Menachot 12

שלא יהא חוטא נשכר ומפני מה אינה טעונה שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר סד"א הואיל ואמר ר"ש שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר כי קמצי לה פסולין נמי תתכשר קמ"ל

so that the sinner should have no advantage; why then are they not required? In order that his offering be not sumptuous.

אי הכי התם נמי ליתני אחד חטאת חלב ואחד כל הזבחים שקבלו דמן זר ואונן ולימא לר"ש אצטריך

Now I might have thought that, since R'Simeon laid down the principle 'So that his offering be not sumptuous', it should be valid even where an unfit person took out the handful, we are therefore informed [that even according to R'Simeon it is invalid]. If so, there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Zeb., at the opening of Chap. II, 15b, the Mishnah states: 'All offerings are invalid if a non-priest . . received the blood'. That Mishnah, following the example of our Mishnah, should surely have specified the case of the sin-offering, thereby indicating that it was also in accordance with R. Simeon's view.');">¹</span>

אלמא כיון דתנא ליה כל ולא קתני חוץ כולהו משמע ה"נ כיון דתנא כל ולא קתני חוץ כולהו משמע

too the Mishnah should have stated: 'Whether it is an ordinary sin-offering or any other offering, if a non-priest or a priest that was in mourning received the blood. [it is invalid]', and we would have explained that it was necessary [to be so stated] according to R'Simeon's view.

אצטריך סד"א הואיל ואוקימנא לרישא דלא כר"ש סיפא נמי דלא כר"ש קמ"ל

But it is clear that the expression 'all' stated in that [Mishnah], since it is n followed by the term 'except', includes every offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the sin-offering and with this R. Simeon does in no wise disagree.');">²</span> then in our [Mishnah] too, had it stated 'all', inasmuch as it is not followed by the term except', it would have included every offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the sinner's meal-offering. And so the original question stands: Why does not our Mishnah state 'All meal-offerings . . '?');">³</span>

אמר רב זר שקמץ יחזיר והא אנן פסל תנן מאי פסל פסל עד שיחזיר

- It was indeed necessary [to be so stated]; for I might have thought that since we had established that the first Mishnah was not in accordance with the view of R'Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 4.');">⁴</span> the second Mishnah also was not in accordance with the view of R'Simeon, we are therefore informed [that even according to R'Simeon it is invalid].

אי הכי היינו בן בתירא אי דאיתיה לקומץ בעיניה לא פליגי רבנן עליה דבן בתירא כי פליגי דחסר קומץ רבנן סברי לא יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנו בן בתירא סבר יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנו

Rab said, If a non-priest took the handful [from the meal-offering], he should put it back again [and it is valid]. But have we not learnt, IT IS INVALID? - 'IT IS INVALID means, it is invalid so long as he had not put it back again.

אי הכי בן בתירא אומר יחזיר ויחזור ויקמוץ בימין בן בתירא אומר יחזיר ויביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנו ויחזור ויקמוץ בימין מיבעי ליה

If so, is not this identical with Ben Bathyra's view? - In the case where the handful is stil here the Rabbis do not differ with Ben Bathyra at all;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All hold that the handful should be put back and taken out again by the proper person.');">⁵</span> they differ only where the handful is no longer here, the Rabbis maintaining that one may not bring other flour from one's house to make up [the tenth],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vessel, which held a tenth part of an ephah, in which, according to the view of the Rabbis, the meal-offering was consecrated. If after the consecration in this vessel the flour of the meal-offering had been diminished it at once becomes invalid.');">⁶</span>

כי קא אמר רב לבן בתירא פשיטא מהו דתימא עד כאן לא קא מכשר בן בתירא אלא בשמאל אבל בשאר פסולין לא קמ"ל

while Ben Bathyra maintains that one may bring other flour from one's house to make up [the tenth].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he is of the opinion that it is the taking of the handful that renders the meal-offering consecrated and not merely the putting of the flour into the vessel.');">⁷</span> But then, how can Ben Bathyra say, HE MUST PUT THE HANDFUL BACK AND TAKE IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT HAND?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is assumed that the handful is no longer here, how can Ben Bathyra say, 'He must put it back'?');">⁸</span>

מאי שנא שמאל דאשכחן לה הכשירא ביום הכפורים זר נמי אשכחן לה הכשירא בשחיטה

He surely should have said, He should bring other flour from his house to make up [the tenth] and then take out the handful with the right hand! - Rather we must say that Rab said so according to Ben Bathyra.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab interpreted Ben Bathyra's ruling to apply not only to the case where the handful was taken out with the left hand but also to all the preceding cases enumerated in the Mishnah where the handful was taken out by a person unfit.');">⁹</span> But is not this obvious? - [No, for] one might have thought that Ben Bathyra declared it valid only [in the case where the handful was taken out] with the left hand, but not where it was taken out by any of the persons that are unfit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the other (cases of) unfit persons'.');">¹⁰</span>

שחיטה לאו עבודה היא

he [Rab] therefore teaches us [that according to Ben Bathyra it is valid in all the cases]. But why [would the offering be valid where the handful was taken out] with the left hand?

ולא והא"ר זירא אמר רב שחיטת פרה בזר פסולה ואמר רב עלה אלעזר וחוקה כתיב בה שאני פרה דקדשי בדק הבית היא

It is, is it not, because we find it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the left hand. On the Day of Atonement the High Priest used both hands in the course of the day's service; cf. M. Yoma 47a. vyhja');">¹¹</span> allowed in the service of the Day of Atonement?

ולאו כל דכן הוא קדשי בדק הבית בעו כהונה קדשי מזבח לא בעו כהונה אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי מידי דהוה אמראות נגעים דלאו עבודה נינהו ובעי כהונה

Then in the case of a non-priest too, we find that he was allowed to perform a service, namely, the slaughtering! - The slaughtering is not regarded as a service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in no instance do we find that it was essential that the priest shall perform the slaughtering; v. Tosaf. supra 5a, s.v. , 1.');">¹²</span> But is it not?

ונילף מבמה

Has not R'Zera said in the name of Rab: If a non-priest slaughtered the Red Cow it is invalid; and Rab had explained the reason for it, namely, because the expressions 'Eleazar' and 'statute' are used in connection with it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XIX, 2, 3. Thus showing that the slaughtering must be performed by Eleazar i.e., by a priest and by none else, for the expression 'statute' indicates that that requirement is indispensable. Hence it is obvious that the slaughtering is considered a service of importance.');">¹³</span> - The case of the Red Cow is different, for it is in the category of things consecrated to the Temple treasury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why the slaughtering of the Red Cow must not be performed by a non-priest is not that the slaughtering is a service, for there are no 'services' in regard to things consecrated to the Temple treasury; but it is an express decree of the Torah that it shall be performed by a priest.');">¹⁴</span>

וכ"ת מבמה לא ילפינן והתניא מנין ליוצא שאם עלה לא ירד שהרי יוצא כשר בבמה

But is it not all the more so here? For if in regard to things consecrated to the Temple treasury the priest is essential, how much more so in regard to things consecrated to the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless it is established that animals consecrated to the altar may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Hence we find that a service performed by a non-priest is allowed just in the same way as a service performed with the left hand; and the same equality should be upheld in the case of the handful taken from the meal-offering.');">¹⁵</span>

תנא (ויקרא ו, ב) אזאת תורת העולה סמיך ליה

- R'Shisha the son of R'Idi said, It might be compared with the inspection of leprosy plagues, which is certainly not a Temple service, and yet requires a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIII. And so it is with the slaughtering of the Red Cow: it is not a Temple service, nevertheless it requires a priest.');">¹⁶</span> Why do we not prove [that a non-priest may perform a service] from the case of the high place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whenever the high places (i.e., private altars) were allowed-which was before the Tabernacle had been set up in the wilderness-non-priests were allowed to perform the services there (v. Zeb. 118a) , so that Rab's statement is superfluous.');">¹⁷</span>

אלא טעמא דאשמעינן רב הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא בשאר פסולין פסל בן בתירא והתניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה ורבי אלעזר בר"ש אומרים מכשיר היה בן בתירא בכל הפסולין כולן

Should you say, however, that we cannot prove it from the case of the high place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at that time Aaron and his sons had not yet been consecrated for service; so that one cannot infer from the conditions prevailing at the high places that a non-priest may perform a service.');">¹⁸</span> but surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that [sacrificial portions] which had been taken out [of the Sanctuary], if brought up upon the altar must not come down again?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 84a.');">¹⁹</span>

ותניא וקמץ משם ממקום שרגלי הזר עומדות

From the fact that at the high place what had been taken out was still valid to be offered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there were no restrictions as to place in connection with a sacrifice offered at a high place. It is seen however, that a rule of law is actually inferred from the case of the high place. vkugv ,ru, ,tz');">²⁰</span> - The Tanna [there] really relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 2. i.e., there is one law for all offerings that are brought up upon the altar, for even though they have been vkug rendered unfit, once they have been brought up upon the altar they must not come down again. The Heb, , rendered 'burnt-offering', is vkg from the root , meaning 'to come up'. The Tanna of the Baraitha certainly did not intend to draw the authority for the law stated from the case of the high place; he merely used it as a support for that law.');">²¹</span>

בן בתירא אומר מנין שאם קמץ בשמאל שיחזיר ויחזור ויקמוץ בימין ת"ל וקמץ משם ממקום שקמץ כבר

Now we know this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, according to Ben Bathyra, where an unfit person took the handful from the meal-offering, he should put it back again and the offering remains valid.');">²²</span> only because Rab informed us of it, but otherwise we should have said that [where the handful was taken out] by one of those that are unfit, Ben Bathyra declares it to be invalid; but surely it has been taught: R'Jose son of R'Judah and R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon said, Ben Bathyra declares it valid even [where the handful was taken out] by one of those that are unfit! Moreover it has been taught: It is written, And he shall take his handful from there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 2.');">²³</span>

וכיון דקרא סתמא כתיב בה מה לי שמאל ומה לי שאר הפסולין

that is, from the place where the feet of the non-priest may stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the rite of taking the handful from the meal-offering may be performed anywhere in the Temple court, even in the space of eleven cubits, on the east side of the court, where laymen were allowed to stand (cf. Yoma 16b) .');">²⁴</span> Ben Bathyra says, Whence do we know that if he took the handful with the left hand, he should put it back again and then take it out with the right hand?

אלא הא קמשמע לן רב קמץ ואפילו קידש ולאפוקי מהני תנאי דתניא רבי יוסי בן יוסי בן יאסיין ורבי יהודה הנחתום אמרו בד"א שקמץ ולא קידש אבל קידש פסל

Because the verse says, 'And he shall take his handful from there', that is, from the place from which he has already taken a handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But which was put back again, as it was not in accordance with the law.');">²⁵</span> Now since the verse does not specify [the causes why the handful should have been returned], then it is all the same whether [it was originally taken] with the left hand or [taken] by any one of those that were unfit? - Rather it is this that Ra teaches us, that if he had taken out the handful and had even hallowed it [by putting it into the vessel of ministry, it may nevertheless be put back again].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is valid according to Ben Bathyra.');">²⁶</span>

ואיכא דאמרי קמץ אין קידש לא כמאן כהני תנאי ולאפוקי מתנא קמא

Rab thus rejects the view of the following Tannaim; for it was taught: R'Jose B'Yasian<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. 'R. Jose b. Jose b. Yasian'. The repetition 'Jose b.' is no doubt due to a scribal error; it is not found in MS.M. nor in Rashi.');">²⁷</span> and R'Judah the baker said, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to Ben Bathyra the handful may be put back again and another taken out.');">²⁸</span>

מתקיף לה רב נחמן מאי קא סברי הני תנאי אי קמיצת פסולין עבודה היא אע"ג דלא עביד ליה מתן כלי אי קמיצת פסולין לאו עבודה היא כי עבד לה מתן כלי מאי הוה

is so only where he had taken out the handful and had not yet hallowed it, but where he had also hallowed it it is invalid. Others report [that this is what Rab teaches us], that only if he had taken out the handful it is [valid], b he had also hallowed it, it is not [valid] - Rab thus agrees with the view of those Tannaim and rejects the view of the first Tanna.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who disagrees with R. Jose and R. Judah and who presumably holds that Ben Bathyra declares it valid even though it had already been put into a vessel of ministry.');">²⁹</span>

הדר אמר ר"נ לעולם עבודה היא ולא גמרה עבודתה עד דעביד לה מתן כלי

R'Nahman demurred: What is the view of those Tannaim? If they hold that the taking of the handful by persons unfit is regarded as a service, [then it should be invalid] even though it had not been put into a vessel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it has already been rendered invalid by the service performed by the unfit person, and this can in no wise be remedied.');">³⁰</span>

אי הכי אפילו לא קידש

And if they hold that the taking of the handful by persons unfit is not regarded as a service, then what does it matter even if it had been put into a vessel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since what was performed by persons unfit is not regarded as a service, then even if it was put into a vessel of ministry by such persons it would still be of no consequence; it should therefore be put back again, and once again taken out by the proper person.');">³¹</span> - Later, however, R'Nahman said, It is indeed regarded as a service, but the service is not complete until [the handful] has been put into a vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the act of an unfit person will render invalid only if he performed a complete service; in this case by putting the handful which he had taken out into a vessel of ministry.');">³²</span>