Menachot

What then can I put in its place?1 But there was an additional measure there of a log and a half, by which one used to measure [the oil] for the griddle-cakes of the High Priest, a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half towards evening. They said to him, But there was there the half-log measure, and one could therefore measure it2 with the half-log measure! He replied, In that case, even according to your view, there was no need for the half-log measure, for since there was there the quarter-log measure it was possible to measure it with the quarter-log! But the following rule was established in the Temple: The vessel that served for one measure did not serve for another measure.3 R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok says, There were markings in the hin measure [indicating] thus far for a bullock, thus far for a ram, and thus far for a lamb.4 What is the difference between R. Meir and R. Judah? — R. Johanan said, There is a difference between them as regards the overflow of the measures. He who counts the measures from below upwards5 is of the opinion that the overflow of the measures was also holy; for the All-Merciful gave unto Moses a quarter-log measure and instructed him to calculate [the larger measures] by including the overflow [of the smaller measure].6 But he who counts the measures from the top downwards7 is of the opinion that the overflow of the measures was not holy; for the All-Merciful gave unto Moses a hin measure and instructed him to calculate [the smaller measures] by excluding the overflow [of the larger measure].8 Abaye said, All [may be of the opinion] that the overflow of the measures was either holy or not holy, but they differ as to the meaning of the word ‘full’.9 He who counts the measures from the top downwards maintains that the word ‘full’ implies that it may be neither less [than the prescribed measure] nor more.10 But he who counts the measures from below upwards maintains that the word ‘full’ implies that it may not be less [than the prescribed measure], but if it is more it is still regarded as ‘full’.11 The Master said, ‘R. Simeon says, There was no hin measure there at all’. R. Simeon is surely quite right in his argument with the Rabbis. What can the Rabbis reply? — There was the hin measure used by Moses in the preparation of the anointing oil, as it is written, And of olive oil a hin.12 Now one is of the opinion that since it was not necessary for later generations, it was only made for that occasion and thereafter hidden away, but the other is of the opinion that once it was put to a use it remained as a measure. The Master said, ‘What then can I put in its place?’ But is it absolutely essential to substitute another? As Rabina said elsewhere: There is a tradition that among the offerings of the congregation only two require the laying on of hands;13 similarly here there is a tradition that there were seven liquid-measures in the Temple. R. ELIEZER SON OF R. ZADOK SAYS, THERE WERE MARKINGS IN THE HIN MEASURE. Does he not then accept the tradition of seven liquid-measures? — He does not. Alternatively I can say, By seven measures he understood seven measurings.14 MISHNAH. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID THE QUARTER-LOG SERVE? [TO MEASURE] A QUARTER-LOG OF WATER FOR THE LEPER15 AND A QUARTER-LOG OF OIL FOR THE NAZIRITE.16 FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID THE HALF-LOG SERVE? [TO MEASURE] A HALF-LOG OF WATER FOR THE SUSPECTED WOMAN17 AND A HALF-LOG OF OIL FOR THE THANK-OFFERING. WITH THE LOG ONE MEASURED [THE OIL] FOR ALL THE MEAL-OFFERINGS. EVEN A MEAL-OFFERING OF SIXTY TENTHS18 REQUIRED SIXTY LOGS [OF OIL]. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS, EVEN A MEAL-OFFERING OF SIXTY TENTHS REQUIRED ONLY ONE LOG [OF OIL], FOR IT IS WRITTEN, FOR A MEAL-OFFERING, AND A LOG OF OIL.19 SIX [LOGS]20 WERE REQUIRED FOR A BULLOCK. FOUR21 FOR A RAM, AND THREE22 FOR A LAMB; THREE LOGS AND A HALF FOR THE CANDLESTICK, A HALF-LOG FOR EACH LAMP. GEMARA. Rabbi was sitting and raised this difficulty: Wherefore was the quarter-log measure anointed?23 If [it was in order to hallow the quarter-log of water] of the leper, and a half by filling the half-log measure three times. latter vessel will take in also the overflow of the former. Accordingly the half-log measure was a little more than two full quarter-logs since it held the two quarter-logs plus the overflow of each. And so also with the larger measures. vessels are filled the overflow of the larger will have run off. Hence the several measures were exact measures without the overflow. measure, the hin, to the brim and carefully dividing it into halves and into quarters etc. Conversely, to fill the smaller vessel several times and pour it into the larger vessel would not give an accurate measure, for two full half-measures when poured into a larger vessel are more than one whole measure (Rashi MS.). the half-log was a little more than two exact quarter-logs, for when pouring two quarter-logs into a large vessel there would be therein more than a half-log by reason of the froth that is formed (Rashi MS.). Tosaf. s.v. itnu suggest the following interesting interpretation: It is agreed that the term ‘full’ precludes what is less than the prescribed measure, but as to what is more, he who maintains that the largest measure was given to Moses and was divided up into smaller measures, takes this as a symbol to exclude anything that is more than the measure, but he who maintains that the smallest measure was given to Moses and by increasing it the other measures were arrived at, takes it as a symbol that even what is more than the measure is still regarded as the full measure. earthen vessel. The quantity of water was determined by the Rabbis at one quarter-log, for in this quantity the blood of the bird would still be recognizable. V. Sot. 16b. whatever was put in them.