Menachot 15

ואם איתא לילף מדם וכי תימא רבי אלעזר מילתא ממילתא לא גמר והא אמר ר' אלעזר מנחה שקמצה בהיכל כשרה שכן מצינו בסילוק בזיכין

Now if he held that view, he would surely derive [the ruling in the case of the High Priest's meal-offering] from the blood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he would declare the meal-offering of the High Priest invalid if it was brought a half tenth at a time, just as it is invalid, according to R. Eleazar, if the blood of an animal offering was received in two vessels.');">¹</span> And should you say that R'Eleazar does not derive one case from another, but R'Eleazar has actually ruled: If the taking of the handful from the meal-offering was performed in the Temple,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The taking of the handful from the meal-offering was usually performed in the Temple court and not in the Temple proper.');">²</span> it is valid, since we find that the taking away of the dishes [of frankincense was regularly performed there]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the taking away of the dishes of frankincense was considered equal to the taking of the handful from the meal-offering (v. supra p. 38, n. 5) .');">³</span>

מנחה ממנחה יליף מנחה מדם לא יליף

- He derives [the rules of] one meal-offering from another meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the Shewbread which is regarded as a meal-offering.');">⁴</span> but he does not derive [the rules of] a meal-offering from the blood. But does he derive one meal-offering from another meal-offering?

ומנחה ממנחה מי יליף והתניא עד שלא פרקה נפרס לחמה הלחם פסול ואין מקטיר עליו את הבזיכין משפרקה נפרס לחמה הלחם פסול ומקטיר עליו את הבזיכין

Surely it has been taught: If a loaf was broken before it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two rows of loaves and the dishes of frankincense.');">⁵</span> had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, and [the priest] may not burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense; if a loaf was broken after it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two rows of loaves and the dishes of frankincense.');">⁵</span> had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, but he may burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense.

ואמר ר' אלעזר לא פרקה ממש אלא כיון שהגיע זמנה לפרק אע"פ שלא פרקה כמי שפרקה דמיא

Whereupon R'Eleazar had said, [The expression 'after it had been removed'] does not mean that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two rows of loaves and the dishes of frankincense.');">⁵</span> had actually been removed, but rather that the time for removing it had come about,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the seventh hour of the day (that is an hour after mid-day) on the Sabbath; v. Pes. 58a.');">⁶</span> and although it had not yet been removed it is regarded as already removed.

ואמאי תיהוי כמנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה

But why is this so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the frankincense may be burnt when a loaf was broken after the time for the removal of the Shewbread from the table had arrived.');">⁷</span> Surely it ought to be regarded as a meal-offering which was found to be lacking before the handful had been taken therefrom!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the handful may not be burnt upon the altar; and here the Shewbread has not in fact been removed from the table. Since, however, the ruling is that the frankincense may be offered, it is evident that R. Eleazar does not derive one meal-offering from the other.');">⁸</span> - That is really no difficulty, for in a meal-offering the handful is not separate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the handful is not separate from the rest of the meal-offering, and until it has actually been taken out one cannot consider it as a handful.');">⁹</span>

הא לא קשיא מנחה לא בריר ברירה קומץ דידיה והא בריר ברירה קומץ דידה וכיון שהגיע זמנה לפרק כמאן דפרקה דמיא

whereas here [in the Shewbread] the handful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dishes of frankincense. These stand apart from the bread, so that when the time for their removal has arrived one can well consider them as already having been removed.');">¹⁰</span> is separate. But this is a difficulty: surely th case ought to be on a par with the remainder of a meal-offering which was found to be lacking after the handful had been taken therefrom but before it had been burnt, in which case the handful may not be burnt! - There is, is there not, a difference of opinion about this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 9a.');">¹¹</span>

אלא מעתה תיהוי כשירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה דאין מקטירין קומץ עליהן לאו פלוגתא נינהו רבי אלעזר סבר לה כמ"ד שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה מקטיר קומץ עליהן

R'Eleazar is of the same opinion as him who says that where the remainder of the meal-offering was found to be lacking after the handful had been taken therefrom but before it had been burnt, the handful may indeed be burnt. The text [above] stated: 'The meal-offering of the High Priest, R'Johanan says, is not hallowed [if brought a half at a time. R'Eleazar says, Since it is offered a half at a time it is hallowed [if brought] a half at a R'Aha said, What is R'Johanan's reason?

גופא חביתי כהן גדול רבי יוחנן אמר אינה קדושה לחצאין ור' אלעזר אמר מתוך שקרבה לחצאין קדושה לחצאין א"ר אחא מאי טעמא דרבי יוחנן אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, יג) מנחה מחציתה הביא מנחה ואח"כ חוציהו

Because the verse reads, For a meal-offering. half of it in the morning;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 13.');">¹²</span> that is to say, he must bring a meal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a whole meal-offering which must consist of a tenth part of an ephah of flour.');">¹³</span>

מיתיבי חביתי כהן גדול לא היו באות חצאין אלא מביא עשרון שלם וחוצהו ותניא אילו נאמר מנחה מחצית הייתי אומר מביא חצי עשרון מביתו שחרית ומקריב חצי עשרון מביתו ערבית ומקריב ת"ל מחציתה בבקר מחצה משלם הוא מביא

and then he shall divide it in halves. An objection was raised: [We have learnt:] The meal-offering of the High Priest may not be brought in [two separate] halves, but he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it. And it has been taught: Had Scripture stated, 'For a meal-offering a half', I should then have said that he must bring a half tenth from his house in the morning and offer it, and a half tenth from his house in the evening and offer it; but Scripture states, 'Half of it in the morning', that is, he must offer half of the whole tenth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence an objection against R. Eleazar.');">¹⁴</span>

למצוה אמר ליה רב גביהא מבי כתיל לרב אשי והא חוקה כתיב בה אמר ליה לא נצרכא אלא להביאה שלם מביתו

- This is only a recommendation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for a precept'. I.e., it should be performed in this manner; nevertheless it is hallowed even though brought a half tenth at a time.');">¹⁵</span> Thereupon R'Gebiha of Bekathil said to R'Ashi, But is not the term 'statute'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lbid. VI, 15. The term 'statute' implies that there must be no infringement or variation of the prescribed rites.');">¹⁶</span> used in connection with it? - He replied: That merely indicates that he must bring the whole [tenth] from his house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But as for hallowing in a vessel of ministry this may be done a half tenth at a time.');">¹⁷</span>

ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא איתמר הפריש חצי עשרון ודעתו להוסיף רב אמר אינו קדוש ור' יוחנן אמר קדוש ואם איתא לילף מחביתין

But did R'Johanan actually say that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the High Priest's meal-offering is not hallowed if brought half at a time.');">¹⁸</span> Behold it has been stated: If a man set aside [in a vessel of ministry] a half tenth [of flour for his meal-offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum quantity of flour for a meal-offering is one tenth part of an ephah.');">¹⁹</span> intending to add to it [to make up the tenth], Rab says, It is not hallowed; R'Johanan says, It is hallowed.

וכי תימא ר' יוחנן מילתא ממילתא לא יליף והאמר רבי יוחנן שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשירין דכתיב (ויקרא ג, ב) ושחטו פתח אהל מועד שלא יהא טפל חמור מעיקר

Now if he held that view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the High Priest's meal-offering is not hallowed if brought half at a time.');">¹⁸</span> he would surely derive [the ruling in this case] from that of the High Priest's meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the High Priest's meal-offering is not hallowed, according to R. Johanan, if brought a half at a time, so it should be also with every meal-offering.');">²⁰</span> Should you say, however, that R'Johanan does not derive one case from another, but R'Johanan has actually ruled: If a peace-offering was slaughtered in the Temple it is valid, for it is written, And he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 2.');">²¹</span>

דעתו להוסיף שאני דתניא (במדבר ז, יג) מלאים אין מלאים אלא שלמים (כלומר שאינו קדוש עד שיהא עשרון שלם) ואמר רבי יוסי אימתי בזמן שאין דעתו להוסיף אבל בזמן שדעתו להוסיף ראשון ראשון קדוש

and surely the accessory cannot be more important than the principal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the slaughtering may take place in the Temple court, how much more so in the Temple itself! Thus R. Johanan derives the slaughtering in the Temple from the slaughtering in the Temple court.');">²²</span> - It is different where he intended to add to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that case each part as it is put into the vessel of ministry is hallowed.');">²³</span> For it has been taught: It is written Full;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VII, 13: Both of them full of fine flour.');">²⁴</span>

ורב בחביתין כמאן ס"ל אי כר' אלעזר לילף מחביתין

and full means nothing else but the whole amount. And R'Jose said, When is this so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That anything less than the whole amount is not hallowed.');">²⁵</span> Only when there is no intention to make up [the full amount], but when there is an intention to make up [the full amount], then each part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the first, the first'.');">²⁶</span>

וכי תימא רב מילתא ממילתא לא יליף והאמר רב מנחה קדושה בלא שמן (ובלא לבונה) שכן מצינו בלחם הפנים בלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת נסכים

[as it is put into the vessel of ministry] hallowed. Whose view does Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in the case of an ordinary meal-offering ruled that if only part of it was put into a vessel of ministry it was not hallowed.');">²⁷</span> accept with regard to the High Priest's meal-offering?

בלא שמן ובלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת חוטא על כרחיך רב כר' יוחנן ס"ל

If you say R'Eleazar's, then he should surely derive [the ruling in the case of an ordinary meal-offering] from the High Priest's meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as the High Priest's meal-offering is hallowed in part (so according to R. Eleazar) so it should be with an ordinary meal-offering too. Nevertheless in the latter case Rab expressly said that it was not hallowed in part.');">²⁸</span> And should you say that Rab does not derive one case from another, but Rab has actually said, A meal-offering is hallowed [even though it was put into the vessel of ministry] without oil, since we find it so in the case of the Shewbread;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is deemed to be a meal-offering and yet no oil went with it.');">²⁹</span> without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the drink-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which accompanied most sacrifices, consisting of quantities of flour and oil for a meal-offering and wine for a libation, but no frankincense went with it. V. Ibid. XV, 1ff.');">³⁰</span>

גופא אמר רב מנחה קדושה בלא שמן (ואין דינה כעשרון חסר) שכן מצינו בלחם הפנים בלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת נסכים בלא שמן ובלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת חוטא

without oil and without frankincense, since we find this in the case of the sinner's meal-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. V, 11, We thus see that Rab derives one case from the other by analogy.');">³¹</span> - We must therefore say that Rab accepts R'Johanan's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the High Priest's meal-offering may not be hallowed a half at a time, just as Rab himself expressly ruled in connection with an ordinary meal-offering.');">³²</span> The text [above] stated: 'Rab said, A meal-offering is hallowed [even though it was put into the vessel of ministry] without oil, since we find it so in the case of the Shewbread; without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the drink-offerings; without oil and without frankincense, since we find it so in the case of the sinner's meal-offering'.

ושמן ולבונה קדשי האי בלא האי והאי בלא האי שמן שכן מצינו בלוג שמן של מצורע לבונה שכן מצינו בלבונה הבאה בבזיכין ורבי חנינא אמר

Moreover the oil and the frankincense are hallowed [in the vessel of ministry] alone, one without the other: the oil [without the flour and the frankincense], since we find it so in the case the log of oil of the leper;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was not accompanied by flour and frankincense; V. Lev. XIV, 10ff.');">³³</span> and the frankincense [without the flour and oil], since we find it so in the case o the dishes of frankincense. But R'Hanina said,