Menachot 89

We have learned that most mincha offerings must include oil. But how much? The mishnah on yesterday’s daf presented two opinions:

A meal offering of 60 tenths (of an ephah of flour), one adds to it 60 log (of oil).

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Even a meal offering of 60 tenths — only its one log of oil, as it is stated: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil.” (Leviticus 14:21)

The debate concerns whether the amount of oil required is absolute or relative to the quantity of flour. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov thinks one log of oil is sufficient, no matter the amount of flour. The rabbis, in contrast, counsel scaling the oil to match the volume of flour in the offering. 

So far, only Rabbi Eliezer has brought proof of his position: Leviticus 14:21 which describes the meal offering that a poor metzora (one who is experiencing the skin disease tzaraat) has to bring at the end of their purification period. The verse describes the quantity of oil as a single log, and this clause stands apart from the measure of flour, suggesting that there is no proportional relationship between the two. Later on the daf, the reasoning is made more explicit:

Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer say: Even a meal offering of 60 tenths — only its single log, as it is stated: “for a meal offering, and a log of oil.”

The sages use the same verse as proof for their opposed position. The following beraita explains:

The sages taught: With regard to a poor leper, 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) It teaches about each tenth that it requires one log of oil — this is the statement of the rabbis.

The rabbis’ interpretation hinges on the Torah’s use of the word mixed. Since the meal offering must be mixed with the oil, they reason, there must be a consistent ratio of flour and oil mixed together.

The Talmud next interrogates how each party to this dispute reads the other’s evidence. 

And as for Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they do with this phrase: “And a tenth-part … mixed … and a log of oil”? That is required to teach itself, as the Merciful One states: Let a poor metzora bring a tenth of an ephah of flour.

One might have thought that a metzora who can’t afford a meal offering is exempt from bringing one. But Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer argue this clause of the biblical verse is actually meant to teach that they are. Therefore, that same part of the verse can’t be used to teach that the oil and flour must be mixed in a consistent ratio.

So how do the rabbis respond to this claim?

And as for the others (the rabbis), they maintain it is not necessary to teach the matter itself, as it can be learned from the fact that the Merciful One revealed with regard to a metzora (who is not poor) that he must bring three animal offerings and a meal offering of three-tenths of an ephah. Here, (with regard to one who is poor) who brings only one offering, (we infer that he is therefore obligated in only) one tenth of an ephah.

The rabbis insist that one could infer from elsewhere in Torah that even a poor metzora has to bring one-tenth of an ephah of flour. Therefore, the word mixed is “available” for interpretation — and its meaning is that the flour and oil must always be given in the same ratio.

The Talmud then theorizes that Rabbi Nehemya and Rabbi Eliezer would respond to this reading by doubling down on the idea that the Torah could have easily exempted the poor metzora from bringing oil entirely, given that it already reduces the amount of flour that they are required to bring. And how would the rabbis respond? 

We do not find it entirely.

The back-and-forth continues in the daf. But in the interest of time, let’s stop here with the rabbis’ terse retort: “We do not find it entirely.”

This very brief statement refers to a much bigger idea that we’ve already seen discussed: that while the Torah can and does take account of people’s financial means in mandating certain obligatory offerings, it does not exempt the poor from bringing them. For the rabbis, to be a member of the Jewish people requires one to be obligated in mitzvot. And while it’s true that someone with very limited means might struggle to afford oil for their offering, exempting them may make them feel less obligated, and therefore less a part of the fullness of Jewish ritual life. 

Read all of Menachot 89 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on April 10, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.