Menachot

The one is not hallowed without the other.1 Then according to R. Hanina why was the tenth measure anointed?2 — To measure the sinner's meal-offering.3 And why was the log measure anointed? — To measure the log of oil of the leper. Samuel, too, is of the same opinion as Rab.4 For we have learnt:5 The vessels for liquids hallow liquids, and the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow dry stuffs; the vessels for liquids cannot hallow dry stuffs neither can the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow liquids. And Samuel had said, This applies only to the measuring vessels [for liquids], but the sprinkling bowls hallow also dry stuffs, for it is written, Both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering.6 R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina, But this meal-offering is moist!7 — He replied. It refers particularly to the dry parts of the flour.8 Alternatively,9 I may say, In comparison with blood a meal-offering [though mingled with oil] is regarded as dry stuff. The text [above] stated: ‘R. Eleazar said, If the taking of the handful from the meal-offering was performed in the Temple it is valid, since we find that the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense was regularly performed there]’.10 R. Jeremiah raised an objection: It is written, And he shall take his handful from there,11 that is, from the place where the feet of the non-priest may stand.12 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 with his 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! — Some say that he [R. Jeremiah] raised the objection and he himself answered it [as stated below]. Others report that R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa, I will explain it to you: That [verse] merely serves to teach us that [the rite of taking the handful] may be performed in any part of the Temple court; and you should not argue that since the burnt-offering is most holy and the meal-offering is most holy, therefore as the burnt-offering must be [slaughtered] on the north side [of the Temple court]13 so the meal-offering must be [attended to] on the north side. But surely the case of the burnt-offering is different, since it is wholly burnt!14 — Then [one could argue in the same way] from the sin-offering.15 But surely the case of the sin-offering is different, since it atones for those [who committed an act inadvertently which, had they committed it wilfully, would have made them] liable to kareth!16 — Then [one could argue in the same way] from the guilt-offering.15 Again the case of the guilt-offering is different, since it effects atonement by blood!17 Nor [could one argue in the same way] from all these [sacrifices taken together].18 since all these [are different from the meal-offering since they] effect atonement by blood! — That [verse] is indeed necessary, for I might have thought that since it is written, And it shall be presented unto the priest, and he shall bring it unto the altar,19 and [then it says] ‘and he shall take out the handful’,20 therefore just as the meal-offering was brought unto the south-west corner of the altar21 so the handful was to be taken out at the south-west corner of the altar; we are therefore taught22 [that it may be performed in any part of the Temple court]. The text [above] stated: ‘R. Johanan said, 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,23 and surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal!’ An objection was raised: R. Judah b. Bathyra said, Whence do we know that, if the Temple court was surrounded by gentiles,24 the priests may enter the Temple and eat there the most holy meat and the remainder of the meal-offerings? Because the verse says, an ephah which was used for measuring the flour of a meal-offering. But as the flour by itself, without oil and without frankincense, is not hallowed when put into this measuring vessel, then it was obviously unnecessary to have anointed this vessel as a sacred vessel. The same argument applies to the log, a vessel of ministry used for measuring oil only. put into it. nevertheless all the flour was hallowed in this bowl, obviously because the sprinkling bowl can hallow dry goods. has been struck out by all commentators as a gloss. Temple court only, and not in the Temple, contra R. Eleazar. The teaching of Ben Bathyra which follows is merely the continuation of the Baraitha quoted but it does not affect the argument at all. north side of the Temple court. Similarly it would be said of the meal-offering, that the rite of taking the handful must be performed at the north side of the Temple court only! thereof.