מנחות 75 — Soncino English Talmud

¹just as here there must be the putting in of oil in the vessel [at the outset], so there there must also be the putting in of oil in the vessel [at the outset]. And just as there there must be mingling and pouring, so here there must also be mingling and pouring. THE [BAKED] CAKES WERE MINGLED [WITH OIL]. SO RABBI. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE FINE FLOUR [WAS MINGLED WITH OIL]. Our Rabbis taught: [The expression] ‘fine flour mingled with oil’ signifies that the fine flour was mingled [with oil]. But Rabbi says, The cakes were mingled, as it is said, Cakes mingled with oil. They said to him, Is it not written in connection with the loaves of the thank-offering, Cakes [mingled with oil]? Nevertheless it was not possible to mingle the cakes [with oil] but only the flour! How was it made ready? He put in oil into the vessel at the outset, put in [the flour], added oil to it and mingled them together; he then kneaded it, baked it, broke it in pieces, poured oil on it, and then took the handful from it. Rabbi says, The cakes were mingled, as it is said, ‘Cakes mingled with oil’. How was it made ready? He put in oil into the vessel at the outset, put in [the flour], kneaded it, baked it, broke it in pieces, added oil to it and mingled them together, again poured oil on it, and then took the handful from It. This was indeed a sound argument that the Sages put to Rabbi. What is the argument?Said R. Samuel son of R. Isaac, Since there was only one quarter log of oil, how could it be distributed among so many cakes? THE CAKES REQUIRED MINGLING [WITH OIL] AND THE WAFERS ANOINTING. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, ‘Cakes mingled [with oil]’, but not wafers mingled with oil. For [without the Biblical direction] I might have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if cakes which do not require anointing require mingling, wafers which require anointing should surely require mingling! The text therefore states, ‘Cakes mingled [with oil]’, but not wafers mingled with oil. [It is written,] ‘Wafers anointed [with oil]’, but not cakes anointed with oil. For [without the Biblical direction] I might have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if wafers which do not require mingling require anointing, cakes which require mingling should surely require anointing! The text therefore states ‘Wafers anointed [with oil]’, but not cakes anointed with oil. How is this implied? — Raba explained, Because [Scripture] should not have omitted to state at least once the expression ‘cakes anointed with oil and wafers mingled with oil’. HOW WERE THEY ANOINTED? IN THE FORM OF CHI. What is the meaning of ‘IN THE FORM OF CHI’?-Said R. Kahana, In the form of the Greek letter chi. Our Rabbis taught: If the meal-offering [baked in the oven] is composed half of cakes and half of wafers, one must bring for it one log of oil and divide it, one half for the cakes and the other half for the wafers. The cakes are to be mingled [with oil] and the wafers anointed. One must anoint the wafer over the whole of its surface; and the residue of the oil is to be put into the cakes. R. Simeon son of Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, One must anoint it in the form of [the letter] chi; and the residue of the oil is consumed by the priests. Another Baraitha taught: If wafers are brought as an offering by themselves, one must bring for them one log of oil and anoint them, repeating this again and again until all the oil in the log has been used up. R. Simeon son of Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, One must anoint them in the form of [the letter] chi, and the residue of the oil is consumed by the priests. MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS THAT ARE PREPARED IN A VESSEL REQUIRE TO BE BROKEN IN PIECES. GEMARA. What does it exclude?-Said R. Papa, It excludes the Two Loaves and the Shewbread. Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt break it in pieces . . . it is a meal-offering: this includes all meal-offerings that they require to be broken in pieces. I might then say that it includes also the Two Loaves and the Shewbread; the text therefore states, ‘It’. And pour oil thereon, it is a meal-offering: this includes all meal-offerings that they require oil to be poured on them. I might then say that it includes also the meal-offering baked in the oven; the text therefore states, ‘Oil thereon’. Perhaps I must thus exclude the cakes but not the wafers; the text therefore states, ‘It is’. How is this implied? Perhaps I should rather exclude the meal-offering of the priests!^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:With regard to the meal-offering prepared on a griddle Scripture mentions two applications of oil, the mingling and the pouring at the end; and with regard to that prepared in a pan Scripture only mentions the putting in of oil at the outset. On the strength of the analogy it is established that what is stated of the one applies to the other, thus both kinds require three applications of oil.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. 4.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. VII, 12.
^ᵈnote:V. infra.
^ᵉnote:Thus in spite of the express Biblical direction it was the flour that was mingled with oil and not the cakes.
^ᶠnote:Sc. the meal-offering that was prepared in a pan or on a griddle.
^ᵍnote:The text adopted is that of MS.M., R. Gershom, Tosaf. and Sh. Mek.; and the interpretation follows that suggested by Tosaf. sv. rhpa. V, Rashi. Cur. edd. read: What was the purport of the words ‘nevertheless it was not possible etc.’ which the Sages said to Rabbi?
^ʰnote:V. infra 89a. A half log of oil was prescribed for the thank-offering, half of this quantity being used for the ten soaked cakes, and the other half (i.e., a quarter log) for the ten cakes and the ten wafers. It would therefore be impossible to mingle ten baked cakes with less than a quarter log of oil, for baked cakes are porous and all the oil would soon be absorbed in a few cakes. Obviously then the mingling could only have been performed before the cakes were baked, i.e., mingling the oil with the flour. And so it was, according to the Sages, with all meal-offerings.
^ⁱnote:Lev. II, 4.
^ʲnote:The fact that Scripture invariably speaks of cakes mingled with oil and wafers anointed with oil indicates that the manner of applying the oil is exclusive in each case.
^ᵏnote:V. supra p. 445, n. 2.
^ˡnote:According to R. Simeon the meal-offering baked in the oven may consist of either ten cakes or ten wafers or five cakes and five wafers. V. supra p. 372.
^ᵐnote:I.e., from which the handful is taken (Tif. Yisroel).
^ⁿnote:These were not broken in pieces.
^ᵒnote:Lev. 11,6.

²— Rabbah explained, Which meal-offering is it that needs two expressions to exclude it? You must say it is the meal-offering baked [in the oven]. MISHNAH. THE MEAL-OFFERING OF AN ISRAELITE WAS FOLDED INTO TWO AND THE TWO WERE FOLDED INTO FOUR, AND IT WAS SEVERED [AT EACH BEND]; THE MEAL-OFFERING OF PRIESTS WAS FOLDED INTO TWO AND THE TWO WERE FOLDED INTO FOUR, BUT IT WAS NOT SEVERED; THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST WAS NOT FOLDED. R. SIMEON SAYS, NEITHER THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS NOR THE MEAL-OFFERING 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 THE OFFERING] IT IS NOT TO BE BROKEN IN PIECES. THEY MUST ALL BE BROKEN INTO PIECES THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] Thou shalt break. From this expression I would say [that it must be broken] in two, the text therefore states, In pieces. [From the expression] ‘in pieces’ I would say that it should be broken into crumbs, the text therefore states, ‘It’: it must be broken in pieces but not the pieces into further pieces. How then must it be done? The meal-offering of an Israelite was folded into two and the two into four, and it was severed [at each bend]; the meal-offering of priests and of the anointed High Priest were folded etc. But have we not learnt: [THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST] WAS NOT FOLDED?-Rabbah said, It means it was not folded into four but it was folded into two. R. SIMEON SAYS, NEITHER THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS NOR THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST WAS BROKEN IN PIECES. R. Joseph said, Over habiza which contains pieces of bread the size of an olive the benediction is ‘... who bringest forth bread from the earth’. If it does not contain pieces of bread the size of an olive the benediction is ‘...who createst various kinds of food’. R. Joseph said, Whence do I know this? From the following teaching: If he was standing and offering meal-offerings [in the Temple] in Jerusalem, he says, ‘Blessed art thou... who hast kept us in life and hast preserved us and enabled us to reach this season’. If he took them to eat he says the benediction ... — who bringest forth bread from the earth’. And we have learnt: THEY MUST ALL BE BROKEN INTO PIECES THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE. Abaye said to him, Then according to the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael who said, ‘He must crumble [the meal-offerings] until they have been reduced to the fineness of the flour of which they had been made’, it would not be necessary to say the benediction ‘who bringest forth’ — And should you say that it is so, but it has been taught: If a man gathered together crumbs from all of them the size of an olive and ate them [on the Passover], if they were leavened he has thereby incurred the penalty of kareth, but if unleavened he fulfils therewith his obligation on Passover! -We are dealing here with the case where he pressed [the crumbs] into a compact mass. In that case, consider the comment on the above teaching: ‘Provided he ate them in the time it takes to eat half a loaf’. Now if he pressed them into a compact mass it should have stated ‘he ate it’! — Rather we are dealing here with the case where the crumbs come from a large loaf. What is the decision then? R. Shesheth said, Even though the pieces of bread [in the habiza] are not the size of an olive, [one must say the benediction ‘who bringest forth’]. Raba said, This is so provided they still have the semblance of bread.27^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ

^ᵖnote:Viz., ‘it’ and ‘thereon’.
^ᵠnote:For it consists of two kinds, cakes and wafers; accordingly two expressions are required to exclude this meal-offering.
^ʳnote:I.e., each cake.
^ˢnote:Thus fulfilling the precept of breaking in pieces.
^ᵗnote:So that the handful could be taken therefrom.
^ᵘnote:Since the handful was not taken from it but it was wholly burnt.
^ᵛnote:Sc. his freewill-offering, for according to R. Simeon from the priest's obligatory meal-offering the handful was taken.
^ʷnote:Reading i,,up. In the MSS., and also further in the Gemara and in Rashi, the reading is ih,h,p, ‘All the pieces must be about the size of an olive’. The exact implication of this statement is doubtful and many interpretations have been suggested: (i) After the pieces have been folded and broken into four, they must be broken into eight, and then again into sixteen and so on until each piece is reduced to the size of an olive. This statement accordingly continues the view of the first Tanna in this Mishnah (R. Gershom and Rashi). (ii) This statement is the expression of R. Simeon's view, that the pieces must be broken many times until each is reduced to an olive's size, this in opposition to the first Tanna who maintained that the cake was broken into four pieces only (Rashi in MS.). (iii) Each cake must first be broken into pieces each about the size of an olive, and then the pieces must be folded into two and then into four (Maim. in Com. on Mishnah, and Bartinoro).
^ˣnote:Lev. II, 6.
^ʸnote:Sc. each one of the two pieces.
^ᶻnote:tmhcj, a dish of flour, honey and oil beaten in a pulp (Jast.).
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. a priest who is offering his first meal-offering of the year. Another interpretation: An Israelite who is offering a meal-offering for the first time in his life.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc. the priest.
^ᵃᶜnote:The benediction prescribed for bread.
^ᵃᵈnote:Hence over food containing pieces of bread the size of an olive one must say the benediction .. . — who bringest forth bread from the earth’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Since there are no pieces the size of an olive.
^ᵃᶠnote:V. Ber. 37b.
^ᵃᵍnote:Sc. from the five species of grain, v. supra p. 414 (Tosaf.).
^ᵃʰnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃⁱnote:Thus crumbs when collected unto an olive's bulk are regarded as bread, consequently one must say over them the benediction ‘who bringest forth’.
^ᵃʲnote:In the ‘Baraitha quoted from Ber.
^ᵃᵏnote:Making one piece the size of an olive.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. the crumbs.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., a Piece of bread equivalent in size to four eggs (according to Maim: three). The eating of the crumbs must not be spread out over a longer space of time.
^ᵃⁿnote:Since the whole loaf has not been reduced to crumbs but only a portion of it, the loose crumbs, even though each is less than an olive's bulk, are considered as of some worth, and when they make up an olive's bulk one must say over them the benediction ‘who bringest forth’. Where, however, the entire cake is reduced to crumbs, as in the case of the meal-offering according to the view of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, one would not have to say over them the benediction ‘who bringest forth’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Regarding the saying of the benediction for bread over pieces less than the size of an olive.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., the pieces of bread have not been soaked too long in the mixture so as to be reduced to a pulp.