Menachot

so 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, there1 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;2 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!3 — 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,4 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;5 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],6 while Ben Bathyra maintains that one may bring other flour from one's house to make up [the tenth].7 But then, how can Ben Bathyra say, HE MUST PUT THE HANDFUL BACK AND TAKE IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT HAND?8 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.9 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;10 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 it11 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.12 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?13 — The case of the Red Cow is different, for it is in the category of things consecrated to the Temple treasury.14 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!15 — 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.16 Why do we not prove [that a non-priest may perform a service] from the case of the high place?17 Should you say, however, that we cannot prove it from the case of the high place;18 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?19 From the fact that at the high place what had been taken out was still valid to be offered!20 — The Tanna [there] really relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering.21 Now we know this22 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,23 that is, from the place where the feet of the non-priest may stand.24 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.25 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].26 Rab thus rejects the view of the following Tannaim; for it was taught: R. Jose b. Yasian27 and R. Judah the baker said, This28 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.29 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?30 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?31 — 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 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. meal-offerings . . . ‘? consecrated. If after the consecration in this vessel the flour of the meal-offering had been diminished it at once becomes invalid. the putting of the flour into the vessel. hand but also to all the preceding cases enumerated in the Mishnah where the handful was taken out by a person unfit. Yoma 47a. s.v. vyhja, 1. else, for the expression ‘statute’ indicates that that requirement is indispensable. Hence it is obvious that the slaughtering is considered a service of importance. 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. 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. a priest. the wilderness-non-priests were allowed to perform the services there (v. Zeb. 118a), so that Rab's statement is superfluous. conditions prevailing at the high places that a non-priest may perform a service. that a rule of law is actually inferred from the case of the high place. 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. back again and the offering remains valid. the space of eleven cubits, on the east side of the court, where laymen were allowed to stand (cf. Yoma 16b). MS.M. nor in Rashi. it had already been put into a vessel of ministry. remedied. 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. the handful which he had taken out into a vessel of ministry.