Menachot

a covenant declared in regard to salt.1 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,2 as it is impossible to conceive of sacrifices without the priesthood so it is impossible to conceive of sacrifices without salt!3 — 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.4 — He replied, How can it even enter your mind that a non-priest shall draw near to the altar?5 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. 6 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!7 — 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,8 since these are also termed ‘offering’;9 the verse therefore adds meal-offering; thus as the meal-offering is distinguished in that other things are requisite for it,10 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,11 so everything which renders something permissible [must be seasoned with salt]; I would thus include the blood since it renders something permissible!11 The verse therefore states, [Neither shalt thou suffer the salt . . . to be lacking] from thy meal-offering,7 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 offered12 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,13 the frankincense that is offered in the dishes,14 the incense-offering, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest,15 the meal-offering that is offered together with the drink-offerings,16 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. 17 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’?18 — 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 specified19 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.20 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!21 — The drink-offerings go rather with the burning of the sacrificial parts, for eating and drinking’ [go together].22 On the contrary atonement and joy [go well together]!23 — 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.24 But I could argue thus: As the item specified25 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,26 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!27 — It is more reasonable to include the limbs since (mnemonic: A. Sh. B. N. T. M. A.)28 other things are requisite for them as for [the meal-offering], they are burnt by fire like it, they are treated outside like it,29 they are subject to the law of nothar30 like it, to the law of uncleanness like it and to the law of sacrilege like it, 31 principle. head of the altar, and it is inconceivable that a non-priest would approach so near the altar. foregoing Baraitha. chief part of the offering. 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. and all the other offerings mentioned, which are burnt upon the altar, must first be salted? offered by the High Priest daily. Cf. Lev. VI, 13, 14. why then is the question raised again? 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. 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. atonement which is brought about by the sprinkling is now expressed in the libations of wine. blood. The wood, too, is closely connected with the offering since without it the offering is not possible. 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. whereas the blood in the case of certain offerings is sprinkled inside the Temple upon the veil and between the staves. the appointed time, or if he eats them whilst in a state of uncleanness. This is not so with regard to the blood. 60a.