Study Guide Menachot 59. Which types of meal offering are mixed with oil and which are offered with frankincense? From where are these laws derived?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Menachot 59
מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה, לְבוֹנָה וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן, לֹא לְבוֹנָה וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן.
MISHNA: There are four types of meal offerings: Those that require both oil and frankincense, those that require oil but not frankincense, those that require frankincense but not oil, and those that require neither frankincense nor oil.
וְאֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין.
The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense: The fine-flour meal offering, as it is stated: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon” (Leviticus 2:1); the meal offering prepared in a pan (see Leviticus 2:5–6); the meal offering prepared in a deep pan (see Leviticus 2:7–10); and the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers (see Leviticus 2:4).
מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מִנְחַת גּוֹי, מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר.
Additional meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense are the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest every day, half in the morning and half in the evening; the meal offering of a gentile; a meal offering brought by women; and the omer meal offering (see Leviticus 23:15).
מִנְחַת נְסָכִים טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵין טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים טָעוּן לְבוֹנָה, וְאֵין טָעוּן שֶׁמֶן.
The meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings requires oil but does not require frankincense. The shewbread requires frankincense but does not require oil.
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת – אֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה.
The two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot (see Leviticus 23:17), the meal offering of a sinner, and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota require neither oil nor frankincense. The two loaves do not require oil or frankincense because these additions are not mentioned with regard to it. The meal offering of a sinner does not require them, as it is written: “He shall not put oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). With regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, it is similarly written: “He shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר – תְּנַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara explains: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנָתַתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן.
§ The mishna teaches that the omer meal offering requires both oil and frankincense. With regard to this meal offering, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall put oil upon it and lay frankincense upon it; it is a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:15). From this it can be inferred: One must put oil specifically “upon it,” but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.
שֶׁיָּכוֹל – וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁטָּעוּן לְבוֹנָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן שֶׁמֶן! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן.
As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, to conclude that the shewbread should require oil? The baraita explains: And if the meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings, which does not require frankincense, nevertheless requires oil, then with regard to the shewbread, for which the halakha is more stringent in that it requires frankincense, is it not logical that it should also require oil? Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that one places oil upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.
״וְשַׂמְתָּ עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה.
Similarly, the phrase “and lay frankincense upon it” indicates that one must place frankincense “upon it,” but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.
שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן שֶׁמֶן – טָעוּן לְבוֹנָה, מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁטְּעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה.
As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if the shewbread, for which the halakha is more lenient than the meal offering brought with libations in that it does not require oil, nevertheless requires frankincense, then concerning the meal offering brought with libations, which does require oil, is it not logical that it should also require frankincense? Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” to indicate that one places frankincense upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.
״מִנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי לִלְבוֹנָה, ״הִיא״ – לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה.
In the phrase “it is a meal offering,” the term “meal offering” serves to include in the obligation of frankincense the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. With regard to that offering the verse states: “And a meal offering mixed with oil” (Leviticus 9:4), but it does not mention frankincense. Therefore, the term “meal offering” written in the context of the omer meal offering serves to apply the requirement of frankincense to the meal offering of the eighth day of inauguration. And the term “it is” in the same phrase serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense.
אָמַר מָר: ״עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן. אֵימָא: ״עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁמֶן!
The Gemara analyzes the halakhot stated in the baraita: The Master said that the phrase: “And you shall put oil upon it,” teaches that one places oil upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil on the shewbread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why does the baraita conclude that this verse excludes the shewbread? One can say instead: “Upon it” you shall place oil, but one does not place oil on the meal offering of priests.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן, כְּלִי,
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of oil, as the meal offering of priests is similar in many ways to the omer meal offering that is the subject of the verse. The Gemara details the points of similarity between the two types of meal offerings: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas each of the twelve loaves of the shewbread is prepared from two-tenths of an ephah. Furthermore, both are kneaded and consecrated in a service vessel, whereas the shewbread is not consecrated in a service vessel but rather is baked in an oven in the Temple courtyard.
חוּץ, וְצוּרָה, הַגָּשָׁה,
Thirdly, both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering are sacrificed outside the Sanctuary on the outer altar, whereas the shewbread is placed on the Table inside the Sanctuary. And in both cases the halakha of a change in form applies, i.e., if they were left overnight without being sacrificed they are disqualified, whereas the shewbread is left on the Table for a week. Furthermore, in both cases there is the obligation of bringing the meal offering near to the lower part of the altar, at the southwest corner, an obligation that does not apply to the shewbread.
וְאִישִּׁים.
And finally, some portion of both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering is placed in the fire, as the handful of the omer meal offering is sacrificed, while the entire meal offering of a priest is burned on the altar. By contrast, the shewbread is not sacrificed on the altar at all. In total, there are therefore six points of similarity between the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering, all of which are not shared by the shewbread. Consequently, the requirement of oil stated with regard to the omer meal offering should also apply to the meal offering of priests, not to the shewbread.
אַדְּרַבָּה, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן צִיבּוּרָא, חוֹבָה, טַמְיָא.
The Gemara counters: On the contrary [adderabba], it stands to reason that the shewbread, not the meal offering of priests, should be included in the requirement of oil, as the shewbread has points of similarity with the omer meal offering in that both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is an individual meal offering. Furthermore, they are both obligatory offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is voluntary. Additionally, both can sometimes be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, as the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is disregarded in cases involving the public. Like the offering of an individual, the meal offering of priests is not brought in a state of impurity.
דְּאָכֵיל פִּיגּוּלָא, בְּשַׁבְּתָא.
Also, there is the halakha that both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are eaten by priests, while the meal offering of priests is entirely burned on the altar. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] applies to both the shewbread and the omer meal offering, but not to the meal offering of priests. And finally, both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are brought even on Shabbat, as they are communal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is not sacrificed on Shabbat. Accordingly, there are also six points of similarity between the shewbread and the omer meal offering. Why, then, isn’t the verse interpreted as including the shewbread in the requirement of oil, and excluding the meal offering of priests?
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara answers: Even so, it stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests, as in the same passage that deals with the omer meal offering the verse states: “And when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). This verse includes all meal offerings of individuals in the halakhot of meal offerings stated in this chapter, including the meal offering of priests.
אָמַר מָר: ״עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה. אֵימָא: ״עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים לְבוֹנָה!
The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. The Master said: The phrase: “And lay frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 2:15), teaches that one must place frankincense upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations. The Gemara asks: Why does the baraita state that this verse excludes the meal offering brought with libations? One can say: One places frankincense upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering of priests.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל בְּלוֹג.
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of frankincense, as the meal offering of priests is similar in many respects to the omer meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas the libations that accompany meal offerings come in various amounts, depending on the type of animal offering they accompany. Furthermore, in both cases the flour is mixed with a log of oil, whereas in the case of the meal offering brought with libations, the amount of oil mixed with the flour depends on the type of animal offering it accompanies.
מוּגָּשׁ, בִּגְלַל עֶצֶם.
Additionally, both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering are brought near to the altar, a ritual that is not performed with the meal offering brought with libations. And finally, both are sacrificed due to themselves, i.e., they do not accompany any other offering, whereas meal offerings brought with libations accompany animal offerings. There are therefore four points of similarity between the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering that do not apply to the meal offering brought with libations.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנְחַת נְסָכִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן צִיבּוּרָא,
The Gemara counters: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the meal offering brought with libations and not the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of frankincense. This is because the meal offering brought with libations is similar to the omer meal offering in that both the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is that of an individual.
חוֹבָה, וְאִיטַּמִּי. בְּשַׁבְּתָא.
Furthermore, both the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering are obligatory offerings, while the meal offering of priests is a gift offering. And both may sometimes be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, as the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is disregarded in cases involving the public; whereas the meal offering of priests must be brought in a state of purity because it is an offering of an individual. Finally, both are brought even on Shabbat, whereas the meal offering of priests may not be brought on Shabbat. Accordingly, as there are also four points of similarity between the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering, one can ask why the meal offering brought with libations is not included in the requirement of frankincense.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests in the requirement of frankincense, as the verse states: “Anyone” (Leviticus 2:1), which is referring to all meal offerings of individuals.
״מִנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי לִלְבוֹנָה, וְאֵימָא – לְהוֹצִיא? הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבּוֹת – שַׁפִּיר.
The baraita teaches that the term: “Meal offering” (Leviticus 2:15), serves to include the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle in the requirement of frankincense. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this term serves to exclude the meal offering of the eighth day from the requirement of frankincense. The Gemara is puzzled by this suggestion: What is this suggestion? Granted, if you say that the verse serves to include the meal offering of the eighth day of inauguration in the requirement of frankincense, it works out well. This is because the only reason one could know that the requirement of frankincense applies would be that the halakha of this meal offering, which was brought on one occasion, is derived from the halakha of a meal offering that is brought in all generations.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְהוֹצִיא – לְמָה לִי? שָׁעָה מִדּוֹרוֹת לָא יָלְפִינַן.
But if you say that the verse serves to exclude the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle from the requirement of frankincense, why do I need a verse for this purpose? There is a principle that we do not learn the requirements of transitory offerings from the requirement of offerings of later generations. In other words, even without this verse one would not have thought that the requirement of frankincense applies to the meal offering of the eighth day, so there is no need for the verse to exclude this possibility.
״הִיא״ – לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה. וְאֵימָא לְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים? מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן,
The baraita teaches that the term: “It is” (Leviticus 2:15), serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this serves to exclude the meal offering of priests from the requirements of oil and frankincense. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in these requirements, while the two loaves should be excluded, as the meal offering of priests is similar to the omer meal offering in several respects that do not apply to the two loaves. The Gemara elaborates: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, unlike the two loaves, which are prepared from two-tenths.
כְּלִי, מַצָּה, וְעֶצֶם, הַגָּשָׁה, וְאִישִּׁים.
Furthermore, both are consecrated in a service vessel, unlike the two loaves, which are consecrated by being baked in an oven. Both come as matza, whereas the two loaves are leaven. And both come due to themselves, not with any other offering, whereas the two loaves come together with the lambs on Shavuot. With regard to both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering, there is an obligation to bring them near to the altar, which does not apply to the two loaves. And finally, they are both placed in the fire atop the altar, whereas the two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar.
אַדְּרַבָּה,
The Gemara counters: On the contrary,
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: צִיבּוּר, חוֹבָה, טַמְיָא, דַּאֲכַל,
it stands to reason that the two loaves, not the meal offering of priests, should be included in the requirement of oil and frankincense, as the two loaves have points of similarity with the omer meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: The two loaves and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is a meal offering of an individual. Both are obligatory offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is a gift offering. Both are sometimes sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, while the meal offering of priests may not be. Also, they are similar in that priests eat the two loaves and the omer meal offering, whereas the meal offering of priests is entirely burned upon the altar.
פִּיגּוּלָא, בְּשַׁבְּתָא, מַתִּיר, תְּנוּפָה, בָּאָרֶץ,
Furthermore, the halakha of piggul applies to the two loaves and the omer meal offering, but not to the meal offering of priests. And these offerings are sacrificed even on Shabbat, whereas the meal offering of priests is not. Additionally, both the two loaves and the omer meal offering render other items permitted, as the omer meal offering renders permitted the consumption of the new crop and the two loaves render permitted the sacrifice of meal offerings from the new crop; whereas the meal offering of priests does not render anything permitted. And both cases include the requirement of waving, while the meal offering of priests is not waved. In addition, the two loaves and the omer meal offering must come from the produce of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the meal offering of priests may consist of produce from outside Eretz Yisrael.
בִּזְמַן חָדָשׁ, וְהָנֵי נְפִישָׁן.
Also, the two loaves and the omer meal offering are sacrificed at a fixed time, as the omer meal offering is brought on the day after the first Festival day of Passover and the two loaves are sacrificed on Shavuot. By contrast, there is no fixed time for a meal offering of priests. Finally, the two loaves and the omer meal offering must come from the new crop, whereas the meal offering of priests may be brought from the old crop. And these eleven points of similarity between the two loaves and the omer meal offering are more numerous than the six points of similarity between the meal offerings of priests and the omer meal offering.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests in the requirement of oil and frankincense, as in the passage discussing the omer meal offering the verse states: “Anyone.” This verse is referring to all meal offerings of individuals, including meal offerings of priests.
מַתְנִי׳ וְחַיָּיב עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְחַיָּיב עַל לְבוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן – פְּסָלָהּ, לְבוֹנָה – יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
MISHNA: And if one places oil or frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner or on the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he is liable to be flogged for violating the prohibition against placing the oil by itself, and he is liable to be flogged for violating the prohibition against placing the frankincense by itself, as these are two separate prohibitions. If one placed oil upon the meal offering he has disqualified it, but if one placed frankincense upon the meal offering he should gather the frankincense and remove it. In this manner, the meal offering can be salvaged.
נָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה; נָתַן כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי – לֹא פְּסָלָהּ.
Furthermore, one violates the prohibition only by placing oil on the meal offering prior to the removal of the handful; if he placed oil on its remainder he does not violate a prohibition. If one placed a vessel with oil on top of a vessel that contains a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering brought by a sota he did not disqualify the meal offering, as the oil was not placed on the meal offering itself.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״, וְאִם שָׂם – פָּסַל.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified if oil is placed upon it, but if frankincense is placed upon it he should gather and remove the frankincense. The Sages taught a baraita: The verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). The phrase “he shall place no oil upon it” teaches that one may not place oil on the meal offering of a sinner, and that if he did place oil on this meal offering he has thereby disqualified it.
יָכוֹל לֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְאִם נָתַן – פָּסַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי חַטָּאת״. יָכוֹל אַף בְּשֶׁמֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הִיא״.
One might have thought that the same applies to the clause: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” and that if one gave frankincense on this meal offering he has consequently also disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states: “For it is a sin offering,” from which it is derived that even if one placed frankincense on it, it remains a sin offering, which is not the case if he placed oil upon it. One might have thought the same would also apply with regard to oil placed on a meal offering of a sinner, that in this case as well the meal offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: “It is a sin offering,” to indicate that although it is still deemed a sin offering when frankincense is placed on it, this is not the case when oil is placed on it.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לִפְסוֹל בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּלְהַכְשִׁיר בַּלְּבוֹנָה? פּוֹסֵל אֲנִי בַּשֶּׁמֶן, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטוֹ, וּמַכְשִׁיר אֲנִי בַּלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ.
The baraita asks: And what did you see to interpret the verse in this manner, to disqualify the meal offering due to the addition of oil but to render it valid with the addition of frankincense, when one could have equally drawn the opposite conclusion? The baraita answers: This interpretation is logical for the following reason: I disqualify it due to the addition of oil, since the oil is absorbed in the flour and it is impossible to gather it and remove it from the meal offering. But I render it valid with the addition of frankincense, as it is possible to gather the frankincense and remove it from the meal offering.
בְּעָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה שְׁחוּקָה, מַהוּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטָהּ, וְהָא לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטָהּ? אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִיבַּלְעָא, וְהָא נָמֵי לָא מִיבַּלְעָא?
§ Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one placed frankincense that had been ground into a fine powder, which cannot be gathered up and removed, on the meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Is the reason that a meal offering on which frankincense was placed is generally valid due to the fact that it is possible to gather the frankincense, and since in this case it is impossible to gather it the meal offering is disqualified? Or perhaps the reason that the meal offering is usually not disqualified is due to the fact that the dry frankincense is not absorbed by the flour of the meal offering, and therefore, as this ground frankincense is also not absorbed, the meal offering is valid.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וּלְבוֹנָה יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the mishna: And if one placed frankincense upon the meal offering he should gather and remove it, and it is then valid. This indicates that the status of the meal offering depends on whether or not the frankincense can be gathered up. Since ground frankincense cannot be gathered and removed from the flour, the meal offering should be disqualified.
דִּלְמָא חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא, דְּלָא מִיבַּלְעָא, וְעוֹד – יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps there are two reasons for this halakha but only one of them is explicitly stated in the mishna, as the tanna states one reason and adds another. One reason is that the Torah did not disqualify a meal offering upon which an improper item was placed, if that item is not absorbed in the flour. And another reason the meal offering is not disqualified by frankincense is that one can gather up the frankincense and restore the meal offering to its former state.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַכְשִׁיר אֲנִי בַּלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָא אָמַר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, as the aforementioned baraita states: I render it valid with the addition of frankincense, as it is possible to gather the frankincense and remove it from the meal offering. This also indicates that the reason the meal offering is valid is that the frankincense can be gathered up, and since ground frankincense cannot be gathered up the meal offering should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as here too one can say that the tanna of the baraita states one reason and adds another. The justification he states, that the frankincense can be gathered up, may be in addition to the reason that only a substance that is absorbed by the meal offering disqualifies it.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תַּנְיָא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה – מְלַקֵּט אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה, וּכְשֵׁרָה. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא לִיקֵּט לְבוֹנָתָהּ חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about Rabba bar Rav Huna’s dilemma? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota upon which one placed frankincense, he should gather up the frankincense and the meal offering is valid. And if, before he gathered its frankincense, the priest performing the service had intent to sacrifice its handful or eat its remainder either beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet, unlike the usual case of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul]. This is because at the time the priest had the improper intent the meal offering was not valid, as it had frankincense upon it at that time.
וְאִם מִשֶּׁלִּיקֵּט לְבוֹנָתָהּ, מְחַשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
And if after he gathered its frankincense the priest has intent to sacrifice its handful or to eat its remainder outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet. But if he had intent to sacrifice its handful or to eat its remainder beyond its designated time, it is piggul, and one who eats it is liable to receive karet for it. This baraita indicates that until the frankincense is removed from the meal offering, the meal offering is disqualified. This proves that the reason a meal offering upon which frankincense has been placed is valid is due to the ability to remove the frankincense, and not because it is not absorbed. This resolves Rabba bar Rav Huna’s dilemma: If ground frankincense is placed on the meal offering of a sinner, the meal offering is disqualified.
וְתִיהְוֵי פַּךְ, וְאַמַּאי פָּסְלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה? דָּחוּי הוּא!
§ The baraita teaches that if the priest had improper intent while there was frankincense on the meal offering, the meal offering is disqualified. The Gemara challenges: But let this meal offering of a sinner that has frankincense on it be like a meal offering on which oil had been poured from a cruse. Such a meal offering is disqualified. Why is it stated that the improper intent disqualifies the meal offering in the case where there is frankincense on it? It is already rejected from its consecrated state by the presence of the frankincense, and therefore the improper intent should have no effect.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״חַטָּאת״ קַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי הוּא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּחוּיִין.
Abaye says: Even though the meal offering is disqualified while there is frankincense on it, nevertheless the Merciful One calls it “a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11) even in that state, and therefore the improper intent has an effect with regard to it. Rava said there is a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥanan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.
דְּתַנְיָא, חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ דָּם בַּכּוֹס, מֵבִיא חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַגְרָלָה וּמְזַוֵּוג לוֹ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Ḥanan the Egyptian says: In the event that the scapegoat of Yom Kippur was lost, even if the blood of its counterpart that is sacrificed to God has already been slaughtered and its blood has been collected in the cup, the blood is not rejected, but rather one brings another scapegoat as its counterpart and pairs it with the goat that has already been slaughtered, and the blood is sprinkled.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ – לָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי.
Rav Ashi said that there is a different answer: Any matter that is within one’s power to remedy is not deemed rejected. In this case, since one can gather up the frankincense from the meal offering it is not rejected as an offering, and therefore the priest’s improper intention is significant.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ דְּחוּיִין? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם – יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מֵת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם.
Rav Adda says: It stands to reason that the correct explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi, as whom did you hear who accepts the principle of rejected offerings? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): And Rabbi Yehuda also says: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God was spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat, its counterpart, is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. In either case, two other goats must be brought and lots drawn again. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, when one of the goats dies, the remaining one is rejected.
וְאִילּוּ הֵיכָא דִּבְיָדוֹ, תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹס הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, וְזוֹרְקוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד.
And yet concerning a case where it is in one’s power to remedy the situation, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: After the Paschal offerings were slaughtered in the courtyard, before the floor was rinsed a priest would fill a cup with the blood of the many offerings brought that day that was now mixed together on the floor, and sprinkle it with a single sprinkling against the base of the altar, i.e., against its north and west sides, where there was a base, as is required for the Paschal offering. This was done in case the blood of one of the offerings had been spilled. The offering would be rendered valid, as some of its blood was now sprinkled on the altar. This indicates that even if the blood of an offering was spilled onto the floor, since a priest has the power to remedy this problem the offering is not rejected.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִנְחָה – פָּסַל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לֹא יָשִׂים״ – שִׂימָה כֹּל דְּהוּ, ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עַד דְּאִיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the placement of oil upon the meal offering of a sinner or the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed any amount of oil on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, he has thereby disqualified the meal offering. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it” (Leviticus 5:11). This indicates an act of placing that has no minimum amount, and therefore one is liable for any amount of oil. When the verse states “upon it,” this teaches that a meal offering is disqualified by the oil only if it has the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
וְאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן כְּזַיִת לְבוֹנָה עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ מִנְחָה – פָּסַל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לֹא יִתֵּן״ כְּתִיב, עַד דְּאִיכָּא נְתִינָה. ״עָלֶיהָ״ –
And Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed an olive-bulk of frankincense on top of any amount of a meal offering, he has thereby disqualified the meal offering. What is the reason for this halakha? It is written: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 5:11), which indicates that frankincense disqualifies the meal offering only if there is at least an amount that constitutes giving, which is an olive-bulk. When the verse states “upon it,”
Follow 
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.
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
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
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
Menachot 59
מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה, לְבוֹנָה וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן, לֹא לְבוֹנָה וְלֹא שֶׁמֶן.
MISHNA: There are four types of meal offerings: Those that require both oil and frankincense, those that require oil but not frankincense, those that require frankincense but not oil, and those that require neither frankincense nor oil.
וְאֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה: מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין.
The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense: The fine-flour meal offering, as it is stated: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon” (Leviticus 2:1); the meal offering prepared in a pan (see Leviticus 2:5–6); the meal offering prepared in a deep pan (see Leviticus 2:7–10); and the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers (see Leviticus 2:4).
מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מִנְחַת גּוֹי, מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר.
Additional meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense are the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest every day, half in the morning and half in the evening; the meal offering of a gentile; a meal offering brought by women; and the omer meal offering (see Leviticus 23:15).
מִנְחַת נְסָכִים טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵין טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים טָעוּן לְבוֹנָה, וְאֵין טָעוּן שֶׁמֶן.
The meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings requires oil but does not require frankincense. The shewbread requires frankincense but does not require oil.
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת – אֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה.
The two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot (see Leviticus 23:17), the meal offering of a sinner, and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota require neither oil nor frankincense. The two loaves do not require oil or frankincense because these additions are not mentioned with regard to it. The meal offering of a sinner does not require them, as it is written: “He shall not put oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). With regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, it is similarly written: “He shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן עֶשֶׂר – תְּנַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara explains: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנָתַתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן.
§ The mishna teaches that the omer meal offering requires both oil and frankincense. With regard to this meal offering, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall put oil upon it and lay frankincense upon it; it is a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:15). From this it can be inferred: One must put oil specifically “upon it,” but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.
שֶׁיָּכוֹל – וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁטָּעוּן לְבוֹנָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן שֶׁמֶן! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן.
As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, to conclude that the shewbread should require oil? The baraita explains: And if the meal offering brought with libations that accompany burnt offerings and peace offerings, which does not require frankincense, nevertheless requires oil, then with regard to the shewbread, for which the halakha is more stringent in that it requires frankincense, is it not logical that it should also require oil? Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that one places oil upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.
״וְשַׂמְתָּ עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה.
Similarly, the phrase “and lay frankincense upon it” indicates that one must place frankincense “upon it,” but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.
שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן שֶׁמֶן – טָעוּן לְבוֹנָה, מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁטְּעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה.
As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if the shewbread, for which the halakha is more lenient than the meal offering brought with libations in that it does not require oil, nevertheless requires frankincense, then concerning the meal offering brought with libations, which does require oil, is it not logical that it should also require frankincense? Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” to indicate that one places frankincense upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.
״מִנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי לִלְבוֹנָה, ״הִיא״ – לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה.
In the phrase “it is a meal offering,” the term “meal offering” serves to include in the obligation of frankincense the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. With regard to that offering the verse states: “And a meal offering mixed with oil” (Leviticus 9:4), but it does not mention frankincense. Therefore, the term “meal offering” written in the context of the omer meal offering serves to apply the requirement of frankincense to the meal offering of the eighth day of inauguration. And the term “it is” in the same phrase serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense.
אָמַר מָר: ״עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁמֶן. אֵימָא: ״עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁמֶן!
The Gemara analyzes the halakhot stated in the baraita: The Master said that the phrase: “And you shall put oil upon it,” teaches that one places oil upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil on the shewbread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why does the baraita conclude that this verse excludes the shewbread? One can say instead: “Upon it” you shall place oil, but one does not place oil on the meal offering of priests.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן, כְּלִי,
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of oil, as the meal offering of priests is similar in many ways to the omer meal offering that is the subject of the verse. The Gemara details the points of similarity between the two types of meal offerings: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas each of the twelve loaves of the shewbread is prepared from two-tenths of an ephah. Furthermore, both are kneaded and consecrated in a service vessel, whereas the shewbread is not consecrated in a service vessel but rather is baked in an oven in the Temple courtyard.
חוּץ, וְצוּרָה, הַגָּשָׁה,
Thirdly, both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering are sacrificed outside the Sanctuary on the outer altar, whereas the shewbread is placed on the Table inside the Sanctuary. And in both cases the halakha of a change in form applies, i.e., if they were left overnight without being sacrificed they are disqualified, whereas the shewbread is left on the Table for a week. Furthermore, in both cases there is the obligation of bringing the meal offering near to the lower part of the altar, at the southwest corner, an obligation that does not apply to the shewbread.
וְאִישִּׁים.
And finally, some portion of both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering is placed in the fire, as the handful of the omer meal offering is sacrificed, while the entire meal offering of a priest is burned on the altar. By contrast, the shewbread is not sacrificed on the altar at all. In total, there are therefore six points of similarity between the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering, all of which are not shared by the shewbread. Consequently, the requirement of oil stated with regard to the omer meal offering should also apply to the meal offering of priests, not to the shewbread.
אַדְּרַבָּה, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן צִיבּוּרָא, חוֹבָה, טַמְיָא.
The Gemara counters: On the contrary [adderabba], it stands to reason that the shewbread, not the meal offering of priests, should be included in the requirement of oil, as the shewbread has points of similarity with the omer meal offering in that both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is an individual meal offering. Furthermore, they are both obligatory offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is voluntary. Additionally, both can sometimes be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, as the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is disregarded in cases involving the public. Like the offering of an individual, the meal offering of priests is not brought in a state of impurity.
דְּאָכֵיל פִּיגּוּלָא, בְּשַׁבְּתָא.
Also, there is the halakha that both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are eaten by priests, while the meal offering of priests is entirely burned on the altar. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] applies to both the shewbread and the omer meal offering, but not to the meal offering of priests. And finally, both the shewbread and the omer meal offering are brought even on Shabbat, as they are communal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is not sacrificed on Shabbat. Accordingly, there are also six points of similarity between the shewbread and the omer meal offering. Why, then, isn’t the verse interpreted as including the shewbread in the requirement of oil, and excluding the meal offering of priests?
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara answers: Even so, it stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests, as in the same passage that deals with the omer meal offering the verse states: “And when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). This verse includes all meal offerings of individuals in the halakhot of meal offerings stated in this chapter, including the meal offering of priests.
אָמַר מָר: ״עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבוֹנָה. אֵימָא: ״עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״ – וְלֹא עַל מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים לְבוֹנָה!
The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. The Master said: The phrase: “And lay frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 2:15), teaches that one must place frankincense upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations. The Gemara asks: Why does the baraita state that this verse excludes the meal offering brought with libations? One can say: One places frankincense upon the omer meal offering, but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering of priests.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל בְּלוֹג.
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of frankincense, as the meal offering of priests is similar in many respects to the omer meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas the libations that accompany meal offerings come in various amounts, depending on the type of animal offering they accompany. Furthermore, in both cases the flour is mixed with a log of oil, whereas in the case of the meal offering brought with libations, the amount of oil mixed with the flour depends on the type of animal offering it accompanies.
מוּגָּשׁ, בִּגְלַל עֶצֶם.
Additionally, both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering are brought near to the altar, a ritual that is not performed with the meal offering brought with libations. And finally, both are sacrificed due to themselves, i.e., they do not accompany any other offering, whereas meal offerings brought with libations accompany animal offerings. There are therefore four points of similarity between the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering that do not apply to the meal offering brought with libations.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִנְחַת נְסָכִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן צִיבּוּרָא,
The Gemara counters: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the meal offering brought with libations and not the meal offering of priests should be included in the requirement of frankincense. This is because the meal offering brought with libations is similar to the omer meal offering in that both the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is that of an individual.
חוֹבָה, וְאִיטַּמִּי. בְּשַׁבְּתָא.
Furthermore, both the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering are obligatory offerings, while the meal offering of priests is a gift offering. And both may sometimes be sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, as the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is disregarded in cases involving the public; whereas the meal offering of priests must be brought in a state of purity because it is an offering of an individual. Finally, both are brought even on Shabbat, whereas the meal offering of priests may not be brought on Shabbat. Accordingly, as there are also four points of similarity between the meal offering brought with libations and the omer meal offering, one can ask why the meal offering brought with libations is not included in the requirement of frankincense.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests in the requirement of frankincense, as the verse states: “Anyone” (Leviticus 2:1), which is referring to all meal offerings of individuals.
״מִנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת שְׁמִינִי לִלְבוֹנָה, וְאֵימָא – לְהוֹצִיא? הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבּוֹת – שַׁפִּיר.
The baraita teaches that the term: “Meal offering” (Leviticus 2:15), serves to include the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle in the requirement of frankincense. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this term serves to exclude the meal offering of the eighth day from the requirement of frankincense. The Gemara is puzzled by this suggestion: What is this suggestion? Granted, if you say that the verse serves to include the meal offering of the eighth day of inauguration in the requirement of frankincense, it works out well. This is because the only reason one could know that the requirement of frankincense applies would be that the halakha of this meal offering, which was brought on one occasion, is derived from the halakha of a meal offering that is brought in all generations.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְהוֹצִיא – לְמָה לִי? שָׁעָה מִדּוֹרוֹת לָא יָלְפִינַן.
But if you say that the verse serves to exclude the meal offering of the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle from the requirement of frankincense, why do I need a verse for this purpose? There is a principle that we do not learn the requirements of transitory offerings from the requirement of offerings of later generations. In other words, even without this verse one would not have thought that the requirement of frankincense applies to the meal offering of the eighth day, so there is no need for the verse to exclude this possibility.
״הִיא״ – לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֲנוּ לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה. וְאֵימָא לְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים? מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן עִשָּׂרוֹן,
The baraita teaches that the term: “It is” (Leviticus 2:15), serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this serves to exclude the meal offering of priests from the requirements of oil and frankincense. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the meal offering of priests should be included in these requirements, while the two loaves should be excluded, as the meal offering of priests is similar to the omer meal offering in several respects that do not apply to the two loaves. The Gemara elaborates: Both are prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour, unlike the two loaves, which are prepared from two-tenths.
כְּלִי, מַצָּה, וְעֶצֶם, הַגָּשָׁה, וְאִישִּׁים.
Furthermore, both are consecrated in a service vessel, unlike the two loaves, which are consecrated by being baked in an oven. Both come as matza, whereas the two loaves are leaven. And both come due to themselves, not with any other offering, whereas the two loaves come together with the lambs on Shavuot. With regard to both the meal offering of priests and the omer meal offering, there is an obligation to bring them near to the altar, which does not apply to the two loaves. And finally, they are both placed in the fire atop the altar, whereas the two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar.
אַדְּרַבָּה,
The Gemara counters: On the contrary,
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: צִיבּוּר, חוֹבָה, טַמְיָא, דַּאֲכַל,
it stands to reason that the two loaves, not the meal offering of priests, should be included in the requirement of oil and frankincense, as the two loaves have points of similarity with the omer meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: The two loaves and the omer meal offering are communal meal offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is a meal offering of an individual. Both are obligatory offerings, whereas the meal offering of priests is a gift offering. Both are sometimes sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, while the meal offering of priests may not be. Also, they are similar in that priests eat the two loaves and the omer meal offering, whereas the meal offering of priests is entirely burned upon the altar.
פִּיגּוּלָא, בְּשַׁבְּתָא, מַתִּיר, תְּנוּפָה, בָּאָרֶץ,
Furthermore, the halakha of piggul applies to the two loaves and the omer meal offering, but not to the meal offering of priests. And these offerings are sacrificed even on Shabbat, whereas the meal offering of priests is not. Additionally, both the two loaves and the omer meal offering render other items permitted, as the omer meal offering renders permitted the consumption of the new crop and the two loaves render permitted the sacrifice of meal offerings from the new crop; whereas the meal offering of priests does not render anything permitted. And both cases include the requirement of waving, while the meal offering of priests is not waved. In addition, the two loaves and the omer meal offering must come from the produce of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the meal offering of priests may consist of produce from outside Eretz Yisrael.
בִּזְמַן חָדָשׁ, וְהָנֵי נְפִישָׁן.
Also, the two loaves and the omer meal offering are sacrificed at a fixed time, as the omer meal offering is brought on the day after the first Festival day of Passover and the two loaves are sacrificed on Shavuot. By contrast, there is no fixed time for a meal offering of priests. Finally, the two loaves and the omer meal offering must come from the new crop, whereas the meal offering of priests may be brought from the old crop. And these eleven points of similarity between the two loaves and the omer meal offering are more numerous than the six points of similarity between the meal offerings of priests and the omer meal offering.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that one should include the meal offering of priests in the requirement of oil and frankincense, as in the passage discussing the omer meal offering the verse states: “Anyone.” This verse is referring to all meal offerings of individuals, including meal offerings of priests.
מַתְנִי׳ וְחַיָּיב עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְחַיָּיב עַל לְבוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן – פְּסָלָהּ, לְבוֹנָה – יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
MISHNA: And if one places oil or frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner or on the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he is liable to be flogged for violating the prohibition against placing the oil by itself, and he is liable to be flogged for violating the prohibition against placing the frankincense by itself, as these are two separate prohibitions. If one placed oil upon the meal offering he has disqualified it, but if one placed frankincense upon the meal offering he should gather the frankincense and remove it. In this manner, the meal offering can be salvaged.
נָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה; נָתַן כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי – לֹא פְּסָלָהּ.
Furthermore, one violates the prohibition only by placing oil on the meal offering prior to the removal of the handful; if he placed oil on its remainder he does not violate a prohibition. If one placed a vessel with oil on top of a vessel that contains a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering brought by a sota he did not disqualify the meal offering, as the oil was not placed on the meal offering itself.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן״, וְאִם שָׂם – פָּסַל.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified if oil is placed upon it, but if frankincense is placed upon it he should gather and remove the frankincense. The Sages taught a baraita: The verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). The phrase “he shall place no oil upon it” teaches that one may not place oil on the meal offering of a sinner, and that if he did place oil on this meal offering he has thereby disqualified it.
יָכוֹל לֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְאִם נָתַן – פָּסַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי חַטָּאת״. יָכוֹל אַף בְּשֶׁמֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הִיא״.
One might have thought that the same applies to the clause: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” and that if one gave frankincense on this meal offering he has consequently also disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states: “For it is a sin offering,” from which it is derived that even if one placed frankincense on it, it remains a sin offering, which is not the case if he placed oil upon it. One might have thought the same would also apply with regard to oil placed on a meal offering of a sinner, that in this case as well the meal offering would not be disqualified. Therefore, the verse states: “It is a sin offering,” to indicate that although it is still deemed a sin offering when frankincense is placed on it, this is not the case when oil is placed on it.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לִפְסוֹל בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּלְהַכְשִׁיר בַּלְּבוֹנָה? פּוֹסֵל אֲנִי בַּשֶּׁמֶן, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטוֹ, וּמַכְשִׁיר אֲנִי בַּלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ.
The baraita asks: And what did you see to interpret the verse in this manner, to disqualify the meal offering due to the addition of oil but to render it valid with the addition of frankincense, when one could have equally drawn the opposite conclusion? The baraita answers: This interpretation is logical for the following reason: I disqualify it due to the addition of oil, since the oil is absorbed in the flour and it is impossible to gather it and remove it from the meal offering. But I render it valid with the addition of frankincense, as it is possible to gather the frankincense and remove it from the meal offering.
בְּעָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה שְׁחוּקָה, מַהוּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטָהּ, וְהָא לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְלׇקְטָהּ? אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִיבַּלְעָא, וְהָא נָמֵי לָא מִיבַּלְעָא?
§ Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one placed frankincense that had been ground into a fine powder, which cannot be gathered up and removed, on the meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Is the reason that a meal offering on which frankincense was placed is generally valid due to the fact that it is possible to gather the frankincense, and since in this case it is impossible to gather it the meal offering is disqualified? Or perhaps the reason that the meal offering is usually not disqualified is due to the fact that the dry frankincense is not absorbed by the flour of the meal offering, and therefore, as this ground frankincense is also not absorbed, the meal offering is valid.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וּלְבוֹנָה יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the mishna: And if one placed frankincense upon the meal offering he should gather and remove it, and it is then valid. This indicates that the status of the meal offering depends on whether or not the frankincense can be gathered up. Since ground frankincense cannot be gathered and removed from the flour, the meal offering should be disqualified.
דִּלְמָא חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא, דְּלָא מִיבַּלְעָא, וְעוֹד – יִלְקְטֶנָּה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps there are two reasons for this halakha but only one of them is explicitly stated in the mishna, as the tanna states one reason and adds another. One reason is that the Torah did not disqualify a meal offering upon which an improper item was placed, if that item is not absorbed in the flour. And another reason the meal offering is not disqualified by frankincense is that one can gather up the frankincense and restore the meal offering to its former state.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַכְשִׁיר אֲנִי בַּלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְלוֹקְטָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָא אָמַר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, as the aforementioned baraita states: I render it valid with the addition of frankincense, as it is possible to gather the frankincense and remove it from the meal offering. This also indicates that the reason the meal offering is valid is that the frankincense can be gathered up, and since ground frankincense cannot be gathered up the meal offering should be disqualified. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as here too one can say that the tanna of the baraita states one reason and adds another. The justification he states, that the frankincense can be gathered up, may be in addition to the reason that only a substance that is absorbed by the meal offering disqualifies it.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תַּנְיָא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה – מְלַקֵּט אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה, וּכְשֵׁרָה. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא לִיקֵּט לְבוֹנָתָהּ חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about Rabba bar Rav Huna’s dilemma? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota upon which one placed frankincense, he should gather up the frankincense and the meal offering is valid. And if, before he gathered its frankincense, the priest performing the service had intent to sacrifice its handful or eat its remainder either beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet, unlike the usual case of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul]. This is because at the time the priest had the improper intent the meal offering was not valid, as it had frankincense upon it at that time.
וְאִם מִשֶּׁלִּיקֵּט לְבוֹנָתָהּ, מְחַשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
And if after he gathered its frankincense the priest has intent to sacrifice its handful or to eat its remainder outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet. But if he had intent to sacrifice its handful or to eat its remainder beyond its designated time, it is piggul, and one who eats it is liable to receive karet for it. This baraita indicates that until the frankincense is removed from the meal offering, the meal offering is disqualified. This proves that the reason a meal offering upon which frankincense has been placed is valid is due to the ability to remove the frankincense, and not because it is not absorbed. This resolves Rabba bar Rav Huna’s dilemma: If ground frankincense is placed on the meal offering of a sinner, the meal offering is disqualified.
וְתִיהְוֵי פַּךְ, וְאַמַּאי פָּסְלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה? דָּחוּי הוּא!
§ The baraita teaches that if the priest had improper intent while there was frankincense on the meal offering, the meal offering is disqualified. The Gemara challenges: But let this meal offering of a sinner that has frankincense on it be like a meal offering on which oil had been poured from a cruse. Such a meal offering is disqualified. Why is it stated that the improper intent disqualifies the meal offering in the case where there is frankincense on it? It is already rejected from its consecrated state by the presence of the frankincense, and therefore the improper intent should have no effect.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״חַטָּאת״ קַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי? חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי הוּא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּחוּיִין.
Abaye says: Even though the meal offering is disqualified while there is frankincense on it, nevertheless the Merciful One calls it “a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11) even in that state, and therefore the improper intent has an effect with regard to it. Rava said there is a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥanan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.
דְּתַנְיָא, חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ דָּם בַּכּוֹס, מֵבִיא חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַגְרָלָה וּמְזַוֵּוג לוֹ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Ḥanan the Egyptian says: In the event that the scapegoat of Yom Kippur was lost, even if the blood of its counterpart that is sacrificed to God has already been slaughtered and its blood has been collected in the cup, the blood is not rejected, but rather one brings another scapegoat as its counterpart and pairs it with the goat that has already been slaughtered, and the blood is sprinkled.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ – לָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי.
Rav Ashi said that there is a different answer: Any matter that is within one’s power to remedy is not deemed rejected. In this case, since one can gather up the frankincense from the meal offering it is not rejected as an offering, and therefore the priest’s improper intention is significant.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ דְּחוּיִין? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם – יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מֵת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ – יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם.
Rav Adda says: It stands to reason that the correct explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi, as whom did you hear who accepts the principle of rejected offerings? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): And Rabbi Yehuda also says: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God was spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat, its counterpart, is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. In either case, two other goats must be brought and lots drawn again. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, when one of the goats dies, the remaining one is rejected.
וְאִילּוּ הֵיכָא דִּבְיָדוֹ, תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹס הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, וְזוֹרְקוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד.
And yet concerning a case where it is in one’s power to remedy the situation, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: After the Paschal offerings were slaughtered in the courtyard, before the floor was rinsed a priest would fill a cup with the blood of the many offerings brought that day that was now mixed together on the floor, and sprinkle it with a single sprinkling against the base of the altar, i.e., against its north and west sides, where there was a base, as is required for the Paschal offering. This was done in case the blood of one of the offerings had been spilled. The offering would be rendered valid, as some of its blood was now sprinkled on the altar. This indicates that even if the blood of an offering was spilled onto the floor, since a priest has the power to remedy this problem the offering is not rejected.
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִנְחָה – פָּסַל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לֹא יָשִׂים״ – שִׂימָה כֹּל דְּהוּ, ״עָלֶיהָ״ – עַד דְּאִיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the placement of oil upon the meal offering of a sinner or the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed any amount of oil on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, he has thereby disqualified the meal offering. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it” (Leviticus 5:11). This indicates an act of placing that has no minimum amount, and therefore one is liable for any amount of oil. When the verse states “upon it,” this teaches that a meal offering is disqualified by the oil only if it has the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
וְאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן כְּזַיִת לְבוֹנָה עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ מִנְחָה – פָּסַל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לֹא יִתֵּן״ כְּתִיב, עַד דְּאִיכָּא נְתִינָה. ״עָלֶיהָ״ –
And Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed an olive-bulk of frankincense on top of any amount of a meal offering, he has thereby disqualified the meal offering. What is the reason for this halakha? It is written: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 5:11), which indicates that frankincense disqualifies the meal offering only if there is at least an amount that constitutes giving, which is an olive-bulk. When the verse states “upon it,”
Follow
