Menachot

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? — Raba answered; He meant to say, He is liable for it just as the act of roasting on the Sabbath. 1 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,2 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] roasted3 in one place the size of a dried fig, one would be liable.4 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?5 But we have learnt: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable.6 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.7 — 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,8 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?9 The text therefore added, ‘Meal-offering’.8 And whence would I know that this applies to other meal-offerings too?10 The text therefore stated, ‘Every meal-offering’.8 ‘Which ye shall bring unto the Lord’ signifies what is valid, but not what is invalid;11 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?12 [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;13 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’14 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.15 So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, It includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening.16 But is not the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings prepared with fruit juice,17 turning it over for the other side to roast, which two acts together constitute the act of roasting. dried fig. unclean. 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. meal-offering (for such is the Shewbread) as soon as it was measured out; hence it comes within the prohibition of leavening. presumably no water was added to it; accordingly it cannot possibly become leavened.