Menachot 22

Chapter 22

א והתניא (ר' שמעון אומר) קומץ ולבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול תני קורט לבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול ואיבעית אימא כאן בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה כאן בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה
1 But have we not been taught [in another Baraitha]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words 'R. Simeon says' are deleted by all commentators on the strength of Rashi's remark: 'I believe that R. Simeon is the author of the statement'.');"><sup>1</sup></span> If the handful of frankincense had diminished, no matter how little, it is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is here a contradiction between the views of R. Simeon, for the view expressed in the second Baraitha is also that of R. Simeon.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - Render: If the [last] grain of frankincense had diminished, no matter how little, it is invalid.
ב א"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן ג' מחלוקת בדבר ר"מ סבר קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף ורבי יהודה סבר קומץ בתחילה ושני קרטין בסוף ור"ש סבר קומץ בתחילה וקורט אחד בסוף
2 Alternatively I may say. One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first quoted Baraitha which contains the dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>3</sup></span> [Baraitha] refers to the frankincense that was offered together with the meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the offering is valid as long as there remained one grain of frankincense.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא ו, ח) ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה ר"מ סבר עד דאיתא ללבונה דאיקבעה בהדי מנחה מעיקרא ורבי יהודה סבר כל ואפי' חד קורט את לרבות קורט אחר ור"ש את לא דריש
3 and the other to a separate offering of frankincense.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there must be nothing less than a handful at all times.');"><sup>5</sup></span> R'Isaac B'Joseph said in the name of R'Johanan. In this matter there are three different views: R'Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous author of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד וא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה ד"ה קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף להכי איצטריך אשר על המנחה דבהדי מנחה אין בפני עצמה לא
4 holds that there must be a handful [of frankincense] at the outset<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time of the taking of the handful of flour there must be in the vessel a handful of frankincense. This is admitted by all authorities; v. infra 106b. kf ,tu');"><sup>7</sup></span> and also a handful in the end; R'Judah holds, a handful at the outset and two grains in the end; R'Simeon holds, a handful at the outset and one grain in the end. All these three [Rabbis] derived their opinions from the same verse, vis. , And all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI. 8, Heb. kf tuva kf');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה וא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בבזיכין דברי הכל שני קמצין בתחילה ושני קמצין בסוף
5 R'Meir is of the opinion that [the offering is invalid] unless there is present now all the frankincense that was prescribed to be offered with the meal-offering at the outset. R'Judah maintains that the expression 'all'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'all' is interpreted here, by R. Judah and R. Simeon, in the same sense as the Rabbinic 'anything', 'aughtsoever'. ,t');"><sup>9</sup></span> implies even one grain, and the particle 'eth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . Hence there must be left at least two grains.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דבהדי לחם אתיא כאשר על המנחה דמיא קמ"ל
6 adds to it another grain. R'Simeon, however, does not interpret the particle 'eth'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As having any particular significance apart from its grammatical use.');"><sup>11</sup></span> R'Isaac B'Joseph also said in the name of R'Johanan.
ז פליגי בה רבי אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא חד אמר מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה דברי הכל קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף וחד אמר כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו:
7 They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir, R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>12</sup></span> differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but with regard to frankincense that is offered by itself, all agree that there must be a handful at the outset and a handful in the end. Therefore the words 'which is upon the meal-offering' are expressly stated to indicate that this is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a diminution of the frankincense does not invalidate the offering according to R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח חיסר לבונתה [פסולה]: הא יתיר כשרה והתניא יתיר פסולה אמר רמי בר חמא כגון שהפריש לה שני קמצין
8 only [with regard to the frankincense] that is offered with the meal-offering, but not with regard to that offered by itself. R'Isaac B'Joseph further said in the name of R'Johanan, They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir, R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>12</sup></span> differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but as for the frankincense offered in the dishes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 106b.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש לה שני קמצין ואבד אחד מהן קודם קמיצה לא הוקבעו אחר קמיצה הוקבעו
9 all agree that there must be two handfuls at the outset and two handfuls in the end.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there must be a handful of frankincense in each dish from the time that they are set upon the table up to the time they are removed to be burnt. kf');"><sup>15</sup></span> Surely this is obvious!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is here no Biblical term or expression, like , to indicate that a diminution of the prescribed quantity is allowed.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - You might have thought that since [the frankincense in the two dishes] is brought together with the Shewbread it is in the same category as that which is offered with a meal-offering; we are therefore taught [that it is not so].
י ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש ארבעה קמצין לשני בזיכין ואבדו שנים מהן קודם סילוק בזיכין לא הוקבעו לאחר סילוק בזיכין הוקבעו
10 This, however, is a matter of dispute between R'Ammi and R'Isaac Nappaha. One says, They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir, R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>17</sup></span> differ only with regard to the frankincense that is offered together with the meal-offering, but with regard to the frankincense offered by itself, all agree that there must be a handful at the outset and a handful in the end.
יא הא תו למה לי היינו הך
11 The other says, Just as they differ in the former case so they differ in the latter case too. IF HE PUT IN TOO LITTLE OF ITS FRANKINCENSE THE OFFERING IS INVALID. It follows, however, that if he put in too much, it is valid; but we have been taught.
יב מהו דתימא כיון דבריר קומץ דידה כיון שהגיע זמנה לפורקה כמאן דפריקה דמיא קמ"ל:
12 If he put in too much it is invalid? - Rami B'Hama answered, That was a case where he set apart two handfuls.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is an excessive amount and therefore invalid; anything more than one handful but less than two would be valid. According to another interpretation, it is valid where two handfuls were set apart, for each handful can serve separately for the purpose.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Rami B'Hama also said, If a man set apart two handfuls [of frankincense], and one of them was lost before the taking of the handful [of flour, the offering is valid, for] they had not yet been appointed [for this meal-offering]; if [one was lost] after the taking of the handful, [the offering is invalid, for] they had alrea been appointed [for this meal-offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the amount of frankincense was excessive. Or it is invalid, according to the aforementioned view of R. Meir, because there is a diminution of the frankincense appointed for the offering.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Rami B'Hama also said, If he set apart four handfuls [of frankincense] for the two dishes, and two of them were lost before the taking away of the dishes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of frankincense which had remained on the table the past week and which were removed on the Sabbath and burnt upon the altar.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה בחוץ או כזית משיריה בחוץ להקטיר קומצה בחוץ או כזית קומצה בחוץ או להקטיר לבונתה בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת לאכול שיריה למחר או כזית משיריה למחר להקטיר קומצה למחר או כזית מקומצה למחר או להקטיר לבונה למחר
13 [it is valid, for] they had not yet been appointed [for the Shewbread]; if [two were lost] after the taking away of the dishes, [it is invalid, for] they had already been appointed [for the Shewbread]. Wherefore was this case necessary? It is the same as the other! - You might have thought that, since in this case the handful is separate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is contained in dishes and stands apart from the rest of the offering.');"><sup>21</sup></span> as soon as the time for its removal has arrived it is regarded as already removed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that as soon as the time for the removal of the dishes of frankincense of the past week has come about (which is immediately after the offering of the Sabbath additional sacrifice) , the frankincense that has been set apart may be regarded as already appointed for their purpose; and therefore it is invalid if thereafter a part of it was lost.');"><sup>22</sup></span> we are therefore taught otherwise. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule here stated applies equally well to each of the four main services of the meal-offering-taking out the handful, putting it into a vessel, bringing it nigh to the altar, and burning it.');"><sup>23</sup></span> FROM THE MEAL-OFFERING [INTENDING] TO EAT THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT] OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE, OR TO BURN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wrongful intention must be in respect of those parts of the offering that are usually eaten, but the term 'eat' includes also what is 'eaten' by the altar, i.e., burnt thereon, in this case the handful and the frankincense. This is derived from the fact that in Lev. VII, 18 there is a duplicated kfth kftv expression for eating, , thus referring to two kinds of eating.');"><sup>24</sup></span> THE HANDFUL OUTSIDE OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE HANDFUL OUTSIDE, OR TO BURN ITS FRANKINCENSE OUTSIDE, THE OFFERING IS INVALID, BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>25</sup></span> IS NOT INCURRED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest actually, ate the remainder or actually burnt the handful or the frankincense outside the Temple court.');"><sup>26</sup></span> [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT THE REMAINDER ON THE MORROW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is 'outside the proper time', for a meal-offering must be eaten the same day and evening until midnight.');"><sup>27</sup></span> OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER ON THE MORROW, OR TO BURN THE HANDFUL ON THE MORROW OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE HANDFUL ON THE MORROW, OR TO BURN ITS FRANKINCENSE ON THE MORROW,