Chullin 34: Treating Sacrifices as if they are Sanctified

We have learned that a slaughter without blood may be eaten by one who has not washed his hands.  This is because it was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through blood.  Rabbi Simon said that that had been reddened susceptible to ritual impurity through the act of slaughtering.

The law that limits ritual defilement of food only to something that has become wet due to one of seven liquids (Vayikra 11:38) which prepare the animal for possible defilement:

• wine
• blood
• oil
• dew
• honey
• water

The rabbis argue that there is no relevance if ordinary meat is touched by unwashed hands.  The mishna cannot be discussing kodashim, sanctified meat, since it specifically enumerates bird and wild animals which cannot be sacrificed.  One comment teaches that the case of the Mishna is chullin she-na'asu al taharat hakodesh, ordinary meat that is treated as if it is sanctified meat.  In that case, defilement from unwashed hands is significant.

Steinsaltz notes that in the times of the Temple, people kept the laws around ritual defilement even when eating ordinary food so that the would not make mistakes when they ate sanctified food.  Rashi taught that this practice was common to kohanim or Jerusalem residents because they were used to eating sanctified food.  The Meiri adds those people who were in constant contact with such food like merchants who supplied the Temple with wine and flour and oil.  People continued this practice after the destruction of the Temple hoping that the Temple would be rebuilt and the laws would be in practice again.

Chullin 33: Slaughter and Ritual Impurity

Today's daf includes a new Mishna which speaks of what happens when one slaughters certain animals. When one slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal or a bird and there was no blood during the slaughter, they are permitted for consumption.  In fact they do not require ritual washing of the hands; they may be eaten with ritually impure hands because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood.

Blood is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity.  Rabbi Shimon argues that they were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.

The Gemara focuses on stages of ritual impurity and the possibility that one might render oneself or another object ritually impure.  

Chullin 32: More Irregular Slaughter

There are two new Mishnayot in today's daf.  In yesterday's daf, we missed a new Mishna regarding a knife that fell and slaughtered an animal properly.  The rabbis debated whether or not such a slaughter was valid when it was not intentional and it was not done by the "you" in the directives.

Our first new Mishna states that when one is in the middle of slaughtering an animal and the knife falls, 

• if he lifted it and then completed the slaughter 
• if his clothing fell and he lifted them and then completed the slaughter 
• if he has readied the knife but became too tired and another came to complete the slaughter

Any of those interruptions invalidates the slaughter.  Rabbi Shimon says that the slaughter is not valid if the interruption is the same length of time as an interval of examination.

The second Mishna teaches us that 

• if one cuts the gullet in the standard manner of slaughter (with a back and forth motion)
• if the windpipe was severed in the standard manner, or if on severed the windpipe and then cut the gullet
• if one cut both simanim and waited for the animal to die 
• if one cut the siman and hid the knife beneath the second simon and severed from below,

the animal is ruled by Rabbi Yeshevav as being an unslaughtered carcass.  It thus imparts ritual impurity through contact with it or carrying ti.  Rabbi Akiva says that the animal is a treifa.  Thus eating it is prohibited but it does not transmit ritual impurity.

The Mishna ends with more from Rabbi Yeshevav who states a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua:  Any animal rendered unfit during its slaughter because the slaughter was not performed properly is an unslaughtered carcass.  Any animal whose slaughter was performed properly and another matter caused it to be unfit as a treifa.  Rabbi Akiva agrees.

Chullin 30: Irregular Slaughter

Today’s daf is the last of several dapim focusing on the specifics of slaughtering.  We learn a new Mishna at the end of amud (b) that delves even deeper into the process of slaughter.

The rabbis’ discussion turns to the red heifer and then to other animals that might be slaughtered on Pesach.  Pesach was the Festival that pulled all diasporic Jews back to the Temple with promises of meat, family gatherings, and a view of the great Temple.  In the cases discussed, the rabbis wonder about the validity of the slaughter in many different circumstances.  For example, two men might complete the slaughter together; one person might use two different clothes in the process of slaughter, etc. etc.

The rabbis argue about whether or not cutting a siman, for example, the windpipe, several times invalidates the slaughter.  What if the cut is diagonal?  What if one person uses a knife from the top of the animal’s neck while the other uses a second knife from the bottom of the animal’s neck? The rabbis cannot decide whether or not a slaughter is valid if the knife is concealed in the neck or beneath a cloth.

Our new Mishna teaches that it is valid to slaughter by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously.  It is valid for two people to slaughter from different points in the neck of one animal. Decapitating an animal is one motion is not valid; however, if one accidentally decapitated an animal in one motion and the length of the knife is the same as the breadth of the animal’s neck, the slaughter is valid.   It is valid if one who was slaughtering two animals simultaneously and s/he decapitated them in one motion and the length of the knife was the same as the breadth of one animal’s neck.  The important piece is that the knife is drawn back and forth if possible.

Chullin 29: When is the Sacrifice of Birds Accomplished

Our rabbis continue their discussion about the sacrifice of birds.  Their conversation includes a number of questions:

• how much of the simanim are cut?
• to what degree have they been severed?
• whether or not the blood is required for sprinkling
• whether it is permitted or not to slaughter two birds simultaneously

The rabbis ask each other about when the slaughter is accomplished.  Reish Lakish teaches in the name of Levi the Elder that slaughter is complete at its conclusion.  Rabban Yochanan teaches that the act of slaughter is accomplished at each stage of the process.  Rava comments that all agree that when a Gentile cuts one siman and a Jew cuts the other, the slaughter is not valid at any point.  The Gentile makes the animal a treifa, disqualified from slaughter due to ritual impurity.  

Following up on this, the rabbis wonder about a siman pinched by a priest below the red line (which was drawn around the altar, demonstrating half of the hight of the alters and below which where sprinkling was done).  The other siman was pinched above the red line.  This sacrifice is invalid as well, due to pinching done above the red line.

We then learn that Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree only when an one cuts one siman outside of the Temple courtyard and one simon inside the Temple courtyard.  This would affect whether or not the slaughter is valid at its conclusion or during its process.  Concluding the slaughter in the Temple courtyard is the factor which determines the validity of the slaughter.  The rabbis clarify - performance of an act of slaughter outside of the Temple courtyard invalidates the slaughter and is punishable.

Chullin 28: Bird Sacrifice - Ritual Impurity, Surgical Knowledge & Culminating Mental Helath Problems

Today's daf continues yesterday's discussion regarding the slaughter of birds.  The rabbis agree that these sacrifices require precision and knowledge, both of halacha and of bird anatomy.  The conversation includes blood, surgical procedure, and comparisons with other halachic rituals.  One of the concerns about blood is that a bird might bleed in specific ways that render it ritually impure for sacrifice.  

The detail in which our rabbis describe both the ritual and the halacha behind the ritual is sometimes difficult to grasp.  Why must we turn the bird's neck inside out to check how much of the siminim have been severed?  Why not just believe that we have done a "good enough job"?  

These thought patterns suggest interesting possibilities about being Jewish.  We have a long-standing, solid history of checking small details, repeating patterns, following rules through understanding those rules most completely.  Jewish achievement today includes that same comfort with repetition, research, practice, and argument.  Then again, these though patterns also suggest the development of mental health problems - anxiety, OCD, depression, etc.  

Chullin 27: Slaughtering Birds

Today’s daf begins Perek II of Masechet Chullin.  Our first Mishna teaches that the slaughter is valid if one cuts one siman (either the windpipe or the gullet) of a bird, or two simanim (both the windpipe and the gullet) of an animal.  Cutting the majority of a siman is like cutting the entire siman.  Rabbi Yehuda teaches that the slaughter is not valid unti the chaveridin, veins, are cut.  If one cut half of one simon in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, the slaughter is not valid.  If one cuts the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal the slaughter is valid.

The Gemara begins by discussing the tense of the word “slaughter”.  If it is past tense, are we referring to allowing an action after the fact? Next the rabbis consider the word “bends”, and whether it might imply that the part of the animal cut must be a part through which the blood of the soul is spilled.  This might be the neck, or it might be the tongue, the rabbis argue. The rabbis believe that “you shall slaughter” may refer to the head never being severed from the body of a slaughtered animal.  Aaron and his sons were instructed to deal with the animal parts based on a whole, not broken, animal.  The Gemara compares birds to animals; it compares birds to fish.

Our daf ends with a discussion about the origin of birds.  Were they formed from mud?  Or from water?  The rabbis share a number of prooftexts to bolster their different claims.  Rabbis wonder if birds need to be slaughtered at all. Instead, the blood of birds could be spilled indiscriminately.  Would that be enough?   The rabbis consider the particulars of slaughtering birds and other undomesticated animals.

Chullin 26: Fathers' Rights to Fines, Girls' Rights to Refuse, Shofar/Havdalla on Shabbat and Festivals

 Today's daf includes three Mishnayot.

The first teaches that one's daughter is sold as a Hebrew maidservant (as a minor), there is no fine of fifty sela paid to her father if she is raped or seduced.  That fine is only paid when she is a becomes a na'ara, an adolescent.  If a fine is paid to the father when she is the younger age, there is no actual sale.

The second teaches that a minor girl married off by her mother or brothers has the right to refuse the marriage.  There is no chalitza because a minor girl whose husband died before she had children with him cannot perform chalitza.  Once she becomes a bogeret, reaches the age of majority, there is no right of refusal.

In the Gemara, Rav Yehuda quotes Rav who quotes Rabbi Meir and the rabbis who say there is the right of refusal in chalitza.  This is known to be true because a baraita teaches that a girl may refuse as long as she is a minor (grows two pubic hairs which signify puberty).  Rav Yehuda then says that she may refuse until the black hairs in the pubic are cover an area greater than the white skin of the area (uncovered by hair.  At that stage she is eligible to perform chalitza.

This means that a young girl, let's say a ten year old who is a maidservant or a wife, has a complicated path to follow if she is to take control of her life.  She might be denied a fine - well, her father might be denied that fine if she is seduced or raped beyond the interference of her husband.  In our times, a ten year old who is seduced or raped is seen as violated in the most heinous of ways; she has no capacity to consent.  A girl has to know that she has a small window of time to claim her rights.  Once a bogeret, a grown woman, her rights are returned to her male owner - her boss, husband or father.

The final Mishna is longer.  It teaches that when the sound of the shofar on Shabbat or a Festival evening stop people from working and mark a line between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala at the conclusion in prayer over wine.  When havdala is recited, there is no shofar.

How is this the case?  When a Festival falls on erev Shabbat, the shofar is sounded to stop people from working at tasks prohibited on Shabbat but permitted on the Festival.  Havdala is only performed when the transition from a sacred to a profane day or from a day of greater to lesser sanctity.  Shabbat is more holy than a Festival.  

When havdala marks the transition between a Festival and Shabbat, it ends with the following words, "Who distinguishes between  sacred and sacred" instead of the standard blessing, "Who distinguishes between sacred and profane".  Rabbi Dosa says that we should say,"Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity."

Chullin 25: When Status Changes

Today's daf contains three Mishnayot.  The first two are short but the last one is quite long.  

The first Mishna teaches us that that which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels.  That which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.

The second Mishna teaches us that regarding the obligation to separate teruma and tithes, the stage of development that is obligated in bitter almonds is exempt in sweet almonds.  The stage of development obligated in sweet almonds is exempt regarding bitter almonds.  

The third Mishna teaches us that temed, a drink made from grape residue soaked and fermented in water, may not be purchased with second-tithe money and consumed in Jerusalem because it is not wine.  Wine is subject to many laws.  If three log of temed falls into a ritual bath, the water has the status of drawn water and thus it is ritually invalid.  Once fermented, timed is considered to be wine.  As wine it may be purchased in Jerusalem and it will not invalidate ritually pure items.  Brothers who inherit from their father as partners are obligated to add the kalbon, premium, to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple.  They are exempt from the animal tithe.  When they are obliged to separate the animal tithe, they are exempt from adding the premium.  When they pay the half-shekel they must add the premium  and they are exempt from the animal tithe.  If they are not true partners but their inheritance continues to belong to their father, they must separate the animal tithe.

These details regarding monetary obligations are important to understand because they change according to context.  In these mishnayot, we can see evidence of the rabbis' efforts to do what is just and fair toward all.

Chullin 23: Uncertainties

We begin with a reminder about what would disqualify a bird from sacrifice.  One of the disqualifies is bestiality - if someone sexually interfered with a bird.  The rabbis connect the notion of corruption with idol worship.

The rabbis consider other issues of uncertainty.  They ask about stringency regarding the age of an animal to be sacrificed.  What of a ram who is between one year and thirteen months old?   Similarly, the rabbis ask about whether or not one might eat matza that was not completely unleavened and still fill the mitzvah of eating unleavened bread.

At the end of our mitzvah we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It tells us that what is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken.  As well, what is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

Chullin 22: Difficulty with Severing Simanim; Immature, Mature Birds

The rabbis speak about the status of a bird whose neck was broken without the flesh being appropriately severed.  They talk of other animals who are lacking legs or are otherwise damaged and thus invalid for slaughter.  It seems that there is some debate about whether or not such animals might be considered valid.  For example, one rabbi recalls the story of a bird whose head was severed.  Both the head and the body were burned as an offering.  

The rabbis speak about the difficulty of sprinkling from the bird once its simanim are mostly severed.  

At the end of our daf, we learn a new Mishna.  It quotes Leviticus (1:14), "He shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons".  The age that is fit for sacrificing doves - mature birds - is unfit for sacrificing pigeons - immature birds.  The age that is fit for sacrificing pigeons is unfit for sacrificing doves.  When the bird's plumage begins to yellow in its middle years, both types of birds are unfit for slaughter.  At that point, birds are considered to be mature.

Chullin 20: Torah or Rabbinic Sources for Slaughtering Birds

Amud (a) focuses on the importance of slaughtering a bird through pinching without using a back and forth motion.  

Amud (b) walks us through an argument between those who believe that there is a Torah-based source for slaughtering birds and those who believe that the source is rabbinical.   In addition, some believe that slaughter must be done very specifically, while others believe that slaughter is valid if it is completed in a number of different ways.  

The rabbis consider the use of a knife, and whether that slaughter might be valid if done in certain ways.  We learn about the unimportance of skin - if skin is not significantly punctured, the slaughter might be valid anyway.  The rabbis also consider how one might validate an invalidated slaughter through pinching.

Chullin 19: Pinching and Slaughtering

The rabbis continue their conversation regarding the proper slaughter of an animal.  In particular, they discuss the placement of the blade on the neck of the animal.

A new Mishna teaches us that when we slaughter from the side of the throat, the slaughter is valid.  If one pinches the neck of a bird offering from the side, the slaughter is not valid.  It is valid to pinch from the nape of the neck or slaughters from the throat.  But if one pinches from the throat, the slaughter is not valid because the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter.  What is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and what is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.

In their discussion, the rabbis note which third of the bird's neck may be used for slaughter.  They wonder about the exact location for valid pinching.  The rabbis teach us about pinching on the back of the neck and slaughtering at the corresponding locations on the front of the neck.  

Chullin18: Proper Blades, Proper Cutting

Before beginning a new Mishna, the rabbis end their conversation about blades.  Having an imperfect blade invalidates the slaughter.  And if one refuses to show his blade for inspection, he might be liable for punishment for the blade and/or for his disrespectful behaviour.

Our first new Mishna describes a slaughter with a serrated harvest sickle.  If its teeth are inclines in one direction, in a forward direction, whether the serrations do not tear the flesh, Beit Shammai say that the slaughter is invalid while Beit Hillel disagree.  They both agree that smoothing out the serrations makes the blade valid.

A second new Mishna teaches us about the physical slaughter of a sacrifice.  An animal should be slaughtered from within the cricoid cartilage that forms a ring at the top of the windpipe and then left a thread's breadth over the surface of that ring.  The knife should not go beyond the ring toward the animal's head.  Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says that it is valid even if a thread's breadth was left over the majority of the surface of the ring.  Steinsaltz offers images to better illustrate this process.

Chullin 16: Blades and Invalid Slaughter

Today's daf speaks to other methods of slaughter that are not permitted.  The rabbis focus on blades that are attached to water, or wheels, etc.  Further, if a handle is removed and replaced, there is a question as to the validity of the slaughter.  Interestingly the rabbis discuss the reed, a sharp, dry grass, which is not permitted because it might leave shards of itself in the offering.  For that same reason it is not permitted to use a reed for other purposes, including for wiping oneself after defecating.  

Chullin 15: Intention and Slaughter

The majority of today's daf focuses on the implications of things done unintentionally.  For example, the  rabbis discuss shechita that is done unintentionally.  Can such offerings be consumed? Sold?  Benefited from in any way?  Do these offerings result in punishments?  The rabbis also discuss one who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly. Can such food be eaten? By whom?  Does it make a difference if one is very sick?  During or after Shabbat?   

At the end of our daf we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It teaches that it is valid to slaughter an animal with:

• the smooth side of a hand sickle,
• a sharpened flint
• a reed that was cut lengthwise and sharpened

It is valid to slaughter using any item the cuts except for

• the serrated side of the harvest sickle
• a saw
• the teeth of an animal still attached to its jawbone
• a fingernail

This is because all of these things are serrated and may strangle the animal without cutting its windpipe and gullet, which are required.  

The Gemara discusses in-between cases; for example, is it valid to slaughter an animal with a tool where the handle fell off and then was reattached?  

Chullin 14: Preparing/Sacrificing on Shabbat

We learn a new Mishna that is short and sweet: If one sacrifices on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, it is permitted after the fact though one should be put to death for those prohibitions.

The Gemara notes that an animal must be prepared before these days to be consumed on those days.  Even if given to the dogs, a carcass must be prepared before Shabbat/ Yom Kippur begins.  It also considers wine that might be untithed and joining boundaries on Shabbat.  Some rabbis compare the prohibitions around preparation on Shabbat with those that apply to moving a broken vessel.

Our daf ends with a conversation about foods that are set aside, specifically, those that are squeezed.  It is prohibited to eat foods that might have leaked juice inadvertently simply because one might believe that squeezing fruit on Shabbat is permitted.   Further, once something is set aside, it stays in that state until after Shabbat.  Rabbis argue about whether or not a dirty lamp might be moved on Shabbat; its repugnance would keep it from being transferred to another place.  

Chullin 13: Kutim, Assumptions, and Continuity

Today's Mishna teaches us that when a non-Jew performs shechita, ritual slaughter, the animal is not kosher.  Are we permitted to use that meat for purposes other than consumption?  Are we assuming that a non-Jew is slaughtering animals for purposes of idolatry?  Usually we do not.  Although, we are taught, a min, Jewish heretic, is assumed to be slaughtering animals for purposes of idolatry.  

A baraita tell us that ritual slaughter performed by a min is assumed to be intended for idolatry.  His bread is the bread of Kutim, his wine is used for idolatrous purposes, his scrolls of the law are like the books of sorcerers and his fruit is untithed.  

Steinsaltz teaches us about the Kutim who were exiled to Israel by the kings of Assyria who wanted to repopulate the land.  Kutim were called gerei arayot, lion converts, because they were afraid of the lions who were attacking them.  They converted but they continued to worship idols.  As well, Because of this, the Kutim were treated with greater care than other non-Jews.  For example, their bread was treated as if it were pork even when Jews had difficulty making their own bread.

This is another example of the rabbis separating Jews and non-Jews.  The logic seems to be that social relationships will lead to romantic relationships which will be the downfall of our peoplehood.  We continue to struggle with fears about assimilation and continuity.  And yet we are still here.

Chullin 12: Supervising Shechita

Rav Nachman teaches Rav's ruling: As long as one watches someone performing shechita, ritual slaughter, from the start to the end, the animal can be eaten.  Simply watching half of the process done well is not enough to allow us to assume that the remainder will be done properly  If one does not witness the entire process, it cannot be eaten.  If the slaughterer is a professional that witness is not required.  

It seems that the rabbis wish to ensure that only those who are expert in shechita perform or witness the act of shechita.  The Tosafot HaRosh suggest that one situation might involve one who happened to see on performing shechita compared with one who is watching carefully.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger teaches that we might know with certainty that the slaughterer does not know the laws.  In addition, we might be unsure whether or not one was an expert, and so we insist on supervision.

Chullin 11: Majorities and What They're Good For

Today, in part we learn about the definitions of "majority":

• ruba d'ita kaman, a clearly defined majority 
• examples include the Sanhedrin where Sages would vote and the majority would rule
• one example is a case where nine stores sell kosher meat and one that sells non-kosher meat and unidentified meat is found between them
• 
  
• ruba d'leta kaman, a majority which is known but is not perfectly measurable
• examples include a young boy and girl who are meant to marry under the rules of levirate marriage and it is assumed that neither is sterile since the vast majority of the population is able to conceive

The Chatam Sofer teaches that the difference between these two majorities is whether or not we can check the situation.  Some of the rabbis say that it is the interaction between the majority and the minority that allows us to recognize the situation of doubt.  The weight of the majority leads us to conclude our debate.  In the second, the majority is not in competition against the minority.  Instead, the majority is used as a tool that helps us to measure the circumstance.

Acharonim teach an interesting argument.  The first case might seem to be more certain than the second, but this is not necessarily the case.  In the first situation, the "majority rules" is a legal tool that helps us to solve a problem based in doubt.  In the second situation, the majority offers us much greater certainty  regarding our conclusion.

Chullin 9: Torah Scholars' Skills, What is Permitted

Rav Yehuda quotes Rav, saying that a Torah scholar must learn three skills: writing, so that he can write texts for several occasions, ritual slaughter, and circumcision.  Rav Hanna bar Shelamya quotes Rav as well.  He says that Torah scholars must also be able to tie the knot of the tefilin, to recite the groom's blessing by heart with traditional intonation, and to tie the tzitzim. 

Rav Huna explains that the is an presumption of permissibility with animals.  Until they are selected for shechita, they are assumed to be permissible. Once selected, they are presumed to be permissible until they become treifa.  Even if there is a flaw, they are presumed permitted until checked and possibly declared ritually impure.  

The rabbis remind us that there is a difference between something that is not permitted because of danger and something not permitted because of ritual impurity.  If we are concerned about snake venom in a small hole bored into a fig, for example, that is a concern about danger.  We are reminded that we continue to wash our hands before eating based on the priestly requirement of hand washing to ensure that they are not transmitting ritual impurity.

Chullin 8: The Knife Used in Shechita

We begin today's daf with a description of using a white hot knife blade in the process of shechita.  This transitions rapidly into a conversation regarding the identification of white leprous marks.   The rabbis consider whether a leprous mark might be considered a wound or a burn if it formed after one was touched by a white hot knife.  Is it the blow or the heat that caused the wound?

The rabbis debate about using a knife that may have been used for unkosher purposes.  They discuss whether or not we are permitted to use a Gentile's knife.  Interestingly, the rabbis say that it is permissible to wipe the blade of a knife on a piece of cloth after using it to slaughter a tereifa.  They describe in detail the process of dipping a knife in different vats of water for different purposes.

Chullin 6: Trusting Kutim, Trusting Parents-in-Law

Today's daf tells us about "a certain elder": Rabbi Meir went to fetch some wine from the Kutim.  He was met by a certain elder who said, "Put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite".  This was a warning to leave the Kutim. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar returned and reported to Rabbi Meir.  He asked why.  Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak said that they found a figure of a dove on the top of Mount Gerizim and they worshipped.  

Who is the certain elder?  Tosafot say that this is Eliyahu HaNavi in some situations, for his words are respected.  The rabbis discuss the possibility that this story happened after the Bar Kochba revolt was quashed.  At that time a pagan temple was built on Mount Gerizim and some Kutim became idol worshippers.  The dove was probably a symbol of the goddess Aphrodite.  Because most Kutim assimilated into pagan culture, the Sages decided that they were not to have full Jewish status.  

Today's daf also shares a number of situations where mothers-in-law or fathers-in-law meddle in their children's lives with good intentions.  For example, a mother-in-law might replace her daughter-in-law's  vegetables for better vegetables so that they can eat better food.  Should we be concerned about the source of those vegetables and whether they might be forbidden because of the laws of terumah or other negative commandments?

Chullin 5: Rabbans Gamliel

Part of what is discussed in today's daf is the rabbinical court in the time of Rabban Gamliel.  They decided that the Kutim were not trustworthy enough to perform shechita.  Some believed that they could be trusted because they kept all Torah law including the laws surrounding shechita.

Steinsaltz teaches us about the three different leaders who were known as Rabban Gamliel:

• Rabban Gamliel the Elder, grandson of Hillel the Elder, nasi during the second Temple period
• Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, head of the academy in Yavne after the death of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zaikai, colleague of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua
• Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's eldest son

Limited information is available regarding Rabban Gamliel who was the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.  The rishonim wonder about which Rabban Gamiliel is which.   Based on past rulings, different rabbis suggest that they are reading the words of one of the Gamliels.

Chullin 4: Ritual Slaughter, Five Disqualifications from Slaughter of Fowl

The rabbis continue to discuss shechita, ritual slaughter.  We learned that the Kutim were permitted to slaughter animals with a number of restrictions.  Today's Gemara turns to the ritual slaughter of fowl.  Kutim believed that it was not required by Torah law to slaughter birds according to shechita.  To counter that claim, the rabbis suggest that the five basic disqualifications of shechita are not found in the Torah, either, but the Kutim accept them.  Thus, we read, the Kutim should accept these laws as well.

These are the disqualifications:

• She'chiya, interrupting: hesitation during the act of slaughter
• Derasa, pressuring: cutting the esophagus and windpipe of the animal using pressure and not a back and forth motion
• Chaladah, concealing: placing the knife between the esophagus and windpipe before the actual slaughter
• Hagrama, diverting: slaughtering on a different part of the neck
• Ikkur, ripping: pulling the esophagus and windpipe out of their proper place before slaughter or tearing the esophagus and windpipe because the knife has nicks in it

Chullin 3: The Kutim and the Samaritans

Yesterday's daf noted that Kutim, nations exiled to Israel by the kings of Assyria who wished to repopulate the Israel after they removed the Jews.  They converted to Judaism because people were afraid that lions were attacking them.  They continued to worship their many gods.  When the Jews returned to Israel around the building of the second Temple, the Kutim's descendants the Samaritans attempted to block returning Israelites to build the Temple or the inner walls of Jerusalem.  Some Jews married Samaritans, including priests.

The Gemara describes fights between the Israelites and the Samaritans over many years.  It also describes times when the two peoples cooperated.  For example, they helped each other through the Bar Kochba revolt.  Ultimately the Samaritans were ruled to be non-Jews because of their idol-worship.

In Massechet Yevamot, we learned that a bet din should not accept any potential convert who is taking that step for a reason other than a heartfelt desire to join the Jewish people.  However, the Gemara also teaches that if one goes through the full conversion process, s/he is considered to be Jewish.  Steinsaltz teaches us that today's community of Samaritans is often welcomed into the larger Jewish community.

Today's daf reminds us about the difficulties surrounding conversion in Israel.  The is someone Jeish and when are they not at all Jewish?  The Orthodox rabbis in Israel have monopolized decision-making around conversion, which means that people who convert according to Reform or Conservative halacha are not considered to be Jewish.  We continue to struggle with question s about who is Jewish and who is not.

Chullin 2: Women Performing Shechita

Our very first Mishna teaches us about who can and cannot perform shechita, ritual slaughter, in the Temple.  All people except for those who are deaf and mute, those who are not intellectually competent, and those who are not yet of age.  This is because they might err in their work.    Interestingly, women and Canaanites are not mentioned in this list of those who are excepted.

The rabbis wonder why women are permitted to do this very sacred act.  Some suggest that women should not take part in ritual slaughter because they are "lightheaded".  Others counter that women will not be lightheaded when they are surrounded by the sanctity of the Temple.  Interesting that the rabbis keep women from the practical study of Torah and then they call those women lightheaded.  In this case, the rabbis rule that women should be permitted to perform shechita.

Steinsaltz points out that the Ashkenazi tradition has not allowed women to take part in shechita.  This is an example of our tradition building more fences that even our Sages recommended.  

Menachot 110: It's the Intention that Counts

Today's daf is the last of Masechet Menachot.  Before introducing our last Mishna, the rabbis continue their discussion about verses regarding meal offerings.  One of those verses lends itself to the teaching that the purity of a meal offering is like the purity of Torah study done by a married man who is not distracted by his thoughts.  

Our final Mishna teaches us about Leviticus 1:9, where an animal burnt offering is "a fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord".  A burnt offering described similarly in Leviticus 1:17.   A meal offering is also a fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord in Leviticus 2:2.  The repetition is utilized to help us understand that both substantial and meagre offerings have equal value given that the owner "directs his heart toward Heaven".  

The Gemara interprets other verses as if they speak to the rituals surrounding offerings.  To end our masechet, the chosen statement is about the importance of the intention behind one's offering.  How wonderful to end this very detailed and very long masechet with a commentary judging each other based on things.  It is how much we care - how much we wish to make amends - that is counted.

Menachot 109: The Rights of Priests in Onias

A very brief note regarding today's daf:

We are introduced to two Mishnayot today, both of which consider similar circumstances.  In the first, the rabbis discuss whether or not a sacrifice is valid if it is offered in the temple in Onias, Egypt, instead of in the holy Temple in Jerusalem.  Although the priests in Onias were descendants of Aaron, the temple was a replica of Jerusalem's Temple.  The priests of Onias were not permitted to serve as priests in the Temple, even if their rituals in Onias were halachically bound; even though the Temple was built to honour G-d.  The second Mishna focuses more pointedly on those priests in Onias and the struggle as to whether or not their deeds honor G-d and thus entitle them to serve in any way in Jerusalem.

We are reminded again of the many competing sects at the time of the Temple.  Rabbinic Judaism was fighting for its place as the authority on Jewish practice.  At the same time, other groups and individuals were interpreting Torah and adapting halachic decisions to meet the needs of their communities.  We continue to face those questions regarding "what is Jewish" in times of assimilation and divided streams of Jewish interpretation and practice.  We don't wish to alienate other Jews, but sometimes 'their'  behaviours make us feel uncomfortable and we close the circle.

Menachot 108: When in Doubt, Offer the Smallest or the Largest

A new case in today's Mishna: if one says that s/he will bring one if her/his lambs or oxen as a sacrifice, s/he should bring the larger and more valuable lamb or ox should be brought.  The Gemara teaches that we should assume people offer sacrifices from a place of generosity.  

The acharonim wonder how this connects with yesterday's Gemara, where a standard statement should refer to the smallest of that category.  Thus if one says, "I accept upon myself to bring a burnt offering", one should bring a lamb which is the least expensive offering.  If the principal is to offer the most expensive animal, how do we reconcile this difference?

A second Mishna teaches us that the middle-sized animal is consecrated if one states that s/he will consecrate one of his/her three lambs or bulls.  If one says "I specified the lamb or bull that I will consecrate but I do not know which animal I specified", or "My father told me that he consecrated one of the lambs or bulls before his death but I do not know which",  the largest of the animals is consecrated.

What we assume is "standard can say a great deal about who we are.  If we give the "best" to the altar, we are both respecting G-d and we are ignoring humility and respecting the limitations of poverty.  

Menachot 107: An Unspecified Offering: Many Reasons for Choosing Lamb

A new Mishna teaches us about the protocol when one asserts that s/he will bring a sacrifice without details about specific plans.  The Mishna tells us how to figure out what the person likely meant.  As well, we learn about what to do when one asserts specifics about an obligation to bring a sacrifice but then forgets the assertion.

The Tanna Kamma teaches one should bring a lamb (the least expensive option) if one asserts that s/he will bring a a burnt offering.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya teaches that one could bring a sacrifice from fowl.  

The Gemara teaches that these are complimentary interpretations because "burnt offering" referred to animal sacrifices in the Tanna Kamma's community.  When Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was alive, "burnt offering" referred to bird sacrifices as well.

Rashi understands that the Tanna Kamma defaulted to the least expensive offering in accordance with the principal that a standard statement should refer to the smallest of that category.  The Rambam states the opposite: a standard statement should be interpreted to refer to the largest of that category.  Perhaps the case described in our Mishna was referring to an understanding that a lamb was the automatic meaning of a simple burnt offering.  Or perhaps the Rambam ruled in accordance with the Tosefta.  We also learn the possibility that although the basic law is similar to our Mishna, the Tosefta refers to one who wishes to reach a higher level of obligation.

Today's daf offers us a clear example of rabbis disagreeing with each other and ruling in opposition to each other without offering others a clear path to follow.

Menachot 106: Brining Wood - and an Offering?

Toward the end of today's daf, we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It teaches that when one obligates oneself to bring wood to the Temple, one must bring two pieces of wood or more.  These these are usually placed on the altar beside each other each morning and afternoon.  

A baraita says that bringing wood to the Temple is the same as obligating oneself to bringing a sacrifice.  Proof texts point to the use of the seemingly superfluous word korban, sacrifice in Vayikra (2:1 or 1:2) and mention of "the sacrifice of wood" in Sefer Nechemya (10:35).  

Perhaps, as asserted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood must bee brought to the Altar with ceremony - and with salt - like any other sacrifice.  Rava suggests that the wood needs kemitza, the fistful of flour, as well, if it is to be considered a sacrifice.  But if wood requires the halachot of both offerings and meal offerings, it is suggesting that the two types of sacrifices are somewhat similar to each other.  And how would kemitza be done on wood?  Rashi says that soft chips must be cut from the wood or all of the wood should be processed into smaller chips.  Tosafot interpret this as meaning that all laws of kemitza apply (the process of obtaining the handful in a priest's right hand, placing it into a special vessel, etc.)

The Peirush Kadmon (Masechet Me'ila) argues that the intent is not to introduce kemiza, but to teach that one who contributes wood must bring a meal offering as well, including salt and any other special requirements of this offering.

Menachot 104: How to Choose an Unspecified Offering

Today begins our Masechet's thirteenth perek.  We turn to learning about the use of language when one claims that an offering is coming.  The Mishna teaches that a person can say, "I accept upon myself a meal offering" and then choose one of the different types of menachot:

• solet, a simple flour mixture
• challot, loaves that are unleavened
• rekikim, wafers that are unleavened
• marcheshet, something cooked in a deep pan

Rabbi Yehuda counters that one must bring a meal-offering of solet because that is the mincha, offering, described in the Torah (Vayikra 2:11).

We are taught the many opinions of the rishonim regarding this circumstance.  The Mishneh LaMelech suggests that the Rambam accepts the argument that the owner can choose any of the five offerings.  Rashi, however, explains Vayikra 2:1 as if he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion that one only brings an offering of solet.

Rav Eliyahu Mizrahi comments on Rashi saying that Rashi does not offer halachic rulings. Instead, he presents the interpretation that best reflects the simple, straightforward meaning of Torah text.  Rabbi Yehuca's approach is certainly the more simple interpretation, but we cannot know that Rashi agreed with it.  

Menachot 103: Unusual Meal-Offerings

The Mishna in today's daf considers what should be done when people consciously bring meal offerings in an unusual manner.

We learn that the Tanna Kamma states that the owner's statement should be amended to reflect a proper meal offering.  Regardless of what the person actually says, the offering should be as expected.  Rabbi Shimon suggests that these offerings are not brought at all because the owners stated something erroneous.  

The Gemara tells us that the Tanna Kamma of today's Mishna was following Beit Shammai.  They had taught that we listen to a speaker's first statement.  Thus one must bring a meal offering if s/he stated that s/he would bring that offering, even if subsequent statements made that impossible.  Rabbi Yochanan teaches that the Tanna Kamma would state that one who offers to bring an unusual offering would not do so and would be released from that obligation.  Only if the owner explained that the statement was unintentional would s/he be obligated to bring an offering.

Menachot 102: Asham Taluey, Provisional Guilt Offerings

Today's Gemara teaches us about a case where someone brought an animal as an asham taluey, provisional guilt offering.  In this case the person realizes that s/he definitely did not transgress any halacha.  We are presented with three opinions.

Rabbi Meir teaches that once the owner knows that s/he did not commit the transgression, the transgression was brought in error.  Thus the animal can be returned without being redeemed.  The Sages teach that we treat this sacrifice like any other sacrifice that cannot be brought.  It is left alone until it becomes blemished and thus disqualified from sacrifice.  Then it can be redeemed and the money will go to the Temple to use for another sacrifice.  Rabbi Eliezer teaches that the animal should be offered as provisional guilt offering.  He suggests that the owner must have sinned at some point and so the sacrifice is still valid.  

Earlier, (Keritot 17-18), the Sages attempt to define the "doubt" which warrants a provisional guilt offering.  It had been known as "the guilt offering of the pious" during the Second Temple period.  At that time people would bring these offerings even if they only had a slight suspicion and not a true doubt that they had sinned.  

Menachot 101: Redeeming Sacrifices that become Ritually Impure, Halacha that Suits Our Needs

Today's daf begins our twelfth perek.  It teaches that once an animal is offered as a sacrifice it cannot be redeemed.  Further, if the animal developed a blemish, it could be redeemed and another animal would be purchased to replace it.

The Mishna states that:

• meal offerings and libations can be redeemed if they were not placed in a special vessel
• if they were placed in that vessel, they can no longer be redeemed 
• fowl or wood used with frankincense that became ritually impure cannot be used nor redeemed
• those fowl/wood must be destroyed

The Gemara notes that restrictions on redeeming wood, frankincense and vessels is rabbinic.  Biblically they can be redeemed even if they were not ritually impure and thus usable.  They could not be redeemed because they are rare and there might not be enough of them for Temple services.  The rabbis teach that wood is common, but not wood without worms.  We learn that the Meiri teaches that wood with worms cannot be used on the altar because:

• only things edible for Jews can be burned on the altar
• worms are disgusting and thus wormy wood would disgrace the altar

It is notable that the rabbis recognize in two different points that halacha might have been created for the benefit of people, not because it was a Torah-based instruction.

Menachot 99: The Tables, The Shewbread; Learning Greek Wisdom

Before describing the Mishna introduced in today's daf, I want to mention conversations shared involving Reish Lakish and then other rabbis.  Reish Lakish teaches that we must not allow ourselves to forget the Torah that we have learned, for as it is said in Deuteronomy 4:9, we will have transgressed the prohibition against observing Torah for ourselves and guarding our souls diligently.  Rabbi Yochanan and others say that the soul is formed in forty days (following conception) just as the Torah was given in forty days.  This is the first time that I have noted mention of the formation of the soul, particularly while in utero.  There is much written about how we do not count an infant as existent until after it has survived a month following birth.

Our new Mishna teaches us that at the entrance of the Sactuary, the table of marble holds the shewbread  as they cool and keep for the week. At the end of the week, they are moved to the table of gold until the frankincense is burned.  This one gold table demonstrates that the shewbread have a higher level of sanctity.  To ensure that the shewbread is on the table at all times, four priests carry in the shewbread and two bowls of frankincense.  Four other priests enter first, taking and arranging these items.  The priests stand facing particular directions as part of this ritual.  

Shewbread must always be on the table.  All of the elements of this ritual happened on the tables.  Loaves were given to all of the priests on Shabbat just as the priestly watch was replaced each week on Shabbat.  If Yom Kippur was on Shabbat, the loaves were distributed at night following the conclusion of the fast.  If Yom Kippur occurred on a Friday, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur was eaten by the priests on Friday night, for it could only be eaten on the day it was sacrificed or the following night before midnight.

Finally, because it is not allowed to cook meat on Yom Kippur or Shabbat, the priests who had come from Babylonia would eat the meat raw.  They were said to be more "broad minded" regarding their food (they were not picky and would eat their food raw).

One of the conversations in the Gemara regards Ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael's sister.  Ben Dama asked his uncle about learning Greek wisdom after he had completely learned Torah.  Rabbi Yishmael told him to continue studying Torah day and night; if he could find an hour that was neither day nor night, he could study Greek wisdom at that time.  Others argued this point, believing that there are limits on how much time one should devote to Torah study or to learning Mishnayot.

Menachot 97: The Table as an Altar

How should the table in the Temple be viewed by those who came to visit the Temple on festivals?  The Gemara reminds us of the book of Yechezkel (41:22): "the altar, three cubits high, and the length of two cubits, was wood including its corners, length and walls.  It was said, "This is the table that is before the  Lord".   Even though the table was seen as golden, it was viewed as a wooden utensil.  

Why did the description of the table begin with talk about the altar?  Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar teach that the altar was the place of atonement while the Temple stood.  After the Temple was destroyed, the table served that same role.

Steinsaltz tells us about Rashi's commentary.  When we welcome guests to our table, that generosity and compassion is an offering of atonement.  The Maharsha says that this refers to one who limits his/her food for the sake of heaven; in memorial to the destruction of the Temple.  Others teach that it is the words of Torah shared at a meal that turn the table into an altar offering atonement.

Menachot 96: The Loaves and the Table

Today's daf offers a very long Mishna in amud (a).  It teaches us more detailed halacha regarding preparing and placing the shewbread on the table in the Temple.  We learn very specific instructions regarding the measurements of the loaves, their "horns", and their placement on the table.

Steinsaltz teaches us about Reish Lakish's interpretations: the table is said to be "pure" (Vayikra 24:6) because we are meant to understand that the table might be easily ritually defiled.  Although static vessels do not become ritually impure, Reish Lakish believes that the table was moved to demonstrate its glory to those who visited on the festivals.  Rabbi Yehoshua had taught that the table represents G-d's direct love of the children of Israel - the miraculous loaves stayed fresh until they were eaten by the priests one week after they were placed.  The Sefat Emet taught that G-d's love was in the twelve loaves as they were similar to the twelve tribes.  They were eaten on Shabbat, which created a divine essence to last throughout the week.

The rabbis debate whether or not the priests could have carried the table from the Temple to the courtyard, heavy with the extra weight of the loaves and rods.  Perhaps the priests just described the loaves to the people.  Or perhaps the loaves emitted steam which was visible to the people.

Menachot 95: Preparing the Loaves

The rabbis continue to discuss the rules regarding the shtei halechem, the two loaves brought on Shavuot, and the lechem hapanim, twelve loaves placed on the table in the Temple.  Their traditions are similar.  At the end of today's daf, a new Mishna teaches about their preparation:

• The Tanna Kamma: they are kneaded and arranged outside of the Temple area but baked in the Temple courtyard
• Rabbi Yehuda: all preparations are done in the Temple area
• Rabbi Shimon: preparation and baking can be done in or out of the Temple grounds, in Beit Pagi

We learn about the sources for these different views.  The Tanna Kamma teaches that the loaves do not become consecrated until they are baked and thus preparation need not take place on Temple grounds.  Rabbi Yehuda said that the loaves are meal offerings.  Meal offerings become holy as soon as ingredients are measured into a Temple vessel - and so preparation must be done in the Temple courtyard.   Rabbi Shimon says that the baking may be done outside of the courtyard, for the two loaves of Shavuot only becomes sanctified when the accompanying sacrifices are slaughtered.  Further, the twelve loaves become sanctified when they are placed on the Temple's table.  

Menachot 94: The Shape of Shewbread

As we move toward the end of Masechet Menachot, the rabbis continue their discussion about the rituals surrounding Temple offerings.  Today's daf focuses on the shewbread.  These are the shtei ha'lechem, two loaves, brought on Shavuot that celebrate the new Harvest, and the lechem panim, twelve loaves, which are placed on a table each week.

Unlike other offerings, these are baked in a pan that provides them with a distinct shape.  In addition, they are eaten whole by the priests.  The daf focuses on details regarding the shewbread and on the table.  We do not learn how they were kneaded, baked, or shaped by their pans.  Further, we know little about the table nor its utensils. 

In the Gemara, the rabbis share some of their ideas regarding these missing details.  Rabbi Chanina says that the shewbread were shaped like open boxes.  Rabbi Yochanan says that shewbread were shaped like boats rocking on waves.  The Chazon Ish says that this disagreement was an ordinary argument, for either shape was plausible.  We are not told how much dough was used to create these shapes, but the ingredients listed earlier could easily serve either shape.

It is wonderful to read the rabbis admitting to their own creativity.  So often interpretations are presented as facts based on proofs; however, much creative thinking is required in all interpretation.

Menachot 93: Women Laying of Hands on Animal Sacrifices

A new Mishna teaches us a number of things, including the requirement that two hands are used when doing semicha, laying on hands.  We also learn that one always places hands on his animal offering except:

• an 'imbecile'
• a person who is 'deaf-mute'
• a minor
• a woman
• a Canaanite slave
• the agent of the offering's owner

One of the questions asked in the Gemara is about the exclusion of women.  Because of the placement of this restriction (near the Canaanite slave and the agent of the owner), the rabbis consider the woman to be the owner's wife. As his wife, why would she not be permitted to lay hands?  This is a positive, time-bound commandment and such are not required to be performed by women.  There are a number of other thoughts regarding the exclusion of women when doing semicha.

Tosafot: semicha is like shechita, slaughtering the sacrifice are similar and thus because shechita is permitted by a woman, semicha must be done by women as well.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger: semicha is performed during the day but is not necessarily time-bound.  Shechita is performed during the day, and because it is performed immediately after semicha, it is only a technicality that forces semicha to be done during the day.

The Sefat Emet: sacrifices are time-bound but women offer sacrifices just like men do.  Thus women are not released from the obligations to perform positive, time-bound commandments are not applied to sacrifices.

Rabbi Avraham Moshe Salmon (in Netivot HaKodesh): semicha is not the obligation of the one performing the sacrifice.  Instead, semicha is an obligation regarding the sacrifice itself.  Thus everyone, including women, are obligated to lay hands on animal sacrifices.

Menachot 92: Semicha, Laying of Hands

Turning to semicha, laying of hands on the animal sacrifice, today's daf begins with a Mishna. We learn that the no communal sacrifices include semicha - except for the scapegoat of Yom Kippur and the sacrifice brought when the Sanendrin err in a ruling that leads to sin.  Rabbi Shimon notes that a mistaken ruling leading to idol worship also includes semicha.

A few notes about semicha:

• brought for a sin offering, a guilt offering, or an offering for failing to do positive commandments
• animal is in northern part of the Temple courtyard with head facing the west
• both hands are placed between the horns of the animal
• the person offering recites viduey, confession 
• semicha and video represent the connection between the person bringing the offering and the atonement sought
• communal semicha is brought by the high priest on Yom Kippur or by three members of the Sanhedrin when they had erred leading to sin in the community

The rabbis discuss the scapegoat at some length, examining its connection to the other rules regarding semicha.

Menachot 90: When to Offer Libations

A new Mishna teaches us about the halacha regarding wine libations which accompanied many sacrifices.  Specifically, communal sacrifices and individual sacrifices are accompanied by these libations, with the exception of:

• bechor, a first-born animal
• ma'aser, an animal that is tithed and brought as a sacrifice
• pesach, the pascal sacrifice
• chatat, sin offerings
• asham, guilt offerings

The rabbis note that the sin and guilt offerings brought by a metzora, a leper's sacrifices are in a different category regarding libations.

Steinsaltz teaches Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno's suggestion: the sacrifice itself acts as the connector between G-d and the person/community who is offering.  Early stories of sacrifices (Chevel/Abel, Noah, Avraham) included no libations.  The sin of the Golden Calf and the following daily communal sacrifices included a meal offering and a libation.  After the Spies reports, meal offerings and libations followed even personal sacrifices.

The Rumba's Commentary speaks to the exception of the metzora's offering.  Usually we would not want sacrifices of atonement to be decorated or beautified.  Atonement is complete by the time a metzora brings offerings.  For a Nazir, however, the sin and guilt offerings are seen as a form of atonement for denying him/herself the pleasure that accompanies the mitzvah of drinking wine.

Menachot 88: The Magical Oil Used for Anointing in the Temple

We learned about liquid measurements used in the Temple in the Mishna that ended our last daf:

• one hin = 12 log
• half a hin = 6 log
• one third of a hin = 4 log
• one quarter of a hin = 3 log
• one log
• half a log
• one quarter of a log

Was there a utensil that measured a hin given that there was no need for that measure in the Temple?  Rabbi Shimon suggests that this is the case.  The Gemara agrees, but it notes that there may have been a service that required a hin measurement.   The anointing oil was originally given for the tabernacles, the utensils and the priests.  Originally Moses was told to take a full hin of oil for that anointing (Shemot 30:24-25). Did the measurement remain in the Temple after it had been used?  Rabbi Shimon is convincing when he argues that the hin measure would have been removed once it was set aside.

Steinsaltz teaches us about the commentaries on the Gemara.  It is suggested that the tin measure was not needed because Moshe's original oil never ran out.  Magically it remained full for generations.  Masechet Horayot (11b) teaches that King Yoshiyahu hid the measure of oil in the Temple along with the Ark and the container of manna because of the destruction of the Temple that was imminent.  That container of oil is said to be used to anoint the Temple when it will be rebuilt in the future.  And since the original hin of oil will never run out, it is not necessary to find another container that measures a hin of oil.

Menachot 87: Preparing Wine and Incense

Today's daf includes a Mishna that describes how to ensure that the ingredients for libations were of the highest quality.  It shares where the grapes were grown and harvested, how they were grown and how the wine should be stored.  It teaches that libations should not come from the top of the barrel where there was 'flour', the white dust of fermentation, and not from the bottom of the barrel where the sediment had settled.  

The Mishna notes that the appointed official would sit with the barrel with a measuring reed in his hand while it was poured.  When refuse was poured, he would bang on the barrel with his reed, signifying that no more wine should be poured from that barrel.

The Gemara asks why it was necessary to bang on the barrel instead of simply shouting.  Rabbi Yochanan is quoted: although speech was good for preparing the incense, it was bad for preparing the wine.  Some of the explanations include:

• the sound waves from speech help the mixing process of preparing incense ingredients
• a metered melody or recitation allowed the workers to work at a consistent pace
• two workers would have to hold the mortar and speech helped them work together

These explanations focus on the ways that speech would help the people at work preparing the incense and not the incense itself.  Tosafot note that a similar statement appears in Masechet Keritot (6b).  There Rabbi Yochanan tells workers to chant, "sound well, well pound!" while they work with mortar because it is good for the incense (but not for the wine).

Menachot 86: Grades of Oil by Quality

Before introducing two new Mishnayot, today's daf reminds us about the qualities and uses of oil of myrrh.  This oil, produced from the oil of olives that have not yet reached one third of their growth, was used both as a perfume and as a depilatory.  Women spread this on their skin for its hair removal properties and its perfume.  Oil of myrrh was never fit for sacrifice. A vessel gathers the oil, and the olives are placed around the basket to ensure that the best olive oil is gather.

Three annual harvests of olives each year.  The first new Mishna tells us about the first harvest: ripe olives are picked from the top of the tree as they ripen first. They are crushed with a mortar and placed in a many-hooded wicker basket.  The second grade of oil comes from olives picked from the roof - these olives ripen next.  All oil is gathered when a wooden beam or possibly stones pressed on the olives once their oil stops seeping on its own.  Finally, the olives are ground with a millstone and pressed down upon with a beam of wood.  The third olives are collected from what remains on the trees. They are dried on the rooftop and then processed like the other olives.  The first grade oil is used to light the candelabrum in the Temple.  The rest is fit for use in meal offerings.  

The second Mishna in today's daf ranks all nine grades of oils by quality, from highest to lowest:

• First grade of oil from first harvest
• second grade of oil from first harvest AND/OR first grade of oil from the second harvest
• third grade of oil from first harvest AND/OR second grade of oil from the third harvest
• third grade of oil produced from the third harvest

But wouldn't meal offerings require the highest quality of refined olive oil?  After all, oil that is consumed on the altar would be as important as the oil burned away from the altar in the candelabrum.  The rabbis turn to the interpretation of an instruction in Leviticus (24:2), "Refined pounded olive oil for illumination".  This is said to mean that refined, pounded oil is required only for the Candelabrum.

Menachot 85: Preparing produce for the Meal Offering

We learn a new Mishna regarding the preparation of grain for the meal offering.  High quality grain produces fine flour.

• no offerings should come from fertilized field, irrigated fields or fields of trees for these fields cannot produce optimal quality grains
• if one does bring an offering from those fields, it is fit for sacrifice
• fields should be plowed but not sown in the first year
• in the second year the field should be sown seventy days before Pesach
• the Temple treasurer inspects the flour for quality by immersing his hand into the flour and finding no flour powder covering his hand when he removes it
• if the flour is unfit, it is sifted with a fine sifter until no power remains
• if over half of the flour has become wormy, it is unfit

One of the Gemara's discussions focuses on bikurim, the first fruits brought to the Temple.  Bikurim are supposed to be only brought from the seven species (wheat, barley, grapes, figs, dates, olives and pomegranates).  They must not be brought from mountainous regions, etc.  Are bikurim similarly dismissed if they are less than optimal quality, like the flour brought for the meal offering?  

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree: Rabbi Yochanan says that such fruit is not fit, while Reish Lakish believes that they would become sanctified just as blemished animals became sanctified if they met the basic requirements of a sacrifice.  We are told of Rav Elazar's commentary regarding his friend/teacher, Rabbi Yochanan.  In a dream, Rav Elazar saw Rabbi Yochanan interpreting a Torah verse which explains both the limitation on types of produce to sacrifice and from where that produce might be gathered.