מנחות 55 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and by intention; and just as the ‘great terumah’ should be given generously so the terumah of the tithe should be given generously. But [there is yet a difficulty] from here, for R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said, My father used to take ten pressed figs from the cake in respect of the ninety [fresh figs] in the basket. Now if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it was before, it is well; but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it is now, then too little is given [as tithe]! When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Eleazar that the case of the pressed figs is different since they can be boiled and so restored to their former condition. Our Rabbis taught: One may give fresh figs as terumah in respect of pressed figs in that place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed; but one may not give pressed figs as terumah in respect of fresh figs even in the place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed. The Master stated: ‘One may give fresh figs as terumah in respect of pressed figs in that place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed’. This is so, then, only where there is this custom, but not where there is no such custom. But what are the facts of the case? If there is a priest present, then why is this not allowed even where there is no such custom? Have we not learnt that wherever there is a priest present one must give the terumah from the choicest kind? Obviously then there is no priest present. Now read the next clause: ‘But one may not give pressed figs as terumah in respect of fresh figs even in the place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed’. But if there is no priest present why is one not allowed to do so? Have we not learnt that where there is no priest one must give the terumah from that which is most durable? Obviously then there is a priest present. Must we then say that in the case of the first clause there is no priest present whilst in the case of the second clause there is a priest present? — Yes. In the case of the first clause there is no priest present but in the case of the second clause there is a priest present. Said R. Papa, You may infer from this that we endeavour to interpret [two clauses of] a passage by suggesting two sets of facts rather than suggest that they represent the views of two Tannaim. MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS MUST BE KNEADED WITH LUKEWARM WATER AND MUST BE WATCHED LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED. IF ONE ALLOWED THE REMAINDER TO BECOME LEAVENED ONE TRANSGRESSES A PROHIBITION, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, NO MEAL-OFFERING WHICH YE SHALL BRING UNTO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE LEAVENED. ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING. GEMARA. Whence is this derived? — Resh Lakish said, It is written, It shall not be baked leavened: their position, that is, even their portion must not be baked leavened. And is this verse required for this purpose? But it is required for the following which was taught: Wherefore does the text say, It shall not^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ

^ᵃnote:I.e., even more than a tenth, accordingly the previous objection that too much is given cannot stand.
^ᵇnote:For when reckoning by weight the quantity set aside, sc. ten pressed figs, would be much less than a tenth.
^ᶜnote:By number.
^ᵈnote:V. Ter. II, 4. Accordingly the best (i.e., fresh figs) must be given to the priest, irrespective of custom.
^ᵉnote:And therefore only dried figs which last longer should be set aside for the priest.
^ᶠnote:In this case pressed figs.
^ᵍnote:And therefore dried figs may not be given to the priest but only fresh ones, even though the priest will press them later on, for it is the custom to do so.
^ʰnote:For one could have answered that in each case no priest was available and the reason why in the second clause one is not allowed to set aside dried figs is that the Tanna of this Baraitha is of the opinion that in every case the best must be given as terumah, even in the absence of a priest. This indeed is the opinion of R. Judah; v. Ter. loc. cit
^ⁱnote:I.e., what is left of the meal-offering after the handful has been taken out.
^ʲnote:Lev. II, 11. The prohibition of this verse refers to the meal-offering as a whole, i.e., before the taking out of the handful. That the remainder must not be leavened is derived from another verse; v. Gemara, infra.
^ᵏnote:That the remainder must not be leavened. V. prec. note.
^ˡnote:Ibid. VI, 10. The Heb. may be translated: ‘their portion shall not be baked leavened’.

²be baked leavened? Has it not already stated, It shall not be made leavened? From the verse, It shall not be made leavened, I might have said that one is liable only once for all [the works involved], Scripture therefore says, It shall not be baked leavened. Now baking was included in the general prohibition; why was it specifically mentioned? So that every other work shall be like it; thus as the work of baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it, so I will include the work of kneading and of shaping and every other specific work, including also the work of smoothing which is also a specific work, that one is liable on account of each alone! — We derive our rule from the expression ‘their portion’. Perhaps then the whole verse refers to this only! — If so [the prohibition] should have been, ‘Their portion shall not be baked leavened’; why does Scripture say, It shall not be baked leavened: their portion? You can therefore infer both [prohibitions]. But perhaps the interpretation should be thus: for the baking which is expressly prohibited by the Divine Law one is liable once, but as for the other works one is only liable once for all of them! — This is a case of a subject which though included in a general proposition is specifically mentioned in order to teach us something concerning it, in which case what is specifically mentioned is not stated only for its own sake but to teach that the same affects the whole general proposition. But perhaps I should say that the verse ‘it shall not be made leavened’ is a general [prohibition] and the verse ‘It shall not be baked leavened’ is a particular [prohibition]; we thus have a general rule followed by a specific particular, in which case the general rule is limited to the particular specified, so that only the baking is prohibited but no other work! — R. Aptoriki explained, Here the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other, and in every case where the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular does not apply. R. Adda b. Ahabah (some say, Kadi) objected, Do you say that where the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular does not apply? Surely it has been taught: It is written, And he shall slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering before the Lord; it is a sin-offering. Now where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? On the north side; this too is slaughtered on the north side. But do we derive it from here? Is it not written, In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered? Why then is the former verse necessary? It serves to make the rule absolute, namely, that if it was not slaughtered on the north side it is invalid. You say that it serves to make this rule absolute, but perhaps it is not so but teaches rather that this [sin-offering] must be [slaughtered] on the north side but no other requires the north side! The text therefore states, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering; this establishes the rule that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered on the north side. Now this is the conclusion because the Divine Law has also written, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering, but without this verse I would have held that only this [sin-offering] requires the north side but no other requires the north side. And why? Is it not because this would be a case of a general rule followed by a specific particular, which would be governed by the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular, notwithstanding that the two are far away from each other? Thereupon R. Ashi demurred, Is this an instance of a general rule followed by a specific particular? It is an instance of a specific particular followed by a general rule, in which case the general rule extends beyond the scope of the specific particular, and includes every [sin-offering] Rather the fact is that the Tanna's counter-argument was based upon the expression ‘it’; and he argued thus: ‘perhaps it is not so but teaches rather that this [sin-offering] must be [slaughtered] on the north side but no other requires the north side’, since the Divine Law stated ‘it’. Now that the general rule is derived from the verse, ‘And he shall slaughter the sin-offering’, what does the term ‘it’ exclude? — (Mnemonic: Nahshon, the slaughterer, a bird, the Passover-offering.) It teaches that it must be on the north side, but Nahshon's he-goat ‘was not [slaughtered] on the north side. For I might have thought that since the latter was included under the law of laying on of hands it was also included under the law requiring the north side; we are therefore taught [that it was not so]. And whence do we know that this was so concerning the laying on of hands? — For it was taught: The verse, And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the he-goat, includes also Nahshon's he-goat, for the requirement of the laying on of hands. So R. Judah. But R. Simeon says,^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵐnote:Ibid. II, 11.
^ⁿnote:Sc. the surface of the dough with moist hands (Rashi). Others: cutting away a lump of dough sufficient for each loaf (R. Gershom); or, shaping the loaf (Maim.).
^ᵒnote:Which expression, following immediately upon the prohibition ‘It shall not be baked leavened’, signifies that even the remainder shall not be baked leavened.
^ᵖnote:I.e., that the remainder shall not be leavened. Whence then do we know that the meal-offering as a whole, before the taking out of the handful, is subject to this prohibition?
^ᵠnote:The general prohibition ‘It shall not be made leavened’ includes every work in connection with the meal-offering, and certainly the baking, but the latter was specifically prohibited to teach that for the baking alone, as well as for any single work in connection with the meal-offering, one is liable.
^ʳnote:The former is stated in Lev. II, 11, whilst the latter in VI, 10.
^ˢnote:V. Pes. 6b.
^ᵗnote:Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler.
^ᵘnote:Cf. ibid. I, 11.
^ᵛnote:That the sin-offering must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar.
^ʷnote:Ibid. VI, 18.
^ˣnote:The repetition of this rule establishes it as an obligation and absolutely indispensable.
^ʸnote:E.g., the communal sin-offerings offered on the Festivals. V. Sh. Mek. n. 3.
^ᶻnote:Ibid. IV, 29.
^ᵃᵃnote:In VI, 18 the rule is stated with regard to sin-offerings generally whilst in IV, 24 it is stated with regard to the special case of a sin-offering of a ruler.
^ᵃᵇnote:For the specific case is stated before the general rule, v. prec. note.
^ᵃᶜnote:Accordingly the verse, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering (ibid. IV, 29), is rendered superfluous.
^ᵃᵈnote:Heb. u,ut, ‘it’ to the exclusion of others. The third verse (Lev. IV, 29) was therefore necessary to extend the rule generally so as to include all sin-offerings.
^ᵃᵉnote:That all sin-offerings must be slaughtered on the north side.
^ᵃᶠnote:The he-goat offered as a sin-offering by Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, (and likewise by each of the princes of the other tribes, v. Num. VII, 12ff) at the dedication of the altar. This sin-offering was peculiar in that it was offered not in expiation of any sin committed.
^ᵃᵍnote:That Nahshon's he-goat required the laying on of hands before slaughtering.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler. Other offerings of a he-goat are included in this verse by reason of the fact that ‘he-goat’ is expressly mentioned here instead of the more usual expression ‘upon its head’.