מנחות 59 — parallel

59:1

MISHNAH. SOME [MEAL-OFFERINGS] REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE, SOME REQUIRE OIL BUT NOT FRANKINCENSE, SOME FRANKINCENSE BUT NOT OIL, AND SOME NEITHER OIL NOR FRANKINCENSE. THESE REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE: THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR, THAT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE, THAT PREPARED IN A PAN, THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF WOMEN, AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ‘OMER. THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS REQUIRES OIL BUT NOT FRANKINCENSE. THE SHEWBREAD REQUIRES FRANKINCENSE BUT NOT OIL. THE TWO LOAVES, THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY REQUIRE NEITHER OIL NOR FRANKINCENSE. GEMARA. R. Papa said, All [the meal-offerings] enumerated in the Mishnah must consist of ten [cakes]. He thus rejects R. Simeon's view who said, He may offer half in cakes and half in wafers; and so he teaches us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And thou shalt put oil upon it, — upon it but not upon the Shewbread. For [without the verse] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if the meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings, which does not require frankincense, nevertheless requires oil, how much more does the Shewbread, which requires frankincense, require oil! The text therefore stated ‘Upon it’, — upon it shall be oil but not upon the Shewbread. [It is further written], And thou shalt lay frankincense upon it, — upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. For [without the verse] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if the Shewbread, which does not require oil, nevertheless requires frankincense, how much more does the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, which requires oil, require frankincense! The text therefore stated, ‘Upon it’ — upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. Meal-offering — this includes the meal-offering offered on the eighth day [of consecration], so that it too required frankincense. It is — this excludes the Two Loaves, so that they require neither oil nor frankincense. The Master said, ‘Upon it shall be oil but not upon the Shewbread’. Might I not say, Upon it shall be oil but not upon the meal-offering of the priests? — It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of the priests, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it consists of] a tenth [of an ephah], [requires] a vessel of ministry, is prepared outside, [becomes unfit when] its appearance [is spoilt], requires bringing near [to the altar], and [is burnt upon] the fire [of the altar]. On the contrary it is more reasonable to include the Shewbread since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it is an offering on behalf of] the community, is obligatory, [may be offered in] uncleanness, is eaten, [is subject to] piggul, [and is offered] on the Sabbath! — The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one. The Master said, ‘Upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings’. Might I not say, Upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering of the priests? — It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of the priests, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it consists of] a tenth, is mixed [with a log of oil], is brought [near the altar], [and is offered] by itself. On the contrary it is more reasonable to include the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it is an offering on behalf of] the community, is obligatory, [and may be offered in] uncleanness [and] on the Sabbath? — The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one. ‘Meal-offering-this includes the meal-offering offered on the eighth day [of consecration], so that it too required frankincense’. Perhaps it excludes it? — It is out of the question; if you say that it includes it, it is well, but if you say that it excludes it, the expression is then superfluous, for surely we would not infer a temporary enactment from a permanent law! ‘It is — this excludes the Two Loaves, so that they require neither oil nor frankincense’. Might I not say that it excludes the meal-offering of priests? — It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of priests, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it consists of] a tenth, [requires] a vessel [of ministry], is unleavened, [is offered] by itself, must be brought near [to the altar], [and is burnt upon] the fire [of the altar]. On the contrary,

—

59:2

it is more reasonable to include the Two Loaves since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer] they are offered on [behalf of] the community, are obligatory, [may be offered] in uncleanness, are eaten, [are subject to] piggul, [may be offered] on the Sabbath, render aught permissible, [require] waving, [must be from the produce of] the land [of Israel], [are offered on a fixed] date, [and must be offered from the] new [produce]; and here we have more points in common! — The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one. MISHNAH. [A MAN IS] LIABLE BECAUSE OF THE OIL BY ITSELF AND BECAUSE OF THE FRANKINCENSE BY ITSELF. IF HE PUT IN OIL, HE HAS RENDERED IT INVALID, BUT IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN. IF HE PUT OIL ON THE REMAINDER, HE HAS NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE PRECEPT. IF HE PUT ONE VESSEL ABOVE THE OTHER VESSEL, HE HAS NOT THEREBY RENDERED IT INVALID. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: He shall put no oil upon it, but if he put oil thereon he has made it invalid. I might also say, Neither shall he put any frankincense thereon, but if he did, he has made it invalid, the text therefore states for a sin-offering. I might then say that this is so with the oil too, the text therefore states it is. But why do you declare it invalid if oil was put thereon and valid if frankincense was put thereon? I declare it invalid if oil was put thereon, since it cannot be picked off again, but I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off again. Raba son of R. Huna enquired of R. Johanan, How is it if he put upon it fine frankincense? Is it [valid if frankincense was put thereon] because it can be picked off again, but in this case it cannot be picked off again; or is it because it does not become absorbed, and this too does not become absorbed? Come and hear: AND IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN, — Perhaps there are two reasons for it: firstly, that it does not become absorbed, and another reason is that it can be picked off again. Come and hear: ‘I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off’! — Here again we can reply that there are two reasons for it. How is it then? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, It was taught: If a man put frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy, he must pick it off again and the meal-offering is valid. If before he had picked off the frankincense he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper time or place, it is invalid but the penalty of kareth is not incurred. But if after he had picked off the frankincense he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper place, it is invalid and the penalty of kareth is not incurred, but if outside its proper time, it is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred. Surely it should be regarded as rejected! — Abaye answered, Scripture still refers to it as a sin-offering. Raba said, This represents the view of Hanan the Egyptian who does not consider anything as absolutely rejected. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says, Even though the blood is still in the bowl he may, without casting lots, bring another goat and pair it with the other. R. Ashi said, Whatsoever still remains in his power [to rectify] is never regarded as rejected. R. Adda said that R. Ashi's view is the more probable; for who is it that regards a matter as absolutely rejected? It is R. Judah, as we have learnt: Moreover, said R. Judah, if the blood was poured out, the Scapegoat must be left to die; and if the Scapegoat died, the blood must be poured out. Nevertheless, in regard to a matter which is still in his power [to rectify], it has been taught: R. Judah says, A cup was filled with the mingled blood [that was spilt on the ground] and it was sprinkled in one action towards the base [of the altar]. R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man put the minutest quantity of oil upon an olive's bulk of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? For ‘he shall not put’ implies the putting of any quantity, however little; whilst ‘upon it’ implies at least the minimum quantity. R. Isaac b. Joseph also said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man put an olive's bulk of frankincense upon the minutest quantity of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? Because it is written, He shall not give [any frankincense], which signifies that there must be a quantity thereof worthy to be given. And as for the term ‘upon it’,

—