Menachot 11

או קורט לבונה פסול כל הני למה לי

or a pinch of frankincense emerged in his hand, the meal offering is unfit, as the handful lacks a full measure on account of these items. The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these examples? Any one of them would convey the fact that the handful must contain a full measure.

צריכא דאי תנא צרור משום דלאו בת הקרבה היא אבל מלח דבת הקרבה היא אימא תתכשר

The Gemara explains: All of the cases are necessary. Because if the mishna had taught only the example of a stone, it might have been thought that only a stone diminishes the measure of the handful, because it is not fit for sacrifice. But with regard to salt, which is fit for sacrifice, as the priest places salt on the handful before burning it upon the altar, one might say that the handful should be fit, as the salt should not subtract from the handful’s measure.

ואי תנא מלח דלא איקבע בהדי מנחה מעיקרא שאינו מולח אלא הקומץ בלבד אבל לבונה דאיקבע בהדי מנחה מעיקרא אימא תתכשר קא משמע לן

And if the mishna had taught only the example of salt, it might have been thought that the salt diminishes the handful’s measure as it was not initially fixed together with the entire meal offering. The reason is that the priest salts the handful alone. But with regard to the frankincense, which was initially fixed together with the entire meal offering, i.e., it is placed upon the meal offering before the priest removes a handful from it, one might say that the handful should be fit and the frankincense should not diminish from the handful’s measure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in any of these instances the meal offering is unfit.

מפני שאמרו הקומץ החסר או היתר פסול מאי איריא משום חסר ויתר ותיפוק ליה משום חציצה אמר רבי ירמיה מן הצד

§ The mishna teaches that if a stone, or a grain of salt, or a pinch of frankincense emerged in the priest’s hand together with the handful, the meal offering is unfit due to the fact that the Sages said: The handful that is lacking or that is outsized is unfit. The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna explain that the offering is not valid specifically because it is lacking or outsized? But let the tanna derive that such a handful is not valid due to the fact that there is an interposition between the priest’s hand and the handful. Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since there are certain instances where these items do not interpose between one’s hand and the handful, e.g., when they are located on the side of the handful, the mishna teaches that they disqualify the handful due to the fact that they reduce its measure.

אמר ליה אביי לרבא כיצד קומצין אמר ליה כדקמצי אינשי איתיביה זו זרת זו קמיצה

§ Abaye said to Rava: How do the priests properly remove the handful from a meal offering? Rava said to him: They remove it as people normally remove handfuls, by folding all of their fingers over the palm of the hand. Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita discussing the mitzva function of each of the fingers: This small finger is for measuring a span (see Exodus 28:16), i.e., the distance between the thumb and the little finger. This fourth finger is used for removal of a handful from the meal offering, i.e., the measurement of a handful begins from this finger, as the priest removes a handful by folding the middle three fingers over his palm.

זו אמה זו אצבע זו גודל

Furthermore, this middle finger is used for measuring a cubit, the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. This forefinger, next to the thumb, is the finger used to sprinkle the blood of offerings on the altar. And finally, this thumb is the one on which the blood and oil is placed during the purification ritual of a leper (see Leviticus 14:17). Evidently, the little finger is not used in the removal of a handful.

אלא להשוות כלומר קומץ מלא היד כדי שלא יהא חסר ואחר כך מוחק באצבע קטנה מלמטה

The Gemara responds: The little finger is used only for the purposes of leveling the handful, that is to say, the priest first removes a handful with a full hand, i.e., all of his fingers, so that it should not be lacking in measure, and then he wipes away the protruding flour with his little finger from the bottom, and with his thumb from the top.

היכי עביד אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב חופה שלש אצבעותיו עד שמגיע על פס ידו וקומץ

The Gemara asks: How is the removal of the handful performed? Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: When the priest places his hand in the meal offering, he bends his middle three fingers until the tips of his fingers reach over the palm of his hand, and he then removes the handful.

תניא נמי הכי מלא קמצו יכול מבורץ תלמוד לומר בקמצו

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita. From the verse that states: “And he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), one might have thought that the handful should be overflowing. Therefore, another verse states: “And he shall take up from it with his handful [bekumtzo]” (Leviticus 6:8). The prefix that means “with” can also mean: In, indicating that the proper measure of a handful is that which is contained within one’s fingers alone.

אי בקמצו יכול בראשי אצבעותיו תלמוד לומר מלא קמצו הא כיצד חופה שלש אצבעותיו על פס ידו וקומץ

The baraita continues: If the measurement of a handful is determined by the term “with his handful,” one might have thought that the priest removes a handful with his fingertips, i.e., that a handful consists of that which the priest removes by folding his fingers onto themselves. Therefore, the verse states: “His handful,” indicating that the handful must be full and not merely that which is contained within his fingers. How so? He scoops by closing his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and in this way takes a handful from the flour of the meal offering.

במחבת ובמרחשת מוחק בגודלו מלמעלה ובאצבעו קטנה מלמטה וזו היא עבודה קשה שבמקדש

The baraita continues: In the case of a pan meal offering and that of a deep-pan meal offering, when the flour was fried before being scooped and was therefore hard, the priest wipes away with his thumb any flour that was overflowing above his handful, and with his little finger he wipes away the flour that was pushing out below. And this precise taking of the handful of a meal offering is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple, as the priest must wipe away any protruding elements without removing any flour from the handful itself.

זהו ותו לא והאיכא מליקה והאיכא חפינה אלא זו היא אחת מעבודות קשות שבמקדש

The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest sacrificial rite, and no other? But isn’t there pinching the nape of the neck of a bird offering, which is also considered extremely difficult to perform, and isn’t there the scooping of the handful of incense by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, another rite that is extremely difficult to perform? Rather, the baraita means that this taking of the handful of a meal offering is one of the most difficult sacrificial rites in the Temple.

אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי מלא קמצו כדקמצי אינשי בעי רב פפא קמץ בראשי אצבעותיו מאי

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the term “his handful” means that the removal of the handful from a meal offering should be performed ab initio in the manner that people usually remove a handful, with their fingertips angled to the side. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the priest removed a handful with his fingertips, i.e., if he placed his hand horizontally over the meal offering and filled his palm with flour by closing his fingers to his palm? Does this disqualify the taking of the handful or not?

מן הצדדין מאי ממטה למעלה מאי תיקו

Similarly, if the priest took a handful from the sides, by passing the back of his hand back and forth over the flour in the vessel so that the flour collected in his palm by way of the side of his palm, what is the halakha? Furthermore, if he took the handful with the back of his hand placed downward in the vessel, and with his fingers he collected the flour upward into his palm, what is the halakha? Are the handfuls removed in this manner fit for sacrifice? The Gemara states: These dilemmas shall standunresolved.

אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי מלא חפניו כדחפני אינשי בעי רב פפא חפן בראשי אצבעותיו מהו מן הצדדין מהו חפן בזו ובזו וקרבן זו אצל זו מהו תיקו

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: “His handful” (Leviticus 16:12), in the context of the scooping of handfuls of incense by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, it means in the manner that people usually scoop a handful, by placing the backs of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a handful with his fingertips? What is the halakha if he took a handful from the sides? What is the halakha if he scooped a handful with this hand and with that hand separately and then brought them together? The Gemara states: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

בעי רב פפא דבקיה לקומץ בדפניה דמנא מאי תוך כלי בעינן והאיכא או דלמא הנחה בתוכו בעינן וליכא תיקו

Rav Pappa raises yet another dilemma: If the priest took the handful from the vessel containing the meal offering and stuck the handful onto the side of the second vessel in order to sanctify it, i.e., the handful was not placed directly into the vessel, what is the halakha? Do we require that the handful be inside the vessel, and that is the case here? Or perhaps we require that the handful be placed properly inside the vessel, and that is not the case in this instance. No answer is found, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי מר בר רב אשי הפכיה למנא ודבקיה לקומץ בארעיתא דמנא מאי הנחה בתוכו בעינן והאיכא או דלמא כתיקנו בעינן וליכא תיקו

Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a similar dilemma: If the priest overturned the vessel and stuck the handful to the underside of the vessel, in a case where there was an indentation on the underside, what is the halakha? Do we require that the handful be placed inside the vessel, and that requirement is fulfilled here, as the handful is within the indentation? Or perhaps we require that it be placed properly in the vessel, and that is not the case here. The Gemara states: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ כיצד הוא עושה פושט את אצבעותיו על פס ידו ריבה שמנה חסר שמנה חיסר לבונתה פסולה

MISHNA: How does the priest perform the removal of a handful? He extends his fingers onto the palm of his hand. If one increased its oil, decreased its oil, or decreased its frankincense, beyond the appropriate measures, the meal offering is unfit.

גמ׳ היכי דמי ריבה שמנה אמר רבי אליעזר כגון שהפריש לה שני לוגין ולוקמה כגון דעריב בה שמן דחולין ושמן דחבירתה

GEMARA: What are the circumstances of a case where the meal offering is disqualified due to the fact that one increased its oil? Rabbi Eliezer says: The circumstances are a case where he separated two log of oil for the meal offering instead of one log, and mixed them into a tenth of an ephah of flour. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let Rabbi Eliezer interpret the mishna as referring to a case where he mixed non-sacred oil or the oil of another meal offering into the meal offering.

וכי תימא שמן דחולין ושמן דחבירתה לא פסל מתקיף לה רב זוטרא בר טוביה אלא מעתה מנחת חוטא דפסל בה שמן היכי משכחת לה

And if you would say that non-sacred oil and the oil of another meal offering do not disqualify a meal offering, Rav Zutra bar Toviyya objects to this claim: If that is so, then with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, of which it is stated (59b) that oil disqualifies it, how can you find the circumstances where it is in fact disqualified?

אי דידה הא לית לה אי דחולין ודחבירתה הא אמרת לא פסל ואי אמרת דאפריש לה שמן כיון דלית לה שמן כלל חולין נינהו

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya elaborates: If you suggest that he mixed its own oil into the flour, such a case does not exist, as the meal offering of a sinner does not have any oil. If he mixed non-sacred oil or that of another meal offering into the flour, the meal offering should not be disqualified, as you said that such oil does not disqualify a meal offering. And if you would say that he designated oil for his meal offering and mixed it into the flour despite the Torah prohibition against mixing oil into it, I say that since the meal offering of a sinner does not have oil at all, any oil that he separates and mixes into it is considered non-sacred, and you have already said that non-sacred oil does not disqualify a meal offering.

ורבי אליעזר לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא דחולין ודחבירתה דפסיל אבל הפריש לה שני לוגין הואיל והאי חזי ליה והאי חזי ליה אימא לא ליפסיל קא משמע לן

The Gemara responds: In fact, non-sacred oil and the oil of another meal offering do disqualify a meal offering, and Rabbi Eliezer is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to say that non-sacred oil and the oil of another meal offering disqualify a meal offering. But in a case where one separated two log for his meal offering, since this first log is fit for the meal offering, and that second log is also fit for it, one might say that even when he mixes both log into the meal offering, it should not disqualify the meal offering. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer teaches us that the meal offering is disqualified in this case as well.

ומנא ליה לרבי אליעזר הא אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני ריבה שמנה ליתני ריבה לה שמן אלא הא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דהפריש לה שני לוגין

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this conclusion? Rava said: The terminology of the mishna posed a difficulty for him, as one can ask: Why does the tanna specifically teach that the meal offering is disqualified if he increased its oil, which indicates that he increased it with oil belonging to the offering itself? Let the mishna teach simply: He increased the oil. Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: That even though he initially separated two log of oil for the meal offering, its own oil disqualifies the offering when there is too much.

חיסר לבונתה תנו רבנן חסרה ועמדה על קורט אחד פסולה על שני קרטין כשרה דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר על קורט אחד כשרה פחות מכאן פסולה

§ The mishna teaches that if one decreased its frankincense beyond its appropriate measure, the meal offering is unfit. Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: If one decreased its frankincense to the point that the amount stood at only one pinch, it is disqualified, but if the decreased amount stood at two pinches, it is fit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: If the decreased amount stood at one pinch, it is fit; less than that, it is disqualified.

והתניא רבי שמעון אומר קומץ ולבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול תני קורט לבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול ואיבעית אימא כאן בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה כאן בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A handful of flour or frankincense that was decreased by any amount from its full measure is disqualified? The Gemara answers that one should teach the baraita as follows: A pinch of frankincense that was decreased by any amount is disqualified. And if you wish, say instead that here, the first cited statement of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the case of frankincense that comes with a meal offering, and this frankincense is disqualified only when there is less than a pinch, whereas there, the second statement of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the case of frankincense that comes by itself. Such frankincense is disqualified if it comprises any less than its full measure.

אמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן שלש מחלוקת בדבר רבי מאיר סבר קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף ורבי יהודה סבר קומץ בתחילה ושני קרטין בסוף ורבי שמעון סבר קומץ בתחילה וקורט אחד בסוף

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There are three disputes of tanna’im with regard to the matter. Rabbi Meir holds that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning, and ultimately the entire handful must be burned upon the altar. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning, and ultimately at least two pinches from it must be burned upon the altar. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning and ultimately at least one pinch from it must be burned upon the altar.

ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה רבי מאיר סבר עד דאיתא ללבונה דאיקבעה בהדי מנחה מעיקרא ורבי יהודה סבר כל ואפילו חד קורט את לרבות קורט אחר ורבי שמעון את לא דריש

And all three of them interpret a single verse differently. The verse states: “And he shall take up from there his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of the oil of it, and [ve’et] all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering, and shall make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:8). Rabbi Meir holds that one may not make the offering smoke upon the altar unless there remains the entire measure of frankincense that was initially fixed together with the meal offering. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that when the verse states: “All [kol],” it is referring to any part of the frankincense, even a single pinch, as kol can mean any amount (see II Kings 2:4). And when the verse states: “Et,” this serves to includ-e another pinch. Accordingly, at least two pinches must remain to be burned upon the altar. And Rabbi Shimon interprets the word “all” in the same manner as does Rabbi Yehuda, but he does not interpret and derive a halakha from the term “et,” and he therefore holds that only one pinch must remain to be burned.

ואמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה דברי הכל קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף להכי איצטריך אשר על המנחה דבהדי מנחה אין בפני עצמה לא

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef further says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between these tanna’im is with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering. But with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the priest must bring a handful at the beginning, and ultimately the entire handful must be burned upon the altar. For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: “That is upon the meal offering,” as this indicates that together with a meal offering, yes, one may burn the frankincense even if there remains only a pinch or two, but with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, one may not burn it if it is in that state.

ואמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בבזיכין דברי הכל שני קמצין בתחילה ושני קמצין בסוף

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between these tanna’im is with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering. But with regard to frankincense that comes in bowls together with the shewbread, everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, agrees that there must be two handfuls in the beginning, one handful for each bowl, and ultimately there must also be two handfuls.

פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דבהדי לחם אתיא כאשר על המנחה דמיא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is the case, as with regard to this halakha the verse does not state the term: All, from which one might derive that it is referring to any part of the frankincense? The Gemara explains: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that since the frankincense in the bowls comes together with bread, i.e., the shewbread, it should be considered as: “Frankincense that is upon the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:8), and therefore Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that one may sacrifice it even if less than two handfuls remain. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef teaches us that this is not the case.

פליגי בה רבי אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא חד אמר מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה דברי הכל קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף וחד אמר כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree with regard to the case of frankincense that comes by itself. One says that the dispute between the tanna’im with regard to whether or not a handful of frankincense that became lacking may be sacrificed upon the altar applies only with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering, but with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, everyone agrees that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning and ultimately the entire handful must be burned upon the altar. And one says: Just as there is a dispute in this case, so too, there is a dispute in that case.

חיסר לבונתה הא יתיר כשרה והתניא יתיר פסולה אמר רמי בר חמא כגון שהפריש לה שני קמצין

§ The mishna teaches that if the priest decreased its frankincense beyond its appropriate measure, the meal offering is unfit. The Gemara infers from this statement that if he increased its frankincense, it is fit. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if he increased its frankincense the meal offering is disqualified? Rami bar Ḥama said: The baraita rules that the meal offering is disqualified in a case where he separated two handfuls of frankincense for the meal offering and placed both of them onto the meal offering.

ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש לה שני קמצין ואבד אחד מהן קודם קמיצה לא הוקבעו אחר קמיצה הוקבעו

And Rami bar Ḥama says: In a case where one separated two handfuls of frankincense for the meal offering and subsequently lost one of them, if it was lost before the removal of the handful of the meal offering, the additional frankincense was not fixed with the meal offering, and therefore it does not disqualify the meal offering. But if this occurred after the removal of the handful of the meal offering, since both handfuls were already fixed with the meal offering, it is disqualified, as he increased its frankincense by a large amount.

ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש ארבעה קמצין לשני בזיכין ואבדו שנים מהן קודם סילוק בזיכין לא הוקבעו לאחר סילוק בזיכין הוקבעו

And Rami bar Ḥama says: In a case where one separated four handfuls of frankincense for placement in the two bowls that accompany the shewbread, and two of them were subsequently lost, the halakha depends on when they were lost. If they were lost before the removal of the bowls from the Table of the shewbread, then the additional frankincense was not yet fixed with the shewbread, and the frankincense remains fit for sacrifice. But if they were lost after the removal of the bowls, then all four handfuls were already fixed with the shewbread, and therefore the frankincense is disqualified.

הא תו למה לי היינו הך

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this? This statement of Rami bar Ḥama is identical to that previous statement, as the burning of the frankincense permits the shewbread for consumption just as the frankincense permits the meal offering for consumption. Consequently, the removal of the bowls of frankincense is comparable to the removal of the handful from a meal offering.

מהו דתימא כיון דבריר קומץ דידה כיון שהגיע זמנה לפורקה כמאן דפריקה דמיא קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains: The last statement of Rami bar Ḥama is necessary, lest you say that since the handful of frankincense of the shewbread is already considered designated for burning, as it is placed in a separate bowl and burned in its entirety, then once the time arrives for removing the bowls from upon the Table of the shewbread, it is considered as though the bowls were already removed, and the shewbread should therefore be disqualified on account of the additional frankincense. Therefore, Rami bar Ḥama teaches us that the additional handfuls disqualify the shewbread only if they were inside the bowls at the time of their actual removal from the Table.

מתני׳ הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה בחוץ או כזית משיריה בחוץ להקטיר קומצה בחוץ או כזית קומצה בחוץ או להקטיר לבונתה בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת לאכול שיריה למחר או כזית משיריה למחר להקטיר קומצה למחר או כזית מקומצה למחר או להקטיר לבונה למחר

MISHNA: With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard, to burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple courtyard, or to burn its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases the offering is unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it. If one had the intent to partake of its remainder on the next day or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder on the next day, to burn its handful on the next day or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful on the next day, or to burn its frankincense on the next day,