Back
Menachot
Daf 76aדְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁרִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת חַלָּתָן – כְּשֵׁרוֹת, חוּץ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים וַחֲבִיתֵּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה וּנְזִירוּת.
states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: All the meal offerings where one increased the measure of their loaves or where one decreased the measure of their loaves are nevertheless fit, except for the twelve loaves of the shewbread and the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. And some say: Even the ten loaves of each variety of the thanks offering and the ten loaves that accompany the guilt offering of naziriteship are fit only when brought in their prescribed measures. Shmuel agrees with the first tanna, according to whom the loaves of the thanks offering and the loaves of naziriteship are fit even when not offered in the proper quantities.
RASHI
דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא כו׳ ואיהו שמואל סבר ליה כת״ק דאמר חוץ מלחם הפנים וחביתין אבל לחמי תודה ונזירות כשרות:
TOSAFOT
שריבה במדת חלתן או שמיעט במדת חלתן כשרות חוץ מלחם הפנים וחביתי כהן גדול ויש אומרים אף לחמי תודה ונזירות זו גירסת הקונטרס טעמא משום דבלחם הפנים וחביתין כתיב חוקה לעכב ובלחמי תודה כתיב מצות בוי״ו אבל בשאר מנחות כתיב מצת ואפילו כתיב בהו מצות בוי״ו גמר ממנחת מאפה ונזירות דכתיב שלמיו לרבות שלמי נזיר ודבר תימה היאך יכול לכוין בחביתין שיהיו שוות דלקמן בריש שתי מדות (מנחות דף פז:) אמרינן דמחלקה ביד:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה שֶׁאָפָה חַלָּה אַחַת – יָצָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצַּת״ כְּתִיב.
§ Rav Huna says: With regard to an oven- baked meal offering that one baked as only one loaf, although he did not bring the mandated quantity, he has fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? It is that the verse states with regard to the oven-baked meal offering: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:4). The term “unleavened loaves [matzot]” is written without the letter vav, which is generally used with regard to the plural form. Therefore, it may be read in the singular as unleavened loaf [matzat], which teaches that even one unleavened loaf is fit.
RASHI
מנחת מאפה שדינה להיות י׳ חלות:
מצת כתיב חסר וי״ו:
מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב פַּפָּא: טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״מַצַּת״, הָא כְּתִיב ״מַצּוֹת״ – לָא? וְהָא גַּבֵּי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה דִּכְתִיב ״מַצּוֹת״, וַאֲמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא, אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁאֲפָאָן אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת – יָצָא! הַהִיא פְּלִיגָא.
Rav Pappa objects to this derivation: The reason Rav Huna gives is that it is written in the singular form of matzat. But if it were written: Matzot, would this not be the halakha? But what about the verse concerning the loaves of the thanks offering, where it is written “ matzot ” with a vav, indicating the plural form, in the verse: “Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened loaves mixed with oil” (Leviticus 7:12), and yet Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: In the case of loaves of the thanks offering that were baked as four loaves, such that each of the four varieties of loaves is baked as only one loaf, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara answers: That statement of Shmuel disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna, according to whom four loaves are not fit for the thanks offering.
RASHI
והא גבי לחמי תודה דכתיב מצות בכל מין ואמר ר׳ טובי כו׳:
ההוא דרב טובי דאמר אף על גב דכתיב מצות פליגא אדרב הונא:
מתני׳ הָעוֹמֶר הָיָה בָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם – שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע סְאִין.
The omer offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, would come from a tenth of an ephah of flour sifted from three se’a
RASHI
מתני׳ העומר דאותן שלשה סאין היו מניפין עד שהיה עומד על עשרון:
גמ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמֵחָדָשׁ אָתֵי וּמִשְּׂעוֹרִין אָתֵי, עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר לָא אָתֵי אֶלָּא מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that according to the mishna, the relatively large amount of three se’a of barley is necessary to yield a single tenth of an ephah of flour for the omer offering? The Gemara answers: Since it comes from the fresh new crop, which contains a large amount of refuse, and it comes from barley, which is coarser than wheat, a choice tenth of an ephah of flour comes only from a minimum of three se’a of barley.
RASHI
גמ׳ מאי טעמא בא משלשה סאין:
כיון דמחדש אתי שיש בו סובין יותר מיבשין ושעורין נמי יש בהן סובין יותר מבחיטים:
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם – שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין. כֵּיוָן דְּמֵחִיטִּין אָתְיָין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמֵחָדָשׁ אָתְיָין, שְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אָתוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ סְאִין.
The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna rule that the two loaves would come from two-tenths of an ephah of flour sifted from three se’a of wheat, whereas only a tenth of an ephah is used from the same amount of grain for the omer? The Gemara answers: Since the loaves come from wheat, which is of superior quality to barley, although they come from the new crop and require sifting, the grains are clean enough that two-tenths of an ephah come from the sifting of three se’a of grain.
לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה סְאִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּמֵחִיטִּין אָתוּ וּמִיָּשָׁן אָתוּ, עִשָּׂרוֹן מוּבְחָר אָתֵי מִסְּאָה.
The mishna stated that the shewbread would come from twenty-four tenths of an ephah
RASHI
לחם הפנים כ״ד עשרונים דכתיב (ויקרא כ״ד:ה׳) שתי עשרונים יהיה החלה האחת:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁרִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת עֶשְׂרוֹנָן אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת עִשָּׂרוֹן – פְּסוּלוֹת, רִיבָּה בְּמִדַּת סְאִין שֶׁלָּהֶן אוֹ שֶׁמִּיעֵט בְּמִדַּת סְאִין שֶׁלָּהֶן – כְּשֵׁרוֹת.
The Sages taught in a baraita: All the meal offerings where one increased the measure of their tenth of an ephah of flour by collecting it with a vessel larger than a tenth of an ephah, or where one decreased
RASHI
שריבה במדת עשרונים שעשה העשרון גדוש:
או שמיעט שמחק העשרון יותר מדאי עד שחסר:
ריבה במדת סאין שלהן כגון שתי הלחם שבאין מג׳ סאין ולחם הפנים שבאים מכ״ד סאין קמח ומניפין אותם לעשרונים סלת וכגון העומר שהיה בא מג׳ סאין נקצר לצורכו ד׳ סאין או שלא קצר לו אלא ב׳ סאין:
כשרה ובלבד שיהא העשרון כהלכתו:
TOSAFOT
כל המנחות שריבה במדת עשרונן או שמיעט במדת עשרונן פסולות פירש בקונטרס בלשון אחר משום דכשריבה הוה קומץ נקמץ מן החצי היתר ונמצא שאין עשרון קומץ והוה ליה קומץ חסר ואם מיעט במדת עשרונות הוה לה מנחה חסירה וקשה דהא אסיקנא בהקומץ רבה (לעיל מנחות כד:) דקומץ בדעתו דכהן תליא מילתא ואעשרון קא קמיץ ונראה כלשון אחר שפירש דכתיב שלשה עשרונים לפר ושני עשרונים לאיל ואם ריבה או מיעט פסולות דגזירת הכתוב היא ואסור לשנותו:
מתני׳ הָעוֹמֶר הָיָה מְנוּפֶּה בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָפָה, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם – בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה לָהֶן קִצְבָּה, אֶלָּא סוֹלֶת מְנוּפָּה כָּל צָרְכָּהּ הָיָה מֵבִיא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ סֹלֶת וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא מְנוּפָּה כָל צָרְכָּהּ.
The flour of the omer was sifted with thirteen sifters,
RASHI
מתני׳ העומר היה מנופה בי״ג נפה הלכה למשה מסיני:
שנאמר ולקחת סלת ואפית אותה וגו׳ שתהא מנופה כל צורכה שתהא סלת ברורה בשעת אפיה:
גמ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּדַקָּה בְּגַסָּה, בְּדַקָּה בְּגַסָּה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָפוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ, וְזוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ. עֶלְיוֹנָה קוֹלֶטֶת סוּבִּין, תַּחְתּוֹנָה קוֹלֶטֶת סוֹלֶת.
When a fine sifter was used, the small, dust-like particles emerged and the fine flour was caught in the sifter, and when a coarse sifter was used, the fine flour emerged and the bran was caught in the sifter. With regard to the sifting of the flour, the Sages taught in a baraita: The sifting would begin in a sifter of slight holes, and the flour that remained would then be sifted in a sifter of large holes. The flour that emerged would again be sifted in a sifter with slight holes that were not quite as small as the first one with small holes, and again in a sifter of large holes that were not quite as large as the first one with large holes. All the sifting would proceed in this manner. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There were thirteen sifters in the Temple, this one above, i.e., preceding, that one, and this one above that one. The highest sifter would collect bran, parts of the kernel aside from the actual pure flour, and the lowest sifter would collect fine flour.
RASHI
גמ׳ תנו רבנן כיצד היה מנופה בי״ג נפות:
בדקה בגסה דשתי נפות היו במקדש אחת דקה ואחת גסה שקורין קליי״ר ובתחילה היו מניפין בדקה והיתה קולטת הסלת והסובין והיה הקמח הולך לעבר הנפה כמנהג גרוסות ואח״כ נותנין אותו בגסה שקולטת הסובין שנשתיירו בסלת והגרוסות כעין קרטין שממנו הסלת נעשה היה הולך לעבר הנפה ואחר כך חוזרין ומניפין בדקה ובגסה וכן חוזרין חלילה עד שיהא מנופה שלש עשרה פעמים ובלבד שלא ישתייר מן הקמח ומן הסובין עם הסלת וחוזרין וטוחנין קרטין והגרוסות והויין סלת:
רבי שמעון אומר לא היו עושין כמו שאמרת בדקה בגסה אלא י״ג נפות היו במקדש זו למעלה מזו כל אחת עבה מחברתה עליונה ראשונה קולטת סובין שהיא היתה גסה שבכולן ולא היתה קולטת כ״א סובין והיו הקמח והסלת הולכין לעבר הנפה ושוב היה נותן הקמח והסלת בתחתונה בדקה הימנה והיא היתה קולטת הקרטין סלת והקמח הולך לעבר הנפה ושוב היה חוזר ונותן הסלת בדקה הימנה כדי שלא ישתייר מן הקמח ומן הסובין בסלת כלל שתהא הסלת ברורה:
TOSAFOT
בדקה בגסה בדקה בגסה תניא בתוספתא העומר היה מניפו בי״ג נפות שתי הלחם בי״ב לחם הפנים בי״א בדקה בגסה בדקה שתהא קולטת את הסולת בגסה שתהא קולטת את הסובין רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר י״ג נפות היו זו על גבי זו והתחתונה שבכולן עשויה שתהא קולטת את הסולת:
״רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה לָהֶן קִצְבָּה״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״סֹלֶת וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּקַּחַת סוֹלֶת,
§ The mishna teaches that in contrast to the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon says: They have no fixed number of sifters; but the flour would be sifted as many times as was necessary, based on the verse: “And you shall take fine flour, and bake it.” In addition, the Sages taught: When the verse states with regard to the shewbread: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it,” this teaches that fine flour is acquired after it has been sifted for the baking of the shewbread.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ חִיטִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״, מִכָּל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל אַף בִּשְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֹתָהּ״, מִפְּנֵי הַחִיסָּחוֹן.
And from where is it derived that even wheat kernels may be purchased before they are ground and sifted? The verse states: “And you shall take,” indicating that the grain should be taken in any case and in any state. One might have thought that it is so even for other meal offerings. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall take fine flour and bake it,” indicating that the shewbread alone may be acquired as kernels because of the sparing [haḥissaḥon].
RASHI
תלמוד לומר ולקחת מכל מקום ובלבד שתהא זו סלת ברורה בשעת אפייה:
יכול אף בשאר מנחות כן שיהו נקחות נמי חיטין:
תלמוד לומר אותה אותה נקחת בחטים ואין אחרת נקחת חטין:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי ״מִפְּנֵי הַחִיסָּחוֹן״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִשְׁקִיתָ אֶת הָעֵדָה וְאֶת בְּעִירָם״. הדרן עלך ואלו מנחות נקמצות
Rabbi Elazar says: What is the meaning of: Because of the sparing? Rabbi Elazar says: The Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Due to the large quantity of grain needed for the shewbread every week, purchasing sifted fine flour would be a substantial expense. The Gemara explains: Where is the allusion to this principle? It is found in a verse, as it is written that when the Jewish people were thirsty in the wilderness in the aftermath of Miriam’s death, God instructed Moses: “And speak to the rock before their eyes, so that it will give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give drink for the congregation and for their cattle” (Numbers 20:8). Evidently, the miracle of extracting water from the rock was performed even for the purpose of providing water for the livestock.
RASHI
לפי שחסה תורה על ממונם של ישראל לפי שלחם הפנים הם כ״ד עשרונות ולפי שהן בכל שבת ושבת ועולים לדבר גדול הותר לקנותן מן החיטין כדי שיבא לחם בזול יותר משאם היו לוקחין סלת מן התגר שהקונה סלת קונה אותה ביוקר אבל שאר מנחות שהן דבר מועט ואין באות תדיר לא הותרו לקנות כי אם סלת:
SUMMARY
In the case of each of the five voluntary meal offerings, as well as the meal offering brought by a woman, the omer meal offering, the sinner’s meal offering, and the meal offering of a sota, a handful is removed from the offering and the priests consume its remainder. According to most of the Sages, there is a direct link between the mitzva of removing a handful and the giving of the remainder of the offering to the priests to be eaten: In the case of any meal offering from which a handful is removed, the remainder is given to the priests; with regard to those meal offerings that the priests receive no part of, no handful is removed. It was determined that a priest may not choose to receive a share of one offering in exchange for giving another his share of another offering. In this context, the Gemara addressed whether this prohibition applies even to two portions from the same offering and whether it applies in a case in which two parties mutually agree to this exchange, as in the giving of a gift. With respect to the placement of oil in those meal offerings that are prepared in a utensil, such as a pan or a deep pan, it was determined that there are three distinct placements of oil. At the outset of preparing the meal offering, a small amount of oil is placed in the utensil. After the fine flour is placed upon this oil, more oil is added and mixed together. Finally, after the dough is mixed, kneaded, and baked, the resultant product is broken into pieces, and more oil is applied to it, in fulfillment of the mitzva of pouring oil. With regard to meal offerings baked in an oven, they do not require three applications of oil. Oil is mixed only with the meal offerings that consist of loaves, while it is applied to wafers through smearing. The prescribed method of smearing is subject to a dispute between tanna’im. According to some, oil is smeared over the entire wafer; and according to others, the oil is smeared in the shape of the Greek letter chi, Χ. The same Sages also discuss what should be done with the excess oil. According to one opinion, the excess oil is placed in the loaves if the offering includes both wafers and loaves, and some say that if the offering consists of wafers alone, the oil is smeared on the wafers. According to the other opinion, the excess oil is given to the priests to be eaten. Aside from the meal offerings of the two loaves and the shewbread, all meal offerings baked in utensils must be broken into pieces. Their rites are performed in the following sequence: With regard to an Israelite’s meal offering, the baked offering is folded in half and then again folded in half, creating a total of four sections. The parts are then separated, so that the handful may be removed. According to an alternative opinion, one of the four sections is cut into small pieces, so that the handful may be removed from that part alone. For a meal offering brought by a priest, the offering is folded; but as no handful is removed, the folds are not separated. By contrast, the meal offering of a High Priest is folded in half only once. Other processes are necessary over the course of preparing the grains for the meal offering. These include rubbing the kernels of grain and striking the kernels with the palm of the hand or with the fist, each of which help remove the shells prior to the grinding of the grain. For every meal offering, the grains must be rubbed three hundred times and struck five hundred times. According to some, the dough requires rubbing and striking. The Torah states that the shewbread comprises twelve loaves, and the Gemara derived from the verses that the offering is disqualified if the wrong number of loaves is offered. The High Priest’s griddle-cake offering also consists of twelve loaves, as derived from the shewbread by means of a verbal analogy. By contrast, the thanks offering is accompanied by forty loaves, comprising ten loaves of each of four types. If fewer than forty loaves are offered, some hold that they are nevertheless fit; others hold that they are unfit. The Sages disagree as to the prescribed quantity of loaves for other meal offerings. Some hold that the offerings comprise ten loaves, and others hold that they comprise twelve loaves. The Sages not only described the amounts of flour to be offered in the respective meal offerings, but in the case of the omer, the two loaves, and the shewbread, they also dictated the amount of flour from which the sacrificial fine flour was to be sifted and certain terms for the procedure of sifting. In accordance with the particular demands for the sifting procedure, it was also decided that since not everyone was adequately expert in the proper method of sifting, sifted flour should be purchased. By contrast, the flour used in baking the shewbread was to be purchased as kernels. Since a large amount of flour is used for the shewbread on a weekly basis, purchasing kernels was preferred in order to avoid the public expense of purchasing sifted flour. Over the course of addressing these central questions related to the halakhot of meal offerings, a number of ancillary questions were also resolved. Among these are: May sacrifices and libations be accepted from gentiles? In what state are grain-based foods subject to the blessing: Who brings forth bread from the earth? Are any blessings ever recited upon performing the Temple service in Jerusalem?
INTRO
And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which one may sacrifice to the Lord. If he brings it for a thanks offering, then he shall bring with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks. And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. (Leviticus 7:11–15)
The thanks offering is a type of peace offering, the halakhot of which are delineated in tractate Zevaḥim together with the halakhot of all animal offerings. A thanks offering is unique in that one brings four types of loaves together with the animal, some of which are leavened and some which are matza. This chapter focuses primarily on the halakhot pertaining to the loaves brought with a thanks offering. The verse states that one must remove a gift, teruma, from these loaves. One must therefore ask: Are the halakhot pertaining to this teruma parallel to the halakhot of teruma separated from grain, e.g., is a non-priest liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven for partaking of it? Alternatively, perhaps it is called teruma only in the sense that a certain measure must be removed from the loaves and given to the priests. These details are not specified in the Torah and require clarification. Additionally, many questions arise due to the fact that the sanctity of the loaves brought with a thanks offering is dependent on the sanctity of the offering itself. For example, must the loaves be present in the Temple courtyard at the time of the animal’s slaughter in order to become sanctified? Are the loaves sanctified even if the animal was slaughtered not for the sake of a thanks offering, or if it was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area or beyond its designated time? Furthermore, what is the halakha in a case where eighty loaves were consecrated for a thanks offering, when only forty are required? What is the halakha in a case where the offering was slaughtered and then discovered to be blemished and unfit for sacrifice? Among other issues requiring clarification are: In a case where the animal was lost, another was separated in its place, and the first animal was then found, either animal may be sacrificed in fulfillment of one’s outstanding obligation, but what is the halakha with regard to the remaining animal? Does one bring loaves with it at well? Similarly, does the offspring or substitute of a thanks offering require loaves? In a case where one designated two thanks offerings as a guarantee, i.e., that if one becomes lost the other is sacrificed, what is the halakha with regard to the other animal? Other topics discussed in this chapter that relate to the loaves brought with a thanks offering are: The measures used during various periods for the flour in the preparation of the loaves, the conversion ratios between the measures of these periods, the ratios of flour per loaf for the loaves brought during the inauguration of the Tabernacle as well as those brought by a nazirite, and the amount of flour used in the inaugural meal offerings brought by ordinary priests and the High Priest. Other issues, such as whether service vessels sanctify items placed inside them without intent, are the subject of discussion in this chapter as well.
מתני׳ הַתּוֹדָה הָיְתָה בָּאָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי אֵיפוֹת, הָאֵיפָה שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, עֶשְׂרִים עִשָּׂרוֹן, עֲשָׂרָה לֶחָמֵץ וַעֲשָׂרָה לַמַּצָּה.
The flour for the loaves accompanying the thanks offering would come from a measure of five Jerusalem se’a offering, which are equivalent to six wilderness se’a. The se’a referred to in the Bible when the Jewish people were in the wilderness is smaller than the se’a used later in Jerusalem. This is equivalent to two ephahs, each ephah being three wilderness se’a. These two ephahs are twenty measures of a tenth of an ephah. Ten of these tenths were used to make leavened loaves and ten of these tenths were used to make unleavened loaves, i.e., matza.