מנחות יח

מנחות יח

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? גְּזֵירָה מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ אַטּוּ כׇּל דָּמוֹ, וְכׇל דָּמוֹ פְּסוּלָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is to leave of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit. What is the reason for this? It is a rabbinic decree disqualifying the offering when some of its blood is left over until the next day due to the concern that a priest may intend to leave over all of its blood, and if one’s intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law.

דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי שֶׁאִם הִנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר שֶׁפָּסוּל? חִישֵּׁב לְהַנִּיחוֹ לְמָחָר נָמֵי פָּסוּל.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that if he left the blood until the next day without presenting it, that the offering is unfit? Therefore, if he intended to leave the blood until the next day, it is also unfit.

וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימֵר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.

And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit and the Rabbis deem it fit, as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי: כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתַי אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְמַצּוֹת מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, מָצָאתִי יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי יוֹשֵׁב לְפָנָיו, וְהָיָה חָבִיב לוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר, עַד לְאַחַת אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר מַהוּ?

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one’s intention is to leave some of the blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua to clarify my knowledge, and some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to clarify the knowledge of, i.e., study under, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, I found Yosef the Babylonian sitting before Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. And every ruling that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua taught was especially dear to him, until they began discussing one halakha, when Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, with regard to one who slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, what is the halakha?

אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. עַרְבִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. שַׁחֲרִית אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. צׇהֳרַיִם אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר. מִנְחָה אָמַר לוֹ: כָּשֵׁר, אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי.

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: The offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian repeated this question that evening, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. He asked again the following morning, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. Once again, he asked this question at noon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him that the offering is fit. When he asked the question a further time that late afternoon, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: I hold that the offering is fit, but Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit. Yosef the Babylonian’s face lit up [tzahavu panav] with joy.

אָמַר לוֹ: יוֹסֵף, כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא כִּיוַּונְנוּ שְׁמוּעָתֵינוּ עַד עָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, הֵן! אֶלָּא שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פָּסוּל שָׁנָה לִי, וְחָזַרְתִּי עַל כׇּל תַּלְמִידָיו וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לִי חָבֵר וְלֹא מָצָאתִי, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁשָּׁנִיתָ לִי פָּסוּל – הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי.

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua said to him: Yosef, it seems to me that our, i.e., my, halakhot were not accurate until now, when I said that the offering is fit. Yosef the Babylonian said to him: My teacher, yes, I agree that the offering is fit, as you said. But my reluctance to accept your statement was due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught me that the offering is unfit, and I went around to all of Rabbi Yehuda’s disciples, seeking another disciple who had also heard this from him, but I could not find one, and thought that I must have been mistaken. Now that you have taught me that Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, you have returned to me that which I had lost.

זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ, אָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה חֲבִיבִין עֲלֵיכֶם בְּיוֹתֵר, קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״מָה אָהַבְתִּי תוֹרָתֶךָ כׇּל הַיּוֹם הִיא שִׂיחָתִי וְגוֹ׳״, הָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לְפִיכָךְ שָׁנָה לְךָ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s eyes streamed with tears, and he said: Happy are you, Torah scholars, for whom matters of Torah are exceedingly dear. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua recited this verse about Yosef the Babylonian: “O how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 119:97). He continued: Because Rabbi Yehuda is the son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Elai is the student of Rabbi Eliezer, therefore Rabbi Yehuda taught you the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer that the offering is unfit.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל אַתְנְיֵיהּ, מַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? אִיהוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains its objection: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit, what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: You have returned to me that which I had lost? Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had said to him only that whether the offering is rendered unfit is subject to a dispute, and Yosef the Babylonian would have been taught that all agree that it is unfit.

אֶלָּא מַאי, כָּשֵׁר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (פָּסוּל) פּוֹסֵל אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִי הָכִי, מַאי הָא מִפְּנֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא? אֲנַן נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא קָא מַתְנִינַן!

Rather, what is it that Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian? Did he teach him that the Rabbis deem the offering fit and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit? If that is so, what did Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua mean when he said that it was only because Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Elai, who was the student of Rabbi Eliezer, that Rabbi Yehuda taught this dispute? According to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, we too teach this dispute. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda taught both opinions in a dispute does not require justification.

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ, וּמַאי הֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵידָתִי? (דהדר) [דְּאַהְדַּר] לֵיהּ מִיהָא שׁוּם פַּסְלוּת בָּעוֹלָם.

Rather, it must be that actually, Rabbi Yehuda taught Yosef the Babylonian that all agree that the offering is unfit; and what did Yosef the Babylonian mean when he said: You have returned to me that which I had lost? He meant that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua had in any event returned to him that there is some opinion in the world concerning the unfitness of the offering if one’s intention was to leave over the blood until the next day. His answer reassured Yosef the Babylonian that there is in fact such an opinion.

מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יָצַק, לֹא בָּלַל, וְלֹא פָּתַת, וְלֹא מֶלַח, וְלֹא הֵנִיף, לֹא הִגִּישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת, וְלֹא מְשָׁחָן – כְּשֵׁירָה.

MISHNA: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, or did not mix the oil into the meal offering, or did not break the loaves into pieces, or did not add salt, or did not wave the omer meal offering or the meal offering of a sota, or did not bring the meal offering to the altar, or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces than appropriate, or did not smear oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is fit.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״לֹא יָצַק״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יָצַק כְּלָל – עִיכּוּבָא כְּתַב בָּהּ! אֶלָּא, לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר. אִי הָכִי, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ נָמֵי – לֹא בָּלַל כֹּהֵן, אֶלָּא זָר, הָא לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל – פְּסוּלָה.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it states that if one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, the meal offering is fit? If we say that it means that he did not pour oil at all, that is difficult: Doesn’t the verse write with regard to the pouring of the oil that doing so is indispensable? Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour it. The Gemara notes: If so, that the first clause of the mishna is understood in this manner, then the next halakha in the mishna: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, should also be understood as referring to a case where a priest did not mix the oil into the meal offering, but a non-priest did mix it, so it is fit. This would indicate that if one did not mix the oil into the meal offering at all, the meal offering is unfit.

וְהָתְנַן: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין, וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי אֵינָם נִבְלָלִין מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – כְּשֵׁרָה!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (103b): One who volunteers to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths of an ephah of flour must bring a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel and a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah in a second vessel, because sixty tenths of an ephah of flour can be properly mixed with a log of oil but sixty-one tenths cannot be properly mixed with the oil. And we discussed it and asked: Even if sixty-one tenths of an ephah do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna here that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil into the meal offering, if one did not mix the oil into it, the meal offering is still fit?

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

And Rabbi Zeira said the following explanation: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ: ״לֹא יָצַק״ – לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן אֶלָּא זָר, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל.

The Gemara refutes this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. When the mishna states: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, it is referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering but a non-priest did pour it. When it states: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, it means he did not mix the oil at all.

אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשְׁתָּא לֹא פָּתַת כְּלָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת״? שֶׁרִיבָּה בִּפְתִיתִין.

§ The mishna teaches: Or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces [pittim merubbot] than appropriate, the meal offering is fit. The Gemara asks: Now that it has already been stated in the mishna that if one did not break the loaves into pieces at all the meal offering is fit, is it necessary to state that if one broke the meal offering into greater pieces than appropriate the meal offering is fit? The Gemara answers: What does the expression pittin merubbot mean? It means that he increased [ribba] the amount of the meal offering’s pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת אִיכָּא וְלָא תּוֹרַת פְּתִיתִין אִיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is actually referring literally to large pieces [pittim merubbot], and it was necessary to teach this explicitly, lest you say that the meal offering is fit there, when the loaves are not broken, since they have the status of loaves, but here, when the loaves are broken into excessively large pieces and no longer have the status of loaves, as they have been broken up, but still do not have the status of pieces, as they are not the correct size, the offering is not fit. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha explicitly.

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״ – מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה.

§ Based on the Gemara’s earlier inference that when the mishna states that the meal offering is valid even if the priest did not pour the oil it is referring to a case where a non-priest did perform this action, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This teaches that one who admits to the validity of the sacrificial rites and accepts responsibility for them has a portion in the priestly gifts, but one who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites does not have a portion in the priestly gifts.

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת –

The baraita continues: And I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not admit to the validity of these rites of the presenting of the blood or the burning of the fats alone, which are the sacrificial rites of a slaughtered offering, as those rites are enumerated in the verse. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of the fifteen sacrificial rites performed by the priests?

הַיְּצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת, וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת, וְהַקְטָרוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת, וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת, וְהַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, מִנַּיִן?

The baraita clarifies: These are the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of oil, the mixing, the breaking, the salting, the waving, the bringing of the offering to the altar, the removal of the handful, and the burning of the handful on the altar. And it includes other rites as well: The pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering, and the receiving of the blood in a vessel, and the sprinkling of the blood, and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck, and the purification of a leper, and lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of these rites?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, עֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה!

The baraita continues: The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” teaching that with regard to any sacrificial rite that is entrusted to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to its validity does not have a portion in the priestly gifts. Since the pouring of the oil is included in the list of sacrificial rites entrusted to the priests, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering should not be fit if this service was performed by a non-priest.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר. מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים דְּלָאו בַּת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. There, in the baraita, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the meal offering of priests, whereas here, in the mishna, the context is a meal offering of an Israelite. In the case of a meal offering of an Israelite, which is one that requires the removal of a handful to be burned on the altar, a verse teaches that from the stage of the removal of the handful onward, the rites performed with the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest. By contrast, the meal offering of priests, which is one that does not require the removal of a handful, as the entire meal offering is burned on the altar, requires that from the outset the rites must be performed by a member of the priesthood; otherwise it is unfit.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר!

Rava said to him: After all, in the case of the meal offering of priests, from where was it included that there is an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from the halakha of the meal offering of an Israelite, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, just as there the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּנִקְמָצוֹת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת.

There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna teaches that a meal offering is fit if the oil was poured by a non-priest, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is removed, whereas there, in the baraita that lists the pouring of the oil as one of the rites performed by the priests, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי שֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת, מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִנִּקְמָצוֹת, כְּנִקְמָצוֹת – מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rava said to him: After all, in the case of meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, from where was it included that there is also an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from meal offerings from which a handful is removed, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, the halakha with regard to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed is like the halakha with regard to those from which a handful is removed; just as there, the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest. Rather, since Rava deflected Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ״, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who hold that the offering is fit even if the oil was poured by a non-priest? The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful” (Leviticus 2:1–2). From here it is derived that from the removal of the handful onward, the rites of the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן

The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: “Aaron’s sons,