Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 21, 2018 | 讬壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 11

How exactly was the act of聽kmitza performed? There are things that can be added or detracted that can disqualify the offering – what are they? Quantities of various items that can disqualify聽 including the oil and frankincense are discussed. Factors that affect this also relate to at what point in the process the item was there or not there.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讜 拽讜专讟 诇讘讜谞讛 驻住讜诇 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

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.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 爪专讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诪诇讞 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专

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鈥檚 measure.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪诇讞 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注 讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诇讞 讗诇讗 讛拽讜诪抓 讘诇讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讘讜谞讛 讚讗讬拽讘注 讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And if the mishna had taught only the example of salt, it might have been thought that the salt diminishes the handful鈥檚 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鈥檚 measure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in any of these instances the meal offering is unfit.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛拽讜诪抓 讛讞住专 讗讜 讛讬转专 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讞住专 讜讬转专 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪谉 讛爪讚

搂 The mishna teaches that if a stone, or a grain of salt, or a pinch of frankincense emerged in the priest鈥檚 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鈥檚 hand and the handful. Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since there are certain instances where these items do not interpose between one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讻讬爪讚 拽讜诪爪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讝讜 讝专转 讝讜 拽诪讬爪讛

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.

讝讜 讗诪讛 讝讜 讗爪讘注 讝讜 讙讜讚诇

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.

讗诇讗 诇讛砖讜讜转 讻诇讜诪专 拽讜诪抓 诪诇讗 讛讬讚 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞住专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜讞拽 讘讗爪讘注 拽讟谞讛 诪诇诪讟讛

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.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讜驻讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 注诇 驻住 讬讚讜 讜拽讜诪抓

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 诪讘讜专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽诪爪讜

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

讗讬 讘拽诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞讜驻讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注诇 驻住 讬讚讜 讜拽讜诪抓

The baraita continues: If the measurement of a handful is determined by the term 鈥渨ith his handful,鈥 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: 鈥淗is handful,鈥 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.

讘诪讞讘转 讜讘诪专讞砖转 诪讜讞拽 讘讙讜讚诇讜 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗爪讘注讜 拽讟谞讛 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 拽砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

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.

讝讛讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞驻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 讗讞转 诪注讘讜讚讜转 拽砖讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest sacrificial rite, and no other? But isn鈥檛 there pinching the nape of the neck of a bird offering, which is also considered extremely difficult to perform, and isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪抓 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讗讬

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the term 鈥渉is handful鈥 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?

诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讗讬 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讻讚讞驻谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞驻谉 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讛讜 讞驻谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜拽专讘谉 讝讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: 鈥淗is handful鈥 (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.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讚驻谞讬讛 讚诪谞讗 诪讗讬 转讜讱 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛驻讻讬讛 诇诪谞讗 讜讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讗专注讬转讗 讚诪谞讗 诪讗讬 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻转讬拽谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 驻讜砖讟 讗转 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注诇 驻住 讬讚讜 专讬讘讛 砖诪谞讛 讞住专 砖诪谞讛 讞讬住专 诇讘讜谞转讛 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 专讬讘讛 砖诪谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诇讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚注专讬讘 讘讛 砖诪谉 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讚讞讘讬专转讛

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖诪谉 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讚讞讘讬专转讛 诇讗 驻住诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚驻住诇 讘讛 砖诪谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

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?

讗讬 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讗讬 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讚讞讘讬专转讛 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 驻住诇 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖诪谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛 砖诪谉 讻诇诇 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讚讞讘讬专转讛 讚驻住讬诇 讗讘诇 讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬驻住讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讬讘讛 砖诪谞讛 诇讬转谞讬 专讬讘讛 诇讛 砖诪谉 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉

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.

讞讬住专 诇讘讜谞转讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞住专讛 讜注诪讚讛 注诇 拽讜专讟 讗讞讚 驻住讜诇讛 注诇 砖谞讬 拽专讟讬谉 讻砖专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注诇 拽讜专讟 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 驻住讜诇讛

搂 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讜诪抓 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 转谞讬 拽讜专讟 诇讘讜谞讛 砖讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讻讗谉 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讚讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜诪抓 讘住讜祝 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬 拽专讟讬谉 讘住讜祝 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜专讟 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There are three disputes of tanna鈥檌m 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.

讜砖诇砖转谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讗转 讻诇 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 注讚 讚讗讬转讗 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讚讗讬拽讘注讛 讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讻诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 拽讜专讟 讗转 诇专讘讜转 拽讜专讟 讗讞专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗转 诇讗 讚专讬砖

And all three of them interpret a single verse differently. The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall take up from there his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of the oil of it, and [ve鈥檈t] all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering, and shall make it smoke upon the altar鈥 (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: 鈥淎ll [kol],鈥 it is referring to any part of the frankincense, even a single pinch, as kol can mean any amount (see II聽Kings 2:4). And when the verse states: Et,鈥 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 鈥渁ll鈥 in the same manner as does Rabbi Yehuda, but he does not interpret and derive a halakha from the term et,鈥 and he therefore holds that only one pinch must remain to be burned.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜诪抓 讘住讜祝 诇讛讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讚讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 诇讗

And Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef further says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between these tanna鈥檌m 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: 鈥淭hat is upon the meal offering,鈥 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉 讘住讜祝

And Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between these tanna鈥檌m 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛讚讬 诇讞诐 讗转讬讗 讻讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淔rankincense that is upon the meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:8), and therefore Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that one may sacrifice it even if less than two handfuls remain. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef teaches us that this is not the case.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜诪抓 讘住讜祝 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 disagree with regard to the case of frankincense that comes by itself. One says that the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讞讬住专 诇讘讜谞转讛 讛讗 讬转讬专 讻砖专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬转讬专 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉

搂 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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if he increased its frankincense the meal offering is disqualified? Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讜讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉 讜讗讘讚 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讗 讛讜拽讘注讜 讗讞专 拽诪讬爪讛 讛讜拽讘注讜

And Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讜讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛驻专讬砖 讗专讘注讛 拽诪爪讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讗讘讚讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 住讬诇讜拽 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗 讛讜拽讘注讜 诇讗讞专 住讬诇讜拽 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讛讜拽讘注讜

And Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this? This statement of Rami bar 岣ma 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专讬专 拽讜诪抓 讚讬讚讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇驻讜专拽讛 讻诪讗谉 讚驻专讬拽讛 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: The last statement of Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣ma 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 拽讜诪爪讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪砖讬专讬讛 诇诪讞专 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪拽讜诪爪讛 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 诇诪讞专

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,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 11

讗讜 拽讜专讟 诇讘讜谞讛 驻住讜诇 讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

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.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 爪专讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诪诇讞 讚讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专

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鈥檚 measure.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪诇讞 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注 讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诇讞 讗诇讗 讛拽讜诪抓 讘诇讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讘讜谞讛 讚讗讬拽讘注 讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And if the mishna had taught only the example of salt, it might have been thought that the salt diminishes the handful鈥檚 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鈥檚 measure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in any of these instances the meal offering is unfit.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛拽讜诪抓 讛讞住专 讗讜 讛讬转专 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讞住专 讜讬转专 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪谉 讛爪讚

搂 The mishna teaches that if a stone, or a grain of salt, or a pinch of frankincense emerged in the priest鈥檚 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鈥檚 hand and the handful. Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since there are certain instances where these items do not interpose between one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讻讬爪讚 拽讜诪爪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讝讜 讝专转 讝讜 拽诪讬爪讛

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.

讝讜 讗诪讛 讝讜 讗爪讘注 讝讜 讙讜讚诇

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.

讗诇讗 诇讛砖讜讜转 讻诇讜诪专 拽讜诪抓 诪诇讗 讛讬讚 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞住专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜讞拽 讘讗爪讘注 拽讟谞讛 诪诇诪讟讛

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.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讜驻讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 注诇 驻住 讬讚讜 讜拽讜诪抓

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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 诪讘讜专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽诪爪讜

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

讗讬 讘拽诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞讜驻讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注诇 驻住 讬讚讜 讜拽讜诪抓

The baraita continues: If the measurement of a handful is determined by the term 鈥渨ith his handful,鈥 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: 鈥淗is handful,鈥 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.

讘诪讞讘转 讜讘诪专讞砖转 诪讜讞拽 讘讙讜讚诇讜 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗爪讘注讜 拽讟谞讛 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 拽砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

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.

讝讛讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞驻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 讗讞转 诪注讘讜讚讜转 拽砖讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest sacrificial rite, and no other? But isn鈥檛 there pinching the nape of the neck of a bird offering, which is also considered extremely difficult to perform, and isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪抓 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讗讬

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the term 鈥渉is handful鈥 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?

诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讗讬 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讻讚讞驻谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞驻谉 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讛讜 讞驻谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜拽专讘谉 讝讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: 鈥淗is handful鈥 (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.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讚驻谞讬讛 讚诪谞讗 诪讗讬 转讜讱 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛驻讻讬讛 诇诪谞讗 讜讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讗专注讬转讗 讚诪谞讗 诪讗讬 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻转讬拽谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 驻讜砖讟 讗转 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注诇 驻住 讬讚讜 专讬讘讛 砖诪谞讛 讞住专 砖诪谞讛 讞讬住专 诇讘讜谞转讛 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 专讬讘讛 砖诪谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诇讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚注专讬讘 讘讛 砖诪谉 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讚讞讘讬专转讛

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖诪谉 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讚讞讘讬专转讛 诇讗 驻住诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚驻住诇 讘讛 砖诪谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

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?

讗讬 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讗讬 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讚讞讘讬专转讛 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 驻住诇 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讗驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖诪谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛 砖诪谉 讻诇诇 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜讚讞讘讬专转讛 讚驻住讬诇 讗讘诇 讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬驻住讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讬讘讛 砖诪谞讛 诇讬转谞讬 专讬讘讛 诇讛 砖诪谉 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉

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.

讞讬住专 诇讘讜谞转讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞住专讛 讜注诪讚讛 注诇 拽讜专讟 讗讞讚 驻住讜诇讛 注诇 砖谞讬 拽专讟讬谉 讻砖专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注诇 拽讜专讟 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 驻住讜诇讛

搂 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讜诪抓 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 转谞讬 拽讜专讟 诇讘讜谞讛 砖讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讻讗谉 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讚讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜诪抓 讘住讜祝 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬 拽专讟讬谉 讘住讜祝 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜专讟 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There are three disputes of tanna鈥檌m 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.

讜砖诇砖转谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讗转 讻诇 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 注讚 讚讗讬转讗 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讚讗讬拽讘注讛 讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讻诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 拽讜专讟 讗转 诇专讘讜转 拽讜专讟 讗讞专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗转 诇讗 讚专讬砖

And all three of them interpret a single verse differently. The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall take up from there his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of the oil of it, and [ve鈥檈t] all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering, and shall make it smoke upon the altar鈥 (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: 鈥淎ll [kol],鈥 it is referring to any part of the frankincense, even a single pinch, as kol can mean any amount (see II聽Kings 2:4). And when the verse states: Et,鈥 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 鈥渁ll鈥 in the same manner as does Rabbi Yehuda, but he does not interpret and derive a halakha from the term et,鈥 and he therefore holds that only one pinch must remain to be burned.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜诪抓 讘住讜祝 诇讛讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讚讘讛讚讬 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 诇讗

And Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef further says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between these tanna鈥檌m 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: 鈥淭hat is upon the meal offering,鈥 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉 讘住讜祝

And Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between these tanna鈥檌m 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛讚讬 诇讞诐 讗转讬讗 讻讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淔rankincense that is upon the meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:8), and therefore Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that one may sacrifice it even if less than two handfuls remain. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef teaches us that this is not the case.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 拽讜诪抓 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜拽讜诪抓 讘住讜祝 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 disagree with regard to the case of frankincense that comes by itself. One says that the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讞讬住专 诇讘讜谞转讛 讛讗 讬转讬专 讻砖专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬转讬专 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉

搂 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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if he increased its frankincense the meal offering is disqualified? Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讜讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛驻专讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 拽诪爪讬谉 讜讗讘讚 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讗 讛讜拽讘注讜 讗讞专 拽诪讬爪讛 讛讜拽讘注讜

And Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讜讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛驻专讬砖 讗专讘注讛 拽诪爪讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讗讘讚讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 住讬诇讜拽 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗 讛讜拽讘注讜 诇讗讞专 住讬诇讜拽 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讛讜拽讘注讜

And Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this? This statement of Rami bar 岣ma 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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专讬专 拽讜诪抓 讚讬讚讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇驻讜专拽讛 讻诪讗谉 讚驻专讬拽讛 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: The last statement of Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣ma 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 拽讜诪爪讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪砖讬专讬讛 诇诪讞专 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪拽讜诪爪讛 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 诇诪讞专

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,

Scroll To Top