Menachot

On the contrary, it is more reasonable to include the blood since it renders something permissible like [the meal-offering]1 and is rendered invalid at sunset like it!2 — 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’3 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.4 Rabbi says, The wood-offering is included under the term ‘offering’, and therefore it requires salting and also to be brought near5 [the altar]. And Raba had said that according to Rabbi's view it is essential to take a handful out of the wood.6 And R. Papa had said that according to Rabbi's view an offering of wood entails other wood too!7 — Strike out ‘wood’ from here.8 Then what does the verse exclude? It surely cannot exclude the blood, for this is excluded by the expression ‘from thy meal-offering’! 9 — permissible to be eaten. meal-offering; whereas the sacrificial portions may be burnt throughout the whole night. handful of the meal-offering. the Temple store is required to burn the wood offered. ‘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.