Parallel
מנחות 19:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
the bruised corn and the oil are indispensable, but no other thing is indispensable. [To turn to] the main text: ‘Rab said, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse is indispensable. Samuel, however, said, The bruised corn and the oil are indispensable, but no other thing is indispensable. Is it then suggested that according to Samuel even though the rite is repeated in another verse it is not indispensable? — Rather [the position is this]: Wherever any rite is repeated in another verse it is certainly indispensable; they differ only as to [the effect of] the interpretation of the phrases ‘his handful’ and ‘with his hand’. For it was taught: The phrases ‘his handful’ and ‘with his hand’ signify that he shall not use a measure for the taking of the handful. Now Rab maintains that this too has been stated in another verse, as it is written, And he presented the meal-offering and filled his hand therefrom; Samuel, however, says that we cannot derive a permanent law from a temporary enactment. Is Samuel then of the opinion that we cannot derive a permanent law from a temporary enactment? But we have learnt: The vessels for liquids hallow liquids, and the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow dry stuffs; the vessels for liquids cannot hallow dry stuffs, neither can the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow liquids. And thereupon Samuel had said, This applies only to the measuring vessels [for liquids], but the sprinkling bowls hallow [also dry stuffs], for it is written, Both of them full of fine flour! — This case is different since the verse is repeated twelve times. R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab, But is not the bringing nigh [of the meal-offering to the altar] repeated in Scripture, nevertheless it is not indispensable? — Where is it repeated? Because it is written, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it nigh before the Lord, [to the front of the altar]? But surely that verse merely determines the place [whither it shall be brought]. As it has been taught: [If the verse had only stated,] ‘Before the Lord’, I might have thought that it meant on the west [side of the altar], the verse therefore added, To the front of the altar. And [if the verse had only stated,] To the front of the altar, I might have thought that it meant on the south side, the verse therefore stated, ‘Before the Lord’. So what was the procedure? He brought it nigh unto the south-west corner opposite the point of the altar's horn, and that sufficed. R. Eliezer says, It is possible [to think that the meaning is] he can bring it nigh either to the west corner or to the south corner; but you can answer, Wherever you find two texts, one self-confirmatory and confirming the words of the other, whereas the second is self-confirmatory but annuls the words of the other, we abandon the latter and accept the former. Thus when you emphasize ‘before the Lord’, i.e., on the west side [of the altar], you annul ‘to the front of the altar’, which is on the south side; but when you emphasize ‘to the front of the altar’, i.e., on the south side, you confirm ‘before the Lord’, which is on the west side. But how do you confirm it? — R. Ashi said, This Tanna holds that the whole of the altar stood in the north. R. Huna demurred, But the salting [of the meal-offering] is not repeated in Scripture, nevertheless it is indispensable! For it has been taught: The verse, It is a covenant of salt for ever, signifies that there is
—