Parallel
מנחות 7
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But surely when he puts the handful back again into its place it thus becomes holy, consequently it should be invalid! — R. Johanan said, This proves that vessels of ministry hallow only [what has been put into them] intentionally. It follows, however, that they do hallow [what has been put into them] intentionally. But did not Resh Lakish enquire of R. Johanan, ‘Can unfit persons hallow what they [intentionally] put into vessels of ministry so that it should be permitted to offer it [upon the altar] in the first instance?’ and he replied. ‘They cannot hallow it’? — [He meant,] They cannot hallow it so that it should be permitted to be offered up, but they can hallow it so that [through their act] it is rendered invalid. R. Amram said, We must suppose here that he put it back into a heaped up bowl. Then how could he have taken out the handful originally [from this vessel]? — Rather [say] he put it back into a brimful bowl. But surely when he took out the handful he left a hollow, so that when he puts it back again he puts it into the vessel, does he not? — He put it back on to the sides of the vessel and he then shook it so that it fell back of its own into the vessel; and it is the same as though it were put back by a monkey. R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera, Why not suggest that he put it back into a vessel which was upon the ground? We can then infer from this that one may take out the handful from a vessel which is upon the ground! — He replied, You are now touching upon a question that was raised by our [colleagues]. For Abimi was studying the Tractate Menahoth under R. Hisda. (But did Abimi even study under R. Hisda? Did not R. Hisda say, ‘Many were the blows that I received from Abimi upon the following subject: If [the Court] intend to announce [the sale of the property] daily, it must be done during thirty days; if only on Mondays and Thursdays, it must be done during sixty days’? Abimi had forgotten this Tractate and so he went to R. Hisda that he might be reminded of it. Why did he not send for him, that he [R. Hisda] should come to him? — He thought that in this way he would make better progress.) R. Nahman once met him [Abimi] and asked him, ‘How does one take out the handful?’ He replied. ‘Out of this vessel’. Said the other, ‘And may one take the handful out of a vessel that is upon the ground?’ He replied, ‘A priest has to lift it up’. ‘And how does one hallow the handful taken from the meal-offering?’ [asked R. Nahman]. He replied, ‘One should put it into this vessel’. ‘But may one hallow it by putting it into a vessel that is upon the ground?’ He replied. ‘A priest has to lift it up’. Said R. Nahman, ‘Then you require three priests’ He replied, ‘[I don't mind] if thirteen are required as with the Daily Sacrifice’. He raised the following objection: [We have learnt:] This is the general rule: if one took out the handful or put it into the vessel or brought it nigh or burnt it, [intending] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat [outside its proper place] etc. Now there is no mention here of lifting up [the vessel]! — The Tanna merely teaches the order of the various services. The question was put to R. Shesheth: May one take the handful from a vessel that is upon the ground? He answered, Go and see what is done within [the Temple]: Four priests entered in, two having in their hands the two rows [of Shewbread] and two the two dishes [of frankincense]; and four priests went in before them, two to take away the two rows and two to take away the two dishes.
—
Now there is no mention here of lifting up [the table]. But was not the answer given in the former case that the Tanna merely stated the order of the services? Then in this case too [we can say that] he only states the order of the services! — Surely there is no comparison; there the Tanna does not state the number of priests, but here he does state the number of the priests. Now if [your contention were] right, he certainly should have mentioned [the priest] who lifts up [the table]! This proves that one may take the handful from a vessel that is upon the ground. This indeed proves it. Raba said, I am certain that one may take the handful from a vessel that is upon the ground, for we find that this was so at the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense]. Also that one may hallow the meal-offering by putting [the meal] into a vessel that is upon the ground, for we find that this was so at the setting down the dishes. Raba however was in doubt, What is the law with regard to the hallowing of the handful? Are we to derive it from the meal-offering itself, or from the [receiving of the] blood? Later Raba decided that we must derive it from the [receiving of the] blood. But could Raba have said so? Surely it has been stated: If the handful was divided [and put] into two vessels, R. Nahman says, It is not hallowed; and Raba says, It is hallowed. Now if [the above decision] were right, then this too he should derive from the blood, should he not? — Raba retracted from that opinion. Whence do we know that if the blood was divided [in separate vessels] it is not hallowed? — From the following which R. Tahlifa b. Saul learnt: If one mixed less than the quantity required for sprinkling in one vessel and again less than the quantity required for sprinkling in another vessel, the mixing is not valid. And the question was raised, How is it with regard to the blood? Is that a traditional law, and from a traditional law one may not draw any inferences; or is it so there because it is written, And he shall dip it in the water, then here also it is written, And he shall dip [his finger] in the blood? And it was stated: R. Zerika said in the name of R. Eleazar, Even in the case of the blood it is not hallowed. Raba said, There has been taught [a Baraitha] also to this effect: It is written, And he shall dip, but not wipe up; in the blood, that is, there must be at the very beginning sufficient blood [in the one vessel] for dipping; [and shall sprinkle] of the blood, that is, of the blood spoken of in the context. And the expressions ‘and he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’ are both necessary. For had the Divine Law only stated, ‘And he shall dip’. I might have said that [it was valid] even though [the priest] had not received at the very beginning sufficient blood [in the one vessel] for dipping; it therefore stated, ‘In the blood’. And had the Divine Law only stated, ‘In the blood’, I might have said that he may even wipe up [the blood]; it therefore stated, ‘And he shall dip’. ‘[Of the blood], that is, of the blood spoken of in the context’. What does this exclude? — Raba said, It excludes the blood that is still clinging to the finger. This supports R. Eleazar who said, The blood that is still clinging to the finger is not valid [for sprinkling]. Rabin son of R. Adda said to Raba, Your pupils report that R. ‘Amram raised [an objection from the following]: It was taught: If, while sprinkling, some blood dripped from his hand [on to a garment], if this happened before he had made the sprinkling it must be washed, but if after he had made the sprinkling it need not be washed. Presumably the meaning is: before he had finished the sprinkling, and after he had finished the sprinkling. — No, the meaning is: if it happened before the blood had left his hand in an act of sprinkling it must be washed, but if after the blood had left his hand it need not be washed. Abaye raised an objection: [We have learnt:] When he had finished sprinkling he wiped his hand on the cow's body. [Now] only when he had finished then did he [wipe his hand], but before he had finished he did not! — He replied. When he had finished he wiped his hand, before he had finished he wiped his finger only. It is well [to say] ‘When he had finished he wiped his hand on the cow's body’, for it is written, And the cow shall be burnt in his sight; but [to say] ‘Before he had finished he wiped his finger’ [is difficult], for on what would he wipe it? — Abaye answered, On the edge of the basin, as it is written, Bowls of gold. But could R. Eleazar have said that? Behold it has been stated: The meal-offering of the High Priest R. Johanan says, is not hallowed [if brought] a half at a time. R. Eleazar says. Since it is offered a half at a time it is hallowed [if brought] a half at a time.
—