מנחות 19 — Soncino English Talmud

¹the priests’ is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows. And is R. Simeon of the opinion that a Scriptural expression is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows? But it has been taught: It is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar. ‘And... shall take.. . with his finger’, this teaches us that the taking [of the blood] shall be with the right hand only; ‘with his finger and put it’, this teaches us that the sprinkling shall be with [the finger of] the right hand only. R. Simeon said, Is the expression ‘hand’ written in connection with the taking [of the blood]? Since the expression ‘hand’ is not written in connection with the taking [of the blood], if he took the blood with the left hand it is still valid. And Abaye said that they differ as to whether a Scriptural expression is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows or not! — This rather is the reason for R. Simeon's view: It is written, And he shall bring it; the term ‘and’ indicates conjunction with the preceding subject. But is R. Simeon of the opinion that the term ‘and’ indicates conjunction with the preceding subject? Then consider this: It is written, And he shall slaughter the bullock before the Lord; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood, from which it is clear that only from the act of receiving [the blood] and onwards is the function of the priesthood; we thus learn that the slaughtering may be performed by a non-priest. But according to R. Simeon, since the term ‘and’ indicates conjunction with the preceding subject, the slaughtering by a non-priest should not be permitted! Here it is different, for it is written, And he shall lay his hand ... and he shall slaughter; and as the laying of the hands is performed by non-priests so the slaughtering may be performed by non-priests. Then should it not follow, as the laying of the hands must be performed by the owner [of the offering], so the slaughtering, too, shall be performed by the owner! — You cannot say that, as there is an a fortiori argument against it. For if the sprinkling which is the chief service of atonement is not performed by the owner, a fortiori the slaughtering which is not the chief service of atonement! And should you retort, But surely the possible is not to be inferred from the impossible! then [I say], the fact that the Divine Law enjoined with regard to the service on the Day of Atonement, And he shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself, indicates that elsewhere the slaughtering need not be performed by the owners. Rab said, Wherever the expressions ‘law’ and ‘statute’ occur [in connection with any rites,] their purpose is only to indicate the indispensability [of those rites]. Now it was assumed that both expressions were necessary for this purpose, as in the verse, This is the statute of the law. (Mnemonic: Nataz Yikmal.). But is there not the case of the Nazirite, where only the expression ‘law’ is used, and yet Rab has said that the [absence of the] rite of waving in the case of the Nazirite invalidates [the service]? — That case is different, for since there is written, so he must do, it is as though the expression ‘statute’ were used. And is there _not the thank-offering, where only the expression ‘law’ is used, yet we have learnt: Of the four [kinds of cakes] of the thank-offering the [absence of] one invalidates the others? — The case of the thank-offering is also different, since it has been placed side by side with the Nazirite in the verse, With the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, and the Master has taught that the term ‘peace-offerings’ includes the peace-offerings of the Nazirite. And is there not the case of the leper, where only the expression ‘law’ is used, yet we have learnt: Of the four kinds [used in the purification] of the leper the [absence of] one invalidates the others? — That case is different, for since there is written, This shall be the law of the leper, it is as though the word ‘statute’ were also written. And is there not the Day of Atonement, where only the expression ‘statute’ is used, yet we have learnt: Of the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement the [absence of] one invalidates the other? — Hence we must say that either the expression ‘law’ [by itself] or ‘statute’ [by itself indicates indispensability]. But with all other offerings only the expression ‘law’ is found, and yet the rites [in each offering] are not indispensable! — We must therefore say that the expression ‘law’ requires with it the expression ‘statute’ [in order to indicate indispensability], whereas statute’ does not require with it ‘law’. But did not [Rab] say, The expressions ‘law’ and ‘statute’? — He meant to say this: Even though the expression ‘law’ is used, only if there is also used the expression ‘statute’ is [indispensability implied], otherwise it is not so. But in the case of the meal-offering only the expression ‘statute’ is used, and yet Rab has stated, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse is indispensable; which shows that only if it is repeated is it [indispensable], otherwise it is not! — That case is different, for the expression ‘statute’ relates only to the eating. And is there not the Shewbread, where [undoubtedly] the expression ‘statute’ relates only to the eating, yet we have learnt: Of the two rows [of the Shewbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other, of the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other, of the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other? — Therefore [we must say that] even where [the expression ‘statute’] is used in connection with the eating [of the offering], it relates to all [the rites of that offering]; in that case, however, it is different, for since it is written, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof [it is clear that only]^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:So that the rites prior to the taking of the handful, namely the pouring in of the oil and the mingling, must also be performed by the priests alone.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. IV, 25. It is to be particularly observed that the expression ‘with his finger’ (which in conjunction with the term ‘priest’, according to Rabbinic interpretation, signifies the use of the right hand or of the finger of the right hand; v. supra 10a) is so placed in the middle of the verse that it might be said to refer to the rite of taking the blood which precedes, or to the rite of sprinkling which follows, or even to both.
^ᶜnote:The expression ‘finger’ is here meant.
^ᵈnote:The first Tanna holds that the expression ‘with his finger’ refers to what precedes as well as to what follows, and therefore both services must be performed with the right hand; whereas R. Simeon holds that ‘with his finger’ refers to what follows, namely the sprinkling, and therefore the taking of the blood may be performed even with the left hand.
^ᵉnote:Lev. II, 2.
^ᶠnote:And the former service (sc. the pouring in of the oil) is determined by the latter (sc. the taking of the handful); as the latter is performed by the priest only,so the former may be performed by the priest only. To reason the same with regard to the sin-offering thus: since the second service is introduced by the term ‘and’, therefore as the second service, sc. the sprinkling, must be performed with the right finger so the preceding service, sc. the receiving of the blood, shall also be performed with the right hand, is not admissible, for the two services of the verse are separated by the expression ‘with his finger’ (Rashi).
^ᵍnote:Ibid. I, 5.
^ʰnote:Which is understood by the expression ‘present the blood’.
^ⁱnote:For the services which follow the term ‘and’, namely the receiving and the sprinkling, may be performed by none other than priests.
^ʲnote:Lev. I, 4.
^ᵏnote:Whereas the sprinkling is ‘impossible’, i.e., may not be performed by the owner, since that would be in direct conflict with the Scriptural precept, the slaughtering on the other hand is ‘possible’, i.e., may be, and therefore should be, performed by the owner.
^ˡnote:Ibid. XVI, 11.
^ᵐnote:Num. XIX, 2.
^ⁿnote:kneh .,b (he dashes and will pluck off), a mnemonic of the initial or characteristic letters of the cases adduced here in argument against Rab's principle.
^ᵒnote:Cf. Num. VI, 2ff.
^ᵖnote:Ibid. 21: This is the law of the Nazirite.
^ᵠnote:Cf. Ibid. 19, 20.
^ʳnote:Ibid. 21.
^ˢnote:Lev. VII, 11.
^ᵗnote:Infra 27a.
^ᵘnote:Sc. leavened, cakes, unleavened cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes; cf. Lev. VII, 12, 13.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. 13.
^ʷnote:Infra 27a.
^ˣnote:Ibid. XIV, 2.
^ʸnote:Sc. cedarwood, scarlet, hyssop, and two clean birds; cf. ibid. 4’
^ᶻnote:For the expression ‘shall be’ also signifies indispensability.
^ᵃᵃnote:Cf. Ibid. XVI, 29.
^ᵃᵇnote:Cf. ibid. VII, 37: This is the law of the burnt-offering etc.
^ᵃᶜnote:E.g., the offering is valid even though the sacrificial portions of the guilt-offering were not burnt upon the altar (supra 4a). and the meal-offering even though it was not brought nigh unto the altar (supra 18a).
^ᵃᵈnote:It is clear that the expressions are on an equal footing and one is not more significant than the other.
^ᵃᵉnote:Cf. Lev. VI, 11.
^ᵃᶠnote:The meal-offering is dealt with primarily in Lev. II, and also in VI, 7-11.
^ᵃᵍnote:In spite of the fact that the expression ‘statute’ is used.
^ᵃʰnote:As it is written (ibid. VI, 11): Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, it is a perpetual statute. It cannot be taken as a general term indicating indispensability.
^ᵃⁱnote:For it is written (ibid. XXIV, 9): And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy unto him . . . by a perpetual statute.
^ᵃʲnote:Infra 27a.
^ᵃᵏnote:Sc. of the meal-offering.
^ᵃˡnote:Ibid. II, 16.

²the bruised corn and the oil are indispensable, but no other thing is indispensable. [To turn to] the main text: ‘Rab said, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse is indispensable. Samuel, however, said, The bruised corn and the oil are indispensable, but no other thing is indispensable. Is it then suggested that according to Samuel even though the rite is repeated in another verse it is not indispensable? — Rather [the position is this]: Wherever any rite is repeated in another verse it is certainly indispensable; they differ only as to [the effect of] the interpretation of the phrases ‘his handful’ and ‘with his hand’. For it was taught: The phrases ‘his handful’ and ‘with his hand’ signify that he shall not use a measure for the taking of the handful. Now Rab maintains that this too has been stated in another verse, as it is written, And he presented the meal-offering and filled his hand therefrom; Samuel, however, says that we cannot derive a permanent law from a temporary enactment. Is Samuel then of the opinion that we cannot derive a permanent law from a temporary enactment? But 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 thereupon 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! — This case is different since the verse is repeated twelve times. R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab, But is not the bringing nigh [of the meal-offering to the altar] repeated in Scripture, nevertheless it is not indispensable? — Where is it repeated? Because it is written, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it nigh before the Lord, [to the front of the altar]? But surely that verse merely determines the place [whither it shall be brought]. As it has been taught: [If the verse had only stated,] ‘Before the Lord’, I might have thought that it meant on the west [side of the altar], the verse therefore added, To the front of the altar. And [if the verse had only stated,] To the front of the altar, I might have thought that it meant on the south side, the verse therefore stated, ‘Before the Lord’. So what was the procedure? He brought it nigh unto the south-west corner opposite the point of the altar's horn, and that sufficed. R. Eliezer says, It is possible [to think that the meaning is] he can bring it nigh either to the west corner or to the south corner; but you can answer, Wherever you find two texts, one self-confirmatory and confirming the words of the other, whereas the second is self-confirmatory but annuls the words of the other, we abandon the latter and accept the former. Thus when you emphasize ‘before the Lord’, i.e., on the west side [of the altar], you annul ‘to the front of the altar’, which is on the south side; but when you emphasize ‘to the front of the altar’, i.e., on the south side, you confirm ‘before the Lord’, which is on the west side. But how do you confirm it? — R. Ashi said, This Tanna holds that the whole of the altar stood in the north. R. Huna demurred, But the salting [of the meal-offering] is not repeated in Scripture, nevertheless it is indispensable! For it has been taught: The verse, It is a covenant of salt for ever, signifies that there is^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ

^ᵃᵐnote:It is evident that the expression ‘statute’ used in connection with the meal-offering is of no significance, seeing that it was found necessary to derive the teaching that the measures of the bruised corn and of the oil shall each be full, from the emphatic and indeed superfluous particles ‘thereof’ attached to each, and not by inferring it from the expression ‘statute’ (Rashi). According to Tosaf. (s.v. hbtau) the interpretation is: the fact that Scripture repeats here (v. 16) practically the same rite that is mentioned in v. 2, signifies that in this instance the expression ‘statute’ is of no significance.
^ᵃⁿnote:Even though the rite is repeated in another verse.
^ᵃᵒnote:Surely not; for what else could be the purpose of the repetition of that rite if not to indicate indispensability?
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. II, 2.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid. VI, 8. So literally.
^ᵃʳnote:From these two phrases we learn that the priest must take out the handful with his hand and may not use a measure which holds as much as a handful for the purpose.
^ᵃˢnote:Ibid. IX, 17. This verse clearly repeats the injunction that the handful must be taken out with the hand; hence it is indispensable, and if it was taken with a measure it is invalid.
^ᵃᵗnote:The above verse referred to relates to the meal-offering brought by Aaron at his installation as High Priest, and the provisions stated with regard thereto are obviously temporary enactments only and not rules for all time. Hence, according to Samuel, if the handful was taken with a measure the offering is valid.
^ᵃᵘnote:Supra 8b; Zeb. 88a.
^ᵃᵛnote:Num. VII, 13, and frequently in the chapter. ‘Both’ refers to the silver dish and the silver sprinkling bowl mentioned previously in the verse in connection with the presentation of gifts and offerings by the Princes of the twelve tribes at the dedication of the altar. These vessels obviously hallowed the flour that was put into them; hence Samuel derives the rule for all time that a sprinkling bowl hallows also dry stuffs.
^ᵃʷnote:With the presentation of each of the princes. This oft repeated rite was clearly intended for all times.
^ᵃˣnote:As we have learnt in our Mishnah: OR (IF HE DID NOT) BRING IT NIGH . . IT IS VALID.
^ᵃʸnote:Lev. VI, 7. This rite has already been stated previously: And he shall bring it nigh unto the altar (ibid II, 8).
^ᵃᶻnote:As this side of the altar faced the entrance of the Temple (wherein was the Holy of Holies) which was located in the west of the Temple court. V. fig. 1.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., the south, for here was the ascent leading up to the altar.
^ᵇᵇnote:So Tosaf. and Rashi in Sotah 14b. Here Rashi interprets: ‘both to the west . . . and to the south’.
^ᵇᶜnote:If the meal-offering is brought to the south side of the altar it can by no means be said to be ‘before the Lord’, i.e., opposite the entrance of the Temple which is on the west.
^ᵇᵈnote:Of the Temple court. So that the south side of the altar, being in fact nearest to the entrance of the Temple, is described as ‘before the Lord’. V. fig. 2.
^ᵇᵉnote:Num. XVIII, 19.