מנחות 57:2 — Soncino English Talmud

and 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.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:It can therefore become leavened.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:So MSS., Rashi, and Sh.Mek. Cur. edd.: ‘R. Reuben’.
^ᵈnote:Num. VII, 1. The reference is to the anointing of the altar vessels which were vessels for liquids.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XXIII, 17.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote:Heb. o,ut. The suggestion is that this word signifies the essential part of the vessel, namely the inside only.
^ʰnote:Since R. Akiba and R. Jonathan both hold that the dry-measures were not consecrated.
^ⁱnote: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.
^ʲnote:The kneading bowl, being a vessel of ministry, would assuredly have hallowed the loaves before they were put into the oven.
^ᵏnote:Which was of leather and was not consecrated as a vessel of ministry.
^ˡnote: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.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote:They are not to be ‘presented’ or brought near to the altar. V. infra 60b.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote:The slope which leads to the altar.
^ˢnote:Just as if he had offered the part upon the altar.
^ᵗnote:Lev. II, 12.
^ᵘnote:That it is prohibited to burn the remainder of an offering whereof a part has been duly offered up.
^ᵛnote: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.