MISHNA: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering to the Temple and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a maḥavat, may not bring one prepared in a marḥeshet. Similarly, if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḥeshet, he may not bring one prepared in a maḥavat. The mishna clarifies: What is the difference between a maḥavat and a marḥeshet? A marḥeshet has a cover, whereas a maḥavat does not have a cover; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A marḥeshet is deep, and due to the large amount of oil, its product is soft because it moves about [roḥashin] in the oil. A maḥavat is flat, as the sides of the pan are level with the pan, and due to the small amount of oil, its product is hard.

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: As the Torah does not describe the different vessels, what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, explaining that a marḥeshet has a cover and a maḥavat does not have a cover? If we say that the term marḥeshet indicates that the offering comes to atone for the sinful musings [raḥashei] of the heart, as it is written: “My heart muses [raḥash] on a goodly matter” (Psalms 45:2), and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in a covered vessel just as the thoughts of the heart are hidden, this interpretation is insufficient. And if we say that the term maḥavat indicates that the offering comes to atone for transgressions committed with the corners of [ammaḥavo’ei] the mouth, as people say with regard to someone who speaks loudly: He is barking [minbaḥ nevuḥei], and therefore this meal offering must be prepared in an open vessel, this interpretation is also insufficient.

The reason these interpretations are insufficient is that one can also say the opposite, and suggest that the name maḥavat indicates that the offering must be prepared in a closed vessel, as it comes to atone for the secret musings of the heart, as it is written that Laban said to Jacob: “Why did you flee secretly [naḥbeita]” (Genesis 31:27). Likewise, with regard to marḥeshet, one can say that it must be prepared in an open vessel, as it comes to atone for whispers [reḥushei] of the mouth which are heard and revealed, as people say: His lips were whispering [meraḥashan]. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili cannot derive the meanings of the terms marḥeshet and maḥavat from the verses; rather, his interpretation is learned as a tradition.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says that a marḥeshet is deep, whereas a maḥavat is flat. The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: A marḥeshet is deep, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “in” indicates that this meal offering is prepared inside a vessel, i.e., a deep container. Conversely, a maḥavat is flat, with the sides of the pan level with the pan, as it is written with regard to this meal offering: “And on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). The use of the term “on” indicates that it is prepared on the vessel, not inside it. Therefore, a flat vessel is required.

§ The mishna teaches that if one vows: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a marḥeshet, he is obligated to bring a meal offering of that type. With regard to this, the Sages taught that Beit Shammai say: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḥeshet, without using the term: Meal offering, or the preposition: In, in such a case the money for the meal offering should be placed in a safe place until the prophet Elijah comes heralding the Messiah, and clarifies what should be done.

The Gemara elaborates: Beit Shammai are uncertain with regard to the source of the terms marḥeshet and maḥavat, whether the offerings are called these names due to the specific vessel in which each meal offering is prepared, or whether they are called these names due to the manner of their preparation. The significance of this distinction is that if the term marḥeshet is referring to a specific type of vessel, then if one takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḥeshet, he must bring an actual vessel of that type, whereas if the term is referring to the manner of preparation of the meal offering then he is obligated to bring that type of meal offering. Since Beit Shammai are uncertain which is the correct interpretation, they rule that he must wait until the prophet Elijah comes.

And Beit Hillel say that there is no uncertainty about this matter, as there was a particular vessel in the Temple, and its name was marḥeshet. And this vessel resembled a type of deep kelabus, which is a vessel with indentations, and when dough is placed inside it, it gets pressed against the indentations and takes their shape. The dough resembles a type of apple of berotim trees, or a type of acorn [balutei] of the Greek oak trees. Therefore, one who takes a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a marḥeshet, must bring this type of vessel to the Temple as a donation.

And the verse states two different prepositions with regard to these vessels: “And all that is made in the marḥeshet and on the maḥavat” (Leviticus 7:9). It does not state simply: And all that is made in the marḥeshet and the maḥavat. Since it seems from the verse that when using the marḥeshet the meal offering is prepared inside the vessel and when using the maḥavat it is prepared on the vessel, evidently they are called these names due to the vessel in which the meal offering is prepared, not due to the manner of their preparation.

MISHNA: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering baked in an oven, he may not bring a meal offering baked on a small oven [kupaḥ], nor a meal offering baked on roofing tiles, nor a meal offering baked in the baking pits of the Arabs. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he so wishes, he may bring a meal offering baked on a kupaḥ.

If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, without specifying loaves or wafers, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and the other half in the form of wafers; rather, they must all be of one form or the other. Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, due to the fact that both loaves and wafers are written with regard to this meal offering, which indicates that it is one offering of two possible forms.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4), this emphasizes that it must be prepared in an oven, and not baked on a kupaḥ, nor baked on roofing tiles, nor baked in the baking pits of the Arabs, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the mishna.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In this verse it states “oven,” and it also states “oven” in another verse: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven” (Leviticus 7:9). Since it is written two times, and these terms are restrictions, one follows the hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. Consequently, this derivation serves to render fit a meal offering baked on a kupaḥ, and it too is deemed an oven. Rabbi Shimon says: The terms “oven” and “oven,” which are written a total of two times, serve to teach two halakhot: One instance teaches that their baking should be in an oven, and the other one teaches that their consecration is in an oven, i.e., meal offerings are not consecrated in service vessels but rather in the oven.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold in accordance with this line of reasoning? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (95b) that Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are valid if they are kneaded, shaped, or baked in the Temple courtyard, and that they are also valid if they are prepared in the place called Beit Pagei, which is outside the walls of the Temple Mount? As these offerings are not disqualified by being taken outside the Temple, evidently they are not consecrated in the oven.

Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the oven does not consecrate meal offerings, and as for his statement in the baraita concerning the two derivations, one should say that the other derivation from the term “oven” teaches that their consecration by the owner must be explicit, i.e., from the outset he must say that he is sanctifying his meal offering for the sake of a meal offering baked in an oven.

§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, he may not bring half the required offering in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers, whereas Rabbi Shimon deems this permitted, as it is one offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4). The phrase: “And when you bring,” indicates that this offering is not obligatory. Rather, when you wish you may bring, i.e., the verse teaches how to perform the meal offering baked in an oven as a voluntary matter.

With regard to the term: “A meal offering,” Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived with regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal offering, that he must not bring half of the bread in the form of loaves and half in the form of wafers? The verse states: “A meal offering,” which indicates: I told you to bring one offering, i.e., all ten loaves from one type, and not two or three offerings of different types, as allowed by Rabbi Shimon.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: