Menachot

R. Judah is of the opinion that only in the other cases do they differ, but in the case of ‘leaving’ all agree that it is invalid, the reason being that we must declare the offering invalid [in the case where the intention was in respect of leaving] part of the blood [for the morrow] as a precautionary measure against [an intention of leaving] all the blood [for the morrow], and [an intention of leaving] all the blood [for the morrow] renders the offering invalid by Biblical law. For it was taught:1 Said R. Judah to them, ‘You would agree with me, would you not, that if he actually left [the blood] for the morrow the offering is invalid? Then even where he intended to leave it for the morrow it is also invalid’. R. Eleazar then comes to tell us that even in this case,2 R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid and the Sages declare it to be valid. Is then R. Judah of the opinion that in the case where there was an intention of leaving part of the blood for the morrow all agree that it is invalid? But it has been taught: Rabbi said, When I went to R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ to have my learning examined3 (others say: To sound the learning of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’). I found there Joseph the Babylonian sitting before him. Now he [Joseph] was very dear to him.4 He [Joseph] then said to him, ‘Master, what is the law if one slaughtered an offering intending to leave the blood for the morrow?’ ‘It is valid’, he replied. In the evening he again replied. ‘It is valid’. On the next morning he again replied. ‘It is valid’ — At midday he again replied. ‘It is valid’ In the afternoon he replied. ‘It is valid, but R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid’. Thereupon Joseph's face lighted up. Said to him [R. Eleazar], ‘Joseph, it seems to me that our traditions did not correspond until now’ — ‘Quite so, Master’, he replied. ‘quite so. For R. Judah had taught me the view that it was invalid; and when I sought out all his disciples so as to find a supporter of this view, I could not find any.5 But now that you have taught me the view that it is invalid, you have thus restored to me what I had lost’. Thereupon the eyes of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ streamed with tears and he exclaimed, ‘Happy are ye, O scholars, to whom the words of the Torah are so dear!’ He then applied to him [Joseph] the following verse: ‘O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day.6 For it was only because R. Judah was the son of R. Ila'i, and R. Ila'i was the disciple of R. Eliezer that he [R. Judah] taught you the view of R. Eliezer.’ Now if it be assumed that [R. Judah] taught that all hold it is invalid, then what did he [Joseph] mean when he said ‘You have thus restored to me what I had lost’? He [R. Eleazar b. Shammua’] had only told him [in the end] that there was a difference of opinion in the matter!7 — What then would you say? That he [R. Judah] taught him ‘It is valid, but R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid’! If so, why the expression ‘For it was only because’?8 We also learnt [from R. Eleazar b. Shammua’] that there was a difference of opinion in the matter! — We must indeed say that he [R. Judah] taught him that all hold it is invalid; but what did he [Joseph] mean by saying, ‘You have thus restored to me what I had lost’? He meant that he had brought the view ‘it is invalid’ to light. 9 MISHNAH. IF HE DID NOT POUR IN [THE OIL],10 OR IF HE DID NOT MINGLE IT, OR IF HE DID NOT BREAK UP [THE MEAL-OFFERING] IN PIECES,11 OR IF HE DID NOT SALT IT,12 OR WAVE IT,13 OR BRING IT NIGH,14 OR IF HE BROKE IT UP INTO LARGE PIECES,15 OR DID NOT ANOINT IT16 [WITH OIL], IT IS VALID. GEMARA. What is meant by HE DID NOT POUR IN [THE OIL]? Shall we say that he did not pour in [any oil] at all? But Scripture has indicated that this is indispensable!17 — We must say therefore that it means, the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did. If so, the next item HE DID NOT MINGLE IT, would also mean, the priest did not mingle it but a non-priest did; from which it follows that if it was not mingled at all it would be invalid, According to Rashi: ‘until one’, i.e., until they had reached the subject dealt with here; or, everything that R. Eleazar said was dear to Joseph and accepted by him unhesitatingly until they had reached this law, which he did not accept until the end. had not heard of it. from R. Judah. It must therefore be said that R. Judah had also taught his disciple Joseph that there was a difference of opinion in the matter, and so contrary to the premise set out at the beginning of this passage. had taught his disciple Joseph that particular view only out of admiration and reverence for his teachers, whereas in fact the law was not in accordance with that view. But as matters now stand the teachings of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ and of R. Judah are identical. that it is invalid; and this so disturbed Joseph that he was led to doubt the accuracy of his memory concerning R. Judah's teaching. The final reply of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ gave him some measure of reassurance. flour was then put in; then more oil was poured in and it was mingled with the flour. It was then baked into cakes and thereafter broken in pieces. The remainder of the oil was then poured on it, and the handful was taken therefrom. V. infra 74b. The first case of the Mishnah means that no oil was poured in at the end but it had all been poured in at first. pieces; v. infra 75b. In this case only an amount sufficient for the handful was broken up, but the rest remained unbroken (Rashi). prec. n.). According to others: the handful was not salted by a priest but by a layman (Maim. and Tif. Yisrael; and cf. infra the Gemara's interpretation of the first item of our Mishnah). meal-offering is accounted indispensable. V. infra 19b.