Menachot

How does the meal-offering come in here?1 Said R. Papa, It refers to the meal-offering offered with drink-offerings.2 For I might have said that, since it accompanies the animal-offering, it is deemed to be part of the animal-offering;3 we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. And he who says it is unlawful [to burn the handful, what can he say to this]?4 — Here [in the case of the meal-offering] it is different, for the verse says, And the priest shall offer up from the meal-offering the memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar;5 and the expression ‘the meal-offering’ implies that the meal-offering must be there in its entirety.6 And [what does] the other7 [say to this]? — He would say that the expression ‘from the meal-offering’ implies only that the meal-offering was once whole.8 R. Johanan raised this objection against Resh Lakish. It was taught:9 If a loaf was broken before it10 had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, and [the priest] may not burn on account of it11 the dishes of frankincense; if a loaf was broken after it10 had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, but he may nevertheless burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense.12 Whereupon R. Eleazar had said, [The expression ‘after it had been removed’] does not mean that it had actually been removed, but rather that the time for its removal had arrived, even though it had not yet been removed!13 — He replied, The author of that Baraitha is R. Eliezer.14 He [R. Johanan] then said to him, I quote you an undisputed15 Mishnah,16 and you merely say that the author is R. Eliezer! If it is R. Eliezer, why does [the Baraitha] speak of only part [of the Shewbread] being broken, even if it were entirely burnt or lost he would also permit [the burning of the frankincense], would he not? — The other remained silent. And why did he remain silent? Surely he could have replied that it is different with the offering of the community,17 for just as uncleanness is permitted for the community18 so the diminution [of an offering] is also permitted for it! R. Adda b. Abaha said, This19 proves that diminution is on a par with a physical blemish, and no [animal with a] physical blemish is permitted [even] for the community. R. Papa was sitting reciting the above teaching20 when R. Joseph b. Shemaiah said to him, Is it not the case that the dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish refers also to the ‘Omer meal-offering which is a communal offering?21 R. Malkio said, One [Baraitha] teaches: The expression ‘of the fine flour thereof’22 implies that if it had diminished, however little, it is invalid; and ‘of the oil thereof’.22 implies that if it had diminished, however little, it is invalid. And another [Baraitha] teaches: The expression ‘of the meal-offering’23 excludes the case where the meal-offering or the handful had diminished, or where nothing at all of the frankincense was burnt.24 Now why are two verses necessary to exclude any diminution? Surely it must be that one refers to the case where the meal-offering had diminished before the handful was taken,25 and the other to the case where the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof.26 This then is a refutation of both views of R. Johanan, is it not? — No, one verse refers to the case where the meal-offering had diminished before the taking of the handful, in which case if he brings more [flour] from his house and makes up the measure it is [valid], otherwise it is not [valid]. The other refers to the case where the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof, in which case the remainder is forbidden to be eaten although he may burn the handful on account of it. For the question was raised: According to him who says that where the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof he may burn the handful on account of it, what is the position with regard to the eating of the remainder? — Ze'iri said, It is written, And that which is left [of the meal-offering],’ but not that which is left of the remainder. R. Jannai said, It is written, of the meal-offering,27 that is, the meal-offering which was once whole.28 IF [THE PRIEST] TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND [IT IS INVALID]. Whence do we know this? — R. Zera said, The verse states, And he presented the meal-offering, and filled his hand therefrom.29 Now I do not know which hand was meant, but when another verse states, And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand,30 [I know that] only here [‘hand’ means] the left hand, but elsewhere wherever ‘hand’ is stated it means the right. But is not this expression required for its own purpose?31 — ‘The left hand’ is mentioned once again.32 But should I not apply here the principle: ‘a limitation followed by a limitation extends the scope of the law’?33 — ‘The left hand’ is mentioned yet once again;34 so that we may say that only here [‘hand’ means] the left hand, whereas elsewhere [‘hand’] cannot mean the left hand. perhaps I should say quite the contrary: just as here [‘hand’ means] the left hand so elsewhere [‘hand’ means] the left hand! — ‘The left hand’ is in fact stated four times: twice in the case of the poor man and twice in the case of the rich man.35 R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera. For what purpose is it written, Upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right foot?36 — meal-offering that belongs to the animal-offering remains. differentiates so in the Baraitha quoted. the handful — which corresponds to the diminution of the Shewbread between the taking away and the burning of the frankincense — one may nevertheless burn the handful; contra Resh Lakish. prevent the burning of the handful upon the altar; v. supra. ,u,hhrcv rmut I, p. 37ff]. Lev. XXIV, 4-9. communal sacrifices, e.g., the Daily sacrifice, in uncleanness. V. Pes. 77a. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish related also to the Shewbread which is a communal meal-offering. at one log. meal-offering is valid. Johanan. diminished, and it may be eaten; R. Jannai accordingly is in conflict with Ze'iri. Rashi, however, gives another interpretation according to which R. Jannai is in agreement with Ze'iri: the meal-offering was once whole, i.e., at the time of the burning of the handful. inference from this expression. the result is that the successive limitations actually amplify the law and include the right hand, that it, too, may be used in the purificatory rites of the leper. following limitation resulting in amplification, for if that were so this third expression would be superfluous. and the latter two to those of a poor man. The result is therefore thus: the first expression ‘the left hand’ is required for its own purpose, the second to indicate that only here ‘hand’ means the left hand but not elsewhere, the third to preclude the suggestion that the first two are to be regarded as limitation following limitation, and the fourth to preclude the inference, suggested last, that wherever ‘hand’ is stated the left hand is meant. the rich man and the latter with the poor man. In both cases, however, the passage is superfluous for in each verse appears the direction that the oil shall be applied on the place where the blood of the guilt-offering had been applied, and the latter, as expressly stated both in the case of the rich man and of the poor man (v. ibid. 14 and 25 respectively), was applied upon the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right leg. It must be observed that the thumb and the great toe are expressed in the Heb. by the same word ivc; thus the expression ivc kg, stated twice in this verse, is redundant.