Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah prescribes Shifos and Be'itos for all Menachos. These are - rubbing backwards and forward with the palm of the hand and punching with the fist, respectively.

(b) Every Minchah requires three hundred Shifos - and five hundred Be'itos.

(c) According to the Tana Kama, these were performed with the wheat - to induce the husks to fall off.

(d) Rebbi Yossi however - maintains that they were performed when the Minchah was already dough (so that it should be well kneaded).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, all Menachos consist of ten loaves except for two, one of which is the Chavitei Kohen Gadol. The other - the Lechem ha'Panim ...

(b) ... both of which comprise - twelve.

(c) Rebbi Meir disagrees. In his opinion - all but two of the Menachos comprise twelve loaves.

(d) The two exceptions are the Chalos Todah and those of a Shalmei Nazir - each of which consist of ten loaves.

(a) The Beraisa describes how they arranged the three hundred Shifos and five hundred Be'itos. They did it - by performing one Shifah and two Be'itos, then two Shifos and three Be'itos, and repeating the process a hundred times.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether - moving the hand backwards and forwards over the grain constitutes one Shifah, or two. The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

(c) And we ask whether, when Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, says 'be'Batzek', he means *exclusively* after the Minchah has become dough, or *also* after it has become dough.

(d) We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which is a little more specific, and which reads - 'Rebbi Yossi Omer, Shifah u'Be'itah be'Batzek', implying be'Batzek exclusively (though another text in Rebbi Yossi reads 'Shifah be'Chitin, u'Be'itah be'Batzek').

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, all Menachos require ten loaves except for the Lechem ha'Panim and the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, which both require twelve. The Lachmei Todah in the first group and the Lechem ha'Panim in the second are special - inasmuch as they are the only two whose numbers the Torah specifies (ten of each kind of Lachmei Todah, twelve Lechem ha'Panim).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Chukah" "Chukah" - that the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, like the Lechem ha'Panim, must comprise twelve loaves.

(c) And he learns that all the other Menachos comprise ten loaves - from a Binyan Av from the Lachmei Todah.

(d) We prefer to learn all the Menachos from the Lachmei Todah, rather than from the Lechem ha'Panim due to the six things that they have in common. As opposed to the Lechem ha'Panim, they are both Korbenos Yachid, can be donated and require Shemen. The fourth common specification is 'Nifsal' - which means - that they are both subject to becoming Pasul be'Linah overnight, which the Lechem ha'Panim is not.

(a) Finally, the Lechem ha'Panim - overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah, which they do not.

(b) On the other hand, the Menachos share with the Lechem ha'Panim the fact that they require Levonah and are brought entirely as Matzos, which the Lachmei Todah are not. In addition, they are both 'Hekdesh' and 'Etzem', which mean - that they are both Kodshei Kodshim (whereas the Lachmei Todah are only Kodshim Kalim), and that they are brought as independant Korbanos (which the lachmeu Torah are not).

(c) Ultimately, we learn the Menachos from the former, and not from the latter - because they share more similarities.

(d) We ask however, why we should not learn the Menachos from the Chavitei Kohen Gadol - according to the opinion which holds 'Davar ha'Lameid bi'Gezeirah-Shavah Chozer u'Melamed be'Binyan Av'.

(a) We answer this by listing six things that the Menachos and the Lachmei Todah have in common (which the Chavitei Kohen Gadol do not). Like with the Lechem ha'Panim, they come as a Nedavah and do not override Shabbos and Tum'ah. In addition, they are described as 'Hedyot, Chatza'in and Pigul'. 'Chatza'in' means - that they are all brought together (and not in two lots like the Chavitei Kohen Gadol), and are subject to 'Pigul' (which the Chavitei Kohen Gadol are not).

(b) We counter this however, with eight things that the Menachos have in common with the Chavitei Kohen Gadol (which the Lachmei Todah do not). To begin with - they both comprise one Isaron, require a K'li, are Kodshei Kodshim, and require Levonah (none of which pertain to the Lachmei Todah).

(c) The Chavitei Kohen Gadol (like the Lechem ha'Panim), also share with the Minchah the fact that both are 'Matzah' and 'Etzem'. Besides Hagashah - part of them at least, goes le'Ishim (on the Mizbe'ach [whereas the Lachmei Todah are entirely eaten]).

(d) Despite the fact that Chavitei Kohen Gadol has more in common with the Menachos than the Lachmei Todah, Rebbi Yehuah still learns them from the latter - because the Lachmei Todah are brough by a Hedyot, and 'Hedyot me'Hedyot Adif Leih' (he prefers the S'vara of learning Hedyot from Hedyot).

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, all the Menachos require twelve loaves. He learns this - either from the Chavitei Kohen Gadol (which has more similarities with the Menachos than Lachmei Todah, as we explained), or from Lechem ha'Panim (also with a 'Binyan Av').

(b) He argues with Rebbi Yehudah - in that he learns 'Hekdesh me'Hekdesh' (which he considers a stronger connection than 'Hedyot me'Hedyot').

(c) Rebbi Meir agrees that the Lachmei Todah consist of ten loaves, since the Torah specifically says so. And from the Pasuk "al Zevach Todas *Shelamav*" he learns - that the Shalmei Nazir require ten loaves, too.

(a) Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel validates four Lachmei Todah - one of each of the four kinds precribed by the Torah.

(b) He reconciles this with the Pasuk which prescribes forty - by establishing the Pasuk 'le'Mitzvah' (Lechatchilah), whereas he is speaking Bedi'eved.

(c) The problem that still remains concerns the Mitzvah of separating Terumah from the loaves, which one cannot fulfill by simply breaking a bit off one of the loaves - since the Torah (in Tzav) writes "Ve'hikriv Mimenu *Echad* mi'Kol Korban", implying that one must give an entire loaf out of the ten to the Kohen (which precludes breaking off a piece and giving it to him).

(d) Rav Tuvi bar Kisna solves the problem however - by requiring the Terumah to be taken before the loaves have been baked, (allowing the Terumah to be taken, and the loaves to remain whole).

(a) We query Shmuel however, from a Beraisa, which presents the Lechem ha'Panim, the Chavitei Kohen Gadol and the Lachmei Todah and Nezirus - as the four exceptions that become Pasul if one adds or subtracts from the Shi'ur prescribed by the Torah.

(b) We answer by establishing Shmuel like another Tana - who drops the last two items, including only Lechem ha'Panim and the Minchas Chavitin.

(c) Yesh Omrim - include all four, like the previous Beraisa.

10)

(a) Rav Huna rules - that a Minchas Ma'afeh Tanur consisting of one loaf is Kasher.

(b) He derives it from the word "Matzos" written there - by the fact that it is written without a 'Vav' (implying one Matzah).

(c) We ask on this from Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel - who validates four Lachmei Torah (as we just earlier), even though "Matzos" there is written with a 'Vav'.

(d) And we answer - that Rav Huna argues with Shmuel.

(a) Our Mishnah contrasts the Omer, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim. Both the Omer and Sh'tei ha'Lechem comprise three Sa'ah (one Eifah) of flour. The Omer ends up as one Isaron (a tenth of an Eifah). They achieved this - by sifting the flour thirteen times (as we shall soon see).

(b) The Sh'tei ha'Lechem ends up as - two Esronim (one Isaron for each Chalah).

(c) Whereas the Lechem ha'Panim - ends up as twenty-four Esronim out of twenty-four Sa'ah ...

(d) ... two Esronim per Chalah (as the Torah specifically prescribes).

(a) Even though three Sa'ah can produce two Esronin for the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, the Omer requires the same three Sa'ah to produce only one Isaron - because it consists of barley, which contains more bran than wheat.

(b) And even though three Sa'ah of wheat is needed to produce two Esronim for the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and one for the Omer, only one Sa'ah will suffice to produce one Isaron for the Lechem ha'Panim - because the latter consists of Yashan (old produce) which contains less bran that Chadash (which comprises the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem).

(c) When the Beraisa speaks about adding or subtracting to or from the Midah of ...

1. ... Esronin, it means - that the end result, after the sifting, comes to either more or less than the amount of Esronim stated in our Mishnah.
2. ... Sa'in, it means - that one began with more or less that the prescribed amount of Sa'in.

(d) The Tana - invalidates the former, but validates the latter (provided one ends up with the correct amount of Sa'in).

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah requires the Omer to be sifted thirteen times ...

1. ... the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, twelve ...
2. ... and the Lechem ha'Panim, eleven.

(b) The source for this is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Ve'lakachta So'les Ve'Afisa Osah" - that what is important is that the flour has been properly sifted when they come to bake it (and that the number of times the flour is sifted is irrelevant).

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, there were two sieves in the Beis-Hamikdash - a fine one and a thick one (with relatively large holes).

(b) The Kohen - first sifted the flour with the fine sieve, letting through the Kemach and retaining the So'les and the Subin (the bran). These he sifted it in the thick sieve, which let through the So'les (which is what he wanted) , but retained the bran. He then took the So'les, and sifted it in the fine sieve once again, repeating the process to perfect the refining process, until he had sifted it thirteen times (ending with the fine sieve).

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees. According to him, there were thirteen sieves (from very fine through to very thick) in the Beis-Hamikdash, all of which the Kohen used to sift the Omer, beginning with the thickest sieve.

(d) According to him - the Kohen began with the thickest sieve, which only retained the Subin, letting out the So'les and the Kemach which he placed into the slightly less thick sieve, which let through the Kemach, but retained the So'les. He then placed the So'les into a slightly finer sieve, so as to let through any Kemach that remained, repeating the process until the flour had been sifted in all thirteen sieves).

(a) The Torah writes in Emor "Ve'lakachta So'les Ve'afisa Osah". The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... " ... So'les Ve'afisa Osah" - that Lechem ha'Panim (as well as all Menachos) had to be purchased as flour.
2. ... "Ve'lakachta" - that one may also purchase it in the form of wheat (which, as a raw commodity, is cheaper).
3. ... "Osah" - that the latter option is confined to the Lechem ha'Panim (and does not extend to other Menachos).

(b) The Tana gives the reason for this as 'Mipnei ha'Chisachon' - meaning that the purchase of the Lechem ha'Panim each week involved a large expense, and the Torah is simply saving on public funds by buying wheat instead of flour (as we explained).

(c) That explains why this concession does not extend to other Menachos - which were neither as large nor as common as the Lechem ha'Panim. Consequently, they must be purchased in the form of well-sifted flour (in spite of the fact that it is more costly).

(d) Rebbi Elazar proves Hashem's concern for Yisrael's property from the Pasuk (in connection with producing water from the rock) - "Ve'hishkisa es ha'Eidah ve'es Be'iram", from which we see that Hashem Himself makes provisions for the well-being of K'lal Yisrael's livestock.

Next daf