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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 30, 2018 | 讬状讟 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 20

Study Guide Menachot 20. What types of offerings need salt? How is this derived from the聽Torah?


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

讘专讬转 讗诪讜专讛 讘诪诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘专讬转 诪诇讞 注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘专讬转 讻讛谞转 注讜诇诐 讻砖诐 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讘谞讜转 讘诇讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讻讱 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讘谞讜转 讘诇讗 诪诇讞

a covenant stated with regard to salt, ensuring that the offerings should always be salted; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: 鈥淚t is an everlasting covenant of salt鈥 (Numbers 18:19), and it is stated there, with regard to the reward given to Pinehas: 鈥淭he covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). This teaches that just as it is impossible for the offerings to be sacrificed without the involvement of the priesthood, so too, it is impossible for the offerings to be sacrificed without salt. The baraita demonstrates that the rite of salting is an indispensable requirement, despite the fact that the rite is not repeated in the verses.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘 讻转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪诇讞 讻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬爪拽 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪诇讞 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专

Rav Yosef said: Rav, who holds that the only sacrificial rites that are indispensable are the ones repeated in the verses, holds in accordance with the tanna of our mishna, who says: If one did not add salt, the meal offering is still fit. According to this tanna, adding salt is not indispensable. Abaye said to him: If that is so and you understand the mishna to be referring to a case where no salt is added at all, then you should also understand the mishna鈥檚 statement: If one did not pour the oil, as referring to a case where he did not pour oil at all. This cannot be, as the rite of pouring oil is repeated in the verses and is clearly indispensable. Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour the oil. Here too, the tanna of the mishna means only that a priest did not add salt, but a non-priest did add salt. If no salt is added, even this tanna holds that the meal offering is unfit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讝专 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: But could it enter your mind that a non-priest would approach the altar to salt the handful of the meal offering? A non-priest may not enter the area near the altar. Since it is not conceivable that this would take place, it must be that when ruling that the meal offering is fit, the tanna of the mishna is referring to a case where the salt was never added.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讘专讬转 讻诪讗谉 讚转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讚诪讬讗

And if you wish, say instead that Rav holds that since with regard to the application of salt, the term 鈥渃ovenant鈥 is written about it, it is considered as though it were repeated in another verse, as the term 鈥渃ovenant鈥 teaches that it is an indispensable rite.

讜诇讗 转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞转讱 讘诪诇讞 转诪诇讞 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 拽专讘谉 讘诪诇讞 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪讬诐 讜讚诐 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉

With regard to the question that was raised to challenge the statement of Rav, the Gemara asks: And is it correct that the application of salt is not repeated in the verse? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13)? The Gemara answers: That verse does not function as a repetition, since it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every offering you shall season with salt, I would derive that this applies to even the wood and the blood, which are also termed: An offering.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of yours,鈥 to teach that just as the meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering, so too any item that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. By contrast, the wood and the blood do not require salting, as the wood itself requires no wood, and the blood is presented on the altar and does not require wood.

讗讬 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖诪转专转 讗祝 讻诇 砖诪转讬专 讗讘讬讗 讚诐 砖诪转讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讚诪讱

The baraita continues: If that logic is employed, one could say: Just as the handful of the meal offering that is burned is unique in that it permits the remainder of the meal offering to be eaten by the priests, and it requires salting, so too, any item that is unique in that it permits other items requires the application of salt. Accordingly, I will include blood in the obligation to be salted, as its presentation permits the offering to be sacrificed and eaten. To counter this, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淣either shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,鈥 demonstrating that it cannot be lacking from the meal offering, but not from your blood.

讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 诪谞讞讛 讻讜诇讛 讟注讜谞讛 诪诇讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 拽专讘谉 讟注讜谉 诪诇讞 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讻讜诇讛 讟注讜谞讛 诪诇讞

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the entire meal offering requires salting, including the remainder of the offering that is eaten by the priests. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering [korban] of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), teaching that the handful, which is burned as an offering [korban] on the altar, requires salting, but the entire meal offering [min岣] does not require salting.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 注诪讛 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚

And I have derived only that the handful of a meal offering requires salting. From where is it derived to include the frankincense, which is also burned on the altar, in the requirement to be salted? I include the frankincense due to the fact that it comes along with the handful in one vessel and is therefore included in the expression 鈥渙ffering.鈥

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讛拽讟专转

From where is it derived to include in the requirement to be salted the frankincense that comes by itself as a separate offering? One may accept the obligation to bring an offering of frankincense to be burned on the altar. From where is it derived that this frankincense requires salting? Moreover, from where is it derived to include in the requirement to be salted the frankincense that comes in bowls together with the shewbread, and the incense?

诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 讗砖诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讗讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讜注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪谞讬谉

Moreover, from where is it derived in the requirement of salting in the case of the meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, i.e., the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest that is brought every day by the High Priest, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with burnt offerings and peace offerings? From where is it derived in the requirement of salting with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar, and the sacrificial portions of the guilt offering, and the sacrificial portions of the offerings of the most sacred order, and the sacrificial portions of the offerings of lesser sanctity, and the limbs of the burnt offering, and the bird burnt offering? From where is it derived that all these require salting?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 拽专讘谞讱 转拽专讬讘 诪诇讞

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall sacrifice salt with all your offerings鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), demonstrating that everything burned on the altar requires salting. From this baraita, it is apparent that the mitzva to apply salt is necessary in order to teach about the circumstances where salt is added, and therefore it cannot be used as an instance where the mitzva is repeated in order to teach that the rite is indispensable.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 注诪讛 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛

搂 The Gemara discusses the baraita cited above: The Master said: I have derived only that the handful of a meal offering requires salting. From where is it derived to include the frankincense, which is also burned on the altar, in the requirement to be salted? I include the frankincense, due to the fact that it comes along with the handful in one vessel and therefore is included in the expression 鈥渙ffering.鈥 The Gemara asks: Why is this verse needed? But didn鈥檛 you state earlier that just as a meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement requires the application of salt? Therefore, it is already known that the frankincense and all the other items require salting, since wood is required for their burning.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 讻诇诇 讜诪谞讞讛 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: When the tanna says: I have derived only that the handful of the meal offering requires salting, this is what he is saying: One might understand the verse 鈥淎nd every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13) differently and say the following exposition: The term 鈥渙ffering鈥 that appears here is a generalization, while 鈥渕eal offering鈥 is a detail. According to the hermeneutical principles, in the case of a generalization and a detail, there is nothing in the generalization other than what is in the detail. Therefore, in the case of a meal offering, yes, it requires salting, but anything else does not require salting. From where, then, is the halakha of salting in all other cases derived?

讛讚专 讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 拽专讘谞讱 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛

Therefore, the verse then states: 鈥淵ou shall sacrifice salt with all your offerings鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), and it then generalized again, so that the verse includes a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in which case according to the hermeneutical principles you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. That is why the latter part of the verse is needed.

讗讞专讬诐 讚讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注爪讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 注爪讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: What are the other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering? This is referring to the wood, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering. So too, the expression: Anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, is referring to anything that requires wood so that it may be burned on the altar.

讗讬诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 谞讬讛讜 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬讬转讬 讚诐 讚讗讬讻讗 谞住讻讬诐 谞住讻讬诐 讘讛讚讬 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讻驻专讛 讜砖诪讞讛

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering is referring to the frankincense, which accompanies the meal offering, and therefore by means of the hermeneutical principle applying to a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, include blood, which is accompanied by libations? The Gemara answers: The libations are not considered to accompany the sprinkling of the blood; rather, they accompany the sacrificial portions that are burned on the altar. What is the reason? It is because the burning of the sacrificial parts and the pouring of the libations are the eating and drinking of the altar. The Gemara counters: On the contrary, the libations are considered to accompany the blood, since the atonement that is effected by the presentation of the blood is followed by the joy that is displayed in the libation of wine.

讗诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讘讗讛 注诪讛 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注爪讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪转讻砖专讗 讘讛讜 诪谞讞讛 讛讻讬 诪转讻砖专讗 讘讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜 拽专讘谞讜转

Rather, one must say that since the frankincense comes together with the meal offering in one vessel, while the blood is not brought together with the libations in one vessel, the blood is not comparable to the meal offering. But when it is explained that the expression: The other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering, is referring to the wood, this means that just as the meal offering is rendered fit by means of the wood, so too, all offerings are rendered fit by means of the wood.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讜诪转专转 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讜诪转专转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉 讚砖专讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, i.e., the handful of the meal offering, is clearly defined as an item for which other items come as a requirement, and in addition it renders other items permitted, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it and renders other items permitted requires the application of salt. And what is included due to this derivation? Frankincense that comes in the bowls that are placed upon the shewbread, as it renders the bread permitted to be eaten. But every other item should not be included.

诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讚诪讱 诪讻诇诇 讚讛谞讱 讻讜诇讛讜 讗转讜 讘讞讚 爪讚

The Gemara answers: It is apparent that all other items require only the factor of having other items come as a requirement for them to be considered similar to the meal offering. This is clear from the fact that in the case of blood, which is similar to the meal offering only in that it renders the offering permitted, it was necessary to teach that salt is not placed on blood, by means of the phrase: 鈥淣either shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,鈥 from which it is derived: But not from your blood. Had it been necessary for all items to have both aspects in common with the meal offering, there would be no need for a derivation to exclude blood. By inference, these other items derived from a meal offering are similar to it in one respect.

讗诪专 诪专 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讚诪讱 讜讗讬诪讗 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讗讬讘专讬讱

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita: The Master said above: The verse states: 鈥淣either shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,鈥 demonstrating that salt cannot be lacking from the meal offering, but not from your blood. The Gemara asks: But since the verse does not allude to blood explicitly, why not say that the verse teaches that salt cannot be lacking from your meal offering, but not from your limbs of the burnt offering that are sacrificed on the altar?

诪住转讘专讗 讗讘专讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 (讗砖讘谞 讟诪讗 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the limbs of a burnt offering should be included in the requirement to have salt applied, since they share many characteristics with a meal offering that blood does not. The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the characteristics that they share: Alef, shin, beit, nun; tet, mem, alef. These are a reference to others [a岣rim], fire [ishim], external [ba岣tz], notar; ritual impurity [tuma], and misuse of consecrated property [me鈥檌la].

讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讻诪讜转讛 讗讬砖讬诐 讻诪讜转讛 讘讞讜抓 讻诪讜转讛 谞讜转专 讻诪讜转讛

In the case of the limbs of a burnt offering, other items come as a requirement for it, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering. The burnt offering requires wood in order to be burned on the altar, which is not the case with regard to the blood. The limbs of the burnt offering are burned in the fire of the altar, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, whereas the blood is presented on the corners of the altar. The burnt offering is sacrificed on the external altar, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, as opposed to the blood, which is presented inside the Sanctuary in the cases of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to partake of its leftover [notar] parts, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not relevant to blood.

讟讜诪讗讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪注讬诇讛 讻诪讜转讛

It is prohibited to partake of a burnt offering while in a state of ritual impurity, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not relevant to blood. It is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not so with regard to the blood.

讗讚专讘讛 讚诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪转讬专 讻诪讜转讛 谞驻住诇 讘砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讻诪讜转讛 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, blood should be included in the requirement to have salt applied, since it renders the offering permitted to be sacrificed and eaten, as is so with regard to the handful, which renders the remainder of the meal offering permitted to be eaten. In addition, blood becomes invalid at sunset and can no longer be sprinkled on the altar, as is the halakha with regard to the handful of a meal offering, whereas the limbs of the burnt offering may be sacrificed at any point during the night. The Gemara responds: These characteristics shared by the meal offering and the limbs of the burnt offering are more than those shared by the blood and the meal offering.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪讬诐 讜讚诐 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 注爪讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 诪讘注讬讗 讘注讜 诪诇讞

搂 The Gemara continues discussing the baraita: The Master said above: Had the verse stated only: And every offering you shall season with salt, I would derive that this applies to even the wood and the blood, which are also termed: An offering. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nd every meal offering of yours鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), to teach that just as the meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. Therefore, the wood and the blood do not require salting, as in their case no other item is needed. The Gemara asks: Whom did you hear who says that the wood is termed an offering? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 the wood in fact require salting?

讚转谞讬讗 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 注爪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 砖谞讬 讙讝专讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讙讜专诇讜转 讛驻诇谞讜 注诇 拽专讘谉 讛注爪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诪专 注爪讬诐 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 讛谉 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 诪诇讞 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讛讙砖讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when one brings a meal offering [korban min岣]鈥 (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word korban teaches that one can voluntarily give wood as an offering for the altar. And how much wood must one bring if he does not specify an amount? Two logs. And the support for the fact that wood can be brought as a voluntary offering is from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd we cast lots for the wood offering鈥 (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This voluntary donation of wood is an offering like a meal offering, and therefore it requires salt and requires bringing to the corner of the altar, like a meal offering.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注爪讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注爪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 注爪讬诐

And Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires the removal of a handful, just as in the case of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and sacrificed separately. And Rav Pappa says that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since it is an offering for the altar, the wood that is brought as an offering needs to be placed on other wood to burn, like any other offering that is burned on wood on the altar. Apparently, this means that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the wood is termed an offering, also holds that it requires the application of salt, in contrast to the ruling in the baraita.

住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 注爪讬诐 讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚诐 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara responds: Remove wood from the baraita here, as it is not excluded by the term 鈥渁nd every meal offering of yours.鈥 The Gemara asks: But then, the phrase in the verse 鈥渁nd every meal offering of yours鈥 is to exclude what? If it serves to exclude blood, this is derived from the continuation of the verse, which states: 鈥淔rom your meal offering,鈥 as explained in the continuation of the baraita.

  • 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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 20

讘专讬转 讗诪讜专讛 讘诪诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘专讬转 诪诇讞 注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘专讬转 讻讛谞转 注讜诇诐 讻砖诐 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讘谞讜转 讘诇讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讻讱 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讘谞讜转 讘诇讗 诪诇讞

a covenant stated with regard to salt, ensuring that the offerings should always be salted; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: 鈥淚t is an everlasting covenant of salt鈥 (Numbers 18:19), and it is stated there, with regard to the reward given to Pinehas: 鈥淭he covenant of an everlasting priesthood鈥 (Numbers 25:13). This teaches that just as it is impossible for the offerings to be sacrificed without the involvement of the priesthood, so too, it is impossible for the offerings to be sacrificed without salt. The baraita demonstrates that the rite of salting is an indispensable requirement, despite the fact that the rite is not repeated in the verses.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘 讻转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讗 诪诇讞 讻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬爪拽 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诇讗 讬爪拽 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪诇讞 讻讛谉 讗诇讗 讝专

Rav Yosef said: Rav, who holds that the only sacrificial rites that are indispensable are the ones repeated in the verses, holds in accordance with the tanna of our mishna, who says: If one did not add salt, the meal offering is still fit. According to this tanna, adding salt is not indispensable. Abaye said to him: If that is so and you understand the mishna to be referring to a case where no salt is added at all, then you should also understand the mishna鈥檚 statement: If one did not pour the oil, as referring to a case where he did not pour oil at all. This cannot be, as the rite of pouring oil is repeated in the verses and is clearly indispensable. Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour the oil. Here too, the tanna of the mishna means only that a priest did not add salt, but a non-priest did add salt. If no salt is added, even this tanna holds that the meal offering is unfit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讝专 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: But could it enter your mind that a non-priest would approach the altar to salt the handful of the meal offering? A non-priest may not enter the area near the altar. Since it is not conceivable that this would take place, it must be that when ruling that the meal offering is fit, the tanna of the mishna is referring to a case where the salt was never added.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讘专讬转 讻诪讗谉 讚转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讚诪讬讗

And if you wish, say instead that Rav holds that since with regard to the application of salt, the term 鈥渃ovenant鈥 is written about it, it is considered as though it were repeated in another verse, as the term 鈥渃ovenant鈥 teaches that it is an indispensable rite.

讜诇讗 转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞转讱 讘诪诇讞 转诪诇讞 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 拽专讘谉 讘诪诇讞 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪讬诐 讜讚诐 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉

With regard to the question that was raised to challenge the statement of Rav, the Gemara asks: And is it correct that the application of salt is not repeated in the verse? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13)? The Gemara answers: That verse does not function as a repetition, since it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every offering you shall season with salt, I would derive that this applies to even the wood and the blood, which are also termed: An offering.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of yours,鈥 to teach that just as the meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering, so too any item that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. By contrast, the wood and the blood do not require salting, as the wood itself requires no wood, and the blood is presented on the altar and does not require wood.

讗讬 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖诪转专转 讗祝 讻诇 砖诪转讬专 讗讘讬讗 讚诐 砖诪转讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讚诪讱

The baraita continues: If that logic is employed, one could say: Just as the handful of the meal offering that is burned is unique in that it permits the remainder of the meal offering to be eaten by the priests, and it requires salting, so too, any item that is unique in that it permits other items requires the application of salt. Accordingly, I will include blood in the obligation to be salted, as its presentation permits the offering to be sacrificed and eaten. To counter this, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淣either shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,鈥 demonstrating that it cannot be lacking from the meal offering, but not from your blood.

讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 诪谞讞讛 讻讜诇讛 讟注讜谞讛 诪诇讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽专讘谉 拽专讘谉 讟注讜谉 诪诇讞 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讻讜诇讛 讟注讜谞讛 诪诇讞

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the entire meal offering requires salting, including the remainder of the offering that is eaten by the priests. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering [korban] of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), teaching that the handful, which is burned as an offering [korban] on the altar, requires salting, but the entire meal offering [min岣] does not require salting.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 注诪讛 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚

And I have derived only that the handful of a meal offering requires salting. From where is it derived to include the frankincense, which is also burned on the altar, in the requirement to be salted? I include the frankincense due to the fact that it comes along with the handful in one vessel and is therefore included in the expression 鈥渙ffering.鈥

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讛拽讟专转

From where is it derived to include in the requirement to be salted the frankincense that comes by itself as a separate offering? One may accept the obligation to bring an offering of frankincense to be burned on the altar. From where is it derived that this frankincense requires salting? Moreover, from where is it derived to include in the requirement to be salted the frankincense that comes in bowls together with the shewbread, and the incense?

诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 讗砖诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讗讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讜注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪谞讬谉

Moreover, from where is it derived in the requirement of salting in the case of the meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, i.e., the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest that is brought every day by the High Priest, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with burnt offerings and peace offerings? From where is it derived in the requirement of salting with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar, and the sacrificial portions of the guilt offering, and the sacrificial portions of the offerings of the most sacred order, and the sacrificial portions of the offerings of lesser sanctity, and the limbs of the burnt offering, and the bird burnt offering? From where is it derived that all these require salting?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 拽专讘谞讱 转拽专讬讘 诪诇讞

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall sacrifice salt with all your offerings鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), demonstrating that everything burned on the altar requires salting. From this baraita, it is apparent that the mitzva to apply salt is necessary in order to teach about the circumstances where salt is added, and therefore it cannot be used as an instance where the mitzva is repeated in order to teach that the rite is indispensable.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 注诪讛 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛

搂 The Gemara discusses the baraita cited above: The Master said: I have derived only that the handful of a meal offering requires salting. From where is it derived to include the frankincense, which is also burned on the altar, in the requirement to be salted? I include the frankincense, due to the fact that it comes along with the handful in one vessel and therefore is included in the expression 鈥渙ffering.鈥 The Gemara asks: Why is this verse needed? But didn鈥檛 you state earlier that just as a meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement requires the application of salt? Therefore, it is already known that the frankincense and all the other items require salting, since wood is required for their burning.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 拽专讘谉 讻诇诇 讜诪谞讞讛 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: When the tanna says: I have derived only that the handful of the meal offering requires salting, this is what he is saying: One might understand the verse 鈥淎nd every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt鈥 (Leviticus 2:13) differently and say the following exposition: The term 鈥渙ffering鈥 that appears here is a generalization, while 鈥渕eal offering鈥 is a detail. According to the hermeneutical principles, in the case of a generalization and a detail, there is nothing in the generalization other than what is in the detail. Therefore, in the case of a meal offering, yes, it requires salting, but anything else does not require salting. From where, then, is the halakha of salting in all other cases derived?

讛讚专 讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 拽专讘谞讱 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛

Therefore, the verse then states: 鈥淵ou shall sacrifice salt with all your offerings鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), and it then generalized again, so that the verse includes a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in which case according to the hermeneutical principles you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. That is why the latter part of the verse is needed.

讗讞专讬诐 讚讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注爪讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 注爪讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: What are the other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering? This is referring to the wood, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering. So too, the expression: Anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, is referring to anything that requires wood so that it may be burned on the altar.

讗讬诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 谞讬讛讜 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬讬转讬 讚诐 讚讗讬讻讗 谞住讻讬诐 谞住讻讬诐 讘讛讚讬 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讻驻专讛 讜砖诪讞讛

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering is referring to the frankincense, which accompanies the meal offering, and therefore by means of the hermeneutical principle applying to a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, include blood, which is accompanied by libations? The Gemara answers: The libations are not considered to accompany the sprinkling of the blood; rather, they accompany the sacrificial portions that are burned on the altar. What is the reason? It is because the burning of the sacrificial parts and the pouring of the libations are the eating and drinking of the altar. The Gemara counters: On the contrary, the libations are considered to accompany the blood, since the atonement that is effected by the presentation of the blood is followed by the joy that is displayed in the libation of wine.

讗诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讘讗讛 注诪讛 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注爪讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪转讻砖专讗 讘讛讜 诪谞讞讛 讛讻讬 诪转讻砖专讗 讘讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜 拽专讘谞讜转

Rather, one must say that since the frankincense comes together with the meal offering in one vessel, while the blood is not brought together with the libations in one vessel, the blood is not comparable to the meal offering. But when it is explained that the expression: The other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering, is referring to the wood, this means that just as the meal offering is rendered fit by means of the wood, so too, all offerings are rendered fit by means of the wood.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讜诪转专转 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讜诪转专转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉 讚砖专讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, i.e., the handful of the meal offering, is clearly defined as an item for which other items come as a requirement, and in addition it renders other items permitted, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it and renders other items permitted requires the application of salt. And what is included due to this derivation? Frankincense that comes in the bowls that are placed upon the shewbread, as it renders the bread permitted to be eaten. But every other item should not be included.

诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讚诪讱 诪讻诇诇 讚讛谞讱 讻讜诇讛讜 讗转讜 讘讞讚 爪讚

The Gemara answers: It is apparent that all other items require only the factor of having other items come as a requirement for them to be considered similar to the meal offering. This is clear from the fact that in the case of blood, which is similar to the meal offering only in that it renders the offering permitted, it was necessary to teach that salt is not placed on blood, by means of the phrase: 鈥淣either shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,鈥 from which it is derived: But not from your blood. Had it been necessary for all items to have both aspects in common with the meal offering, there would be no need for a derivation to exclude blood. By inference, these other items derived from a meal offering are similar to it in one respect.

讗诪专 诪专 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讚诪讱 讜讗讬诪讗 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 讜诇讗 诪注诇 讗讬讘专讬讱

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita: The Master said above: The verse states: 鈥淣either shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,鈥 demonstrating that salt cannot be lacking from the meal offering, but not from your blood. The Gemara asks: But since the verse does not allude to blood explicitly, why not say that the verse teaches that salt cannot be lacking from your meal offering, but not from your limbs of the burnt offering that are sacrificed on the altar?

诪住转讘专讗 讗讘专讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 (讗砖讘谞 讟诪讗 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the limbs of a burnt offering should be included in the requirement to have salt applied, since they share many characteristics with a meal offering that blood does not. The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the characteristics that they share: Alef, shin, beit, nun; tet, mem, alef. These are a reference to others [a岣rim], fire [ishim], external [ba岣tz], notar; ritual impurity [tuma], and misuse of consecrated property [me鈥檌la].

讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 诇讛 讻诪讜转讛 讗讬砖讬诐 讻诪讜转讛 讘讞讜抓 讻诪讜转讛 谞讜转专 讻诪讜转讛

In the case of the limbs of a burnt offering, other items come as a requirement for it, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering. The burnt offering requires wood in order to be burned on the altar, which is not the case with regard to the blood. The limbs of the burnt offering are burned in the fire of the altar, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, whereas the blood is presented on the corners of the altar. The burnt offering is sacrificed on the external altar, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, as opposed to the blood, which is presented inside the Sanctuary in the cases of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to partake of its leftover [notar] parts, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not relevant to blood.

讟讜诪讗讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪注讬诇讛 讻诪讜转讛

It is prohibited to partake of a burnt offering while in a state of ritual impurity, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not relevant to blood. It is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not so with regard to the blood.

讗讚专讘讛 讚诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪转讬专 讻诪讜转讛 谞驻住诇 讘砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讻诪讜转讛 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, blood should be included in the requirement to have salt applied, since it renders the offering permitted to be sacrificed and eaten, as is so with regard to the handful, which renders the remainder of the meal offering permitted to be eaten. In addition, blood becomes invalid at sunset and can no longer be sprinkled on the altar, as is the halakha with regard to the handful of a meal offering, whereas the limbs of the burnt offering may be sacrificed at any point during the night. The Gemara responds: These characteristics shared by the meal offering and the limbs of the burnt offering are more than those shared by the blood and the meal offering.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪讬诐 讜讚诐 砖谞拽专讗讜 拽专讘谉 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 注爪讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 拽专讘谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 诪讘注讬讗 讘注讜 诪诇讞

搂 The Gemara continues discussing the baraita: The Master said above: Had the verse stated only: And every offering you shall season with salt, I would derive that this applies to even the wood and the blood, which are also termed: An offering. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nd every meal offering of yours鈥 (Leviticus 2:13), to teach that just as the meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. Therefore, the wood and the blood do not require salting, as in their case no other item is needed. The Gemara asks: Whom did you hear who says that the wood is termed an offering? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn鈥檛 the wood in fact require salting?

讚转谞讬讗 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 注爪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 砖谞讬 讙讝专讬谉 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讙讜专诇讜转 讛驻诇谞讜 注诇 拽专讘谉 讛注爪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诪专 注爪讬诐 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 讛谉 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 诪诇讞 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 讛讙砖讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when one brings a meal offering [korban min岣]鈥 (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word korban teaches that one can voluntarily give wood as an offering for the altar. And how much wood must one bring if he does not specify an amount? Two logs. And the support for the fact that wood can be brought as a voluntary offering is from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd we cast lots for the wood offering鈥 (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This voluntary donation of wood is an offering like a meal offering, and therefore it requires salt and requires bringing to the corner of the altar, like a meal offering.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注爪讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注爪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 注爪讬诐

And Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires the removal of a handful, just as in the case of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and sacrificed separately. And Rav Pappa says that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since it is an offering for the altar, the wood that is brought as an offering needs to be placed on other wood to burn, like any other offering that is burned on wood on the altar. Apparently, this means that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the wood is termed an offering, also holds that it requires the application of salt, in contrast to the ruling in the baraita.

住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 注爪讬诐 讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚诐 诪注诇 诪谞讞转讱 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara responds: Remove wood from the baraita here, as it is not excluded by the term 鈥渁nd every meal offering of yours.鈥 The Gemara asks: But then, the phrase in the verse 鈥渁nd every meal offering of yours鈥 is to exclude what? If it serves to exclude blood, this is derived from the continuation of the verse, which states: 鈥淔rom your meal offering,鈥 as explained in the continuation of the baraita.

Scroll To Top