Menachot — Daf 57b

ומי פירות אין מחמיצין אמר ריש לקיש אומר היה רבי יוסי הגלילי מנחת נסכים מגבלה במים וכשרה

לחם הפנים מדת יבש היא ושמענא ליה לר' עקיבא דאמר מדת יבש לא נתקדשה

שלח (רבי ראובן) משמיה דרבי יוחנן כך היא הצעה של משנה ואיפוך אשר תקריבו לרבות לחם הפנים לחימוץ דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ר' עקיבא אומר לרבות מנחת נסכים לחימוץ

ואזדא ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' יוחנן רבי יוסי הגלילי ואחד מתלמידי ר' ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד ומנו רבי יאשיה

דתניא (במדבר ז, א) וימשחם ויקדש אותם רבי יאשיה אומר מדת הלח נמשח בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ מדת יבש נמשחו מבפנים ואין נמשחו מבחוץ

רבי יונתן אומר מדת הלח נמשחו מבפנים ואין נמשחו מבחוץ מדות יבש לא נמשחו כל עיקר תדע לך שהרי אין מקדשות דכתיב (ויקרא כג, יז) ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרונים סלת תהיינה חמץ תאפינה בכורים לה' אימתי הן לה' לאחר שנאפו

במאי קא מיפלגי באותם רבי יאשיה סבר אותם למעוטי מדת יבש בחוץ ור' יונתן סבר מדת יבש חול הוא ולא אצטריך קרא למעוטי כי איצטריך קרא למעוטי מדת לח מבחוץ

לימא נמי ר' עקיבא ואחד מתלמידי ר' ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד ומנו רבי יונתן משום דלא שוו במדת לח להדדי

א"ל רב פפא לאביי והא איכא ביסא דלח הוא א"ל כגון שלש על גבי קטבליא

אי הכי דקאמר ליה רבי יונתן תדע לך שהרי אינה מקדשת לימא ליה כגון דכיילא בעשרון דחול

הכי השתא בשלמא ביסא לא כתב רחמנא דלעביד ביסא למילש ביה כי לש לה על גבי קטבליא לית לן בה אלא עשרון כיון דאמר רחמנא עביד עשרון וכייל ביה שביק עשרון דקודש וכייל בעשרון דחול

תנו רבנן מנין למעלה מבשר חטאת ומבשר אשם ומבשר קדשי הקדשים ומקדשים קלים וממותר העומר וממותר שתי הלחם ומלחם הפנים ומשירי מנחות שהוא בלא תעשה

ת"ל (ויקרא ב, יא) כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה' כל שהוא ממנו לאישים הרי הוא בבל תקטירו

ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים יש מהן לאישים והתניא יצאו שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שאין מהם לאישים

אמר רב ששת אין מגופו לאישים

איתמר המעלה מכולם על גבי הכבש רבי יוחנן אמר חייב ר' אלעזר אמר פטור

ר' יוחנן אמר חייב דתניא המזבח אין לי אלא מזבח כבש מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ב, יב) ואל המזבח לא יעלו לרצון

ור' אלעזר אמר פטור מ"ט דאמר קרא (ויקרא ב, יא). שאור ודבש קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם אותם

הוא דרבי לך כבש כמזבח אבל מידי אחרינא לא

and fruit juice cannot render aught leaven? — Resh Lakish answered that R. Jose the Galilean was of the opinion that it was permitted to mix the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings with water.1 But was not the [flour for the] Shewbread put into a measuring vessel for dry goods, and we know that R. Akiba is of the opinion that the measuring vessel for dry goods was not consecrated?2 — Rabin3 sent the following answer in the name of R. Johanan: That is, indeed, the proper construction of the teaching, but the authorities must be reversed: ‘Which ye shall bring’ includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, It includes the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. R. Johanan is indeed consistent in his view, for R. Johanan has said that R. Jose the Galilean and one of the disciples of R. Ishmael — namely, R. Josiah-both hold the same view, For it was taught: It is written, And had anointed them and sanctified them.4 R. Josiah says, The liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside, while the dry-measures were anointed inside but not outside. R. Jonathan says, The liquid-measures were anointed inside but not outside, while the dry-measures were not anointed at all. This can be proved from the fact that they do not hallow [what was put into them], for it is written, Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for firstfruits unto the Lord;5 when are they appointed unto the Lord? Only after they have been baked. 6 Wherein do they differ? In the interpretation of the word ‘them’.7 R. Josiah maintains that the word ‘them’ excludes the outside of the dry-measure; but R. Jonathan holds that the dry-measure was not holy at all and no verse is necessary to exclude it; the word ‘them’ can thus serve to exclude only the outside of the liquid-measure. And why did not [R. Johanan] say that R. Akiba and one of the disciples of R. Ishmael — namely R. Jonathan — both said the same thing?8 — Because they do not agree entirely about the liquid-measures.9 R. Papa said to Abaye, Was not a bowl used [for the kneading of the Shewbread], and that was [a measuring vessel] for liquids?10 — He replied, It might have been kneaded on a slab.11 But if so, when R. Jonathan said ‘This can be proved from the fact that they do not hallow [what was put into them]’, [his colleague] could have retorted that it might have been measured out in an unconsecrated tenth measure!12 — [The two cases] cannot be compared; for with regard to the bowl, since the Divine Law did not expressly prescribe a bowl for the kneading, if it was kneaded on a slab it did not matter in the least; but with regard to the tenth measure, since the Divine Law directed that a tenth measure be made wherewith the flour might be measured, would one reject the consecrated tenth measure and measure with an unconsecrated tenth measure? Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it derived that whosoever offers of the flesh of a sin-offering or of a guilt-offering, of the flesh of a Most Holy13 or of a Less Holy offering, of the residue of the ‘Omer-offering, of the residue of the Two Loaves, of the Shewbread, or of the remainder of meal-offerings, transgresses a negative precept? Because the text states, For any leaven or any honey ye shall not burn of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord,14 signifying that any offering, if only a portion of it is offered upon the fire, comes under the prohibition of ye shall not burn.15 But is any part of the Two Loaves or of the Shewbread offered upon the fire? Surely it has been taught: Thus the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are excluded16 since no part of them is offered upon the fire! — R. Shesheth answered, It meant there that no part of them is actually offered upon the fire. 17 It was reported: If a person brought up any of the abovementioned parts upon the ascent,18 R. Johanan said, He is liable;19 but R. Eleazar said, He is not liable. ‘R. Johanan said, He is liable’, for it was taught: The verse says, The altar:20 I know this21 only of the altar, whence do I know it of the ascent too? The text states: But they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar.20 ‘R. Eleazar said, He is not liable’, because the verse says, Leaven and honey . . . as an offering of firstfruits ye may bring them unto the Lord;20 only with regard to these22 is it implied that the ascent is on a par with the altar, but with no other offering is it so. until set upon the table, for even the kneading need not have been in a vessel of ministry. until after the baking in the oven of the Sanctuary. was put inside them as well as what was on the outside; v. infra 90a. the oven. in an unconsecrated measure, and on that account the loaves were only hallowed at the baking and not before. Had they, however, been measured out in a consecrated measure they would have become hallowed forthwith. wholly offered on the altar. therefore as the basis for the rule, that once the prescribed portion of an offering has been duly offered up on the altar the rest may not under any circumstances be burnt upon the altar. portion of each has already been offered as an offering by fire on the altar. Thus, of the animal sacrifices the fat parts have been offered, of the meal-offerings the handfuls, of the Two Loaves the fat parts of the two lambs which accompanied them, and of the Shewbread the two dishes of frankincense. of the Loaves and the lambs or of the Shewbread and the frankincense, it is also true to say that part of the offering is offered upon the fire. offering of firstfruits’, namely, the Two Loaves and the Firstfruits.