מתני׳ מִכּוּלָּם הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֶחָד מִכָּל קָרְבָּן תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״. ״אֶחָד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס. ״מִכָּל קָרְבָּן״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שָׁווֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל מִקָּרְבָּן עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. ״לַכֹּהֵן הַזֹּרֵק אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים לוֹ יִהְיֶה״. וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַבְּעָלִים.

From all of the four types of loaves accompanying the thanks offering, one takes one loaf from each set of ten as teruma , to be given to a priest, as it is stated: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord; to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given” (Leviticus 7:14). The verse is analyzed: “One” indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf; “of each offering” indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type; “to the priest that sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings against the altar it shall be given,” and the rest of the loaves are eaten by the owner.

גמ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ״ – מִן הַמְחוּבָּר. ״אֶחָד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פָּרוּס. ״מִכָּל קָרְבָּן״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שָׁווֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל מִן הַקָּרְבָּן עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. ״תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִכַּמָּה הִיא.

The mishna teaches some of the halakhot of teruma to be taken from the loaves of the thanks offering that are derived from the verse: “And he shall present from it one of each offering as a teruma unto the Lord.” The Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the same verse: The Sages taught in a baraita : The phrase “And he shall present from it” indicates that the loaves must all be as one, i.e., teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. “One” indicates that one should not take a sliced loaf. “Of each offering” indicates that all the offerings should be equal, i.e., that one should not take a loaf from one type of offering for another type. When the verse states: “As a teruma unto the Lord,” I do not know from how many loaves the teruma is taken.

הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״תְּרוּמָה״. מַה לְּהַלָּן – אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אַף כָּאן – אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה.

I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves describing the thanks offering: “ Teruma ,” and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “Then you shall set apart from it a teruma for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). Just as below, with regard to teruma of the tithe, one out of every ten is separated as teruma , so too here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, one out of every ten loaves is separated as teruma .

אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בַּבִּכּוּרִים ״תְּרוּמָה״. מַה לְּהַלָּן – אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר, אַף כָּאן – אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר?

Or perhaps, go this way and derive the measure from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here: “ Teruma ,” and it is stated with regard to first fruits: “ Teruma ” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Just as below, with regard to first fruits, it has no measure, so too here, say that it has no measure.

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה. דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, מִתְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה. וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ בִּכּוּרִים, שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה.

The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, teruma of the tithe or the first fruits, the case of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of a teruma that is not followed by another teruma , such as teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, from a teruma that is not followed by another teruma , such as teruma of the tithe. And the case of the first fruits will not serve as proof, since they are followed by another teruma , as teruma and tithes are taken after the first fruits are separated.

אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, מִתְּרוּמָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם?

Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem, from teruma of the first fruits, which is eaten in a sacred place, in Jerusalem. And the case of teruma of the tithe will not serve as proof, as it may be eaten anywhere.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״, וּכְתִיב בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה״ – לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “From it…a teruma unto the Lord,” and, similarly, it is written with regard to teruma of the tithe: “From it a teruma ,” to indicate that there is a verbal analogy between the two, from which it can be derived that one separates one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering as teruma .

לָמַדְנוּ לִתְרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִכַּמָּה הִיא חַלָּה. הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לֶחֶם״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם ״לֶחֶם״. מַה לְּהַלָּן – עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, אַף כָּאן – עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.

The baraita continues: We have learned with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that its measure is one out of every ten. But I do not know from this verbal analogy from how much flour each leavened loaf is to be prepared. I therefore derive this from a verbal analogy: It is stated here, in the passage concerning the loaves of the thanks offering: “Bread” (Leviticus 7:13), and it is stated there, with regard to the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat: “Bread” (Leviticus 23:17). Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, with regard to the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, one prepares the loaves with a tenth of an ephah per loaf.

אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לֶחֶם״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים ״לֶחֶם״. מַה לְּהַלָּן – שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, אַף כָּאן – שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת?

Or perhaps, go this way and derive the halakha from a different verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “Bread,” and it is stated there, with regard to the shewbread: “Bread” (Leviticus 24:7). One can conclude that just as there, with regard to the shewbread, each of the twelve loaves is baked from two-tenths of an ephah flour, so too here, each of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering should be baked from two-tenths of an ephah of flour.

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה. דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא חָמֵץ עִם הַזֶּבַח.

The baraita continues: Let us consider to which of the two cases, the two loaves or the shewbread, the case of the leavened loaves of the thanks offering is more similar. It is logical that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, from another meal offering that comes as leavened bread along with an animal offering, such as the two loaves, which are also leavened, and which come with animal offerings (see Leviticus 23:17–19). And the shewbread will not serve as proof, since it does not come as leavened bread, nor does it come with an animal offering.

אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה מֵאָרֶץ וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה מֵאָרֶץ וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הַיָּשָׁן. וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁאֵין בָּאוֹת אֶלָּא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ וּמִן הָאָרֶץ?

Or perhaps, go this way and reason that one derives the halakha of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, which is a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or of outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain; from the halakha of the shewbread, which is also a meal offering that can come from the grain of Eretz Yisrael or from outside of Eretz Yisrael, from new grain or from old grain. And the two loaves will not serve as proof, since they can come only from new grain and from Eretz Yisrael.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה שְׁתַּיִם״. שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״, וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״? שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּזֶה. מַה לְּהַלָּן – עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, אַף כָּאן – עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.

Since both of these comparisons are equally plausible, the verse states concerning the two loaves: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving” (Leviticus 23:17). As there is no need for the verse to state: “You shall bring,” what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall bring”? This indicates that whatever, i.e., any meal offering, you bring from a different place, it must be like this, i.e., the two loaves. Therefore, just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the measure is a tenth of an ephah per loaf.

אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן – שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, אַף כָּאן – שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.

But if so, perhaps one can derive that just as there, in the case of the two loaves, the entire measure for the two loaves is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, in the case of the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering, the entire measure for all ten loaves of leavened bread is two-tenths. To exclude this possibility, the same verse states: “They shall be,” to indicate that each leavened loaf is prepared from a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the ten loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering are prepared with a total of ten tenths of an ephah.

לָמַדְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה לֶחָמֵץ, עֲשָׂרָה לַמַּצָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ״,

The baraita continues: We have learned that there are ten tenths of an ephah of flour for the loaves of leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. From where is it derived that there are ten tenths of an ephah for the thirty loaves of matza ? The verse states: “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” (Leviticus 7:12–13).

נֶגֶד חָמֵץ הָבֵא מַצָּה. נִמְצְאוּ עֶשְׂרִים עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, עֲשָׂרָה לֶחָמֵץ וַעֲשָׂרָה לַמַּצָּה.

By mentioning all the loaves of unleavened bread in one verse and the loaves of leavened bread in the subsequent verse, it is indicated that one must bring the matza in a measure corresponding to the measure of the loaves of leavened bread. Consequently, there are twenty tenths of flour for the loaves of the thanks offering, ten for the loaves of leavened bread, and ten for the matza .

יָכוֹל עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁבַּמַּצָּה לֹא יְהוּ כּוּלָּן אֶלָּא מִמִּין אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת מַצּוֹת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן סֹלֶת מֻרְבֶּכֶת״ וגו׳, נִמְצְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים וּשְׁלִישׁ לְכָל מִין וּמִין, וְשָׁלֹשׁ חַלּוֹת לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, וְנִמְצְאוּ לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה אַרְבָּעִים, נוֹטֵל מֵהֶן אַרְבַּע וְנוֹתֵן לַכֹּהֵן, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָלִים לַבְּעָלִים.

One might have thought that one brings ten loaves of matza , and that all of them shall be of only one type. Therefore, the verse states: “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.” The verse indicates that one must bring three types of matza . Consequently, there are three-and-one-third of a tenth of an ephah of flour for each and every type, and three loaves to a tenth of an ephah. And consequently, there are a total of forty loaves of the thanks offering. The owner of the offering takes four of them, one loaf of each type, and gives them to the priest, and the remaining loaves are eaten by the owner and any ritually pure Jew to whom he wishes to give the loaves. This concludes the baraita .

אָמַר מָר: ״וְהִקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ״ – מִן הַמְחוּבָּר. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֶת כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ״, הָתָם מַאי מְחוּבָּר אִיכָּא?

§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita : The Master said: “And he shall present from it,” indicates that the teruma may be taken from the loaves only when they are joined together in one place. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then concerning that which is written in the verse with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar: “And all the fat thereof he shall take off from it and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 4:19), there, what is there to be joined together?

כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, אָמַר אֲבִימִי: שֶׁלֹּא יְנַתַּח בָּשָׂר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֵימוּרִין.

The Gemara responds: The sacrificial portions of the sin offering must be sacrificed from that which is joined together, in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says, as Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The priest may not cut up the meat of the offering before taking from it the sacrificial portions that are to be burned upon the altar.

אָמַר מָר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר ״תְּרוּמָה״.

§ The Master said: It is stated here, in the passage of the loaves of the thanks offering: “ Teruma ,” and it is stated with regard to teruma of the tithe: “ Teruma .” Just as one-tenth of the tithe is separated as teruma of the tithe, so too one out of every ten loaves of the thanks offering is separated as teruma .

וְנֵילַף מִתְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן! דָּנִין תְּרוּמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, מִתְּרוּמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת. וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת.

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma that was taken following the war of the Jewish people against Midian, where the word teruma also appears (see Numbers 31:28–30). The measure of the teruma there was not one of ten. The Gemara responds: One derives the halakha with regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, which is practiced for all generations, from teruma of the tithe, which is also practiced for all generations. And teruma of Midian shall not serve as proof, as it is not practiced for all generations.

וְנֵילַף מִתְּרוּמַת חַלָּה! תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳״, מִדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״. לְאַפּוּקֵי תְּרוּמַת חַלָּה, דְּלָא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה לַה׳״.

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the halakha of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering from teruma of ḥalla , i.e., the portion of dough given to the priest, as the verse refers to it as a teruma (see Numbers 15:19–20). That measure is one in twenty-four. The Gemara responds: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that one derives a matter, i.e., teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, of which it is stated: “From it a teruma unto the Lord” (Leviticus 7:14), from a matter, i.e., teruma of the tithe, of which it is stated: “From it a teruma for the Lord” (Numbers 18:26). This serves to exclude teruma of ḥalla , of which it is not stated: From it a teruma for the Lord.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וְחוֹמֶשׁ, אוֹ אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וְחוֹמֶשׁ?

§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, is a non-priest who intentionally partakes of it liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who intentionally consumes teruma of the tithe? And similarly, is a non-priest who unwittingly partakes of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering liable to pay the value of what he consumed as well as an additional one-fifth of that value, as is the halakha concerning a non-priest who partakes of teruma of the tithe unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:9, 14)? Or is one not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for their consumption?

כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתְקַשׁ לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר – כִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר דָּמֵי. אוֹ דִּלְמָא, ״בּוֹ״ ״וַחֲמִשִׁיתוֹ״ מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא?

Rava elaborates: Since teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering is compared to teruma of the tithe, perhaps it is considered like teruma of the tithe, and the same penalties are incurred. Or perhaps, since the verse uses restrictive terms with regard to teruma of the tithe, as the verse states of one who intentionally partakes of it: “They shall die due to it” (Leviticus 22:9), and the verse states with regard to one who unwittingly partakes of it: “Then he shall put its fifth-part unto it” (Leviticus 22:14), the Merciful One restricted this halakha specifically to the case of teruma of the tithe.

מְדַמַּעַת אוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת? תֵּיקוּ.

Rava raises another dilemma based on the comparison of teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering and teruma of the tithe: Does teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering that fell into non-sacred produce render the mixture forbidden, halakha concerning teruma of the tithe? Or does the comparison of teruma of the loaves to teruma of the tithe apply only with regard to the proper measure, and it does not render the mixture forbidden? The Gemara comments: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר מָר: תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּהְיֶינָה״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא?

§ The Master said in the baraita : The verse states: “They shall be,” indicating that each leavened loaf must come from a tenth of an ephah, so that the loaves of matza of the thanks offering are prepared from ten tenths of an ephah. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this? How is this derived from “they shall be”?