מנחות 59:1 — Soncino English Talmud

MISHNAH. SOME [MEAL-OFFERINGS] REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE, SOME REQUIRE OIL BUT NOT FRANKINCENSE, SOME FRANKINCENSE BUT NOT OIL, AND SOME NEITHER OIL NOR FRANKINCENSE. THESE REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE: THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR, THAT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE, THAT PREPARED IN A PAN, THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF WOMEN, AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ‘OMER. THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS REQUIRES OIL BUT NOT FRANKINCENSE. THE SHEWBREAD REQUIRES FRANKINCENSE BUT NOT OIL. THE TWO LOAVES, THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY REQUIRE NEITHER OIL NOR FRANKINCENSE. GEMARA. R. Papa said, All [the meal-offerings] enumerated in the Mishnah must consist of ten [cakes]. He thus rejects R. Simeon's view who said, He may offer half in cakes and half in wafers; and so he teaches us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And thou shalt put oil upon it, — upon it but not upon the Shewbread. For [without the verse] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if the meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings, which does not require frankincense, nevertheless requires oil, how much more does the Shewbread, which requires frankincense, require oil! The text therefore stated ‘Upon it’, — upon it shall be oil but not upon the Shewbread. [It is further written], And thou shalt lay frankincense upon it, — upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. For [without the verse] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if the Shewbread, which does not require oil, nevertheless requires frankincense, how much more does the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, which requires oil, require frankincense! The text therefore stated, ‘Upon it’ — upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. Meal-offering — this includes the meal-offering offered on the eighth day [of consecration], so that it too required frankincense. It is — this excludes the Two Loaves, so that they require neither oil nor frankincense. The Master said, ‘Upon it shall be oil but not upon the Shewbread’. Might I not say, Upon it shall be oil but not upon the meal-offering of the priests? — It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of the priests, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it consists of] a tenth [of an ephah], [requires] a vessel of ministry, is prepared outside, [becomes unfit when] its appearance [is spoilt], requires bringing near [to the altar], and [is burnt upon] the fire [of the altar]. On the contrary it is more reasonable to include the Shewbread since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it is an offering on behalf of] the community, is obligatory, [may be offered in] uncleanness, is eaten, [is subject to] piggul, [and is offered] on the Sabbath! — The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one. The Master said, ‘Upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings’. Might I not say, Upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering of the priests? — It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of the priests, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it consists of] a tenth, is mixed [with a log of oil], is brought [near the altar], [and is offered] by itself. On the contrary it is more reasonable to include the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it is an offering on behalf of] the community, is obligatory, [and may be offered in] uncleanness [and] on the Sabbath? — The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one. ‘Meal-offering-this includes the meal-offering offered on the eighth day [of consecration], so that it too required frankincense’. Perhaps it excludes it? — It is out of the question; if you say that it includes it, it is well, but if you say that it excludes it, the expression is then superfluous, for surely we would not infer a temporary enactment from a permanent law! ‘It is — this excludes the Two Loaves, so that they require neither oil nor frankincense’. Might I not say that it excludes the meal-offering of priests? — It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of priests, since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer it consists of] a tenth, [requires] a vessel [of ministry], is unleavened, [is offered] by itself, must be brought near [to the altar], [and is burnt upon] the fire [of the altar]. On the contrary,^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

^ᵃnote:Cf. Lev. II, 1. A promise of a meal-offering without further specification, entails the bringing of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, together with oil and frankincense; they were mixed together and then the priest took out a handful from it and burnt it on the altar. This is the only individual meal-offering for which the Torah expressly prescribes oil and frankincense. The others enumerated in the Mishnah are derived by analogy from this meal-offering.
^ᵇnote:Of the meal-offering baked in an oven, Lev. II, 4. It may consist either of ten unleavened cakes or ten unleavened wafers; v. Gemara.
^ᶜnote:The daily meal-offering of the High Priest known as kusd ivf h,hcj cf. Lev. VI, 13ff.
^ᵈnote:All freewill-offerings may be accepted from gentiles, v. Shek. I, 5.
^ᵉnote:I.e., when a woman offers a meal-offering of her free will.
^ᶠnote:V. Lev. II, 14, and XXIII, 9-14.
^ᵍnote:V. Num. XV, 4ff.
^ʰnote:Of Pentecost. V. Lev. XXIII, 17.
^ⁱnote:Brought by a person of poor means as a sin-offering on the commission of any one of the transgressions mentioned in Lev. V, 1-4.
^ʲnote:Brought by a woman suspected by her husband of adultery; v. Num. V, 15.
^ᵏnote:The first four meal-offerings mentioned in our Mishnah must each be baked into ten cakes, so that even the fourth kind of meal-offering, namely that baked in an oven, for which an alternative is allowed, must consist nevertheless either of ten cakes or of ten wafers, but not of five cakes and five wafers, contra R. Simeon. Another interpretation is: The meal-offerings enumerated in our Mishnah (as requiring both oil and frankincense) are ten in number, reckoning ‘THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS’ as two. According to R. Simeon, however, it must be reckoned as three, since the meal-offering baked in an oven may consist of either ten cakes or ten wafers or five cakes and five wafers.
^ˡnote:V. infra 63a and b.
^ᵐnote:Lev. II, 15, with reference to the meal-offering of the ‘Omer.
^ⁿnote:Ibid.
^ᵒnote:Cf. Lev. IX, 4.
^ᵖnote:Whereas each cake of the Shewbread was of two tenths of flour.
^ᵠnote:Wherein to knead the meal-offering, at which time it was hallowed. The Shewbread, on the other hand, was not hallowed until it was baked in the oven of the Sanctuary.
^ʳnote:The offering is performed upon the altar in the Temple court, whereas the offering of the Shewbread, i.e., the setting of the loaves on the table, was performed in the Temple proper, in the kfhv.
^ˢnote:An expression signifying that it must not be kept overnight, as it belonged to the Most Holy class of offerings. The Shewbread, however, was kept for seven days upon the table, from Sabbath to Sabbath,
^ᵗnote:Which is not the case with the Shewbread.
^ᵘnote:The priest's meal-offering was wholly burnt upon the altar, and from the ‘Omer-offering a handful was burnt; but no part of the Shewbread was burnt upon the altar.
^ᵛnote:Which is not the case with the meal-offering of the priests.
^ʷnote:Every offering brought by the community as an obligation overrides the laws of uncleanness, cf. Pes. 76b. This is not so with the offering of an individual.
^ˣnote:The Shewbread and the remainder of the ‘Omer-offering were shared amongst the priests and eaten, whereas the priests’ meal-offering was wholly burnt.
^ʸnote:V. Glos. It is established law that every offering which is rendered permissible, either for the altar or for man, by a certain rite (the mattir, v. Glos.), is subject to the law of piggul. V. Zeb. 43a. The priests’ meal-offering, however, since it is wholly burnt is outside the scope of this rule.
^ᶻnote:The ‘Omer-offering was brought even on the Sabbath (v. infra 63a), and the Shewbread was regularly offered, i.e., set, on the Sabbath; but no individual offering was brought on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. II, 1. Lit., ‘a soul’, i.e., an individual. Since here in connection with the meal-offering of fine flour, where oil (as well as frankincense) is expressly prescribed, Scripture uses the term ‘any one’, it is inferred that every individual meal-offering requires oil (and also frankincense, v. infra). Hence the priests’ meal-offering is included.
^ᵃᵇnote:Whereas the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings varied in quantity: one tenth for a lamb, two for a ram, and three for a bullock; and the quantities of oil also varied, the tenth of the lamb requiring to be mixed with three logs of oil, and each tenth of the ram and the bullock with two logs of oil. V. Num. XV, 4ff.
^ᵃᶜnote:The meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings did not require bringing near the altar; moreover it was not offered by itself but always accompanied an animal-offering.
^ᵃᵈnote:For it was offered as an obligation with the communal Daily Offerings, accordingly it overrode the rules of uncleanness and the laws of Sabbath.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. p. 349, n. 7.
^ᵃᶠnote:For otherwise, without the Scriptural direction, I should have thought that that meal-offering of consecration was without frankincense, as one could not apply the general law of the meal-offering to a particular temporary enactment.
^ᵃᵍnote:The Two Loaves, on the other hand, consisted of two tenths, had to be leavened, and were only hallowed when baked in the oven of the Sanctuary. They were not an offering by themselves but were brought together with the two lambs of Pentecost, and were subsequently eaten by the priests.