Parallel
מנחות 11
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
OR A DROP OF FRANKINCENSE IT IS INVALID. Why are all these mentioned? — They are all necessary; for had [the Mishnah] only stated a small stone, [I should have said that it is invalid] because it is something that cannot be offered [upon the altar], but as for salt, since it is offered. I would say that it does not render [the handful] invalid. And had the Mishnah stated salt only, [I should have said that it was invalid] because it is not prescribed to be brought with the meal-offering in the beginning, but as for frankincense, since it is prescribed to be brought with the meal-offering in the beginning, I would say that it does not render [the handful] invalid. We are therefore taught them all. FOR THEY HAVE RULED: IF THE HANDFUL WAS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE IT IS INVALID. Why is the reason given because it is too much or too little? Surely [it is invalid] because of the interposition? — R. Jeremiah answered. It might have been at one side. Abaye asked Raba, How is the handful taken? — He replied, As people usually take a handful. He then raised the following objection against him: It was taught: This one is [for measuring] the span, this one [for taking] the handful, this one [for measuring] the cubit, this one is the finger, and this one the thumb! — It is used only in order to smooth the edge. How then was it done? — R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab, He bends his three fingers until he reaches the palm of his hand and then takes the handful. [A Baraitha] has been taught to this effect: It is written, And he shall take out a full handful. Now one might suppose that it should be overflowing, another verse therefore says, In his handful. But from the verse, In his handful, one might suppose that it may be taken with the finger tips, it is therefore written, A full handful. How is it then to be? He should bend his three fingers over on to the palm of his hand and thus take the handful. In the case of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle or in a pan. he must level it with his thumb on top and with his little finger below. And this was the most difficult service in the Temple. This, and none other? Was there not the nipping? and the taking of ‘both hands full’? — Render: And this was one of the most difficult services in the Temple. R. Papa said, I have no doubt at all that the expression ‘a full handful’ means in the manner in which people usually take a handful. But, asked R. Papa, what if he took out the handful with his fingertips, or with the side [of his hand], or [if he took it] from below upwards? These questions remain undecided. R. Papa said, I have no doubt at all that the expression ‘his hands full’ means in the manner in which people usually fill the hands. But, asked R. Papa, what if he filled his hands with his finger tips, or with the sides, or if he filled each hand separately and brought them together? — These questions remain undecided. R. Papa raised the question: What if he stuck the handful to the side of the vessel? Must it be put inside the vessel, which is the case here; or must it be put down inside the vessel, which is not the case here? — This remains undecided. Mar b. R. Ashi raised the following question: What if he turned the vessel upside down and put down the handful on the bottom of the vessel? Must it be put inside the vessel, which is the case here; or must it be put down in a normal manner, which is not the case here? — This remains undecided. MISHNAH. HOW SHOULD HE DO IT? HE SHOULD STRETCH OUT HIS FINGERS ON TO THE PALM OF HIS HAND. IF HE PUT IN TOO MUCH OF ITS OIL OR TOO LITTLE OF ITS OIL. OR TOO LITTLE OF ITS FRANKINCENSE, THE OFFERING IS INVALID. GEMARA. What is meant by TOO MUCH OF ITS OIL? R. Eleazar said, If, for example, one set apart for it two logs of oil. And why did he not suggest that ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil from another [meal-offering] was added to it? Should you, however, retort that [the addition of] ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil from another [meal-offering] would not render the offering invalid, then there is the objection (raised by R. Zutra b. Tobiah): How can the ruling, that the sinner's meal-offering Another interpretation is: he filled his hands with incense taken from the side of the vessel and not from the middle. is rendered invalid by the addition of oil, ever be applied? If [you say that oil was especially set aside] for it — but it does not require any; and if [you say that] ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil from another [meal-offering] was added to it — but you have now said that this would not render the offering invalid? And R. Eleazar [what does he say to this]? — It is a case of ‘it goes without saying’; thus, it goes without saying that the offering is rendered invalid by the addition of ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil of another [meal-offering]; but in the case where a man set aside for it two logs of oil, since each [log separately] is suitable for the purpose. I would say that it is not invalid; he therefore teaches us [that it is invalid]. But whence does R. Eleazar know this? — Raba said, Our Mishnah presented a difficulty to him. Why does it use the expression. IF HE PUT IN TOO MUCH OF ITS OIL? It should have stated, ‘If he put in too much oil for it’. But its teaches us that [it is invalid] even though he set aside for it two logs of oil. IF HE PUT IN TOO LITTLE OF ITS FRANKINCENSE. Our Rabbis taught: If the frankincense had diminished until there remained one grain only, the offering is invalid; if there remained two grains, it is valid. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says. If there remained one grain, it is valid; if less than that it is invalid.
—
But have we not been taught [in another Baraitha]: If the handful of frankincense had diminished, no matter how little, it is invalid? — Render: If the [last] grain of frankincense had diminished, no matter how little, it is invalid. Alternatively I may say. One [Baraitha] refers to the frankincense that was offered together with the meal-offering, and the other to a separate offering of frankincense. R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan. In this matter there are three different views: R. Meir holds that there must be a handful [of frankincense] at the outset and also a handful in the end; R. Judah holds, a handful at the outset and two grains in the end; R. Simeon holds, a handful at the outset and one grain in the end. All these three [Rabbis] derived their opinions from the same verse, vis., And all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering. R. Meir is of the opinion that [the offering is invalid] unless there is present now all the frankincense that was prescribed to be offered with the meal-offering at the outset. R. Judah maintains that the expression ‘all’ implies even one grain, and the particle ‘eth’ adds to it another grain. R. Simeon, however, does not interpret the particle ‘eth’. R. Isaac b. Joseph also said in the name of R. Johanan. They differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but with regard to frankincense that is offered by itself, all agree that there must be a handful at the outset and a handful in the end. Therefore the words ‘which is upon the meal-offering’ are expressly stated to indicate that this is so only [with regard to the frankincense] that is offered with the meal-offering, but not with regard to that offered by itself. R. Isaac b. Joseph further said in the name of R. Johanan, They differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but as for the frankincense offered in the dishes, all agree that there must be two handfuls at the outset and two handfuls in the end. Surely this is obvious! — You might have thought that since [the frankincense in the two dishes] is brought together with the Shewbread it is in the same category as that which is offered with a meal-offering; we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. This, however, is a matter of dispute between R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nappaha. One says, They differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but with regard to the frankincense offered by itself, all agree that there must be a handful at the outset and a handful in the end. The other says, Just as they differ in the former case so they differ in the latter case too. IF HE PUT IN TOO LITTLE OF ITS FRANKINCENSE THE OFFERING IS INVALID. It follows, however, that if he put in too much, it is valid; but we have been taught. If he put in too much it is invalid? — Rami b. Hama answered, That was a case where he set apart two handfuls. Rami b. Hama also said, If a man set apart two handfuls [of frankincense], and one of them was lost before the taking of the handful [of flour, the offering is valid, for] they had not yet been appointed [for this meal-offering]; if [one was lost] after the taking of the handful, [the offering is invalid, for] they had already been appointed [for this meal-offering]. Rami b. Hama also said, If he set apart four handfuls [of frankincense] for the two dishes, and two of them were lost before the taking away of the dishes, [it is valid, for] they had not yet been appointed [for the Shewbread]; if [two were lost] after the taking away of the dishes, [it is invalid, for] they had already been appointed [for the Shewbread]. Wherefore was this case necessary? It is the same as the other! — You might have thought that, since in this case the handful is separate. as soon as the time for its removal has arrived it is regarded as already removed; we are therefore taught otherwise. MISHNAH. IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL FROM THE MEAL-OFFERING [INTENDING] TO EAT THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT] OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE, OR TO BURN THE HANDFUL OUTSIDE OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE HANDFUL OUTSIDE, OR TO BURN ITS FRANKINCENSE OUTSIDE, THE OFFERING IS INVALID, BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT THE REMAINDER ON THE MORROW OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER ON THE MORROW, OR TO BURN THE HANDFUL ON THE MORROW OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE HANDFUL ON THE MORROW, OR TO BURN ITS FRANKINCENSE ON THE MORROW,
—