Menachot

Now if he held that view, he would surely derive [the ruling in the case of the High Priest's meal-offering] from the blood!1 And should you say that R. Eleazar does not derive one case from another, but R. Eleazar has actually ruled: If the taking of the handful from the meal-offering was performed in the Temple,2 it is valid, since we find that the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense was regularly performed there]!3 — He derives [the rules of] one meal-offering from another meal-offering,4 but he does not derive [the rules of] a meal-offering from the blood. But does he derive one meal-offering from another meal-offering? Surely it has been taught: If a loaf was broken before it5 had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, and [the priest] may not burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense; if a loaf was broken after it5 had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, but he may burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense. Whereupon R. Eleazar had said, [The expression ‘after it had been removed’] does not mean that it5 had actually been removed, but rather that the time for removing it had come about,6 and although it had not yet been removed it is regarded as already removed. But why is this so?7 Surely it ought to be regarded as a meal-offering which was found to be lacking before the handful had been taken therefrom!8 — That is really no difficulty, for in a meal-offering the handful is not separate,9 whereas here [in the Shewbread] the handful10 is separate. But this is a difficulty: surely this case ought to be on a par with the remainder of a meal-offering which was found to be lacking after the handful had been taken therefrom but before it had been burnt, in which case the handful may not be burnt! — There is, is there not, a difference of opinion about this?11 R. Eleazar is of the same opinion as him who says that where the remainder of the meal-offering was found to be lacking after the handful had been taken therefrom but before it had been burnt, the handful may indeed be burnt. The text [above] stated: ‘The meal-offering of the High Priest, 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’. R. Aha said, What is R. Johanan's reason? Because the verse reads, For a meal-offering . . . half of it in the morning;12 that is to say, he must bring a meal-offering13 and then he shall divide it in halves. An objection was raised: [We have learnt:] The meal-offering of the High Priest may not be brought in [two separate] halves, but he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it. And it has been taught: Had Scripture stated, ‘For a meal-offering a half’, I should then have said that he must bring a half tenth from his house in the morning and offer it, and a half tenth from his house in the evening and offer it; but Scripture states, ‘Half of it in the morning’, that is, he must offer half of the whole tenth!14 — This is only a recommendation.15 Thereupon R. Gebiha of Bekathil said to R. Ashi, But is not the term ‘statute’16 used in connection with it? — He replied: That merely indicates that he must bring the whole [tenth] from his house.17 But did R. Johanan actually say that?18 Behold it has been stated: If a man set aside [in a vessel of ministry] a half tenth [of flour for his meal-offering]19 intending to add to it [to make up the tenth], Rab says, It is not hallowed; R. Johanan says, It is hallowed. Now if he held that view,18 he would surely derive [the ruling in this case] from that of the High Priest's meal-offering.20 Should you say, however, that R. Johanan does not derive one case from another, but R. Johanan has actually ruled: If a peace-offering was slaughtered in the Temple it is valid, for it is written, And he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting,21 and surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal!22 — It is different where he intended to add to it.23 For it has been taught: It is written Full;24 and full means nothing else but the whole amount. And R. Jose said, When is this so?25 Only when there is no intention to make up [the full amount], but when there is an intention to make up [the full amount], then each part26 [as it is put into the vessel of ministry] is hallowed. Whose view does Rab27 accept with regard to the High Priest's meal-offering? If you say R. Eleazar's, then he should surely derive [the ruling in the case of an ordinary meal-offering] from the High Priest's meal-offering.28 And should you say that Rab does not derive one case from another, but Rab has actually said, A meal-offering is hallowed [even though it was put into the vessel of ministry] without oil, since we find it so in the case of the Shewbread;29 without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the drink-offerings;30 without oil and without frankincense, since we find this in the case of the sinner's meal-offering?31 — We must therefore say that Rab accepts R. Johanan's view.32 The text [above] stated: ‘Rab said, A meal-offering is hallowed [even though it was put into the vessel of ministry] without oil, since we find it so in the case of the Shewbread; without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the drink-offerings; without oil and without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the sinner's meal-offering’. Moreover the oil and the frankincense are hallowed [in the vessel of ministry] alone, one without the other: the oil [without the flour and the frankincense], since we find it so in the case of the log of oil of the leper;33 and the frankincense [without the flour and oil], since we find it so in the case of the dishes of frankincense. But R. Hanina said, invalid, according to R. Eleazar, if the blood of an animal offering was received in two vessels. proper. meal-offering (v. supra p. 38, n. 5). table had arrived. from the table. Since, however, the ruling is that the frankincense may be offered, it is evident that R. Eleazar does not derive one meal-offering from the other. consider it as a handful. one can well consider them as already having been removed. half tenth at a time. should be also with every meal-offering. derives the slaughtering in the Temple from the slaughtering in the Temple court. hallowed. ordinary meal-offering too. Nevertheless in the latter case Rab expressly said that it was not hallowed in part. libation, but no frankincense went with it. V. Ibid. XV, 1ff. connection with an ordinary meal-offering.