Menachot 18

מנחה מאי עבידתה אמר רב פפא מנחת נסכים

How does the meal-offering come in here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can one speak of the sprinkling of blood in connection with a meal-offering?');">¹</span> Said R'Papa, It refers to the meal-offering offered with drink-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which accompanied most animal-offerings; cf. Num. XV, 4-10.');">²</span>

ס"ד אמינא הואיל ובהדי זבח אתיא כי גופיה דזבח דמיא קמ"ל

For I might have said that, since it accompanies the animal-offering, it is deemed to be part of the animal-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the blood of the offering may be sprinkled, even though all the flesh and the fat had gone, since the whole of the meal-offering that belongs to the animal-offering remains.');">³</span> we are therefore taught [that it is not so].

ומאן דפסל שאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא ו, ג) והרים הכהן מן המנחה את אזכרתה והקטיר המזבחה המנחה עד דאיתא לכולה מנחה לא יקטיר

And he who says it is unlawful [to burn th handful, what can he say to this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely Resh Lakish admits this distinction in R. Joshua made by R. Johanan, for R. Joshua himself expressly differentiates so in the Baraitha quoted.');">⁴</span> - Here [in the case of the meal-offering] it is different, for the verse say And the priest shall offer up from the meal-offering the memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 9.');">⁵</span>

ואידך מן המנחה מנחה שהיתה כבר (שלימה בשעת קמיצה יקטיר אע"ג דהשתא אינה שלימה)

and the expression 'the meal-offering' implies that the meal-offering must be there in its entirety.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of the burning of the handful; otherwise it may not be burnt.');">⁶</span> And [what does] the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');">⁷</span>

איתיביה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש עד שלא פרקה נפרס [לחמה] הלחם פסול ואין מקטיר עליו את הבזיכין ואם משפרקה נפרס לחמה הלחם פסול ומקטיר עליו את הבזיכין ואמר רבי אלעזר לא פרקה ממש אלא כיון שהגיע זמנה לפרק ואע"פ שלא פירקה

[say to this]? - He would say that the expression 'from the meal-offering' implies only that the meal-offering was once whole.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time of the taking of the handful.');">⁸</span> R'Johanan raised this objection against Resh Lakish.

א"ל הא מני רבי אליעזר היא א"ל אנא אמינא לך משנה שלימה ואמרת לי את רבי אליעזר

It was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 43.');">⁹</span> If a loaf was broken before it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dishes of frankincense.');">¹⁰</span>

אי ר' אליעזר מאי איריא נפרס אפי' שרוף ואבוד נמי מכשר אישתיק

had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, and [the priest] may not burn on account of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on behalf of the Shewbread that remained.');">¹¹</span> the dishes of frankincense; if a loaf was broken after it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dishes of frankincense.');">¹⁰</span>

ואמאי שתק לימא ליה צבור שאני הואיל ואישתרי טומאה לגבייהו אישתרי נמי חסרות אמר רב אדא בר אהבה זאת אומרת החסרון כבעל מום דמי ואין בעל מום בצבור:

had been removed, the Shewbread is invalid, but he may nevertheless burn on account of it the dishes of frankincense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is evident that if the remainder of the meal-offering had diminished between the taking and the burning of the handful - which corresponds to the diminution of the Shewbread between the taking away and the burning of the frankincense - one may nevertheless burn the handful; contra Resh Lakish.');">¹²</span> Whereupon R'Eleazar had said, [The expression 'after it had been removed'] does not mean that it had actually been removed, but rather that the time for its removal had arrived, even though it had not yet been removed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is mentioned only incidentally as the continuation of the cited passage.');">¹³</span>

יתיב רב פפא וקאמר להא שמעתא א"ל רב יוסף בר שמעיה לרב פפא מי לא עסקינן דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש במנחת העומר דציבור היא ופליגי

- He replied, The author of that Baraitha is R'Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom the diminution, and even the entire destruction, of the remainder of the meal-offering does not prevent the burning of the handful upon the altar; v. supra.');">¹⁴</span> He [R'Johanan] then said to him, I quote you an undisputed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'whole'. ,u,hhrcv rmut');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב מלכיו תנא חדא (ויקרא ב, ב) מסלתה שאם חסרה כל שהוא פסולה (ויקרא ב, ב) משמנה שאם חסרה כל שהוא פסול

Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is really a Baraitha but is nevertheless, as is frequently the case, designated Mishnah, v. Higger I, p. 37ff].');">¹⁶</span> and you merely say that the author is R'Eliezer! If it is R'Eliezer, why does [the Baraitha] spea of only part [of the Shewbread] being broken, even if it were entirely burnt or lost he would also permit [the burning of the frankincense], would he not? - The other remained silent.

ותניא אידך והנותרת מן המנחה פרט למנחה שחסרה היא ושחסר קומצה ושלא הקטיר מלבונתה כלום

And why did he remain silent? Surely he could have replied that it is different with the offering of the community,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Shewbread and the burning of the frankincense was a regular weekly service on behalf of the community. Cf. Lev. XXIV, 4-9.');">¹⁷</span>

תרי קראי בחסרות למה לי לאו חד למנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה וחד לשירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה

for just as uncleanness is permitted for the community<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the whole community of Israel or the greater part thereof became unclean it is then permitted to offer the communal sacrifices, e.g., the Daily sacrifice, in uncleanness. V. Pes. 77a.');">¹⁸</span> so the diminution [of an offering] is also permitted for it! R'Adda B'Abaha said, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that Resh Lakish remained silent and did not put forward the suggested answer.');">¹⁹</span>

ותיובתא דר' יוחנן בתרוייהו

proves that diminution is on a par with a physical blemish, and no [animal with a] physical blemish is permitted [even] for the community. R'Papa was sitting reciting the above teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Resh Lakish remained silent and did not distinguish between communal and private offerings.');">²⁰</span>

לא חד למנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה דאי מביא מביתו וימלאנה אין ואי לא לא וחד לשירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה דאע"ג דמקטיר קומץ עליהן אותן שירים אסורים לאכילה

when R'Joseph B'Shemaiah said to him, Is it not the case that the dispute between R'Johanan and Resh Lakish refers also to the 'Omer meal-offering which is a communal offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., Rashi and Sh. Mek. omit the word " omer',="" and="" the="" sense="" of="" r.="" joseph's="" remark="" is="" that="" dispute="" between="" johanan="" resh="" lakish="" related="" also="" to="" shewbread="" which="" a="" communal="" meal-offering.');"="">²¹</span> R'Malkio said, One [Baraitha] teaches: The expression 'of the fine flour thereof'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 2. The amount of the flour of a meal-offering is fixed at a minimum of one tenth part of an ephah, and of oil at one log.');">²²</span>

דאיבעי' להו לדברי האומר שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה מקטיר קומץ עליהן אותן שירים מה הן באכילה

implies that if it had diminished, however little, it is invalid; and 'of the oil thereof'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 2. The amount of the flour of a meal-offering is fixed at a minimum of one tenth part of an ephah, and of oil at one log.');">²²</span> implies that if it had diminished, however little, it is invalid.

אמר זעירי אמר קרא והנותרת ולא הנותרת מן הנותרת ורבי ינאי אמר מהמנחה מנחה שהיתה כבר:

And another [Baraitha] teaches: The expression 'of the meal-offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3.');">²³</span> excludes the case where the meal-offering or the handful had diminished, or where nothing at all of the frankincense was burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where some of the frankincense had been burnt upon the altar and then it was found to be wanting, the meal-offering is valid.');">²⁴</span>

קמץ בשמאל [וכו']: מנא הני מילי אמר רבי זירא דאמר קרא (ויקרא ט, יז) ויקרב את המנחה וימלא כפו ממנה כף זה איני יודע מהו כשהוא אומר (ויקרא יד, טו) ולקח הכהן מלוג השמן ויצק על כף הכהן השמאלית כאן שמאלית הא כל מקום שנאמר כף אינו אלא ימין

Now why are two verses necessary to exclude any diminution? Surely it must be that one refers to the case where the meal-offering had diminished before the handful was taken,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the meal-offering is invalid, for the deficiency cannot be made up by bringing more flour, contra R. Johanan.');">²⁵</span>

והא מיבעי ליה לגופיה שמאלית אחרינא כתיב

and the other to the case where the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the handful may not be burnt, again contra R. Johanan.');">²⁶</span> This then is a refutation of both views of R'Johanan, is it not? - No, one verse refers to the case where the meal-offering had diminished before the taking of the handful, in which case if he brings more [flour] from his house and makes up the measure it is [valid], otherwise it is not [valid].

ואימא אין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות שמאלית אחרינא כתיב כאן שמאלית ואין אחר שמאלית

The other refers to the case where the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof, in which case the remainder is forbidden to be eaten although he may burn the handful on account of it. For the question was raised: According to him who says that where the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof he may burn the handful on account of it, what is the position with regard to the eating of the remainder? - Ze'iri said, It is written, And that which is left [of the meal-offering],' but not that which is left of the remainder.

ואימא אדרבה מה כאן שמאלית אף בעלמא נמי שמאלית ארבעה שמאלית כתיבי תרי בעני ותרי בעשיר

R'Jannai said, It is written, of the meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II. 3.');">²⁷</span> that is, the meal-offering which was once whole.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if at the time of the taking of the handful the remainder was intact, it is immaterial if later it was found to have diminished, and it may be eaten; R. Jannai accordingly is in conflict with Ze'iri. Rashi, however, gives another interpretation according to which R. Jannai is in agreement with Ze'iri: the meal-offering was once whole, i.e., at the time of the burning of the handful.');">²⁸</span>

אמר ליה ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא על בהן ידו הימנית ועל בהן רגלו הימנית דכתיב (בשמן דמצורע עשיר) למה לי

IF [THE PRIEST] TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND [IT IS INVALID]. Whence do we know this? - R'Zera said, The verse states, And he presented the meal-offering, and filled his hand therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IX, 17.');">²⁹</span> Now I do not know which hand was meant, but when another verse states, And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 15, in reference to the purificatory rites of a leper.');">³⁰</span> [I know that] only here ['hand' means] the left hand, but elsewhere wherever 'hand' is stated it means the right. But is not this expression required for its own purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only the left hand shall be employed and not the right, and one therefore cannot draw any conclusion or inference from this expression.');">³¹</span> - 'The left hand' is mentioned once again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16.');">³²</span> But should I not apply here the principle: 'a limitation followed by a limitation extends the scope of the law'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'the left hand' is stated twice, and inasmuch as each by itself serves as a limitation to exclude the right hand, the result is that the successive limitations actually amplify the law and include the right hand, that it, too, may be used in the purificatory rites of the leper.');">³³</span> - 'The left hand' is mentioned yet once again;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26. This third expression precludes the suggestion stated that the first two are to be regarded as limitation following limitation resulting in amplification, for if that were so this third expression would be superfluous.');">³⁴</span> so that we may say that only here ['hand' means] the left hand, whereas elsewhere ['hand'] cannot mean the left hand. perhaps I should say quite the contrary: just as here ['hand' means] the left hand so elsewhere ['hand' means] the left hand! - 'The left hand' is in fact stated four times: twice in the case of the poor man and twice in the case of the rich man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 14, 16, 26 and 27; the first two referring to the rites of a rich man that is being cleansed of his leprosy, and the latter two to those of a poor man. The result is therefore thus: the first expression 'the left hand' is required for its own purpose, the second to indicate that only here 'hand' means the left hand but not elsewhere, the third to preclude the suggestion that the first two are to be regarded as limitation following limitation, and the fourth to preclude the inference, suggested last, that wherever 'hand' is stated the left hand is meant.');">³⁵</span> R'Jeremiah said to R'Zera. For what purpose is it written, Upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right foot?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 17 and 28, with reference to the application of oil upon these parts, the former verse dealing with the case of the rich man and the latter with the poor man. In both cases, however, the passage is superfluous for in each verse appears the direction that the oil shall be applied on the place where the blood of the guilt-offering had been applied, and the latter, as expressly stated both in the case of the rich man and of the poor man (v. ibid. 14 and 25 respectively) , was applied upon the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right leg. It must be observed that the ivc ivc kg, thumb and the great toe are expressed in the Heb. by the same word ; thus the expression stated twice in this verse, is redundant.');">³⁶</span> -