Menachot 118

שתי הלחם הוה ליה לרבויי שכן ציבור חובה טמיא דאכל

it is more reasonable to include the Two Loaves since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer] they are offered on [behalf of] the community, are obligatory, [may be offered] in uncleanness, are eaten, [are subject to] piggul, [may be offered] on the Sabbath, render aught permissible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Omer rendered the new produce permissible to be eaten in the land of Israel, while the Two Loaves rendered it permissible to be used henceforth in the Temple.');">¹</span> [require] waving, [must be from the produce of] the land [of Israel],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas all other meal-offerings could be brought from produce grown outside Palestine.');">²</span>

פיגולא בשבתא מתיר תנופה בארץ

[are offered on a fixed] date,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Omer on the sixteenth day of Nisan and the Two Loaves at Pentecost.');">³</span> [and must be offered from the] new [produce]; and here we have more points in common!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As all these features are absent in the meal-offering of the priests the points in common between the 'Omer-offering and the Two Loaves certainly outnumber those enumerated above as common between the 'Omer-offering and the meal-offering of the priests.');">⁴</span>

בזמן חדש והני נפישן

- The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 349, n. 7.');">⁵</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[A MAN IS] LIABLE BECAUSE OF THE OIL BY ITSELF AND BECAUSE OF THE FRANKINCENSE BY ITSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he put either oil or frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy.');">⁶</span>

מסתברא נפש:

IF HE PUT IN OIL, HE HAS RENDERED IT INVALID, BUT IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN. IF HE PUT OIL ON THE REMAINDER, HE HAS NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE PRECEPT.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> וחייב על השמן בפני עצמו וחייב על לבונה בפני עצמה נתן עליה שמן פסלה לבונה ילקטנה

IF HE PUT ONE VESSEL ABOVE THE OTHER VESSEL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A vessel containing oil for frankincense was put over the one containing the sinner's meal-offering.');">⁷</span> HE HAS NOT THEREBY RENDERED IT INVALID.

נתן שמן על שיריה אינו עובר בלא תעשה נתן כלי על גבי כלי לא פסלה:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: He shall put no oil upon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 11, with reference to the sinner's meal-offering.');">⁸</span> but if he put oil thereon he has made it invalid.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן (ויקרא ה, יא) לא ישים עליהן שמן ואם שם פסל

I might also say, Neither shall he put any frankincense thereon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 11, with reference to the sinner's meal-offering.');">⁸</span> but if he did, he has made it invalid, the text therefore states for a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. It is a valid sin-offering even though it has had frankincense put upon it.');">⁹</span>

יכול לא יתן עליה לבונה ואם נתן פסל תלמוד לומר כי חטאת יכול אף בשמן תלמוד לומר היא

I might then say that this is so with the oil too, the tex therefore states it is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 11, with reference to the sinner's meal-offering.');">⁸</span> But why do you declare it invalid if oil was put thereon and valid if frankincense was put thereon?

ומה ראית לפסול בשמן ולהכשיר בלבונה פוסל אני בשמן שאי אפשר ללקטו ומכשיר אני בלבונה שאפשר ללוקטה

I declare it invalid if oil was put thereon, since it cannot be picked off again, but I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off again. Raba son of R'Huna enquired of R'Johanan, How is it if he put upon it fine frankincense?

בעא רבה בר רב הונא מרבי יוחנן נתן עליה לבונה שחוקה מהו משום דאפשר ללקטה והא לא אפשר ללקטה או דילמא משום דלא מיבלעא והא נמי לא מיבלעא

Is it [valid if frankincense was put thereon] because it can be picked off again, but in this case it cannot be picked off again; or is it because it does not become absorbed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the flour, as is the case with the oil.');">¹⁰</span> and this too does not become absorbed?

תא שמע ולבונה ילקטנה

Come and hear: AND IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Evidently the main reason is that it can be picked off again; consequently where this is not possible, as in our case where the frankincense was ground fine, it would be invalid.');">¹¹</span> - Perhaps there are two reasons for it: firstly, that it does not become absorbed, and another reason is that it can be picked off again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one reason is valid without the other so that even though it cannot be picked off again it is still valid since it is not absorbed in the flour.');">¹²</span>

דלמא חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דלא מיבלעא ועוד ילקטנה

Come and hear: 'I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off'! - Here agai we can reply that there are two reasons for it. How is it then? - R'Nahman B'Isaac answered, It was taught: If a man put frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy, he must pick it off again and the meal-offering is valid.

תא שמע מכשיר אני בלבונה שאפשר ללוקטה הכא נמי חדא ועוד קא אמר

If before he had picked off the frankincense he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if during the taking out of the handful he intended to burn it outside its proper time or to eat of the remainder outside its proper time.');">¹³</span> or place, it is invalid but the penalty of kareth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁴</span>

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תניא מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שנתן עליה לבונה מלקט את הלבונה וכשרה ואם עד שלא ליקט לבונתה חישב עליה בין חוץ לזמנו בין חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת

is not incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the meal-offering is invalid by reason of the frankincense thereon the penalty for piggul cannot be incurred. V. supra 16b.');">¹⁵</span> But if after he had picked off the frankincense<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the meal-offering is valid once again. It is evident, therefore, that the sole reason why the addition of frankincense to the meal-offering does not render it absolutely invalid is that it can be picked off and so become valid once again.');">¹⁶</span>

ואם משליקט לבונתה מחשב עליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper place, it is invalid and the penalty of kareth is not incurred, but if outside its proper time, it is piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁴</span> and the penalty of kareth is incurred.

ותיהוי פך ואמאי פסלה במחשבה דחוי הוא

Surely it should be regarded as rejected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the text strongly supported by Tosaf. and for which there is MS. authority (v. Dik. Sof. a.l. n. 60) , and the interpretation is as follows: Why is it taught in our Mishnah and in the Baraitha quoted in the Gemara that the frankincense may be picked off from the meal-offering? But surely, once the meal-offering has had frankincense put upon it, it became invalid and so absolutely rejected as a meal-offering! How then can it become valid after it had once been made invalid? Cf. the similar question in Zeb. ');">¹⁷</span> - Abaye answered, Scripture still refers to it as a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 11. It is still valid as a sin-offering even after it has had frankincense upon it.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר אביי חטאת קרייה רחמנא רבא אמר הא מני חנן המצרי הוא דלית ליה דחויין

Raba said, This represents the view of Hanan the Egyptian who does not consider anything as absolutely rejected. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says, Even though the blood is still in the bowl he may, without casting lots, bring another goat and pair it with the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the Scapegoat had died before the blood of the goat that was to be offered unto the Lord on the Day of Atonement had been sprinkled, the latter is by no means rejected as invalid so as to necessitate the bringing anew of two goats and to cast lots over them, but rather this blood becomes fit again for its purpose as soon as another goat is brought as a Scapegoat, v. Yoma 63b.');">¹⁹</span>

דתניא חנן המצרי אומר אפילו דם בכוס מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה ומזווג לו

R'Ashi said, Whatsoever still remains in his power [to rectify] is never regarded as rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly this meal-offering is not regarded as rejected as the frankincense can easily be picked off and so become valid once again.');">²⁰</span> R'Adda said that R'Ashi's view is the more probable; for who is it that regards a matter as absolutely rejected?

רב אשי אמר כל שבידו לא הוי דחוי

It is R'Judah, as we have learnt: Moreover, said R'Judah, if the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the goat that was to be offered inside unto the Lord.');">²¹</span> was poured out, the Scapegoat must be left to die;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is absolutely rejected, and two goats must be brought anew.');">²²</span>

אמר רב אדא כוותיה דרב אשי מסתברא דמאן שמעת ליה דאית ליה דחויין רבי יהודה היא דתנן ועוד אמר רבי יהודה נשפך הדם ימות המשתלח מת המשתלח ישפך הדם

and if the Scapegoat died, the blood must be poured out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 62a.');">²³</span> Nevertheless, in regard to a matter which is still in his power [to rectify], it has been taught: R'Judah says, A cup was filled with the mingled blood [that was spilt on the ground]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After all the Passover lambs had been slaughtered.');">²⁴</span>

ואילו היכא דבידו תניא ר' יהודה אומר כוס היה ממלא מדם התערובות וזרקו זריקה אחת כנגד היסוד

and it was sprinkled in one action towards the base [of the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purpose being to render valid by this sprinkling any Passover-offering whose blood might have been spilt on the ground. V. Pes. 64a. Hence it is clear that a matter is not absolutely rejected provided it lies within one's power to set it right again.');">²⁵</span> R'Isaac B'Joseph said in the name of R'Johanan, If a man put the minutest quantity of oil upon an olive's bulk of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid.

אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן נתן משהו שמן על גבי כזית מנחה פסל מאי טעמא לא ישים שימה כל דהו עליה עד דאיכא שיעורא

What is the reason? For 'he shall not put'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V,11.');">²⁶</span>

ואמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן נתן כזית לבונה על גבי משהו מנחה פסל מאי טעמא לא יתן כתיב עד דאיכא נתינה עליה

implies the putting of any quantity, however little; whilst 'upon it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V,11.');">²⁶</span> implies at least the minimum quantity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Namely an olive's bulk. i,b');">²⁷</span> R'Isaac B'Joseph also said in the name of R'Johanan, If a man put an olive's bulk of frankincense upon the minutest quantity of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? Because it is written, He shall not give [any frankincense],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Usually translated He shall not lay thereon. The Heb. 'give', however, is used, which verb in another context, Lev. XXII, 14, clearly implies something worthy to be given, at least an olive's bulk. V. Sh. Mek. n. 9.');">²⁸</span> which signifies that there must be a quantity thereof worthy to be given. And as for the term 'upon it',