Menachot

Now there is no mention here of lifting up [the table].1 But was not the answer given in the former case that the Tanna merely stated the order of the services? Then in this case too [we can say that] he only states the order of the services!2 — Surely there is no comparison; there the Tanna does not state the number of priests, but here he does state the number of the priests. Now if [your contention were] right,3 he certainly should have mentioned [the priest] who lifts up [the table]! This proves that one may take the handful from a vessel that is upon the ground. This indeed proves it. Raba said, I am certain that one may take the handful from a vessel that is upon the ground, for we find that this was so at the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense].4 Also that one may hallow the meal-offering by putting [the meal] into a vessel that is upon the ground, for we find that this was so at the setting down the dishes.4 Raba however was in doubt, What is the law with regard to the hallowing of the handful? Are we to derive it from the meal-offering itself,5 or from the [receiving of the] blood?6 Later Raba decided that we must derive it from the [receiving of the] blood. But could Raba have said so? Surely it has been stated: If the handful was divided [and put] into two vessels, R. Nahman says, It is not hallowed; and Raba says, It is hallowed. Now if [the above decision] were right, then this too he should derive from the blood,7 should he not? — Raba retracted from that opinion.8 Whence do we know that if the blood was divided [in separate vessels] it is not hallowed? — From the following which R. Tahlifa b. Saul learnt: If one mixed9 less than the quantity required for sprinkling in one vessel and again less than the quantity required for sprinkling in another vessel, the mixing is not valid.10 And the question was raised, How is it with regard to the blood?11 Is that12 a traditional law, and from a traditional law one may not draw any inferences; or is it so there12 because it is written, And he shall dip it in the water,13 then here also it is written, And he shall dip [his finger] in the blood?14 And it was stated: R. Zerika said in the name of R. Eleazar, Even in the case of the blood it is not hallowed.15 Raba said, There has been taught [a Baraitha] also to this effect: It is written, And he shall dip,16 but not wipe up;17 in the blood,16 that is, there must be at the very beginning sufficient blood [in the one vessel] for dipping; [and shall sprinkle] of the blood,16 that is, of the blood spoken of in the context. And the expressions ‘and he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’ are both necessary. For had the Divine Law only stated, ‘And he shall dip’. I might have said that [it was valid] even though [the priest] had not received at the very beginning sufficient blood [in the one vessel] for dipping; it therefore stated, ‘In the blood’. And had the Divine Law only stated, ‘In the blood’, I might have said that he may even wipe up [the blood]; it therefore stated, ‘And he shall dip’. ‘[Of the blood], that is, of the blood spoken of in the context’. What does this exclude? — Raba said, It excludes the blood that is still clinging to the finger.18 This supports R. Eleazar who said, The blood that is still clinging19 to the finger is not valid [for sprinkling]. Rabin son of R. Adda said to Raba, Your pupils report that R. ‘Amram raised [an objection from the following]: It was taught: If, while sprinkling, some blood dripped from his hand [on to a garment], if this happened20 before he had made the sprinkling it must be washed,21 but if after he had made the sprinkling it need not be washed. Presumably the meaning is: before he had finished the sprinkling, and after he had finished the sprinkling.22 — No, the meaning is: if it happened before the blood had left his hand in an act of sprinkling it must be washed, but if after the blood had left his hand23 it need not be washed. Abaye raised an objection: [We have learnt:] When he had finished sprinkling24 he wiped his hand on the cow's body. [Now] only when he had finished then did he [wipe his hand], but before he had finished he did not!25 — He replied. When he had finished he wiped his hand, before he had finished he wiped his finger only.26 It is well [to say] ‘When he had finished he wiped his hand on the cow's body’, for it is written, And the cow shall be burnt in his sight;27 but [to say] ‘Before he had finished he wiped his finger’ [is difficult], for on what would he wipe it?28 — Abaye answered, On the edge of the basin, as it is written, Bowls of gold.29 But could R. Eleazar have said that?30 Behold it has been stated: The meal-offering of the High Priest31 R. Johanan says, is not hallowed [if brought] a half at a time. R. Eleazar says. Since it is offered a half at a time it is hallowed [if brought] a half at a time. not matter at all. And it is to be observed that the services touching the frankincense and the Shewbread correspond with the services relating to the handful and the meal-offering in the following respects: the frankincense was taken away each week from the table, the handful was taken from of the meal-offering; frankincense was put upon the table each week, the meal for the meal-offering was put into a vessel of ministry. And just as the burning of the frankincense rendered the Shewbread permitted to be eaten, so the burning of the handful rendered the rest of the meal-offering permitted to be eaten, for each is described in the Torah as ‘a memorial’, cf. Lev. II, 2, and XXIV, 7. ground, so the handful would be hallowed if put into a vessel that is on the ground. hallowing it by putting it into a vessel, bringing it nigh to the altar and burning it, correspond respectively to the four main services of animal sacrifices, viz., slaughtering, receiving the blood, bringing it nigh to the altar and sprinkling it. Now just as the blood of an animal-offering may not be received in a vessel that is on the ground (v. Lev. I, 5: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and Sifra thereon), so the handful of the meal-offering may not be hallowed by putting it into a vessel that is upon the ground. is not hallowed. the required quantity v. Parah XII, 5: ‘Sufficient for the tips of the hyssop stalks to be dipped therein and water sufficient to be sprinkled.’ veil. The question is: May the priest receive the blood, say sufficient for four sprinklings in one vessel and sufficient for three in another vessel? must sprinkle each time of the blood that is mentioned in the context, that is of the blood in the bowl and not of the blood that is on his finger. second sprinkling but before the priest had dipped his finger into the bowl a third time, it must be washed, for the blood that fell upon the garment might well have been used for a further sprinkling; hence it is evident that blood still clinging to the finger is valid for sprinkling, contra R. Eleazar and Raba. On the other hand, if the blood fell on to the garment after the seven sprinklings had been performed, it does not require to be washed, for the blood could not have been used for sprinkling. contra R. Eleazar and Raba. mount, wipe his hand on the cow's body, and then the cow would be burnt in his presence. mount and wipe his finger on the cow's body. Indeed if he did so the sprinkling that followed might be invalid, for some hairs of the cow's body might adhere to his finger. In cur. edd. there is an obvious gloss added in the text, but it has been struck out by all commentators. It is not found in MS.M. i.e., bowls on whose rim the priests used to wipe away the blood from their fingers. tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, was offered by the High Priest daily; half of it in the morning and half in the evening.