Menachot

And did not R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon know of this [teaching of his father]?1 — [He certainly knew of it] but in that case it is different for the slaughtering has already overridden the Sabbath.2 And Rabbi? Is it not the fact that the slaughtering there has already overridden the Sabbath?3 — Rather [we must say that] Rabbi is of the opinion that the reaping of the ‘Omer does not override the Sabbath. But does it not? But we have learnt: The Sages say, whether on the Sabbath or on a weekday it was taken out of three se'ahs!4 That is not in accordance with Rabbi's view. But we have learnt: The Sages say. Whether on the Sabbath or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets with three sickles!4 [That too is] not in accordance with Rabbi's view. But we have learnt: On the Sabbath he called out further, ‘On this Sabbath?’5 — [That too is] not In accordance with Rabbi's view. IF IT WAS REAPED BY DAY IT IS VALID. MOREOVER IT OVERRIDES THE SABBATH. Whom have you heard say that if it was reaped by day it is valid? Clearly it is Rabbi.6 Yet it states, MOREOVER IT OVERRIDES THE SABBATH. Presumably it refers to the reaping [of the ‘Omer]. does it not?7 — No, it refers to the offering [of the ‘Omer]. And the reaping does not [override the Sabbath]? Surely it has been taught:8 Rabbi says. And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord.9 For what purpose is this stated?10 Because we have learnt only of the daily offering and the Passover-offering [that they override the Sabbath and uncleanness]. since in its anointed time’ is stated in connection with them11 — in its appointed time’, even on the Sabbath, ‘in its anointed time’, even in uncleanness. Whence do we know it of the other offerings of the congregation? The text therefore states These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times.12 Whence do we know to include the ‘Omer and that which is offered with it,13 and the Two Loaves and that which is offered with them?14 The text therefore states, ‘And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord’: this verse thus fixed ‘the appointed time’ for all of them.15 Now for what [service is the Sabbath overridden]? Should you say for the offering, but the Two Loaves are not offered at all!16 Obviously then it is for the grinding and the sifting of the corn17 and similarly in the case of the ‘Omer for the reaping; thus it overrides the Sabbath. No, the ‘Omer [overrides the Sabbath] for the act of offering,18 and the Two Loaves for the baking;18 for Rabbi is of the opinion that the oven19 [of the Sanctuary] hallows them, so that had they been baked on the previous day they would, by being kept overnight, be now invalid. But does Rabbi hold that the oven hallows them? Surely it was taught: The lambs of Pentecost hallow the bread20 only by their slaughtering.21 Thus if they were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name, the bread is hallowed; if they were slaughtered under another name and their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is not hallowed; if they were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is hallowed and not hallowed.22 This is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says, It is by no means hallowed unless [the lambs] were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name!23 — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, He24 means that they are either determined or not determined.25 CHAPTER VII MISHNAH26 FROM THE FOLLOWING MEAL-OFFERINGS THE HANDFUL MUST BE TAKEN AND THE REMAINDER IS FOR THE PRIESTS: THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR,27 THAT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE,28 THAT PREPARED IN A PAN, THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS,29 THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF WOMEN, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ‘OMER, THE SINNERS MEAL-OFFERING,30 AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY.31 R. SIMEON SAYS, FROM THE SINNERS MEAL-OFFERING BROUGHT BY PRIESTS THE HANDFUL IS TAKEN,32 AND THE HANDFUL IS OFFERED BY ITSELF AND SO ALSO THE REMAINDER IS OFFERED BY ITSELF. GEMARA. R. Papa said,33 All [the meal-offerings] enumerated in the Mishnah must consist of ten [cakes]. What does he teach us?-He wishes to exclude thereby 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. AND THE REMAINDER IS FOR THE PRIESTS. Whence do we know this? — Whence? [you ask,] but surely where it is expressly stated it is expressly stated, and where it is not expressly stated there is the verse, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it... and that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat!34 — With regard to those which are brought from wheat I have no doubt,35 I only ask it with regard to those brought from barley.36 But even with regard to those brought from barley, surely [it is obvious that] the remainder is for the priests, since the handful is taken from them?37 According to the view of the Rabbis38 I have no doubt,39 I only ask it according to the view of R. Simeon who maintains that there is a meal-offering from which the handful must be taken and yet [the remainder] may not be eaten, for we have learnt: R. SIMEON SAYS, FROM THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING BROUGHT BY PRIESTS THE HANDFUL IS TAKEN, AND THE HANDFUL IS OFFERED BY ITSELF AND SO ALSO THE REMAINDER IS OFFERED BY ITSELF. Whence then do we know it? — Hezekiah said, From the verse, And every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have.40 And if this verse serves no purpose for meal-offerings of wheat mingled With oil41 it should be applied to meal-offerings of barley mingled with oil,42 and so, too, if this verse serves no purpose for dry meal-offerings of wheat41 it should be applied to dry meal-offerings of barley.43 But does this [verse] serve this purpose? Surely it is required for the following which was taught: How do we know that meal-offerings may not be set off against animal-offerings?44 was reaped not in accordance with the prescribed rite is invalid? has once been overridden it is also permitted, for the sake of performing the precept at its earliest moment, to burn the fat and the limbs of the sacrifices on the Sabbath. With regard to the ‘Omer, however, the Sabbath prohibition has not been overridden, consequently it would not be proper to override the Sabbath for the reaping of the ‘Omer, but for the fact that it could not be reaped except in its proper time. burning of the fat and the limbs was performed on the Sabbath? reaped and offered. Festivals, and its purpose is to apply the expression ‘in its appointed time’ and the law derived therefrom to each of the offerings mentioned, as though it were explicitly stated with each. mentioned in the section in Num. they would not come under the rule of ‘in its appointed time’. implying that each overrides the Sabbath and uncleanness. lambs slaughtered, so that if subsequently the lambs were lost these loaves could not be used with other lambs, and where the lambs were not slaughtered under their own name the loaves are not thereby determined for them but may be used with other lambs. The real hallowing of the loaves, however, is effected only by the baking in the oven of the Sanctuary. Chapters VII, VIII and IX. This commentary is undoubtedly the authentic Rashi, as is evidenced by the frequent quotations made by Tosaf. of the words of Rashi which are found only in this commentary. It is referred to hereinafter as ‘Rashi MS’. The other commentary formerly attributed to Rashi is spurious, and in all probability is to be ascribed to a pupil of R. Gershom. The similarity between this commentary and that of R. Gershom is most striking. Lev. 11,4. 1-4. wheat. handful? with oil or dry, belong to the priests. some priests shall receive only meal-offerings as their portion and others only portions of animal-offerings as theirs.