Parallel
מנחות 8
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Now if he held that view, he would surely derive [the ruling in the case of the High Priest's meal-offering] from the blood! And should you say that R. Eleazar does not derive one case from another, but R. Eleazar has actually ruled: If the taking of the handful from the meal-offering was performed in the Temple, it is valid, since we find that the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense was regularly performed there]! — He derives [the rules of] one meal-offering from another meal-offering, but he does not derive [the rules of] a meal-offering from the blood. But does he derive one meal-offering from another meal-offering? Surely it has been taught: If a loaf was broken before it had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, and [the priest] may not burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense; if a loaf was broken after it had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, but he may burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense. Whereupon R. Eleazar had said, [The expression ‘after it had been removed’] does not mean that it had actually been removed, but rather that the time for removing it had come about, and although it had not yet been removed it is regarded as already removed. But why is this so? Surely it ought to be regarded as a meal-offering which was found to be lacking before the handful had been taken therefrom! — That is really no difficulty, for in a meal-offering the handful is not separate, whereas here [in the Shewbread] the handful is separate. But this is a difficulty: surely this case ought to be on a par with the remainder of a meal-offering which was found to be lacking after the handful had been taken therefrom but before it had been burnt, in which case the handful may not be burnt! — There is, is there not, a difference of opinion about this? R. Eleazar is of the same opinion as him who says that where the remainder of the meal-offering was found to be lacking after the handful had been taken therefrom but before it had been burnt, the handful may indeed be burnt. The text [above] 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’. R. Aha said, What is R. Johanan's reason? Because the verse reads, For a meal-offering . . . half of it in the morning; that is to say, he must bring a meal-offering and then he shall divide it in halves. An objection was raised: [We have learnt:] The meal-offering of the High Priest may not be brought in [two separate] halves, but he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it. And it has been taught: Had Scripture stated, ‘For a meal-offering a half’, I should then have said that he must bring a half tenth from his house in the morning and offer it, and a half tenth from his house in the evening and offer it; but Scripture states, ‘Half of it in the morning’, that is, he must offer half of the whole tenth! — This is only a recommendation. Thereupon R. Gebiha of Bekathil said to R. Ashi, But is not the term ‘statute’ used in connection with it? — He replied: That merely indicates that he must bring the whole [tenth] from his house. But did R. Johanan actually say that? Behold it has been stated: If a man set aside [in a vessel of ministry] a half tenth [of flour for his meal-offering] intending to add to it [to make up the tenth], Rab says, It is not hallowed; R. Johanan says, It is hallowed. Now if he held that view, he would surely derive [the ruling in this case] from that of the High Priest's meal-offering. Should you say, however, that R. Johanan does not derive one case from another, but R. Johanan has actually ruled: If a peace-offering was slaughtered in the Temple it is valid, for it is written, And he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting, and surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal! — It is different where he intended to add to it. For it has been taught: It is written Full; and full means nothing else but the whole amount. And R. Jose said, When is this so? Only when there is no intention to make up [the full amount], but when there is an intention to make up [the full amount], then each part [as it is put into the vessel of ministry] is hallowed. Whose view does Rab accept with regard to the High Priest's meal-offering? If you say R. Eleazar's, then he should surely derive [the ruling in the case of an ordinary meal-offering] from the High Priest's meal-offering. And should you say that Rab does not derive one case from another, but Rab has actually said, A meal-offering is hallowed [even though it was put into the vessel of ministry] without oil, since we find it so in the case of the Shewbread; without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the drink-offerings; without oil and without frankincense, since we find this in the case of the sinner's meal-offering? — We must therefore say that Rab accepts R. Johanan's view. The text [above] stated: ‘Rab said, A meal-offering is hallowed [even though it was put into the vessel of ministry] without oil, since we find it so in the case of the Shewbread; without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the drink-offerings; without oil and without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the sinner's meal-offering’. Moreover the oil and the frankincense are hallowed [in the vessel of ministry] alone, one without the other: the oil [without the flour and the frankincense], since we find it so in the case of the log of oil of the leper; and the frankincense [without the flour and oil], since we find it so in the case of the dishes of frankincense. But R. Hanina said,
—
The one is not hallowed without the other. Then according to R. Hanina why was the tenth measure anointed? — To measure the sinner's meal-offering. And why was the log measure anointed? — To measure the log of oil of the leper. Samuel, too, is of the same opinion as Rab. For we have learnt: The vessels for liquids hallow liquids, and the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow dry stuffs; the vessels for liquids cannot hallow dry stuffs neither can the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow liquids. And Samuel had said, This applies only to the measuring vessels [for liquids], but the sprinkling bowls hallow also dry stuffs, for it is written, Both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering. R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina, But this meal-offering is moist! — He replied. It refers particularly to the dry parts of the flour. Alternatively, I may say, In comparison with blood a meal-offering [though mingled with oil] is regarded as dry stuff. The text [above] stated: ‘R. Eleazar said, If the taking of the handful from the meal-offering was performed in the Temple it is valid, since we find that the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense was regularly performed there]’. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: It is written, And he shall take his handful from there, that is, from the place where the feet of the non-priest may stand. Ben Bathyra says, Whence do we know that if he took the handful with the left hand he should put it back again and then take it with his right hand? Because the verse says, ‘And he shall take his handful from there’, that is, from the place from which he has already taken a handful! — Some say that he [R. Jeremiah] raised the objection and he himself answered it [as stated below]. Others report that R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa, I will explain it to you: That [verse] merely serves to teach us that [the rite of taking the handful] may be performed in any part of the Temple court; and you should not argue that since the burnt-offering is most holy and the meal-offering is most holy, therefore as the burnt-offering must be [slaughtered] on the north side [of the Temple court] so the meal-offering must be [attended to] on the north side. But surely the case of the burnt-offering is different, since it is wholly burnt! — Then [one could argue in the same way] from the sin-offering. But surely the case of the sin-offering is different, since it atones for those [who committed an act inadvertently which, had they committed it wilfully, would have made them] liable to kareth! — Then [one could argue in the same way] from the guilt-offering. Again the case of the guilt-offering is different, since it effects atonement by blood! Nor [could one argue in the same way] from all these [sacrifices taken together]. since all these [are different from the meal-offering since they] effect atonement by blood! — That [verse] is indeed necessary, for I might have thought that since it is written, And it shall be presented unto the priest, and he shall bring it unto the altar, and [then it says] ‘and he shall take out the handful’, therefore just as the meal-offering was brought unto the south-west corner of the altar so the handful was to be taken out at the south-west corner of the altar; we are therefore taught [that it may be performed in any part of the Temple court]. The text [above] stated: ‘R. Johanan said, If a peace-offering was slaughtered in the Temple it is valid, for it is written, And he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting, and surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal!’ An objection was raised: R. Judah b. Bathyra said, Whence do we know that, if the Temple court was surrounded by gentiles, the priests may enter the Temple and eat there the most holy meat and the remainder of the meal-offerings? Because the verse says,
—