Menachot 59
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Mishna discusses the classification of the various meal offerings based on their components, examining which offerings require both oil and frankincense, which require only one of them, and which require neither. To clarify the source of these laws, the Gemara cites a braita that derives the various cases where oil, frankincense, or both are excluded from the verses concerning the Omer offering (the meal offering of the first fruits). During the analysis of the braita, the Gemara analyzes the choice of exclusions and questions why the Midrash focused specifically on the cases mentioned in the braita rather than excluding the law of the Priestly meal offering (minchat kohanim) instead.
The Mishna rules that one who adds both oil and frankincense to a sinner’s meal offering transgresses two negative prohibitions. However, there is a difference between adding oil and frankincense. If one adds oil, the offering is disqualified as it cannot be removed, but if one adds frankincense, it is not disqualified as it can be removed.
Rav bar Rav Huna asks about frankincense that is crushed into small pieces that cannot be removed: is the offering disqualified, as it would be with oil, or is the issue with oil specifically that it is absorbed, whereas this frankincense is not absorbed into the mincha? Three attempts are brought to answer the question. After rejecting the first two, the third leads to the conclusion that it is disqualified.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in memory of her mother Daphne Rhodes, Daphne Devorah bat Avraham v’Chana, on her 9th yahrzeit. “Mum was warm, outgoing, witty, and fiercely devoted to her family. I can’t believe it’s been 9 years.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi on her 3rd yahrzeit. “Carol was the tent-pole, the driving force, the glue that held our family together. No matter what happened, Carol knew what to do. Michalle, Miriam and I miss her terribly, even though she is in our thoughts every single day. To this day in her sister Debbi’s family they approach any problem by starting with “What would Aunt Carol do?”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in loving memory of Naomi’s mother, Bernice “Bubby” Weiss z”l. “Marking the shloshim since her passing. Her passion and commitment to family, the State of Israel, and community, live on in her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Yehi zichra baruch.”
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,”
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menahot 59: Oil, Frankincense, and More Grain-Offerings
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
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,”
