מנחות 27 — Soncino English Talmud

¹for here is written, Upon the wood. The question arises only according to him who maintains that ‘upon’ may mean ‘near to’. How is it then? Do we also explain ‘upon’ here as ‘near to’; or perhaps, since the phrases ‘upon the wood’ and ‘upon the altar’ are in juxtaposition, as in the latter phrase ‘upon’ is taken in its literal meaning so in the former ‘upon’ is to be taken in its literal meaning? — This, too, remains undecided. MISHNAH. OF THE HANDFUL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE TENTH THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE WINE THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. GEMARA. [OF THE HANDFUL THE ABSENCE OF THE SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE.] Why is it so? — Because Scripture stated his handful twice. OF THE TENTH THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. Why? — Because it is written, Of the fine flour thereof, [signifying that] if any part thereof was lacking it is invalid. OF THE WINE THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. [Because it is written,] Thus. OF THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. [As to the oil] of the drink-offerings, [because it is written], Thus, and of the freewill meal-offering, because it is written, And of the oil thereof, [signifying that] if any part thereof was lacking it is invalid. OF THE FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER, [Because it is written,] Of the fine flour thereof and of the oil thereof, and further, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof. OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. [Because it is written,] With all the frankincense thereof, and further, And all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering. MISHNAH. OF THE TWO HE-GOATS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO LAMBS OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO LOAVES THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO ROWS [OF THE SHEWBREAD] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE ROWS AND THE DISHES THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE OFFERING OF THE NAZIRITE, OF THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW, OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING, OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF PLANTS] USED FOR THE LULAB, AND OF THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE [PURIFICATION OF THE] LEPER, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK, AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. GEMARA. OF THE TWO HE-GOATS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith. OF THE TWO LAMBS OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER — for the expression ‘shall be’ is used therewith. THE TWO LOAVES — for the expression ‘shall be’ is used therewith. THE TWO ROWS — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith. THE TWO DISHES — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith. THE ROWS AND THE DISHES — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith. THE TWO KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE OFFERING OF THE NAZIRITE — for it is written, So he must do. THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith. THE FOUR KINDS OF CAKES USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING — for [the thank-offering] has been placed side by side with the offering of the Nazirite, in the verse, With the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, and the Master said, Of his peace-offerings, includes the peace-offering of the Nazirite. THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LEPER — for it is written, This shall be the law of the leper. THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LULAB — for it is written, And ye shall take, signifying the taking of them all. R. Hanan b. Abba said, This was taught only in the case where he did not have them at all, but where he had them all one does not invalidate the other. An objection was raised against him. It was taught: Of the four kinds used for the lulab two are fruit-bearing and two are not; those which bear fruits must be joined to those which bear no fruits and those which bear no fruits must be joined to those which bear fruits. And a man does not fulfil his obligation unless they are all bound in one band. And so it is with Israel's conciliation with God, [it is achieved] only when they are all in one band, as it is said, That buildeth his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his band upon the earth. — This is a matter of dispute between Tannaim. For it was taught: The lulab is valid whether it be bound with the others or not; but R. Judah says, If it is bound with the others it is valid, and if it is not so bound it is not valid. What is the reason for R. Judah's view? — He draws an analogy by means of the expression ‘taking’ used [both here and] also in connection with the bunch of hyssop: as there the kinds must be bound in one bunch, so here they must be bound in one band. The Rabbis, however, do not draw this analogy by means of the expression ‘taking’. With whose view then would the following Baraitha agree? For it was taught: It is a meritorious act to bind the lulab with the other species; nevertheless if one did not bind it, it is valid! If with R. Judah's view, why then is it valid if one did not bind it? And if it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, why does it say ‘It is a meritorious act’? — Indeed it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, and it is a meritorious act only on the principle of This is my God and I will beautify him. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK, AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. As for the offerings of the Day of Atonement, because the term ‘statute’ is used therewith; and as for the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error, and the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry, because of the following teaching: It is written, Thus shall he do with the bullock, as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering. Wherefore is it written? In order to repeat thereby the laws of the sprinkling,^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^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘the smaller part hinders the larger part’. The offerings mentioned must be absolutely whole, but if they were lacking even the smallest quantity they are invalid as offerings.
^ᵇnote:The tenth of an ephah of flour prescribed for the meal-offering.
^ᶜnote:Which formed part of the drink-offerings offered with most sacrifices, cf. Num. XV, 4ff: a half-hin for a bullock, a third-hin for a ram, and a quarter-hin for a lamb.
^ᵈnote:Offered with the drink-offerings in the same quantity as prescribed for the wine (v. prec. n.), or the log of oil required for the freewill meal-offering.
^ᵉnote:Cf. Lev. II, 2 and V, 12. This repetition signifies that it must be absolutely whole and that every part thereof is indispensable.
^ᶠnote:Ibid. II, 2. This rule is derived from the superfluous suffix v in the word, corresponding to the Eng. ‘thereof’.
^ᵍnote:Num. XV, 11. The term ‘thus’ indicates that it must be offered in the manner prescribed without any variations whatsoever.
^ʰnote:Lev. II, 16. According to Rabbinic interpretation ‘bruised corn’ and ‘fine flour’ are identical save that the former is applied to the ‘Omer-offering. Hence there is a repetition of the items to indicate their indispensability.
^ⁱnote:Lev. II, 2.
^ʲnote:Ibid. VI, 8.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. XVI, 5.
^ˡnote:Ibid. XXIII, 19.
^ᵐnote:Offered with the lambs on the Feast of Weeks, cf. ibid. 17.
^ⁿnote:Cf. ibid. XXIV, 5ff.
^ᵒnote:Unleavened leaves and unleavened wafers; v. Num. VI, 15.
^ᵖnote:Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool; v. ibid. XIX, 6.
^ᵠnote:Unleavened cakes, unleavened wafers, cakes of soaked fine flour, and leavened cakes; v. Lev. VII, 12, 13.
^ʳnote:ckik, the palm-branch, which with the citron, the myrtle and the willow branches, was used in the Temple and Synagogue service on the Feast of Tabernacles; v. ibid. XXIII, 40.
^ˢnote:Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and the two living birds; v. ibid. XIV, 6.
^ᵗnote:Num. XIX, 4.
^ᵘnote:Of the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat on the Day of Atonement; v. Lev. XVI, 14, 15.
^ᵛnote:Of the blood of the abovementioned offerings (v. p. 172, n. 13) and also of the blood of the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error (Lev. IV, 17,18). and of the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error (ibid 6, 7).
^ʷnote:Lev. XVI, 34. The term ‘statute’ used in connection with any law or ceremony implies the absolute indispensability of the rites connected therewith.
^ˣnote:Ibid. XXIII, 17. The expression ‘shall be’ invariably indicates indispensability.
^ʸnote:Ibid. XXIV, 9.
^ᶻnote:Num. VI, 21.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ibid. XIX, 2.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lev. VII, 13.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. infra 78a.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ibid. XIV, 2.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. XXIII, 40. The Heb. o,jeku is interpreted as though divided into two words: jeku, ‘and he shall take’, and o,, ‘wholly’ ‘completely’; hence all the four kinds must be taken together.
^ᵃᶠnote:That the absence of any one kind invalidates the others.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., for the purposes of the precept they need not be taken bound together in one hand.
^ᵃʰnote:The ethrog (the citron) and the lulab (the palm branch).
^ᵃⁱnote:The myrtle and the willow.
^ᵃʲnote:Amos IX, 6. The people are founded and established on earth only when they are in one band — that is, when all the sections of the community are united, the righteous (the fruit-bearing) and the unrighteous (the non-fruit-bearing); this is symbolized by the taking and binding together in one band of the four species. It is evident therefore from this Baraitha that the four species must be bound together, contra R. Hanan.
^ᵃᵏnote:Used in the purification rites of the leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4.
^ᵃˡnote:Since according to the Rabbis it is immaterial whether they are bound together or not.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ex. XV, 2. Thus it is a meritorious act generally to perform the precepts in the most beautiful manner possible.
^ᵃⁿnote:Num. XIX, 2.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XVI, 34.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ibid. IV, 20. This verse is stated in connection with the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and its purport apparently is to direct that the service of this offering be performed in the same manner as the offering of the anointed High Priest mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. On examination, however, it will be seen that this injunction is superfluous, since all the details of the service, as stated in connection with the foregoing offering, are repeated here in full.
^ᵃᵠnote:Thus rendering the sprinklings indispensable.

²so that if one sprinkling was omitted the whole is invalid. Our Rabbis taught: If the seven sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow were made under the name of some other [offering] or were not directed rightly, they are invalid; but as for those [sprinklings which must be performed] inside or [the sprinklings in the purification rites] of a leper, if they were made under the name of some other [offering], they are invalid, but if they were not rightly directed, they are valid. But has it not also been taught, with regard to the sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow, that if they were sprinkled under the name of another they are invalid, whilst if they were not rightly directed they are still valid? — Said R. Hisda, This is no difficulty; for one [Baraitha] states the view of R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: If a man that lacked atonement unwittingly entered the Temple court he is liable to bring a sin-offering, but if he entered deliberately he has incurred the penalty of kareth; and, needless to say, this is so of a tebul yom and others that were unclean. If a man that was clean overstepped the boundary and entered the Temple he has thereby incurred forty [stripes]; and if he entered within the veil or towards the front of the mercy-seat he has thereby incurred death [at the hands of heaven]. R. Judah says, If he entered into the Temple or within the veil he has thereby incurred forty [stripes], and if he entered towards the front of the mercy-seat he has thereby incurred death. Wherein do they differ? — In the interpretation of the following verse: And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, towards the front of the mercy-seat which is upon the ark; that he die not. The Rabbis maintain that [against entering] into the holy place there is the prohibition ‘that he come not’, and [against entering] within the veil or towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning ‘that he die not’; whereas R. Judah maintains that [against entering] into the holy place or within the veil there is the prohibition ‘that he come not’, and [against entering] towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning ‘that he die not’. What is the reason for this view of the Rabbis? — If the law is as R. Judah maintains, the Divine Law should only have stated ‘into the holy place’ and ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’, but not ‘within the veil’, for I should have said, If for entering the holy place one incurs stripes, how much more so for entering within the veil! Why then did the Divine Law also state ‘within the veil’? That you might infer that there is the penalty of death for it. And R. Judah, [how does he reply to this]? — Had the Divine Law only stated ‘into the holy place’ and not’ within the veil’ I might have thought that by the expression ‘into the holy place’ only ‘within the veil’ was meant, so that [against entering] into the Temple there is not even a prohibition! And the Rabbis? — You could not possibly have thought so, since the entire Temple is referred to as ‘the holy place’, as it is written, And the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy. And what is the reason for R. Judah's view? — If the law is as the Rabbis maintain, the Divine Law should only have stated ‘into the holy place within the veil’, but not ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’, for I should have said, If for entering within the veil one incurs death, how much more so for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat! Why then did the Divine Law also state ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’? That you might infer that only [for entering] towards the front of the mercy seat is there the penalty of death, whereas [for entering] within the veil there is only a prohibition. And the Rabbis, [how do they reply to this]? — Indeed it was unnecessary, and the only reason why the Divine Law stated ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’ in this verse was in order to exclude [from the prohibition] entering by the side. As it was taught by a Tanna in the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: The verse, Towards the front of the mercy-seat on the east, establishes the principle that wherever Scripture says ‘the front’ it means the east side. And R. Judah? — [He says,] The verse should then have only stated [here] ‘the front’, why does it also state ‘towards’? To teach that ‘towards’ must be interpreted with exactness. And the Rabbis? — [They say,] ‘Towards’ need not be interpreted exactly. Now since R. Judah maintains that the expression ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’ must be interpreted with exactness, similarly he would hold that the expression ‘and he shall sprinkle towards the front’ must also be interpreted exactly; whilst the Rabbis hold that just as the one need not be interpreted exactly so the other need not be interpreted exactly. R. Joseph, however, demurred, saying, Then according to R. Judah, if ‘towards’ must be interpreted exactly, ‘upon’ would also have to be interpreted exactly, would it not? And it would follow therefore that during the second Temple, inasmuch as there was no ark nor mercy-seat, no sprinklings were to be made [on the Day of Atonement]! — Rabbah b. ‘Ulla answered, It is written, And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, that is, for the place that is sanctified for the holy sanctuary. Raba said, Both state the view of the Rabbis, [yet here is no contradiction]^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ

^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘he has done nothing’. It appears from Rashi that at this point in the text there followed a lengthy argument exactly as found in Zeb. 39a. The addition is also found in MS.M. and it reads as follows: I only know this of the seven sprinklings upon the veil, since whenever seven sprinklings are ordained it is established that the omission of one renders the whole invalid; but whence do I know this also of the four sprinklings upon the altar? Because Scripture says. So he shall do with this (Lev. IV, 20). The expression ‘the bullock’ (ibid.) includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement; the expression ‘as he did with the bullock’ (ibid.) includes the bullock offered by the anointed High Priest; and the expression ‘of the sin-offering’ (ibid.) includes the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry. V. Rashi.
^ᵃˢnote:In accordance with Num. XIX, 4, the blood of the Red Cow had to be sprinkled in the direction of ‘the entrance of the tent of meeting’.
^ᵃᵗnote:E.g., the offerings of the Day of Atonement or the sin-offering of the anointed High Priest.
^ᵃᵘnote:The officiating priest sprinkled of the oil that was in the palm of his hand seven times in the direction of the Holy of Holies; v. Lev. XIV, 16.
^ᵃᵛnote:The latter Baraitha.
^ᵃʷnote:A person who had duly immersed after his uncleanness, had awaited sunset, but had not yet brought the prescribed offerings. Such a person still retains a slight measure of uncleanness.
^ᵃˣnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃʸnote:A non-priest was not permitted to enter into the Temple Hall beyond the first eleven cubits from the entrance on the east side. Cf. Yoma 16b.
^ᵃᶻnote:I.e., into the Holy of Holies.
^ᵇᵃnote:This is still further in the Holy of Holies; he stepped close to the mercy-seat which formed the cover for the Ark.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lev. XVI, 2.
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., the first Tanna in the foregoing Baraitha whose view is expressed anonymously as being the general accepted view of the Rabbis.
^ᵇᵈnote:An ordinary prohibition for the transgression of which the punishment of forty stripes is incurred.
^ᵇᵉnote:Ex. XXVI, 33.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e., any entry into the Holy of Holies not made in the ordinary way through the door on the east with the face looking westward; e.g., by breaking through the north wall or the south wall of the Holy of Holies and entering thereby, or by entering through the door on the east but with the face looking either northward or southward. For such an entry one would not incur any penalty.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lev. XVI, 14.
^ᵇʰnote:Is not the expression ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’ required to show that the east side was meant?
^ᵇⁱnote:The expression ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’ is not stated (argues R. Judah) merely to indicate that the east side is meant, since for that purpose ‘the front’, without ‘towards’, would have been sufficient. Its true purpose is to teach that only for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat is the penalty of death at the hands of heaven incurred, but not for merely entering within the veil.
^ᵇʲnote:The Gemara now proceeds to elaborate the answer proposed by R. Hisda supra that one Baraitha states the view of R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis.
^ᵇᵏnote:And therefore if the blood of the Red Cow was not sprinkled quite in the direction towards the front of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid.
^ᵇˡnote:And the sprinklings are valid even though made not quite in the proper direction.
^ᵇᵐnote:In connection with the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement it is written, And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the mercy-seat (Lev. XVI, 14); and therefore unless the sprinkling is made actually upon the mercy-seat it is invalid.
^ᵇⁿnote:According to tradition these were hidden away by Josiah (v. Yoma 52b), and so were not in use during the Second Temple.
^ᵇᵒnote:Lev. XVI, 33.
^ᵇᵖnote:The High Priest shall ‘make atonement’, i.e., sprinkle the blood on to the place sanctified for the ark.
^ᵇᵠnote:Sc. the two teachings which were shown above to be contradictory.