Menachot — Daf 7a

וכי מהדר ליה לקומץ לדוכתיה תקדוש ולפסול

אמר ר' יוחנן זאת אומרת כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת

הא מדעת מקדשין והא בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן כלי שרת מהו שיקדשו פסולין לכתחילה ליקרב ואמר ליה אין מקדשין אמר ליה אין מקדשין ליקרב אבל מקדשין ליפסל

רב עמרם אמר כגון שהחזירו לביסא גדושה

ומקמץ היכי קמץ אלא כגון שהחזירו לביסא טפופה

וכיון דקמץ ליה עבד ליה גומא כי מהדר לגוויה דמנא קא מהדר ליה מכי מהדר ליה מנח ליה אדפנא דמנא ומניד ליה ונפל ממילא דנעשה כמי שהחזירו הקוף

א"ל רבי ירמיה לר' זירא ולוקמה כגון שהחזירו לכלי המונח על גבי קרקע אלא ש"מ קומצין מכלי שעל גבי קרקע (א"ל) קא נגעת בבעיא דאיבעיא לן דרבי אבימי תני מנחות בי רב חסדא

ואבימי בי רב חסדא תני והאמר רב חסדא קולפי טאבי בלעי מאבימי עלה דהא שמעת' בא להכריז רצופין ל' יום שני וחמישי (ושני) ס' יומי

אבימי מסכתא איתעקרא איתעקר ליה ואתא קמיה דרב חסדא לאדכורי גמריה ולישלח ליה וליתי לגביה סבר הכי מסתייעא מילתא טפי

פגע ביה רב נחמן אמר ליה כיצד קומצין א"ל מכלי זה אמר ליה וכי קומצין מכלי שעל גבי קרקע א"ל דמגבה ליה כהן

כיצד מקדשין את המנחות אמר ליה נותנה לכלי זה וכי מקדשין בכלי שעל גבי קרקע א"ל דמגבה ליה כהן

אמר ליה א"כ הוצרכתה ג' כהנים אמר ליה ותהא צריכה י"ג כתמיד

איתביה זה הכלל כל הקומץ ונותן בכלי המוליך והמקטיר לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול וכו'

ואילו מגביה לא קתני תנא סדר עבודות נקיט ולא סדר כהנים

בעו מיניה מדרב ששת מהו לקמוץ מכלי שעל גבי קרקע אמר ליה פוק חזי מה עבדין לגאו ארבעה כהנים נכנסין שנים בידם ב' סדרים ושנים בידם שני בזיכין וארבעה מקדמין לפניהם שנים ליטול שני סדרים וב' ליטול ב' בזיכין

But1 surely when he puts the handful back again into its place it thus becomes holy, consequently it should be invalid!2 — R. Johanan said, This proves that vessels of ministry hallow only [what has been put into them] intentionally.3 It follows, however, that they do hallow [what has been put into them] intentionally.4 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.5 R. Amram said,6 We must suppose here that he put it back into a heaped up bowl.7 Then how could he have taken out the handful originally [from this vessel]?8 — 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.9 R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera, Why not suggest that he put it back into a vessel which was upon the ground?10 We can then infer from this11 that one may take out the handful from a vessel which is upon the ground!12 — 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’?13 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?14 — He thought that in this way15 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’.16 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’17 He replied, ‘[I don't mind] if thirteen are required as with the Daily Sacrifice’.18 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.19 Now there is no mention here of lifting up [the vessel]! — The Tanna merely teaches the order of the various services.20 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]:21 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. omitted by MS.M., and Sh. Mek. which particular vessel of ministry he returns the handful, whether into another vessel or into the same vessel from which it was taken. which it was taken without intending it to become holy thereby. has been completed by an unfit person, and so it is invalid and there can be no remedy. But is it quite different in-the case where the handful was put back into the vessel but not for the purpose of hallowing it thereby. they must announce the sale either daily for a period of thirty days, or on Mondays and Thursdays (these being the days when the Courts sat) for a period of sixty days. V. ‘Ar. 22a. and a third to take the handful out of the one and put it into the other. This number of priests was necessary as, it must be remembered, only the right hand was to be used in any service, and therefore one priest could not hold the two vessels, one in each hand. It was, however, possible for the one priest to hold both vessels, one after the other, so that only two priests would be necessary. V. Sh. Mek. employed in each service. The words ‘but not the order of the priests’, found in cur. edd., are obviously a gloss, and are omitted in MS.M. and also in Sh. Mek.