Menachot — Daf 26a

ת"ש דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה הכי קאמר דם שנטמא וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד נטמא בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה:

מתני׳ נטמאו שיריה נשרפו שיריה אבדו שיריה כמדת ר' אליעזר כשירה וכמדת רבי יהושע פסולה:

גמ׳ אמר רב והוא שנטמאו כל שיריה אבל מקצת שיריה לא

קא סלקא דעתך נטמא אין אבוד ושרוף לא מאי קסבר אי קסבר שיורא מילתא היא אפילו אבוד ושרוף נמי אי קסבר שיורא לאו מילתא היא ונטמא מאי טעמא דמרצה ציץ אי הכי כל שיריה נמי

לעולם קסבר שיורא מילתא היא ונטמא והוא הדין לאבוד ושרוף והאי דקאמר נטמא רישייהו נקט

כדתני' רבי יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר מהן כזית בשר או כזית חלב זורק את הדם

כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית חלב אינו זורק את הדם ובעולה אפי' כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית חלב זורק את הדם מפני שכולה כליל ובמנחה אפי' כולה קיימת לא יזרוק

מנחה מאי עבידתה אמר רב פפא מנחת נסכים ס"ד הואיל ובהדי זבח קא אתיא כגופיה דזיבחא דמיא קמ"ל

מנהני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל ומטו בה משום רבי יהושע בן חנניא אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, ו) והקטיר החלב לריח ניחוח לה' חלב ואע"פ שאין בשר

ואשכחן חלב יותרת ושתי כליות מנלן דקתני ובמנחה אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק מנחה הוא דלא יזרוק הא יותרת ושתי כליות יזרוק

מנלן רבי יוחנן דידיה אמר לריח ניחוח כל שאתה מעלה לריח ניחוח

ואיצטריך למכתב חלב ואיצטריך למיכתב לריח ניחוח דאי כתב חלב הוה אמינא חלב אין יותרת ושתי כליות לא כתב רחמנא ריח ניחוח ואי כתב רחמנא לריח ניחוח הוה אמינא אפילו מנחה כתב רחמנא חלב:

מתני׳ שלא בכלי שרת פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר הקטיר קומצה פעמים כשרה:

גמ׳ אמר רבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מאי טעמא דר' שמעון אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, א) קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם בא לעובדה ביד (כחטאת) עובדה בימין כחטאת בכלי עובדה בשמאל כאשם

ורבי ינאי אמר כיון שקמצו מכלי שרת מעלהו ומקטירו אפילו בהמיינו ואפילו במקידה של חרש רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר הכל מודים בקומץ שטעון קידוש

מיתיבי הקטר חלבים ואברים ועצים שהעלן בין ביד בין בכלי בין בימין ובין בשמאל כשרין הקומץ והקטורת והלבונה שהעלן בין ביד בין בכלי בין בימין בין בשמאל כשרין תיובתא דרבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא

אמר לך רבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לצדדין קתני ביד בימין בכלי בין בימין בין בשמאל:

תא שמע קמצו שלא מכלי שרת וקידשו שלא בכלי שרת והעלו והקטירו שלא בכלי שרת פסול רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון מכשירין במתן כלי

אימא ממתן כלי ואילך

תא שמע וחכמים אומרים קומץ טעון כלי שרת כיצד קומצו מכלי שרת ומקדשו בכלי שרת ומעלו ומקטירו בכלי שרת ר' שמעון אומר כיון שקמצו מכלי שרת מעלו ומקטירו שלא בכלי שרת ודיו

אימא כיון שקמצו וקדשו בכלי שרת מעלו ומקטירו ודיו

תא שמע קמץ בימינו ונתן בשמאלו יחזיר לימינו בשמאלו

Come and hear: It was taught: If the blood became unclean and It was sprinkled inadvertently, it is acceptable, if deliberately it is not acceptable!1 — It means, If the blood became unclean and it was sprinkled, whether it was sprinkled inadvertently or deliberately, if it was rendered unclean inadvertently it is acceptable, but if deliberately it is not acceptable. MISHNAH. IF THE REMAINDER OF THE MEAL-OFFERING BECAME UNCLEAN OR WAS BURNT OR LOST, ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF R. ELIEZER2 IT IS LAWFUL [TO BURN THE HANDFUL], BUT ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF R. JOSHUA3 IT IS UNLAWFUL. GEMARA. Rab said, That is so provided the whole of the remainder became unclean,4 but not if only a part of it became unclean. Now it was assumed5 that this provision applied only to the case where it became unclean but not to the case where it was burnt or lost.6 But what could be [Rab's] view? If he holds that what is left thereof is something of consequence, then the same should be the case where it was burnt or lost. And if he holds that what is left thereof is of no consequence, but that in the case where it became unclean the reason7 is that the plate atones [for the uncleanness of the eatable portions], then the same should be the case7 even where the whole of the remainder [became unclean]! — Indeed he holds that what is left thereof is something of consequence, and as it is in the case where it became unclean, so it is where it was burnt or lost; the only reason, however, why [Rab] dealt with the case where it became unclean was that it was the first [mentioned in our Mishnah]. And so it was taught [in the following Baraitha]: R. Joshua says, If of any animal-offering mentioned in the Torah there remained an olive's bulk of the flesh or an olive's bulk of the fat, [the priest] may sprinkle the blood; if there remained a half-olive's bulk of the flesh and a half-olive's bulk of the fat, he may not sprinkle the blood. In the case of a burnt-offering, however, even if there remained a half-olive's bulk of the flesh and a half-olive's bulk of the fat, he may sprinkle the blood, since it is wholly burnt. And in the case of a meal-offering, even if all of it still remains, he may not sprinkle the blood.8 How does the meal-offering come in here? R. Papa explained that it referred to the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. For one might have thought that since it accompanies the animal-offering it is deemed to be part of the animal-offering; we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. Whence do we know this?9 — R. Johanan said in the name of R. Ishmael (while some trace the tradition further back to R. Joshua b. Hananiah), The verse says, And he shall burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord;10 hence [the blood is sprinkled on account of] the fat even if there is no flesh,11 We thus know it of the fat, but whence do we know it of the caul of the liver and of the two kidneys?12 — For it has been stated [in the abovementioned Baraitha], ‘And in the case of a meal-offering, even if all of it still remains, he may not sprinkle the blood’; that is, on account of the meal-offering he may not sprinkle the blood, but it is to be inferred that he may sprinkle on account of the caul of the liver or of the two kidneys. Whence do we know it? — R. Johanan explained on his own authority, It is written, ‘For a sweet savour,’ signifying that [the blood may be sprinkled on account of] everything that is offered up for a sweet savour. And it was absolutely necessary for the verse to have written ‘the fat’ as well as "for a sweet savour’. For if only ‘the fat’ were written, I should have said that only on account of the fat [may the blood be sprinkled] but not on account of the caul of the liver or the two kidneys; the Divine Law therefore stated ‘for a sweet savour’. And if only ‘for a sweet savour’ were written, I should have said that even on account of the meal-offering [may the blood be sprinkled]; the Divine Law therefore stated ‘the fat’.13 MISHNAH. IF [HE DID] NOT [PUT THE HANDFUL] INTO A VESSEL OF MINISTRY14 IT IS INVALID; BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID, IF HE BURNT THE HANDFUL TWICE,15 IT IS VALID. GEMARA. R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said, What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? It is written, It is most holy as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering;16 that is to say, if he is about to perform the service17 with his hand,18 he must do so with his right hand as the sin-offering; but if he is about to offer it in a vessel, he may do so with his left hand as the guilt-offering.19 R. Jannai said,20 Since he took the handful from a vessel of ministry he may offer it up and burn it even in his girdle and even in a potsherd. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, All agree that the handful must be sanctified.21 An objection was raised: If the fat, the limbs and the wood were brought up to be burnt [upon the altar] with the hand or with a vessel, with the right hand or with the left, they are valid. If the handful, the incense-offering and the frankincense were brought up [upon the altar] with the hand or with a vessel, with the right hand or with the left, they are valid. Is this not a refutation of the view of R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya?22 — R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya could answer you: It is to be taken as separate cases thus, If [brought up] with the hand, it must be with the right hand only; if with a vessel, it may be either with the right hand or with the left. Come and hear: If he took out the handful from23 a vessel of ministry but neither sanctified it in a vessel of ministry nor offered it up to be burnt in a vessel of ministry, it is invalid. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon declare it valid if only it had been put into a vessel!24 — Render: After it had been put into a vessel.25 Come and hear: But the Sages say, The handful requires vessels of ministry; thus he takes out the handful from a vessel of ministry, sanctifies it in a vessel of ministry and offers it up to be burnt in a vessel of ministry. R. Simeon says, As long as he has taken out the handful from a vessel of ministry he may offer it and burn it not in a vessel of ministry and that suffices!26 — Render: As long as he has taken out the handful from a vessel of ministry and also sanctified it in a vessel of ministry he may offer it and burn it and that suffices. Come and hear: If he took out the handful with his right hand and transferred it into his left hand, he should transfer it back again to his right hand. If while it was in his left hand because it became unclean or was burnt or lost); likewise the handful of the meal-offering may be burnt upon the altar even though the remainder is not available. remainder is not available it is not lawful to burn the handful. handful. shows that the sprinkling is performed on account of the fat. is part of the animal like the fat. 24b), may be performed with the left hand, and in the case of the leper's guilt-offering must be performed with the left hand (v. Sh. Mek.). sanctified in a vessel of ministry and offer it with the hand upon the altar. yet it also permits the use of the left hand; contra R. Judah. bringing nigh and the burning, do not, according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, require a vessel.