Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : and consequently, let the mouth of the lamps be fashioned from gold of any quality, not necessarily from pure gold. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even the mouth of the lamps must be fashioned from pure gold.
וְלֶיעְבֵּד זָהָב כֹּל דְּהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches: A half-log of oil was used to measure oil for the thanks offering. The thanks offering was accompanied by four different types of loaves; three types were unleavened and one was leavened, as the verse states: “If he offers it for a thanks offering, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering: Unleavened loaves mixed with oil; and unleavened wafers spread with oil; and poached fine flour, loaves mixed with oil. With loaves of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12–13).
חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says: Why must the verse state: “With oil,” “with oil,” writing it twice; why was the first time not sufficient? Because were the term “with oil” stated only once, I would have said that, with regard to the amount of oil required, the meal offerings that accompany the thanks offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all of them together.
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ אֶחָד, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁכָּתַב ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara interjects the citation of the baraita to ask: Is this a case of one amplification following another amplification? It would appear that there is only one amplification, as according to the baraita the first mention of the term “with oil” is necessary to teach the basic requirement that the meal offerings of the thanks offering require oil, like other meal offerings. How then can it be considered an amplification?
רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי?! חַד רִיבּוּי הוּא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be emended, as follows: Were the term “with oil,” not written at all, I would still have said that the thanks offering meal offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha. Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half-log for all three together.
אֶלָּא, אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ כׇּל עִיקָּר, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: Once it has been established that the meal offerings require only a half-log of oil, one might have thought that this half-log should be equally divided between the three types of unleavened meal offerings, i.e., one-sixth of a log for the loaves, one-sixth for the wafers, and one-sixth for the poached loaves. When the verse states: “With oil,” with regard to the poached loaves, that is seemingly superfluous, as there is no need for the verse to state the requirement to use part of the half-log of oil, being that this requirement has already been established. It must therefore serve to amplify the amount of oil used for a poached loaf as opposed to the other two types. How so? One brings a half-log of oil and divides it equally into two. Half of it is further divided and used both for the ten regular loaves and for the ten wafers, and the other half of it is used entirely for the ten poached loaves.
יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲצִי לוֹג זֶה מִתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת מִינִין, לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין וְלָרְבִיכָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ בָּרְבִיכָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, רִיבָּה שֶׁמֶן לָרְבִיכָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וְחוֹצֵיהוּ [חֶצְיוֹ] לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין, וְחֶצְיוֹ לָרְבִיכָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Akiva, even if you were to amplify halakhot the entire day from the terms “with oil,” “with oil,” I would not listen to you and accept your claims. Rather, the halakha that a half-log of oil is required for the thanks offering, and similarly, the halakha that a quarter-log of oil is required for the loaves of a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one seven-day period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; they are not derived from verses.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, אִם אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לָךְ, אֶלָּא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה, וּרְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן לְנָזִיר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁבֵּין נִדָּה לְנִדָּה – הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna states that with the vessel of one log one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings. It then cites a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that one log of oil is required for each tenth of an ephah of flour used, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that each meal offering, irrespective of its size, requires only one log of oil.
בְּלוֹג הָיָה מוֹדֵד.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a poor leper, who cannot afford the standard offerings that are required as part of the purification process and is instead required to bring one lamb as a guilt offering and a tenth of an ephah of flour as a meal offering, it is written: “And a tenth-part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The verse juxtaposes the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it teaches about each tenth of an ephah of flour that it requires one log of oil; this is the statement of the Rabbis.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּמְצוֹרָע עָנִי כְּתִיב ״עִשָּׂרוֹן ... בָּלוּל ... וְלֹג״, לִימֵּד עַל עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁטָּעוּן לוֹג, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer say: Each meal offering, irrespective of its size, and even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to offering of a leper: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil.” The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.
רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they do with this verse: “And a tenth-part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering and a log of oil,” which links the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour? The Gemara explains: That verse is required to teach the matter itself, as the Merciful One states: Let a poor leper bring an offering of just a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it cannot be used to teach a principle about meal offerings.
וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל וְלֹג״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לַיְיתֵי חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And as for the other, i.e., the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that it is not necessary to teach the matter itself, as from the fact that the Merciful One revealed with regard to a leper who is not poor that he must bring three animal offerings and a meal offering of three-tenths of an ephah as part of his purification process, it may be inferred that here, with regard to a poor leper, who brings only one offering, that he similarly brings a meal offering of only a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the fact that the verse mentions that his offering is only a tenth of an ephah is superfluous and can teach a principle for all meal offerings.
וְאִידָּךְ, לְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע שְׁלֹשָׁה קׇרְבָּנוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, הָכָא דְּחַד קׇרְבָּן – חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.