Parallel
מנחות 77
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
‘TEN FOR THE LEAVENED CAKES’, ONE TENTH FOR EACH CAKE; ‘AND TEN FOR THE UNLEAVENED. OF UNLEAVENED CAKES THERE WERE THREE KINDS: CAKES, WAFERS, AND SOAKED CAKES, THUS THERE WERE THREE AND A THIRD TENTHS OF FLOUR FOR EACH KIND, THREE CAKES TO EVERY TENTH. BY JERUSALEM MEASURE THEY WERE THIRTY KABS, FIFTEEN FOR THE LEAVENED CAKES AND FIFTEEN FOR THE UNLEAVENED. ‘FIFTEEN FOR THE LEAVENED CAKES’, ONE KAB AND A HALF FOR EACH CAKE; ‘AND FIFTEEN FOR THE UNLEAVENED’. OF THE UNLEAVENED CAKES THERE WERE THREE KINDS: CAKES, WAFERS, AND SOAKED CAKES, THUS THERE WERE FIVE KABS FOR EACH KIND, TWO CAKES TO EVERY KAB. GEMARA. THE THANK-OFFERING REQUIRED FIVE SE'AHS [OF FLOUR]. JERUSALEM MEASURE etc. Whence do we know this? — R. Hisda said, From the verse, The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure; as the bath is three se'ahs so the ephah is three se'ahs. But whence do we know this of the bath? Shall we say, because it is written, That the bath may contain the tenth part of a homer? Then the same is said of the ephah too, And the ephah the tenth part of a homer! But [you will say that the latter verse proves nothing as] we do not know how much the homer is, then the same applies to the former verse, since we do not know how much the homer is! — Rather it is derived from the following verse: And the set portion of oil, of the bath of oil, shall be the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is ten baths, even a homer; for ten baths are a homer. Samuel said, They may not increase the measures by more than a sixth, neither the coins by more than a sixth, and the profits [on necessary foods] must not exceed a sixth. What is the reason [for his first statement]? If it be said that the market prices will rise [above due proportions on that account]. then [for the same reason] it should not [be permitted to increase] even by a sixth! And if it be said that it is so on the score of overreaching, so that the transaction be not annulled, but surely Raba said, On account of any fraud in measure, weight or number, even though it is less than the standard of overreaching, one can retract. And if it be said [that the reason why no more than a sixth may be added to weights is] that the dealer may not incur any loss, [it will be retorted]. Is [then the whole purpose of the law that] he be guarded against loss? Is he not entitled to make any profit? ‘Buy and sell [at no profit] merely to be called a merchant!’ — Rather, said R. Hisda, Samuel found a Scriptural text and expounded it: And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten and five shekels shall be your maneh. Was then the maneh two hundred and forty denars? But three things are to be inferred from this: it is to be inferred that the Temple maneh was doubled; it is to be inferred that they may increase the measures but that they may not increase them by more than a sixth; and it is to be inferred that the sixth is added ‘from the outside’. Rabina said, This may be proved from our Mishnah which states: THE THANK-OFFERING REQUIRED FIVE SE'AHS [OF FLOUR], JERUSALEM MEASURE, WHICH ARE SIX SE'AHS WILDERNESS MEASURE. This obviously proves it.
—
MISHNAH. FROM EACH KIND [THE PRIEST] TOOK ONE TENTH PART AS TERUMAH, AS IT IS SAID, AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING AS TERUMAH UNTO THE LORD. ‘ONE’: [MEANS] THAT HE MAY NOT TAKE WHAT IS 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 INSTEAD OF FROM ANOTHER. IT SHALL BE THE PRIEST'S THAT SPRINKLETH THE BLOOD OF THE PEACE-OFFERINGS; BUT THE REST WAS CONSUMED BY THE OWNER. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And of it he shall present’: — of all of them joined together. One: — that he may not take what is 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 instead of from another. ‘As terumah unto the Lord’: but I know not how much it [must be]. I can, however, infer it by the following argument: it is written here ‘terumah’, and it is written there in connection with the terumah of the tithe ‘terumah’; as there it is one part in ten, so here it is one part in ten. Or perhaps argue this way: it is written here ‘terumah’, and it is written there in connection with the first-fruits ‘terumah’; as there there is no fixed measure, so here there is no fixed measure. Let us then see to which of the two is this case most similar. We may infer the terumah which is not followed by any other offering from that terumah which is not followed by any other offering, but let not the firstfruits enter the argument since they are followed by other offerings. Or perhaps argue this way: we may infer the terumah which must be eaten in a holy place from that terumah which must also be eaten in a holy place, but let not the terumah of the tithe enter into the argument seeing that it may be eaten in any place. The text therefore stated here, Of it... as terumah unto the Lord, and also there in connection with the terumah of the tithe, Of it as the terumah of the Lord, for the purpose of gezerah shawah. We have thus learnt that the terumah must be one part in ten, but I know not of what measure shall the [leavened] cakes be. I can, however, infer it by the following argument: it is written here bread’, and it is also written in connection with the Two Loaves ‘bread’; as there there was one tenth [of an ephah] for each loaf, so here there must be one tenth for each cake. Or perhaps argue thus: it is written here ‘bread’, and also there in connection with the Shewbread it is written ‘bread’; as there there were two tenths for each loaf, so here there must be two tenths for each cake. Let us then see to which of the two is this case most similar. We may infer a meal-offering which is leavened and offered with an animal-offering from another meal-offering which is leavened and is offered with an animal-offering, but let not the Shewbread enter into the argument seeing that it is neither leavened nor offered with an animal-offering. perhaps argue this way: we may infer a meal-offering which may be offered either of the produce of the Land [of Israel] or of that grown outside it, from the new or the old produce, from that meal-offering which also may be offered either of the produce of the Land or of that grown outside it, from the new or the old produce; but let not the Two offering of the produce and it was followed by the ‘Great Terumah’ and the various tithes. Loaves enter into the argument seeing that it must be offered of the new produce and of that grown in the Land. The text therefore stated, Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves. Now the text need not have stated ‘Ye shall bring’; why did it state ‘Ye shall bring’? [To teach that] every other offering that you make of a similar kind shall be like this; as in this case there was one tenth [for each loaf]. so [in the other case] there must be one tenth [for each cake]. Should we not [rather say]. as in this case there were two tenths in all, so here there shall be two tenths in all? The text therefore stated, They shall be. We have now learnt that ten [tenths] are required for the leavened [cakes], but whence do we know that ten [tenths] are required for the unleavened [cakes]? The text therefore stated, With cakes of leavened bread; thus one must bring unleavened [cakes] in the same measure as the leavened [cakes] — It is thus established that there were twenty tenths for the cakes of the thank-offering, ten for the leavened [cakes] and ten for the unleavened. I might think that the ten [tenths] for the unleavened [cakes] were all of one kind [of cake]; the text therefore stated, If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil of fine flour soaked. Thus there were three and a third tenths for each kind, three cakes to every tenth; and thus there were forty cakes for the thank-offering. Four [cakes] were taken and given to the priest, and the rest was consumed by the owner. The Master said, ‘And of it he shall present, of all of them joined together’. Consider then the verse, And all the fat thereof shall he take off from it; how can one apply here the ruling ‘of all joined together’? — [One must accept] the ruling of R. Hisda in the name of Abimi. For R. Hisda said in the name of Abimi, The flesh may not be cut up before the sacrificial portions have been taken off. The Master said, ‘It is written here "terumah", and it is written there in connection with the terumah of the tithe "terumah".’ Perhaps we should infer it from the terumah at Midian! — We may infer the terumah that is binding for all times from that terumah which is also binding for all times, and let not the terumah at Midian enter into the argument since it was not binding for all times. Perhaps we should infer it from the terumah stated in connection with the dough-offering! — A Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: We may infer that matter in connection with which there is written, Of it... as terumah unto the Lord, from that matter in connection with which there is also written, Of it as the terumah of the Lord; hence the terumah of the dough-offering is excluded since there is not stated in connection therewith ‘Of it as terumah unto the Lord’. Raba raised this question: By [eating] the terumah of the cakes of the thank-offering does one incur the penalty of death [at the hands of heaven] or the liability of the added fifth or not? Since it has been compared with the terumah of the tithe, then in this respect too it is like the terumah of the tithe; or perhaps the Divine Law has excluded [this terumah] by the expressions ‘therein’ and ‘the fifth part thereof’. Does it render [other cakes into which it may fall] subject to the law of terumah or not? — These questions remain undecided. The Master said, The text therefore stated, ‘They shall be’. How is this intimated in the text?
—