Menachot

MISHNAH. FROM EACH KIND [THE PRIEST] TOOK ONE TENTH PART AS TERUMAH,1 AS IT IS SAID, AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING AS TERUMAH UNTO THE LORD.2 ‘ONE’: [MEANS] THAT HE MAY NOT TAKE WHAT IS BROKEN. ‘OUT OF EACH OFFERING’-THAT EACH KIND OF OFFERING SHALL BE EQUAL,3 [AND] THAT HE MUST NOT TAKE [THE TERUMAH] FROM THE ONE KIND OF OFFERING INSTEAD OF FROM ANOTHER.4 IT SHALL BE THE PRIEST'S THAT SPRINKLETH THE BLOOD OF THE PEACE-OFFERINGS;2 BUT THE REST WAS CONSUMED BY THE OWNER. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And of it he shall present’: — of all of them joined together.5 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’;6 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’;7 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,8 but let not the firstfruits enter the argument since they are followed by other offerings.9 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,10 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,11 and also there in connection with the terumah of the tithe, Of it as the terumah of the Lord,12 for the purpose of gezerah shawah.13 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’,14 and it is also written in connection with the Two Loaves ‘bread’;15 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’;16 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-offering17 from another meal-offering which is leavened and is offered with an animal-offering,18 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-offering19 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-offering20 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.21 Now the text need not have stated ‘Ye shall bring’;22 why did it state ‘Ye shall bring’? [To teach that] every other offering that you make of a similar kind23 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?24 The text therefore stated, They shall be.25 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;26 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.27 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;28 how can one apply here the ruling ‘of all joined together’?29 — [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.30 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!31 — 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!32 — 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,33 from that matter in connection with which there is also written, Of it as the terumah of the Lord;34 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?35 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’36 and ‘the fifth part thereof’.36 Does it render [other cakes into which it may fall] subject to the law of terumah37 or not? — These questions remain undecided. The Master said, The text therefore stated, ‘They shall be’. How is this 38 intimated in the text? priest. the first-fruits. There was no prescribed measure for the first-fruits, v. Pe'ah I, 1. offerings. Jerusalem. s.v.htn ‘terumah’, and consisted of a five hundredth part. Cf. Num. XXXI, 28, 29. incur the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven, and if inadvertently he would be liable to make restitution and add a fifth to the repayment. The question raised is whether these rules apply to the cakes given to the priest as terumah from the thank-offering or not.