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.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Miller Rotenberg family in loving memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller on her 21st yahrzeit. “We honor and celebrate her memory by continuing the paths she forged, keeping her love of community, chesed, Israel, and learning, alive and vibrant.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara explains the braita in a different way than previously to show that there is really no Tannaitic opinion that Rabbi Eliezer holds one is liable for karet if they have a pigul thought to eat something normally burned or burn something normally eaten. They explain that the braita is highlighting a three-way debate between tanna kama, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbl Elazar ben Shammua about whether in a case of someone who has a thought to leave over part of the blood until the next day without sprinkling it, would both the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer agree that is it valid, invalid or do they disagree as they do in the previous case.
A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yehuda’s position from an intruiging story in which his position is mentioned in an interaction between Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua and Yosef the Babylonian, who repeatedly questioned Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua on this very point. The story was witnessed and told by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi when he went to the Beit Midrash of Rabbi Elazar to either learn his positions on various topics or to garner wisdom from him. In the end, the difficulty is resolved.
The conclusion of the Gemara leads to the understanding the Rabbi Eliezer disqualified an offering with a thought to eat something that is normally burned, as a rabbinic ordinance.
The Mishna lists various parts of the mincha offering that are not essential. The Gemara explains that when it lists pouring the oil as a non-essential action, that cannot be right, as it is essential. Therefore, they explain it must mean it can be done by a non-kohen. However, the next item in the Mishna, one does not need to mix, must be understood literally, i.e. is not essential at all, as is proven from a different sugya. The Mishna in Menachot 104a teaches that that one may volunteer a meal offering of up to sixty esronim (tenths of an ephah) in a single vessel, because sixty tenths can be properly mixed with a log (a liquid measure) of oil. However, if one volunteers sixty-one tenths, they must be brought in two separate vessels, as such a large quantity cannot be effectively mixed. Rabbi Zeira establishes a fundamental principle: “Anything that is fit for mixing, the lack of mixing does not invalidate it; but anything that is not fit for mixing, the lack of mixing invalidates it.” This means that as long as it is physically possible to perform the mitzva of mixing, the offering is valid even if the mixing wasn’t actually done. But if the quantity is so large (61 tenths) that mixing is physically impossible, the offering is disqualified even if the kohen attempts to proceed without mixing. From here it is clear, it does not need to be mixed.
The Gemara suggests, and then conclusively proves, that the Mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who rules in a braita that pouring the oil must be performed by a kohen. Rav Nachman attempts to reconcile Rabbi Shimon with the Mishna, but Rava rejects his suggestion.
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.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Miller Rotenberg family in loving memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller on her 21st yahrzeit. “We honor and celebrate her memory by continuing the paths she forged, keeping her love of community, chesed, Israel, and learning, alive and vibrant.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Aliza Avshalom in honor of her father, David Bellehsen’s 90th birthday! “And still you get up every day and learn the daf. May Hashem give you continuing health and happiness – I can’t wait to get to the siyum together! Thank you for all you are for me.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rozy Jaffe in loving memory of her mother Dita Muhlrad, Dobe Faige bat Menachem, who passed away ten years ago. “Not a day goes by that we don’t think of her and quote her sharp witticisms and life lessons. She generously devoted herself to her family and community. Yehi zichra baruch.”
Menachot 18
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? גְּזֵירָה מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ אַטּוּ כׇּל דָּמוֹ, וְכׇל דָּמוֹ פְּסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is to leave of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit. What is the reason for this? It is a rabbinic decree disqualifying the offering when some of its blood is left over until the next day due to the concern that a priest may intend to leave over all of its blood, and if one’s intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law.
דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי שֶׁאִם הִנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר שֶׁפָּסוּל? חִישֵּׁב לְהַנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר נָמֵי פָּסוּל.
As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that if he left the blood until the next day without presenting it, that the offering is unfit? Therefore, if he intended to leave the blood until the next day, it is also unfit.
וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימֵר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit and the Rabbis deem it fit, as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי: כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתַי אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, מָצָאתִי יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי יוֹשֵׁב לְפָנָיו, וְהָיָה חָבִיב לוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר, עַד לְאַחַת אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר מַהוּ?
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one’s intention is to leave some of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua to clarify my knowledge, and some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to clarify the knowledge of, i.e., study under, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, I found Yosef the Babylonian sitting before Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. And every ruling that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua taught was especially dear to him, until they began discussing one halakha, when Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, with regard to one who slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, what is the halakha?
אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. עַרְבִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. שַׁחֲרִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. צׇהֳרַיִם אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. מִנְחָה אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: The offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian repeated this question that evening, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. He asked again the following morning, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. Once again, he asked this question at noon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. When he asked the question a further time that late afternoon, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: I hold that the offering is fit, but Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit. Yosef the Babylonian’s face lit up [tzahavu panav] with joy.
אָמַר לוֹ: יוֹסֵף, כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא כִּיוַּונְנוּ שְׁמוּעָתֵינוּ עַד עָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הֵן! אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פָּסוּל שָׁנָה לִי, וְחָזַרְתִּי עַל כׇּל תַּלְמִידָיו וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לִי חָבֵר וְלֹא מָצָאתִי, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁשָּׁנִיתָ לִי פָּסוּל – הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: Yosef, it seems to me that our, i.e., my, halakhot were not accurate until now, when I said that the offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, yes, I agree that the offering is fit, as you said. But my reluctance to accept your statement was due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught me that the offering is unfit, and I went around to all of Rabbi Yehuda’s disciples, seeking another disciple who had also heard this from him, but I could not find one, and thought that I must have been mistaken. Now that you have taught me that Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, you have returned to me that which I had lost.
זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, אָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה חֲבִיבִין עֲלֵיכֶם בְּיוֹתֵר, קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״מָה אָהַבְתִּי תוֹרָתֶךָ כׇּל הַיּוֹם הִיא שִׂיחָתִי וְגוֹ׳״, הָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לְפִיכָךְ שָׁנָה לְךָ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s eyes streamed with tears, and he said: Happy are you, Torah scholars, for whom matters of Torah are exceedingly dear. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua recited this verse about Yosef the Babylonian: “O how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 119:97). He continued: Because Rabbi Yehuda is the son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Elai is the student of Rabbi Eliezer, therefore Rabbi Yehuda taught you the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer that the offering is unfit.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל אַתְנְיֵיהּ, מַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? אִיהוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara explains its objection: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit, what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: You have returned to me that which I had lost? Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had said to him only that whether the offering is rendered unfit is subject to a dispute, and Yosef the Babylonian would have been taught that all agree that it is unfit.
אֶלָּא מַאי, כָּשֵׁר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (פָּסוּל) פּוֹסֵל אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִי הָכִי, מַאי הָא מִפְּנֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא? אֲנַן נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא קָא מַתְנִינַן!
Rather, what is it that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian? Did he teach him that the Rabbis deem the offering fit and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit? If that is so, what did Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua mean when he said that it was only because Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Elai, who was the student of Rabbi Eliezer, that Rabbi Yehuda taught this dispute? According to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, we too teach this dispute. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught both opinions in a dispute does not require justification.
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ, וּמַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? (דהדר) [דְּאַהְדַּר] לֵיהּ מִיהָא שׁוּם פַּסְלוּת בָּעוֹלָם.
Rather, it must be that actually, Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit; and what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said: You have returned to me that which I had lost? He meant that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had in any event returned to him that there is some opinion in the world concerning the unfitness of the offering if one’s intention was to leave over the blood until the next day. His answer reassured Yosef the Babylonian that there is in fact such an opinion.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יָצַק, לֹא בָּלַל, וְלֹא פָּתַת, וְלֹא מֶלַח, וְלֹא הֵנִיף, לֹא הִגִּישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת, וְלֹא מְשָׁחָן – כְּשֵׁירָה.
MISHNA: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, or did not mix the oil into the meal offering, or did not break the loaves into pieces, or did not add salt, or did not wave the omer meal offering or the meal offering of a sota, or did not bring the meal offering to the altar, or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces than appropriate, or did not smear oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is fit.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״לֹא יָצַק״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יָצַק כְּלָל – עִיכּוּבָא כְּתַב בָּהּ! אֶלָּא, לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר. אִי הָכִי, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ נָמֵי – לֹא בָּלַל כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר, הָא לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל – פְּסוּלָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it states that if one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, the meal offering is fit? If we say that it means that he did not pour oil at all, that is difficult: Doesn’t the verse write with regard to the pouring of the oil that doing so is indispensable? Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour it. The Gemara notes: If so, that the first clause of the mishna is understood in this manner, then the next halakha in the mishna: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, should also be understood as referring to a case where a priest did not mix the oil into the meal offering, but a non-priest did mix it, so it is fit. This would indicate that if one did not mix the oil into the meal offering at all, the meal offering is unfit.
וְהָתְנַן: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין, וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי אֵינָם נִבְלָלִין מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – כְּשֵׁרָה!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (103b): One who volunteers to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths of an ephah of flour must bring a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel and a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah in a second vessel, because sixty tenths of an ephah of flour can be properly mixed with a log of oil but sixty-one tenths cannot be properly mixed with the oil. And we discussed it and asked: Even if sixty-one tenths of an ephah do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna here that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil into the meal offering, if one did not mix the oil into it, the meal offering is still fit?
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.
And Rabbi Zeira said the following explanation: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ: ״לֹא יָצַק״ – לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן אֶלָּא זָר, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל.
The Gemara refutes this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. When the mishna states: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, it is referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering but a non-priest did pour it. When it states: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, it means he did not mix the oil at all.
אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשְׁתָּא לֹא פָּתַת כְּלָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת״? שֶׁרִיבָּה בִּפְתִיתִין.
§ The mishna teaches: Or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces [pittim merubbot] than appropriate, the meal offering is fit. The Gemara asks: Now that it has already been stated in the mishna that if one did not break the loaves into pieces at all the meal offering is fit, is it necessary to state that if one broke the meal offering into greater pieces than appropriate the meal offering is fit? The Gemara answers: What does the expression pittin merubbot mean? It means that he increased [ribba] the amount of the meal offering’s pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת אִיכָּא וְלָא תּוֹרַת פְּתִיתִין אִיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is actually referring literally to large pieces [pittim merubbot], and it was necessary to teach this explicitly, lest you say that the meal offering is fit there, when the loaves are not broken, since they have the status of loaves, but here, when the loaves are broken into excessively large pieces and no longer have the status of loaves, as they have been broken up, but still do not have the status of pieces, as they are not the correct size, the offering is not fit. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha explicitly.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״ – מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה.
§ Based on the Gemara’s earlier inference that when the mishna states that the meal offering is valid even if the priest did not pour the oil it is referring to a case where a non-priest did perform this action, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This teaches that one who admits to the validity of the sacrificial rites and accepts responsibility for them has a portion in the priestly gifts, but one who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites does not have a portion in the priestly gifts.
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת –
The baraita continues: And I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not admit to the validity of these rites of the presenting of the blood or the burning of the fats alone, which are the sacrificial rites of a slaughtered offering, as those rites are enumerated in the verse. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of the fifteen sacrificial rites performed by the priests?
הַיְּצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת, וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת, וְהַקְטָרוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת, וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת, וְהַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, מִנַּיִן?
The baraita clarifies: These are the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of oil, the mixing, the breaking, the salting, the waving, the bringing of the offering to the altar, the removal of the handful, and the burning of the handful on the altar. And it includes other rites as well: The pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering, and the receiving of the blood in a vessel, and the sprinkling of the blood, and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck, and the purification of a leper, and lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of these rites?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, עֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה!
The baraita continues: The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” teaching that with regard to any sacrificial rite that is entrusted to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to its validity does not have a portion in the priestly gifts. Since the pouring of the oil is included in the list of sacrificial rites entrusted to the priests, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering should not be fit if this service was performed by a non-priest.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר. מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים דְּלָאו בַּת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. There, in the baraita, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the meal offering of priests, whereas here, in the mishna, the context is a meal offering of an Israelite. In the case of a meal offering of an Israelite, which is one that requires the removal of a handful to be burned on the altar, a verse teaches that from the stage of the removal of the handful onward, the rites performed with the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest. By contrast, the meal offering of priests, which is one that does not require the removal of a handful, as the entire meal offering is burned on the altar, requires that from the outset the rites must be performed by a member of the priesthood; otherwise it is unfit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר!
Rava said to him: After all, in the case of the meal offering of priests, from where was it included that there is an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from the halakha of the meal offering of an Israelite, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, just as there the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּנִקְמָצוֹת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת.
There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna teaches that a meal offering is fit if the oil was poured by a non-priest, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is removed, whereas there, in the baraita that lists the pouring of the oil as one of the rites performed by the priests, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי שֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת, מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִנִּקְמָצוֹת, כְּנִקְמָצוֹת – מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rava said to him: After all, in the case of meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, from where was it included that there is also an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from meal offerings from which a handful is removed, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, the halakha with regard to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed is like the halakha with regard to those from which a handful is removed; just as there, the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest. Rather, since Rava deflected Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ״, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who hold that the offering is fit even if the oil was poured by a non-priest? The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful” (Leviticus 2:1–2). From here it is derived that from the removal of the handful onward, the rites of the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן
The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: “Aaron’s sons,
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.
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.
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Berlin, Germany
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
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
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
Menachot 18
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? גְּזֵירָה מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ אַטּוּ כׇּל דָּמוֹ, וְכׇל דָּמוֹ פְּסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is to leave of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit. What is the reason for this? It is a rabbinic decree disqualifying the offering when some of its blood is left over until the next day due to the concern that a priest may intend to leave over all of its blood, and if one’s intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law.
דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי שֶׁאִם הִנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר שֶׁפָּסוּל? חִישֵּׁב לְהַנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר נָמֵי פָּסוּל.
As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that if he left the blood until the next day without presenting it, that the offering is unfit? Therefore, if he intended to leave the blood until the next day, it is also unfit.
וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימֵר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit and the Rabbis deem it fit, as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי: כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתַי אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, מָצָאתִי יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי יוֹשֵׁב לְפָנָיו, וְהָיָה חָבִיב לוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר, עַד לְאַחַת אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר מַהוּ?
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one’s intention is to leave some of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua to clarify my knowledge, and some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to clarify the knowledge of, i.e., study under, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, I found Yosef the Babylonian sitting before Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. And every ruling that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua taught was especially dear to him, until they began discussing one halakha, when Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, with regard to one who slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, what is the halakha?
אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. עַרְבִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. שַׁחֲרִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. צׇהֳרַיִם אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. מִנְחָה אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: The offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian repeated this question that evening, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. He asked again the following morning, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. Once again, he asked this question at noon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. When he asked the question a further time that late afternoon, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: I hold that the offering is fit, but Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit. Yosef the Babylonian’s face lit up [tzahavu panav] with joy.
אָמַר לוֹ: יוֹסֵף, כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא כִּיוַּונְנוּ שְׁמוּעָתֵינוּ עַד עָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הֵן! אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פָּסוּל שָׁנָה לִי, וְחָזַרְתִּי עַל כׇּל תַּלְמִידָיו וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לִי חָבֵר וְלֹא מָצָאתִי, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁשָּׁנִיתָ לִי פָּסוּל – הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: Yosef, it seems to me that our, i.e., my, halakhot were not accurate until now, when I said that the offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, yes, I agree that the offering is fit, as you said. But my reluctance to accept your statement was due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught me that the offering is unfit, and I went around to all of Rabbi Yehuda’s disciples, seeking another disciple who had also heard this from him, but I could not find one, and thought that I must have been mistaken. Now that you have taught me that Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, you have returned to me that which I had lost.
זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, אָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה חֲבִיבִין עֲלֵיכֶם בְּיוֹתֵר, קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״מָה אָהַבְתִּי תוֹרָתֶךָ כׇּל הַיּוֹם הִיא שִׂיחָתִי וְגוֹ׳״, הָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לְפִיכָךְ שָׁנָה לְךָ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s eyes streamed with tears, and he said: Happy are you, Torah scholars, for whom matters of Torah are exceedingly dear. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua recited this verse about Yosef the Babylonian: “O how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 119:97). He continued: Because Rabbi Yehuda is the son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Elai is the student of Rabbi Eliezer, therefore Rabbi Yehuda taught you the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer that the offering is unfit.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל אַתְנְיֵיהּ, מַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? אִיהוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara explains its objection: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit, what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: You have returned to me that which I had lost? Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had said to him only that whether the offering is rendered unfit is subject to a dispute, and Yosef the Babylonian would have been taught that all agree that it is unfit.
אֶלָּא מַאי, כָּשֵׁר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (פָּסוּל) פּוֹסֵל אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִי הָכִי, מַאי הָא מִפְּנֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא? אֲנַן נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא קָא מַתְנִינַן!
Rather, what is it that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian? Did he teach him that the Rabbis deem the offering fit and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit? If that is so, what did Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua mean when he said that it was only because Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Elai, who was the student of Rabbi Eliezer, that Rabbi Yehuda taught this dispute? According to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, we too teach this dispute. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught both opinions in a dispute does not require justification.
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ, וּמַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? (דהדר) [דְּאַהְדַּר] לֵיהּ מִיהָא שׁוּם פַּסְלוּת בָּעוֹלָם.
Rather, it must be that actually, Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit; and what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said: You have returned to me that which I had lost? He meant that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had in any event returned to him that there is some opinion in the world concerning the unfitness of the offering if one’s intention was to leave over the blood until the next day. His answer reassured Yosef the Babylonian that there is in fact such an opinion.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יָצַק, לֹא בָּלַל, וְלֹא פָּתַת, וְלֹא מֶלַח, וְלֹא הֵנִיף, לֹא הִגִּישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת, וְלֹא מְשָׁחָן – כְּשֵׁירָה.
MISHNA: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, or did not mix the oil into the meal offering, or did not break the loaves into pieces, or did not add salt, or did not wave the omer meal offering or the meal offering of a sota, or did not bring the meal offering to the altar, or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces than appropriate, or did not smear oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is fit.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״לֹא יָצַק״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יָצַק כְּלָל – עִיכּוּבָא כְּתַב בָּהּ! אֶלָּא, לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר. אִי הָכִי, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ נָמֵי – לֹא בָּלַל כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר, הָא לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל – פְּסוּלָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it states that if one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, the meal offering is fit? If we say that it means that he did not pour oil at all, that is difficult: Doesn’t the verse write with regard to the pouring of the oil that doing so is indispensable? Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour it. The Gemara notes: If so, that the first clause of the mishna is understood in this manner, then the next halakha in the mishna: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, should also be understood as referring to a case where a priest did not mix the oil into the meal offering, but a non-priest did mix it, so it is fit. This would indicate that if one did not mix the oil into the meal offering at all, the meal offering is unfit.
וְהָתְנַן: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין, וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי אֵינָם נִבְלָלִין מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – כְּשֵׁרָה!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (103b): One who volunteers to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths of an ephah of flour must bring a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel and a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah in a second vessel, because sixty tenths of an ephah of flour can be properly mixed with a log of oil but sixty-one tenths cannot be properly mixed with the oil. And we discussed it and asked: Even if sixty-one tenths of an ephah do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna here that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil into the meal offering, if one did not mix the oil into it, the meal offering is still fit?
וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.
And Rabbi Zeira said the following explanation: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ: ״לֹא יָצַק״ – לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן אֶלָּא זָר, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל.
The Gemara refutes this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. When the mishna states: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, it is referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering but a non-priest did pour it. When it states: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, it means he did not mix the oil at all.
אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשְׁתָּא לֹא פָּתַת כְּלָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת״? שֶׁרִיבָּה בִּפְתִיתִין.
§ The mishna teaches: Or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces [pittim merubbot] than appropriate, the meal offering is fit. The Gemara asks: Now that it has already been stated in the mishna that if one did not break the loaves into pieces at all the meal offering is fit, is it necessary to state that if one broke the meal offering into greater pieces than appropriate the meal offering is fit? The Gemara answers: What does the expression pittin merubbot mean? It means that he increased [ribba] the amount of the meal offering’s pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת אִיכָּא וְלָא תּוֹרַת פְּתִיתִין אִיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is actually referring literally to large pieces [pittim merubbot], and it was necessary to teach this explicitly, lest you say that the meal offering is fit there, when the loaves are not broken, since they have the status of loaves, but here, when the loaves are broken into excessively large pieces and no longer have the status of loaves, as they have been broken up, but still do not have the status of pieces, as they are not the correct size, the offering is not fit. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha explicitly.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״ – מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה.
§ Based on the Gemara’s earlier inference that when the mishna states that the meal offering is valid even if the priest did not pour the oil it is referring to a case where a non-priest did perform this action, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This teaches that one who admits to the validity of the sacrificial rites and accepts responsibility for them has a portion in the priestly gifts, but one who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites does not have a portion in the priestly gifts.
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת –
The baraita continues: And I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not admit to the validity of these rites of the presenting of the blood or the burning of the fats alone, which are the sacrificial rites of a slaughtered offering, as those rites are enumerated in the verse. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of the fifteen sacrificial rites performed by the priests?
הַיְּצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת, וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת, וְהַקְטָרוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת, וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת, וְהַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, מִנַּיִן?
The baraita clarifies: These are the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of oil, the mixing, the breaking, the salting, the waving, the bringing of the offering to the altar, the removal of the handful, and the burning of the handful on the altar. And it includes other rites as well: The pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering, and the receiving of the blood in a vessel, and the sprinkling of the blood, and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck, and the purification of a leper, and lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of these rites?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, עֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה!
The baraita continues: The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” teaching that with regard to any sacrificial rite that is entrusted to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to its validity does not have a portion in the priestly gifts. Since the pouring of the oil is included in the list of sacrificial rites entrusted to the priests, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering should not be fit if this service was performed by a non-priest.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר. מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים דְּלָאו בַּת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. There, in the baraita, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the meal offering of priests, whereas here, in the mishna, the context is a meal offering of an Israelite. In the case of a meal offering of an Israelite, which is one that requires the removal of a handful to be burned on the altar, a verse teaches that from the stage of the removal of the handful onward, the rites performed with the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest. By contrast, the meal offering of priests, which is one that does not require the removal of a handful, as the entire meal offering is burned on the altar, requires that from the outset the rites must be performed by a member of the priesthood; otherwise it is unfit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר!
Rava said to him: After all, in the case of the meal offering of priests, from where was it included that there is an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from the halakha of the meal offering of an Israelite, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, just as there the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּנִקְמָצוֹת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת.
There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna teaches that a meal offering is fit if the oil was poured by a non-priest, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is removed, whereas there, in the baraita that lists the pouring of the oil as one of the rites performed by the priests, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי שֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת, מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִנִּקְמָצוֹת, כְּנִקְמָצוֹת – מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rava said to him: After all, in the case of meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, from where was it included that there is also an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from meal offerings from which a handful is removed, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, the halakha with regard to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed is like the halakha with regard to those from which a handful is removed; just as there, the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest. Rather, since Rava deflected Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ״, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who hold that the offering is fit even if the oil was poured by a non-priest? The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful” (Leviticus 2:1–2). From here it is derived that from the removal of the handful onward, the rites of the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן
The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: “Aaron’s sons,
