Menachot 115

ור' יוחנן האי אותם מאי עביד ליה

And to what purpose does R'Johanan employ the term 'them'? - He requires it for the following which was taught: One might think that an individual may make a freewill-offering [of two loaves] in the same manner and offer it; for I would apply the verse, That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 24. uchre,');">¹</span> the text therefore states, As an offering of firstfruits ye may bring, meaning only the community may bring them but not an individual.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verb 'ye may bring', is in the plural. kf');">²</span>

מיבעי ליה לכדתניא יכול יהא יחיד מתנדב ומביא כיוצא בה נדבה וקורא אני בה (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית

One might further think that an individual may not offer them since he does not offer the like as an obligation, but the community may offer them [as a freewill-offering] since it must offer the like as an obligation, the text therefore states 'them'; only these are to be offered, namely, the Two Loaves which are with leaven and the offering of firstfruits which includes honey. But was it then not permissible to offer the Two Loaves as a freewill-offering?

ת"ל (ויקרא ב, יב) קרבן ראשית תקריבו ציבור אמרתי לך ולא יחיד

Surely it has been taught: Since Scripture has stated any leaven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Any', Heb. need not have been stated in both cases, since whatever rule is derived from one (v. infra) would equally apply to the other.');">³</span> why has it also stated any honey?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Any', Heb. need not have been stated in both cases, since whatever rule is derived from one (v. infra) would equally apply to the other.');">³</span>

יכול לא יהא יחיד מביא שאינו מביא חובתו כיוצא בה אבל יהא ציבור מביא שמביא חובתו כיוצא בה ת"ל אותם ומה יש לך להביא שתי הלחם מן השאור ובכורים מן הדבש

Or since it has stated any honey, why has it also stated any leaven? It is because there is a condition which applies to leaven but not to honey, and there is also a condition which applies to honey but not to leaven.

ושתי הלחם לא יקרבו נדבה והתניא אם נאמר (ויקרא ב, יא) כל שאור למה נאמר כל דבש ואם נאמר כל דבש למה נאמר כל שאור מפני שיש בשאור מה שאין בדבש ויש בדבש מה שאין בשאור

Leaven admits of an exception in that it is permitted in the Temple but honey does not admit of any exception in the Temple. Honey is permitted to be used in the remainder of a meal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hul. 132b.');">⁴</span>

שאור הותר מכללו במקדש דבש לא הותר מכללו במקדש

but leaven is not permitted to be used in the remainder of a meal-offering. Therefore, since there is a condition which applies to leaven but not to honey, and there is a condition which applies to honey but not to leaven, Scripture had to state 'any leaven' and also 'any honey'.

דבש הותר בשירי מנחות שאור לא הותר בשירי מנחות הא מפני שיש בשאור מה שאין בדבש ויש בדבש מה שאין בשאור הוצרך לומר כל שאור והוצרך לומר כל דבש

Now to what did it refer when it said 'Leaven admits of an exception in that it is permitted in the Temple'? No doubt to the Two Loaves, which may be offered as a freewill-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon the altar. For the Two Loaves which were brought as an obligation were not offered on the altar.');">⁵</span>

שאור דהותר מכללו במקדש מאי ניהו לאו שתי הלחם דקרבה נדבה אמר רב עמרם לא ליקרב עמהם

- No, said R''Amram; it referred to what was offered with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two lambs which were offered as an obligation together with the Two Loaves may also be offered as a freewill-offering upon the altar.');">⁶</span> But then it is the same with the firstfruits, is it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For pigeons which were offered with the firstfruits may also be offered as a freewill-offering; hence it cannot be said that the rules concerning leaven do not apply to honey.');">⁷</span>

א"ה בכורים נמי דתנן הגוזלות שעל גבי הסלין היו עולות והסלים שבידם ניתנין לכהנים הנהו לעטר בכורים הוא דאתו

For we have learnt: The pigeons that were upon the baskets [of firstfruits] were sacrificed as burnt-offerings, but those which the people carried in their hands they gave to the priests!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bik. III,5');">⁸</span> - Those were only for adorning the firstfruits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But were not offered as an obligation with the firstfruits.');">⁹</span>

בעי רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא המעלה מבשר חטאת העוף ע"ג המזבח מהו

Rami B'Hama enquired of R'Hisda, What is the law if one offered upon the altar the flesh of a sin-offering of a bird? Does the Scriptural rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That what remains of the offering may not be burnt upon the altar.');">¹⁰</span>

כל שממנו לאישים אמר רחמנא והאי אין ממנו לאישים או דלמא כל ששמו קרבן והאי נמי שמו קרבן אמר ליה כל ששמו קרבן והאי נמי שמו קרבן

refer only to that offering of which a portion has been offered upon the fire, and of this no portion has been offered upon the fire; or [does it refer] to everything that is called an offering, and this too is called an offering? - He answered, [It refers to] everything that is called an offerin and this too is called an offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. I, 14.');">¹¹</span> Tannaim differ on this point.

כתנאי ר' אליעזר אומר כל שממנו לאישים רבי עקיבא אומר כל ששמו קרבן

R'Eliezer says, [The prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That what remains of the offering may not be burnt upon the altar.');">¹²</span> refers only to] that offering of which a portion has been offered upon the fire; but R'Akiba says, [It refers to] everything that is called an offering.

מאי בינייהו אמר רב חסדא בשר חטאת העוף איכא בינייהו

Wherein lies the difference between them? - R'Hisda said, In regard to the flesh of the sin-offering of a bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is referred to as an offering (cf. Lev. I, 14 and XIV, 12) although none of it is burnt upon the altar.');">¹³</span> Rab said, In regard to the log of oil of a leper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is referred to as an offering (cf. Lev. I, 14 and XIV, 12) although none of it is burnt upon the altar.');">¹³</span>

רב אמר לוג שמן של מצורע איכא בינייהו דתני לוי (במדבר יח, ט) כל קרבנם לרבות לוג שמן של מצורע

¹⁴ includes the log of oil of the leper"&gt;.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This teaching of Levi is omitted in all MSS. and apparently was not in the text before Rashi. It is struck out here by Sh. Mek.');">¹⁵</span> Our Rabbis taught: Leaven.

ת"ר שאור בל תקטירו אין לי אלא כולו מקצתו מנין תלמוד לומר כל עירובו מנין ת"ל כי כל

ye shall not burn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">¹⁶</span> From this I only know the rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it must not be burnt upon the altar leavened.');">¹⁷</span>

מאי קאמר אמר אביי הכי קאמר שאור בל תקטירו אין לי אלא כזית חצי זית מנין ת"ל כל עירובו מנין ת"ל כי כל

for the whole, but whence do I know it for a part thereof? Because the text states, Any leaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">¹⁶</span>

רבא אמר הכי קאמר שאור בל תקטירו אין לי אלא קומץ חצי קומץ מנין תלמוד לומר כל עירובו מנין תלמוד לומר כי כל

And whence do I know it for the mixture? Because the text states, For any leaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11.');">¹⁶</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי אביי סבר יש קומץ פחות משני זיתים

What does this mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is meant by 'the whole' and 'the part'?');">¹⁸</span> - Abaye said, It means this: 'Leaven. ye shall not burn'. From this I only know the rule for an olive's bulk,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this may be the whole handful.');">¹⁹</span> but whence do I know it for a half-olive's bulk?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That this quantity is nevertheless reckoned as a 'burning' and therefore comes under the prohibition of 'ye shall not burn'.');">²⁰</span> Because the text states, 'Any leaven'. And whence do I know it for the mixture?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the handful consisted of what was partly leavened and partly unleavened and the one was not distinguishable from the other.');">²¹</span> Because the text states, For any leaven'. Raba said, It means this: 'Leaven. ye shall not burn'. From this only know the rule for the [whole] handful, but whence do I know it for half of the handful? Because the text states, 'Any leaven'. And whence do I know it for the mixture? Because the text states, 'For any leaven. Wherein do they differ? - Abaye maintains that the handful may be less than two olives' bulk