This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
When a Kohen performs the kemitza, the presence of a pebble, a grain of salt, or a shard of frankincense within the handful renders the offering invalid. This is because the Torah requires a precise “handful,” and these foreign objects either displace the necessary flour (making it “missing”). The Gemara explains the need for the Mishna to bring all these examples. Rava explains that kemitza is performed with all five fingers. Abaye questions this from a braita that explains the need for all five fingers, as can be seen from the name of each of the fingers. The fourth finger is called kemitza, implying that only the three middle fingers are used for kemitza. To resolve this Rava explains that all five fingers are used but not all for the scooping. The kohen extends his three middle fingers over his palm to gather the dough, while simultaneously using his thumb and pinky to level the scoop by wiping away any excess flour protruding from the edges. This ensures the volume is exactly the capacity of his palm. This is one of the most difficult actions to be performed in the Temple, among them melika and chafina.
Rav Papa questions whether non-traditional methods – such as scooping with the fingertips facing down, or in other atypical ways, are valid, ultimately leaving these queries unresolved. He also questions different methods of chafina of the incense that the kohen gadol does on Yom Kippur. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi question atypical ways of placing the kometz in the sanctified vessel. All these questions are left unresolved.
If there is too much oil or too little added to the mincha offering it is disqualified. There is a discussion about how much is too much and in what cases does it disqualify. Regarding the frankincense (levona), there is a dispute regarding the minimum amount required for the offering to remain valid. Rabbi Meir holds that a full handful must be present, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon allow for a reduction to two granules or even a single granule, respectively. There is a debate about whether these three opinions are only relevant in frankincense brought as a supplement to a meal offering or also when the frankincense is brought as its own offering.
The validity of the meal offering is also tied to the kohen’s mental intent (machshava). If the kohen intends, while taking the kometz (parallel to the act of slaughtering an animal) to eat the remains or burn the handful of the meal offering or the frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified but does not carry the penalty of karet. However, if he intends to consume or burn the offering outside its designated timeframe (the following day), the offering becomes pigul. This status not only invalidates the sacrifice but also makes anyone who eats it liable for the punishment of karet.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Menachot 11
אוֹ קוֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה – פָּסוּל. כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי?
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.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא צְרוֹר – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו בַּת הַקְרָבָה הִיא, אֲבָל מֶלַח דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא – אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר.
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.
וְאִי תְּנָא מֶלַח, דְּלָא אִיקְּבַע בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא (שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹלֵחַ אֶלָּא הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּלְבַד), אֲבָל לְבוֹנָה דְּאִיקְּבַע בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא – אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: הַקּוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר אוֹ הַיָּתֵר פָּסוּל. מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם חָסֵר וְיָתֵר? וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִן הַצַּד.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: כֵּיצַד קוֹמְצִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּדְקָמְצִי אִינָשֵׁי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: זוֹ זֶרֶת, זוֹ קְמִיצָה.
§ 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.
זוֹ אַמָּה, זוֹ אֶצְבַּע, זוֹ גּוּדָל.
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.
אֶלָּא לְהַשְׁווֹת, (כְּלוֹמַר, קוֹמֵץ מְלֹא הַיָּד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חָסֵר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹחֵק בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה מִלְּמַטָּה).
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.
הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה, אָמַר רַב: חוֹפֶה שְׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ עַל פַּס יָדוֹ, וְקוֹמֵץ.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ – יָכוֹל מְבוֹרָץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״.
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.
אִי בְּקֻמְצוֹ, יָכוֹל בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״, הָא כֵּיצַד? חוֹפֶה שְׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ וְקוֹמֵץ.
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.
בְּמַחֲבַת וּבְמַרְחֶשֶׁת, מוֹחֵק בְּגוּדָלוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה וּבְאֶצְבָּעוֹ קְטַנָּה מִלְּמַטָּה, וְזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
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.
זֶהוּ וְתוּ לָא? וְהָאִיכָּא מְלִיקָה, וְהָאִיכָּא חֲפִינָה! אֶלָּא זוֹ הִיא אַחַת מֵעֲבוֹדוֹת קָשׁוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ כִּדְקָמְצִי אִינָשֵׁי. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: קָמַץ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, מַאי?
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?
מִן הַצְּדָדִין, מַאי? מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
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 stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ כִּדְחָפְנִי אִינָשֵׁי. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: חָפַן בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מַהוּ? מִן הַצְּדָדִין מַהוּ? חָפַן בְּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ וְקֵרְבָן זוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: דַּבְּקֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּדַפְנֵיהּ דְּמָנָא, מַאי? תּוֹךְ כְּלִי בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא הַנָּחָה בְּתוֹכוֹ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
בָּעֵי מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַפְכֵיהּ לְמָנָא, וְדַבְּקֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּאַרְעִיתָא דְּמָנָא, מַאי? הַנָּחָה בְּתוֹכוֹ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּתִיקְנוֹ בָּעִינַן, וְלֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? פּוֹשֵׁט אֶת אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ. רִיבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ, חִסֵּר שַׁמְנָהּ, חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָמֵי רִיבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין. וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן דְּעָרֵיב בָּהּ שֶׁמֶן דְּחוּלִּין וָשֶׁמֶן דַּחֲבֶירְתַּהּ!
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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, שֶׁמֶן דְּחוּלִּין וָשֶׁמֶן דַּחֲבֶירְתַּהּ לָא פָּסֵל, מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דְּפָסֵל בָּהּ שֶׁמֶן, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
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?
אִי דִּידַהּ – הָא לֵית לַהּ, אִי דְּחוּלִּין וְדַחֲבֶירְתַּהּ – הָא אָמְרַתְּ לָא פָּסֵל, (וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאַפְרֵישׁ לֵהּ שֶׁמֶן – כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּלָל, חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ).
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.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא דְּחוּלִּין וְדַחֲבֶירְתַּהּ דְּפָסֵיל, אֲבָל הִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין, הוֹאִיל וְהַאי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ וְהַאי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא לִיפְּסִיל – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
וּמְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָא? אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״רִיבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ״? לִיתְנֵי ״רִיבָּה לָהּ שֶׁמֶן״! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין.
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.
חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָסְרָה וְעָמְדָה עַל קוֹרֶט אֶחָד – פְּסוּלָה, עַל שְׁנֵי קְרָטִין – כְּשֵׁרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַל קוֹרֶט אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה, פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן – פְּסוּלָה.
§ 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.
וְהָתַנְיָא (רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר): קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּסוּל. תְּנִי: קוֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה שֶׁחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּסוּל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כָּאן בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, כָּאן בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקֹת בַּדָּבָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: קוֹמֵץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֵץ בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וּשְׁנֵי קְרָטִין בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹרֶט אֶחָד בַּסּוֹף.
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.
וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: עַד דְּאִיתָא לִלְבוֹנָה דְּאִיקְּבַעָה בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״כׇּל״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ חַד קוֹרֶט, ״אֶת״ – לְרַבּוֹת קוֹרֶט אַחֵר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן ״אֶת״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
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 include 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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֶץ בַּסּוֹף. לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״, דְּבַהֲדֵי מִנְחָה – אִין, בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – לָא.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בַּתְּחִילָּה, וּשְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בַּסּוֹף.
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.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּבַהֲדֵי לֶחֶם אָתְיָא, כַּ״אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֶץ בַּסּוֹף, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.
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.
חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ – הָא יָתֵיר כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהָתַנְיָא: יָתֵיר פְּסוּלָה! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין.
§ 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.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין, וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה – לֹא הוּקְבְּעוּ, אַחַר קְמִיצָה – הוּקְבְּעוּ.
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.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִפְרִישׁ אַרְבָּעָה קְמָצִין לִשְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין, וְאָבְדוּ שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם סִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין – לָא הוּקְבְּעוּ, לְאַחַר סִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין – הוּקְבְּעוּ.
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.
הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ הָךְ!
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.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּבְרִיר קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפוֹרְקָהּ – כְּמַאן דִּפְרִיקָה דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כְּזַיִת קוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִקּוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר –
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menahot 11: A Fistful of Grain, with Frankincense on the Side
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Berlin, Germany
Menachot 11
אוֹ קוֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה – פָּסוּל. כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי?
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.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא צְרוֹר – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו בַּת הַקְרָבָה הִיא, אֲבָל מֶלַח דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא – אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר.
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.
וְאִי תְּנָא מֶלַח, דְּלָא אִיקְּבַע בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא (שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹלֵחַ אֶלָּא הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּלְבַד), אֲבָל לְבוֹנָה דְּאִיקְּבַע בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא – אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: הַקּוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר אוֹ הַיָּתֵר פָּסוּל. מַאי אִירְיָא מִשּׁוּם חָסֵר וְיָתֵר? וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִן הַצַּד.
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: כֵּיצַד קוֹמְצִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּדְקָמְצִי אִינָשֵׁי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: זוֹ זֶרֶת, זוֹ קְמִיצָה.
§ 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.
זוֹ אַמָּה, זוֹ אֶצְבַּע, זוֹ גּוּדָל.
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.
אֶלָּא לְהַשְׁווֹת, (כְּלוֹמַר, קוֹמֵץ מְלֹא הַיָּד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חָסֵר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹחֵק בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה מִלְּמַטָּה).
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.
הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה, אָמַר רַב: חוֹפֶה שְׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ עַל פַּס יָדוֹ, וְקוֹמֵץ.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ – יָכוֹל מְבוֹרָץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״.
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.
אִי בְּקֻמְצוֹ, יָכוֹל בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״, הָא כֵּיצַד? חוֹפֶה שְׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ וְקוֹמֵץ.
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.
בְּמַחֲבַת וּבְמַרְחֶשֶׁת, מוֹחֵק בְּגוּדָלוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה וּבְאֶצְבָּעוֹ קְטַנָּה מִלְּמַטָּה, וְזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
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.
זֶהוּ וְתוּ לָא? וְהָאִיכָּא מְלִיקָה, וְהָאִיכָּא חֲפִינָה! אֶלָּא זוֹ הִיא אַחַת מֵעֲבוֹדוֹת קָשׁוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ כִּדְקָמְצִי אִינָשֵׁי. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: קָמַץ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, מַאי?
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?
מִן הַצְּדָדִין, מַאי? מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
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 stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ כִּדְחָפְנִי אִינָשֵׁי. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: חָפַן בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו מַהוּ? מִן הַצְּדָדִין מַהוּ? חָפַן בְּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ וְקֵרְבָן זוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: דַּבְּקֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּדַפְנֵיהּ דְּמָנָא, מַאי? תּוֹךְ כְּלִי בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא הַנָּחָה בְּתוֹכוֹ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
בָּעֵי מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַפְכֵיהּ לְמָנָא, וְדַבְּקֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּאַרְעִיתָא דְּמָנָא, מַאי? הַנָּחָה בְּתוֹכוֹ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּתִיקְנוֹ בָּעִינַן, וְלֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? פּוֹשֵׁט אֶת אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ. רִיבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ, חִסֵּר שַׁמְנָהּ, חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָמֵי רִיבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין. וְלוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן דְּעָרֵיב בָּהּ שֶׁמֶן דְּחוּלִּין וָשֶׁמֶן דַּחֲבֶירְתַּהּ!
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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, שֶׁמֶן דְּחוּלִּין וָשֶׁמֶן דַּחֲבֶירְתַּהּ לָא פָּסֵל, מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דְּפָסֵל בָּהּ שֶׁמֶן, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
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?
אִי דִּידַהּ – הָא לֵית לַהּ, אִי דְּחוּלִּין וְדַחֲבֶירְתַּהּ – הָא אָמְרַתְּ לָא פָּסֵל, (וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאַפְרֵישׁ לֵהּ שֶׁמֶן – כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּלָל, חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ).
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.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא דְּחוּלִּין וְדַחֲבֶירְתַּהּ דְּפָסֵיל, אֲבָל הִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין, הוֹאִיל וְהַאי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ וְהַאי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא לִיפְּסִיל – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
וּמְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָא? אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״רִיבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ״? לִיתְנֵי ״רִיבָּה לָהּ שֶׁמֶן״! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין.
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.
חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָסְרָה וְעָמְדָה עַל קוֹרֶט אֶחָד – פְּסוּלָה, עַל שְׁנֵי קְרָטִין – כְּשֵׁרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַל קוֹרֶט אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה, פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן – פְּסוּלָה.
§ 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.
וְהָתַנְיָא (רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר): קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּסוּל. תְּנִי: קוֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה שֶׁחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּסוּל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כָּאן בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, כָּאן בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקֹת בַּדָּבָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: קוֹמֵץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֵץ בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וּשְׁנֵי קְרָטִין בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹרֶט אֶחָד בַּסּוֹף.
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.
וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: עַד דְּאִיתָא לִלְבוֹנָה דְּאִיקְּבַעָה בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״כׇּל״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ חַד קוֹרֶט, ״אֶת״ – לְרַבּוֹת קוֹרֶט אַחֵר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן ״אֶת״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
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 include 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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֶץ בַּסּוֹף. לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״, דְּבַהֲדֵי מִנְחָה – אִין, בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – לָא.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בַּתְּחִילָּה, וּשְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בַּסּוֹף.
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.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּבַהֲדֵי לֶחֶם אָתְיָא, כַּ״אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֶץ בַּסּוֹף, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.
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.
חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ – הָא יָתֵיר כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהָתַנְיָא: יָתֵיר פְּסוּלָה! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין.
§ 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.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין, וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה – לֹא הוּקְבְּעוּ, אַחַר קְמִיצָה – הוּקְבְּעוּ.
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.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִפְרִישׁ אַרְבָּעָה קְמָצִין לִשְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין, וְאָבְדוּ שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם סִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין – לָא הוּקְבְּעוּ, לְאַחַר סִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין – הוּקְבְּעוּ.
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.
הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ הָךְ!
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.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּבְרִיר קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפוֹרְקָהּ – כְּמַאן דִּפְרִיקָה דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כְּזַיִת קוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִקּוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר –
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,
