Menachot 6

Menachot 6

מָה לְכִלְאַיִם שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ בְּכָךְ.

What is notable about diverse kinds? It is notable in that its mitzva is in this manner, since the belt of the priestly vestments must be sewn from diverse kinds. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a tereifa.

רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, לִיהְדַּר דִּינָא וְתֵיתֵי בַּ״מָּה הַצַּד״ – מָה לִמְלִיקָה שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ, חֵלֶב וָדָם יוֹכִיחוּ.

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from the verse, because it can be said: Let this claim be derived by analogy from the common element of two sources, as follows: With regard to the question of the baraita: What is notable about pinching? It is notable in that its sanctity prohibits it, one can respond: Fat and blood prove that this consideration is not enough to reject the a fortiori inference, as these are prohibited before they are sanctified and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High.

מָה לְחֵלֶב וָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאִים מִכְּלַל הֶיתֵּר – מְלִיקָה תּוֹכִיחַ.

Similarly, with regard to the question: What is notable about fat and blood? They are notable in that they come from an item that is generally permitted, i.e., the animal from which they come is itself permitted for consumption, one can reply: Pinching proves that this consideration is insufficient for a rejection of the a fortiori inference, as a bird that was killed by pinching is entirely prohibited for eating, and yet a pinched bird is permitted to the altar.

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתָּרִין לַגָּבוֹהַּ, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא טְרֵפָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לַגָּבוֹהַּ, מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן מִצְוָתָהּ בְּכָךְ!

Rav Sheisha concludes: And accordingly, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High. Therefore, I will also bring the case of a tereifa and say: Even though is it prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person, it should be permitted for the Most High. It is therefore necessary to derive from a verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to fat and blood, and pinching, in both cases its mitzva is performed in this manner.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּדִינָא פִּרְכָא, מֵהֵיכָא קָא מַיְיתֵית לַהּ? מִבַּעַל מוּם –

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is necessary to derive the halakha of a tereifa from a verse because one can say that the refutation of the a fortiori inference is present from the outset. Rav Ashi elaborates: From where do you wish to derive the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice? You wish to derive it from an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished animal, as a blemished animal is permitted for consumption and prohibited for sacrifice. This is problematic.

מָה לְבַעַל מוּם, שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַקְרִיבִין כִּקְרֵיבִין.

Rav Ashi explains: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, i.e., a blemished priest may not sacrifice an offering just as a blemished animal is unfit for sacrifice (see Leviticus, chapter 22). This cannot be said with regard to a tereifa, as a priest with a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months may perform the Temple service. It is therefore necessary to derive from the verse the fact that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַקְרִיבִין כִּקְרֵיבִין, וּמוּתָּר לַהֶדְיוֹט וְאָסוּר לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

Rav Aḥa Sava said to Rav Ashi: But an animal born by caesarean section proves that this a fortiori inference cannot be rejected based on that consideration, as with regard to it the Torah did not render those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, since an animal born by caesarean section is unfit for sacrifice whereas a priest born in such a manner may perform the Temple service. And yet an animal born by caesarean section is permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. If so, one cannot reject the a fortiori inference because with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed. Why then is a verse necessary in order to derive that a tereifa is unfit?

מָה לְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה.

Rav Ashi responds: What is notable about an animal born by caesarean section? It is notable in that such an animal is not sanctified with firstborn status, whereas a firstborn animal that was born as a tereifa is sanctified. Accordingly, without the verse one might have concluded that a tereifa may be sacrificed.

בַּעַל מוּם יוֹכִיחַ, מָה לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַקְרִיבִין כִּקְרֵיבִין, יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן יוֹכִיחַ.

Rav Aḥa Sava answers: A blemished animal proves that this is not the decisive consideration, as it does become sanctified with the sanctity of a firstborn, and it too is permitted for consumption and prohibited for the Most High. And if you say: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to it the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, one can respond: An animal born by caesarean section proves that this consideration is not decisive, as a priest born by caesarean section may perform the Temple service.

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁמּוּתָּרִין לַהֶדְיוֹט וַאֲסוּרִים לַגָּבוֹהַּ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

Rav Aḥa Sava concludes: And therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. And all the more so a tereifa, which is prohibited to an ordinary person, should be prohibited for the Most High. If so, the derivation from a verse is unnecessary.

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵיפָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ.

Rav Ashi refutes the proof of Rav Aḥa Sava: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that their general prohibition was not permitted, since blemished animals and those born by caesarean section are never permitted for sacrifice. Will you say that the same applies to a tereifa, whose general prohibition was permitted, as will be explained? Accordingly, it is necessary to derive from the verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא מְלִיקָה דְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף לַגָּבוֹהַּ, בַּעַל מוּם נָמֵי בְּעוֹפוֹת אִשְׁתְּרוֹיֵי אִשְׁתְּרִי, תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בַּבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בָּעוֹפוֹת!

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This tereifa whose general prohibition was permitted, what is it, i.e., to what case is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the pinching of a bird burnt offering for the Most High, whereby the bird is initially rendered a tereifa at the start of the pinching process, and nevertheless it is sacrificed upon the altar, then the same may be said of a blemished animal as well. As with regard to birds it is permitted to sacrifice a blemished bird. This is in accordance with the halakha that the requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male applies to animal offerings, but there is no requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male in the case of bird offerings.

אֶלָּא, מְלִיקָה דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף לַכֹּהֲנִים – כֹּהֲנִים מִשּׁוּלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

Rather, this permitting the general prohibition found in the context of a tereifa is referring to the halakha that the pinching of a bird sin offering renders it permitted to the priests for consumption despite the fact that it was not slaughtered by cutting its neck with a knife. This claim can be refuted as well, as the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High, i.e., they may partake of the sin offering only because it was permitted for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, there is no difference between a tereifa due to pinching and a blemished bird, as both were released from their general prohibition in this regard, since both are permitted for sacrifice upon the altar and both are therefore permitted for consumption by the priests. Consequently, the a fortiori inference remains valid, and the verse is unnecessary.

וְאֶלָּא פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן מוּמָן נִיכָּר, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵיפָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מוּמָהּ נִיכָּר! מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא.

Rather, refute the a fortiori inference like this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to both a blemished animal and one born by caesarean section their blemish is noticeable, as a blemished animal is visibly blemished and it is well known when an animal is born by caesarean section. Will you say that they can serve as the source of the halakha of a tereifa, whose blemish is not necessarily noticeable? Due to that reason, the verse: “Of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), was necessary, to teach that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

וּטְרֵיפָה מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל!

§ After trying to prove why a derivation from a verse is necessary, the Gemara questions the very source provided by the baraita on 5b for the disqualification of a tereifa, i.e., the verse: “Of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3). But is the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from the verse: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel” (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that an offering may be brought only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.

מִ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ – נָפְקָא, פְּרָט לַטְּרֵיפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת.

Alternatively, this halakha can be derived from a verse discussing animal tithe offerings: “Whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy for the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all animals may be sacrificed as the animal tithe, excluding a tereifa, as it does not pass under the rod on account of its weakness, and the Sages derived from this the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for any type of offering.

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי מִ״מַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הֵיכָא דְּלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, דֻּמְיָא דְּעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, אֲבָל הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר״.

The Gemara responds: All of these verses are necessary, because if the disqualification of a tereifa was derived from the verse “the well-watered pastures of Israel,” I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only in a case where it did not have a period of fitness, e.g., if it was born a tereifa and was therefore never fit for sacrifice. This is similar to the case of the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, whose disqualification is derived from this verse. But with regard to a tereifa that had a period of fitness, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Whatever passes under the rod,” to teach that all animals that do not pass under the rod are unfit for sacrifice, even if they were once fit.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הֵיכָא דְּנִטְרְפָה וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישָׁהּ, דֻּמְיָא דְּמַעֲשֵׂר. אֲבָל הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְרְפָה, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ הֲוָה חַזְיָא, אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מִן הַבָּקָר״, צְרִיכִי.

The Gemara continues: And if the Merciful One had written only: “Whatever passes under the rod,” I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only where it was rendered a tereifa and its owner subsequently sanctified it. This is similar to the case of animal tithes, as this verse is teaching that a tereifa cannot be subsequently sanctified as a tithe. But if the owner sanctified it and it was subsequently rendered a tereifa, which means that at the time when it was sanctified it was fit, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “Of the herd,” to teach that even an animal that became a tereifa after it was already sanctified is unfit for sacrifice. Accordingly, all three verses are necessary.

מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת, שֶׁקְּמָצָן זָר, אוֹנֵן, טְבוּל יוֹם, מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, מְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים, שֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, עָרֵל, טָמֵא, יוֹשֵׁב, עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים, עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלֵי חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּסוּל.

MISHNA: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest, or a priest who was an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died and was not yet buried, or a priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and was waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, or a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments, or a priest who had not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, or a priest who did not wash his hands and feet from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service, or an uncircumcised priest, or a ritually impure priest, or a priest who removed the handful while sitting, or while standing not on the floor of the Temple but upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another person; in all these cases the meal offerings are unfit for sacrifice.

קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל – פָּסוּל, בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: יַחְזִיר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין.

If the priest removed the handful with his left hand the meal offering is unfit. Ben Beteira says: He must return the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful, this time with his right hand.

קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ צְרוֹר, אוֹ גַרְגֵּר מֶלַח, אוֹ קוֹרֶט שֶׁל לְבוֹנָה – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: הַקּוֹמֶץ הַיָּתֵר וְהֶחָסֵר – פָּסוּל. וְאֵיזֶהוּ הַיָּתֵר – שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ מְבוֹרָץ, וְחָסֵר – שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו.

If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone, a grain of salt, or a pinch [koret] of frankincense emerged in his hand, the meal offering is unfit due to the fact that the Sages said: The handful that is outsized or that is lacking is unfit. The existence of one of these foreign items in the handful means that the requisite measure of flour is lacking. And which is the outsized handful? It is one where he removed the handful overflowing [mevoratz] in a manner in which his fingers do not hold the flour. And which is the lacking handful? It is one where he removed the handful with the tips of his fingers.

גְּמָ׳ לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנָא ״אֶחָד מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת״? לִיתְנֵי ״כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן זָר וְאוֹנֵן״!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings? Let it teach: All the meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest or an acute mourner. Why does the mishna single out the case of the meal offering of a sinner?

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִיצְטְרִיךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה? שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר, וּבַדִּין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא חַטַּאת חֵלֶב טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים,

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: By right the meal offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense like other meal offerings, so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does it not require oil and frankincense? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. And likewise, by right the sin offering of forbidden fat, i.e., the offering brought by one who unwittingly ate the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, should require libations

שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה? שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר, כִּי קָמְצִי לַהּ פְּסוּלִין נָמֵי תִּתַּכְשַׁר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does his offering not require libations? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: In order that his offering will not be of superior quality, when the handful is removed by one of those unfit for performing the Temple service, the offering should also be valid, as it too is of inferior quality. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in a manner that emphasizes that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when the handful is removed by one who is unfit.

אִי הָכִי, הָתָם נָמֵי לִיתְנֵי: אֶחָד חַטַּאת חֵלֶב וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ דָּמָן זָר וְאוֹנֵן, וְלֵימָא: לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִצְטְרִיךְ.

The Gemara asks: If so, then there as well, i.e., with regard to slaughtered offerings, let the mishna (Zevaḥim 15b) teach: Both the sin offering of forbidden fat and all the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest or a priest who is an acute mourner, are disqualified. And let us say that it was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, to emphasize that although the sin offering is not of superior quality, in that it does not require that libations be brought with it, nevertheless it is disqualified if its blood was collected by one unfit for Temple service. Why then does that mishna teach simply: All the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest are disqualified?

אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא לֵיהּ ״כׇּל״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״חוּץ״ – כּוּלְּהוּ מַשְׁמַע, הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא ״כׇּל״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״חוּץ״ – כּוּלְּהוּ מַשְׁמַע.

The Gemara concludes its question: Apparently, since the tanna teaches that mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, all offerings are indicated by the general disqualification, and there is no need to emphasize the halakha with regard to a sin offering, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Here too, with regard to meal offerings, since the tanna teaches the mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, this means that all of them are indicated, even the meal offering of a sinner. Why then does the mishna specifically mention the meal offering of a sinner?

אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאוֹקֵימְנָא לְרֵישָׁא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סֵיפָא נָמֵי דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner as it might enter your mind to say: Since I have established that the first clause, i.e., the mishna on 2a, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to the last clause as well, i.e., the mishna here, it may be concluded that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in this manner, to emphasize that it is in accordance with his opinion.

אָמַר רַב: זָר שֶׁקָּמַץ – יַחְזִיר, וְהָא אֲנַן ״פָּסַל״ תְּנַן? מַאי ״פָּסַל״? פָּסַל עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר.

§ Rav says: In the case of a non-priest who removed a handful, he should return the handful to the meal offering. The Gemara challenges: But we learned in the mishna that a non-priest disqualified the meal offering by removing a handful from it. The Gemara responds: What does the mishna mean when it says: Disqualified? It means that the non-priest has disqualified the meal offering until such time as he returns the handful to the meal offering, whereupon a priest fit for the Temple service should again remove a handful from the meal offering and sacrifice it.

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ בֶּן בְּתִירָא? אִי דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּעֵינֵיהּ – לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּבֶן בְּתִירָא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דַּחֲסַר קוֹמֶץ. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ, בֶּן בְּתִירָא סָבַר: יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ.

The Gemara challenges: If so, then this is identical to the opinion of ben Beteira in the mishna, who says that if a priest removed a handful with his left hand it is returned to the meal offering whereupon the priest removes a handful from the offering with his right hand. What difference is there between the two opinions in the mishna? The Gemara explains: If the handful that was removed by one unfit for Temple service is in its unadulterated form, then the Rabbis do not disagree with the opinion of ben Beteira, and the handful is returned to the meal offering. They disagree when the handful is lacking. The Rabbis hold: One does not bring flour from within his house and refill the vessel containing the handful, whereas ben Beteira holds that one brings flour from within his house and refills it.

אִי הָכִי, בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: יַחְזִיר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין?! בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: יַחְזִיר וְיָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mishna is referring to a handful that is lacking, then the statement of the mishna: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove a handful with his right hand, is imprecise, as the mishna should have taught: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and bring flour from within his house and refill the missing amount, and again remove a handful with his right hand.

כִּי קָא אָמַר רַב לְבֶן בְּתִירָא, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָא מַכְשַׁר בֶּן בְּתִירָא אֶלָּא בִּשְׂמֹאל, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara therefore suggests a different answer: When Rav said that the handful is returned to the meal offering, he said this only according to the opinion of ben Beteira. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it obvious that this is the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara responds: Rav’s statement is necessary lest you say that ben Beteira deems the meal offering fit only when the handful was removed with one’s left hand, but with regard to other disqualifications, he does not deem it fit. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to all of the disqualifications cited in the mishna, ben Beteira holds that the handful is returned to the meal offering whereupon a new handful is removed from it and sacrificed upon the altar.

מַאי שְׁנָא שְׂמֹאל, דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן לֵהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים? זָר נָמֵי אַשְׁכְּחַן לֵהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה!

The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of a handful removed with a priest’s left hand that one might have thought that ben Beteira’s opinion applies only in this case? Perhaps the reason is that we find that the Temple service performed with the priest’s left hand is fit on Yom Kippur, i.e., when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies holding the vessel containing the incense in his left hand. But with regard to a non-priest as well, we find that the Temple service is fit with regard to slaughter, as an offering may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Why then is it necessary for Rav to teach that the opinion of ben Beteira applies to the case of a non-priest as well?

שְׁחִיטָה לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

The Gemara responds: Slaughter is not considered a sacrificial rite, and it is for that reason that a non-priest may slaughter an offering. Accordingly, without the statement of Rav one would not have concluded that ben Beteira holds that a handful removed by a non-priest may be returned, as the Temple service is never fit when performed by a non-priest.

וְלָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁחִיטַת פָּרָה בְּזָר פְּסוּלָה, וְאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ: ״אֶלְעָזָר״ וְ״חוּקָּה״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ. שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא.

The Gemara asks: And is slaughter really not considered a sacrificial rite? But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: The slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid? And Rav said with regard to this halakha: This is because both the term: “Elazar the priest” (Numbers 19:3), and the term: “Statute” (Numbers 19:2), are written in the Torah’s description of the slaughter of the red heifer. The term “statute” indicates that if one deviates from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses, the service is not valid. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of the red heifer are different, as the heifer is considered sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance, not for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, one cannot derive from the case of the red heifer that the slaughter of an offering is considered a sacrificial rite.

וְלָאו כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת בָּעוּ כְּהוּנָּה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לָא בָּעוּ כְּהוּנָּה?! אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה נִינְהוּ וּבָעֵי כְּהוּנָּה.

The Gemara asks: But is it not all the more so? If items sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance require that the performance of rites relevant to them be performed by a member of the priesthood, then with regard to items sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, shouldn’t they certainly require that their rites be performed by a member of the priesthood? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in response: The requirement that the red heifer be slaughtered by a priest is not proof that its slaughter is a sacrificial rite. Rather, that requirement is just as it is in the case of examination of the shades of leprous marks, which is obviously not considered a sacrificial rite, and yet the Torah requires that these marks be examined by a member of the priesthood.

וְנֵילַף מִבָּמָה?

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, why was it necessary for Rav to teach that the removal of a handful by a non-priest does not disqualify the meal offering according to ben Beteira? Let us derive it from the fact that there was a period of fitness for rites performed by a non-priest, as before the construction of the Temple it was permitted for non-priests to sacrifice offerings upon a private altar.

וְכִי תֵימָא, מִבָּמָה לָא יָלְפִינַן, וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַיּוֹצֵא, שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה!

And if you would say that we do not derive halakhot of the rites performed in the Temple from those performed on a private altar, one can respond: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, that emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn the halakhot of offerings in the Temple from the halakhot of a private altar.

תְּנָא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

The Gemara rejects this: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely as a support for this ruling.

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן רַב, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין פָּסַל בֶּן בְּתִירָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מַכְשִׁיר הָיָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא בְּכׇל הַפְּסוּלִין כּוּלָּן!

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason it is known that ben Beteira permits the return to the meal offering of a handful removed by a non-priest is that Rav taught us so. Were it not for this, I would say that with regard to other disqualifications, i.e., other than a handful removed with the left hand, ben Beteira invalidates the meal offering. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, both say: Ben Beteira would deem fit in the case of all the other disqualifications listed in the mishna?

וְתַנְיָא: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת.

The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), that this verse indicates that the removal of a handful from a meal offering may be performed from the place where the feet of the non-priest stand, i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.

בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁקָּמַץ כְּבָר.

The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: From where is it derived that if one removed a handful with his left hand, that he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? It is derived from that which the verse states: “And he shall remove from there,” indicating that the handful is removed from the place where he already removed it, i.e., the handful is returned to the meal offering and thereupon removed from the same meal offering with the right hand. This concludes the baraita.

וְכֵיוָן דִּקְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ, מָה לִי שְׂמֹאל, וּמָה לִי שְׁאָר הַפְּסוּלִין?

The Gemara explains the difficulty from the baraita: And since the verse is written in an unspecified manner, i.e., it does not mention which handfuls are returned, what difference is it to me if the handful was removed with the left hand, and what difference is it to me if it was removed by means of one of the other disqualifications?

אֶלָּא, הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן רַב: קָמַץ וַאֲפִילּוּ קִידֵּשׁ, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹסֵי בֶּן יָאסְיָין וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנַּחְתּוֹם אָמְרוּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁקָּמַץ וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ, אֲבָל קִידֵּשׁ – פָּסַל.

The Gemara therefore suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, this is what Rav teaches us: Ben Beteira holds that if one unfit for Temple service removed a handful it may be returned to the meal offering even if he sanctified the handful by placing it in a service vessel. And the statement of Rav serves to exclude the opinion of these tanna’im: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker said: In what case is this statement of ben Beteira said, i.e., in which case does he rule that the handful may be returned to the meal offering? It is in a case where the unfit individual removed a handful and did not sanctify it by placing it inside a service vessel. But if he sanctified it then he has disqualified it, even according to ben Beteira, and it may not be returned to the meal offering.

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: קָמַץ – אִין, קִידֵּשׁ – לָא. כְּמַאן? כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִתַּנָּא קַמָּא.

And there are those who say that Rav teaches the opposite, that if an unfit person merely removed a handful, yes, ben Beteira permits such a handful to be returned to the meal offering from which it was removed, but if he already sanctified the handful by placing it inside a service vessel, it may not be returned. In accordance with whose opinion is this explanation? It is in accordance with the opinion of these tanna’im, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker, and it is to exclude the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker and maintains that a handful may be returned even after it was sanctified by a service vessel.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי קָא סָבְרִי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי? אִי קְמִיצַת פְּסוּלִין עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא עָבֵיד לֵיהּ מַתַּן כְּלִי! אִי קְמִיצַת פְּסוּלִין לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, כִּי עֲבַד לֵהּ מַתַּן כְּלִי מַאי הֲוָה?

Rav Naḥman objects to this: What do these tanna’im of the baraita hold? If they hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite to the extent that it disqualifies the offering, then the meal offering should be disqualified even though he did not perform the stage of the placement of the handful in a vessel. And if they hold that the removal of a handful by an unfit individual is not considered the performance of a rite, then when he performed the stage of its placement in a vessel, what significance was there to this action? He can still return the handful to the meal offering.

הֲדַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לְעוֹלָם עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וְלָא גָּמְרָה עֲבוֹדָתָהּ עַד דְּעָבֵיד לֵהּ מַתַּן כְּלִי.

Rav Naḥman reconsidered and then said: Actually, those tanna’im hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite, but the rite of the handful is not complete until he performs the stage of its placement in a vessel. Consequently, the meal offering is disqualified only after a person unfit for Temple service places the handful inside a service vessel.

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא קִידֵּשׁ,

The Gemara challenges: If so, i.e., if the placement of the handful inside a service vessel completes the rite that begins with the handful’s removal, then even if the handful was removed by an unfit individual who has not yet sanctified it in the service vessel designated for the handful,