Menachot — Daf 11b

והתניא (ר' שמעון אומר) קומץ ולבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול תני קורט לבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול ואיבעית אימא כאן בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה כאן בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה

א"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן ג' מחלוקת בדבר ר"מ סבר קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף ורבי יהודה סבר קומץ בתחילה ושני קרטין בסוף ור"ש סבר קומץ בתחילה וקורט אחד בסוף

ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא ו, ח) ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה ר"מ סבר עד דאיתא ללבונה דאיקבעה בהדי מנחה מעיקרא ורבי יהודה סבר כל ואפי' חד קורט את לרבות קורט אחר ור"ש את לא דריש

וא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה ד"ה קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף להכי איצטריך אשר על המנחה דבהדי מנחה אין בפני עצמה לא

וא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בבזיכין דברי הכל שני קמצין בתחילה ושני קמצין בסוף

פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דבהדי לחם אתיא כאשר על המנחה דמיא קמ"ל

פליגי בה רבי אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא חד אמר מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה דברי הכל קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף וחד אמר כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו:

חיסר לבונתה [פסולה]: הא יתיר כשרה והתניא יתיר פסולה אמר רמי בר חמא כגון שהפריש לה שני קמצין

ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש לה שני קמצין ואבד אחד מהן קודם קמיצה לא הוקבעו אחר קמיצה הוקבעו

ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש ארבעה קמצין לשני בזיכין ואבדו שנים מהן קודם סילוק בזיכין לא הוקבעו לאחר סילוק בזיכין הוקבעו

הא תו למה לי היינו הך

מהו דתימא כיון דבריר קומץ דידה כיון שהגיע זמנה לפורקה כמאן דפריקה דמיא קמ"ל:

מתני׳ הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה בחוץ או כזית משיריה בחוץ להקטיר קומצה בחוץ או כזית קומצה בחוץ או להקטיר לבונתה בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת לאכול שיריה למחר או כזית משיריה למחר להקטיר קומצה למחר או כזית מקומצה למחר או להקטיר לבונה למחר

But have we not been taught [in another Baraitha]:1 If the handful of frankincense had diminished, no matter how little, it is invalid?2 — Render: If the [last] grain of frankincense had diminished, no matter how little, it is invalid. Alternatively I may say. One3 [Baraitha] refers to the frankincense that was offered together with the meal-offering,4 and the other to a separate offering of frankincense.5 R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan. In this matter there are three different views: R. Meir6 holds that there must be a handful [of frankincense] at the outset7 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.8 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’9 implies even one grain, and the particle ‘eth’10 adds to it another grain. R. Simeon, however, does not interpret the particle ‘eth’. 11 R. Isaac b. Joseph also said in the name of R. Johanan. They12 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 so13 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, They12 differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but as for the frankincense offered in the dishes,14 all agree that there must be two handfuls at the outset and two handfuls in the end.15 Surely this is obvious!16 — 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, They17 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.18 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].19 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,20 [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.21 as soon as the time for its removal has arrived it is regarded as already removed;22 we are therefore taught otherwise. MISHNAH. IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL23 FROM THE MEAL-OFFERING [INTENDING] TO EAT THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT] OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE, OR TO BURN24 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 KARETH25 IS NOT INCURRED.26 [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT THE REMAINDER ON THE MORROW27 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, Simeon is the author of the statement’. that of R. Simeon. admitted by all authorities; v. infra 106b. tuva kf ‘anything’, ‘aughtsoever’. they are removed to be burnt. is allowed. valid. According to another interpretation, it is valid where two handfuls were set apart, for each handful can serve separately for the purpose. because there is a diminution of the frankincense appointed for the offering. burnt upon the altar. immediately after the offering of the Sabbath additional sacrifice), the frankincense that has been set apart may be regarded as already appointed for their purpose; and therefore it is invalid if thereafter a part of it was lost. handful, putting it into a vessel, bringing it nigh to the altar, and burning it. includes also what is ‘eaten’ by the altar, i.e., burnt thereon, in this case the handful and the frankincense. This is derived from the fact that in Lev. VII, 18 there is a duplicated expression for eating, kfth kftv, thus referring to two kinds of eating.