## Menachot Daf 58a

###### Menachot 58a:1
[Menachot 58a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:1)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַאי ״אֹתָם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what does Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who maintains that the prohibition against bringing leftover portions up to the ramp applies to all of the items listed in the *baraita*, **do with this** term: **“Them,”** in the verse: “As an offering of first produce you may bring them” (Leviticus 2:12), from which Rabbi Elazar learns that only first fruits and the two loaves are included in the prohibition?


###### Menachot 58a:2
[Menachot 58a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:2)

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ נְדָבָה, וְקוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָּהּ ״מוֹצֵא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **an individual may donate and bring** to the Temple **a gift** offering **similar to those** two loaves brought by the community, **and** in support **I** will **read with regard to** this offering the verse that deals with other gift offerings: **“That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do;** according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24), which would mean that the offering is consecrated and he must bring it as he declared.


###### Menachot 58a:3
[Menachot 58a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:3)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״קׇרְבַּן רֵאשִׁית תַּקְרִיבוּ״, צִיבּוּר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא יָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “As an offering of first produce you may bring.”** The phrase: “You may bring,” is written in the plural, meaning that it is addressed to the community. Therefore, it is interpreted to mean: **I said to you** that **a community** may consecrate and bring the two loaves, which are an offering of first produce, **but an individual** may **not** consecrate and bring two loaves of this nature.


###### Menachot 58a:4
[Menachot 58a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:4)

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יָחִיד מֵבִיא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ, אֲבָל יְהֵא צִיבּוּר מֵבִיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתָם״, וּמָה יֵשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא? שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם מִן הַשְּׂאוֹר, וּבִכּוּרִים מִן הַדְּבַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that only **an individual may not bring** two loaves as a gift offering, **as** an individual **does not bring his obligatory** offering in a manner **similar to those** two loaves, i.e., perhaps specifically an individual, who never has an obligatory offering of two loaves, may not bring two loaves as a gift offering. **But** the **community shall bring** two loaves as a gift offering, **as** the community **does bring its obligatory** offering in a manner **similar to those** two loaves. Therefore, **the verse states:** “You may bring **them,”** to exclude the possibility of a communal gift offering of two loaves. The *baraita* concludes: **And what is there** left **for you to bring** as offerings that come from leaven and honey? **The two loaves** that come **from leaven, and** the **first fruits** that come **from honey,** i.e., sweet fruits.


###### Menachot 58a:5
[Menachot 58a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:5)

וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לֹא יִקְרְבוּ נְדָבָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם נֶאֱמַר ״כׇּל שְׂאֹר״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״כׇּל דְּבַשׁ״? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״כׇּל דְּבַשׁ״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״כׇּל שְׂאֹר״? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּשְּׂאוֹר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בַּדְּבַשׁ, וְיֵשׁ בַּדְּבַשׁ מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׂאוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And may the two loaves not be sacrificed** as communal **gift** offerings? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “As any leaven, and any honey, you shall not burn any of it” (Leviticus 2:11): **If it is stated: “Any leaven,” why is it stated: “Any honey”? And if it is stated: “Any honey,” why is it stated: “Any leaven”?** In other words, why is it necessary for the verse to repeat the inclusive term “any,” from which it is derived that offering an insufficient quantity of honey or leaven is included in the prohibition? The *baraita* answers: Both of these terms had to be stated, **because there is** a *halakha* that applies **to leaven that is not** applicable **to honey, and there is** another *halakha* that applies **to honey that is not** applicable **to leaven.**


###### Menachot 58a:6
[Menachot 58a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:6)

שְׂאוֹר הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, דְּבַשׁ לֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: In the case of **leaven,** although it may not be sacrificed on the altar, **its general** prohibition **was permitted** in certain circumstances **in the Temple,** as the two loaves and the bread of the thanks offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were eaten by the priests, are leavened bread. By contrast, with regard to **honey,** there are **no** circumstances in which **its general** prohibition **was permitted in the Temple.**


###### Menachot 58a:7
[Menachot 58a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:7)

דְּבַשׁ הוּתַּר בִּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת, שְׂאוֹר לֹא הוּתַּר בִּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת. הָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּשְּׂאוֹר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בַּדְּבַשׁ, וְיֵשׁ בַּדְּבַשׁ מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׂאוֹר, הוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר ״כׇּל שְׂאֹר״, וְהוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר ״כׇּל דְּבַשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is a *halakha* that applies to honey but not to leaven, as the prohibition concerning **honey is permitted** in the case **of the remainder of meal offerings,** meaning that the priests may eat their portion of meal offerings with honey, whereas the prohibition concerning **leaven is not permitted** in the case **of the remainder of meal offerings,** since one may not leaven this remainder. The *baraita* summarizes: **Due to** the fact **that there is** a *halakha* that applies **to leaven that is not** applicable **to honey, and there is** a *halakha* that applies **to honey that is not** applicable **to leaven, it was necessary** for the verse **to state: “Any leaven,” and it was** also **necessary** for it **to state: “Any honey.”**


###### Menachot 58a:8
[Menachot 58a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:8)

שְׂאוֹר דְּהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, מַאי נִיהוּ? לָאו שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם דְּקָרְבָה נְדָבָה? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: לָא, לִיקְרַב עִמָּהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*. When the *baraita* states concerning **leaven that its general** prohibition **was permitted** in certain circumstances **in the Temple, what is this? Isn’t** this referring to the *halakha* **that** the meal offering of the **two loaves may be sacrificed** by the community as **a gift** offering on the altar, as the two loaves of the communal offering themselves were not sacrificed on the altar? This would mean that two loaves may be brought as a gift offering by the community, which contradicts this claim of the previous *baraita*. **Rav Amram said: No,** the *baraita* is referring to the fact that the two loaves, which were leaven, **are brought** as an offering **with** the two lambs, which are brought up onto the altar as communal peace offerings. Since they are brought together, the two loaves and the two lambs are considered a single offering, and the lambs are sacrificed on the altar.


###### Menachot 58a:9
[Menachot 58a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:9)

אִי הָכִי, בִּכּוּרִים נָמֵי, דִּתְנַן: הַגּוֹזָלוֹת שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַסַּלִּין הָיוּ עוֹלוֹת, וְהַסַּלִּים שֶׁבְּיָדָם נִיתָּנִין לַכֹּהֲנִים. הָנְהוּ לְעַטֵּר בִּכּוּרִים הוּא דְּאָתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** in the case of **first fruits also,** the fruits should be considered part of the offering that was brought with them. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bikkurim* 3:5): As for **the fledglings that** were placed **on top of the baskets** that contained the first fruits brought to the Temple, **they would** sacrifice these as **burnt offerings, and the baskets** themselves **that were in the possession** of those bringing the first fruits would **be given to the priests.** Accordingly, with regard to honey as well, its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, as these first fruits containing honey are included with the sacrifice of burnt offerings. The Gemara answers: **These** fledglings **came** only **to decorate** the **first fruits,** despite the fact that they were later sacrificed as burnt offerings. Bringing the fledglings is not obligatory, and therefore cannot be considered part of the same offering as first fruits.


###### Menachot 58a:10
[Menachot 58a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:10)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטַּאת הָעוֹף עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the prohibition against bringing leftover parts of offerings up to the altar after the sacrificial parts have been burned. **Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda:** With regard to **one who offers up on the altar** some **of the meat of a bird** sacrificed as **a sin offering,** which is meant to be eaten by the priests, **what is** the *halakha*? Is he liable to receive lashes for this action?


###### Menachot 58a:11
[Menachot 58a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:11)

כֹּל שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי אֵין מִמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים? אוֹ דִלְמָא כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ קׇרְבָּן, וְהַאי נָמֵי שְׁמוֹ קׇרְבָּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ קׇרְבָּן, וְהַאי נָמֵי שְׁמוֹ קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the possibilities: **The Merciful One states** with regard to **any** item **that** has already had some portion **of it** burned **in** the **fire** on the altar that one who sacrifices any leftover part of it violates the prohibition. **And** as **no** part **of this** bird sacrificed as a sin offering is burned **in** the **fire** on the altar, is he therefore exempt? **Or perhaps, any** item **that is called an offering** is included in the prohibition, **and** since **this** bird is **also called an offering,** one is liable. Rav Ḥisda **said to** Rami bar Ḥama: **Any** item **that is called an offering** is included in the prohibition, **and this** bird sacrificed as a sin offering is **also called an offering.**


###### Menachot 58a:12
[Menachot 58a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:12)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as is taught in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** Only **any** item **that** has already had some portion **of it** burned **in** the **fire** on the altar is included in the prohibition: Do not burn. **Rabbi Akiva says: Any** item **that is called an offering** is included in this prohibition.


###### Menachot 58a:13
[Menachot 58a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:13)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּשַׂר חַטַּאת הָעוֹף אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? **Rav Ḥisda said:** The difference **between them** concerns the case discussed earlier, of one who brings some of **the meat of a bird sin offering** up to the altar. Rabbi Akiva maintains that he is liable, as it is called an offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that he is exempt, as no portion of it is burned on the altar.


###### Menachot 58a:14
[Menachot 58a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:14)

רַב אָמַר: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: ״כׇּל קׇרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said:** The difference **between them** concerns the ***log* of oil** that accompanies the guilt offering **of** a recovered **leper, as Levi teaches:** Concerning the consecrated items given to priests as gifts, the verse states: **“Every offering of theirs**…shall be most holy for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9). The phrase “every offering” serves **to include the *log* of oil of a leper.** This oil is not burned on the altar. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva would deem one who brings some of this *log* up to the altar liable, as it is called an offering, whereas Rabbi Eliezer would deem him exempt, since no part of it is burned in the fire.


###### Menachot 58a:15
[Menachot 58a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שְׂאֹר ... בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כּוּלּוֹ, מִקְצָתוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇל״. עֵירוּבוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the discussion about the prohibition against sacrificing leaven. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: When the Torah states with regard to **leaven: Do not burn** it (see Leviticus 2:11), **I have** derived **only** that one who burns **all of it** is liable, as will be explained. **From where** is it derived that one who burns only **part of it** is also included in the prohibition? **The verse states: “Any [*kol*]** leaven,” which serves to include such a case. The *baraita* adds: This *halakha* has been derived only with regard to leaven in a pure state; **from where** is it derived that the same applies to one who sacrifices it in **its mixed state,** i.e., mixed with another substance? **The verse states** the additional expression: **“As [*ki*] any** leaven.”


###### Menachot 58a:16
[Menachot 58a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:16)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״שְׂאֹר בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כְּזַיִת, חֲצִי זַיִת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כׇּל״, עֵירוּבוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי כׇל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **What is it saying?** What is the meaning of the term: All of it, and the term: Part of it? **Abaye said: This** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** When the verse states about **leaven: Do not burn** it, **I have** derived **only** that this prohibition applies to **an olive-bulk** of leaven. **From where** is it derived that this prohibition applies if it is only **half an olive-bulk? The verse states: “Any** leaven.” Furthermore, **from where** is it derived that one is liable not only for leaven by itself, but also for leaven in **its mixed state? The verse states: “As any** leaven.”


###### Menachot 58a:17
[Menachot 58a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:17)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָכִי קָאָמַר – ״שְׂאֹר בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ״ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא קוֹמֶץ, חֲצִי קוֹמֶץ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇל״. עֵירוּבוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that there is a different interpretation of the *baraita*: **This** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** When the verse states about **leaven: Do not burn** it, **I have** derived **only** that this prohibition applies to the entire **handful** that is removed from the meal offering. **From where** is it derived that this prohibition applies to **half** of the **handful? The verse states: “Any** leaven.” Furthermore, **from where** is it derived that one is liable not only for leaven by itself, but also for **its mixed state? The verse states: “As any** leaven.”


###### Menachot 58a:18
[Menachot 58a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58a:18)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אַבָּיֵי סָבַר: יֵשׁ קוֹמֶץ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי זֵיתִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to **what** principle **do** Abaye and Rava **disagree?** The Gemara answers: **Abaye holds: There is** such an entity as **a handful** that is **less than** the volume of **two olives.**