto the altar. +The pieces were the size of an olive. When they break the minhah into pieces, each piece should be no smaller than an olive’s worth. Commentators on the mishnah debate whether this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon or whether everyone agrees. + +Mishnah 5 + +All menahot must be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The grains of wheat that will be used for the minhah offering must be rubbed three hundred times and then beaten five hundred times. This process is done in order to remove the husks before the grain is ground into flour. +The rubbing and the beating apply is performed with the grains of wheat. Rabbi Yose says: also to the dough. The first opinion holds that the rubbing and beating is performed with the grain, as explained above. Rabbi Yose holds that the same is done with the dough. This is to further refine and perfect the quality of the minhah. According to a different version of the mishnah, Rabbi Yose says that it only applies to the dough and not to the grain. +All menahot consist of ten cakes each, except the showbread and the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which consist of twelve cakes each, the words of Rabbi Judah. Whether the menahot consist of loaves or wafers, they make ten cakes. According to Rabbi Judah all menahot are compared with the minhah that accompanies the todah - just as it has ten loaves, so too do all menahot. There are two exceptions, the showbread (see Leviticus 24:5) and the daily minhah of griddle-cakes offered by the high priest (Leviticus 6:13-15). With regard to the latter, the verse does not state that 12 cakes are offered. Rather, the rabbis derive this number midrashically by comparing it with the showbread. +But Rabbi Meir says: they all consist of twelve cakes each, except the loaves of the todah and of the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten cakes each. Rabbi Meir says that all menahot consist of twelve-cakes, for they derive the number of cakes from the showbread. The two exceptions are the todah (thanks-giving offering) and the minhah that accompanies the nazirite offering. We shall learn more about these two menahot in chapter seven. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches how much flour was found in various types of menahot. +The omer consisted of one tenth [of an ephah of flour] taken from three se'ahs. The minhah of the omer, brought on the sixteenth of Nissan (at the end of the first day of Pesah), consisted of a tenth of an ephah of flour (we shall learn more about the omer in chapter ten). An ephah was equivalent to about 4 liters and in mishnaic measurement, an ephah was equivalent to three seahs. This one-tenth of an ephah was sifted out of three whole seahs of barley. This refined it until it was quite pure. It was necessary to refine the omer so thoroughly because barley grain has a high quantity of waste material. +The two loaves consisted of two tenths taken from three se'ahs. The two loaves brought on Shavuot each consisted of two-tenths of an ephah, as is stated in Leviticus 23:17. These two-tenths were sifted out of three ephahs. The reason that less sifting was needed is that these loaves came from wheat and not barley. +And the showbread consisted of twenty-four tenths taken from twenty-four se'ahs. Each of the twelve loaves of the showbread consisted of two-tenths of an ephah of flour, as is stated in Leviticus 24:5, for a total of twenty-four tenths. Each tenth would have been sifted from one seah. The reason that less sifting is needed is that unlike the omer and the two loaves which must come from newly harvested barley or wheat, the showbread can come from the older harvest, which has less waste material than the new harvest. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with how well the flour must be sifted for certain minhah offerings. +The omer was sifted through thirteen sieves, the two loaves through twelve, and the showbread through eleven. The omer was sifted thirteen times, each time making the flour a bit finer. The two loaves for Shavuot were sifted a bit less and showbread was sifted only (!) eleven times. This accords with what we learned in yesterday’s mishnah the greatest amount of grain was needed for the omer, a little bit less for the two loaves and the least for the showbread. +Rabbi Shimon says: there was no prescribed number for them, rather they brought fine flour and sifted it as much as was necessary, as it is said, “You shall take fine flour and bake it” (Leviticus 24:5) [you should not bake it] until it is sifted as much as is necessary. Rabbi Shimon holds that there was no prescribed amount for how much the showbread had to be sifted or how much grain had to be used (yesterday’s mishnah). Rather, whatever was needed was used. He proves this from a verse which states that the flour must be fine, but does not give a prescribed amount. + +Chapter 7 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This chapter deals with the rules regarding the loaves that accompany the thanksgiving offering, the “todah” (see Leviticus 7:12). +The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; The amount of flour required for these loaves was five seahs measured with the Jerusalem measure of the seah, which is equivalent to six seahs as they were measured in the wilderness. What this means is that in Jerusalem the measures were 1/6 larger than they were in the wilderness. +This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. Six wilderness seahs are equivalent to two ephahs, which can be divided up into twenty tenths of an ephah. This comes out to twenty loaves each 1/10 of an ephah. Ten of these were leavened (chametz, see Leviticus 7:13) and ten were matzot (Leviticus 7:12). +“Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; Each leavened cake was 1/10 of an ephah (aren’t you grateful for simple math?). +“And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. Leviticus 7:12 lists three kinds of matzot: “unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, unleavened flours with oil, and cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in.” So if there were ten of each kind, each would have been 1/3 of a tenth of an ephah. +By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. The mishnah now provides the amounts according to the Jerusalem measure. In Jerusalem they didn’t count according to ephah and tenths of an ephah but rather according to kavs. A seah is six kav so five seahs are 30 kav. +“Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. According to this account, there were fifteen kav for the leavened cakes, 1 ½ kav per cake. +“And fifteen for the matzot” there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav. When you do the account for the matzot, each kind gets five kav, divided by ten cakes, adds up to ½ a kav per cake. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +Our mishnah deals with two other types of minhah offerings that are similar in amount to the todah: the “basket of matzot” brought on the day that the priests were first consecrated to serve in the Tabernacle (Leviticus 8:26) and the “basket of matzot” brought by the Nazirite (Numbers 6:15). +The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The minhah offered at the consecration of the priests was the same as the matzot of the todah (see yesterday’s mishnah). +The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. The minhah of the nazirite’s offering consisted of only cakes and wafers. Unlike the todah and the consecration minhah, there were no soaked cakes. +Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. Since for the nazirite offering there are only two kinds of matzot and not three, there are only ten kavs needed and not the fifteen for the todah (as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah). Each type of matzah is three and 1/3 tenths of an ephah, so the two types of matzah are 6 and 2/3 tenths of an ephah. +From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: From each type of matzah in the todah and nazirite minhah, the priest takes one tenth as his terumah, his part. This is explicit in Leviticus 7:14 which states that the priest gets one part of each kind, meaning one of the ten cakes, one of the ten wafers and for the todah, one of the ten soaked cakes. +“One:” that he may not take what is broken. The mishnah now contains a brief midrash of this verse. The word “one” means that the matzah that he removes should be whole and not broken. +“Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “Out of each offering” means that the amount of matzot of each type must be equal ten of each. Furthermore, the priest should not take two of one type and none of another rather he must take one of each type. +“It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner. Besides the one matzah taken by the priest, the rest of the matzot go to the owner who brings the todah or the nazirite. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with situations in which the loaves that accompany the todah sacrifice are for various reasons not sanctified, meaning that they don’t attain the status of a sacrifice. If one were to make non-holy use of one of the loaves that had not been sanctified, he would not be guilty of making illicit use of Temple property. +One who slaughtered the todah within [the Temple court] while its bread was outside the wall, the bread has not been sanctified. If they slaughtered the todah while the bread was still outside of the Temple walls, the bread is not sanctified. Some commentators interpret the walls here to be the walls of Jerusalem. +If he slaughtered it before [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven, even if all except one had become crusted, the bread is not sanctified. The todah should be slaughtered only once the bread has been baked. “Dough” turns into “bread” when it is crusted over in the oven. Thus if the loaves were not yet crusted over when the todah is sacrificed, then the loaves are not sanctified. +If he slaughtered the todah [intending to eat it] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is sanctified. If he sacrifices the todah with an improper intent, then the bread is sanctified. However, it becomes “piggul” or “disqualified” just like the todah. In other words, in this case, the bread became sanctified and then disqualified. In the cases in the first two sections, the bread was simply never sanctified. +If he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, the bread is not sanctified. If the animal is found to be a terefah (an animal that has a defect that would have caused it to die), then the animal was never really a valid sacrifice. Therefore, the bread is not sanctified. +If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish: Rabbi Eliezer says: the bread is sanctified. But the sages say: it is not sanctified. In Zevahim 9:3 we learned that Rabbi Akiva said that an animal with a blemish that was put up on the altar is not taken down. In other words, since the animal was slaughtered to be a sacrifice, it remains sanctified. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with this and therefore holds that the bread is also sanctified. The other rabbis disagree and seem to hold like the other opinion in Zevahim, that if an animal with a blemish is slaughtered and put on the altar, it must be taken down. It was never sacred, and neither is the bread. +If he slaughtered it under another name, and so, too, if the ram of the consecration-offering or the two lambs offered at Shavuot were slaughtered under another name, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered the todah, or the other sacrifices that are accompanied by bread (the ram of consecration was explained above in mishnah two, and the two lambs offered at Shavuot were mentioned in 2:2), under the wrong name, meaning intending for them to be another sacrifice, then the bread that accompanies them is not sanctified because the sacrifice does not count. + +Mishnah 4 + +If a [minhah that is accompanied by] the libations had already been sanctified in a vessel when the animal-offering was found to be invalid: If there is another animal-offering, they may be offered with it; But if not, they are left to become invalid by remaining overnight. The first section deals with the libations and the minhah that accompany an animal sacrifice (see Numbers 15:2ff and see also above 2:4). If the minhah was already sanctified by having been put in a vessel, and then the animal sacrifice was found to be invalid, there are two possible outcomes. If there is another animal-offering that the minhah and the libations can accompany, then they can be offered with it. If not, then the minhah and the libation should be left over night in the Temple. Anything left out over night is invalid and must be burned. This is the way of disposing of the minhah and the libations. Note that they can’t just get rid of them, because they have already attained a holy status by being put in a vessel. +The offspring of a todah, its substitute, and the animal which was set apart in the place of the todah which was set apart and was lost, do not require the [accompanying] bread, as it says, “And he shall offer [them] with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (” (Leviticus 7:1; the todah requires the accompanying bread, but its young, what is brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the accompanying bread. There are three different types of animals related to here. The first is the offspring of a todah, meaning an animal born from an animal that had already been set aside as a todah. The second is a substitute, which refers to an animal that someone tried to substitute for a todah (there is an entire tractate devoted to this subject, so we will learn more there). The third is a replacement todah, one that was meant to take the place of a lost todah, but then the original todah was found. In all of these cases, the animal is holy and must be sacrificed. However, since it is not actually itself a todah, it need not be accompanied by the bread. This is derived from the verse which is read as emphasizing that only the todah requires bread, not other sacrifices that are in various ways derived from the todah. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah and the next deal with various laws governing one who vows to bring a todah sacrifice. +One who says: “Behold I take upon myself [to bring] a todah”, he must bring both it and its bread from hullin. If he vows to bring a todah, he must bring both it and its bread from hullin, non-sacred, sources. He cannot use second tithe money to purchase it or its bread. We will learn why in tomorrow’s mishnah. +[If he said:] “A todah from hullin and its bread from tithe,” he must bring the bread from hullin. If he specifies that he will purchase the todah with hullin money, but that he wants to use second tithe money for the bread, he must still use hullin money to purchase both. When he said that he would bring a “todah from hullin” the word “todah” included the bread, so it too must be brought from hullin. His words “and its bread from tithe” don’t make any difference. +[If he said:] “A todah from tithe and bread from hullin,” he may bring. If he says that he wants to bring the todah from tithe, then he may do so. He can also bring the bread from hullin. +[If he said:] “A todah, it and its bread from tithe,” he may bring. If he vows to bring both from tithe, he may do so. +But he must not bring from grain of second tithe, rather from second tithe money. In the previous case, the animal that he brings for a todah will be purchased with second tithe money. Therefore, the bread should also be purchased with money used to redeem second tithe, and not with grain that was itself set aside to be second tithe. This way both the todah and the accompanying bread come from the exact same source. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah explains why one who says “I take upon myself to bring a todah” must buy the todah with hullin (non-sacred) money and cannot use maaser sheni money. This was the halakhah that we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. +From where [is it derived] that if one says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” he can bring it only from hullin? This section asks why the mishnah rules that one who vows to bring a todah must purchase it with hullin money. +As it is said, “And you shall sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:. But is not the pesah sacrifice brought only from the lambs and from the goats? Why then is it written, “from the flock or the herd”? The answer is derived from a problematic verse that deals with the pesah sacrifice. The pesah sacrifice, according to Exodus, must be brought only from flock animals, meaning sheep or goats. However, Deuteronomy 16:2 states that it can come from herd animals, such as cows. This is a clear example of biblical verses which contradict each other. +It is to compare whatever is brought from the flock and the herd with the pesah: just as the pesah is obligatory and offered only from what is hullin, so everything that is obligatory may be offered only from what is hullin. The mishnah answers that Deuteronomy states “from the flock and the herd” not because the pesah can come from the herd (it cannot) but to compare other sacrifices that come from the flock and the herd with the pesah. The comparison is that whatever sacrifice is obligatory, as is the pesah, must be brought only from hullin sources and not from maaser sheni money. We should note that this makes sense from a practical perspective. If the Torah mandates that I bring a certain sacrifice and it mandates that I bring maaser sheni money and use it to buy food in Jerusalem, combining these two obligations would be cheating the system. Rather, maaser sheni money should be used to buy voluntary sacrifices, sacrifices that I would not otherwise had to have brought. +Therefore if a man says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” or “I take upon myself [to offer] a shelamim,” since [in these cases] these are obligatory they may be offered only from what is hullin. A todah is usually a voluntary sacrifice. However, in this case once he makes a vow to bring a todah, it is no longer voluntary but rather obligatory. Since he has made it into an obligatory sacrifice, he can no longer purchase the animal with maaser sheni money. In sum, a normal todah can be purchased with maaser sheni money because it is a voluntary sacrifice but a todah brought because of a vow is a mandatory sacrifice and must be purchased with hullin money. +The libations in every case may be offered only from what is hullin. The libations that accompany a todah or a shelamim sacrifice must always be purchased with hullin money, even if he explicitly vows to bring the todah from maaser sheni. The reason is that these libations are not eaten, but rather fully sacrificed on the altar. Maaser sheni money must be used to purchase food that will be eaten by people and not sacrifices that go completely to the altar. + +Chapter 8 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +Our mishnah deals with where they would bring flour from for the minhah offerings. +All the sacrifices communal or individual may be offered from [produce grown] in the Land [of Israel] or outside the Land, from new [produce] or from the old, except for the omer and the two loaves, which must be offered only from new produce and from [produce grown] in the land. All sacrifices can come from animals raised either in or outside of Israel and similarly all menahot can come from grain grown anywhere. It can also come from new produce or aged produce. There are two exceptions: the omer barley offering brought on the second day of Pesah and the two loaves brought on Shavuot. With regard to the omer it is stated in Leviticus 23:10, “When you come into the land…you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest.” With regard to the two loaves it states there in verses 16-17, “And you shall offer a new minhah to the Lord, from your dwelling places you shall bring it.” Both of these verses teach that the omer and the two loaves must come from the new harvest and from grain grown in the land of Israel. +All [offerings] must be offered from the choicest produce. All offerings must come from choice produce. The mishnah explains where the best grain is grown. +And which is the choicest? That from Michmas and Zanoha are “alpha” for the quality of their fine flour; second to them is Hafaraim in the valley. The best grain is grown in two places. Michmas, which is in the territory of Benjamin (I Samuel 13:2) and Zanoha, which is in Judah (see Joshua 15:34). These places are “alpha” the first letter in the Greek alphabet, which means that they are numero uno when it comes to grain. Next best is grain that comes from Hafaraim which is in the territory of Issachar (see Joshua 19:19). +The [produce of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it from these places. There is a preference to bring grain from these regions, and it was the custom to indeed do so. But if they brought grain from other regions within the land of Israel, it was still valid. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses what kinds of fields are used to grow the grain to make flour for menahot. +One may not bring [grain for menahot] from the produce of a manured field or from an irrigated field or from a field stocked with trees. The grain used for the minhah must come from a field that is irrigated by rainwater. It cannot come from a field that requires manure to fertilize it or from a field that is artificially irrigated. It also cannot come from a field that also grows trees because the trees weaken the quality of the field. +But if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. While the grain should not be brought from such a field, if it is, the minhah is still valid. +How was it prepared? In the first year it was plowed and in the second year it was sown seventy days before Pesah, thus it would produce fine flour in abundance. This section describes how the special field set aside to grow grain for the minhah was prepared. The reason that it was sown before Pesah is that this is the time of the year for sowing fields in Israel. +How was it tested? The temple-treasurer used to thrust his hand into it; if some dust came up in [his hand] it was invalid, until it was sifted [more]. This is how the flour was tested to see if it had been sifted well enough to be used for the minhah. +If it had become magotty it is invalid. Maggoty (or wormy) flour is obviously not fit to be used in the preparation of the sacred minhah (and it’s a bit gross as well, although I suppose it was hard to avoid in the ancient world). + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses from where and from what they brought the olive oil used in the minhah offering. +Tekoa is “alpha” first its oil. Tekoa, which is in the Negev and is mentioned in II Samuel 14:2 has the best oil. +Abba Saul says: Second to it is Regev, on the other side of the Jordan. Second to it is Regev, which lies on the other side of the Jordan. +The [oil of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it only from these places. As with the grain, any oil from olives grown in the land of Israel is valid, but these two places were customary and preferable. Note that Regev is considered to be part of the land of Israel, even though it lies on the other side of the Jordan. +One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from olive-trees planted in a field sown with seeds, but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. These are basically the same rules as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah with regard to the grain. Olive-trees which grown in grain fields are weaker and hence their olives will not be as good. +One may not bring anpakinon, and if one did bring it, it is invalid. Anpakinon is a Greek word for olive oil from olives that were not fully ripened. Since this olive oil is of far inferior quality, it cannot be used. +One may not bring it from olive-berries which had been soaked in water or preserved or stewed; and if one did bring it, it is invalid. Olive-berries are the small unripe olives. Sometimes they would soak these in water, or preserve them or stew them in order to get oil out of them. Such oil cannot be used for the minhah offering because it too is vastly inferior. + +Mishnah 4 + +There are three [periods of gathering in the] olives and each crop gives three kinds of oil. There are three different ways of picking the olives off of the trees, and each way provides three different qualities of oil. The mishnah now lists each way and the quality of oil that is produced in each way. +The first crop of olives is when the olives are picked from the top of the tree; they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The first picking is done from the olives on the tops of the trees. First they are picked, then crushed and put into baskets. The oil flows from the baskets into a vessel underneath. Rabbi Judah says that the crushed olives are placed around the basket and that the oil will then enter the basket through the holes in the basket. This is the first oil, which I believe we call the extra virgin oil. The second oil comes from what is pressed out of the baskets. The first opinion holds that this pressing is done with a wooden beam, whereas Rabbi Judah (who must have had his own olive press!) says it is done with stones. This is the virgin olive oil, second best. After the first pressing, they would again grind the olives and press them again. This would be the regular olive oil. The first type of oil is good enough to be used for lighting the menorah. The second and third types could be used for menahot. +The second crop is when the olives at roof-level are picked from the tree; they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The second crop was done with the olives was done with the olives that were at the height of the rooftops. The processing of these olives is the same as that with the first crop. +The third crop is when the last olives of the tree are packed inside the house until they become overripe; they are then taken up and dried on the roof they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The third crop was done with the olives on the lowest part of the tree. These olives will not ripen on their own on the tree and therefore they are packed inside the house until they become overripe and the oil begins to seep out. Henceforth, their processing is the same as the olives that ripen on the tree. + +Mishnah 5 + +The first oil of the first crop, there is none better than it.
The second oil of the first crop and the first oil of the second crop are equal.
The third oil of the first crop, the second oil of the second crop and the first oil of the third crop are equal.
The third oil of the second crop and the second oil of the third crop are equal.
As to the third oil of the third crop, there is none worse than it.
It would have been logical by the following argument that menahot should also require the purest olive oil: if the candlestick, whose [oil] is not for eating, requires pure olive oil, how much more should menahot, whose oil is for eating, require pure olive oil! But the text states, “Pure olive oil of beaten olives for lighting” (Exodus 27:20), but not “pure olive oil of beaten olives for menahot.”
Today’s mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s. It explains the relative quality of the various pressings we learned about yesterday.
Basically, the first crop yields better oil than the next two, and the first pressings of each crop are better than the others. If two types of oil are equal, then the person can use whichever he wishes, but if better oil is available, that is what he should use.
Section six: The mishnah concludes by noting that it would have been logical for the menahot to require the highest quality of oil and not just the oil used for lighting the menorah. This is logical because the oil used in menahot is “eaten” by the altar, whereas the menorah is not conceived of as “eating” the oil, just burning it. This is an interesting, but not altogether unusual, personification of the altar.
The reason that the halakhah requires the best olive oil for lighting the menorah and not for menahot is that the Torah specifies that the lighting oil must be “pure olive oil” whereas no such specification is made with regard to the oil used for menahot. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +Having already discussed grain and oil, our mishnah turns its attention to the next element of the minhah, the wine. +From where did they bring the wine? Keruhim and Attulim rank are alpha their wine. Second to them are Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan on the mountain and Kefar Signa in the valley. [Wine of the] whole land was valid but they used to bring it only from these places. The best wine was from two places in the region of Judah, one called Keruhim and the other Attulim. The second best wine came from three other places, Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan in the mountains of Judah and Kefar Signa which was in the valley of the Judah region. As was the case with the grain and the oil, wine brought from other regions is valid, even though they used to bring from those places. +One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from vines planted in a field sown with seeds; but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. These are the exact same rules we saw in mishnah two with regard to the grain and in mishnah three with regard to the oil. +One may not bring wine from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring it, it was valid. This wine was inferior, but still valid for libations. +One may not bring old wine, the words of Rabbi. But the sages permit it. Although old wine is better, it does lose some of its redness, according to Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi] and therefore it should not be used for libations. +One may not bring sweet wine or smoked wine or cooked wine, and if one did bring it, it was invalid. These types of wine are all invalid for libations, for they are not pure, regular wine. +One may not bring wine from grapes suspended [on reeds], but only from the vines growing close to the ground and from well-cultivated vineyards. The grapes used to produce libation wine must be grown on vines close to the ground, and not on reeds used to suspend them in the air, as many vines are grown today. The vines must be well-cultivated and tended to, so as to produce the best grapes possible. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with the quality of the wine used in the libations. +They did not put [the wine] in large casks but in small barrels. Larger caskets would distort the taste of the wine, and therefore they were not used. +And one did not fill the barrels to the brim so that its scent might spread. If the jug is filled all the way to the brim, the scent escapes and dissipates. Therefore, so that the scent would spread directly from the barrel, they would not fill it to the brim. +One may not take the wine at the mouth of the barrel because of the scum, nor that at the bottom because of the lees; but one should take it only from the third or the middle of the barrel. The wine at the top of the jug had frothy scum and the wine at the bottom of the jug had the sediments. The best wine was that found in the middle of the jug, or at least between the top third and the bottom third. +How was it tested? The temple-treasurer used to sit nearby with his stick in his hand; when the froth burst forth he would knock with his stick. This is how the temple-treasurer would make sure that the wine they were taking from the jug was not from the top or the bottom of the jug. While they were drawing out the wine, he would sit near by with his stick. When froth started to come out from the jug, he would strike it with his stick, as a sign that they should not take any more wine from that jug. +Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: wine on which there is a scum is invalid, for it is written, “They shall be for you without blemish, and their minhah,” and “They shall be for you without blemish, and their libations” (Numbers 28:19-20, 31). Rabbi Yose bar Judah gives the scriptural basis for why wine with scum cannot be used for sacrificial purposes. This is derived by the juxtaposition of the word “without blemish” which in its simple sense refers to the animals, with the beginnings of the next lines which refer to menahot and libations. Through this midrash the rabbis learn that just as the animals must be without blemish, so too the menahot cannot be wormy (see mishnah two) and the wine cannot be smoky (mishnah six) or frothy (our mishnah). + +Chapter 9 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +The first five mishnayot of our chapter deal with the size of the measuring vessels used in the Temple. +There were two dry-measures in the Temple: the tenth and the half-tenth. Rabbi Meir says: a tenth, [another] tenth, and a half-tenth. When it came to measuring dry things, i.e. grain, there were two measuring vessels in the Temple, one that contained a tenth of an ephah, and one that contained half of a tenth. The remainder of the mishnah will explain what they were used for. According to Rabbi Meir, there were three dry-measures. One held a tenth when it was heaped over, and one held precisely a tenth when it was measured out evenly. The heaped over one would be used for all menahot, and the smoothed out one would be used for the griddlecakes of the high priest, which had to be divided into two halves. This was preferable for if they used the heaped over measure to split into two, some of the grain might spill out. +For what purpose did the tenth measure serve? By it they used to measure all the menahot. The one-tenth measuring vessel was used for all menahot. +One did not measure with a three-tenths measure [the minhah] for a bull or with a two-tenths measure [the minhah] for a ram, rather, one measured them by all by tenths. Some menahot require more than one tenth, but there were not special measuring vessels that held three or two tenths. Rather they would just fill the one-tenth measuring vessel two or three times. +For what purpose did the half-tenth measure serve? By it one used to measure the griddlecakes of the high priest [which was offered] half in the morning and the half towards evening. The half-tenth measure was used for the griddle-cakes of the high priest (see Menahot 4:4), half of which was offered in the morning and half in the evening. + +Mishnah 2 + +There were seven liquid measuring vessels in the Temple: the hin, the half-hin, the third-hin, the quarter-hin, the log, the half-log, and the quarter-log. The mishnah now begins to list the liquid measurements. The hin contains 12 logs. Each log is about ½ a liter, so a hin is about 6 liters. +Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: there were markings in the hin measure [indicating] thus far for a bull, thus far for a ram, and thus far for a lamb. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that they didn’t need to have separate vessels for the parts of the hin. Rather there were markings on the hin measuring vessel that would indicate a half of a hin for a bull, a third of a hin for a ram and a quarter of a hin for a lamb (see Numbers 15). So according to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, there would have been only four measuring vessels in the Temple, the hin and the three log measuring vessels. +Rabbi Shimon says: there was no hin measure at all, for what purpose could the hin serve? According to Rabbi Shimon, there was no hin measuring vessel, because none of the sacrifices require a wine or oil libation of a hin, so why have one in the first place? +But there was an additional measure of one and a half logs by which one used to measure [the oil] for the minhah of the high priest, a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half towards evening. Rabbi Shimon, after having stated that there was no hin measuring vessel, adds in another vessel so that there will be seven, as stated in the beginning of the mishnah. This seems to have been some tradition, which he is unwilling to dispute. The extra vessel was one and a half logs, and it was used for the oil for the high priest’s griddle cakes minhah which was three logs, half used in the morning and half in the evening. This is similar to the half of a tenth measuring vessel used for the grain of his minhah offering, as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah. + +Mishnah 3 + +For what purpose did the quarter-log serve? [To measure] a quarter-log of water for the one with skin disease and a quarter-log of oil for the Nazirite. The quarter-log was used to measure the water used in the purification of the person with skin disease (the metzora, see Leviticus 14:5) and the quarter-log of oil used in preparing the cakes and wafers for the nazirite (see above mishnah 7:2). +For what purpose did the half-log serve? [To measure] a half-log of water for the sotah and a half-log of oil for the todah. The half-log was used to measure the water for the Sotah, which she will later drink (see Numbers 5:17). It was also the measure used to prepare the cakes that accompany the todah offering (see above mishnah 7:1). +With the log one measured [the oil] for all the menahot. Even a minhah of sixty tenths required sixty logs [of oil]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even a minhah of sixty tenths required only one log [of oil], for it is written, “For a minhah, and for a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The log was used to measure the oil for all of the menahot, which used a log of oil to accompany each tenth of grain. According to the first opinion, if a minhah has sixty-tenths of grain, it will require sixty logs of oil, one log for each tenth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says that even if a minhah contains sixty-tenths of grain, it only requires one log of oil. He derives this midrashically from a verse concerning the minhah of a person with skin disease. +Six [logs] were required for a bull, four for a ram, and three for a lamb; Six logs are ½ of a hin, which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah are the amount of oil for a bull, four are a 1/3 of a hin and three are ¼ of a hin, as we leaned in yesterday’s mishnah. +Three logs and a half for the menorah, a half-log for each lamp. The menorah required a total of 3.5 logs, half of a log for each lamp. (I might suggest that if you enjoyed this mishnah, you could make a song out of it for Pesah. Who knows a quarter-log? I know a quarter-log!). + +Mishnah 4 + +One may mix the drink-offerings of bulls with the drink-offerings of rams, or the drink-offerings of lambs with the drink-offerings of other lambs, or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering, or those of [an offering offered] today with those of [an offering offered] yesterday; The principle here is that the ratio of grain to oil in the minhah offered with bulls is the same as that of the lambs. When it comes to bulls there are six logs of oil for three-tenths of grain, two logs per tenth. With rams it is four logs of oil for two-tenths, so the ratio is the same. Therefore if they are mixed up together, the drink-offerings (grain and oil) are still valid. So too with all of the other offerings listed in this section, as long as the ratio is the same, they are all valid. +But one may not mix the drink-offerings of lambs with the drink-offerings of bulls or of rams. The ratio of the grain and oil for a lamb is three logs for a tenth, so these drink-offerings cannot be mixed together with those of bulls or rams. +If they mixed these on their own, and they mixed these on their own, and then they were mixed, they are valid. But if before each was mixed by itself [they were mixed together], they are invalid. However, if one first mixes the oil and grain for each offering on its own, and then they become mixed up, they are still valid, and one can offer them on the altar. If the different drink-offerings were first mixed up together before the oil and grain of each offering was mixed up on its own, then they are invalid. +Although the minhah of the lamb that was offered with the omer was doubled, its drink-offerings were not doubled. The grain for the minhah that accompanies the lamb that is sacrificed with the omer is double the normal amount (Leviticus 23:13). Normally, there is one-tenth for a lamb, but this lamb is accompanied by two-tenths of grain. Nevertheless, the drink-offerings, meaning the wine and oil, were the same, three logs of oil and three logs of wine, the same as they always are for a lamb. + +Mishnah 5 + +All the measures in the Temple were heaped except [that used for] the high priest's [minhah] which included in itself the heaped amount. The measuring vessels used in the Temple were filled up until they were overflowing. The one exception was the measuring vessel used for the high priest’s griddle cakes, which was large enough to contain without overflowing the amount that it would have contained had it actually been overflowing. We should note that this matches Rabbi Meir’s opinion in mishnah one there were three dry-measuring vessels in the Temple, one that contained a tenth and one that contained a tenth and its overflow. +The overflow of the liquid-measures was holy, but the overflow of the dry-measures was not holy. Rabbi Akiva says: the liquid-measuring vessels were holy, therefore their overflow was holy too; the dry-measuring vessels were not holy, therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose says: it is not for that reason, but because liquids are stirred up and dry-stuffs are not. When vessels are overflowing, the obvious question then becomes, what do we do with the overflow? The mishnah states that the overflow of liquid, meaning wine and oil, is holy and must be treated as such, whereas the overflow of the dry-measures, the grain, is not holy. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose disagree as to why the liquid is holy and the grain is not. Rabbi Akiva says that the liquid-measuring vessels were anointed with anointing oil, and thereby became holy. This made anything that was inside them holy as well. The dry-measuring vessels were not anointed, and therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose agrees with the halakhah but disagrees with Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning. The liquid overflow is holy because the liquid that overflows was actually at one point in the vessel. There are various different versions of the Hebrew word that I have translated as “stirred up” but they all imply the same thing since the oil or wine was actually in the vessel, it is sanctified. In contrast, the dry overflow was never in the vessel, just on top of it. Therefore it is not holy. + +Mishnah 6 + +All the offerings of the congregation and of the individual require libations except the first-born animal, the cattle tithe of cattle, the pesah, the hatat and the asham; But the hatat and the asham of the one with skin disease do require libations.
This mishnah teaches that most sacrifices must be accompanied by the libations of wine, grain and oil that are mentioned in Numbers 15.
Numbers 15 states, “When you enter the land that I am giving you to settle in and would present an offering by fire to the Lord from the herd or the flock, be it burnt offering or sacrifice, in fulfillment of a vow explicitly uttered, or as a freewill offering or at your fixed occasions…” The chapter then goes on to list how much wine, oil and grain must accompany each sacrifice.
From here the rabbis derive that freewill offerings such as the olah, the shelamim and the todah require libations. So too do the communal offerings offered on the festivals. However, mandated offerings, such as the first-born, the tithe, the pesah, the hatat (sin-offering) and the asham (guilt-offering) do not need to be accompanied by oil, wine and grain.
The two exceptions are the hatat and the asham offerings brought by a person with skin disease. Leviticus 14:10 explicitly states, “On the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish, three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering, and one log of oil.” One of these lambs is a guilt offering and one is a sin-offering. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +For some sacrifices the person offering the sacrifice must lay his hands on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered. Our mishnah teaches which sacrifices require the laying on of the hands and which do not. +None of the communal offerings require the laying on of hands except the bull that is offered for [the transgression by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the scapegoat. Almost all public sacrifices do not require the laying on of the hands. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first is the bull that is offered if the entire congregation of Israel sins. This is stated explicitly in Leviticus 4:15, “And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull.” The other exception is the scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur. Leviticus 16:21 states, “And Aaron shall lay his hands upon the head of the goat.” +Rabbi Shimon says: also the he-goat offered for [the sin] of idol worship. Rabbi Shimon adds that also the he-goat offered for idol worship requires the laying on of the hands. This he-goat is mentioned along with the bull in Numbers 15:24. Since the bull requires the laying on of hands, so too does the goat. +All the offerings of an individual require the laying on of hands except the first-born, the cattle tithe, and the pesah. Offerings brought by an individual, be they mandatory sacrifices such as the hatat and asham or voluntary ones such as the shelamim or todah, do require the laying on of the hands. The three exceptions are the first-born, the tithe and the pesah, three sacrifices that are often considered exceptional. +And an heir may lay his hands [on his father’s offering], and he may bring the libations for it, and can substitute [another animal for it]. If someone’s father dies before his sacrifice can be offered, the heir can lay his hands on the sacrifice in place of the father. He may also bring the libations (wine, grain and oil) if his father had not yet brought them. He also has the ability to substitute another animal for his father’s sacrifice, although as we will learn, the effect of this is to make both animals sacred. There is an entire tractate on this later in Seder Kodashim. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah continues to teach laws regarding the laying of the hands on the sacrifice. +All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. Everyone who brings a sacrifice is required to lay his hands on the animal with the following exceptions. 1) The deaf-mute, imbecile and minor. These three categories of people are all assumed not to have “da’at”, awareness of the consequences or meaning of their actions. 2) A blind man. Perhaps he was excluded because he couldn’t see what he was doing. 3) A gentile. This is derived from Leviticus 1:2 which begins, “Speak to the children of Israel.” From here the rabbis derive that the laws in this chapter (and elsewhere) refer to Israelites and not Gentiles. 4) A slave is in the same category, for this matter, as a Gentile. 5) An agent the owner himself, or his heir, must lay his hands on the animal. One cannot appoint another to do so in his stead. 5) A woman this is also derived from the verse “the children of Israel” which can be translated “the sons of Israel.” A woman can bring a sacrifice and will often be obligated to do so, but she does not have to lay her hands on it. +The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. The laying on of the hands is not part of the commandment, such that if one doesn’t lay on his hands, the sacrifice is invalid. +[One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands. This section provides various instructions as to how the laying on of the hands must be performed. Both hands are placed on the animal’s head (see Leviticus 16:21). The laying on of the hands is done in the Temple court, the same place where the animal is slaughtered. And it is performed right before the animal is slaughtered. + +Mishnah 9 + +Introduction +This mishnah compares the rules regarding the laying on of the hands with the rules regarding waving certain sacrifices. It is set up in typical mishnaic fashion, noting that sometimes the rules regarding one action are more stringent than the others, while at other times, the reverse is true. +Laying on of hands is [in certain respects] more stringent than waving and waving is [in other respects] more stringent than laying on of hands. This section introduces the rest of the mishnah. +For one may perform the waving on behalf of all the others, but one may not perform the laying on of hands on behalf of all the others. This section explains how the rules regarding laying on of hands are more stringent than those governing the waving of the offering. If several people jointly bring a voluntary offering, then one can wave the offering on behalf of the whole group. In contrast, when it comes to the laying on of the hands, each person who shares in ownership of the offering must lay on his hands. We might conceive of this as the difference between something that must be done to the sacrifice (waving) and therefore one can perform it on behalf of all, versus an action that the owner must perform, and therefore, each individual owner must perform it. +Waving is more stringent, for waving takes place for offerings of the individual and for offerings of the community, for living animals and for slaughtered animals, and for things that have life and for things that do not have life; but it is not so with laying on of the hands. There are several aspects of waving that are more stringent, or put another way, more broadly applied, than they are for laying on of the hands. Waving is more stringent than laying on of the hands because waving is done with both individual and communal sacrifices (see above 5:6-7) whereas laying on of hands is performed almost exclusively with individual sacrifices (see yesterday’s mishnah). The waving is done on both living and already slaughtered animals and sometimes it is done with grain offerings, such as the omer minhah or the sotah’s minhah. Laying on of the hands is performed only on live animals and not on grain offerings. + +Chapter 10 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +The tenth chapter deals with the Omer. +In order to understand this chapter we should explain what was one of the biggest debates between the Pharisees and Sadducees the date of Shavuot. The Torah states that one begins to count the omer “from the day after the Sabbath.” This was interpreted by the Sadducees to mean that the omer was offered on the day after the Sabbath during Pesah. Thus Shavuot, which fell seven weeks later, was always on Sunday. The Sadducees never had to address how to harvest the omer barley on the Sabbath, because in their calendar it was always harvested on the day following the Sabbath. The Pharisees held that “from the day after the Sabbath” refers to the second day of Pesah. This could be on the Sabbath and thus Shavuot could potentially fall on any day of the week. +While there are many possible reasons why this debate was so prominent in the polemics between these two groups, it is possible that Sabbath observance was one of the main issues. We know that the Dead Sea Sect was extremely scrupulous in Sabbath observance and seems to have done anything to avoid any possible desecration of the Sabbath. In their calendar, holidays never fell on the Sabbath. The Dead Sea Sect’s halakhic system is often similar to that of the Sadducees. It is therefore possible that the Sadducees shaped their calendar to avoid having to face the prospect of reaping the omer barley on Shabbat. At the least, we can be certain that to the Sadducees there was never a problem of harvesting the omer barley on Shabbat. In contrast, the Pharisees and later the rabbis were not bothered by this. +In our mishnah we may seem some echo of this ancient debate. +Rabbi Ishmael says: On Shabbat the omer was taken out of three seahs [of barley] and on a weekday out of five. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was taken out of three seahs. In this section, there is a debate concerning how much flour they sifted in order to get the tenth of sifted flour needed for the omer. When the 16th of Nissan fell on Shabbat, they would use three seahs of flour. There is a debate over how much barley was used during the week. According to Rabbi Ishmael, they would use five seahs, so that the barley would be more finely refined. The other rabbis disagree and claim that the procedure on Shabbat was the same as that on the weekday three seahs. In other words, according to Rabbi Ishmael on Shabbat they would use less barley so that less sifting would have to be done, since sifting is prohibited on Shabbat. In contrast, the other sages say that the same amount was used regardless of whether it was Shabbat or not. +Rabbi Hanina the vice-high priest says: on Shabbat it was reaped by one man with one sickle into one basket, and on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles. In this section, there is a debate concerning the reaping procedure. When the omer was reaped on a weekday, all agree that it was reaped by three people, using three sickles, into three baskets. They debate with regard to how it was reaped on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Hanina, who was vice-high priest (not the high priest of vice ☺) on Shabbat, fewer people did the reaping in order to minimize Shabbat desecration. The sages again disagree, insisting that the procedure on the Shabbat is the same as that performed during the week. In my opinion, behind these two debates is a remnant of the old Sadducean/Pharisaic debate. While Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Hananya admit that the 16th of Nissan can fall on Shabbat, meaning they use a Pharisaic calendar, they still want to minimize the conflict between harvesting the omer and the Sabbath. The other rabbis insist that this is no conflict at all, and that on Shabbat the omer is harvested in the exact same way as it is every other day. + +Mishnah 2 + +The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from [what grows] near by. It was a mitzvah, meaning it was preferable, for the omer to be brought from barley grown close to Jerusalem. +If [the crop] near Jerusalem was not yet ripe, it could be brought from any place. However, if this barley was too ripe to be harvested, it could be brought from elsewhere with the land of Israel. +It once happened that the omer was brought from Gagot Zerifin and the two loaves from the plain of En Soker. The mishnah records a time when the barley for the omer had to be brought all the way from Gagot Zerifin, which Albeck identifies as being near Lod (near the Ben-Gurion airport). According to another version of this mishnah, the words are “ganot Zerifin” which means the fields near Zerifin. The grain used for the two loaves once came from as far away as En Soker, which is near Shechem (in the northern part of Samaria, or the West Bank). + +Mishnah 3 + +How would they do it [reap the omer]?
The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap.
All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration.
As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.”
On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.”
He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.”
And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival.
This mishnah describes the procedure that preceded the harvesting of the omer.
The end of this mishnah explains why they would make such a spectacle out of what is quite a simple act. The Boethusians were a group of Jews either similar to or identical with the Sadducees. As I stated in my introduction to yesterday’s mishnah, the Sadducees held that the omer was harvested on the Sabbath that followed the first day of the festival, and not on the evening after the first day of the festival.
According to our mishnah, they would make an exaggerated demonstration of reaping the omer in order to let people know that the halakhah was according to the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. These acts were polemical acts against a rival group of Jews. We should note that we don’t know if this was how the omer was actually harvested in Temple times. All we know is that this is how the rabbis envisioned it happening.
The mishnah itself is easily understood and therefore I have not commented below. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah completes the description of how the omer was offered. +They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; After harvesting the barley, they would put it into baskets and bring it to the Temple courtyard. +Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, they would first parch the grain, while it was still attached to the stalks. Parching a minhah offering is mentioned in Leviticus 2:14, “If you bring a minhah of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring new ears parched with fire.” The rabbis interpret this verse as referring to the minhah of the omer. +But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. The other sages say that first they would beat the grain from the stalks, as is normally done with grain. However, they would use soft sticks since the omer came from freshly-harvested barley. Normally, when the grain is more aged, they could use harder sticks. After the grain was separated from the stalks, they would parch it by putting it into a metal pipe which was perforated so that the fire would get in. The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir in that the former holds that the stalks were put directly into contact with fire, whereas the sages hold that the parching is done with grains and by using a vessel. +They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. They would then spread it out to cool it off. +Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. After the grain was cooled, it was ground and then sifted thirteen times, as we learned in mishnah 6:7. +What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. The leftover grain not used for the omer could be eaten by anyone, even non-priests. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, the grain was liable for tithes but not for hallah. This is the rule for holy things that have been redeemed they are liable for hallah, but not for tithes. Rabbi Akiva says that it is liable for tithes as well, because he doesn’t consider this grain to have ever been holy. When it was sanctified at the outset, the only part that was really sanctified was the grain that was going to be used for the flour necessary to make the one-tenth. All of the extra grain was never holy, and therefore it is liable for all normal agricultural gifts (tithes and terumah). +He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests. He would then complete the process of offering the omer by adding in the oil and frankincense, mixing it up, waving it and bringing it close to the altar, and then taking a handful and burning it on the altar. The remainder of the 1/10 of an ephah that wasn’t burned is holy and can be eaten only by the priests. + +Mishnah 5 + +After the omer was offered they used to go out and find the market of Jerusalem already full of flour and parched grain [of the new produce]; This was without the approval of the rabbis, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: it was with the approval of the rabbis.
After the omer was offered the new grain was permitted immediately, but for those that lived far off it was permitted only after midday.
After the Temple was destroyed Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that it should be forbidden throughout the day of the waving.
Rabbi Judah said: is it not so forbidden by the law of the Torah, for it is said, “Until this very day?”
Why was it permitted for those that lived far away from midday? Because they know that the court would not be negligent with it.
Leviticus 23:14 states, “Until that very day, until you have brought the offering for your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears [of the new crop].” Our mishnah discusses when people can begin to eat of the new crop of grain.
Section one: The mishnah describes the markets of Jerusalem as being full of grain from the new crop, immediately after the omer was offered. It is easy to imagine the merchants waiting and waiting until finally they could begin selling this new grain.
The debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah was over whether the rabbis approved of this. Rabbi Meir says they disapproved of the practice because if the merchants were already selling the new grain so quickly, it is clear that they had harvested it and ground it before the omer was offered. The fear was that they might also end up eating it before the omer. Therefore, the rabbis disapproved of this practice, although they did not successfully stop it. Rabbi Judah says that they were not concerned lest people eat it before it was permitted.
Section two: As stated above, after the omer was offered, it was permitted for people to eat the new grain. People who lived far away from the Temple could not know when the omer was offered, so they must wait until half the day had passed to begin to eat of the new harvest. Below, in section five, the mishnah explains that they do not have to wait until they have actually heard that the court offered the omer because they can assume that the court would make sure that the omer was offered by this time.
Section three: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai forbade eating the new harvest for the entire day of the 16th of Nissan. This day is called “the day of waving” because that is when the omer was waved. It seems that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai reasoned that when no omer could be offered, it would be legal to eat the new harvest immediately when the day began. However, if we allowed such a practice people might forget that at one point it had been forbidden to eat until the omer was offered. Therefore, he was overly stringent and forbade people to eat for the whole day.
Rabbi Judah says that there was no need for such a “takkanah” a rabbinic ordinance. The Torah itself says that the new harvest is forbidden until “that very day.” To Rabbi Judah this clause refers to a time when there is no Temple. When there is a Temple, the new harvest is forbidden until “you have brought the offering,” the second clause of the verse. Since the Torah already encompasses instructions as to how to act in the absence of the Temple, there was no need for rabbinic legislation. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +Our mishnah continues to deal with when new grain can be eaten and used in a sacrifice. +The omer permits [the new grain] throughout the land, and the two loaves permit it in the Temple. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the omer is offered, it permits the eating of new grain throughout the land. However, this does not permit using new grain for a sacrifice. New grain could be used in the Temple only once the two loaves offered on Shavuot (see Leviticus 23:16) had been offered. In practice, this means that new grain would be permitted outside of the Temple about seven weeks before it was permitted in the Temple. +One may not offer minhahs, first-fruits, or minhahs that accompany animal offerings, before the omer. And if one did so, it is invalid. Before the omer is offered, no sacrifices can be brought from the new grain, because they cannot be eaten by anyone. This includes all types of minhahs, the first-fruits (bikkurim) as well as any minhah that would accompany an animal offering. And if one did offer a minhah from new grain before the omer was offered, the minhah is invalid. +Nor may one offer these before the two loaves. But if one did so it was valid. While one should wait to bring sacrifices from the new grain until Shavuot, when the two loaves are offered, if one does bring an offering of new grain between the beginning of the omer and Shavuot the offering is valid, since people can eat the new grain. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +There are five species of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. All other species, such as rice, do not count as grain, and laws that apply to grain do not apply to them. Our mishnah teaches a few general halakhot that are applicable to these five species. +Wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye are subject to hallah. These five species of grain are subject to the laws of hallah (when one kneads a certain amount of them, he must separate hallah and give it to the kohen, if the hallah is pure). +And they are reckoned together. These five species are reckoned together for all prohibitions and obligations. Thus if one kneaded together dough made from wheat and dough from barley and when reckoned together there was enough dough to require one to separate hallah, he would be obligated to take out hallah (see Hallah 1:1). The same would be true for prohibitions such as hametz on Pesah and other obligations, such as eating matzah on Pesah. +They are forbidden [to be eaten] as new grain before the omer. Before the omer is offered on the 16th of Nissan, these five species are prohibited from the new crop. +And they may not be harvested before Pesah. Before Pesah, one is not supposed to even harvest any of the new grain. The Torah states that the omer should be “the first of your harvest” (Leviticus 23:10), implying that this grain should be the first to be harvested. +If they had taken root before the omer, the omer permits them; And if not, they are forbidden until the next year's omer. This section determines when grain is considered is to be part of the new crop. If it took root before the omer was offered, then it is part of the pre-omer crop and can be harvested once the omer was harvested. However, if it had just been planted before the omer and had not yet taken root, then one would have to wait for the following year’s omer before it can be harvested. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +This mishnah brings in exceptions concerning the prohibition of harvesting grain before the omer. +[Before the omer] one may reap [grain] in irrigated fields in the valley, but one may not stack it. One doesn’t bring omer grain from grain grown in irrigated fields in the valley because this is poor quality grain. However, the sages did not permit people to stack this grain. The only reason that they did permit harvesting this grain is that there was a fear it would be lost if it was not harvested. Therefore they were lenient when it came to grain that would not have been brought as the omer barley in any case. But there was no reason to be lenient with regard to stacking because it would not cause a loss to wait until the omer to stack the grain. +The people of Jericho used to reap [before the omer] with the approval of the sages, and used to stack it without the approval of the sages, but the sages did not protest. Jericho’s fields are in the valley and therefore the rabbis allowed them to reap the grain before the omer was offered. However, the people of Jericho went further and stacked their grain as well. This was a no-no in the eyes of the sages, but despite this, they did not protest. +One may reap the unripe grain for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? If one had begun to reap it before it had reached a third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon says: one may reap it and feed [his cattle with it] even after it has reached a third of its growth. Unripe grain can be harvested before the omer, if it is to be used for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah says that the grain can be harvested as long as it has not yet reached one third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon is more lenient and allows the grain to be harvested even if it has not yet reached one third of its growth. + +Mishnah 9 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of chapter ten concludes with a few more rules governing the prohibition of harvesting grain before the 16th of Nissan and a few last rules with regard to the omer. +One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. Generally, it is prohibited to harvest grain before the harvesting of the omer on the 16th of Nissan. This section provides a few exceptions to this rule, cases where the person is harvesting the grain not in order to use the grain but in order to clear the area. If he needs to make room in the field for the saplings to grow, he may clear the grain. He need not suffer the loss of the saplings, due to the prohibition of harvesting before the omer. He may also clear the grain in order to make room for either a place for mourners to gather or for sages to gather in order to study in a bet midrash. It is interesting to note that according to this source, study seems to have taken place in open fields. It is unclear whether a structure would have been built in the fields or not. +One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. When a person is allowed to harvest grain before the omer, he may not bind the stalks into bundles as is normally done. This would make it seem like he was harvesting them for food, which is prohibited. Rather, he may leave them in small heaps on the ground and collect them later when the omer has already been harvested. +The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. It is a mitzvah, meaning it is preferable to bring the omer from freshly harvested grain. It is preferable that on the 16th at night they should go out and harvest grain in order to bring it as the omer sacrifice. If this is impossible because there is no grain to harvest, it can be brought from already harvested grain, that has already been put into bundles. +The mitvah is that it should be brought from moist ( grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. It is best that if one bring bundles, they still be fresh (moist). However, if there are no moist bundles, he can bring the omer offering even from already dry grain. +The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. The omer should be offered at night on the 16th of Nissan (see mishnah three), but if they wait until the day, it is still valid. +And it overrides the Shabbat. This polemical chapter ends by reminding us what we learned in the beginning of the chapter harvesting the omer overrides the Sabbath. As a reminder, non-Pharisaic sects during the Second Temple period seem to have shaped their calendar so as to avoid, as much as possible, conflicts between holidays and Shabbat. The Pharisees and later the rabbis took an opposite route and demonstratively declared that if there is such a conflict, the holiday sacrifices nearly always override the Sabbath. The editors of the Mishnah end this chapter by emphasizing exactly this point one can harvest the omer even on Friday night. + +Chapter 11 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with the baking of the two loaves used on Shavuot (see above 10:6) and the showbread (see above 6:5-7). +The two loaves [of Shavuot] were kneaded each on its own and baked each on its own. The [cakes of the] showbread were kneaded each on its own and baked two at a time. The two loaves used on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:17) must be kneaded on their own and baked on their own. However, the cakes used for the showbread (Leviticus 24:5-9) must also be kneaded on their own, but they are baked two at a time. These rules are derived through midrashic readings of various verses. +They were prepared in a mould, and when they were taken out from the oven they were again put in a mould lest they become damaged. The cakes of the showbread were baked in a mould to give them a specific shape. After they were taken out of the oven, they were put into another mould so that they would not break. + +Mishnah 2 + +Both the two loaves and the showbread their kneading and their shaping were performed outside [the Temple Court], and their baking was inside. According to the first opinion, the two loaves and the showbread are to be prepared outside of the Temple and then baked in the Temple. +And they do not override the Shabbat. Baking these loaves does not override the Shabbat, because they can be done before Shabbat. As we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah, things override the Shabbat only if they can only be done on Shabbat. If they can be done on another day, then they don’t override the Shabbat. +Rabbi Judah says: all of these were performed inside [the Temple Court]. Rabbi Judah disagrees with the first opinion, and holds that the kneading and shaping were also performed inside the Temple Court. +Rabbi Shimon says: One should always accustom himself to say, “The two loaves and the showbread were valid whether made in the Temple Court or in Bet Pagi.” Rabbi Shimon says that it doesn’t matter whether they were baked in the Temple or outside in a place called Bet Pagi, a place where many priests lived. Rabbi Shimon’s words “one should always accustom himself to say” are quite unusual and I have not found them elsewhere in the Mishnah. They seem to mean that Rabbi Shimon finds this halakhah to be quite important and worthy of memorization, more than other halakhot in the Mishnah. It is unclear why this halakhah is singled out. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses the “griddle cakes” offered daily by the High Priest (Leviticus 6:13-15). +The high priest’s griddle cakes: their kneading, their shaping, and their baking were performed within [the Temple Court], When it comes to the high priest’s griddle cakes, all agree that they must be prepared and baked in the Temple. The reason is that these griddle cakes are anointed with oil in the Temple. This makes them holy and they cannot subsequently be taken out to be kneaded, shaped or baked outside the Temple. +And they override the Shabbat. These cakes were offered every day. Therefore, these three actions, which are performed on the same day that they are offered, can be performed on the Shabbat. As Rabbi Akiva says in section four, any action that cannot be performed the day before, overrides the Shabbat. +The grinding [of the grain for it] and the sifting did not override the Shabbat. However, grinding grain to make these cakes and sifting the grain to make the flour are not essential parts of the minhah offering. Rather they are preparatory acts, and therefore they can be performed on Friday. As Rabbi Akiva states, anything that can be done before Shabbat, does not override Shabbat. +Rabbi Akiva said a general rule: any work that can be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat, but that which cannot be done on the eve of Shabbat does override Shabbat. This is the general rule that governs when something overrides the Shabbat. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +Most of this mishnah deals with how the two loaves for Shavuot and how the showbread were made. +All menahot require a vessel [for works that are performed] within, but do not require a vessel [for those works that are performed] outside. This section provides a general rule regarding which works in preparation of a minhah are performed with a ministering (holy) vessel and which are not. Any work performed within the Temple, such as kneading, arranging and baking, needs to be done in a ministering vessel. However, any work performed outside of the Temple does not need to be done in a ministering vessel. +How so? The two loaves were seven handbreadths long and four wide and their horns were four fingerbreadths. Usually the words “how so” mean that this section is an explanation of that which comes before it. However, in this case section two does not explain section one. Either the words shouldn’t be here, and they are missing in some manuscripts, or they simply mean that this section explains how one makes the two loaves and the showbread. The “horns” of the two loaves and showbread can be explained in two ways. Some explain that they would take a piece of dough and stick it on the ends of the bread to make it look like horns. Others explain that this “seven fingerbreadths” actually refers to the height of the loaves. +The [cakes of the] showbread were ten handbreadths long and five wide and their horns were seven fingerbreadths. The showbread cakes were slightly larger than the two loaves for Shavuot. +Rabbi Judah says: lest you err [remember but the words] “zadad yahaz.” Rabbi Judah provides a mnemonic device to remember the size of each type of loaf. For the two loaves the mnemonic is “zayin” (7), “daled” (4), “daled” (4). For the showbread the mnemonic is “yod” (10), “heh” (5) and “zayin” (7). +Ben Zoma says: “And you shall set upon the table showbread (lehem before me continually:” panim signifies that it should have faces. Rabbi Shimon makes a midrash on why it is called “lehem panim.” “Panim” can mean face, so Rabbi Shimon interprets the word to mean that the cakes each have a face, meaning a side. This seems to mean that the cakes were not flat. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah describes how the showbread was placed on the table. +The table was ten handbreadths long and five wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two and a half handbreadths were turned up at either side so that its length filled the entire breadth of the table, the words of Rabbi Judah. Exodus 25:23 says that the table was two cubits in length and one cubit in width. According to Rabbi Judah, in the Temple each cubit was five handbreadths, so the table was ten by five handbreadths. Each cake was ten handbreadths long and five wide. When they would make the cakes, they would fold them up two and half handbreadths on either side, so that each cake would be five handbreadths long and five wide. They would then stack them on the table, six on each pile, thereby filling up the table. +Rabbi Meir says: the table was twelve handbreadths long and six wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two handbreadths were turned up at either side; and there was a space of two handbreadths between [the two sets] so that the wind could blow between them. According to Rabbi Meir, in the Temple each cubit was six handbreadths. This means that the table was 12 x 6 handbreadths. They would fold up the cakes two handbreadths and in between the piles there was an empty space of two handbreadths (since the table was twelve and the width of each pile only five). This space allowed the wind to blow in between the loaves to cool them off. +Abba Shaul says: there they used to put the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread. They said to him: Has it not already been said, “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7)? He replied, But has it not also been said, “And next unto [al] him shall be the tribe of Manasseh” (Numbers 2:20)? Abba Shaul says that in between the two piles of loaves they would put the two dishes of frankincense (see Leviticus 24:7). The other sages disagree with Abba Shaul because the verse says “on each row” which means that the frankincense should be placed on top of the cakes and not in between them. However, Abba Shaul replies that the Hebrew words “al” can also mean “next to” as it does in Numbers 2:20. Therefore, he can interpret the verse to mean “next to the rows.” + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with the table upon which was placed the showbread. +There were there four golden props [at the corners of] the table, each split at the top, which supported the cakes, two for the one row and two for the other row. On the table were four props, one at each corner, whose heads were split into two. Each row had two split props to support it on each side. +And there were twenty-eight rods, each [shaped] like the half of a hollow reed, fourteen for the one row and fourteen for the other row. The bottom hallah was placed directly on the table. The next four hallot were each placed on three rods and the top hallah was placed on two rods. It needed less support because it was on top. +Neither the placing of the rods nor their removal overrode the Shabbat, but [a priest] used to enter on the day before Shabbat, pull out the rods, and place them parallel with the length of the table. Setting up the rods and removing them from the old bread does not override the Shabbat. Rather, a priest would pull out the old rods on the day before the Shabbat and place them on the table. On Shabbat, when the new loaves were put out, they were placed directly on the table. They were only put onto the rods when Shabbat was over. +Every article that stood in the Temple was placed with its length parallel with the length of the House. Everything in the Temple had its length go from east to west, as was the length of the Temple. This line was brought here in this mishnah to teach that the length of the table was also east-west. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with the ceremony of the showbread, bringing in the new loaves and taking out the old. This would occur once a week on Shabbat. The old bread would lie there for the entire week until new loaves were brought and the old ones were distributed to the priests. +There were two tables inside the sanctuary, at the entrance of the Temple, the one of marble and the other of gold. On the table of marble they laid the showbread when it was brought in, and on the table of gold they laid the showbread when it was brought out, since we raise [the status] of what is holy and we don’t lower it down. And within [the sanctuary] there was a table of gold on which the showbread lay continually. There were three tables, two outside of the sanctuary and one within. The showbread was baked on Friday and then placed on a marble table for it to cool down. When the bread that had been within the sanctuary was brought out, it was placed on a gold table to be distributed to the priests. This table had to be of gold, because the bread had been on the gold table all week, inside the sanctuary. Once the bread had been on a golden table, it could no longer be put on a table made of material lesser than gold. The third table was where the showbread lay all week, inside the sanctuary. +Four priests entered: two bearing the two rows [of the showbread] in their hands and two bearing the two dishes [of frankincense] in their hands; And four went in before them, two to take away the two rows [of the showbread] and two to take away the two dishes [of frankincense]. Those who brought them in stood at the north side facing the south, and those who took them away stood at the south side facing the north. These withdrew [the old] and the others laid down [the new], the handbreadth of the one being by the side of the handbreadth of the other, as it is said, “Before me continually” (Exodus 25:30). Rabbi Yose says: even if these [first] took away [the old] and the others laid down [the new later on], this too fulfills the requirement of continually. The mishnah now describes the process through which the old showbread was removed and the new showbread was laid on the table. The important issue here is that the golden table within the sanctuary should never be without the bread upon it. Thus, while two priests slide the showbread off of one side, the other two priests place the new showbread on the other side. We can see that this ceremony was done with much pomp and circumstance and probably made a great impression upon those priests who saw it performed. Rabbi Yose holds that “continually” does not mean that the table cannot go for even a moment without the showbread. Rather, “continually” means that the table should not be empty overnight (this is explained in the Talmud). +They went out and laid [the old bread] on the table of gold that was in the sanctuary [at its entrance]. They then burned the dishes [of frankincense] and the loaves were distributed among the priests. Upon bringing the showbread and frankincense out of the sanctuary, they would distribute the bread to the priests and burn the frankincense. +If Yom Kippur fell on a Shabbat the cakes were distributed in the evening. If Yom Kippur fell on Shabbat, and it was impossible to eat the showbread because of the fast, they would distribute the loaves at night. +If it fell on a Friday the he-goat of Yom Kippur was eaten in the evening. The Babylonian [priests] used to eat it raw for they were not fastidious. If Yom Kippur fell on Friday, the he-goat (see Numbers 29:11) had to be eaten by the priests that night. The Babylonian priests, meaning the priests who returned to the Land of Israel after the Babylonian exile had strong stomachs and could eat the goat raw. The reason that they had to do this is that it was impossible to cook it on Friday because of Yom Kippur or on Shabbat. Since it had to be eaten that night, there was no other option but to eat it raw (wouldn’t that make an interesting break-fast, a lot more exciting than bagels and danish!). As an interesting aside, the Rambam proves from our Mishnah that in talmudic times, Yom Kippur could fall on Friday. Today, since we have a set calendar, Yom Kippur can no longer fall on Friday or on Sunday, although it can fall on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +The showbread and frankincense are supposed to be arranged on the table on Shabbat and removed the following Shabbat, when the frankincense is burned. The showbread can be eaten that day and the following night. +Our mishnah discusses cases in which this precise order was not followed, and the consequences. +If he arranged the showbread on Shabbat and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after Shabbat, and burned the dishes [of frankincense] on the [next] Shabbat, it is not valid, and one is not liable over it for piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. The dishes of frankincense must be left on the showbread for the entire week that the showbread is on the table. So if the priest set up the showbread on Shabbat, as he was supposed to do, but didn’t put the dishes of frankincense on the table on Shabbat, but rather the next day, then the bread and the dishes are invalid. If he later burned the frankincense with the intent of eating the showbread the day after Shabbat, then the loaves are not piggul (see 2:2 concerning piggul of the showbread. Piggul is the status of a sacrifice that was offered with the intent of eating after it should no longer be eaten), since the frankincense was already disqualified by not having been placed on the table at the correct time. Similarly, if he eats the showbread after Shabbat, he is not liable for the transgression of “remnant.” Finally, if he eats the bread while impure or while it is impure, he is not liable for eating the bread in impurity, because he is only liable for eating valid showbread. In other words, since the showbread was never valid, he is not liable for any of the potential transgressions. +If he arranged the bread and the dishes [of frankincense] on Shabbat and burned the dishes of frankincense on the day after Shabbat, it is not valid, and one is not liable over it for piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. In this case, he arranged the bread and dishes of frankincense at the correct time, but he didn’t burn the frankincense on the following Shabbat, as he was supposed to do. Rather he burned them the day after. This disqualifies the frankincense and the bread, and again he is not liable in this case for any possible transgression of piggul, remnant or eating while impure or while the bread is impure. +If he arranged the bread and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after Shabbat and burned the dishes [of frankincense] on the [next] Shabbat, it is not valid. What should he do? He should leave it until the following Shabbat, for even if it remains many days on the table there is nothing to this. If he arranged the bread and frankincense after Shabbat and then burned the frankincense on the following Shabbat, there is a remedy. What he can do is just leave the bread on the table until the next Shabbat when it will count as that week’s showbread. Leaving it on the table longer than it was supposed to be there (in this case 6 days, and then an entire week) does not disqualify the bread. I should note that the word “invalid” is missing in some versions of this section. Indeed it shouldn’t be here because this showbread is not necessarily invalid, as we learn in the remainder of the mishnah. + +Mishnah 9 + +The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day.
The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day.
[Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom.
This mishnah deals with when the two loaves for Shavuot and the showbread were baked and when they were eaten.
Section one: The two loaves for Shavuot were always baked the day before Shavuot, unless Shavuot fell on a Sunday, in which case they were baked on Friday. Therefore, the two loaves were always eaten either on the second day, or at the latest on the third day.
Section two: Normally, the showbread would have been baked the day before Shabbat, and eaten the following Shabbat, on the ninth day. If a festival came before Shabbat, then it would have been baked on Thursday and eaten on Shabbat, the tenth day, and if Rosh Hashanah, which was always two days, came before Shabbat, it would have been baked on Wednesday and eaten on Shabbat, the eleventh day.
Section three: The mishnah explains that the baking of these loaves never overrides Shabbat or the festival. Thus sometimes they will have to be baked earlier.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees and holds that baking the bread could override the festival, but not Yom Kippur. For instance, if the first day of Sukkot falls on Friday, the showbread could be baked on Friday, but if Yom Kippur fell on Friday, the showbread would have to be baked on Thursday. + +Chapter 12 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with “redeeming” holy items. Redeeming is done by transferring the holiness of an item to money. The money then becomes holy and must be used to buy sacrifices or other items for the Temple. The item itself can now be used for secular purposes. +If menahot and libation-offerings became unclean before they were sanctified in a vessel, they may be redeemed. If [they became unclean] after they were sanctified in a vessel, they may not be redeemed. Once a minhah or a libation offering (the wine or oil that accompanies a sacrifice) is put into a ministering vessel, it may no longer be redeemed. If it becomes impure at this point, it would have to be destroyed. However, if it becomes unclean before it is put into a ministering vessel, it can be redeemed and used for non-holy purposes. +Bird-offerings, the wood, the frankincense, and the ministering vessels, may not be redeemed, for the rule of redemption applies only to [offerings of] beasts. Leviticus 27:11-13 states that if one dedicates an unclean animal to the Temple, the priest evaluates the animal and takes money in place of the animal. This verse, however, was stated only with regard to “beasts” which would include sheep, goats, cows and other mammals. It is not stated in regard to bird-offerings, wood or vessels. Once these are dedicated to the Temple, they may no longer be redeemed. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +In this mishnah and in the following one, a person vows to bring a minhah offering, but then does not bring exactly what he vowed to bring. Our mishnah deals with the consequences of acting in such a way. +If one said, “I take upon myself [to bring a minhah prepared] on a griddle”, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought one prepared on a griddle, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. [But if he said, “I take upon myself] to bring this [flour] as a minhah prepared on a griddle”, and he brought it prepared in a pan; or as “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought it prepared on a griddle, it is invalid. A minhah can be prepared either on a pan or on a griddle. Both are valid. Therefore, if a person makes a vow to bring one type of minhah and he brings the other, his minhah is valid and can be offered. It is considered a voluntary offering, and not one in fulfillment of the vow. Since, he has not fulfilled his vow because he vowed to bring a specific type of minhah, he also must bring another minhah in its stead. However, if he has some flour and he vows to use it to make a certain type of minhah, either in a pan or on a griddle, and then he changes it to the other type, the minhah is not valid at all and cannot be offered, because it was supposed to be prepared in the manner he stated. +If one said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or [he said] “in two vessels,” and he brought them in one vessel, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. But [if he said, “I take upon myself to bring] these [two tenths] in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or “in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, they are invalid. Similarly in this case, where he vowed to bring two tenths in either one or two vessels and then he brought in the opposite number of vessels, the minhah is valid but he has not fulfilled his vow because he performed the mitzvah differently from the way he said he would. Again, if he specifies that these specific two tenths of flour will be brought in either one or two vessels, and then he brings them in the wrong number of vessels, they are invalid and cannot be offered. +If he said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel” and he brought them in two vessels, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in one vessel”, if he brought them in one vessel, they are valid, but if he still offered them in two vessels, they are invalid. In these cases, the priests tell him that he is offering the minhah in the wrong number of vessels. If he changes the minhah back to the correct number of vessels, it is valid and he has fulfilled his obligation. However, if he nevertheless offers the minhah in the wrong number of vessels, it is invalid. In this case, it cannot be considered a voluntary offering, since he didn’t respond, “I will then bring this as a voluntary offering.” Rather, it is clear that he thinks he is bringing the minhah in fulfillment of his vow, in which case it is invalid because he vowed differently. +If he said “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in two vessels”, if he offered them in two vessels they are valid; but if he still kept them in one vessel, they are considered as two menahot which have been mixed. Here he vows to bring two tenths in two vessels, and instead brings them in one vessel. If, after having been told that he should have brought them in two vessels, he puts them in two vessels, they are still valid. However, if he keeps them in one vessel, they are treated as two menahot which have been mixed up. This was a situation dealt with in 3:3. If one can take a handful out of each minhah and put it on the altar, then they are valid, but if not they are invalid. The same would be true in section two. If he had said “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in two vessels” and he brought them in one vessel, if they can still be somewhat separated, they would be valid. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +A minhah must consist of a tenth of an ephah of fine wheat flour. It must be accompanied by oil and frankincense. Our mishnah discusses what happens if one vows to bring a minhah that does not fulfill all of these requirements. +[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah of barley,” he must bring one of wheat. A minhah must come from wheat, not barley. If he vows to bring a barley minhah, he must bring one of wheat. +“Of coarse flour,” he must bring it of fine flour. Similarly, if he vows to bring it from coarse flour, he must bring it from fine flour. +“Without oil and without frankincense,” he must bring it with oil and frankincense. He must bring the minhah in its normal fashion, with oil and frankincense. +“Half a tenth,” he must bring a whole tenth. If he tries to bring less than the prescribed amount, he must bring the prescribed amount. +“A tenth and a half,” he must bring two. If he tries to bring 1 ½ tenths, what he has really done is vowed to bring one minhah and a half of a minhah. Since one can’t bring half of a minhah he must bring two full menahot. +Rabbi Shimon declares him exempt, because he did not make his offering in the manner in which people usually make their offerings. Rabbi Shimon says that the person is not liable to bring a minhah at all. His vow to bring a minhah does not count, since he didn’t promise to make the offering in the way it is normally made. + +Mishnah 4 + +A man may offer a minhah consisting of sixty tenths and bring them in one vessel. As we shall see in the argument below between Rabbi Shimon and the other sages, all agree that a person can voluntary bring a minhah of up to sixty tenths and put it all into one vessel. The rabbis will argue below as to why this is permissible. +If one said, “I take upon myself to offer sixty-one tenths,” he must bring sixty in one vessel and the one in another vessel, since the congregation brings on the first day of the festival [of Sukkot] when it falls on Shabbat sixty-one tenths [as a minhah], it is enough for an individual that [his minhah] should be one tenth less than that of the congregation. However, if he offers to bring a minhah of sixty-one tenths, he must put sixty in one vessel and one in another vessel. The number sixty-one is the number of tenths that would have been brought when the first day of Sukkot falls on Shabbat. Fifty-seven would cover the bullocks (13 x 3 tenths), rams (2 x 2 tenths) and lambs (14 x 1 tenth) that the musaf (additional offering), required. Two more tenths are for the tamid (daily) offering and two more tenths are for the musaf of Shabbat. This brings the total to sixty-one. According to the first opinion, if an individual wishes to bring sixty-one tenths, he can only bring up to sixty in one vessel, such that he will have one less than the congregation brings. +Rabbi Shimon said: but some of these [sixty-one tenths] are for the bullocks and some for the lambs, and they may not be mixed one with the other! Rather sixty tenths mingles [in one vessel]. Rabbi Shimon points out that these sixty-one tenths are not mixed in together on Sukkot, since they are for different animals. The reason that one can bring sixty tenths in one vessel has nothing to do with the amount brought on Sukkot. Rather sixty tenths of flour can mix with one log of oil, but sixty-one cannot. +They said to him: can sixty be mingled [in one vessel] and not sixty-one? The other rabbis question Rabbi Shimon. If sixty-tenths can mix in with one log of oil, then surely sixty-one tenths can also be mixed. Is one extra tenth really going to make that much of a difference! +He answered, so it is with all the measures prescribed by the sages: a man may immerse himself in forty seahs of water, but he may not immerse himself in forty seahs less one kortob. Rabbi Shimon responds by simply noting that this is the way that halakhah works. When the rabbis set an arbitrary number, that arbitrary number is mandatory and even the smallest deviation is not accepted. For instance, a mikveh is valid if it has 40 seahs of water. If even the smallest amount, a kortov, is missing, the mikveh is invalid, even though such a small absence would not be at all noticeable. Thus, the rabbis have established that sixty seahs can be mixed in one vessel with one log of oil, but sixty-one cannot. +One may not offer one [log], two, or five [logs], but one may offer three, four, six, or anything above six. This section begins a new topic. One can voluntary offer three, four, six or more logs of wine, but not one, two or five, for these numbers are never found in the libation offerings mentioned in the Numbers 14:5-10. Three logs are for a lamb, four for a ram and six for a bullock (see also Menahot 9:3). Any number above six is a possible combination of 3, 4 and 6. For instance, 7 would be a lamb and a ram. Eight would be two rams, nine, three lambs and so on. Thus one can make a voluntary offering of wine consisting of any number higher than six logs. + +Mishnah 5 + +One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. According to Rabbi Akiva, while one can make a voluntary offering of wine, one cannot make a voluntary offering of just oil, without an accompanying minhah. Rabbi Tarfon holds that just as one can voluntarily offer wine on its own, so too one can voluntarily offer oil on its own. +Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva agree that one can voluntarily offer wine on its own. And of course, there are situations where one is obligated to bring wine and oil to accompany sacrifices. From here Rabbi Tarfon concludes that just as wine can be brought on its own voluntarily, so too oil can be brought on its own voluntarily. +Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Rabbi Akiva responds by pointing out a hole in his argument. Wine is brought on its own as an obligation, when it accompanies a sacrifice. Oil, on the other hand, is always mixed in with the minhah offering. Since it is never brought on its own to fulfill an obligation, it cannot be brought on its own voluntarily. +Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird. This section is independent of the previous debate. Two people cannot jointly bring one tenth of flour for a minhah offering. However, they can jointly bring an animal sacrifice, and even jointly bring a bird. The difference between a minhah and an animal offering is derived midrashically. + +Chapter 13 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +The entire thirteenth and final chapter of Menahot is concerned with a person who obligates himself to bring something to the Temple. The issue at hand is how to interpret his words in order to ensure that he fulfills his pledge. +[One who says], “I take upon myself to bring a tenth,” he must bring one [tenth]. This is the general and a bit obvious introduction to the rest of the Mishnah. If someone pledges to bring a tenth of flour as a minhah to the Temple, then he must bring one tenth. +“Tenths,” he must bring two [tenths]. If he uses the plural, “tenths,” then he must bring at least two tenths, because the minimum number of “tenths” is two. +[If he said,] “I specified [a certain number of tenths] but I do not know what number I specified,” he must bring sixty tenths In this case, he remembers having specified a certain number of tenths, but he doesn’t remember how many tenths he specified. We must be concerned that he pledged to bring the maximum number of tenths possible. Therefore, he must bring sixty tenths, which as we learned in 12:4, is the largest number of tenths that a person can bring in one vessel. +[If he said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah,” he may bring whichever kind he chooses. Rabbi Judah says: he must bring a minhah of fine flour, for that is the distinctive [one] among the menahot. In this case a person pledges to bring a minhah, but doesn’t specify what kind of minhah he intends to bring. As explained in the introduction, and as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah, there are five different kinds of menahot. According to the first opinion, the person can bring any minhah because we assume that he didn’t have any specific minhah in mind. In other words, he must have meant to just bring any minhah and therefore that is exactly what he can do. Rabbi Judah says that he must bring a minhah of fine flour, for the Torah calls the minhah of fine flour “a minhah” without any accompanying name (see Leviticus 2:1). When it comes to other types of menahot, they all have an accompanying name, for instance “a minhah baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4). We can assume that had he wanted to bring such a minhah, he would have been more specific. + +Mishnah 2 + +[If he said] “A minhah” or “a kind of minhah,” he may bring one [of any kind]. Again, this is a general introduction to the rest of the mishnah. If he pledges to bring a minhah or “kind of from the various types of menahot” he must bring one minhah. +[If he said] “Menahot” or “A kind from menahot,” he must bring two [of any one kind]. If he uses the plural, he must bring two, because the minimum of a plurality is two. +[If he said,] “I specified [a certain kind], but I do not know what kind I specified,” he must bring the five kinds. There are five different kinds of menahot mentioned in Leviticus 2: 1) A minhah of choice flour. 2 + 3) A minhah baked in the oven. There are two kinds of such minhahs: loaves, and wafers. 4) A minhah cooked on a griddle. 5) A minhah cooked in a pan. If he remembers that he specified that he wished to bring a certain type of minhah, but he doesn’t remember what type he specified, he must bring one of each type, lest that is the type that he pledged. +Here he remembers what type of minhah he specified, but he does not remember how many tenths he pledged to put in the minhah. As we have seen, a minhah can have anywhere from 1-60 tenths of flour. According to the first opinion, he must bring one minhah of sixty tenths, because that is the maximum amount of tenths that a minhah can consist of. Rabbi works the math out differently. The problem with bringing one minhah of sixty tenths is that the one who made the pledge might have said a minhah with a lower amount, in which case the minhah with sixty tenths would not fulfill his pledge. What he must do is bring a minhah for every number from one to sixty. This way he can be covered for every possibility. I won’t do that math here, but suffice it to say that this forgotten pledge is going to cost him a bundle! + +Mishnah 3 + +[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring [pieces of] wood,” he must bring not less than two logs. If one volunteers to bring wood to use on the altar, he must bring two logs. This is the amount of wood they put on the altar at one time. +“Frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. If one volunteers to bring frankincense he must bring at least a handful of frankincense. +There are five cases of [not less than] a handful: One who says, “I take upon myself to bring frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. One who voluntarily offered a minhah must bring a handful of frankincense with it. One who offered up the handful outside [the Temp] is liable. The two dishes [of frankincense] require two handfuls. The mishnah now lists five cases where the minimum amount is a handful. The first is the case we just encountered in section two. The second case is one who volunteers to offer a minhah. He must bring with the minhah a handful of frankincense, the amount that always accompanies the minhah. The third case is who offers up a handful of incense outside of the Temple. Since a handful is an amount of significance within the Temple, one who offers up this amount outside of the Tempe is liable. The fourth and fifth handfuls are those that accompany the showbread (see above 11:5). Each row of the showbread had a dish of frankincense into which was put a handful of frankincense. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah deals with a person who volunteers to bring an unspecified amount of money as a donation to the Temple. +“I take upon myself to offer gold,” he must bring not less than a golden denar. Since the smallest gold coin is a golden denar, the person who pledges to bring gold must bring at least a golden denar. +“Silver,” he must bring not less than a silver denar. The same rule applies when it comes to silver. +“Copper,” he must bring not less than [the value of] a silver maah. If someone pledges to bring copper, he must bring copper that is equivalent in value to one silver maah. A maah is 1/24 of a sela, and a sela is equivalent to 4 denars, so a maah is 1/6 of a denar. +[If he said] “I specified [how much I would bring] but I do not know what I specified,” he must bring until he says, “I certainly did not intend to give so much!” In this case, the person doesn’t remember how much he pledged. He must therefore bring the maximum amount he might have possibly pledged. In other words, we might say to him, “Might you have pledged 10 denars?” If he says yes, then we would say, “Might you have pledged 100 denars?” If he says yes, then the number keeps going up until he hits a number that he knows he definitely didn’t pledge. We should note that in all of these cases we are dealing with a person who honestly wants to fulfill his vow. There is no concern that the person might lie and say “I could not have possibly pledged to bring such a large amount” when he really might have, because if we were concerned about him lying, he could have just lied and said that he remembered having pledged a lower amount. Rather, in all of these mishnayot we are dealing with a person who honestly wants to figure out how much money he owes to the Temple. + +Mishnah 5 + +[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring wine,” he must bring not less than three logs.
“Oil,” he must bring not less than one log;
Rabbi says: not less than three logs.
[If one said,] “I specified [how much I would offer] but I do not know how much I specified,” he must bring that quantity which is the most that is brought on any one day.
Today’s mishnah deals with one who has volunteered to bring wine or oil.
Section one: If he volunteered to bring wine, he must bring at least three logs of wine, which is the minimum amount of any of the libation offerings that accompany animal sacrifices (see above 12:4).
Section two: There is a debate about one who volunteers to bring oil. According to the first opinion, he must bring at least one log because an unspecified minhah is one tenth of fine flour (see 12:3), which requires one log of oil (see 9:3).
However, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] says that he must bring three logs of oil, for that is the minimum amount of oil used in any of the libation offerings that accompany animal sacrifices (see 12:4). In other words, the first opinion holds that he might have referred to the oil that accompanies a minhah which is only a log, whereas Rabbi holds that we must be concerned lest he was volunteering the amount of oil that accompanies an animal sacrifice, which is three logs. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah deals with a person who pledges to bring an olah, a wholly burnt offering, but does not clarify what type of animal he wishes to bring. The laws of the olah are found in Leviticus 1. +[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must bring a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah say: [he may bring] a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. According to the first opinion in this section, if a person offers to bring an olah he must bring at minimum a lamb, which is the lowest level of olah that comes from a beast (a behemah). This opinion assumes that when he stated that he wished to bring an olah, he must have had a behemah in mind. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah believes that it is also possible that he had a bird olah in mind (see Leviticus 1:14ff). Therefore, he can bring a bird, either a turtle-dove (and a partridge in a pear tree, I can’t help it!) or a young pigeon, both of which are valid for bird olahs. +[If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a calf. In this case he knows that he specified a herd animal (and not a flock animal) but he is not sure which animal specified. Therefore he must bring both a bull (an adult of two or three years) and a calf (one year old). He can’t just bring one lest he volunteered to bring the other and he wouldn’t fulfill his obligation by bringing the other one. Note that he need not bring female animals because only male animals may be offered as an olah. +[If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull, a bull calf, a ram, a he-goat, a he-kid, and a he-lamb. “Cattle” means in Hebrew domesticated animals. This is a broader category than “herd” because it includes flock animals. Therefore, it is possible that he pledged an animal either from the herd (bull or bull calf) or from the flock. These include the ram (two years old), the he-goat (two years old), a he-kid (one year old) or a he-lamb (one year old). +[If he said,] “I specified [some kind] but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must add to these a turtle-dove and a young pigeon. If he has no idea what he pledged, then he must also bring bird offerings, both a turtle-dove and a pigeon. This poor shlepper is going to have to bring 8 animals! Let this be a warning if you pledge to bring an olah, try to remember what animal you pledged. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +In this case he pledged to bring a todah (thanksgiving offering) or a shelamim (well-being offering). The difference between these and the olah that we learned about in yesterday’s mishnah is that these sacrifices can also be female. Therefore, in certain circumstances he may have to bring a lot more animals. +[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer a todah or a shelamim,” he must bring a lamb. This is the same rule as found in section one of yesterday’s mishnah. +[If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer. This is also the same as yesterday’s mishnah, except here he must be concerned lest he pledged to bring a female animal. Thus he must bring a bull and a cow (female) and he must bring a bull calf and a heifer (a young female). +[If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer, a ram and a ewe, a he-goat and a she-goat, a he-kid and a she-kid, a he-lamb and a ewe-lamb. So too here, where he might have pledged a flock or herd animal, he must bring female animals as well. This will be very expensive as he will have to bring 12 animals, any of which might have been his pledge. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +This mishnah establishes the minimum value of the animals that one has to bring when one has pledged to bring a specific animal. +[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. This section sets standard values for animals that one might pledge to bring as a sacrifice. If he pledges to bring an animal without specifying an amount, then the mandatory value of the animal includes the value of the drink-offerings (wine, oil and grain) that must accompany the animal. Thus the ox and its drink-offerings must be worth a maneh, which is 100 denar. The calf and its drink-offerings must be worth only five selas which is equivalent to twenty denar. The ram must be worth ten denars, and the lamb must be worth only five denars. +If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. If he specifies the value of the animal, then he must bring an animal worth that amount and on top of that, the requisite drink-offerings. +[If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. If he pledges to bring an ox worth a maneh, he cannot bring two oxen that together add up to one maneh. Even if each ox is worth 99 denar, he has not fulfilled his obligation because he stated that he would bring one ox worth one maneh (100 denar). +[If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he specified the color of the animal that he was going to bring, he cannot bring one of a different color. Similarly, if he pledges to bring a large animal, he cannot bring a smaller one. +[If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. However, if he pledges to bring a small one and he brings a larger one, there is a debate over whether he has fulfilled his obligation. According to the first opinion, he has fulfilled his obligation because the smaller ox is encompassed in the larger ox. This is akin to a situation in which he pledges to bring a small amount of money and he brings a larger amount of money. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] disagrees and holds that even in this situation he has not fulfilled his obligation. A small animal is qualitatively different from a large animal and therefore if he pledges to bring a small one, he must bring that type. This might be akin to promising to give a friend a small dog. The receiver might not be happier to get a larger one. Small things are perhaps not necessarily less than large ones [I wonder what would Rabbi Judah Hanasi have said about our SuperSize Me culture?] + +Mishnah 9 + +[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price.
[If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it.
[If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price.
[If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it.
One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy.
If he had three, the middle one is holy.
[If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.
Section one: An animal that has become blemished cannot be sacrificed. If someone sets aside a specific animal to be a sacrifice and it becomes blemished, he is not liable to bring another animal in its stead. The animal is redeemed for money and the money is holy and it can be used for any holy purpose. Therefore, he can bring two smaller oxen in place of the original one.
Section two: So too, if he originally dedicated two oxen to be sacrifices and both became blemished, he can redeem them both and use the money to buy one, more expensive oxen.
Rabbi forbids in both cases. It seems that Rabbi holds that once a person has dedicated a certain number of animals to the Temple he must bring that specific number of animals. As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi rules more strictly than the other sages.
Sections three and four: These sections teach basically the same rule, expect instead of one or two oxen the examples are a ram (two years old) or a lamb (one year old).
Section five: Since he didn’t specify that the smaller one of his lambs should be holy we can assume that he meant for the larger one to be holy and that is the one that he must bring.
Section six: In this case, where he doesn’t specify which lamb he wishes to dedicate, we assume that he didn’t want to be miserly and give the smallest one or be overly generous and give the largest one, but that he wanted to give the middle sized lamb.
Section seven: If he says that he did specify which lamb would be holy, but he doesn’t remember, then we must be concerned that he did dedicate the largest lamb. Similarly, if his father told him that he dedicated a lamb but he doesn’t remember which lamb his father told him, he must bring his largest lamb. + +Mishnah 10 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah deals with a fascinating historical topic, the “Temple of Onias.” The Temple of Onias was a Jewish Temple built in Egypt, in Heliopolis, around 230 years before the destruction of the Temple, some time during the second century B.C.E. The Temple is mentioned by Josephus who relates that it was destroyed in 73 C.E., three years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. +The rabbis did not look with favor upon the Temple of Onias, but neither did they completely reject it. It seems that the rabbis believed that such a Temple was not a valid form of worship, but that it was not an idolatrous shrine and that it was created with good, albeit mistaken, intent. +[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. If one offers to bring an olah, he must bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem. If he brings it to the Temple of Onias in Egypt, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he specifically states that he is going to bring it to the Temple of Onias, he should still bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem because for it to truly be an olah, it must be offered in Jerusalem. However, if he offers it in the Temple, he has fulfilled his vow. Rabbi Shimon takes a stronger stance against the Temple of Onias. Vowing to bring an olah at the Temple of Onias does not make the animal an olah. Therefore, there is no validity to his vow and he need not bring a sacrifice at all. +[If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The same rules hold true for a nazirite with regard to completing his naziriteship which is performed in the Temple by shaving and bringing sacrifices. +The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices. Priests who serve in the Temple of Onias are penalized by not being allowed to subsequently serve in the Temple of Jerusalem. However, they still can receive their share of holy things, such as terumah and sacrificial meat. The mishnah compares them with priests with blemishes. In other words, priests remain priests no matter what they do. Their genealogy provides them with the right to eat priestly food. But to serve in the Temple one must be unblemished, both physically and spiritually. Serving in the Temple of Onias and all the more so serving in an idolatrous temple, called by the Mishnah “something else,” disqualifies one from serving in the Temple in Jerusalem. + +Mishnah 11 + +It is said of the olah of cattle, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 1:9); and of the olah of birds, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor (vs. 17); and of the minhah, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 2:2): to teach you that it is the same whether one offers much or little, so long as one directs one’s heart to heaven. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Menahot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. It is no accident that the last mishnah of the tractate finishes with the message that we learned today. After having learned 14 chapters of Zevahim and 13 chapters of Menahot, there is a grave danger that one could learn that all God cares about, and all that is important in Judaism, is bringing the proper sacrifice in the proper manner. Our mishnah teaches that the important issue is the proper intent, that one’s intent in sacrifice should be to worship God. This is not to deny that that the minutiae of rules are extremely important, both in the eyes of the rabbis and surely in the eyes of the priests who served in the Temple while it still stood. Rather, what today’s mishnah seems to say is that the rules are an outer manifestation of the inner kavannah, intent, of the worshipper. Without following the rules, there is no way to bring that intent into the world. But without the intent, the rules are just empty exercises devoid of meaning. I believe that this is a message that is as true of Judaism today as it was in Temple times. Mishnah Menahot has probably been a great challenge for many of you; I know it was for me. So please accept an extra congratulations on completing it. Tomorrow we begin Hullin, the one tractate in all of Seder Kodashim that does not deal with sacrifices or the Temple.
The final mishnah of Menahot contains what is perhaps one of the most important religious messages found in the entire Mishnah. Its final phrase is quoted quite frequently by Jewish thinkers, who employ it in many different contexts. I shall explain it here in the introduction.
The Torah uses the phrase “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” in reference to three different sacrifices: 1) the olah from cattle (herd or flock animals), which would cost a lot; 2) the olah of birds, which cost far less; 3) and the minhah, which would cost even less than birds. All three of these are pleasing to God, even though some cost far more than do the other. This teaches that God doesn’t care how much the sacrifice costs. What God cares about is that the person “directs his heart to heaven” meaning offers the sacrifice with the correct intention. If an expensive sacrifice helps one direct one’s heart to heaven, then it would be pleasing. But if it is offered for the wrong reason, then the mishnah seems to say that it is not actually pleasing to God. \ No newline at end of file