מנחות 6 — Soncino English Talmud

¹This is so of the law of diverse kinds since there is an express command that it shall be so. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said, One could reply, Let the argument revolve and the inference be made from what is common to both. Thus, the argument, ‘This is so of the nipping since it is only rendered forbidden to man by this act which renders it consecrated’, can be refuted by the argument, ‘The fat and the blood can prove otherwise’. And the argument, ‘This is so of the fat and the blood since they emanate from what is permitted’, can be refuted by the argument, ‘The rite of nipping can prove otherwise’. And so the argument goes round; the characteristic feature of this case is not that of the other, and the characteristic feature of the other is not that of this case; but what they have in common is that each is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. So I might have inferred that trefah, too, although it is forbidden to man, is permitted to the Most High. But they have this also in common, have they not, that in each case there is an express command that it shall be so? — R. Ashi therefore said, One could reply that the first proposition of the argument is unsound. Whence did you infer it at the outset? From the case of a blemished animal. But the case of a blemish is different, since in that case [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is on the same footing as the [animal] offered. Whereupon R. Aha the Elder said to R. Ashi, That which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb can prove otherwise: for in that case [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is not on the same footing as the [animal] offered, nevertheless such an animal is permitted to man and forbidden to the Most High. [And if the objection is raised:] But this is so only of that which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb since it is not holy as a firstling; [I reply,] The case of an animal with a physical blemish can prove otherwise. [And if this objection is raised:] But this is so only in the case of a blemish since in that respect [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is on the same footing as the [animal] offered, [I reply,] That which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb can prove otherwise. And so the argument goes round; the characteristic feature of this case is not that of the other, and the characteristic feature of the other is not that of this case; but what they have in common is that each is permitted to man yet forbidden to the Most High, then surely trefah, which is forbidden to man, is all the more forbidden to the Most High. But the others have this also in common, that in each case there is no exception to the general [prohibition]; will you say the same of the case of trefah seeing that it admits of an exception to the general [prohibition]? Thereupon R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, What is meant by saying that trefah admits of an exception to the general [prohibition]? Should you say that it refers to the rite of nipping off the head of the burnt-offering of a bird, [in which case the bird, although rendered trefah thereby,] is nevertheless permitted [to be offered] to the Most High; but this is also the case with physical blemishes, for a bird with a physical blemish is certainly permitted to be offered to the Most High, [for it has been said,] The unblemished state and the male sex are prerequisites only to sacrifices of cattle but not of birds! You would say then that it refers to the rite of nipping off the head of a sin-offering of a bird, [in which case the bird is] permitted to [be eaten by] priests; but surely the priests receive it from the table of the Most High! — Indeed the argument could be refuted thus, The others have this further in common, for in each case the defect thereof is perceptible; will you then say the same of the case of trefah seeing that its defect is not perceptible? The verse is therefore necessary [to exclude trefah]. And is the case of trefah derived from here? Surely it is derived from the verse, From the liquor of Israel, that is, from that which is permitted to Israel; or from the verse, Whatsoever passeth under the rod, which excludes a trefah animal since it cannot pass under! — All [three verses] are necessary; for from the verse, ‘From the liquor of Israel’, I should have excluded only those that were at no time fit [for a sacrifice], just as ‘orlah or diverse kinds in the vineyard; but where it was at one time fit I would say that it is permitted [to be offered]. Scripture therefore states, ‘Whatsoever passeth under the rod’. And had Scripture only stated the verse, ‘Whatsoever passeth under the rod’, I should have excluded only those animals that were first rendered trefah and subsequently consecrated, as in the case of the Cattle Tithe; but where it was consecrated first and subsequently it became trefah, since at the time when it was consecrated it was fit [for a sacrifice], I would say that it is permitted [to be offered], therefore all [three verses] are necessary. MISHNAH. WHETHER IT IS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR ANY OTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IF A NON-PRIEST, OR [A PRIEST] THAT WAS IN MOURNING. OR HAD IMMERSED HIMSELF DURING THE DAY. OR WAS NOT WEARING THE [OFFICIAL PRIESTLY] ROBES, OR WHOSE ATONEMENT WAS NOT YET COMPLETE. OR THAT HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS AND FEET, OR THAT WAS UNCIRCUMCISED OR UNCLEAN, OR THAT MINISTERED SITTING, OR STANDING UPON VESSELS OR UPON A BEAST OR UPON ANOTHER'S FEET, HAD TAKEN THE HANDFUL THEREFROM IT IS INVALID. IF [A PRIEST] REMOVED THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND IT IS INVALID. BEN BATHYRA SAYS, HE MUST PUT [THE HANDFUL] BACK AND TAKE IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT HAND. IF ON TAKING THE HANDFUL THERE CAME INTO HIS HAND A SMALL STONE OR A GRAIN OF SALT OR A DROP OF FRANKINCENSE IT IS INVALID; FOR THEY HAVE RULED: IF THE HANDFUL WAS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE IT IS INVALID. WHAT IS MEANT BY TOO MUCH? IF HE TOOK AN OVERFLOWING HANDFUL. AND ‘TOO LITTLE’? IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH THE TIPS OF HIS FINGERS ONLY. GEMARA. Why does the Mishnah state: ‘WHETHER IT IS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR ANY OTHER MEAL-OFFERING’? Surely it should state, ‘Every meal-offering from which the handful was taken by a non-priest or a priest that was in mourning [etc.]’. — It was necessary [to state it so] according to R. Simeon's view. For it was taught: R. Simeon said, By right the sinner's meal-offering should require oil and frankincense, so that the sinner should have no advantage; why then does it not require them? In order that his offering be not sumptuous. Also, by right an ordinary sin-offering should require drink-offerings.37^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^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ

^ᵃnote:That the High Priest's girdle shall be of wool and linen; cf. Ex. XXVIII.
^ᵇnote:V. supra p. 24, nn. 1 and 2.
^ᶜnote:Consequently the verse of Lev. I, 3 is necessary in order to exclude the trefah animal from sacrifice.
^ᵈnote:But this is not the case with trefah; so that it would not have been possible to infer the trefah animal from the common features of the other two (sc. the fat and the blood and the rite of nipping), and therefore the verse is rendered superfluous.
^ᵉnote:That a trefah animal might not be offered upon the altar.
^ᶠnote:But this is not so with trefah, for a priest with a physical blemish is disqualified from offering sacrifices (cf Lev. XXI, 17ff). whereas a priest who is trefah, i.e., who suffers from a serious organic disease, is still qualified to officiate in the Temple; cf. Bek. 45b.
^ᵍnote:A priest who at birth was extracted by a Caesarean operation from his mother's womb is considered fit to serve in the Temple, whereas an animal so extracted from the dam's womb is not fit for a sacrifice. V. Lev. XXII, 27 and Sifra thereon.
^ʰnote:And a trefah animal would a fortiori be forbidden to the Most High, since it is even forbidden to man; hence the verse excluding trefah is superfluous.
^ⁱnote:Whereas an animal that was born a trefah is nevertheless holy as a firstling.
^ʲnote:For an animal that was born with a physical blemish, although holy as a firstling, is nevertheless not permitted to the Most High. The same therefore would be said of trefah, that although it is holy as a firstling it is forbidden to be offered.
^ᵏnote:Accordingly it could be held that a trefah animal may be offered as a sacrifice.
^ˡnote:V. Kid. 24b.
^ᵐnote:And with regard to the Most High it has been shown that there is also an exception to the general prohibition of physical blemishes in the case of birds.
^ⁿnote:Sc. the animal that is blemished and that which has been extracted from the womb.
^ᵒnote:For only an animal with a blemish exposed to the full view is declared to be unfit for sacrifice. Likewise an animal extracted from the side of its dam would be regarded as an object of curiosity, and so its peculiarity would soon be known to all. Trefah, on the other hand, is not always a perceptible taint, for it may be that only an internal organ has become affected.
^ᵖnote:That it is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice.
^ᵠnote:I.e., from Lev. I, 3; v. supra p. 23.
^ʳnote:Ezek. XLV, 15; v. supra p. 20.
^ˢnote:Lev. XXVII, 32, with reference to the Cattle Tithe, but the rule that is here derived is applied to all sacrifices; cf. Bek. 57a.
^ᵗnote:A trefah animal, inasmuch as it cannot continue to live for more than twelve months (cf. Hul. 42a), is not deemed to possess vitality, and therefore cannot be said to pass of its own volition under the rod. Cf. however Rashi on Hul 136b where the suggestion is made that a trefah animal, e.g., one whose hind-legs were cut off above the knee-joint (v. l.c. 76a). on account of its defect cannot physically pass under the rod.
^ᵘnote:E.g., an animal that was born trefah. According to Rabbinic interpretation the verse in Ezek. contains an allusion to ‘orlah and to diverse kinds in the vineyard, and these were at no time ever allowed for any purpose.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘uncircumcised’. The fruit of newly-planted trees is during the first three years forbidden for all purposes. Cf. Lev. XIX, 23.
^ʷnote:V. Deut. XXII, 9.
^ˣnote:For the verse merely implies that a trefah animal, since it cannot pass under the rod, is not subject to the law of Cattle Tithe; but an animal consecrated as the tithe always remains consecrated even though it subsequently becomes trefah.
^ʸnote:Heb. ibut, a mourner while his dead relative is awaiting burial. Such a priest is forbidden to minister in the Temple, cf. Zeb. 16a.
^ᶻnote:Heb. ouh kucy; one who having suffered uncleanness has taken the ritual bath during the day but must now await sunset before he is deemed fully clean. He may not enter the Temple or minister therein.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Zeb. 17b.
^ᵃᵇnote:One who, having suffered the uncleanness of leprosy or of an issue, has performed all the rites of purification but is not deemed fully clean until he has brought an offering as an atonement. V. Zeb. 19b.
^ᵃᶜnote:Every priest was obliged to wash his hands and feet from the Temple laver daily before taking part in the service. Cf. Ex. XXX, 19, 20.
^ᵃᵈnote:Whose brothers had died by reason of their circumcision.
^ᵃᵉnote:For it is written, To stand to minister (Deut. XVIII, 5.).
^ᵃᶠnote:The priest must stand on the floor and nothing should interpose between his feet and the floor of the Temple. V. Zeb. 24a.
^ᵃᵍnote:For the handful is not quite full since there is lacking flour to the extent of the volume of the stone or other substance that came up with it.
^ᵃʰnote:Instead of extending his fingers over the palm of his hand, v. infra 11a.
^ᵃⁱnote:By being spared the cost of these ingredients.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘a sin-offering (to be brought on account) of (eating forbidden) fat’. This is the usual example of a transgression involving a sin-offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. Num. XV, where are prescribed the quantities of flour and oil for the meal-offering and wine for the drink-offering which must accompany the burnt-offering and the peace-offering.

²so that the sinner should have no advantage; why then are they not required? In order that his offering be not sumptuous. Now I might have thought that, since R. Simeon laid down the principle ‘So that his offering be not sumptuous’, it should be valid even where an unfit person took out the handful, we are therefore informed [that even according to R. Simeon it is invalid]. If so, there too the Mishnah should have stated: ‘Whether it is an ordinary sin-offering or any other offering, if a non-priest or a priest that was in mourning received the blood . . . [it is invalid]’, and we would have explained that it was necessary [to be so stated] according to R. Simeon's view. But it is clear that the expression ‘all’ stated in that [Mishnah], since it is not followed by the term ‘except’, includes every offering; then in our [Mishnah] too, had it stated ‘all’, inasmuch as it is not followed by the term except’, it would have included every offering! — It was indeed necessary [to be so stated]; for I might have thought that since we had established that the first Mishnah was not in accordance with the view of R. Simeon, the second Mishnah also was not in accordance with the view of R. Simeon, we are therefore informed [that even according to R. Simeon it is invalid]. Rab said, If a non-priest took the handful [from the meal-offering], he should put it back again [and it is valid]. But have we not learnt, IT IS INVALID? — ‘IT IS INVALID means, it is invalid so long as he had not put it back again. If so, is not this identical with Ben Bathyra's view? — In the case where the handful is still here the Rabbis do not differ with Ben Bathyra at all; they differ only where the handful is no longer here, the Rabbis maintaining that one may not bring other flour from one's house to make up [the tenth], while Ben Bathyra maintains that one may bring other flour from one's house to make up [the tenth]. But then, how can Ben Bathyra say, HE MUST PUT THE HANDFUL BACK AND TAKE IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT HAND? He surely should have said, He should bring other flour from his house to make up [the tenth] and then take out the handful with the right hand! — Rather we must say that Rab said so according to Ben Bathyra. But is not this obvious? — [No, for] one might have thought that Ben Bathyra declared it valid only [in the case where the handful was taken out] with the left hand, but not where it was taken out by any of the persons that are unfit; he [Rab] therefore teaches us [that according to Ben Bathyra it is valid in all the cases]. But why [would the offering be valid where the handful was taken out] with the left hand? It is, is it not, because we find it allowed in the service of the Day of Atonement? Then in the case of a non-priest too, we find that he was allowed to perform a service, namely, the slaughtering! — The slaughtering is not regarded as a service. But is it not? Has not R. Zera said in the name of Rab: If a non-priest slaughtered the Red Cow it is invalid; and Rab had explained the reason for it, namely, because the expressions ‘Eleazar’ and ‘statute’ are used in connection with it? — The case of the Red Cow is different, for it is in the category of things consecrated to the Temple treasury. But is it not all the more so here? For if in regard to things consecrated to the Temple treasury the priest is essential, how much more so in regard to things consecrated to the altar! — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said, It might be compared with the inspection of leprosy plagues, which is certainly not a Temple service, and yet requires a priest. Why do we not prove [that a non-priest may perform a service] from the case of the high place? Should you say, however, that we cannot prove it from the case of the high place; but surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that [sacrificial portions] which had been taken out [of the Sanctuary], if brought up upon the altar must not come down again? From the fact that at the high place what had been taken out was still valid to be offered! — The Tanna [there] really relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering. Now we know this only because Rab informed us of it, but otherwise we should have said that [where the handful was taken out] by one of those that are unfit, Ben Bathyra declares it to be invalid; but surely it has been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said, Ben Bathyra declares it valid even [where the handful was taken out] by one of those that are unfit! Moreover it has been taught: It is written, And he shall take his handful from there, that is, from the place where the feet of the non-priest may stand. Ben Bathyra says, Whence do we know that if he took the handful with the left hand, he should put it back again and then take it out with the right hand? Because the verse says, ‘And he shall take his handful from there’, that is, from the place from which he has already taken a handful. Now since the verse does not specify [the causes why the handful should have been returned], then it is all the same whether [it was originally taken] with the left hand or [taken] by any one of those that were unfit? — Rather it is this that Rab teaches us, that if he had taken out the handful and had even hallowed it [by putting it into the vessel of ministry, it may nevertheless be put back again]. Rab thus rejects the view of the following Tannaim; for it was taught: R. Jose b. Yasian and R. Judah the baker said, This is so only where he had taken out the handful and had not yet hallowed it, but where he had also hallowed it it is invalid. Others report [that this is what Rab teaches us], that only if he had taken out the handful it is [valid], but if he had also hallowed it, it is not [valid] — Rab thus agrees with the view of those Tannaim and rejects the view of the first Tanna. R. Nahman demurred: What is the view of those Tannaim? If they hold that the taking of the handful by persons unfit is regarded as a service, [then it should be invalid] even though it had not been put into a vessel? And if they hold that the taking of the handful by persons unfit is not regarded as a service, then what does it matter even if it had been put into a vessel? — Later, however, R. Nahman said, It is indeed regarded as a service, but the service is not complete until [the handful] has been put into a vessel.32^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ

^ᵃˡnote:In Zeb., at the opening of Chap. II, 15b, the Mishnah states: ‘All offerings are invalid if a non-priest . . . received the blood’. That Mishnah, following the example of our Mishnah, should surely have specified the case of the sin-offering, thereby indicating that it was also in accordance with R. Simeon's view.
^ᵃᵐnote:Even the sin-offering and with this R. Simeon does in no wise disagree.
^ᵃⁿnote:Even the sinner's meal-offering. And so the original question stands: Why does not our Mishnah state ‘All meal-offerings . . . ‘?
^ᵃᵒnote:V. supra p. 4.
^ᵃᵖnote:All hold that the handful should be put back and taken out again by the proper person.
^ᵃᵠnote:The vessel, which held a tenth part of an ephah, in which, according to the view of the Rabbis, the meal-offering was consecrated. If after the consecration in this vessel the flour of the meal-offering had been diminished it at once becomes invalid.
^ᵃʳnote:For he is of the opinion that it is the taking of the handful that renders the meal-offering consecrated and not merely the putting of the flour into the vessel.
^ᵃˢnote:Since it is assumed that the handful is no longer here, how can Ben Bathyra say, ‘He must put it back’?
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., Rab interpreted Ben Bathyra's ruling to apply not only to the case where the handful was taken out with the left hand but also to all the preceding cases enumerated in the Mishnah where the handful was taken out by a person unfit.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘the other (cases of) unfit persons’.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. the left hand. On the Day of Atonement the High Priest used both hands in the course of the day's service; cf. M. Yoma 47a.
^ᵃʷnote:For in no instance do we find that it was essential that the priest shall perform the slaughtering; v. Tosaf. supra 5a, s.v. vyhja, 1.
^ᵃˣnote:Cf. Num. XIX, 2, 3. Thus showing that the slaughtering must be performed by Eleazar i.e., by a priest and by none else, for the expression ‘statute’ indicates that that requirement is indispensable. Hence it is obvious that the slaughtering is considered a service of importance.
^ᵃʸnote:The reason why the slaughtering of the Red Cow must not be performed by a non-priest is not that the slaughtering is a service, for there are no ‘services’ in regard to things consecrated to the Temple treasury; but it is an express decree of the Torah that it shall be performed by a priest.
^ᵃᶻnote:Nevertheless it is established that animals consecrated to the altar may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Hence we find that a service performed by a non-priest is allowed just in the same way as a service performed with the left hand; and the same equality should be upheld in the case of the handful taken from the meal-offering.
^ᵇᵃnote:Cf. Lev. XIII. And so it is with the slaughtering of the Red Cow: it is not a Temple service, nevertheless it requires a priest.
^ᵇᵇnote:For whenever the high places (i.e., private altars) were allowed-which was before the Tabernacle had been set up in the wilderness-non-priests were allowed to perform the services there (v. Zeb. 118a), so that Rab's statement is superfluous.
^ᵇᶜnote:Since at that time Aaron and his sons had not yet been consecrated for service; so that one cannot infer from the conditions prevailing at the high places that a non-priest may perform a service.
^ᵇᵈnote:V. Zeb. 84a.
^ᵇᵉnote:For there were no restrictions as to place in connection with a sacrifice offered at a high place. It is seen however, that a rule of law is actually inferred from the case of the high place.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lev. VI, 2. vkugv ,ru, ,tz i.e., there is one law for all offerings that are brought up upon the altar, for even though they have been rendered unfit, once they have been brought up upon the altar they must not come down again. The Heb, vkug, rendered ‘burnt-offering’, is from the root vkg, meaning ‘to come up’. The Tanna of the Baraitha certainly did not intend to draw the authority for the law stated from the case of the high place; he merely used it as a support for that law.
^ᵇᵍnote:That, according to Ben Bathyra, where an unfit person took the handful from the meal-offering, he should put it back again and the offering remains valid.
^ᵇʰnote:Ibid. II, 2.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., the rite of taking the handful from the meal-offering may be performed anywhere in the Temple court, even in the space of eleven cubits, on the east side of the court, where laymen were allowed to stand (cf. Yoma 16b).
^ᵇʲnote:But which was put back again, as it was not in accordance with the law.
^ᵇᵏnote:And it is valid according to Ben Bathyra.
^ᵇˡnote:In cur. edd. ‘R. Jose b. Jose b. Yasian’. The repetition ‘Jose b.’ is no doubt due to a scribal error; it is not found in MS.M. nor in Rashi.
^ᵇᵐnote:That according to Ben Bathyra the handful may be put back again and another taken out.
^ᵇⁿnote:Who disagrees with R. Jose and R. Judah and who presumably holds that Ben Bathyra declares it valid even though it had already been put into a vessel of ministry.
^ᵇᵒnote:For it has already been rendered invalid by the service performed by the unfit person, and this can in no wise be remedied.
^ᵇᵖnote:Since what was performed by persons unfit is not regarded as a service, then even if it was put into a vessel of ministry by such persons it would still be of no consequence; it should therefore be put back again, and once again taken out by the proper person.
^ᵇᵠnote:So that the act of an unfit person will render invalid only if he performed a complete service; in this case by putting the handful which he had taken out into a vessel of ministry.