Menachot

but we have learnt:1 Sixty [tenths] can be mingled together2 but not sixty-one. And when we were considering this [and it was asked], What does it matter if they cannot be mingled together? Have we not learnt: IF HE DID NOT MINGLE IT . . . IT IS VALID? R. Zera answered, Wherever proper mingling is possible the mingling is not indispensable, but wherever proper mingling is not possible the mingling is indispensable?3 — Is this an argument? Surely this has its own meaning and that has its own meaning. The item HE DID NOT POUR IN means, the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did; whereas the item HE DID NOT MINGLE IT means, it was not mingled at all. OR IF HE BROKE IT UP INTO LARGE PIECES. But surely if where he did not break it up at all it is valid, is it then necessary to state [that it is valid if he broke it up into] large pieces? — The expression ‘LARGE PIECES’ really means many pieces.4 Or, if you will, I may say that actually large pieces were meant, [nevertheless it had to be stated in our Mishnah]. For you might have thought that only there5 [is it valid] since they retain the character of cakes, but [not] here6 since they are neither cakes nor crumbs. We are therefore taught [that here,6 too, it is valid]. Shall we say that our Mishnah7 is not in agreement with R. Simeon? For it was taught: R. Simeon says, A priest who does not believe in the service has no portion in the priesthood,8 for it is written, He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion;9 that is to say, if he believes in the service he has a portion in the priesthood, and if he does not believe in the service he has no portion in the priesthood. Now I know it only of this [service stated in the verse], but whence do I know it also of the fifteen services, viz., pouring in [the oil],10 mingling, breaking it up, salting it, waving it, bringing it nigh, taking the handful, burning it, nipping off11 [the head of a bird-offering], receiving [the blood], sprinkling it, giving the water to a woman suspected of adultery,12 breaking the heifer's neck,13 purifying the leper,14 and raising the hands in blessing both within [the Temple] and without?15 The verse therefore adds, ‘Among the sons of Aaron’, that is, all services that are entrusted to the sons of Aaron; and the priest who does not believe in it has no portion in the priesthood!16 — There is no difficulty, said R. Nahman. There17 it deals with the meal-offering of a priest,18 here with the meal-offering of an Israelite. In the case of the meal-offering of an Israelite, from which the handful must be taken, the duty of the priesthood begins with the taking out of the handful; we thus learn that the pouring in [of the oil] and the mingling are valid [even though performed] by non-priests. In the case of the meal-offering of a priest, from which the handful is not taken, the services of the priesthood are required from the very beginning. Thereupon Raba said to him, Just see, whence do we deduce that the rite of pouring in the oil applies also to the meal-offering of a priest? From the meal-offering of an Israelite,19 do we not? Well, as there [the pouring in] may be performed by a non-priest, in this case too it may be performed by a non-priest! (Others have the following version. There is no difficulty, said R. Nahman. Here it deals with meal-offerings from which the handful is taken, there20 with meal-offerings from which the handful is not taken.21 Thereupon Raba said to him, Just see, whence do we deduce that the rite of pouring in the oil applies also to meal-offerings from which the handful is not taken? From those meal-offerings from which the handful is taken, do we not? Well then they must be like unto those from which the handful is taken, and as in the latter case [the pouring in] may be performed by a non-priest, here too it may be performed by a non-priest!) — Obviously, then, our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Simeon. What is the reason of the Rabbis?22 — It is written, And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests; and he shall take thereout his handful.23 From the taking of the handful and onwards is the function of the priesthood; we thus learn that the pouring in [of the oil] and the mingling are valid [even though performed] by non-priests. And R. Simeon? — [He says,] The Scriptural expression ‘Aaron's sons entirely, provided it were possible to do so if desired. Similarly the first case of our Mishnah would mean that no oil at all was poured in. Israel (Num. VI, 22ff.) not be performed by a layman, contrary to the view of our Mishnah. is extended so as to apply to all meal-offerings; v. infra 75a.