מנחות 59:2 — Soncino English Talmud

it is more reasonable to include the Two Loaves since [like the meal-offering of the ‘Omer] they are offered on [behalf of] the community, are obligatory, [may be offered] in uncleanness, are eaten, [are subject to] piggul, [may be offered] on the Sabbath, render aught permissible, [require] waving, [must be from the produce of] the land [of Israel], [are offered on a fixed] date, [and must be offered from the] new [produce]; and here we have more points in common! — The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one. MISHNAH. [A MAN IS] LIABLE BECAUSE OF THE OIL BY ITSELF AND BECAUSE OF THE FRANKINCENSE BY ITSELF. IF HE PUT IN OIL, HE HAS RENDERED IT INVALID, BUT IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN. IF HE PUT OIL ON THE REMAINDER, HE HAS NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE PRECEPT. IF HE PUT ONE VESSEL ABOVE THE OTHER VESSEL, HE HAS NOT THEREBY RENDERED IT INVALID. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: He shall put no oil upon it, but if he put oil thereon he has made it invalid. I might also say, Neither shall he put any frankincense thereon, but if he did, he has made it invalid, the text therefore states for a sin-offering. I might then say that this is so with the oil too, the text therefore states it is. But why do you declare it invalid if oil was put thereon and valid if frankincense was put thereon? I declare it invalid if oil was put thereon, since it cannot be picked off again, but I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off again. Raba son of R. Huna enquired of R. Johanan, How is it if he put upon it fine frankincense? Is it [valid if frankincense was put thereon] because it can be picked off again, but in this case it cannot be picked off again; or is it because it does not become absorbed, and this too does not become absorbed? Come and hear: AND IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN, — Perhaps there are two reasons for it: firstly, that it does not become absorbed, and another reason is that it can be picked off again. Come and hear: ‘I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off’! — Here again we can reply that there are two reasons for it. How is it then? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, It was taught: If a man put frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy, he must pick it off again and the meal-offering is valid. If before he had picked off the frankincense he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper time or place, it is invalid but the penalty of kareth is not incurred. But if after he had picked off the frankincense he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper place, it is invalid and the penalty of kareth is not incurred, but if outside its proper time, it is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred. Surely it should be regarded as rejected! — Abaye answered, Scripture still refers to it as a sin-offering. Raba said, This represents the view of Hanan the Egyptian who does not consider anything as absolutely rejected. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says, Even though the blood is still in the bowl he may, without casting lots, bring another goat and pair it with the other. R. Ashi said, Whatsoever still remains in his power [to rectify] is never regarded as rejected. R. Adda said that R. Ashi's view is the more probable; for who is it that regards a matter as absolutely rejected? It is R. Judah, as we have learnt: Moreover, said R. Judah, if the blood was poured out, the Scapegoat must be left to die; and if the Scapegoat died, the blood must be poured out. Nevertheless, in regard to a matter which is still in his power [to rectify], it has been taught: R. Judah says, A cup was filled with the mingled blood [that was spilt on the ground] and it was sprinkled in one action towards the base [of the altar]. R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man put the minutest quantity of oil upon an olive's bulk of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? For ‘he shall not put’ implies the putting of any quantity, however little; whilst ‘upon it’ implies at least the minimum quantity. R. Isaac b. Joseph also said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man put an olive's bulk of frankincense upon the minutest quantity of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? Because it is written, He shall not give [any frankincense], which signifies that there must be a quantity thereof worthy to be given. And as for the term ‘upon it’,^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

^ᵃnote:The ‘Omer rendered the new produce permissible to be eaten in the land of Israel, while the Two Loaves rendered it permissible to be used henceforth in the Temple.
^ᵇnote:Whereas all other meal-offerings could be brought from produce grown outside Palestine.
^ᶜnote:The ‘Omer on the sixteenth day of Nisan and the Two Loaves at Pentecost.
^ᵈnote:As all these features are absent in the meal-offering of the priests the points in common between the ‘Omer-offering and the Two Loaves certainly outnumber those enumerated above as common between the ‘Omer-offering and the meal-offering of the priests.
^ᵉnote:V. supra p. 349, n. 7.
^ᶠnote:I.e., if he put either oil or frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy.
^ᵍnote:A vessel containing oil for frankincense was put over the one containing the sinner's meal-offering.
^ʰnote:Lev. V, 11, with reference to the sinner's meal-offering.
^ⁱnote:Ibid. It is a valid sin-offering even though it has had frankincense put upon it.
^ʲnote:In the flour, as is the case with the oil.
^ᵏnote:Evidently the main reason is that it can be picked off again; consequently where this is not possible, as in our case where the frankincense was ground fine, it would be invalid.
^ˡnote:And one reason is valid without the other so that even though it cannot be picked off again it is still valid since it is not absorbed in the flour.
^ᵐnote:E.g., if during the taking out of the handful he intended to burn it outside its proper time or to eat of the remainder outside its proper time.
^ⁿnote:V. Glos.
^ᵒnote:For since the meal-offering is invalid by reason of the frankincense thereon the penalty for piggul cannot be incurred. V. supra 16b.
^ᵖnote:And the meal-offering is valid once again. It is evident, therefore, that the sole reason why the addition of frankincense to the meal-offering does not render it absolutely invalid is that it can be picked off and so become valid once again.
^ᵠnote:This is the text strongly supported by Tosaf. and for which there is MS. authority (v. Dik. Sof. a.l. n. 60), and the interpretation is as follows: Why is it taught in our Mishnah and in the Baraitha quoted in the Gemara that the frankincense may be picked off from the meal-offering? But surely, once the meal-offering has had frankincense put upon it, it became invalid and so absolutely rejected as a meal-offering! How then can it become valid after it had once been made invalid? Cf. the similar question in Zeb. 34b and the identical answers of Raba and R. Ashi. The text in cur. edd. reads: ‘Let it be regarded as though a cruse (of oil had been poured out over the meal-offering); wherefore then is it rendered invalid by any wrongful intention? Surely it has become absolutely rejected!’ And the interpretation is: why is it stated in the last-mentioned Baraitha that if a person expressed a wrongful intention with regard to the meal-offering whilst it had the frankincense upon it he has thereby rendered it invalid? But surely the wrongful intention cannot affect it since it has been already rejected as a meal-offering by reason of the frankincense that is upon it.
^ʳnote:Lev. V, 11. It is still valid as a sin-offering even after it has had frankincense upon it.
^ˢnote:Where the Scapegoat had died before the blood of the goat that was to be offered unto the Lord on the Day of Atonement had been sprinkled, the latter is by no means rejected as invalid so as to necessitate the bringing anew of two goats and to cast lots over them, but rather this blood becomes fit again for its purpose as soon as another goat is brought as a Scapegoat, v. Yoma 63b.
^ᵗnote:Accordingly this meal-offering is not regarded as rejected as the frankincense can easily be picked off and so become valid once again.
^ᵘnote:Of the goat that was to be offered inside unto the Lord.
^ᵛnote:For it is absolutely rejected, and two goats must be brought anew.
^ʷnote:Yoma 62a.
^ˣnote:After all the Passover lambs had been slaughtered.
^ʸnote:The purpose being to render valid by this sprinkling any Passover-offering whose blood might have been spilt on the ground. V. Pes. 64a. Hence it is clear that a matter is not absolutely rejected provided it lies within one's power to set it right again.
^ᶻnote:Lev. V,11.
^ᵃᵃnote:Namely an olive's bulk.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. Usually translated He shall not lay thereon. The Heb. i,b ‘give’, however, is used, which verb in another context, Lev. XXII, 14, clearly implies something worthy to be given, at least an olive's bulk. V. Sh. Mek. n. 9.