Menachot

the Divine Law granted this privilege1 only to Israelites since they have a [share in the] chamber, but not to the priests as they have no [share in the] chamber; we are therefore taught [that this is not so]. 2 Now as to wood, concerning which the Tanna is certain that it is taken from the public supplies, whence does he know it? From the following: I might have thought that if a man said, ‘I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering’, he must provide the wood himself3 just as he must provide the drink-offerings himself; the verse therefore states, On the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:4 as the altar was [set up] out of the public funds so the wood and the fire shall also come out of the public funds. So R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ said, As the altar has not been used by a layman, so the wood and the fire shall not have been used by a layman. What is the [practical] difference between them? — The difference between them is [as to whether] new5 [wood is necessary or not]. And [can it be said that] old wood is not [allowed]? But it is written, And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, the oxen for the burnt-offering, and the morigim6 and the furniture of the oxen for the wood!7 — These were also new. What are morigim?6 — ‘Ulla said, It is a ‘turbel bed’,8 And what is a ‘turbel bed’? — Rab Judah said, A ‘goat with hooks’,9 wherewith the threshers thresh. Said R. Joseph, What is the Scriptural [evidence]? It is written, Behold, I make thee a new morag having sharp teeth; thou shalt thresh the mountains.10 MISHNAH. IF THE HANDFUL OF ONE MEAL-OFFERING WAS MIXED WITH THE HANDFUL OF ANOTHER, OR WITH A PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING,11 OR WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED [HIGH] PRIEST,11 OR WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS,11 IT12 IS VALID. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF [IT WAS MIXED] WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED [HIGH] PRIEST OR WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS, IT IS INVALID, FOR SINCE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ONE13 IS THICK AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THE OTHER14 IS THIN, EACH ABSORBS FROM THE OTHER.15 GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere:16 If the blood [of a sacrifice] was mixed with water and it still has the appearance of blood, it is valid.17 If it was mixed with wine, it must be regarded as though it was water.18 If it was mixed with the blood of [unconsecrated] cattle or of a wild animal, it must be regarded as though it was water. R. Judah says, Blood cannot neutralize blood.19 R. Johanan said, Both20 [derived their views by] expounding the same verse, viz., And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat.21 Now it is well known that the blood of a bullock is more than the blood of a goat;22 the Rabbis therefore conclude whereas the first Tanna allows even used wood. meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings the mixture was one tenth of an ephah of flour and three logs of oil for a lamb, two tenths and four logs for a ram, and three tenths and six logs for a bullock. much oil, and the other meal-offering because it has had too little oil. valid. retains its identity and sacred character, and the mixture is valid for sprinkling. For R. Judah is of the opinion that in a mixture of like kinds, either liquids with liquids or solids with solids, one element cannot neutralize the other, irrespective of the quantities of each. animals and sprinkle it upon the altar; cf. Yoma 53b. has not become neutralized in the mixture, since Scripture expressly names each blood separately.