This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the refuah shleima of our dear friend and co-learner, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשא רחל. “Phyllis, you continue to inspire and uplift us with your messages throughout this time. Your emunah is the embodiment of ה’ רועי לא אחסר. May הקב”ה grant you strength, healing and stamina each and every day.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in loving memory of Major Yaniv Kula and Staff-Sgt. Itay Yavetz, both from Modi’in, who were killed in Gaza. “Yaniv brought light, wisdom, and values wherever he went. Throughout his life, he acted to make the country better—and out of a deep sense of mission, he said: ‘Now it is my turn.’ Itay, charismatic and full of strength, left behind words of depth and significance, writing that the world is full of infinite meaning. May their memory be a blessing.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rabbi Eliezer holds that when the Kohen accepts the blood from a sacrifice into a sanctified vessel, there must be enough collected in that single bowl to be used for placing the blood on the altar. If one collects some blood in one bowl and some in another, and later mixes them together before performing the placements, the blood is not sanctified.
The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Eliezer contradicts himself, as regarding the Kohen Gadol’s griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin), he holds that it is sanctified even if placed in two separate bowls. To resolve this, the Gemara first suggests that perhaps Rabbi Eliezer does not derive one law from another—specifically, a mincha offering from blood. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Eliezer does derive laws for a mincha from the bowls of frankincense of the Showbread. In conclusion, the Gemara distinguishes between learning a mincha offering from another mincha-style offering and learning a mincha offering from an animal sacrifice (blood).
Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar regarding the minchat chavitin and rules that it is not sanctified if placed in the vessel in parts. Rabbi Acha brings the source in the Torah for his prohibition, and the Gemara brings two braitot that support his opinion and contradict Rabbi Elazar’s position.
Rabbi Yochanan’s position regarding the Kohen Gadol’s griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin) is questioned in light of a position he holds against Rav in a case of a regular mincha offering that is sanctified even before the person completely filled the vessel with the fine flour. Why does he differentiate between the cases?
The Gemara then asks about Rav, who disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan and requires the vessel to be filled: would he hold like Rabbi Yochanan or Rabbi Elazar regarding the minchat chavitin offering? They conclude that since he derives one item from another (on a different mincha-related issue), he would derive from the minchat chavitin to here, and therefore he must hold like Rabbi Yochanan by the minchat chavitin and requires it to be complete to sanctify.
Since the Gemara mentions a different mincha-related issue where Rav derives one thing from another, they quote that source in its entirety and delve into his debate with Rabbi Chanina about mincha offerings where not all the parts were added yet to the bowl – are they sanctified without everything being there?
At the beginning of the daf, Rabbi Elazar had made a comparison of taking the kometz from a mincha in the Sanctuary, which is permitted as it is derived from the bowls of frankincense from the Showbread. Rabbi Yirmia raises a difficulty against this from a braita, but the drasha in that braita is reinterpreted to fit with Rabbi Elazar’s ruling.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the refuah shleima of our dear friend and co-learner, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשא רחל. “Phyllis, you continue to inspire and uplift us with your messages throughout this time. Your emunah is the embodiment of ה’ רועי לא אחסר. May הקב”ה grant you strength, healing and stamina each and every day.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in loving memory of Major Yaniv Kula and Staff-Sgt. Itay Yavetz, both from Modi’in, who were killed in Gaza. “Yaniv brought light, wisdom, and values wherever he went. Throughout his life, he acted to make the country better—and out of a deep sense of mission, he said: ‘Now it is my turn.’ Itay, charismatic and full of strength, left behind words of depth and significance, writing that the world is full of infinite meaning. May their memory be a blessing.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker and family in honor of her daughter Eden completing the IDF officers course. “As she becomes a ‘Ktzinat Nifgaim‘ serving wounded IDF soldier and bereaved families we pray that Hashem will give her the strength and guidance for the challenging job ahead.”
Menachot 8
וְאִם אִיתַהּ, לֵילַף מִדָּם? וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא גָּמַר? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ בַּהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.
And if it is so that Rabbi Elazar holds that blood may not be sanctified in halves, let him derive the halakha of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering from that of blood. And if you would say that in this case Rabbi Elazar does not derive the halakha of the matter of a meal offering from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A meal offering from which the priest removed a handful while inside the Sanctuary is valid, despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is that we find a similar case in the Sanctuary, with regard to the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread? Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption when removed in the Sanctuary, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption. This indicates that Rabbi Elazar does derive the halakha of a meal offering from that of another matter.
מִנְחָה מִמִּנְחָה יָלֵיף, מִנְחָה מִדָּם לָא יָלֵיף.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar does derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering from that of another meal offering; the shewbread is considered a meal offering. But he does not derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering from that of blood.
וּמִנְחָה מִמִּנְחָה מִי יָלֵיף? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וְאֵין מַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין. מִשֶּׁפֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וּמַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar derive the halakha of one meal offering from that of another meal offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If before the priest detached the arrangement of shewbread and the bowls of frankincense from upon the Table, the bread broke into pieces, the bread is unfit for consumption and the priest does not burn the frankincense contained in the bowls on account of it. If the bread broke after the priest detached it, the bread is unfit but the priest burns the frankincense contained in the bowls on account of it.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא פֵּרְקָהּ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ, כְּמִי שֶׁפֵּרְקָהּ דָּמְיָא.
The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Elazar says: When the baraita refers to the detachment of the shewbread, it does not mean that the priest actually detached it. Rather, it means that once the time to detach it has arrived, even though he has not yet detached it and has not removed the bowls, it is considered as though he has detached it. Accordingly, if the shewbread broke after that time, the frankincense is burned.
וְאַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה!
The Gemara explains its question: And if Rabbi Elazar derives the halakha of one meal offering from another, why does he say that frankincense contained in the bowls are burned in a case where the shewbread broke when the time to detach the bread had arrived? It should be like the case of a meal offering that became lacking in its measure before the removal of the handful. Such a handful is not removed and is not sacrificed upon the altar. Likewise, the frankincense was still on the Table when the shewbread broke and should therefore be disqualified.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, מִנְחָה לָא בְּרִיר (בְּרֵירָה) קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, וְהָא בְּרִיר (בְּרֵירָה) קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק – כְּמַאן דְּפָרְקַהּ דָּמְיָא.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a difference between these meal offerings. In the case of a meal offering that became lacking before the removal of a handful, its handful was not clearly designated. Consequently, if the meal offering became lacking before a handful was removed, one may no longer remove a handful from it. But in the case of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, its handful, i.e., the frankincense, was clearly designated at the time when the frankincense was placed in the bowls, since the frankincense is in a separate container from the bread. And therefore, once the time to detach the bread has arrived, it is considered as though he has detached it.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תֶּיהְוֵי כְּשִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה, דְּאֵין מַקְטִירִין קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן! לָאו פְּלוּגְתָּא נִינְהוּ? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה – מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן.
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, then even if the time to detach the shewbread arrived, why is the frankincense burned? It should be like a case where the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning upon the altar; the halakha in this case is that one does not burn the handful on account of such a meal offering. The Gemara responds: Isn’t it a dispute among the amora’im (9a) whether or not the handful is burned in such a case? One can say that Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that if the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning, the priest burns the handful on account of such a meal offering.
גּוּפָא: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה לַחֲצָאִין, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקְּרֵבָה לַחֲצָאִין, קְדוֹשָׁה לַחֲצָאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִיתָהּ״, הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֳצֵיהוּ.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: With regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is not sanctified in halves, and Rabbi Elazar says: Since it is sacrificed in halves, as half of the meal offering is sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon, it may likewise be sanctified in halves. Rav Aḥa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The verse states: “A meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This means: First bring a whole meal offering, and only afterward divide it into halves.
מֵיתִיבִי: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאוֹת חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ; וְתַנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִית״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מֵבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וּמַקְרִיב, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וּמַקְרִיב; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The mishna teaches (50b): The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings a full tenth of an ephah and then divides it into two. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If it were stated: A meal offering, half in the morning, and half in the evening, I would say: He brings half of a tenth from his home in the morning and sacrifices it, and another half of a tenth from his home in the evening and sacrifices it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning,” indicating that he brings a half from a whole, and he does not bring a half by itself.
לְמִצְוָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב גְּבִיהָא מִבֵּי כְתִיל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא ״חוּקָּה״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאָהּ שָׁלֵם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar maintains that the verse requires that a whole meal offering be brought in the morning only for a mitzva, i.e., ab initio. Nevertheless, if half of a tenth was brought in the morning it is valid after the fact. Rav Geviha from Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: But the term “statute” is written with regard to the griddle-cake offering, as the verse states: “A statute forever” (Leviticus 6:15), and there is a principle that whenever the Torah calls a mitzva a statute, the details of its performance are indispensable. Rav Ashi said to him: It was necessary for the Torah to define this mitzva as a statute only with regard to the requirement that the High Priest bring a full tenth from his home. With regard to its sanctification in a service vessel, it can be sanctified in halves.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: הִפְרִישׁ חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן, וְדַעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף – רַב אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ. וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתִּין!
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But it was stated: If one set aside half a tenth of an ephah for any meal offering, and his intention was to add to the half in order to reach a full tenth, Rav says that it is not sanctified, as he did not bring a full tenth, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is sanctified. And if it is so that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the griddle-cake offering cannot be sanctified in halves, let him derive from the griddle-cake offering that no meal offering may be sanctified in halves.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא יָלֵיף, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁירִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מֵעִיקָּר.
And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not derive the halakha of one matter with regard to consecrated items from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Peace offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is written: “And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: It is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area, i.e., the courtyard, should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major area, the Tent of Meeting. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan derives a halakha with regard to the Sanctuary from the Temple courtyard.
דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף שָׁאנֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֵאִים״ – אֵין ״מְלֵאִים״ אֶלָּא שְׁלֵמִים (כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם), וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף – רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן קָדוֹשׁ.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact derive the halakha of one matter from another, and therefore he learns the halakha with regard to all meal offerings from the griddle-cake offering, that in general they are not sanctified in halves. But a case where one expresses his intention to add to the half measure is different, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Both of them full of fine flour” (Numbers 7:13). “Full” is a reference only to full measurements; that is to say, the flour is not sanctified until there is a full tenth inside the vessel. And Rabbi Yosei said: When is it the halakha that the flour is sanctified only if a full tenth is inside the vessel? It is at a time when his intention was not initially to add to that which he placed inside the vessel. But at a time when his intention was initially to add, each initial bit of flour is sanctified by the vessel.
וְרַב, בְּחָבִיתִין כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתִּין!
The Gemara asks: And Rav, who holds that standard meal offerings are not sanctified in halves even if one’s initial intention was to add to the half measure, with regard to a griddle-cake offering, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that a griddle-cake offering can be sanctified in halves, then let him derive from the halakha of griddle-cake offerings that all meal offerings may be sanctified in halves.
וְכִי תֵּימָא רַב מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא יָלֵיף, וְהָאָמַר רַב: מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן (וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה) – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בְּלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים.
And if you would say that Rav does not derive the halakha of one matter from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rav say: A standard meal offering, which is brought with oil and frankincense, is sanctified by a service vessel even without its oil and without its frankincense. It is sanctified without its oil, as we find such a halakha with regard to the shewbread, which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering accompanying the libations of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.
בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, עַל כׇּרְחָיךְ רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
Finally, a standard meal offering is sanctified by a service vessel even without its oil and without its frankincense, as we find with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which includes neither of these. This indicates that Rav does derive the halakha of a meal offering from other meal offerings. Rather, perforce, with regard to the griddle-cake offering, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that this offering is not sanctified in halves, and it is derived from there that no meal offerings are sanctified in halves.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵין דִּינָה כְּעִשָּׂרוֹן חָסֵר – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בְּלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים. בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says that a meal offering is sanctified without its oil, and its halakha is not the same as when a tenth of an ephah of flour is lacking, as we find such a halakha with regard to the shewbread, which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering accompanying the libations of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified. Additionally, a meal offering is sanctified even without its oil and without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which lacks both oil and frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.
וְשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה קׇדְשִׁי הַאי בְּלָא הַאי וְהַאי בְּלָא הַאי; שֶׁמֶן – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין, וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר:
Rav continues: And oil and frankincense are each sanctified by service vessels, this substance without that one, and that substance without this one. Oil is sanctified on its own, as we find such a halakha with regard to the log of oil of a leper, which is sanctified on its own. Frankincense is sanctified on its own, as we find such a halakha with regard to the frankincense that comes in the bowls that are brought with the shewbread; there is no oil in that case and yet the frankincense is sanctified in the bowls. And Rabbi Ḥanina says:
לֹא זוֹ קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא זוֹ וְלֹא זוֹ קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא זוֹ.
Neither is this substance sanctified without that, nor is that sanctified without this. Rather, any meal offering that requires oil and frankincense is sanctified by a service vessel only when the flour, oil, and frankincense are all placed in the same vessel at the same time.
וּלְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עִשָּׂרוֹן לָמָּה נִמְשַׁח? (וַהֲלֹא אֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי אֶלָּא לִמְדִידַת קֶמַח בִּלְבַד, וְהַקֶּמַח אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן!) לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, for what purpose was the vessel that measured a tenth of an ephah anointed, making it possible for it to sanctify items placed inside it? This vessel was fashioned only for measuring flour, and according to Rabbi Ḥanina the flour is not sanctified without oil. What then does this vessel sanctify? The Gemara answers: The vessel was anointed for the purpose of sanctifying the meal offering of a sinner, which contains neither oil nor frankincense.
וְלוֹג, לָמָּה נִמְשַׁח? לְלוֹג שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.
The Gemara further asks: And for what purpose was the vessel that measured one log of oil anointed? After all, according to Rabbi Ḥanina oil for a meal offering cannot be sanctified by itself. The Gemara explains: It was anointed for the purpose of sanctifying the log of oil of a leper, which is not brought as part of a meal offering. This oil is sanctified without flour or frankincense.
וְאַף שְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב, דִּתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדּוֹת הַיָּבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדּוֹת הַיָּבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara notes: And Shmuel also holds in accordance with this statement of Rav, that a service vessel sanctifies the flour of a meal offering even without its oil, as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): The vessels used for liquids sanctify only the liquids, and the vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only the dry goods. But the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify the dry goods, and the vessels that serve as dry measures do not sanctify the liquids.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת (שֶׁל דָּם) מְקַדְּשׁוֹת אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן לְמִנְחָה״.
And Shmuel says with regard to this mishna: They taught that vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry goods only with regard to vessels used as measures. But bowls that are used for collecting and tossing the blood of offerings sanctify the dry goods as well, as it is stated with regard to the offerings of the princes brought during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “Both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), which indicates that the bowl sanctifies meal offerings, which are dry.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מִנְחָה לַחָה הִיא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לַיָּבֵשׁ שֶׁבָּהּ, דְּהַיְינוּ לְבוֹנָה.
The Gemara continues its proof: And Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina, with regard to this derivation of Shmuel: But the meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mingled with oil. How then can one derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry? Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel is necessary only to teach that the dry part of a meal offering, that is, the frankincense, which invariably does not come into contact with the oil, is sanctified by the bowls as well.
(וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן, יָבֵשׁ שֶׁבָּהּ הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? וַהֲלֹא כּוּלָּן לַחִים הֵן מִפְּנֵי הַשֶּׁמֶן! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי בְּלֹא הַאי.)
The Gemara concludes its proof with regard to Shmuel’s opinion: And if it enters your mind that Shmuel holds that a meal offering is not sanctified by a service vessel until all of its components are together in the vessel, then how can you find a case where the dry parts of a meal offering are by themselves? Is it not correct that when meal offerings are sanctified, all of them are liquids, due to the oil that is mixed with them? Rather, conclude from here that Shmuel holds that this substance may be sanctified without that one.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִנְחָה, לְגַבֵּי דָּם – כְּיָבֵשׁ דָּמְיָא.
And if you wish, say instead in answer to Rav Aḥa of Difti’s question: A meal offering, even when it is mixed with oil, is, relative to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one may derive from the verse that the bowls sanctify dry items, and just as a bowl sanctifies a meal offering that contains oil, as it is considered dry in comparison to blood, so too, it sanctifies a meal offering that is entirely dry, i.e., that contains no oil, as claimed by Rav.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: A meal offering from which the priest removed a handful while inside the Sanctuary is valid, despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is that we find a similar case in the Sanctuary, with regard to the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread. Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita discussing the verse: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2). The 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 may stand, i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.
בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל, שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁקָּמַץ כְּבָר.
The baraita continues: Ben Beteira, who holds that a handful is not disqualified when removed with the left hand, 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 that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? The verse states: “And he shall remove from there.” This indicates 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, this time with his right hand. It is clear from the statement of the first tanna that the handful of a meal offering may be removed only in the place where the feet of a non-priest may stand, but not in the Sanctuary.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ – לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת כׇּל עֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְעוֹלָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּמִנְחָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, מָה עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן – אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן.
Some say that Rabbi Yirmeya raises the objection and he resolves it as well. And some say that Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain to you the resolution of this objection: The verse is necessary only to permit the entire Temple courtyard for removing the handful there, not to prohibit the removal of a handful inside the Sanctuary. The reason is that you should not say: Since a burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, and a meal offering is likewise an offering of the most sacred order, then just as a burnt offering requires that its slaughter be performed in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, so too, a meal offering requires that the removal of its handful be in the northern part.
מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל, מֵחַטָּאת.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this comparison: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it is more sacred, as it is consumed in its entirety upon the altar. The Gemara responds: The same comparison may be drawn from a sin offering, which is also an offering of the most sacred order and is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar, and yet it must be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.
מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת, מֵאָשָׁם.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this comparison as well: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that the halakhot of a sin offering are more stringent, as its sacrifice atones for those sins whose transgression causes one to be liable to receive karet. The Gemara responds: The comparison may be drawn from a guilt offering, as it too is an offering of the most sacred order, it is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar, it does not atone for such sins, and yet it must be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.
מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים! מִכּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that a guilt offering has a loftier status, as it is one of the types of offerings whose atonement is achieved through their blood, i.e., it is an animal offering. The Gemara adds: Once this claim has been accepted, from all of them as well, i.e., from a burnt offering and sin offering, one cannot draw a comparison to a meal offering either, as they are all of the types of offerings whose atonement is achieved through their blood.
אֶלָּא אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְקָמַץ״, מָה הַגָּשָׁה בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית, אַף קְמִיצָה נָמֵי בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rather, the verse was necessary in order to permit the removal of a handful anywhere in the Temple courtyard because it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “And it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), and it states: “And he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), one could claim: Just as the bringing of the meal offering is in the southwestern corner of the altar, so too, the removal of the handful must also be performed in the southwestern corner. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the removal of the handful may be performed anywhere in the Temple courtyard, but this does not serve to exclude the Sanctuary.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Peace offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated: “And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard. And it is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area, i.e., the courtyard, should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major one, the Tent of Meeting or the Sanctuary.
מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הִקִּיפוּ גּוֹיִם אֶת הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לַהֵיכָל וְאוֹכְלִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the Temple courtyard and were firing projectiles inside to the point that it became impossible to remain in the courtyard on account of the threat, that the priests enter the Sanctuary and partake of the offerings of the most sacred order and the remainders of the meal offerings while inside the Sanctuary? The verse states:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menahot 4: Grain-Offerings That Pave the Way for Other Things
Menahot 3: Torat Ha-Minhah, the Law of the Grain-Offering
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ontario, Canada
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Menachot 8
וְאִם אִיתַהּ, לֵילַף מִדָּם? וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא גָּמַר? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ בַּהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.
And if it is so that Rabbi Elazar holds that blood may not be sanctified in halves, let him derive the halakha of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering from that of blood. And if you would say that in this case Rabbi Elazar does not derive the halakha of the matter of a meal offering from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A meal offering from which the priest removed a handful while inside the Sanctuary is valid, despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is that we find a similar case in the Sanctuary, with regard to the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread? Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption when removed in the Sanctuary, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption. This indicates that Rabbi Elazar does derive the halakha of a meal offering from that of another matter.
מִנְחָה מִמִּנְחָה יָלֵיף, מִנְחָה מִדָּם לָא יָלֵיף.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar does derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering from that of another meal offering; the shewbread is considered a meal offering. But he does not derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering from that of blood.
וּמִנְחָה מִמִּנְחָה מִי יָלֵיף? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וְאֵין מַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין. מִשֶּׁפֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וּמַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar derive the halakha of one meal offering from that of another meal offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If before the priest detached the arrangement of shewbread and the bowls of frankincense from upon the Table, the bread broke into pieces, the bread is unfit for consumption and the priest does not burn the frankincense contained in the bowls on account of it. If the bread broke after the priest detached it, the bread is unfit but the priest burns the frankincense contained in the bowls on account of it.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא פֵּרְקָהּ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ, כְּמִי שֶׁפֵּרְקָהּ דָּמְיָא.
The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Elazar says: When the baraita refers to the detachment of the shewbread, it does not mean that the priest actually detached it. Rather, it means that once the time to detach it has arrived, even though he has not yet detached it and has not removed the bowls, it is considered as though he has detached it. Accordingly, if the shewbread broke after that time, the frankincense is burned.
וְאַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה!
The Gemara explains its question: And if Rabbi Elazar derives the halakha of one meal offering from another, why does he say that frankincense contained in the bowls are burned in a case where the shewbread broke when the time to detach the bread had arrived? It should be like the case of a meal offering that became lacking in its measure before the removal of the handful. Such a handful is not removed and is not sacrificed upon the altar. Likewise, the frankincense was still on the Table when the shewbread broke and should therefore be disqualified.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, מִנְחָה לָא בְּרִיר (בְּרֵירָה) קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, וְהָא בְּרִיר (בְּרֵירָה) קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק – כְּמַאן דְּפָרְקַהּ דָּמְיָא.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a difference between these meal offerings. In the case of a meal offering that became lacking before the removal of a handful, its handful was not clearly designated. Consequently, if the meal offering became lacking before a handful was removed, one may no longer remove a handful from it. But in the case of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, its handful, i.e., the frankincense, was clearly designated at the time when the frankincense was placed in the bowls, since the frankincense is in a separate container from the bread. And therefore, once the time to detach the bread has arrived, it is considered as though he has detached it.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תֶּיהְוֵי כְּשִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה, דְּאֵין מַקְטִירִין קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן! לָאו פְּלוּגְתָּא נִינְהוּ? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה – מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן.
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, then even if the time to detach the shewbread arrived, why is the frankincense burned? It should be like a case where the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning upon the altar; the halakha in this case is that one does not burn the handful on account of such a meal offering. The Gemara responds: Isn’t it a dispute among the amora’im (9a) whether or not the handful is burned in such a case? One can say that Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that if the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning, the priest burns the handful on account of such a meal offering.
גּוּפָא: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה לַחֲצָאִין, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקְּרֵבָה לַחֲצָאִין, קְדוֹשָׁה לַחֲצָאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִיתָהּ״, הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֳצֵיהוּ.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: With regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is not sanctified in halves, and Rabbi Elazar says: Since it is sacrificed in halves, as half of the meal offering is sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon, it may likewise be sanctified in halves. Rav Aḥa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The verse states: “A meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This means: First bring a whole meal offering, and only afterward divide it into halves.
מֵיתִיבִי: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאוֹת חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ; וְתַנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִית״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מֵבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וּמַקְרִיב, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וּמַקְרִיב; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The mishna teaches (50b): The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings a full tenth of an ephah and then divides it into two. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If it were stated: A meal offering, half in the morning, and half in the evening, I would say: He brings half of a tenth from his home in the morning and sacrifices it, and another half of a tenth from his home in the evening and sacrifices it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning,” indicating that he brings a half from a whole, and he does not bring a half by itself.
לְמִצְוָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב גְּבִיהָא מִבֵּי כְתִיל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא ״חוּקָּה״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאָהּ שָׁלֵם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar maintains that the verse requires that a whole meal offering be brought in the morning only for a mitzva, i.e., ab initio. Nevertheless, if half of a tenth was brought in the morning it is valid after the fact. Rav Geviha from Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: But the term “statute” is written with regard to the griddle-cake offering, as the verse states: “A statute forever” (Leviticus 6:15), and there is a principle that whenever the Torah calls a mitzva a statute, the details of its performance are indispensable. Rav Ashi said to him: It was necessary for the Torah to define this mitzva as a statute only with regard to the requirement that the High Priest bring a full tenth from his home. With regard to its sanctification in a service vessel, it can be sanctified in halves.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: הִפְרִישׁ חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן, וְדַעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף – רַב אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ. וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתִּין!
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But it was stated: If one set aside half a tenth of an ephah for any meal offering, and his intention was to add to the half in order to reach a full tenth, Rav says that it is not sanctified, as he did not bring a full tenth, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is sanctified. And if it is so that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the griddle-cake offering cannot be sanctified in halves, let him derive from the griddle-cake offering that no meal offering may be sanctified in halves.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא יָלֵיף, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁירִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מֵעִיקָּר.
And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not derive the halakha of one matter with regard to consecrated items from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Peace offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is written: “And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: It is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area, i.e., the courtyard, should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major area, the Tent of Meeting. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan derives a halakha with regard to the Sanctuary from the Temple courtyard.
דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף שָׁאנֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֵאִים״ – אֵין ״מְלֵאִים״ אֶלָּא שְׁלֵמִים (כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם), וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף – רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן קָדוֹשׁ.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact derive the halakha of one matter from another, and therefore he learns the halakha with regard to all meal offerings from the griddle-cake offering, that in general they are not sanctified in halves. But a case where one expresses his intention to add to the half measure is different, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Both of them full of fine flour” (Numbers 7:13). “Full” is a reference only to full measurements; that is to say, the flour is not sanctified until there is a full tenth inside the vessel. And Rabbi Yosei said: When is it the halakha that the flour is sanctified only if a full tenth is inside the vessel? It is at a time when his intention was not initially to add to that which he placed inside the vessel. But at a time when his intention was initially to add, each initial bit of flour is sanctified by the vessel.
וְרַב, בְּחָבִיתִין כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתִּין!
The Gemara asks: And Rav, who holds that standard meal offerings are not sanctified in halves even if one’s initial intention was to add to the half measure, with regard to a griddle-cake offering, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that a griddle-cake offering can be sanctified in halves, then let him derive from the halakha of griddle-cake offerings that all meal offerings may be sanctified in halves.
וְכִי תֵּימָא רַב מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא יָלֵיף, וְהָאָמַר רַב: מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן (וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה) – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בְּלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים.
And if you would say that Rav does not derive the halakha of one matter from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rav say: A standard meal offering, which is brought with oil and frankincense, is sanctified by a service vessel even without its oil and without its frankincense. It is sanctified without its oil, as we find such a halakha with regard to the shewbread, which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering accompanying the libations of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.
בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, עַל כׇּרְחָיךְ רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
Finally, a standard meal offering is sanctified by a service vessel even without its oil and without its frankincense, as we find with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which includes neither of these. This indicates that Rav does derive the halakha of a meal offering from other meal offerings. Rather, perforce, with regard to the griddle-cake offering, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that this offering is not sanctified in halves, and it is derived from there that no meal offerings are sanctified in halves.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵין דִּינָה כְּעִשָּׂרוֹן חָסֵר – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בְּלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים. בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says that a meal offering is sanctified without its oil, and its halakha is not the same as when a tenth of an ephah of flour is lacking, as we find such a halakha with regard to the shewbread, which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering accompanying the libations of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified. Additionally, a meal offering is sanctified even without its oil and without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which lacks both oil and frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.
וְשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה קׇדְשִׁי הַאי בְּלָא הַאי וְהַאי בְּלָא הַאי; שֶׁמֶן – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין, וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר:
Rav continues: And oil and frankincense are each sanctified by service vessels, this substance without that one, and that substance without this one. Oil is sanctified on its own, as we find such a halakha with regard to the log of oil of a leper, which is sanctified on its own. Frankincense is sanctified on its own, as we find such a halakha with regard to the frankincense that comes in the bowls that are brought with the shewbread; there is no oil in that case and yet the frankincense is sanctified in the bowls. And Rabbi Ḥanina says:
לֹא זוֹ קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא זוֹ וְלֹא זוֹ קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא זוֹ.
Neither is this substance sanctified without that, nor is that sanctified without this. Rather, any meal offering that requires oil and frankincense is sanctified by a service vessel only when the flour, oil, and frankincense are all placed in the same vessel at the same time.
וּלְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עִשָּׂרוֹן לָמָּה נִמְשַׁח? (וַהֲלֹא אֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי אֶלָּא לִמְדִידַת קֶמַח בִּלְבַד, וְהַקֶּמַח אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן!) לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, for what purpose was the vessel that measured a tenth of an ephah anointed, making it possible for it to sanctify items placed inside it? This vessel was fashioned only for measuring flour, and according to Rabbi Ḥanina the flour is not sanctified without oil. What then does this vessel sanctify? The Gemara answers: The vessel was anointed for the purpose of sanctifying the meal offering of a sinner, which contains neither oil nor frankincense.
וְלוֹג, לָמָּה נִמְשַׁח? לְלוֹג שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.
The Gemara further asks: And for what purpose was the vessel that measured one log of oil anointed? After all, according to Rabbi Ḥanina oil for a meal offering cannot be sanctified by itself. The Gemara explains: It was anointed for the purpose of sanctifying the log of oil of a leper, which is not brought as part of a meal offering. This oil is sanctified without flour or frankincense.
וְאַף שְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב, דִּתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדּוֹת הַיָּבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדּוֹת הַיָּבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara notes: And Shmuel also holds in accordance with this statement of Rav, that a service vessel sanctifies the flour of a meal offering even without its oil, as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): The vessels used for liquids sanctify only the liquids, and the vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only the dry goods. But the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify the dry goods, and the vessels that serve as dry measures do not sanctify the liquids.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת (שֶׁל דָּם) מְקַדְּשׁוֹת אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן לְמִנְחָה״.
And Shmuel says with regard to this mishna: They taught that vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry goods only with regard to vessels used as measures. But bowls that are used for collecting and tossing the blood of offerings sanctify the dry goods as well, as it is stated with regard to the offerings of the princes brought during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “Both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), which indicates that the bowl sanctifies meal offerings, which are dry.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מִנְחָה לַחָה הִיא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לַיָּבֵשׁ שֶׁבָּהּ, דְּהַיְינוּ לְבוֹנָה.
The Gemara continues its proof: And Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina, with regard to this derivation of Shmuel: But the meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mingled with oil. How then can one derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry? Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel is necessary only to teach that the dry part of a meal offering, that is, the frankincense, which invariably does not come into contact with the oil, is sanctified by the bowls as well.
(וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן, יָבֵשׁ שֶׁבָּהּ הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? וַהֲלֹא כּוּלָּן לַחִים הֵן מִפְּנֵי הַשֶּׁמֶן! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי בְּלֹא הַאי.)
The Gemara concludes its proof with regard to Shmuel’s opinion: And if it enters your mind that Shmuel holds that a meal offering is not sanctified by a service vessel until all of its components are together in the vessel, then how can you find a case where the dry parts of a meal offering are by themselves? Is it not correct that when meal offerings are sanctified, all of them are liquids, due to the oil that is mixed with them? Rather, conclude from here that Shmuel holds that this substance may be sanctified without that one.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִנְחָה, לְגַבֵּי דָּם – כְּיָבֵשׁ דָּמְיָא.
And if you wish, say instead in answer to Rav Aḥa of Difti’s question: A meal offering, even when it is mixed with oil, is, relative to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one may derive from the verse that the bowls sanctify dry items, and just as a bowl sanctifies a meal offering that contains oil, as it is considered dry in comparison to blood, so too, it sanctifies a meal offering that is entirely dry, i.e., that contains no oil, as claimed by Rav.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: A meal offering from which the priest removed a handful while inside the Sanctuary is valid, despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is that we find a similar case in the Sanctuary, with regard to the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread. Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita discussing the verse: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2). The 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 may stand, i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.
בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל, שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁקָּמַץ כְּבָר.
The baraita continues: Ben Beteira, who holds that a handful is not disqualified when removed with the left hand, 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 that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? The verse states: “And he shall remove from there.” This indicates 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, this time with his right hand. It is clear from the statement of the first tanna that the handful of a meal offering may be removed only in the place where the feet of a non-priest may stand, but not in the Sanctuary.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ – לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת כׇּל עֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְעוֹלָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּמִנְחָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, מָה עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן – אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן.
Some say that Rabbi Yirmeya raises the objection and he resolves it as well. And some say that Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain to you the resolution of this objection: The verse is necessary only to permit the entire Temple courtyard for removing the handful there, not to prohibit the removal of a handful inside the Sanctuary. The reason is that you should not say: Since a burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, and a meal offering is likewise an offering of the most sacred order, then just as a burnt offering requires that its slaughter be performed in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, so too, a meal offering requires that the removal of its handful be in the northern part.
מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל, מֵחַטָּאת.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this comparison: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it is more sacred, as it is consumed in its entirety upon the altar. The Gemara responds: The same comparison may be drawn from a sin offering, which is also an offering of the most sacred order and is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar, and yet it must be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.
מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת, מֵאָשָׁם.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this comparison as well: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that the halakhot of a sin offering are more stringent, as its sacrifice atones for those sins whose transgression causes one to be liable to receive karet. The Gemara responds: The comparison may be drawn from a guilt offering, as it too is an offering of the most sacred order, it is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar, it does not atone for such sins, and yet it must be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.
מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים! מִכּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that a guilt offering has a loftier status, as it is one of the types of offerings whose atonement is achieved through their blood, i.e., it is an animal offering. The Gemara adds: Once this claim has been accepted, from all of them as well, i.e., from a burnt offering and sin offering, one cannot draw a comparison to a meal offering either, as they are all of the types of offerings whose atonement is achieved through their blood.
אֶלָּא אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְקָמַץ״, מָה הַגָּשָׁה בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית, אַף קְמִיצָה נָמֵי בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rather, the verse was necessary in order to permit the removal of a handful anywhere in the Temple courtyard because it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “And it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), and it states: “And he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), one could claim: Just as the bringing of the meal offering is in the southwestern corner of the altar, so too, the removal of the handful must also be performed in the southwestern corner. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the removal of the handful may be performed anywhere in the Temple courtyard, but this does not serve to exclude the Sanctuary.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Peace offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated: “And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard. And it is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area, i.e., the courtyard, should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major one, the Tent of Meeting or the Sanctuary.
מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הִקִּיפוּ גּוֹיִם אֶת הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לַהֵיכָל וְאוֹכְלִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the Temple courtyard and were firing projectiles inside to the point that it became impossible to remain in the courtyard on account of the threat, that the priests enter the Sanctuary and partake of the offerings of the most sacred order and the remainders of the meal offerings while inside the Sanctuary? The verse states:
