Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 120:23

והא אפיקתיה והקריב והקריבה ומה ראית לרבות שאר מנחות ולהוציא מנחת נסכים

only these that are mentioned in the context. But perhaps the expression 'these' serves only to signify that a person who says 'I take upon myself to offer a meal-offering' must bring the five kinds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That are enumerated in this passage viz., the meal-offering of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, and that, baked in the oven which is of two kinds, of cakes and of wafers.');">²⁷</span> The text therefore states 'of these', implying that if he so wishes he may bring one only, and if he s wishes he may bring the five kinds. R'Simeon says, The expression 'the meal-offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 8.');">²³</span> includes other meal-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Namely, the sinner's meal-offering, thus in agreement with the view of the first Tanna stated supra 60a, ad fin. The additional words in the text, e.g., 'the meal-offering of a gentile and the meal-offering of women' are not found in the MSS., or in the parallel passage in the Sifra, and evidently were not in the text before Rashi. They are struck out by Sh. Mek.');">²⁸</span> so that they too require bringing near. But I might say that it includes also the Two Loaves and the Shewbread, the text therefore states of these. And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread [rather than the reverse]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the handful. And in this respect they are like those meal-offerings mentioned in the context.');">²⁹</span> include other meal-offerings since part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar,' but I exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread since no part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar. But the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings is put entirely upon the fire, is not? Then I would say that it requires bringing near! The text therefore states, And he shall present it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 8.');">³⁰</span> But have you not employed this expression for another purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 357. The expression, as stated above, includes the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress.');">³¹</span> - [For that alone, Scripture could have stated] 'And he shall present', but it says, And he shall present it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is therefore the pronominal suffix 'it' which excludes this meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings.');">³²</span> And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings [rather than the reverse]?

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 120:23. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.