עיונים במסכת מנחות

STUDIES IN TRACTATE MENACHOT

The Nature of the Meal Offering and Its Relationship to Tractate Zevachim

A Scholarly Analysis Including:

Parallels Between Tractates Zevachim and Menachot

Editorial Layers of the Talmud and Savoraic Opening Sugyot

The Essence of the Meal Offering in Light of Classical and Modern Scholarship

The Source of Disqualification for Improper Intent in the Minchah

Compiled from Various Sources

With Annotations and References

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract.............................................................................................. 3

Introduction......................................................................................... 4

Chapter 1: Parallels Between Tractates Zevachim and Menachot................ 6

Chapter 2: Editorial Layers of the Talmud and Savoraic Opening Sugyot.... 10

Chapter 3: The Division Between Animal and Plant Offerings................... 16

Chapter 4: The Source of Disqualification for Improper Intent.................. 20

Chapter 5: The Essence of the Meal Offering – Three Primary Approaches.. 24

Chapter 6: The "Melodies" of the Offerings........................................... 32

Endnotes............................................................................................ 38

Bibliography....................................................................................... 48

ABSTRACT

This study examines the relationship between Tractate Menachot, which addresses offerings from the plant kingdom, and Tractate Zevachim, which deals with animal sacrifices. The analysis encompasses structural parallels between the two tractates, the editorial layers attributed to the Savoraim in the opening sugyot (Talmudic discussions), and the fundamental question of the minchah's (meal offering's) essential nature.

Drawing on the scholarship of Dr. Nehemiah Brüll, Rabbi Dr. Abraham Weiss, Prof. Shamma Friedman, Rabbi Prof. Yehuda Brandes, and Prof. Yonatan Grossman, this work demonstrates that the opening sections of Talmudic tractates exhibit distinctive stylistic features indicative of later Savoraic editorial activity. The study further explores the halakhic and theological implications of viewing the minchah either as a subcategory of the burnt offering ("the poor man's olah") or as an independent sacrificial category with unique religious significance.

Key findings include: (1) extensive structural parallels between Menachot and Zevachim reflecting their conceptual relationship; (2) evidence for Savoraic editorial intervention in the opening sugyot; (3) divergent approaches to the minchah's nature among Rishonim and modern scholars; and (4) Prof. Grossman's innovative interpretation of the meal offering as expressing recognition that all sustenance derives from God.

Keywords: Menachot, Zevachim, Savoraim, meal offering, sacrificial law, Talmudic redaction, biblical exegesis

INTRODUCTION

Tractate Menachot, which opens the discussion of offerings from the plant kingdom, occupies a unique position in relation to Tractate Zevachim, the tractate dealing with animal sacrifices. This relationship manifests in the structure of the Mishnayot (Mishnaic teachings), the style of the Talmudic discussions, and the fundamental questions arising from both tractates.

The present study examines the deep connections between these two tractates, with particular attention to contemporary academic research in Talmudic studies, especially regarding the editorial layers of the Babylonian Talmud and the Savoraic opening sugyot.

Additionally, we shall explore the question of the minchah's essential nature: Is it the "burnt offering of the poor"—a subcategory of animal offerings—or is it an independent type of offering with its own unique significance? This question touches upon understanding the minchah's place within the entire sacrificial system.

* * *

The foundations of this study are based on summaries of Daf Yomi (daily Talmud study) lectures delivered with in-depth analysis, as well as research by various scholars in the fields of Talmudic studies and Jewish thought. Primary sources are cited in the endnotes and bibliography at the conclusion of this work.

The methodological approach combines traditional Talmudic analysis with modern academic scholarship, seeking to illuminate both the halakhic (legal) and aggadic (homiletical/philosophical) dimensions of the sacrificial system.

CHAPTER 1

Parallels Between Tractates Zevachim and Menachot

1.1 Background

Scholars Dr. Y. Koren, Dr. M. Belberg, and Rabbi Dr. David Polyakov[1] have observed that numerous Mishnayot and sugyot from Tractate Zevachim—the tractate dealing with animal offerings—are also found in Tractate Menachot, which addresses offerings from the plant kingdom.

These parallels are not coincidental but rather reflect the essential connection between the two types of offerings. As we shall see below, this correspondence raises fundamental questions regarding the relationship between the animal and plant kingdoms within the sacrificial system.

1.2 The Parallel Mishnayot

The following table presents the primary parallel Mishnayot between the two tractates:

Tractate Menachot · Tractate Zevachim

1:1 – Laws of lishmah (proper intent) · 1:1 – Laws of lishmah (proper intent)

1:3-4 – The four services · 2:2-5 – The four services

3:1, 3:3 · 2:1, 3:1, 6:7

The most prominent parallel is found in the opening of both tractates, which deal with the laws of lishmah—the proper intent required when offering a sacrifice. The opening of Tractate Menachot closely resembles that of Tractate Zevachim in its style and structure.

1.3 The Four Services in Animal and Meal Offerings

The Sages drew a comparison between the four services performed with an animal offering and those performed with a meal offering:

Just as there are four services in an animal offering—slaughter, reception [of the blood], conveyance, and sprinkling—so too there are four services in a meal offering—taking the handful (kemitzah), placing in a vessel, conveyance, and burning on the altar.[2]

This comparison demonstrates the essential connection between the two types of offerings, and that the minchah is perceived as parallel to the animal sacrifice.

1.4 Differences Between the Tractates

Despite the considerable similarities, significant differences exist between the tractates:

1. Laws of frankincense (levonah)—These are unique to Tractate Menachot and have no parallel in Zevachim.

2. Laws of slaughter—These are unique to Tractate Zevachim, as the meal offering requires no slaughter.

3. Date of redaction—Rabbi Dr. Naftali Goldstein[3] explained that the source of the Mishnah in Zevachim 1:1 regarding the laws of lishmah derives from a collection of Mishnayot from the scholars of Yavneh, while the parallel discussion in Menachot is later, from the scholars of Usha. Evidence for this is that Rabbi Shimon disputes the law in Menachot, indicating a later development.

CHAPTER 2

Editorial Layers of the Talmud and Savoraic Opening Sugyot

2.1 Background: The Layers of the Talmud

Scholars Dr. Nehemiah Brüll, Rabbi Dr. Abraham Weiss, Prof. Shamma Friedman, and Rabbi Prof. Yehuda Brandes[4] have noted that the opening of each tractate in the Babylonian Talmud differs stylistically from the remainder of the sugyot. According to their view, these represent "editorial layers of the Talmud" from the Rabbanan Savorai (Savoraic Sages) who redacted the Talmud.

Recognition of this phenomenon is important for understanding the opening sugya of Tractate Menachot, which resembles in style the opening of Tractate Zevachim.

2.2 Dr. Nehemiah Brüll (1843-1891)

Nehemiah Brüll was a rabbi and scholar in Jewish Studies. His work relevant to our discussion is "The History of the Formation of the Babylonian Talmud as a Literary Work"[5]. He was the first to identify the opening sugyot as "introductory lectures to the tractate" and pointed to their unique characteristics.

Brüll enumerated several characteristics of the Savoraic opening sugyot:

• Location at the beginning of the tractate

• Focus on linguistic precision in the Mishnaic text

• Distinctive expressions such as: "Mai shna hakha d'tani... u'mai shna hatam d'tani" (What is different here that it teaches... and what is different there that it teaches), "Mai irya d'tani... litni" (Why specifically did it teach... let it teach)

• Discussion of the tractate's placement relative to other tractates in the order

• Questions not found in the Jerusalem Talmud

2.3 Rabbi Dr. Abraham Weiss (1895-1970)

Abraham Weiss was a Torah scholar, Talmud researcher, and Religious Zionist leader. He was among the founders of scientific Talmud research, and served as researcher and lecturer in Talmud at the Institute for Jewish Studies in Warsaw, Yeshiva University, and Bar-Ilan University.[6]

His relevant works include:

• "Lekorot Hithavut HaBavli" (On the History of the Formation of the Babylonian Talmud) – Warsaw, 1929

• "HaTalmud HaBavli BeHithavuto HaSifrutit" (The Babylonian Talmud in Its Literary Development) – Warsaw, 1937-1939

• "HaYetzirah shel HaSavoraim" (The Creative Work of the Savoraim) – Jerusalem, 1953

One of Weiss's primary conclusions was that the redaction of the Talmud was not a singular event, but rather a continuous process that began during the Amoraic period and continued until the Geonic era.

2.4 Prof. Shamma Yehuda Friedman

Prof. Shamma Friedman is a recipient of the Israel Prize for Talmud Research. His contribution is significant for understanding the structure, composition, and literary development of the Babylonian Talmud's sugyot.[7]

Within the framework of his studies, he characterized the methods of the 'anonymous Talmud' (stam) and their function in shaping the Babylonian sugya, and confirmed the claim that the majority of anonymous statements belong to a stratum later than the statements of the Amoraim.[8]

His relevant work: "Sugyot BeCheker HaTalmud HaBavli" (Studies in Babylonian Talmud Research) – New York and Jerusalem, 2010.

2.5 Rabbi Prof. Yehuda Brandes

Rabbi Prof. Yehuda Brandes is an educator and Talmud scholar, President of Herzog Academic College.[9]

His relevant articles include:

• "HaMesukhah HaRishonah" (The First Hurdle) – on the opening sugya of Tractate Kiddushin, in "Al Derekh HaAvot" (2001)

• "Yevamot, Arayot VeKerovot: Petichta LeMasekhet Yevamot" – Akdamot 17 (2006)

• "Petichta LeMasekhet Berakhot: Olam Shanah Nefesh" – Asif 1

Brandes argues that the Savoraim used the openings of tractates to raise moral and spiritual principles connected to the tractate's subject matter.

2.6 Evidence from the Menachot Sugya

In the opening sugya of Tractate Menachot, we find an example of this phenomenon: the resolutions of Rabbah, Rava, and Rav Ashi are brought regarding a contradiction from Rabbi Shimon against Rabbi Shimon, which is stated only afterward. This indicates that they—the Savoraim—are the ones who formulated the language "verami d'Rabbi Shimon ad'Rabbi Shimon" (and we raise a contradiction from R. Shimon against R. Shimon), when originally the baraitot were set against each other anonymously.

The Savoraim employed the style "i ba'it eima kra, i ba'it eima sevara" (if you wish, cite a verse; if you wish, cite reasoning)—a style characteristic of Savoraic opening sugyot.

CHAPTER 3

The Division Between Animal and Plant Offerings in the Mishnaic Order

3.1 The Approach of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi

The division between animals (including birds) and plants is the reason that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi divided the laws of offerings into two separate tractates—Zevachim and Menachot.

Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein[10] explained the difference between Parashat Vayikra and Parashat Tzav: In Vayikra, the laws of offerings are stated from the perspective of the sacrificial act, while in Tzav, they are stated from the perspective of the offering's sanctity.

Nevertheless, in both of these parashiyot, the Torah did not divide between the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom in offerings, as Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi divided them in the Mishnaic order.

3.2 The Approach of Maimonides

Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah did not divide between zevachim and menachot. He divided only between voluntary and obligatory offerings, similar to Torat Kohanim (the halakhic Midrash on Leviticus), and similar to the Torah's own approach which included the minchah together with the other offerings.[11]

In Hilkhot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot (Laws of Sacrificial Procedure, 12:1, 12:4), Maimonides wrote that the menachot are among the offerings, and he distinguished between menachot brought independently and menachot brought accompanying an animal sacrifice.

3.3 The Fundamental Question

The fundamental question arising from this division is: Is an offering from the plant kingdom merely a sub-level of animal offerings, or is it an entirely separate category of offering?

This question touches upon understanding the essential nature of the meal offering, as we shall expand upon in the following chapters.

CHAPTER 4

The Source of Disqualification for Improper Intent in the Minchah

4.1 The Question

Tosafot discusses the source for the law that bird offerings and meal offerings are disqualified if performed with improper intent (shelo lishmah), and likewise that they do not fulfill the owner's obligation.[12]

4.2 The Position of Tosafot

Tosafot concludes that the source is from the verse "Zot torat" ("This is the law of..."), etc., which equates all offerings to one another in this regard.

According to this position, the minchah is included within the other offerings and has no separate source for the law of disqualification due to improper intent.

4.3 The Position of Rashi

Rashi, later on folio 12a, maintains that the source is from the juxtaposition (hekkesh) of the minchah to the sin offering (chatat), as in the discussion regarding Rabbi Shimon.[13]

According to Rashi's position, the minchah is an entirely separate type and track from the animal kingdom, and therefore a separate derivation is required for the disqualification of improper intent.

4.4 Tosafot's View of Rashi

Tosafot maintains that the juxtaposition to the sin offering is merely an asmakhta (Scriptural support rather than the actual source), as appears from the words of Rabbi Shimon.

4.5 The Innovation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger

Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his glosses to the Talmud (Gilyon HaShas)[14] wrote that according to our ruling, which does not follow Rabbi Shimon, indeed the juxtaposition to the sin offering is the source for the disqualification of improper intent.

The Mitzpeh Eitan elaborated on the explanation of these positions.[15]

4.6 Connection to the Question of the Minchah's Nature

This dispute is connected to the question of the minchah's essential nature:

• If the disqualification in menachot is derived from "Zot torat"—this implies that the minchah is included within the other offerings.

• According to Rashi's position—the minchah is an entirely separate type and track from the animal world, and therefore the disqualification of improper intent is derived from a separate exposition.

As we shall see in the following chapter, the Torah provided different tracks and models of offering—olah (burnt offering), minchah (meal offering), and shelamim (peace offering)—and one must understand the unique significance of each.

CHAPTER 5

The Essence of the Meal Offering – Three Primary Approaches

5.1 First Approach: The Minchah as "The Poor Man's Burnt Offering"

Abarbanel[16] explained that the minchah is the burnt offering of the poor. According to this view, the minchah is included in the category of olah (burnt offering) as a subcategory, for one who cannot bring an animal burnt offering whose blood is sprinkled.

Similarly, Rashi in Parashat Vayikra[17] cites the Sages:

The Sages already noted that in Parashat Vayikra, regarding the meal offering, the Torah changed the language used for animal offerings—'adam ki yakriv' (when a person brings)—to what is stated regarding the meal offering—'nefesh ki takriv' (when a soul brings). This teaches that the poor person offers his very soul to God through his intention, and this takes the place of the value of the blood in an animal burnt offering.

Rabbi Joseph of Orleans explained in Bekhor Shor[18] that therefore the minchah is kodshei kodashim (most holy)—because the Holy One, blessed be He, cherishes this in His humility, as He cherishes the poor.

5.2 Second Approach: The Minchah as an Independent Type of Offering

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann[19] explained that the meal offering is its own type of offering and is not a subcategory of the burnt offering.

Their proof is from the text itself: When a person brings an offering to God, the Scripture specifies from which animals one may bring the offering, but when it speaks of the minchah, the Torah grants it its own heading, even though it placed the section of the minchah between the burnt offering and the peace offering.

The significance according to this view:

• The animal offering represents life and the human soul.

• The minchah represents the necessities of life—sustenance and the recognition that everything depends upon God.

Therefore, the measure of the minchah is a tenth of an ephah—which was the measure of the manna (as explained in the section of the manna) sufficient to sustain a person.

According to this understanding, it becomes clear why the Torah and the Sages emphasized oil in the meal offering: oil represents wealth. The character of the minchah is not specifically that it is "the poor man's offering," but rather that all of life's necessities depend upon God.

5.3 The View of Prof. Yonatan Grossman – Expanded Analysis

Prof. Yonatan Grossman[20] in his article "The Meal Offering" (Megadim 36, Tishrei 5763/2002) and in his book "Torat HaKorbanot: Machavot shel Basar VeRuach" (The Law of Offerings: Gestures of Flesh and Spirit, 2022) expanded upon this matter.

Grossman explains the connection between the measure of a tenth of an ephah in the minchah and the section of the manna:

"The quantity is a tenth of an ephah, an amount that characterizes a person's food for one day. This emerges from the section of the manna, where Israel was required to take an omer per person each day (Exodus 16:16). At the end of the section it states: 'And the omer is a tenth of an ephah' (ibid., 36), meaning a person's food for one day is a tenth of an ephah. Rashi already makes the connection to the meal offering there: 'A tenth of an ephah... and this is the measure for challah and for menachot' (his commentary to Exodus 16:36). That is to say, in the meal offering a person brings his daily sustenance to its true Owner—to the Master of the Universe."[21]

From Grossman's words emerges that the minchah expresses the recognition that all of a person's food and livelihood come from the Holy One, blessed be He, and the person offers his daily sustenance to his Creator.

5.4 The Name "Minchah" – An Independent Name or a Material Name?

Prof. Yonatan Grossman[22] noted that "minchah" is not the independent name of the offering, since "minchat chotet" (the sinner's meal offering) is actually a sin offering.

Rabbi Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (the Griz)[23] discussed whether the minchat kena'ot (the jealousy offering), whose law is like that of the sinner's meal offering—whether only its law is like its laws, or whether its sanctity is also like the sanctity of a sin offering.

Maimonides in Hilkhot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot (12:1, 12:4) maintains that "minchah" is the name of the type of material from which the offering comes. Just as he distinguished below (18:1) between offerings that come from animals, birds, or "menachot."

It emerges from this that the name of the material from which the offering comes actually affects the essence and character of the offering.

CHAPTER 6

The "Melodies" of the Offerings

6.1 The General Concept

Prof. Yonatan Grossman[24] explained that each type of offering has its own "melody" and expression in its relationship to God in the bringing of the offering before Him.

6.2 The Melody of the Burnt Offering (Olah)

The melody of the burnt offering—which is entirely consumed—is that a person nullifies himself entirely before God and understands the gap between himself and his Creator as he stands before Him when bringing his offering before the Almighty.

The olah is entirely placed upon the altar and burned—the person has no portion in it. This expresses complete submission before the Creator.

6.3 The Melody of the Peace Offering (Shelamim)

The melody of the peace offering is that a person dines before God, as it were, together with Him, and has a kind of tangible closeness to God.

The shelamim are divided: a portion for the altar, a portion for the priests, and a portion for the owners. The eating is eating before God.

6.4 The Melody of the Meal Offering – Prof. Grossman's Analysis

Here we must understand the essence and character of the meal offering, which has only one option given by the Torah, unlike animal offerings which have both burnt offerings and peace offerings.

The question is: Is the melody of the minchah like that of the burnt offering or like that of the peace offering?

Prof. Grossman in his book "Torat HaKorbanot" addresses this question:

"When Grossman addresses the meal offering as an offering that occupies the middle ground between the burnt offering and the peace offering, he explains that 'it emerges from the experience of the burnt offering (of total sacrifice) and this is indeed the basis for the religious discourse it expresses, yet it has the power to move a person toward the consciousness of the peace offering.'"[25]

That is to say, the minchah combines within itself both "melodies": on the one hand, it contains the element of total sacrifice like the burnt offering, and on the other hand, it enables movement toward the peace offering—dining before God.

6.5 Summary: The Three Melodies

According to the view of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann, and Prof. Grossman, the minchah is not necessarily like the burnt offering or like the peace offering alone, but rather is a third type with its own unique "melody":

• The Burnt Offering (Olah) – Expression of self-nullification before God

• The Peace Offering (Shelamim) – Expression of closeness and partnership with God

• The Meal Offering (Minchah) – Expression of recognition that all of life's necessities depend upon God, and thanksgiving for sustenance and food. It emerges from the experience of the burnt offering but enables movement toward the consciousness of the peace offering.

According to Abarbanel and Rashi, however, the minchah is like the burnt offering—except that it is the poor man's burnt offering, who offers his soul instead of his wealth.

ENDNOTES

[1] See their articles in various academic journals. The scholars compared parallel Mishnayot in both tractates and identified the connection between them.

[2] Menachot 1:3-4, parallel to Zevachim 2:2-5.

[3] Rabbi Dr. Naftali Goldstein, cited in the lecture on Zevachim folio 7.

[4] See extensively in the master's thesis of Merav Suisa, "Savoraic Opening Sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud," Bar-Ilan University, 2008.

[5] Nehemiah Brüll, "The History of the Formation of the Babylonian Talmud as a Literary Work," translated from German and published in Netu'im 11-12 (2004), Herzog College.

[6] See the entry "Abraham Weiss" in the Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as the jubilee volume in his honor.

[7] Prof. Shamma Yehuda Friedman, recipient of the Israel Prize for Talmud Research 2014. See the Israel Prize website.

[8] From the reasoning for the Israel Prize award.

[9] See the entry "Yehuda Brandes" in the Hebrew Wikipedia.

[10] Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein, cited in the lecture on Zevachim folio 93.

[11] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, Chapter 12.

[12] Tosafot, Menachot 2a.

[13] Rashi, Menachot 12a.

[14] Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Gilyon HaShas on Menachot.

[15] Mitzpeh Eitan on Tractate Menachot.

[16] Abarbanel, Commentary on the Torah, Parashat Vayikra.

[17] Rashi on Leviticus 2:1, s.v. "venefesh ki takriv."

[18] Rabbi Joseph of Orleans, Bekhor Shor on Leviticus.

[19] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on the Torah, Leviticus 2; Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann, Commentary on Leviticus.

[20] Prof. Yonatan Grossman is Professor in the Department of Bible at Bar-Ilan University, teaches also at Herzog Academic College in Gush Etzion, and is the author of numerous books on biblical exegesis.

[21] Prof. Yonatan Grossman, "The Meal Offering," Megadim – A Journal for Biblical Matters, issue 36 (Tishrei 5763/2002), Tevunot Press, Herzog College. The article is available on the Yeshivat Har Etzion website.

[22] Prof. Yonatan Grossman, lectures on the Book of Leviticus.

[23] Chiddushei HaGriz on Maimonides.

[24] Prof. Yonatan Grossman, cited in the lecture on Zevachim folio 7.

[25] Prof. Yonatan Grossman, "Torat HaKorbanot: Machavot shel Basar VeRuach" (The Law of Offerings: Gestures of Flesh and Spirit), Koren Publishers, 2022, p. 155. The citation is also found in a book review on the Machanaim website.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Zevachim

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Menachot

Rashi on the Talmud

Tosafot on the Talmud

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

Rashi on the Torah

Abarbanel on the Torah

Bekhor Shor on the Torah

Later Authorities (Acharonim)

Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Gilyon HaShas

Mitzpeh Eitan on Menachot

Chiddushei HaGriz on Maimonides

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on the Torah

Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann, Commentary on Leviticus

Modern Scholarship

Brüll, Nehemiah. "The History of the Formation of the Babylonian Talmud as a Literary Work." Netu'im 11-12 (2004).

Weiss, Abraham. Lekorot Hithavut HaBavli. Warsaw, 1929.

Weiss, Abraham. HaTalmud HaBavli BeHithavuto HaSifrutit. Warsaw, 1937-1939.

Weiss, Abraham. HaYetzirah shel HaSavoraim. Jerusalem, 1953.

Friedman, Shamma Yehuda. Sugyot BeCheker HaTalmud HaBavli. New York and Jerusalem, 2010.

Brandes, Yehuda. "HaMesukhah HaRishonah." In: Al Derekh HaAvot (2001).

Brandes, Yehuda. "Yevamot, Arayot VeKerovot: Petichta LeMasekhet Yevamot." Akdamot 17 (2006).

Suisa, Merav. "Savoraic Opening Sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud." Master's Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 2008.

Cohen, Avinoam. "On the Character of Savoraic Halakhah." Dinei Israel 24 (2006).

Works of Prof. Yonatan Grossman

Grossman, Yonatan. "The Meal Offering." Megadim – A Journal for Biblical Matters, issue 36 (Tishrei 5763/2002), Tevunot Press.

Grossman, Yonatan. Torat HaKorbanot: Machavot shel Basar VeRuach (The Law of Offerings: Gestures of Flesh and Spirit). Koren Publishers, 2022.

Lectures by Prof. Grossman on the Yeshivat Har Etzion website: https://etzion.org.il

Lectures by Prof. Grossman on HaTanakh website: https://www.hatanakh.com

* * *

Completed with Divine Assistance