Menachot 82: Proofs that Sacrificial Obligations Cannot be Aquired with Sanctified Money

A new Mishna focuses on the the fact that the Pesach sacrifice must be brought from tzon u'bakar, the flock and the herd.  This refers to cattle, even though only specific types of cattle, including lambs or goats.  The Mishna argues that cattle is used as a general term to connect other sacrifices to the Pesach offering.  In this way, we know that we buy the Pesach offering with personal and not sanctified funds.  Of note - the the Pesach offering was first brought, the laws regarding sanctified funds had not been created.  Thus we can conclude that all other required sacrifices must come from personal and not sanctified money.

The acharonim search in the Torah for a source teaching us that required sacrifices cannot be bought with sanctified money.  They note that if one obligates him/herself to bring an offering and s/he is already obligated to bring an offering (sin/guilt), we would assume that the obligation cannot be fulfilled using sanctified money.

Steinsaltz teaches us that Rav Shlomo Zalman Lifshitz agrees with Rambam: once an animal has been bought to be a sacrifice using second tithe money, the holiness of the money disappears and is replaced with the new sanctity of the sacrifice.  Perhaps other sacrifices could remove that sanctity as well?  The Pesach offering would teach that this is not the case.

Menachot 81: Acquiring Thanks Offerings and Loaves - Non-Sacred Money and Second-Tithe Money

We learn a new Mishna that tells us that if one says that s/he must bring a thanks offering, the sacrifice and the loaves must be bought from non-sacred money rather than second tithe money.  This is because obligations cannot be fulfilled with second-tithe money.

If s/he said that s/he must bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and the loaves from second-tithe money, s/he brings both from non-sacred money.  And if s/he said that s/he must bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and loaves from non-sacred money, it may be brought in that way.  Finally, if s/he said that s/he must bring a thanks offering and the loaves from second-tithe money, it may be brought in that way.  The loaves cannot be brought from second-tithe wheat.  Instead, the flour is purchased second-tithe money.

The rabbis discuss what this Mishna might teach us that is new.  They consider whether it might validate an argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.  Our daf ends with a reminder that this halacha is distinct from that regarding peace offerings.

Menachot 80: Are the Loaves Obligated as the Thanksgiving Offering is Obligated?

Today's daf discusses why a lost thanksgiving offering cannot be replaced, while if the accompanying loaves are lost, they are replaced.  The loaves are secondary to the sacrifice. 

Perhaps one is only not required to replace the lost sacrifice?  Rashi says that it is permitted to replace the thanksgiving offering.  Masechet Pesachim (13a) discusses this issue as well.  In that case, it is determined that the loaves are attached to the sacrifice, and so they cannot be sanctified.  Instead they lose their holy status and can be sold and eaten. 

The Tsfat Emet speaks about the specific words used to sanctify the loaves.  If the owner says "these are the loaves that accompany the thanksgiving offering" and then the owner sets the loaves aside, then the loaves continue to be his obligation.  Those same loaves can be attached to a replacement thanksgiving offering.

Menachot 79: When Blemished Offerings are Valid for Sacrifice

Today's daf includes two Mishnayot.  The first speaks to libations brought in vessels that are questionable.  The second considers thanks offerings that are lost and whether replacements might be sanctified.

The Gemara discusses what was to be done when a sacrifice was found to be imperfect; found to have a mum, blemish.  Rabbi Meir explains the disagreement to between Rabbi Eliezer (who says that the the excess loaves become sanctified) and Rabbi Yehoshua (sho says that the excess loaves do not become sanctified).

Why would Rabbi Eliezer say that an animal that is tereifa cannot be sacrificed, while an animal that is blemished is permitted?  The Gemara teaches us that Rabbi Akiva permits certain types of blemishes to be brought to the altar to stay on the altar.  An example is called duke sh'ba'ayin, a very minor eye condition, a cataract or perhaps a sore on the eyelid, which did not disqualify fowl from sacrifice.

Today's daf offers us an example of the rabbis admitting to and discussing their acceptance of what is 'grey' rather than what is black or white.  

Menachot 78: Limits on Sanctification, Bereira and Changing Status After the Fact

Some brief notes on today's daf:

• thanksgiving offerings were brought with forty loaves as meal offerings
• of the forty loaves, ten were made with chametz, leaven, and thirty were made with matzah, unleavened grain
• in a case where one brought eighty loaves,
• Chizkiya rules that forty of them are sanctified
• Rabbi Yochanan says that none are sanctified
• Rabbi Zeira explains:
• if one bringing the offering wants forty to be sanctified, they are
• if that same one wants all eighty to be sanctified, none become holy
• the issue between the two rabbis regards the owner's intentions
• Tosafot suggest 
• this appears to be about bereira, whether when there is a question about an object's status, an act taking place later fixes the status retroactively
• Rabbi Yochanan does not accept bereira, but he accepts that forty loaves become sanctified
• thus cases of bereira rely on later actions which may or may not occur
• in this case, even though we do not know the status of the loaves when the thanksgiving offering is brought, the forty loaves can become sanctified
• In my mind, this is the "no whining rule"
• we are permitted to plan for the worst, but we cannot demand more than our share

Menachot 76: Sourcing Fine Flour, Buying in Bulk

Today's daf holds a Mishna teaching us about the preparation of the fine flour used in meal-offerings:

• the omer offering brought on Pesach was prepared using 13 sifters
• the two loaves brought on Shavuot  were prepared using 12 sifters
• the 12 loaves on the table in the Temple each week were prepared using 11 sifters
• Rabbi Shimon argues that there was no number but that flour was sifted carefully

The Gemara uses a baraita to expand on Rabbi Shimon's prooftext.  For example, the flour for the 12 loaves could be bought as prepared flour like other meal offerings or in their raw state, wheat.   Rabbi Elazar suggests that this is part of the Torah's focus on being frugal with money.  There was much more flour required to prepare the 12 loaves each week compared with the once a year omer or shavuot offerings.  Buying wheat instead of flour would save much money.  Perhaps the proof for this theory comes from Bamidbar (20) where the miracle of water was given to Jews and their cattle.  Are we again given what we need?

Menachot 75: Prayers for Small Meal Offerings; Shehechianu

The rabbis discuss how much bread is required to obligate the blessing over bread, ha motzei lechem min ha'aretz.  Rav Yosef says that an olive bulk of bread crumbs are present, ha'motzei is required.  A baraita is quoted where a person who stands in Jerusalem and brings meal offerings broken into pieces first says the shehechianu, the prayer thanking G-d for us reaching this point, and then eats them with the ha'motzi.  When the pieces have been broken up, each one is considered to be counted.

Rashi, Tosafot, Rav Yosef and the rishonim share their arguments.  Perhaps this is a cooked dish with bread in it; perhaps the bread has a different status that the meal offering.  Alternately, the breadcrumbs could have been laced in the dish after cooking; the bread could have been broken and then have soup poured on it.  The rishonim ask why the shehechianu is said.  Rashi explains that this is the person's very first meal offering.   Tosofot suggest that this is not a meal-offering, which can only be eaten by priests.

Tosofot also remind us that the shehechianu might be appropriate because priests only serve in the Temple two days of each year (there were 24 groups of priests consisting of 6 families each).  Each new offering was worthy of a shehechianu.

Menachot 74: The Altar Vs. The Kohanim; The System of Shittin

Today's Mishna teaches us about instances when the kohanim are permitted to eat all of the meal-offering and cases went the altar consumes all of the meal-offerings.  The one that consumes all of the meal-offering is considered to be "stronger".  

When the altar receives the entire offering:

• minchat kohen: the meal offering brought by a priest, could be voluntary or obligatory
• minchat kohen mashi'ach: the daily meal offering brought by the high priest in the morning and the afternoon
• minchat nesachim: the meal offering accompanying libations

According to the Gemara, other sacrifices might stay on the altar with no portion going to the kohanim.  However, each example notes that the altar does not receive everything in these cases.  For example, the kohanim receive the skin of the animal when it is given as an ola, burnt offering.  When libations are poured on the altar and the kohanim receive not, we learn that the wine is poured into the shittin, pipes and hollow spaces within and beneath the altar, and not actually poured onto the altar.

Steinsaltz teaches us about the plumbing system beneath the altar.  Two small holes on the south-west corner of the altar carried blood and wine libations to the water tunnel under the Temple Mount and on to Kidron valley.  The Ge'onim report that the shittin were one cubit wide by 600 cubits deep.  In Masechet Sukka (49a) we learned that young priests would be sent to remove the solidified remnants of wine once every 70 years.  They could not fully descend into the bottom of the pipe.  Instead they would go as far down as possible and use special tools to clean the walls of the huge area beneath the Temple.

Menachot 73: Kohanim Trading Their Meal-Offerings

A brief note on today's daf:

• kohanim share the remainder of the meal-offerings equally among them
• each portion cannot be traded, for example a korban for an animal sacrifice of equal value
• one type of sacrifice cannot be traded for another (ex. from fowl for from animal sacrifice)
• Rashi tells us that we should not turn the sacrifices into business transactions
• Rashi also says that the kohanim do not own the sacrifices; they are "eating from the Heavenly table"
• A source is required to prohibit each trade to demonstrate that exchanges are forbidden regardless of the circumstance

Menachot 72: Meal Offerings in Different Circumstances

Today's daf begins perek VII, which we are told focuses on how meal offerings are brought, prepared, and the laws regarding the meal offering left over for the priests after the kemitza, fistful of flour, is offered.

A new Mishna teaches us which offerings include the five different types of voluntary meal-offerings that are brought by Jewish men and/or those same offerings that would be made voluntarily by Gentiles or women:

• minchat solet, fine flour mixture offering
• challot, unleavened loaves
• rekikim, unleavened wafers
• machavat, offerings prepared in a pan
• marchesher, offerings prepared in a deep pan

Other required meal offerings have these rules as well, including:

• minchat ha'omer, the meal offering brought on the second day of Pesach which marks the new harvest
• minchat choteh, the meal-offering brought when a person must bring a sacrifice for one from a number of sins but s/he can't afford the expensive sacrifice
• minchat kena'ot, the meal offering brought by a sota, a woman suspected of infidelity

Menachot 71: Halacha and Time-Dependent Harvesting/Pollination

After discussing rice yesterday, we are given a new Mishna that describes how the new crop was reaped at Pesach.  It says that reaping wall allowed even before the omer offering that permitted the new harvest.  Irrigated fields ripened early so perhaps this was to ensure the crop was not wasted.  Alternatively, the crop was of too poor quality to be part of the omer offering and so the farmers assumed that the law did not apply to them.  The city of Jericho is used as an example of farmers who harvested early with Rabbinical approval.  The Sages disagreed, but did not stop them.

The Gemara goes on to describe the activities of the people of Jericho.  Some of those were approved of by the Sages.  Others were objected to by the Sages, including the process of grafting palm trees on the 14th of Nissan, when we are commanded to not work.  Grafting continues to be required because of the nature of date plants, which requires pollination of the female plant by the male plant to produce dates.  Grafting is still done at very particular times to ensure pollination.

When living in Israel, I worked on Kibbutz with date pollination.  The job now includes tall cherry-pickers and machines that carefully collect the date pollen so that it can be manually sprayed on the female date pods at the appropriate times.  Our technology makes the job easier, but the job is the same now as it was thousands of years ago.

Menachot 69: Ritually Impure Utensils

Today's daf discusses utensils that have come into contact with dead creatures and thus have become tamei, ritually impure.  Utensils made of metal, wood, animal skin, bone, cloth, sack or pottery can be purified after becoming tamei.  The rabbis have added glass utensils.  

The Gemara explains that three types of utensils do not become tamei according to Torah or the rabbis.  They are thought to maintain their connection to the earth:

• klei avanim are utensils made of stone
• klei agama are utensils made either of earth, sanded stone, or earthenware not fired
• klei gelalim are made of either stone that must be rolled to move or animal excrement

Rami bar Chama asks if an elephant swallowed a wicker basket (made of soft palm reeds that can be bent) and excreted it whole, would it be considered klei gelalim and thus not tamei?  This is rejected.  However, the rabbis agree that if the elephant swallows and excretes whole the reeds used to make a wicker basket, they could be used to construct a basket that is tahor, ritually pure.

Menachot 68: When Can We Eat from the New Crop?

The rabbis teach that Vayikra (23:14) describes two ways to allow the new crop.  It says that "neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears can be eaten until that same day; until you have brought the offering of your G-d".  Does the day itself permit the crop, or must we wait until after the omer offering has been brought?

Rav and Shmuel interpret the meaning: when the Temple stood and the omer was brought on the 16th day of Nisan, the second day of Pesach, the new crop was permitted after the omer offering.  After the Temple was destroyed, the crop was permitted on the second day of Pesach.

The Mishna teaches that people assumed that the omer had been brought by mid-day.  Many lived far from the Temple and could not know otherwise.  The were permitted to eat from the new crop.  Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai ruled that after the destruction of the Temple, people should not eat form the new crop until the morning of the 17th of Nisan.  He explained that when the Temple is rebuilt, people might think that they could eat from the new crop on the morning of the 16th of Nisan - they would do this because in the past, they could eat on the morning of the 16th because there could be no omer offering.  

Both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree with Rav and Shmuel.  They argue that when the Temple stood, the new crop was permitted when the sun rose on the 16th of Nisan.  It was a special mitzvah to wait until after the omer offering to eat from the new crop.

Menachot 67: Availability of Flour After Waving/Sacrificing the Omer Offering

A short note on today's daf:

Today's daf continues to provide us with examples of rituals that are changed because of some exception or another.  For example, the challah offering is not taken at all if the bread is kneaded without having taking challah yet.

At the end of today's daf, we learn from a new Mishna:

• after the sun rises the priest sacrificing the omer placed the sifted tenth of an ephah into the vessel in his hand along with the log of oil and the frankincense (on the side)
• more oil was mixed together with the fine flour 
• these were waved
• the meal offering was brought to the corner of the alter
• the handful was removed and burned on the altar
• the remaining offering was eaten by the priests
• after the omer was sacrificed, more parched grain was available in the market
• grain from the new crop was permitted following the waving/sacrifice of the omer
• Rabbi Meir says that the market was filled with grain without approval of the Sages
• Rabbi Yehuda says that the Sages approved

Menachot 66: On Counting the Omer

Today's daf includes Abaye's comment that there is one commandment that we should count the days of the omer and a second commandment that we should count the weeks.  Although we no longer use sacrifices to mark our dedication, we know from modern practice that counting the days actually means saying aloud that we are at a certain day of the omer.

The Gemara teaches that Rav Ashi's students counted both days and weeks.  Ameirar's beit madras only counted days without weeks - it was in memory of the fallen Temple, and thus a partial counting was enough.

The Rambam said that there is a single mitzvah of counting.  Rabbeinu Yerucham said that there are two separate mitzvot so that the Temple would stand with two blessings.  The basic requirement would be to say "...that are a single week in the omer", or "that are two weeks in the omer", etc.

We learn in Steinsaltz's commentary that the Ba'al Halachot Gedolot ruled that one who missed a day of counting was done with his counting.  Tosafot question this logic: the Rosh says that if counting every day is a mitzvah then one day missed should not affect the other days.   Apparently, Behag suggested that the mitzvah is counting in full.  The daily blessing is on filling part of the mitzvah.  Even today, if one misses one day of counting, he should continue counting - but without reciting a blessing on the following days.

Menachot 65: The Date of Shavuot

A new Mishna teaches us how to prepare barley for the omer offering brought on the second day of Passover.  Apparently the beit din would send out emissaries just before Pesach and tie the barley that was unreaped into sheaves so that it would be easier to reap.   Every in nearby towns would join them to harvest the barley in celebration.  When it became dark, the reaper would call out a number of questions twice, to which the people would answer "Yes!"

• Has the sun set?
• With this sickle?
• Into this basket?

On Shabbat, there were further questions, each one twice:

• On this Shabbat?
• Shall I cut?
• to which they answered, "Cut!"

The section were then repeated two more times. 

The Gemara explains that this was all done because of a religious sect called the Baitusim who disagreed with the Sages regarding the omer sacrifice.  They interpreted Sefer Vayikra (23:11) as saying that the omer must be brought on the following Shabbat when they refer to the first day of Pesach.  They believed that the omer sacrifice and thus Shauvot was always brought on Sunday.

later, when the Sages decided on halachic clarification, Shavuot was placed in its "proper" time and a minor holiday was added and written in Megillah Ta'anit.  Most holidays and fasts recorded in Ta'anit came from the events that happened during the second temple era.  Some other events (earlier and later) are included).  It is not part of the standard Talmud collection, though Steinsaltz includes as an addendum to Masechet Ta'anit.

Menachot 64: Greek Wisdom; Omer, Pigs

In amud (b) of today's daf, we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It teaches that the omer sacrifice brought on the second day of Pesach should be harvested near the Temple after being brought from Gaggot Tzerifin, a place far away from Jerusalem.  

We learn in a baraita that in 65 BCE, the queen of Shelomtzion left her kingdom to her son Hyrcanus. Aristoblus, her other son, challenged his elder brother and won the kingdom.  Hyrcanus used Herod's father, Antimater, to create an army and attack the city.  Aristoblus was forced into Jerusalem.  Jews there at the time purchased animals from these intruders and used them for daily sacrifices in the Temple.

The baraita teaches that a person there who knew Greek wisdom suggested to the men outside of the city that the Temple service was what kept Jerusalem from being conquered.  The next day, Jews were offered a pig instead of their other sacrificial animals.  We are told that the pig reached out with its hooves halfway up the wall, causing the ground to shake.  From this point forward the Sages forbid both teaching Greek wisdom to children and raising pigs in Israel.

Steinsaltz commentary tells us that this story is in Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 14:2).  Apparently the Jews inside the city offered 1000 drachmas for each Pesach sacrifice.  The story ended with a storm that eradicated Israel's harvest.  It is suggested that this might explain why the "earth shook" with the movement of the pig.  Steinsaltz also tells us that "Greek wisdom" refers to Greek culture, music, literature, riddles, allusions, etc.  The person who understood Greek wisdom was only able to communicate that knowledge to a small number of people in the Jewish community.

Menachot 62: Meanings of the Waving Ritual

Today's daf focuses on the reasoning behind the practice of waving the Shavuot offerings. We learn from Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan on we extent the offering and bring it back to dedicate it to G-d to Whom the four directions belong.  We raise and lower them to dedicate them to G-d to Whom heaven and earth belong.  

In Jerusalem (the West) it was taught that Rav Chama bar Ukva said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Chanina that we extend the lambs and bring them back in order to keep off harmful winds.  We raise and lower the sacrifice to keep away harmful dews.

Rava argues that the reasoning for waving the lulav on Sukkot is similar.  But then again, Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov extended and brought it back while saying "I am shooting an arrow in the eye of Satan!"  The rabbis argued against this practice, suggesting that this will induce Satan to incite the Jews to sin.  Quite the logical argument, based on the logic of ancient Biblical law.

The Rishonim clarify:In the first approach, the point of waving the sacrifice in different directions is to thank G-d who rules in all directions.  This type of recognition should not be limited to waving.  The second approach connects waving with wind and dew, which is appropriate at Shavuot and Sukkot - both festivals which take place during important agricultural change and uncertainty.

Menachot 61: Waving and Bringing Near, the Place of Women

In a new Mishna we learn that some items require waving but do not require bringing near the altar:

• the log of oil accompanying the guilt offering of a recovered leper and his guilt offering
• the first fruits
• the sacrificial portions of the peace offerings of people and their breast and thigh

Men and women via male Jews are expected to follow these guidelines.

The two loaves and peace offering of two lambs brought on Shavuot do not require bringing near but do require waving.

The Mishna teaches about how the waving is done:

• two loaves are place on top of the two lambs
• two hands are below the loaves and the lambs, offering them in each of the four directions, bringing them back and then raising and lowering them
• this is done on the east part of the altar
• bringing near meal offerings is performed to the west; the southwest corner of the altar
• waving precede the actions of bringing near

The Mishna goes on to teach about the omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota require bringing near and waving.  Numbers (5:25) notes that the woman accused as a sota has the offering taken from her and waved by the priest.  The shewbread and meal offering of libations require no bringing near nor waving.

Rabbi Shimon says that three types of offerings require the performance of three mitzvot.  Peace offerings brought as gift offerings by an individual, communal peace offerings, and the guilt offering of a leper. There is no obligation to wave live offerings when they are peace offerings brought by individuals who place their  hands on the animals' heads and wave them when they are slaughtered.  Communal peace offerings require waving both live and slaughtered animals but hands are not placed on their heads.  Finally, the guilt offering of a leper requires playing hands and waving while the animal is still alive but one need not wave it after it has been slaughtered.

The Gemara looks at each section of this Mishna is great detail.  Of interest is the rabbinical discussion of women's rights when it comes to waving.  Women are permitted to wave in some offerings but not in others.  In many offerings - particularly those detailed in today's daf - women are completely cut out of the process.  They bring the offering and then hand it off to their husband, a male relative, or a priest.  This continual reminder of the place of women when it comes to the practice of religious ritual encourages us to believe that women are not capable of religious leadership in all areas.

Menachot 60: Four Categories of Meal Offerings; Bringing Near, Waving

A new Mishna teaches us that there are four categories of meal offerings:

• those that require bringing near, where priests carry the offering in their hands are bring it to the southwest corner of the altar but waving is not required
• those that require both waving and bringing near
• those that require waving but not bringing near
• those that require neither waving nor bringing near

The Mishna continues, teaching us about the meal offerings that require bringing near but not waving:

• fine flour meal offering
• meal offering prepared in a plan
• meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers
• meal offerings of priests
• meal offering of the anointed priest
• meal offering of gentiles
• meal offerings brought by women
• meal offering of one who has sinned
• there is a principal that regarding any meal offering with no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, there is no bringing near

The rabbis debate about the four categories of meal offerings and why or why not they might face the additional restriction of not bringing near.

Menachot 59: Basic Guidelines for Meal-Offerings

A new Mishna teaches a summary of the rules surrounding meal offerings:

• Some offerings require both oil and frankincense:
• fine flour
• prepared in a pan
• prepared in a deep pan
• loaves and wafers
• those given by the priests
• that of the anointed high priest
• that of a non-Jew
• those of women
• that of the omer
• the meal offering paired with libations and a burnt offering or a peace offering requires only oil and no frankincense
• shewbread requires frankincense and not oil
• the sinner's loaf and the jealous husband's loaf do not require oil nor frankincense
• the first listed mincha is the meal offering of fine flour where oil and frankincense are listed (Vayikra 2:1)
• Rashi: one who claims that s/he will bring an offering without saying what type of offering should bring a standard meal offering, fine flour
• the rabbis debate on whether the shewbread should be included with the meal offerings

Menachot 57: When are Prohibitions Prohibitions?

The rabbis consider actions which may or may not be prohibited, particularly those that are affected by special guidelines.  On Shabbat, are the following actions disqualified?

• roasting one side of the meat without turning it over
• drilling two or three holes

When preparing the meal offering, are the following actions disqualified?

• using leaven as part of the meal offering without turning it over
• compared with leaven in liquid (libations) or dry ingredients in shewbread or other offerings

The rabbis consider many details in each case and compare them with other known transgressions.  They look at differences between sacred and non-sacred items, wet and dry items, and others.  

Menachot 56: When Blemishes Might be Permitted

Some very brief thoughts on today's daf:

• the rabbis discuss slaughtering, collecting the blood, and offering a goat
• this would be done in different places depending on the type of offering and the state of the goat
• staying with our last MIshna, the rabbis consider which punishments might be appropriate for inappropriately preparing the meal offering
• an unblemished first-born animal has its blood let by cutting it in a place that leaves the smallest mark
• the rabbis discuss whether a firstborn animal with a blemish might be permitted as an offering in some circumstances

Their argument opens the possibility of 'grey' rather than black and white.  Might an animal be only slightly blemished but still permitted?  What could this teach us about our laws in general?  Perhaps there are circumstances that mitigate a stringent rule.

Menachot 55: Measuring Figs; Meal Brought as Matza

Before introducing a new Mishna, we learn about measuring and sales.  The rabbis discuss  figs and their measurement when sold compared with that when they are packaged.   Figs settle.  They also puff up again when boiled in water.  All of this and more is considered as it is agreed that figs should be sold according to their initial measurement.

The Mishna teaches us about how to manage meal that is brought as matza.  We are to crush it with lukewarm water, only add a bit of oil, and supervise it to ensure that it does not rise.  The Mishna quotes Leviticus where we are prohibited from bringing leaven as a meal offering.  We are not permitted to knead or shape the offering, either.

The Gemara attempts to explain this Mishna further.  It questions the meanings of each term and the roles that different people might play.  Among many other questions and possible answers, the rabbis discuss whether this is actually a generalization and an example, and the implications that would follow from that particular guideline.

Menachot 54: Shabbat Restrictions? Some In-Betweens

We have returned to discussion about which actions might be permitted on Shabbat.  The rabbis consider a number of questions:

• whether a steak cooked on one side before Shabbat may be turned 
• whether one may drill a hole that might be used to create a keyhole 
• whether meal offering might be leavened
• whether vessels used in consecration were themselves consecrated fully
• the ingredients used in meal offerings 

The rabbis question some of the "grey" today.  They examine the "what if" that accompanies questions about real life.  An in-between place filled with questions.