מנחות 20 — Soncino English Talmud

¹a covenant declared in regard to salt. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says, Here it is said, It is a covenant of salt for ever, and there it is said, The covenant of an everlasting priesthood, as it is impossible to conceive of sacrifices without the priesthood so it is impossible to conceive of sacrifices without salt! — R. Joseph answered, Rab agrees with the Tanna of our [Mishnah] who said, IF HE DID NOT SALT IT . . . IT IS VALID. Thereupon Abaye said to him, Are you then suggesting that ‘HE DID NOT POUR means he did not pour in [any oil] at all? It surely means that the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did it; then here, too, it must be explained that the priest did not salt it but a non-priest did it. — He replied, How can it even enter your mind that a non-priest shall draw near to the altar? Alternatively, I can say, since with regard to [the salting] the expression ‘covenant’ is used, it is as though it were repeated in a verse. And is not [the salting actually] repeated in a verse? But it is written, And every offering of thy meal-offering shalt thou season with salt! — This verse is required for the following which had been taught: If the verse had stated, ‘And every offering shalt thou season with salt’, I would have concluded that it also applied to the wood and the blood, since these are also termed ‘offering’; the verse therefore adds meal-offering; thus as the meal-offering is distinguished in that other things are requisite for it, so everything for which other things are requisite [must be seasoned with salt]. But I can argue: as the meal-offering is distinguished in that it renders something permissible, so everything which renders something permissible [must be seasoned with salt]; I would thus include the blood since it renders something permissible! The verse therefore states, [Neither shalt thou suffer the salt . . . to be lacking] from thy meal-offering, but not ‘from thy blood’. I might conclude then that the whole meal-offering requires salting; the verse therefore states, offering, [signifying that] only what is offered requires salting, but the whole meal-offering does not require salting. I know now that the handful [requires salting] but whence do I know to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense since it is offered with [the handful] in the same vessel. And whence do I know to include the frankincense that is offered by itself, the frankincense that is offered in the dishes, the incense-offering, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, the meal-offering that is offered together with the drink-offerings, the sacrificial parts of the most holy and the lesser holy sacrifices, the limbs of the burnt-offering [of an animal] and the burnt-offering of a bird? The verse therefore states, With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. The Master stated: ‘I know now that the handful [requires salting], but whence do I know to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense since it is offered with [the handful] in the same vessel’. But have you not stated previously, ‘As the meal-offering is distinguished in that other things are requisite for it’? — This is what he meant: I might argue that the expression ‘offering’ is a general proposition and ‘meal-offering’ a particular item, so that we would have here a general proposition followed by a particular item, in which case the scope of the proposition is limited to the particular item specified, hence only the meal-offering [would require salting] but no other thing! The verse therefore added, With all thine offerings, which is another general proposition; so that we have now two general propositions separated from each other by a particular item, in which case they include only such things as are similar to the particular item specified: as the item specified is clearly something for which other things are requisite, so everything for which other things are requisite [requires salting]. And what are the other things that are requisite for it? It is the wood. So that everything [which requires] wood [must be seasoned with salt]. But perhaps it is the frankincense, so that I would include the blood since there go with it the drink-offerings! — The drink-offerings go rather with the burning of the sacrificial parts, for eating and drinking’ [go together]. On the contrary atonement and joy [go well together]! — This is what was meant: the frankincense goes together [with the handful] in the same vessel, whereas the drink-offerings do not go together [with the blood] in the same vessel; the wood, on the other hand, just as it is essential for the meal-offering so it is essential for all offerings. But I could argue thus: As the item specified is clearly something for which other things are requisite and also renders aught permissible, so everything for which other things are requisite and which renders aught permissible [requires salting]; and in this way only the frankincense that is in the dishes [would be included] since it renders the Shewbread permissible, but no other offering! — Since the expression, ‘From thy meal-offering’ was necessary to exclude the blood, it follows that everything else is included by [its similarity with the meal-offering in] one respect. The Master stated: ‘[Neither shalt thou suffer the salt . . . to be lacking] from thy meal-offering, but not from thy blood’. But perhaps it is to be interpreted: From thy meal-offering, but not from thy sacrificial limbs! — It is more reasonable to include the limbs since (mnemonic: A. Sh. B. N. T. M. A.) other things are requisite for them as for [the meal-offering], they are burnt by fire like it, they are treated outside like it, they are subject to the law of nothar like it, to the law of uncleanness like it and to the law of sacrilege like it, 31^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

^ᵃnote:I.e., salt must not be omitted from any sacrifice.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. XXV, 13.
^ᶜnote:Hence it is clear that salting is indispensable even though it is not repeated in Scripture, thus contrary to Rab's principle.
^ᵈnote:So that even the Tanna of our Mishnah is of the opinion that the salting cannot be dispensed with entirely.
^ᵉnote:The suggestion that a non-priest salted the meal-offering cannot be entertained, since the salting took place at the head of the altar, and it is inconceivable that a non-priest would approach so near the altar.
^ᶠnote:And so the salting is, according to Rab, indispensable; thus in agreement with R. Judah and R. Simeon of the foregoing Baraitha.
^ᵍnote:Lev. II, 13; and the verse concludes: With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
^ʰnote:That the wood which is burnt upon the altar must first be salted, likewise the blood before the sprinkling.
^ⁱnote:Cf. Neh. X, 35: And we cast lots for the offering of wood. The blood can well be designated ‘offering’ since it is the chief part of the offering.
^ʲnote:Namely, wood for the burning of the handful of the meal-offering.
^ᵏnote:The burning of the handful renders the remainder of the meal-offering permitted to be eaten; likewise the sprinkling of the blood renders the sacrifice permissible, i.e., the sacrificial portions to be burnt and the flesh to be eaten. The result of this argument would be that the blood would require salting since it is similar to the meal-offering in one respect (vis., it renders permissible), and all other offerings would require salting since they, too, are similar to the meal-offering in another respect (viz., for each wood is requisite), and only the wood is excluded. V. Rashi s.v. ht.
^ˡnote:Sc. the handful, The remainder of the meal-offering, however, does not require salting.
^ᵐnote:As a separate offering, e.g., if a man said, ‘I vow to offer frankincense’; v. infra 106b. Whence do we know that this and all the other offerings mentioned, which are burnt upon the altar, must first be salted?
^ⁿnote:With the Shewbread.
^ᵒnote:Known as kusd ivf h,hcj, the meal-offering prepared on a griddle (hence ih,hcj from ,cjn ) offered by the High Priest daily. Cf. Lev. VI, 13, 14.
^ᵖnote:V. Num. XV, 4ff.
^ᵠnote:Lev. II, 13.
^ʳnote:And by that argument the frankincense has already been included, since wood is required for the burning thereof; why then is the question raised again?
^ˢnote:Sc. the handful of the meal-offering which is burnt upon the altar.
^ᵗnote:Which is essential for the burning of the offering upon the altar.
^ᵘnote:The suggestion is that the expression ‘other things are requisite’ does not refer to the wood, but to any act or service that accompanies the offering, e.g., the burning of the frankincense that goes with the offering of the handful, and in the same way the drink-offerings that go with the sprinkling of the blood of animal-offerings.
^ᵛnote:It is more logical to say that the drink-offerings go with the sacrificial parts, for in this way the ‘meal’ is complete, consisting of ‘eating’ (the burning of the sacrificial parts) and ‘drinking’ (the libation of the drink-offerings), rather than with the sprinkling of the blood.
^ʷnote:The drink-offerings, it is now argued, are closely associated with the sprinkling of the blood, for the joy at atonement which is brought about by the sprinkling is now expressed in the libations of wine.
^ˣnote:And therefore the relation of the frankincense to the handful is a closer one than that of the drink-offerings to the blood. The wood, too, is closely connected with the offering since without it the offering is not possible.
^ʸnote:Sc. the handful of the meal-offering.
^ᶻnote:Which was similar to the meal-offering only in one respect (viz., each renders something permissible).
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., the sacrificial limbs are not to be salted before being offered upon the altar.
^ᵃᵇnote:These are the initial or characteristic letters of the points in common between the meal-offering and the sacrificial limbs. It will be observed that the mnemonic contains seven letters whilst the Gemara enumerates but six points in common. Tosaf. explain that the seventh letter (t standing for kfut ‘a foodstuff’) was a point too obvious to be mentioned. The last letter of this mnemonic, however, is wanting in MS.M.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., both the sacrificial limbs and the meal-offering are offered upon the altar that is outside in the Temple Court, whereas the blood in the case of certain offerings is sprinkled inside the Temple upon the veil and between the staves.
^ᵃᵈnote:Heb. r,ub ‘what is left over’. A person is liable if he eats of the meal-offering or of the sacrificial limbs outside the appointed time, or if he eats them whilst in a state of uncleanness. This is not so with regard to the blood.
^ᵃᵉnote:The law of sacrilege (i.e., the profane appropriation or use of sacred objects) does not apply to the blood. V. Yoma 60a.

²On the contrary, it is more reasonable to include the blood since it renders something permissible like [the meal-offering] and is rendered invalid at sunset like it! — The others [the limbs] have more points in common. The Master said: ‘I would have concluded that it also applied to the wood and the blood since these are also termed "offering".’ Whom have you heard express the opinion that the wood is termed ‘offering’? It is Rabbi, is it not? But according to Rabbi it actually requires salting. For it was taught: The term ‘offering’ signifies that one may offer wood as a freewill-offering. And how much must it be? Two logs. And it is written, And we cast lots for the offering of wood. Rabbi says, The wood-offering is included under the term ‘offering’, and therefore it requires salting and also to be brought near [the altar]. And Raba had said that according to Rabbi's view it is essential to take a handful out of the wood. And R. Papa had said that according to Rabbi's view an offering of wood entails other wood too! — Strike out ‘wood’ from here. Then what does the verse exclude? It surely cannot exclude the blood, for this is excluded by the expression ‘from thy meal-offering’! —^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵃᶠnote:The sprinkling of the blood renders the sacrifice permissible, just as the handful renders the rest of the meal-offering permissible to be eaten.
^ᵃᵍnote:The blood may not be sprinkled at night and if it remained overnight it is invalid, likewise with the handful of the meal-offering; whereas the sacrificial portions may be burnt throughout the whole night.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev, II, 1. V. infra 106b.
^ᵃⁱnote:Neh. X, 35.
^ᵃʲnote:To the south-western corner of the altar like the meal-offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:The wood must be cut up into small thin strips and a handful of these be taken and burnt upon the altar, like the handful of the meal-offering.
^ᵃˡnote:As with every offering, wood from the Temple store is required for the burning of the offering, so here wood from the Temple store is required to burn the wood offered.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., from the argument in the passage stated by the Master,
^ᵃⁿnote:In the original Baraitha, supra p. 129, it will be seen that the first argument established that the expression ‘meal-offering’ excludes the blood and the wood. Later this Baraitha excluded the blood from another phrase of the verse ‘from thy meal offering’. If now we strike out ‘the wood’ from the first argument then we are left in this position, that the Baraitha by the interpretation of two different expressions each time excludes the blood and nothing more.