Menachot 35

ור' יהודה סבר בהנך פליגי להניח דברי הכל פסול מאי טעמא גזירה מקצת דמו אטו כל דמו וכל דמו פסולא דאורייתא

R'Judah is of the opinion that only in the other cases do they differ, but in the case of 'leaving' all agree t it is invalid, the reason being that we must declare the offering invalid [in the case where the intention was in respect of leaving] part of the blood [for the morrow] as a precautionary measure against [an intention of leaving] all the blood [for the morrow], and [an intention of leaving] all the blood [for the morrow] renders the offering invalid by Biblical law. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 36a.');">¹</span> Said R'Judah to them, 'You would agree with me, would you not, that if he actually left [the blood] for the morrow the offering is invalid?

דתניא אמר להם רבי יהודה אי אתם מודים לי שאם הניחו למחר שפסול חישב להניחו למחר נמי פסול

Then even where he intended to leave it for the morrow it is also invalid'. R'Eleazar then comes to tell us that even in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was an intention of leaving over some of the blood for the morrow.');">²</span> R'Eliezer declares it to be invalid and the Sages declare it to be valid.

ואתא ר' אלעזר למימר אף בזו ר' אליעזר פוסל וחכמים מכשירין

Is then R'Judah of the opinion that in the case where there was an intention of leaving part of the blood f the morrow all agree that it is invalid? But it has been taught: Rabbi said, When I went to R'Eleazar B'Shammua' to have my learning examined<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to drain my measures to the last drop'; i.e., to overhaul my studies and to have all matters of doubt cleared up. ,jtk sg tsjk sg');">³</span> I found there Joseph the Babylonian sitting before him.

וסבר ר' יהודה להניח מדמו למחר דברי הכל פסול והתניא אמר רבי כשהלכתי למצות מדותי אצל ר' אלעזר בן שמוע ואמרי לה למצות מדותיו של ר' אלעזר בן שמוע מצאתי יוסף הבבלי יושב לפניו והיה חביב לו ביותר עד לאחת אמר לו רבי השוחט את הזבח להניח מדמו למחר מהו

Now he [Joseph] was very dear to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , corresponding to the Aramaic =very much. (R. Nissim, in Tosaf. ad. loc. s.v.) . According to Rashi: 'until one', i.e., until they had reached the subject dealt with here; or, everything that R. Eleazar said was dear to Joseph and accepted by him unhesitatingly until they had reached this law, which he did not accept until the end.');">⁴</span> He [Joseph] then said to him, 'Master, what is the law if one slaughtered an offering intending to leave the blood for the morrow? ' 'It is valid', he replied. In the evening he again replied.'

אמר לו כשר ערבית אמר לו כשר שחרית אמר לו כשר צהרים אמר לו כשר מנחה אמר לו כשר אלא שר' אליעזר פוסל צהבו פניו של יוסף הבבליא

It is valid'. On the next morning he again replied.' It is valid' - At midday he again replied.'

אמר לו יוסף כמדומה אני שלא כיווננו שמועתינו עד עתה אמר לו רבי הן אלא שר' יהודה פסול שנה לי וחזרתי על כל תלמידיו ובקשתי לי חבר ולא מצאתי עכשיו ששנית לי פסול החזרת לי אבידתי

It is valid' In the afternoon he replied.' It is valid, bu Eliezer declares it to be invalid'. Thereupon Joseph's face lighted up.

זלגו עיניו דמעות של רבי אלעזר בן שמוע אמר אשריכם תלמידי חכמים שדברי תורה חביבין עליכם ביותר קרא עליו המקרא הזה (תהלים קיט, צז) מה אהבתי תורתך כל היום היא שיחתי וגו' הא מפני שר' יהודה בנו של ר' אלעאי ורבי אלעאי תלמידו של ר' אליעזר לפיכך שנה לך משנת רבי אליעזר

Said to him [R'Eleazar], 'Joseph, it seems to me that our traditions did not correspond until now' - 'Quite so, Master', he replied.' quite so. For R'Judah had taught me the view that it was invalid; and when I sought out all his disciples so as to find a supporter of this view, I could not find any.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And I therefore thought that l must have been mistaken in my report of R. Judah since the other disciples of R. Judah had not heard of it.');">⁵</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך דברי הכל פסול אתנייה מאי החזרת לי אבידתי איהו פלוגתא קאמר ליה

But now that you have taught me the view that it is invalid, you have thus restored to me what I had lost'. Thereupon the eyes of R'Eleazar B'Shammua' streamed with tears and he exclaimed, 'Happy are ye, O scholars, to whom the words of the Torah are so dear!' He then applied to him [Joseph] the following verse: 'O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXIX, 97.');">⁶</span> For it was only because R'Judah was the son of R'Ila'i, and R'Ila'i was the disciple of R'Eliezer that he [R'Judah taught you the view of R'Eliezer.'

אלא מאי כשר ור' אליעזר פסול פוסל אתנייה אי הכי מאי הא מפני (פלוגתא) אנן נמי פלוגתא קא מתנינן

Now if it be assumed that [R'Judah] taught that all hold it is invalid, the what did he [Joseph] mean when he said 'You have thus restored to me what I had lost'? He [R'Eleazar B'Shammua'] had only told him [in the end] that there was a difference of opinion in the matter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that even the final reply of R. Eleazar b. Shammua' did not correspond with the teaching Joseph had received from R. Judah. It must therefore be said that R. Judah had also taught his disciple Joseph that there was a difference of opinion in the matter, and so contrary to the premise set out at the beginning of this passage.');">⁷</span> - What then would you say?

אלא לעולם דברי הכל פסול אתנייה ומאי החזרת לי אבידתי דהדר ליה מיהא שום פסלות בעולם:

That he [R'Judah] taught him 'It is valid, but R'Eliezer declares it to be invalid'! If so, why the expression 'For it was only because'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when R. Eleazar b. Shammua' had remarked 'For it was only because...' he evidently meant to say that R. Judah had taught his disciple Joseph that particular view only out of admiration and reverence for his teachers, whereas in fact the law was not in accordance with that view. But as matters now stand the teachings of R. Eleazar b. Shammua' and of R. Judah are identical.');">⁸</span> We also learnt [from R'Eleazar B'Shammua'] that there was a difference of opinion in the matter! - We must indeed say that he [R'Judah] taught him that all hold it is invalid; but what did he [Joseph] mean by saying, 'You have thus restored to me what I had lost'? He meant that he had brought the view 'it is invalid' to light.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For until the final reply of R. Eleazar b. Shammua' there was not even the vaguest hint that any Rabbi held the view that it is invalid; and this so disturbed Joseph that he was led to doubt the accuracy of his memory concerning R. Judah's teaching. The final reply of R. Eleazar b. Shammua' gave him some measure of reassurance.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לא יצק לא בלל ולא פתת ולא מלח ולא הניף לא הגיש או שפתתן פתים מרובות ולא משחן כשירה:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE DID NOT POUR IN [THE OIL],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fixed procedure in the preparation of the meal- offering was: first some oil was poured in a vessel and the fine flour was then put in; then more oil was poured in and it was mingled with the flour. It was then baked into cakes and thereafter broken in pieces. The remainder of the oil was then poured on it, and the handful was taken therefrom. V. infra 74b. The first case of the Mishnah means that no oil was poured in at the end but it had all been poured in at first.');">¹⁰</span> OR IF HE DID NOT MINGLE IT, OR IF HE DID NOT BREAK UP [THE MEAL-OFFERING] IN PIECES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. II, 6. All meal-offerings which were baked before the taking out of the handful had to be broken up in pieces; v. infra 75b. In this case only an amount sufficient for the handful was broken up, but the rest remained unbroken (Rashi) .');">¹¹</span> OR IF HE DID NOT SALT IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. Only the handful was salted but not the rest of the meal-offering (Bertinoro and Tosaf. Yom-tob; and cf. prec. n.) . According to others: the handful was not salted by a priest but by a layman (Maim. and Tif. Yisrael; and cf. infra the Gemara's interpretation of the first item of our Mishnah) .');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי לא יצק אילימא לא יצק כלל עיכובא כתב בה אלא לא יצק כהן אלא זר אי הכי לא בלל נמי לא בלל כהן אלא זר הא לא בלל כלל פסולה

OR WAVE IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the 'Omer meal-offering (ibid. XXIII, 11) or the meal-offering of suspicion (Num. V, 25) . V. infra 61a.');">¹³</span> OR BRING IT NIGH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the southwestern horn of the altar; cf. Lev. II, 8.');">¹⁴</span> OR IF HE BROKE IT UP INTO LARGE PIECES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, he broke it up too fine; v. Gemara infra 18b.');">¹⁵</span> OR DID NOT ANOINT IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those cakes which were not mingled with oil but were, after baking, anointed with oil; cf. ibid. VII, 12.');">¹⁶</span> [WITH OIL], IT IS VALID. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is meant by HE DID NOT POUR IN [THE OIL]? Shall we say that he did not pour in [any oil] at all? But Scripture has indicated that this is indispensable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the rite of pouring in oil is stated twice (Lev. II, 1 and 6) , and whatsoever rite is repeated in connection with the meal-offering is accounted indispensable. V. infra 19b.');">¹⁷</span> - We must say therefore that it means, the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did. If so, the next item HE DID NOT MINGLE IT, would also mean, the priest did not mingle it but a non-priest did; from which it follows that if it was not mingled at all it would be invalid,