Menachot

for 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.1 OF THE TENTH2 THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE WINE3 THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE OIL4 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.5 OF THE TENTH THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. Why? — Because it is written, Of the fine flour thereof,6 [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.7 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,6 [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,6 and further, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof.8 OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. [Because it is written,] With all the frankincense thereof,9 and further, And all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering.10 MISHNAH. OF THE TWO HE-GOATS11 OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO LAMBS12 OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO LOAVES13 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO ROWS14 [OF THE SHEWBREAD] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER. OF THE TWO DISHES14 [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,15 OF THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW,16 OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING,17 OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF PLANTS] USED FOR THE LULAB,18 AND OF THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE [PURIFICATION OF THE] LEPER,19 THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW20 THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK,21 AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR,22 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.23 OF THE TWO LAMBS OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER — for the expression ‘shall be’ is used therewith.24 THE TWO LOAVES — for the expression ‘shall be’ is used therewith.24 THE TWO ROWS — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith.25 THE TWO DISHES — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith.25 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.26 THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW — for the term ‘statute’ is used therewith.27 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,28 and the Master said, Of his peace-offerings, includes the peace-offering of the Nazirite.29 THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LEPER — for it is written, This shall be the law of the leper.30 THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LULAB — for it is written, And ye shall take,31 signifying the taking of them all. R. Hanan b. Abba said, This32 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.33 An objection was raised against him. It was taught: Of the four kinds used for the lulab two are fruit-bearing34 and two are not;35 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.36 — 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:37 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’?38 — 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.39 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.40 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;41 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.42 Wherefore is it written?42 In order to repeat thereby the laws of the sprinkling,43 lacking even the smallest quantity they are invalid as offerings. third-hin for a ram, and a quarter-hin for a lamb. for the freewill meal-offering. indispensable. whatsoever. applied to the ‘Omer-offering. Hence there is a repetition of the items to indicate their indispensability. Synagogue service on the Feast of Tabernacles; v. ibid. XXIII, 40. 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). of the rites connected therewith. and o,, ‘wholly’ ‘completely’; hence all the four kinds must be taken together. 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. 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.