Menachot

In the most holy place shalt thou eat thereof.1 Now why is the verse necessary to teach this? One could say, it is sufficient that it is written, In the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it,2 and the accessory surely cannot be more important than the principal!3 — With regard to acts of service, since a man would perform services in the presence of his master, we apply the principle ‘Surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal’. But with regard to eating, since a man would not eat in the presence of his master, [it is permitted]4 only because the verse expressly says so, but had not the verse said so we would not have applied the principle ‘Surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal’. It was stated: If the meal-offering was mingled5 outside the walls of the Temple court, R. Johanan says, It is invalid; Resh Lakish says, It is valid. ‘Resh Lakish says, it is valid’, for it is written, And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon, and then, And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests; and he shall take thereout his handful;6 hence from the taking of the handful begins the duty of the priesthood. This therefore teaches us that the pouring [of the oil upon the meal-offering] and the mingling [of the oil with the flour] are valid [even if done] by non-priests. Now since [the mingling] does not require the services of the priesthood, it likewise need not be performed within [the Temple court]. ‘R. Johanan says, it is invalid’, for since it must be prepared in a vessel [of ministry],7 even though it does not require the services of the priesthood, it must nevertheless be performed within [the Temple court]. There is a Baraitha in support of R. Johanan's view; for it has been taught: If a non-priest mingled it it is valid; if it was mingled outside the walls of the Temple court it is invalid. It was stated: If the meal-offering had diminished before the handful was taken from it, R. Johanan says, He may bring [flour] from his house to fill up the measure; Resh Lakish says, He may not bring [flour] from his house to fill up the measure. R. Johanan says, He may bring [flour] from his house to fill up the measure, for it is the taking of the handful that determines it [for a meal-offering].8 ‘Resh Lakish says, He may not bring [flour] from his house to fill up the measure’, for it is the hallowing of the vessel that determines it [for a meal-offering].9 R. Johanan then raised this objection against Resh Lakish: We have learnt: If the [oil in the] log was found to be lacking before it was poured out,10 he may fill up the measure.11 This is indeed a refutation. It was stated: If the remainder of the meal-offering was found to be lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof, R. Johanan says, He may burn the handful on account of it; Resh Lakish says, He may not burn the handful on account of it. According to R. Eliezer's view there can be no difference of opinion;12 they differ only according to R. Joshua's view. For we have learnt:13 If the remainder of the meal-offering became unclean or was burnt or lost, according to the rule of R. Eliezer14 it is lawful [to burn the handful], but according to the rule of R. Joshua15 It is unlawful. Now he who says it is unlawful [to burn the handful], clearly agrees with R. Joshua; but he who says it is lawful, [distinguishes the cases thus]: only in that case did R. Joshua say [that it was unlawful], since nothing [of the meat] remained available, but here where some [of the meal-offering] remained available, even R. Joshua admits [that it is lawful to burn the handful]. For it has been so taught: R. Joshua says, If of any animal-offering mentioned in the Torah there remained an olive's bulk of flesh or an olive's bulk of fat, one may sprinkle the blood; if there remained a half-olive's bulk of flesh and a half-olive's bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood.16 In the case of a burnt-offering, however, even if there remained a half-olive's bulk of flesh and a half-olive's bulk of fat, one may sprinkle the blood, since it is wholly burnt.17 And in the case of a meal-offering, even though all of it remains, one may not sprinkle the blood. the Temple proper! Surely then no verse is necessary to permit this. XIV, 15. in a vessel of ministry, contra Resh Lakish. the remainder was lacking! because it was rendered unclean or was burnt or lost); likewise with the meal-offering, he would hold that the handful may be burnt upon the altar even though the remainder is no longer available, and needless to say where only a portion of the remainder was wanting. the flesh) or of what may be consumed by the altar; (i.e., the fat). half-olive's bulk of the other.