Menachot

OR A DROP OF FRANKINCENSE IT IS INVALID. Why are all these mentioned? — They are all necessary; for had [the Mishnah] only stated a small stone, [I should have said that it is invalid] because it is something that cannot be offered [upon the altar], but as for salt, since it is offered.1 I would say that it does not render [the handful] invalid. And had the Mishnah stated salt only, [I should have said that it was invalid] because it is not prescribed to be brought with the meal-offering in the beginning, but as for frankincense, since it is prescribed to be brought with the meal-offering in the beginning, I would say that it does not render [the handful] invalid. We are therefore taught them all. FOR THEY HAVE RULED: IF THE HANDFUL WAS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE IT IS INVALID. Why is the reason given because it is too much or too little? Surely [it is invalid] because of the interposition?2 — R. Jeremiah answered. It might have been at one side.3 Abaye asked Raba, How is the handful taken? — He replied, As people usually take a handful.4 He then raised the following objection against him: It was taught:5 This one6 is [for measuring] the span,7 this one8 [for taking] the handful,9 this one10 [for measuring] the cubit,11 this one12 is the finger,13 and this one14 the thumb!15 — It is used only in order to smooth the edge.16 How then was it done? — R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab, He bends his three fingers until he reaches the palm of his hand and then takes the handful. [A Baraitha] has been taught to this effect: It is written, And he shall take out a full handful.17 Now one might suppose that it should be overflowing, another verse therefore says, In his handful.18 But from the verse, In his handful, one might suppose that it may be taken with the finger tips, it is therefore written, A full handful. How is it then to be? He should bend his three fingers over on to the palm of his hand and thus take the handful. In the case of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle or in a pan.19 he must level it with his thumb on top and with his little finger below. And this was the most difficult service in the Temple. This, and none other? Was there not the nipping?20 and the taking of ‘both hands full’?21 — Render: And this was one of the most difficult services in the Temple. R. Papa said, I have no doubt at all that the expression ‘a full handful’ means in the manner in which people usually take a handful.22 But, asked R. Papa, what if he took out the handful with his fingertips,23 or with the side [of his hand],24 or [if he took it] from below upwards?25 These questions remain undecided. R. Papa said, I have no doubt at all that the expression ‘his hands full’26 means in the manner in which people usually fill the hands.27 But, asked R. Papa, what if he filled his hands with his finger tips, or with the sides,28 or if he filled each hand separately and brought them together? — These questions remain undecided. R. Papa raised the question: What if he stuck the handful to the side of the vessel?29 Must it be put inside the vessel, which is the case here; or must it be put down inside the vessel, which is not the case here? — This remains undecided. Mar b. R. Ashi raised the following question: What if he turned the vessel upside down and put down the handful on the bottom of the vessel?30 Must it be put inside the vessel, which is the case here; or must it be put down in a normal manner,31 which is not the case here? — This remains undecided. MISHNAH. HOW SHOULD HE DO IT? HE SHOULD STRETCH OUT HIS FINGERS ON TO THE PALM OF HIS HAND. IF HE PUT IN TOO MUCH OF ITS OIL OR TOO LITTLE OF ITS OIL.32 OR TOO LITTLE OF ITS FRANKINCENSE,33 THE OFFERING IS INVALID. GEMARA. What is meant by TOO MUCH OF ITS OIL? R. Eleazar said, If, for example, one set apart for it two logs of oil.34 And why did he not suggest that ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil from another [meal-offering] was added to it? Should you, however, retort that [the addition of] ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil from another [meal-offering] would not render the offering invalid, then there is the objection (raised by R. Zutra b. Tobiah):35 How can the ruling, that the sinner's meal-offering Another interpretation is: he filled his hands with incense taken from the side of the vessel and not from the middle. is rendered invalid by the addition of oil,36 ever be applied? If [you say that oil was especially set aside] for it — but it does not require any;37 and if [you say that] ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil from another [meal-offering] was added to it — but you have now said that this would not render the offering invalid? And R. Eleazar [what does he say to this]?38 — It is a case of ‘it goes without saying’; thus, it goes without saying that the offering is rendered invalid by the addition of ordinary [unconsecrated] oil or oil of another [meal-offering]; but in the case where a man set aside for it two logs of oil, since each [log separately] is suitable for the purpose. I would say that it is not invalid; he therefore teaches us [that it is invalid]. But whence does R. Eleazar know this? — Raba said, Our Mishnah presented a difficulty to him. Why does it use the expression. IF HE PUT IN TOO MUCH OF ITS OIL? It should have stated, ‘If he put in too much oil for it’. But its teaches us39 that [it is invalid] even though he set aside for it two logs of oil. IF HE PUT IN TOO LITTLE OF ITS FRANKINCENSE. Our Rabbis taught: If the frankincense had diminished until there remained one grain only, the offering is invalid; if there remained two grains, it is valid. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says. If there remained one grain, it is valid; if less than that it is invalid. the fingers, and this renders it invalid. And even where the stone happens to lie in the middle of the flour and does not touch the fingers it is also invalid for it interposes between the flour and divides it into two! question of interposition, but it is invalid only because the handful is too little, since there is lacking flour to the extent of the volume of the stone. the breastplate of the High Priest; v. Ex. XXVIII, 16. was not used in taking the handful, contra Raba. appear to be bursting out; this levelling was also performed at the other end by the thumb. It is clear, however, that the actual handful was made up by bending the middle three fingers over the palm. In cur. edd. there appears here in the text an explanatory gloss which is not found in any MS., it is struck out by Sh. Mek. should burst out at the ends or between the fingers. handful. They were not, however, broken fine, and therefore when the handful was taken, particles of the cakes would be protruding on all sides; the thumb and little finger were then brought into operation so as to smooth the sides-an awkward and difficult manipulation. offered it in the Holy of Holies. The circumstances in which he took these were such as to render the taking a very difficult task. V. Yoma 49b. the palm of his hand. handful. Another interpretation is: he took the handful from the flour at the side of the vessel and not from the middle. full. the thumb and the first finger. the vessel but stuck it on the side of the vessel. the very beginning.