מנחות 57 — Soncino English Talmud

¹in the name of R. Johanan, If a man placed meat on coals [on the Sabbath] and also turned it over, he is liable, but if he did not turn it over he is not liable? — Raba answered; He meant to say, He is liable for it just as the act of roasting on the Sabbath. The text [above stated]: ‘Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man placed meat on coals [on the Sabbath] and also turned it over, he is liable, but if he did not turn it over he is not liable’. How is this to be understood? If I say that the meat would not have been roasted if he had not turned it over, then obviously [he is not liable if he did not turn it over]; and if it would have been roasted even though he had not turned it over, why then is he not liable [where he did not turn it over]? — It is necessary to be stated only for the circumstance where, had he not turned it over, it would have been roasted on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai, but with turning it over it would have been roasted on both sides to that extent. Now we are here taught that whatsoever is done on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai is insignificant. Raba said, If it had been [well] roasted in one place the size of a dried fig, one would be liable. Rabina said to R. Ashi, Is it then that only [if roasted] in one place [to the size of a dried fig] one is [liable], but not [if roasted] in two or three places? But we have learnt: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable. Now what can this mean? Will you say it means [a hole] in one place? But of what use can a tiny hole be? Obviously then it means [holes] in two or three places, [no matter how small], since they can be joined together. — No, I still say it means a hole in one place, for it can serve as a keyhole. Another version states: Raba said, Even if it had been roasted in two or three places [together making up the size of a dried fig, one would be liable]. Rabina said to R. Ashi, We have learnt in a Mishnah to the same effect: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable. Now what can this mean? Will you say it means a hole in one place? But of what use can a tiny hole be? It must mean [holes] in two or three places, [no matter how small,] since they can be joined together! — No, I still say it means a hole in one place, for it can serve as a keyhole. Our Rabbis taught: Had Scripture only stated, Which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall not be made leavened, I should have said that only the handful shall not be made leavened, but whence would I know [that this prohibition applies to] the whole meal-offering? The text therefore added, ‘Meal-offering’. And whence would I know that this applies to other meal-offerings too? The text therefore stated, ‘Every meal-offering’. ‘Which ye shall bring unto the Lord’ signifies what is valid, but not what is invalid; hence they said, He who leavens a valid meal-offering is liable, but he who leavens what is invalid is not liable. R. Papa enquired, What is the law if a man leavened the meal-offering and it was then taken out [of the Sanctuary], and afterwards he again leavened it? [Shall I say,] since it has been taken out it has thereby become invalid, and consequently by leavening it thereafter he cannot be held liable for leavening what was already leavened; or perhaps I should say, since it has been leavened it cannot be affected by being taken out, and consequently by leavening it again he would be liable for leavening what was already leavened? This question remains undecided. R. Mari enquired, What is the law if he leavened [the handful] at the head of the altar? Does not the Divine Law say, ‘Which ye shall bring’, and this has already been brought up; or perhaps I should say, since it still requires to be burnt it is as though the act [of bringing] has not been completed? This question remains undecided. And now that the general prohibition has been derived from ‘every meal-offering’, wherefore is the expression ‘which ye shall bring’ stated? — It is required for the following which was taught: Which ye shall bring includes the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, It includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. But is not the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings prepared with fruit juice,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the placing of leaven on dough, which is the whole act of leavening, is equivalent to placing meat on coals and turning it over for the other side to roast, which two acts together constitute the act of roasting.
^ᵇnote:The name of a bandit who used to eat his food slightly done; gen. a third done.
^ᶜnote:Cur. edd. add here: ‘on one side’. This is not found in MS.M. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.
^ᵈnote:Even though it had not been turned over.
^ᵉnote:Which together make up the size of a dried fig.
^ᶠnote:Shab. 102b.
^ᵍnote:To make one large hole. Similarly here, the parts roasted should be reckoned together so as to make up the size of a dried fig.
^ʰnote:Lev. II, 11.
^ⁱnote:I.e., before the handful was taken out.
^ʲnote:For the prohibition is expressly stated in connection with a meal-offering prepared in a pan.
^ᵏnote:E.g., if the meal-offering was taken out of the Sanctuary and thereby had become invalid or if it had become unclean.
^ˡnote:I.e., he performed another work with this dough which had already been leavened, e.g. he baked it.
^ᵐnote:To the head of the altar before it was leavened.
^ⁿnote:Which refers specifically to the handful only.
^ᵒnote:For this meal-offering is different in that no part thereof is eaten but it is wholly burnt upon the altar; it was therefore necessary for this to be expressly included within the prohibition of leavening. On the other hand, the Shewbread does not come within this prohibition according to R. Jose, for he is of the opinion that the Shewbread was hallowed only when set upon the table and not before when the flour was measured out, for the measuring vessels for dry goods were not consecrated as vessels of ministry.
^ᵖnote:R. Akiba maintains that the measuring vessels for dry goods were consecrated and so the flour was hallowed for a meal-offering (for such is the Shewbread) as soon as it was measured out; hence it comes within the prohibition of leavening.
^ᵠnote:The meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings required a large quantity of oil, three logs to the tenth, and presumably no water was added to it; accordingly it cannot possibly become leavened.

²and fruit juice cannot render aught leaven? — Resh Lakish answered that R. Jose the Galilean was of the opinion that it was permitted to mix the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings with water. But was not the [flour for the] Shewbread put into a measuring vessel for dry goods, and we know that R. Akiba is of the opinion that the measuring vessel for dry goods was not consecrated? — Rabin sent the following answer in the name of R. Johanan: That is, indeed, the proper construction of the teaching, but the authorities must be reversed: ‘Which ye shall bring’ includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, It includes the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. R. Johanan is indeed consistent in his view, for R. Johanan has said that R. Jose the Galilean and one of the disciples of R. Ishmael — namely, R. Josiah-both hold the same view, For it was taught: It is written, And had anointed them and sanctified them. R. Josiah says, The liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside, while the dry-measures were anointed inside but not outside. R. Jonathan says, The liquid-measures were anointed inside but not outside, while the dry-measures were not anointed at all. This can be proved from the fact that they do not hallow [what was put into them], for it is written, Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for firstfruits unto the Lord; when are they appointed unto the Lord? Only after they have been baked. Wherein do they differ? In the interpretation of the word ‘them’. R. Josiah maintains that the word ‘them’ excludes the outside of the dry-measure; but R. Jonathan holds that the dry-measure was not holy at all and no verse is necessary to exclude it; the word ‘them’ can thus serve to exclude only the outside of the liquid-measure. And why did not [R. Johanan] say that R. Akiba and one of the disciples of R. Ishmael — namely R. Jonathan — both said the same thing? — Because they do not agree entirely about the liquid-measures. R. Papa said to Abaye, Was not a bowl used [for the kneading of the Shewbread], and that was [a measuring vessel] for liquids? — He replied, It might have been kneaded on a slab. But if so, when R. Jonathan said ‘This can be proved from the fact that they do not hallow [what was put into them]’, [his colleague] could have retorted that it might have been measured out in an unconsecrated tenth measure! — [The two cases] cannot be compared; for with regard to the bowl, since the Divine Law did not expressly prescribe a bowl for the kneading, if it was kneaded on a slab it did not matter in the least; but with regard to the tenth measure, since the Divine Law directed that a tenth measure be made wherewith the flour might be measured, would one reject the consecrated tenth measure and measure with an unconsecrated tenth measure? Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it derived that whosoever offers of the flesh of a sin-offering or of a guilt-offering, of the flesh of a Most Holy or of a Less Holy offering, of the residue of the ‘Omer-offering, of the residue of the Two Loaves, of the Shewbread, or of the remainder of meal-offerings, transgresses a negative precept? Because the text states, For any leaven or any honey ye shall not burn of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord, signifying that any offering, if only a portion of it is offered upon the fire, comes under the prohibition of ye shall not burn. But is any part of the Two Loaves or of the Shewbread offered upon the fire? Surely it has been taught: Thus the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are excluded since no part of them is offered upon the fire! — R. Shesheth answered, It meant there that no part of them is actually offered upon the fire. It was reported: If a person brought up any of the abovementioned parts upon the ascent, R. Johanan said, He is liable; but R. Eleazar said, He is not liable. ‘R. Johanan said, He is liable’, for it was taught: The verse says, The altar: I know this only of the altar, whence do I know it of the ascent too? The text states: But they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar. ‘R. Eleazar said, He is not liable’, because the verse says, Leaven and honey . . . as an offering of firstfruits ye may bring them unto the Lord; only with regard to these is it implied that the ascent is on a par with the altar, but with no other offering is it so.^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ʳnote:It can therefore become leavened.
^ˢnote:V. infra 90a. Hence it cannot be subject to the prohibition of leavening since it was not hallowed as a meal-offering until set upon the table, for even the kneading need not have been in a vessel of ministry.
^ᵗnote:So MSS., Rashi, and Sh.Mek. Cur. edd.: ‘R. Reuben’.
^ᵘnote:Num. VII, 1. The reference is to the anointing of the altar vessels which were vessels for liquids.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXIII, 17.
^ʷnote:So that, although the flour must have been measured out in a measuring vessel, it was not hallowed ‘unto the Lord’ until after the baking in the oven of the Sanctuary.
^ˣnote:Heb. o,ut. The suggestion is that this word signifies the essential part of the vessel, namely the inside only.
^ʸnote:Since R. Akiba and R. Jonathan both hold that the dry-measures were not consecrated.
^ᶻnote:For R. Akiba maintains that the liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside so as to hallow whatsoever was put inside them as well as what was on the outside; v. infra 90a.
^ᵃᵃnote:The kneading bowl, being a vessel of ministry, would assuredly have hallowed the loaves before they were put into the oven.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which was of leather and was not consecrated as a vessel of ministry.
^ᵃᶜnote:Just as the kneading was not done in the usual vessel of ministry, one can also say that the flour was measured out in an unconsecrated measure, and on that account the loaves were only hallowed at the baking and not before. Had they, however, been measured out in a consecrated measure they would have become hallowed forthwith.
^ᵃᵈnote:E.g., the two lambs offered on the Pentecost as peace-offerings. They would not include burnt-offerings which are wholly offered on the altar.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. II, 11. ‘It is apparent that the expression ‘of it’, Heb. ubnn, is superfluous in the verse, and is interpreted therefore as the basis for the rule, that once the prescribed portion of an offering has been duly offered up on the altar the rest may not under any circumstances be burnt upon the altar.
^ᵃᶠnote:Accordingly each offering enumerated in this Baraitha is subject to the prohibition of ‘ye shall not burn’, since a portion of each has already been offered as an offering by fire on the altar. Thus, of the animal sacrifices the fat parts have been offered, of the meal-offerings the handfuls, of the Two Loaves the fat parts of the two lambs which accompanied them, and of the Shewbread the two dishes of frankincense.
^ᵃᵍnote:They are not to be ‘presented’ or brought near to the altar. V. infra 60b.
^ᵃʰnote:In contradistinction from other offerings from which a handful is offered. Nevertheless since the offering consisted of the Loaves and the lambs or of the Shewbread and the frankincense, it is also true to say that part of the offering is offered upon the fire.
^ᵃⁱnote:The slope which leads to the altar.
^ᵃʲnote:Just as if he had offered the part upon the altar.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. II, 12.
^ᵃˡnote:That it is prohibited to burn the remainder of an offering whereof a part has been duly offered up.
^ᵃᵐnote:Limited by the pronoun ‘them’, o,ut. The verse applies only to those offerings which are described as ‘an offering of firstfruits’, namely, the Two Loaves and the Firstfruits.