Menachos 77
Summary
- Today's *daf* is Menachot 77, opening the eighth *perek* of the *Gemara* (the seventh in the *Mishnayot*), and it lays out the measurements, flour amounts, and separation of *terumah* for the forty loaves of the *korban todah*. The *Mishnah* calculates that the *todah* uses five *se’ah* by Jerusalem measures, equal to six wilderness *se’ah*, which equals two *eifah* and therefore twenty *esronot*, and it splits the flour evenly between *chametz* loaves and *matzah* loaves despite there being three times as many *matzah* loaves. The *Gemara* traces key measurement definitions from *pesukim* in Yechezkel, then brings Shmuel’s rule that communal standards for measures, coinage, and commercial profit cannot be altered by more than a sixth and derives that limit from a *pasuk*. The sugya also derives that the *terumah* given from the *todah* loaves is one out of ten from each type via *gezeirah shavah*, debates how “from the attached” works, and contrasts approaches among *Rishonim* and *Acharonim* about whether separations are defined by loaves or by dough.
- The *Mishnah* states that the *todah* comes with five Jerusalem *se’ah*, which equal six wilderness *se’ah*, because the Jerusalem measures are larger by a sixth. The six wilderness *se’ah* equal two *eifah*, and since each *eifah* is ten *esronot*, the total is twenty *esronot* of flour for the forty loaves. The *Mishnah* assigns ten *esronot* to the ten *chametz* loaves, yielding one *issaron* per *chalah*, and it assigns the other ten *esronot* to the thirty *matzah* loaves divided into three types, *chalot*, *rekikin*, and *revuchah*, so each type receives three and a third *esronot* and each *issaron* produces three *matzah* loaves. The same accounting is restated in *kav* terms, where five Jerusalem *se’ah* equal thirty *kav*, fifteen *kav* go to *chametz* and fifteen to *matzah*, each *chametz* loaf uses one and a half *kav*, and each *matzah* type receives five *kav* making two loaves per *kav*.
- The *Gemara* asks *mana hanei mili* and Tosafot explains that Rashi frames the question as the source that an *eifah* is three *se’ah*, not the source that the *todah* uses five Jerusalem *se’ah*. Rav Chisda derives from Yechezkel that “*ha’eifah v’habat tochen echad yihyeh*,” so an *eifah* equals a *bat*, and it then asks how a *bat* is known to be three *se’ah*. The *Gemara* rejects deriving the size from the statements that both *bat* and *eifah* are a tenth of a *chomer*, because the size of a *chomer* is not known from that alone. It then derives from a Yechezkel verse that a *bat* is a tenth of a *kor*, and Rashi states that a *kor* is certainly thirty *se’ah* in rabbinic usage, so a *bat* is three *se’ah*, and since *eifah* equals *bat*, an *eifah* is three *se’ah*.
- Shmuel states that communal authorities do not increase measures by more than a sixth, do not alter coinage value by more than a sixth, and a merchant does not profit more than a sixth. The *Semah* explains the straightforward concern as protecting an out-of-town merchant unfamiliar with local terms from losing money if the town enlarged its measures, and he writes that this concern would not forbid reducing measures since that would benefit the merchant, while the Sefat Emet objects that reducing measures cheats buyers and therefore remains forbidden. Rashi limits “the one who profits” to *ba’ochel nefesh*, and the Rashbam in Bava Batra limits the one-sixth cap to staples tied to life, *yeinot, shemanim, v’soletot*, while allowing unlimited profit on other goods such as *kos* and *levonah* and similar items. The Maggid Mishneh treats *levonah* as not essential food even if edible and permits more than a sixth there, while others define any food as *ochel nefesh* and extend the cap to all foods, with non-food items excluded. The *Semah* presents three categories: staple *ochel nefesh* capped at one sixth, items not *ochel nefesh* with unlimited profit, and a middle category of *machshirei ochel* permitted up to double but not more.
- The text cites the principle that *ein ona’ah l’karka’ot* and reports a three-way *machloket Rishonim* about its scope, with the Rambam and Rif holding that even extreme overpricing never triggers a claim, while others limit immunity and treat double pricing as actionable. The Roke’ach and Mordechai explain that land lacks a fixed market value because each parcel is unique by location, so standard market comparison does not work. The sugya earlier uses Rava’s rule that for anything sold by measure, weight, or count, even less than the normal *ona’ah* threshold is *chozer*, and the text reports a Rambam–Ra’avad dispute whether *chozer* means merely making up the shortfall or voiding the entire sale. The *Rishonim* infer from the *Gemara’s* objection that *chozer* sounds like full cancellation as the Ra’avad, while R. Chaim explains that the Rambam’s “make up the difference” applies when both sides agreed on the unit and only later discovered an error, whereas changing public measures creates a fundamental mismatch in what buyer and seller meant, so even the Rambam would agree the transaction collapses.
- The *Gemara* explores why measure changes are capped at a sixth and rejects three rationales before accepting a scriptural derivation. It rejects *afkuyei tera’a* because any change would move prices and the concern would apply even to a sixth. It rejects *ona’ah* because measured and counted transactions are reversible even below the standard *ona’ah* threshold. It rejects the idea that the cap exists to protect merchants from losing their profit because merchants are expected to earn profit and not sell at cost. Rav Chisda says Shmuel found a *pasuk* and expounded it, deriving that the *maneh* of the Mikdash is doubled, that additions to measures are permitted but not beyond a sixth, and that the “sixth” is calculated *milvar* from 200 to 240, where the added 40 is one sixth of the new total. Rav Eina says the *Mishnah* itself supports *milvar* because five Jerusalem *se’ah* equal six wilderness *se’ah* in the same proportional structure.
- The next *Mishnah* states that one takes one out of ten as *terumah* from each set of ten loaves, based on “*v’hikriv mimenu echad mikol korban terumah laHashem*,” and it teaches that “*echad*” requires a whole loaf and “*mikol korban*” requires equal treatment so one does not separate from one offering for another. It assigns the separated loaves to the *kohen* who throws the blood, and the remainder is eaten by the owners. The *Acharonim* investigate whether the obligation is defined as a percentage of flour or specifically one loaf out of ten loaves, and they connect this to the dispute about separating while still dough, where the Ran and Rosh (and the Aruch LaNer’s reading of Rashi) require forming forty loaves and then separating one from each ten, while the Rambam allows taking a tenth of the dough without forming loaves. The Mikdash David raises whether the owner separates the four loaves or the *kohen* does, cites a Rashi in Nedarim that the *kohen* separates, and suggests that under R. Yosei HaGelili’s view that *kodashim kalim* is *mamon be’alim* the owner should separate, while still allowing that the *kohen* may also do it.
- A *beraita* derives “*v’hikriv mimenu*” as requiring separation from what is “attached,” and it repeats that “*echad*” forbids a broken loaf and “*mikol korban*” requires equality across types. The Steipler in Kehilot Yaakov asks whether a physically whole loaf counts as “broken” if only part of it is sanctified as *terumat lachmei todah*, and he cites Rav Chaim Kanievsky’s proof from a cited Ra’avad (brought by Rashba and Ritva) that sanctifying half of each of eighty loaves to yield forty “whole” loaves is invalid because half-loaf sanctification constitutes *perusah* legally even if the bread is physically intact. The *beraita* derives the amount of *terumah* by comparing “*terumah*” here to *terumat ma’aser*, concluding one tenth, and it rejects learning from *bikkurim* which has no fixed minimum by establishing a *gezeirah shavah* of “*mimenu terumah*” in both contexts. Rashi in a manuscript version and the Ra’avad interpret “attached” as all breads being in the same vessel, while Tosafot requires only *samuch v’nireh* so they appear together.
- The Ahaleh Shlomo asks why the *hava amina* compares to *bikkurim* for a no-measure model when interpretive rules often prefer *chumra*, and it answers that *bikkurim* includes a stringency that if one designates more, it all takes on *bikkurim* status, unlike *terumat ma’aser* where extra designation does not convert the entire excess to that status. The text cites a threefold *machloket Rishonim* on which produce is obligated in *terumot u’ma’asrot* *min haTorah*, with the Rambam obligating all fruits, the Ra’avad limiting it to the seven species, and Rashi limiting it to *dagan, tirosh, v’yitzhar*. It reports a difficulty raised from *Talmud Torah* and *Teshuvot Torat Mordechai* that the *Gemara’s* claim that *bikkurim* has “*yesh achareihen terumah*” seems hard under Rashi because *bikkurim* include figs and pomegranates that would not generate biblical *terumah* if only *dagan, tirosh, v’yitzhar* are biblical.
- The *Gemara* derives loaf flour amounts by comparing “*lechem*” of *todah* to “*lechem*” of *shtei halechem*, yielding *issaron l’chalah*, and it weighs an alternative comparison to *lechem hapanim* of two *esronot* per loaf. It supports learning from *shtei halechem* because it is *chametz* brought with an animal sacrifice, yet also considers the *lechem hapanim* comparison because both can come from Eretz Yisrael or outside it and from old or new grain, unlike *shtei halechem* which must be new and from the land. It resolves with the phrase “*mimoshvoteichem tavi’u lechem tenufah shtayim*,” interpreting “*tavi’u*” as teaching that what is brought from elsewhere follows that model, establishing *issaron l’chalah*, and it uses “*tehiyenah*” to anchor the per-loaf framing. The *Gemara* then derives that the *matzah* portion matches the *chametz* portion from “*al chalot lechem chametz*,” creating a total of twenty *esronot* split into ten for *chametz* and ten for *matzah*. It derives that the *matzah* must include three types from the verse listing *chalot matzot*, *rekikei matzot*, and *solet murbechet*, yielding three and a third *esronot* per type and three loaves per *issaron*, totaling forty loaves, four given to the *kohen* and thirty-six eaten by the owners.
- The *Gemara* challenges whether “*mimenu*” always means “from the attached” by citing “*et kol chelbo yarim mimenu*,” and it answers via Rav Chisda in the name of Avimi that it teaches not to cut the meat before removing the *imurin*. It asks why the *terumah* model is not derived from *terumat Midyan* and answers that one learns a *terumah* practiced for generations from one practiced for generations, excluding Midyan which is not. It asks why not derive from *terumat challah* and answers in the school of R. Yishmael that one learns from a case that says “*mimenu*,” excluding *terumat challah* which does not use that phrasing.
- The speaker states that tomorrow he is out of town on a trip and there will not be a *daf yomi* *shiur* given by him tomorrow.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions