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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 28, 2018 | 讬状讝 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

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

Menachot 18

Study Guide Menachot 18. What is the debate between Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yehuda and the first Tanna regarding a case where one thought to leave the blood until tomorrow (but didn’t have a thought regarding consumption of the blood)? What parts of the mincha offering process are not critical?


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

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘讛谞讱 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛谞讬讞 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪拽爪转 讚诪讜 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讜 讜讻诇 讚诪讜 驻住讜诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 砖讗诐 讛谞讬讞讜 诇诪讞专 砖驻住讜诇 讞讬砖讘 诇讛谞讬讞讜 诇诪讞专 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇

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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗祝 讘讝讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇诪爪讜转 诪讚讜转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇诪爪讜转 诪讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 诪爪讗转讬 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讛讬讛 讞讘讬讘 诇讜 讘讬讜转专 注讚 诇讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诪讛讜

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one鈥檚 intention is to leave some of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit? But isn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 注专讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 砖讞专讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 爪讛专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 诪谞讞讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 讗诇讗 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 爪讛讘讜 驻谞讬讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬

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鈥檚 face lit up [tzahavu panav] with joy.

讗诪专 诇讜 讬讜住祝 讻诪讚讜诪讛 讗谞讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讜讜谞谞讜 砖诪讜注转讬谞讜 注讚 注转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻住讜诇 砖谞讛 诇讬 讜讞讝专转讬 注诇 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讜讘拽砖转讬 诇讬 讞讘专 讜诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 注讻砖讬讜 砖砖谞讬转 诇讬 驻住讜诇 讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讬讚转讬

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鈥檚 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.

讝诇讙讜 注讬谞讬讜 讚诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讗诪专 讗砖专讬讻诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讞讘讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讻诐 讘讬讜转专 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 诪讛 讗讛讘转讬 转讜专转讱 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讛讬讗 砖讬讞转讬 讜讙讜壮 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇驻讬讻讱 砖谞讛 诇讱 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua鈥檚 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: 鈥淥 how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day鈥 (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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讬讚转讬 讗讬讛讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (驻住讜诇) 驻讜住诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讬讚转讬 讚讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讬讛讗 砖讜诐 驻住诇讜转 讘注讜诇诐

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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬爪拽 诇讗 讘诇诇 讜诇讗 驻转转 讜诇讗 诪诇讞 讜诇讗 讛谞讬祝 诇讗 讛讙讬砖 讗讜 砖驻转转谉 驻转讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讞谉 讻砖讬专讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬爪拽 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻诇诇 注讬讻讜讘讗 讻转讘 讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讘诇诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 讛讗 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻诇诇 驻住讜诇讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞谉 砖砖讬诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讻讬 讗讬谞诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞谉 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 诇讗 讘诇诇 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻诇诇

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.

讗讜 砖驻转转谉 驻转讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讻砖专讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 驻转转 讻诇诇 讻砖专讛 驻转讬谉 诪专讜讘讜转 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 驻转讬谉 诪专讜讘讜转 砖专讬讘讛 讘驻转讬转讬谉

搂 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鈥檚 pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 驻转讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 诪诪砖 讜诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讞诇讜转 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 转讜专转 讞诇讜转 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 转讜专转 驻转讬转讬谉 讗讬讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗转 讛讞诇讘 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇讜 转讛讬讛 砖讜拽 讛讬诪讬谉 诇诪谞讛 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讬砖 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛

搂 Based on the Gemara鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion鈥 (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.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 注讘讜讚讜转

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?

讛讬爪讬拽讜转 讜讛讘诇讬诇讜转 讜讛驻转讬转讜转 讜讛诪诇讬讞讜转 讜讛转谞讜驻讜转 讜讛讛讙砖讜转 讜讛拽诪讬爪讜转 讜讛拽讟专讜转 讜讛诪诇讬拽讜转 讜讛拽讘诇讜转 讜讛讝讗讜转 讜讛砖拽讗转 住讜讟讛 讜注专讬驻转 注讙诇讛 讜讟讛专转 诪爪讜专注 讜谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪谞讬谉

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鈥檚 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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注讘讜讚讛 讛诪住讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛

The baraita continues: The verse states: 鈥淎mong the sons of Aaron,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讗谉 讘诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讘转 拽诪讬爪讛 讛讬讗 诪拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讬爪讬拽讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘转 拽诪讬爪讛 讛讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇讬爪讬拽讛 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 讛转诐 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘谞拽诪爪讜转 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉 谞拽诪爪讜转

There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 砖讗讬谉 谞拽诪爪讜转 诪讛讬讻讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇讬爪讬拽讛 诪谞拽诪爪讜转 讻谞拽诪爪讜转 诪讛 讛转诐 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪拽 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讜拽诪抓 诪拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讬爪讬拽讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专

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: 鈥淎nd he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:1鈥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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉

The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: 鈥淎aron鈥檚 sons,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Menachot 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 18

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘讛谞讱 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛谞讬讞 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪拽爪转 讚诪讜 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讜 讜讻诇 讚诪讜 驻住讜诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 砖讗诐 讛谞讬讞讜 诇诪讞专 砖驻住讜诇 讞讬砖讘 诇讛谞讬讞讜 诇诪讞专 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇

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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗祝 讘讝讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇诪爪讜转 诪讚讜转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇诪爪讜转 诪讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 诪爪讗转讬 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讛讬讛 讞讘讬讘 诇讜 讘讬讜转专 注讚 诇讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诪讛讜

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one鈥檚 intention is to leave some of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit? But isn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 注专讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 砖讞专讬转 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 爪讛专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 诪谞讞讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖专 讗诇讗 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 爪讛讘讜 驻谞讬讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬

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鈥檚 face lit up [tzahavu panav] with joy.

讗诪专 诇讜 讬讜住祝 讻诪讚讜诪讛 讗谞讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讜讜谞谞讜 砖诪讜注转讬谞讜 注讚 注转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻住讜诇 砖谞讛 诇讬 讜讞讝专转讬 注诇 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讜讘拽砖转讬 诇讬 讞讘专 讜诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 注讻砖讬讜 砖砖谞讬转 诇讬 驻住讜诇 讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讬讚转讬

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鈥檚 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.

讝诇讙讜 注讬谞讬讜 讚诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讗诪专 讗砖专讬讻诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讞讘讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讻诐 讘讬讜转专 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 诪讛 讗讛讘转讬 转讜专转讱 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讛讬讗 砖讬讞转讬 讜讙讜壮 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇驻讬讻讱 砖谞讛 诇讱 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua鈥檚 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: 鈥淥 how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day鈥 (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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讬讚转讬 讗讬讛讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (驻住讜诇) 驻讜住诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇 讗转谞讬讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讬讚转讬 讚讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讬讛讗 砖讜诐 驻住诇讜转 讘注讜诇诐

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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬爪拽 诇讗 讘诇诇 讜诇讗 驻转转 讜诇讗 诪诇讞 讜诇讗 讛谞讬祝 诇讗 讛讙讬砖 讗讜 砖驻转转谉 驻转讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讜诇讗 诪砖讞谉 讻砖讬专讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬爪拽 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻诇诇 注讬讻讜讘讗 讻转讘 讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讘诇诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 讛讗 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻诇诇 驻住讜诇讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞谉 砖砖讬诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讻讬 讗讬谞诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛转谞谉 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 诇讗 讘诇诇 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻诇诇

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.

讗讜 砖驻转转谉 驻转讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讻砖专讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 驻转转 讻诇诇 讻砖专讛 驻转讬谉 诪专讜讘讜转 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讗讬 驻转讬谉 诪专讜讘讜转 砖专讬讘讛 讘驻转讬转讬谉

搂 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鈥檚 pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 驻转讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 诪诪砖 讜诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讞诇讜转 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 转讜专转 讞诇讜转 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 转讜专转 驻转讬转讬谉 讗讬讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗转 讛讞诇讘 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇讜 转讛讬讛 砖讜拽 讛讬诪讬谉 诇诪谞讛 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讬砖 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛

搂 Based on the Gemara鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion鈥 (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.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 注讘讜讚讜转

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?

讛讬爪讬拽讜转 讜讛讘诇讬诇讜转 讜讛驻转讬转讜转 讜讛诪诇讬讞讜转 讜讛转谞讜驻讜转 讜讛讛讙砖讜转 讜讛拽诪讬爪讜转 讜讛拽讟专讜转 讜讛诪诇讬拽讜转 讜讛拽讘诇讜转 讜讛讝讗讜转 讜讛砖拽讗转 住讜讟讛 讜注专讬驻转 注讙诇讛 讜讟讛专转 诪爪讜专注 讜谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪谞讬谉

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鈥檚 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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注讘讜讚讛 讛诪住讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛

The baraita continues: The verse states: 鈥淎mong the sons of Aaron,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讗谉 讘诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讘转 拽诪讬爪讛 讛讬讗 诪拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讬爪讬拽讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘转 拽诪讬爪讛 讛讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇讬爪讬拽讛 诪诪谞讞转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 讛转诐 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘谞拽诪爪讜转 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谉 谞拽诪爪讜转

There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 砖讗讬谉 谞拽诪爪讜转 诪讛讬讻讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇讬爪讬拽讛 诪谞拽诪爪讜转 讻谞拽诪爪讜转 诪讛 讛转诐 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪拽 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜谞转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讜拽诪抓 诪拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讬爪讬拽讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专

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: 鈥淎nd he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:1鈥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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉

The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: 鈥淎aron鈥檚 sons,

Scroll To Top