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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2018 | 讻状讟 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Menachot 59

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?


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

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪谉 诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪谉

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.

讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 讜讛诪讞讘转 讜讛诪专讞砖转 讜讛讞诇讜转 讜讛专拽讬拽讬谉

The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense: The fine-flour meal offering, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon鈥 (Leviticus 2:1); the meal offering prepared in a pan (see Leviticus 2:5鈥6); the meal offering prepared in a deep pan (see Leviticus 2:7鈥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).

诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬 诪谞讞转 谞砖讬诐 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专

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).

诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟注讜谉 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 砖诪谉

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.

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛

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: 鈥淗e shall not put oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it; for it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11). With regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, it is similarly written: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (Numbers 5:15).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞谉 注砖专 转谞谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Mena岣t: 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞转转 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诪谉

搂 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: 鈥淎nd you shall put oil upon it and lay frankincense upon it; it is a meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:15). From this it can be inferred: One must put oil specifically 鈥渦pon it,鈥 but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讟注讜谉 诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 砖诪谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诪谉

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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 which indicates that one places oil upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.

讜砖诪转 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛

Similarly, the phrase 鈥渁nd lay frankincense upon it鈥 indicates that one must place frankincense 鈥渦pon it,鈥 but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 砖诪谉 讟注讜谉 诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛

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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 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.

诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 砖诪讬谞讬 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讛讬讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖诇讗 讬讟注谞讜 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛

In the phrase 鈥渋t is a meal offering,鈥 the term 鈥渕eal offering鈥 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: 鈥淎nd a meal offering mixed with oil鈥 (Leviticus 9:4), but it does not mention frankincense. Therefore, the term 鈥渕eal offering鈥 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 鈥渋t is鈥 in the same phrase serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense.

讗诪专 诪专 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诪谉 讗讬诪讗 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 砖诪谉

The Gemara analyzes the halakhot stated in the baraita: The Master said that the phrase: 鈥淎nd you shall put oil upon it,鈥 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: 鈥淯pon it鈥 you shall place oil, but one does not place oil on the meal offering of priests.

诪住转讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 注砖专讜谉 讻诇讬

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.

讞讜抓 讜爪讜专讛 讛讙砖讛

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.

讜讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 爪讬讘讜专讗 讞讜讘讛 讟诪讬讗

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.

讚讗讻讬诇 驻讬讙讜诇讗 讘砖讘转讗

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鈥檛 the verse interpreted as including the shewbread in the requirement of oil, and excluding the meal offering of priests?

诪住转讘专讗 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淎nd when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诪专 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛

The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. The Master said: The phrase: 鈥淎nd lay frankincense upon it鈥 (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.

诪住转讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 注砖专讜谉 讘诇讜诇 讘诇讜讙

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.

诪讜讙砖 讘讙诇诇 注爪诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 爪讬讘讜专讗

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.

讞讜讘讛 讜讗讬讟诪讬

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.

讘砖讘转讗 诪住转讘专讗 谞驻砖

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. 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: 鈥淎nyone鈥 (Leviticus 2:1), which is referring to all meal offerings of individuals.

诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 砖诪讬谞讬 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖驻讬专

The baraita teaches that the term: 鈥淢eal offering鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖注讛 诪讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

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.

讛讬讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖诇讗 讬讟注谞讜 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪住转讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 注砖专讜谉

The baraita teaches that the term: 鈥淚t is鈥 (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.

讻诇讬 诪爪讛 讜注爪诐 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛

The Gemara counters: On the contrary,

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞讜讘讛 讟诪讬讗 讚讗讻诇

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.

驻讬讙讜诇讗 讘砖讘转讗 诪转讬专 转谞讜驻讛 讘讗专抓

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.

讘讝诪谉 讞讚砖 讜讛谞讬 谞驻讬砖谉

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.

诪住转讘专讗 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淎nyone.鈥 This verse is referring to all meal offerings of individuals, including meal offerings of priests.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛砖诪谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诇讘讜谞讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 谞转谉 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 驻住诇讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讬诇拽讟谞讛

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.

谞转谉 砖诪谉 注诇 砖讬专讬讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 谞转谉 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 诇讗 驻住诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 砖诪谉 讜讗诐 砖诐 驻住诇

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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11). The phrase 鈥渉e shall place no oil upon it鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗诐 谞转谉 驻住诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讞讟讗转 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘砖诪谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬讗

One might have thought that the same applies to the clause: 鈥淣either shall he give any frankincense upon it,鈥 and that if one gave frankincense on this meal offering he has consequently also disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or it is a sin offering,鈥 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: 鈥淚t is a sin offering,鈥 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.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇驻住讜诇 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讛讻砖讬专 讘诇讘讜谞讛 驻讜住诇 讗谞讬 讘砖诪谉 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诇拽讟讜 讜诪讻砖讬专 讗谞讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇诇讜拽讟讛

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.

讘注讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 砖讞讜拽讛 诪讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗驻砖专 诇诇拽讟讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇诇拽讟讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讘诇注讗 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘诇注讗

Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬诇拽讟谞讛

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.

讚诇诪讗 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讘诇注讗 讜注讜讚 讬诇拽讟谞讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讻砖讬专 讗谞讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇诇讜拽讟讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗 讗诪专

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 砖谞转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 诪诇拽讟 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 诇讬拽讟 诇讘讜谞转讛 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about Rabba bar Rav Huna鈥檚 dilemma? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讜讗诐 诪砖诇讬拽讟 诇讘讜谞转讛 诪讞砖讘 注诇讬讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

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鈥檚 dilemma: If ground frankincense is placed on the meal offering of a sinner, the meal offering is disqualified.

讜转讬讛讜讬 驻讱 讜讗诪讗讬 驻住诇讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讚讞讜讬 讛讜讗

搂 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讟讗转 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讞讜讬讬谉

Abaye says: Even though the meal offering is disqualified while there is frankincense on it, nevertheless the Merciful One calls it 鈥渁 sin offering鈥 (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 岣nan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.

讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚诐 讘讻讜住 诪讘讬讗 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 讘讛讙专诇讛 讜诪讝讜讜讙 诇讜

This is as it is taught in a baraita: 岣nan 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

Rav Ashi said that there is a different answer: Any matter that is within one鈥檚 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鈥檚 improper intention is significant.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讞讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐

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.

讜讗讬诇讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讘讬讚讜 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜住 讛讬讛 诪诪诇讗 诪讚诐 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜讝专拽讜 讝专讬拽讛 讗讞转 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚

And yet concerning a case where it is in one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 诪砖讛讜 砖诪谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讝讬转 诪谞讞讛 驻住诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 砖讬诪讛 讻诇 讚讛讜 注诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗

搂 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 Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it鈥 (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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 this teaches that a meal offering is disqualified by the oil only if it has the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 讻讝讬转 诇讘讜谞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 诪谞讞讛 驻住诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬转谉 讻转讬讘 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 谞转讬谞讛 注诇讬讛

And Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淣either shall he give any frankincense upon it鈥 (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 鈥渦pon it,鈥

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Menachot 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 59

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪谉 诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诪谉

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.

讜讗诇讜 讟注讜谞讜转 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 讜讛诪讞讘转 讜讛诪专讞砖转 讜讛讞诇讜转 讜讛专拽讬拽讬谉

The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require both oil and frankincense: The fine-flour meal offering, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon鈥 (Leviticus 2:1); the meal offering prepared in a pan (see Leviticus 2:5鈥6); the meal offering prepared in a deep pan (see Leviticus 2:7鈥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).

诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬 诪谞讞转 谞砖讬诐 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专

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).

诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟注讜谉 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 砖诪谉

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.

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛

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: 鈥淗e shall not put oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it; for it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11). With regard to the meal offering brought by a sota, it is similarly written: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (Numbers 5:15).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞谉 注砖专 转谞谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Mena岣t: 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞转转 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诪谉

搂 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: 鈥淎nd you shall put oil upon it and lay frankincense upon it; it is a meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 2:15). From this it can be inferred: One must put oil specifically 鈥渦pon it,鈥 but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讟注讜谉 诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 砖诪谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诪谉

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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 which indicates that one places oil upon it, the omer meal offering, but one does not place oil upon the shewbread.

讜砖诪转 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛

Similarly, the phrase 鈥渁nd lay frankincense upon it鈥 indicates that one must place frankincense 鈥渦pon it,鈥 but one does not place frankincense upon the meal offering brought with libations.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 砖诪谉 讟注讜谉 诇讘讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讬讛 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛

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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 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.

诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 砖诪讬谞讬 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讛讬讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖诇讗 讬讟注谞讜 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛

In the phrase 鈥渋t is a meal offering,鈥 the term 鈥渕eal offering鈥 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: 鈥淎nd a meal offering mixed with oil鈥 (Leviticus 9:4), but it does not mention frankincense. Therefore, the term 鈥渕eal offering鈥 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 鈥渋t is鈥 in the same phrase serves to exclude the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, to indicate that they will require neither oil nor frankincense.

讗诪专 诪专 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诪谉 讗讬诪讗 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 砖诪谉

The Gemara analyzes the halakhot stated in the baraita: The Master said that the phrase: 鈥淎nd you shall put oil upon it,鈥 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: 鈥淯pon it鈥 you shall place oil, but one does not place oil on the meal offering of priests.

诪住转讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 注砖专讜谉 讻诇讬

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.

讞讜抓 讜爪讜专讛 讛讙砖讛

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.

讜讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 爪讬讘讜专讗 讞讜讘讛 讟诪讬讗

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.

讚讗讻讬诇 驻讬讙讜诇讗 讘砖讘转讗

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鈥檛 the verse interpreted as including the shewbread in the requirement of oil, and excluding the meal offering of priests?

诪住转讘专讗 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淎nd when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诪专 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讘讜谞讛

The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. The Master said: The phrase: 鈥淎nd lay frankincense upon it鈥 (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.

诪住转讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 注砖专讜谉 讘诇讜诇 讘诇讜讙

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.

诪讜讙砖 讘讙诇诇 注爪诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 爪讬讘讜专讗

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.

讞讜讘讛 讜讗讬讟诪讬

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.

讘砖讘转讗 诪住转讘专讗 谞驻砖

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. 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: 鈥淎nyone鈥 (Leviticus 2:1), which is referring to all meal offerings of individuals.

诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 砖诪讬谞讬 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讜转 砖驻讬专

The baraita teaches that the term: 鈥淢eal offering鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖注讛 诪讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

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.

讛讬讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖诇讗 讬讟注谞讜 诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪住转讘专讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 注砖专讜谉

The baraita teaches that the term: 鈥淚t is鈥 (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.

讻诇讬 诪爪讛 讜注爪诐 讛讙砖讛 讜讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛

The Gemara counters: On the contrary,

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞讜讘讛 讟诪讬讗 讚讗讻诇

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.

驻讬讙讜诇讗 讘砖讘转讗 诪转讬专 转谞讜驻讛 讘讗专抓

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.

讘讝诪谉 讞讚砖 讜讛谞讬 谞驻讬砖谉

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.

诪住转讘专讗 谞驻砖

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: 鈥淎nyone.鈥 This verse is referring to all meal offerings of individuals, including meal offerings of priests.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛砖诪谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诇讘讜谞讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 谞转谉 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 驻住诇讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讬诇拽讟谞讛

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.

谞转谉 砖诪谉 注诇 砖讬专讬讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 谞转谉 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 诇讗 驻住诇讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛谉 砖诪谉 讜讗诐 砖诐 驻住诇

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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11). The phrase 鈥渉e shall place no oil upon it鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讗诐 谞转谉 驻住诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讞讟讗转 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘砖诪谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬讗

One might have thought that the same applies to the clause: 鈥淣either shall he give any frankincense upon it,鈥 and that if one gave frankincense on this meal offering he has consequently also disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or it is a sin offering,鈥 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: 鈥淚t is a sin offering,鈥 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.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇驻住讜诇 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讛讻砖讬专 讘诇讘讜谞讛 驻讜住诇 讗谞讬 讘砖诪谉 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诇拽讟讜 讜诪讻砖讬专 讗谞讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇诇讜拽讟讛

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.

讘注讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 砖讞讜拽讛 诪讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗驻砖专 诇诇拽讟讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇诇拽讟讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讘诇注讗 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘诇注讗

Rabba bar Rav Huna raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬诇拽讟谞讛

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.

讚诇诪讗 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讘诇注讗 讜注讜讚 讬诇拽讟谞讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讻砖讬专 讗谞讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇诇讜拽讟讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗 讗诪专

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 砖谞转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 诪诇拽讟 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 诇讬拽讟 诇讘讜谞转讛 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about Rabba bar Rav Huna鈥檚 dilemma? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讜讗诐 诪砖诇讬拽讟 诇讘讜谞转讛 诪讞砖讘 注诇讬讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

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鈥檚 dilemma: If ground frankincense is placed on the meal offering of a sinner, the meal offering is disqualified.

讜转讬讛讜讬 驻讱 讜讗诪讗讬 驻住诇讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讚讞讜讬 讛讜讗

搂 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讟讗转 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讞讜讬讬谉

Abaye says: Even though the meal offering is disqualified while there is frankincense on it, nevertheless the Merciful One calls it 鈥渁 sin offering鈥 (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 岣nan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.

讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚诐 讘讻讜住 诪讘讬讗 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 讘讛讙专诇讛 讜诪讝讜讜讙 诇讜

This is as it is taught in a baraita: 岣nan 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

Rav Ashi said that there is a different answer: Any matter that is within one鈥檚 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鈥檚 improper intention is significant.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讞讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬诪讜转 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪转 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐

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.

讜讗讬诇讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讘讬讚讜 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜住 讛讬讛 诪诪诇讗 诪讚诐 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜讝专拽讜 讝专讬拽讛 讗讞转 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚

And yet concerning a case where it is in one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 诪砖讛讜 砖诪谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讝讬转 诪谞讞讛 驻住诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 砖讬诪讛 讻诇 讚讛讜 注诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗

搂 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 Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e shall place no oil upon it鈥 (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 鈥渦pon it,鈥 this teaches that a meal offering is disqualified by the oil only if it has the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 讻讝讬转 诇讘讜谞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 诪谞讞讛 驻住诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬转谉 讻转讬讘 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 谞转讬谞讛 注诇讬讛

And Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淣either shall he give any frankincense upon it鈥 (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 鈥渦pon it,鈥

Scroll To Top