Menachot 107

On yesterday’s daf, we read the following in a mishnah:

One who says: “It is incumbent upon me to donate gold to the Temple” must give no less than a gold dinar.

One who says: “It is incumbent upon me to donate silver to the Temple” must give no less than a silver dinar.

One who says: “It is incumbent upon me to donate copper to the Temple” must give no less than the value of a silver ma’a.

One who says: “I specified (the amount of metal) but I do not remember what I specified” must bring gold, silver or copper until it reaches an amount where he says: “I am certain that I did not intend to donate that much.”

From this we learned two principles: First, one who makes a pledge to donate metal but does not specify how much is obligated to bring a full coin’s worth. Second, one who knows they pledged a specific amount of metal but cannot remember how much donates the maximum they imagine they could have specified.

Today, the Gemara interrogates the first of these two principles.

The mishnah teaches that one who says: “It is incumbent upon me to donate gold to the Temple treasury” must donate no less than a gold dinar.

But perhaps his intention in using the word gold is not to donate a coin at all, but to donate a small piece of gold.
Rabbi Elazar said: Where he said the word “coin” (he should donate a dinar).
 
But perhaps his intention is not to donate a dinar, but smaller coins, such as perutas.

Rav Pappa said: People do not make perutas of gold.
 
According to yesterday’s mishnah, if a person promises gold, they’re obligated to give a gold dinar because that is a standard coin. But the Gemara points out that perhaps the person intended to donate a nugget of gold rather than a coin. To this, Rabbi Elazar responds that the mishnah is talking specifically about a case where the person promised a coin, though perhaps didn’t articulate a denomination. Perhaps they meant a smaller coin, like a peruta (think of a penny). To this, Rav Pappa answers definitively that perutas are not made of gold, so the person who said “coin” could not have meant to donate so little. It must be a dinar.
 
A similar argument ensues with regard to a donation of silver in an unspecified amount. When we come to copper, however, we see something a little different:

One who says: “It is incumbent upon me to donate copper to the Temple” must donate no less than the value of a silver ma’a.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: He must donate no less than the amount needed to forge a small copper hook.

For what use is that suitable in the Temple?

Abaye said: They scrape the wicks from the menorah with it and clean the lamps of the menorah with it.

The mishnah states that one who pledges an unspecified amount of copper must later give the equivalent to a silver ma’a. But Rabbi Eliezer gives a different minimum: the amount needed to create a small hook. The reason for this is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is little that just a silver ma’a can purchase and we must ensure that the copper donated can do something useful all its own. In this case, we need enough to forge a basic tool for cleaning the golden menorah. Unlike the cases of gold and silver, here the Gemara does not return to the idea that a coin is necessary. It seems content with a donation of enough copper to make a menorah-cleaning hook.

The mishnah only specified three metals: silver, gold and copper. The Gemara adds a fourth:

One who pledges to donate iron must donate no less than one cubit in width by one cubit in length.
 
For what is this amount of iron suitable?

Rav Yosef said: It is suitable for a base and spike designed to eliminate the ravens.

This reinforces the notion that the unspecified donation must come in an amount that can be useful all on its own, without being combined with other donations. This quantity of iron can be used to invest in a tool of pest control.

In our day, we are often encouraged to participate in donation campaigns in which we are assured that no donation is too little. We are reminded that our donation of just a few dollars can combine with many other donations of the same amount to make an impact. And this is true. But from the Talmud’s perspective, when the recipient is the Temple, and when the amount of donation is not otherwise specified, the obligation is to provide something that is, all on its own, useful.

Read all of Menachot 107 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on April 28, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.