There seems to be a contradiction between what the Mishna explicitly says in Menachot 8:1 and what R' Ovadia miBartenura says in his commentary on it.

The Mishna says:

כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד בָּאִים מִן הָאָרֶץ וּמִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ ...‏

All public and private offerings [of grain -IM] can be brought from the Land [of Israel] or outside the Land ...

The Mishna goes on to list particular sources for the "best" grain, which happen to be in the Land of Israel, but then clarifies:

כָּל הָאֲרָצוֹת הָיוּ כְשֵׁרוֹת, אֶלָּא מִכָּאן הָיוּ מְבִיאִים

[The grain of] all the lands were suitable, but this is where they would bring from [in practice].

my translation here and below

In his gloss on this sentence, R' Ovadia makes a significant insertion:

כל הארצות. של ארץ ישראל היו כשרות, אלא שמכאן היו מביאים

[The grain of] all the lands of the Land of Israel were suitable, but this is where they would bring from [in practice].

Why does R' Ovadia apparently go out of his way to make the last part of the mishna contradict the first part? Reading the text of the mishna, it would seem that the last sentence, with "all the lands," is reiterating "the Land and outside the Land" from the first sentence, not contradicting it.

Also, what does it mean, according to R' Ovadia, that the last part contradicts the first part? Does this indicate a dispute in the Mishna, an evolution of Halacha, or something else?

1 Answer 1


The Mishna says

"כל הארצות היו כשרות אלא מכאן היו מביאין"

and tells about Omer and shti Halechem, which need to be from Erets Israel. So the Bartenura is right when he adds

"של ארץ ישראל"

The Bartenura's source should be the Rashi from manuscript in Menachot 83b:

כל ארצות - של ארץ ישראל כשרות היו אלא מכאן היו מביאין:‏

  • That sounds like it must be the answer, but it means that the mishna is in a strange order: "All korbanot," Omer and Shtei Halechem, "All of them," Omer and Shtei Halechem again? Or is the "All of them" that introduces the second half of the mishna only referring to these two? Either way, shouldn't RO"V have commented to make this clear?
    – Isaac Moses
    May 6, 2019 at 13:24
  • Note that Rambam in his commentary writes explicitly that the final clause of the mishnah is referring to all menachot - not just Omer and Shtei Halechem (@IsaacMoses)
    – Joel K
    May 6, 2019 at 13:29
  • @JoelK right...
    – kouty
    May 6, 2019 at 13:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .