Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 48:16

רב אשי אמר קומץ בדעתא דכהן תליא מילתא וכהן כי קמיץ אעשרון קא קמיץ:

Raba said, Where a tenth was divided [into halves] and one [half] was lost so that another was brought as a substitute, and then it was found again, and now all three [half-tenths] are in the mixing vessel - if that which had been lost became unclean, then it is united with the first half-tenth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the half-tenth which had not been lost will also be unclean for these two originally formed the tenth.');">⁸</span> but not with the substituted half-tenth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this half remains clean; for at no time was it contemplated that what was lost and what was substituted for it should together make up the tenth.');">⁹</span> If the substituted half-tenth became unclean, then it is united with the first half-tenth but not w the lost half-tenth. If the first half-tenth became unclean, then it is united with each of the others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first half-tenth was intended to be taken in the first place together with what was lost, and subsequently with what was substituted for it, so that a relation was set up between the first half-tenth and each of the others, and therefore all are unclean.');">¹⁰</span> Abaye said, Even if any one of the half-tenths became unclean, it is united with each of the others, since they all belong together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'members of the same narrow house'; i.e., they all were intended to be used for the one meal-offering.');">¹¹</span> And so it is with regard to the taking of the handful. If the handful was taken from the half-tenth which had been lost, then what was left of it and the first half-tenth may be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since originally these two made up the tenth for the meal-offering.');">¹²</span> but not the substituted half-tenth. If it was taken from the substituted half-tenth, then what was left of it and the first half-tenth m be eaten but not the half-tenth which had been lost. If it was taken from the first half-tenth, then [what was left of it may be eaten but] the others may not be eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first half-tenth was intended to go with each of the other half-tenths and, inasmuch as the handful can serve only in respect of one tenth, there is one half-tenth which has not been rendered permissible by the handful; and as it is not known which it is, both may not be eaten.');">¹³</span> Abaye said, Even though the handful was taken from any one half-tenth, the other two may not be eaten, since they all belong together. R'Papa demurred, [You say that] what was left of it may be eaten, but one third of the handful has not been offered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably when the handful was taken out and offered up it was intended to serve everything that was in the vessel, so that one third of the handful should not have been offered, since that represented the superfluous half-tenth. Consequently the handful must be regarded as having been incomplete so that what was left of it cannot be permitted to be eaten. The reading 'one third' in the text is supported by MS.M. and Sh. Mek. In cur. edd. the text states 'one sixth'; the meaning, however, is identical with the foregoing explanation, and is arrived at in this way. Since it is not known which of the two remaining half-tenths is the superfluous one which causes one third of the handful to be nullified, this result is therefore attributed in equal shares to each of the half-tenths, so that each is responsible for the nullification of one sixth of the handful,');">¹⁴</span> R'Isaac the son of R'Mesharsheya also demurred, How may the handful be offered, is not one third thereof unhallowed? - R'Ashi answered, The taking of the handful rests with the mind of the priest, and clearly when the priest takes the handful he does so only in respect of a tenth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third half-tenth is disregarded by the priest when he takes the handful; therefore, the residue of that half-tenth from which the handful was taken may be eaten, whilst the two remaining half-tenths may not, since we do not know which was the half-tenth disregarded by the priest. Quaere: where the priest expressly declared which half-tenth he disregarded and which he took account of, would the latter be permitted to be eaten? V. Likkute Halakoth. a.l.');">¹⁵</span> [

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 48:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.