Menachot

Leave out ‘the wood’ and insert ‘the drink-offerings’ in its place. For it was taught: But the wine, the blood, the wood and the incense do not require salting. Who is the author of this Baraitha? If Rabbi, then the [inclusion of the] wood is a difficulty;1 and if the Rabbis, then the [inclusion of the] incense is a difficulty.2 — It is the following Tanna, for it was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka says, Just as the particular item specified3 is clearly something which can contract uncleanness,is consumed by fire and is offered upon the outer altar, so everything which can contract uncleanness, is consumed by fire and is offered upon the outer altar [requires salting]. Hence the wood is excluded since it cannot contract uncleanness, the blood and the wine are excluded since they are not consumed by fire, and the incense is excluded since it is not offered upon the outer altar. Now this is so4 clearly because the verse excluded the blood, but otherwise I should have said that the blood must be salted. Surely by salting it it loses the character of blood!5 For Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina, If blood was cooked [and then one ate of it], one does not thereby commit a transgression.6 And Rab Judah said in the name of Ze'iri, If blood was salted [and one ate of it], one does not thereby commit a transgression.7 Moreover Rab Judah on his own authority said, If the sacrificial limbs were roasted and then brought up [on the altar], they are no longer under the denomination of ‘a sweet savour’!8 — One might have thought that in compliance with the precept a little [salt] should be sprinkled therein, we are therefore taught [that it is excluded from this law]. The text [above stated]: ‘Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina, If blood was cooked [and then one ate of it], one does not thereby commit a transgression’. Raba was sitting reciting this statement, when Abaye raised against him the following objection: If a man coagulated blood9 and ate it, or if he dissolved forbidden fat and gulped it down, he is culpable! — This is no difficulty, in the one case he coagulated it by the fire, in the other he coagulated it in the sun; if by the fire it will not resolve into its former state,10 if in the sun it will do so. But even though [it was coagulated] in the sun should we not say that once it has been set aside it must remain so?11 For did not R. Mani enquire of R. Johanan, ‘What is the law if one ate congealed blood?’ and he replied, ‘Once it has been set aside it must remain so’?12 — He13 remained silent. Then said [Abaye] to him, perhaps the one case deals with [the blood of] external14 sin-offerings,15 and the other16 with [the blood of] internal17 sin-offerings.18 You have now, he exclaimed, reminded me of the law. For Rabbah said in the name of R. Hisda, If one ate the congealed blood of an external sin-offering, one is culpable, for the Divine Law says, And he shall take . . . and put it,19 and such is fit for taking and putting [upon the horn of the altar]. If one ate [the congealed blood] of an internal sin-offering, one is not culpable, for the Divine Law says, And he shall dip . . . and sprinkle,20 and such is not fit for dipping and sprinkling. And Rabbah on his own authority said, Even if one ate [the congealed blood] of an internal sin-offering one is culpable, since with external sin-offerings [blood] in such a condition is fit for the ritual purpose.21 (Therefore, said R. Papa, If one ate the congealed blood of an ass one is culpable, since with external sin-offerings [blood] in such a condition is fit for the ritual purpose). 22 R. Giddal said in the name of Ze'iri, Blood is regarded as an interposition,23 whether it be moist or dry. An objection was raised: Blood, ink, honey and milk, if dry constitute an interposition; if moist, they do not constitute an interposition. — This is no difficulty, in one case [the blood] was viscid,24 in the other it was not. For what purpose does Scripture state, Thou shalt salt?25 — For the following which was taught: [If the verse had only stated] ‘with salt’,26 I might have thought that it meant tebonehu,27 the verse therefore stated, Thou shalt salt. [And if the verse had only stated,] Thou shalt salt, I might have thought that it meant even with salt water, the verse therefore stated, ‘With salt’. Neither shalt thou suffer the salt to be lacking,28 that is, bring that salt which has no Sabbath,29 and that is the salt of Sodom. And whence do we know that if one cannot obtain the salt of Sodom one may bring salt of Istria?30 Because the verse states, ‘Thou shalt offer’:26 ‘Thou shalt offer’, whatever [salt] it is; ‘thou shalt offer’, from whatever place it comes; ‘thou shalt offer’, even on the Sabbath;31 ‘thou shalt offer’, even in conditions of uncleanness.31 What is the meaning of tebonehu? — Rabbah b. ‘Ulla said, This is what was meant: I might have thought that one should heap the salt upon it as straw in clay. If so, said to him Abaye, it should have said yetabnenu!32 Rather said Abaye: I might have thought that one should pile up the salt like a building. If so, said Raba to him, it should have said yibnenu!33 Rather said Raba: I might have thought that it meant tebonehu. And what does tebonehu mean? R. Ashi explained: I might have thought that one should apply to it [salt] only to give it a taste,34 just as the understanding,35 the verse therefore stated, Thou shalt season. How should one do it? One takes the limb, spreads salt over it, turns it over and again spreads salt over it, and then offers it. Abaye said, And so, too, it should be done for [cooking meat in] the pot.36 must be seasoned with salt, assuredly applies to the incense. V. supra p. 129. when one eats thereof. down, on the principle that once a thing has been rejected it can no more be fit again. commit a transgression. its character as blood. Likewise the blood of non-consecrated animals when hardened by the sun is also counted as blood, and therefore whosoever eats thereof commits a transgression. he-goats which were to be wholly burnt, v. Lev. IV, ff. immersion to be valid no part of the body may be untouched by the water. Sodom, which is a fine sea salt. uncleanness. The salting of the offering is evidently a vital service and overrides the rules of Sabbath and of uncleanness. apply a large quantity (of any substance)’. been sprinkled on it (Aruch).