Parallel
מנחות 78
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— R. Isaac b. Abdimi said, Because it is written, They shall be. Perhaps it means ten kapizas! — Raba answered, The verse speaks of tenths. ‘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]’. But may that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh become the basis for another inference to be made from it again by a hekkesh? -[The original rule was derived] from itself and [from] something else, and [any rule derived] from itself and [from] something of the terumah of produce, and the suffix in each case excludes every other terumah. else is not regarded as a hekkesh. This is well according to him who does not regard this as a hekkesh, but what can be said according to him who regards this as a hekkesh? — The expression ‘ye shall bring’ is an amplifying text. MISHNAH. THE CONSECRATION [MEAL-OFFERING] CONSISTED OF [UNLEAVENED CAKES] LIKE THE UNLEAVENED CAKES OF THE THANK-OFFERING. NAMELY CAKES, WAFERS, AND SOAKED CAKES. THE NAZIRITE MEAL-OFFERING CONSISTED OF TWO THIRDS OF THE UNLEAVENED CAKES OF THE THANK-OFFERING. NAMELY CAKES AND WAFERS. BUT NOT SOAKED CAKES; THUS THERE WERE TEN KABS BY JERUSALEM MEASURE. WHICH ARE SIX TENTHS AND SOMETHING OVER. GEMARA. Whence is it derived? — Said R. Hisda in the name of R. Hama b. Guria, It is written, And out of the basket of unleavened bread that was before the Lord, he took one unleavened cake, and one oil-cake, and one wafer. Now ‘cake’ means cake, and ‘wafer’ means wafer; but what is meant by ‘oil-cake’? Surely it means a cake soaked in oil. R. Awia demurred, perhaps it means a cake of oil! — Rather it is derived from the exposition of R. Nahman b. R. Hisda in the name of R. Tabla. [It is written,] This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed. What do we learn in regard to ‘his sons’ from the offering ‘when he is anointed’? It is that the offering at the initiation [of the ordinary priest] shall be like the offering at the anointing [of the High priest]; as at the anointing [of the High priest] there was an offering of soaked cakes, so at the initiation [of the ordinary priest] there was an offering of soaked cakes. R. Hisda said, When the High Priest is inaugurated into the service he requires two tenths of an ephah for offerings, one on account of his anointing and the other on account of his initiation. Mar son of R. Ashi said, He requires three [tenths]. But they do not in fact differ, for the former refers to the case where he had already been serving in the Temple as an ordinary priest, and the latter to the case where he had not served in the Temple as an ordinary priest. THE NAZIRITE MEAL-OFFERING CONSISTED OF TWO THIRDS OF THE UNLEAVENED CAKES OF THE THANK-OFFERING. Our Rabbis taught: ‘His peace-offerings’ includes the peace-offering of the Nazirite, that it requires ten kabs [of flour], Jerusalem measure, and one quarter log of oil. I might think that [it includes the Nazirite-offering] in regard to all that is mentioned in the passage, the text therefore stated, Unleavened. How is this implied? — R. Papa answered, [It includes for the Nazirite-offering] only those kinds which are specified by the term ‘unleavened’, thus excluding the soaked cakes which are not specified by the term ‘unleavened’. A Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘A basket of unleavened bread’ is a general statement, ‘cakes’ and ‘wafers’ are particular instances; we thus have a general statement followed by the enumeration of particular instances, in which case the scope of the general statement is limited to the particulars specified; thus only cakes and wafers, but nothing else.
—
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING WITHIN [THE TEMPLE COURT] AND THE BREAD THEREOF WAS OUTSIDE THE WALL [AT THE TIME]. THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN, OR EVEN IF ALL EXCEPT ONE HAD BECOME CRUSTED, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. GEMARA. What does ‘OUTSIDE THE WALL’ mean? — R. Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth Page; but Resh Lakish says, Outside the wall of the Temple court. ‘Resh Lakish says. Outside the wall of the Temple court’,for we must interpret ‘al in the sense of ‘near to’. ‘R. Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth page’, but [if it was] outside the wall of the Temple court it would be hallowed, for we need not interpret ‘al in the sense of ‘near to’. But have they not differed in this matter once already? For we have learnt: If a man slaughters the Passover-offering with leaven In his possession, he transgresses a negative command. R. Judah says. Also [if he so slaughters] the daily offering. Whereupon Resh Lakish said, He is never culpable unless the leaven belongs to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles the blood or to any one of the members of the company, and it is also with him in the Temple court; but R. Johanan said, Even if it is not with him in the Temple court! — Both disputes are necessary. For if it were stated only there [in connection with the Passover-offering, I would say that] only there does R. Johanan [hold him culpable even though the leaven was not with him], for wherever it happens to be it is a prohibited matter, but as regards the hallowing of the bread I would say that he concurs with Resh Lakish, that if it is within the Temple court it is hallowed, but if outside it is not hallowed. And if it were stated only here I would say that only here does Resh Lakish [insist that the bread in order to be hallowed must be within the Temple court], but there I would say that he concurs with R. Johanan [that he is culpable even though the leaven is not with him]. Hence both disputes are necessary. There has been taught [a Baraitha] in accord with R. Johanan's view. If a man slaughtered the thank-offering within [the Temple court] and the bread thereof was outside the wall of Beth Page [at the time], the bread is not hallowed. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN [...THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED]. Whence is this derived? — From the following which our Rabbis taught: With cakes of leavened bread he shall present: this teaches that the bread is hallowed only if [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven [before the slaughtering of the sacrifice]. ‘He shall present his offering with the slaughtering’: this teaches that the bread is hallowed only by the slaughtering of the sacrifice.’ The slaughtering of the thank-offering’: this teaches that if he slaughtered [the thank-offering] under the name of another offering, the bread is not hallowed. Our Rabbis taught: One fulfils one's obligation [on the Passover] with unleavened bread partially baked, and with unleavened bread prepared in a stewing pot. What is meant by ‘unleavened bread partially baked’? — Rab Judah explained in the name of Samuel, It is [any unleavened bread which] when broken has no threads dragging from it. Raba said, And the same rule applies to the loaves of the thank-offering. Surely this is obvious, for here the expression ‘bread’ is used and there too the expression ‘bread’ is used! — You might think that since the Divine Law stated, One, intimating that he may not take what is broken, such is regarded as broken; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. It was stated: If the thank-offering was slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves, Hezekiah ruled, Forty out of the eighty are hallowed; and R. Johanan ruled, Not even forty out of the eighty are hallowed. Said R. Zera, All agree that if he declared, ‘Let forty out of the eighty be hallowed’, they are hallowed; like- wise If he declared, ‘The forty shall not be hallowed unless all the eighty are hallowed’, they are not hallowed; they differ only where no specific statement was made: one Master is of the opinion that his intention was to ensure the prescribed number, while the other Master holds the view that his intention was to provide a large offering. Abaye said, They differ as to whether vessels of ministry hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention; one Master is of the opinion that vessels of ministry hallow even in the absence of the [owner's] intention, while the other Master holds the view that vessels of ministry do not hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention. R.Papa said, All agree that vessels of ministry hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention, but they differ only as to the knife; one Master is of the opinion that the knife hallows just as any vessel of ministry, while the other Master holds the view that it does not hallow like any other vessel of ministry, since it has no receptacle. Others quote [R. Papa] in this form: R. Papa said, All agree that vessels of ministry only hallow with the [owner's] intention, but they differ as to the knife; one Master holds that the knife is more efficacious than any other vessel of ministry, seeing that it hallows even though it has no receptacle; whilst the other Master holds that the knife is no more efficacious than any other vessel of ministry. MISHNAH. IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING [INTENDING TO EAT THEREOF] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, THE BREAD IS [NEVERTHELESS] HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TREFAH, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE A BLEMISH, R. ELIEZER SAYS, THE BREAD IS [NEVERTHELESS] HALLOWED. BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNDER ANOTHER NAME, AND SO, TOO, IF THE RAM OF THE CONSECRATION-OFFERING OR THE TWO LAMBS OFFERED AT PENTECOST WERE SLAUGHTERED UNDER ANOTHER NAME, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. GEMARA. In accordance with whose view is the ruling in our Mishnah?-It is in accordance with the view of R. Meir; for it was taught: This is the general rule: If the disqualifying defect befell [the thank-offering] before the slaughtering, the bread is not hallowed; (if after the slaughtering, the bread is hallowed). Thus if he slaughtered it [intending to eat thereof] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is hallowed; if he slaughtered it and it was found to be trefah, the bread is not hallowed.
—