Menachot 36

Chapter 36

א והתנן ששים נבללין ששים וא' אין נבללין והוינן בה כי אינם נבללין מאי הוי והתנן לא בלל כשרה
1 but we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 103b. The line quoted from this Mishnah is actually stated in the form of a question.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Sixty [tenths] can be mingled together<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the one vessel with one log (v. Glos.) of oil.');"><sup>2</sup></span> but not sixty-one.
ב ואמר ר' זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו
2 And when we were considering this [and it was asked], What does it matter if they cannot be mingled together? Have we not learnt: IF HE DID NOT MINGLE IT. IT IS VALID?
ג מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא לא יצק לא יצק כהן אלא זר לא בלל לא בלל כלל:
3 R'Zera answered, Wherever proper mingling is possible the mingling is not indispensable, but wherever proper mingling is not possible the mingling is indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is evident, therefore, that according to R. Zera our Mishnah teaches that the mingling can be dispensed with entirely, provided it were possible to do so if desired. Similarly the first case of our Mishnah would mean that no oil at all was poured in.');"><sup>3</sup></span> - Is this an argument? Surely this has its own meaning and that has its own meaning.
ד או שפתת' פתים מרובות כשרה: השתא לא פתת כלל כשרה פתין מרובות מיבעיא מאי פתין מרובות שריבה בפתיתין
4 The item HE DID NOT POUR IN means, the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did; whereas the item HE DID NOT MINGLE IT means, it was not mingled at all. OR IF HE BROKE IT UP INTO LARGE PIECES. But surely if where he did not break it up at all it is valid, is it then necessary to state [that it is valid if he broke it up into] large pieces? - The expression 'LARGE PIECES' really means many pieces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he broke it up too small.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה ואיבעית אימא לעולם פתים מרובות ממש ומהו דתימא התם הוא דאיכא תורת חלות עליהן אבל הכא דלא תורת חלות איכא ולא תורת פתיתין איכא קמ"ל
5 Or, if you will, I may say that actually large pieces were meant, [nevertheless it had to be stated in our Mishnah]. For you might have thought that only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where the cakes were not broken up at all.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [is it valid] since they retain the character of cakes, but [not] here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where they were broken up into a few large pieces.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ו לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל כהן שאינו מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכהונה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים ואת החלב מבני אהרן לו תהיה שוק הימין למנה מודה בעבודה יש לו חלק בכהונה שאינו מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכהונה
6 since they are neither cakes nor crumbs. We are therefore taught [that here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where they were broken up into a few large pieces.');"><sup>6</sup></span> too, it is valid].
ז ואין לי אלא זו בלבד מנין לרבות ט"ו עבודות
7 Shall we say that our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which permits the rite of pouring in the oil to be performed by a non-priest.');"><sup>7</sup></span> is not in agreement with R'Simeon? For it was taught: R'Simeon says, A priest who does not believe in the service has no portion in the priesthood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is not entitled to a portion in the distribution of the priestly gifts. V. Hul. 132b.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח היציקות והבלילות והפתיתות והמליחות והתנופות וההגשות והקמיצות והקטרות והמליקות והקבלות והזאות והשקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע ונשיאות כפים בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ מנין
8 for it is written, He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 33.');"><sup>9</sup></span> that is to say, if he believes in the service he has a portion in the priesthood, and if he does not believe in the service he has no portion in the priesthood. Now I know it only of this [service stated in the verse], but whence do I know it also of the fifteen services, viz. , pouring in [the oil],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This and the following seven services relate to the various kinds of meal-offerings.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ט ת"ל מבני אהרן עבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה
9 mingling, breaking it up, salting it, waving it, bringing it nigh, taking the handful, burning it, nipping off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lbid. I, 15; V, 8.');"><sup>11</sup></span> [the head of a bird-offering], receiving [the blood], sprinkling it, giving the water to a woman suspected of adultery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 24.');"><sup>12</sup></span> breaking the heifer's neck,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 4.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
י אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן במנחת כהנים כאן במנחת ישראל מנחת ישראל דבת קמיצה היא מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה לימד על יציקה ובלילה שכשירה בזר מנחת כהנים דלאו בת קמיצה היא מעיקרא בעיא כהונה
10 purifying the leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 1ff.');"><sup>14</sup></span> and raising the hands in blessing both within [the Temple] and without?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the priestly benediction, whether in the Temple at Jerusalem (ibid IX, 22) or in the synagogues in every town in Israel (Num. VI, 22ff.)');"><sup>15</sup></span> The verse therefore adds, 'Among the sons of Aaron', that is, all services that are entrusted to the sons of Aaron; and the priest who does not believe in it has no portion in the priesthood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is clear, however, that R. Simeon counts the pouring in of the oil as a special service of the priests and which may not be performed by a layman, contrary to the view of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יא אמר ליה רבא מכדי מנחת כהנים מהיכא איתרבי ליציקה ממנחת ישראל מה התם כשירה בזר אף הכא נמי כשירה בזר
11 - There is no difficulty, said R'Nahman. There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha taught by R. Simeon.');"><sup>17</sup></span> it deals with the meal-offering of a priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which no handful was taken but the whole meal-offering was burnt upon the altar. Cf. Lev. VI, 16.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יב איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בנקמצות כאן בשאין נקמצות
12 here with the meal-offering of an Israelite. In the case of the meal-offering of an Israelite, from which the handful must be taken, the duty of the priesthood begins with the taking out of the handful; we thus learn that the pouring in [of the oil] and the mingling are valid [even though performed] by non-priests. In the case of the meal-offering of a priest, from which the handful is not taken, the services of the priesthood are required from the very beginning.
יג אמר ליה רבא מכדי שאין נקמצות מהיכא איתרבי ליציקה מנקמצות כנקמצות מה התם כשירה בזר אף הכא נמי כשירה בזר אלא מחוורתא מתניתין דלא כר' שמעון
13 Thereupon Raba said to him, Just see, whence do we deduce that the rite of pouring in the oil applies also to the meal-offering of a priest? From the meal-offering of an Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rite of pouring in the oil over the flour is stated only in connection with the meal. offering of an Israelite, but it is extended so as to apply to all meal-offerings; v. infra 75a.');"><sup>19</sup></span> do we not?
יד מ"ט דרבנן אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, א) ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה והביאה אל בני אהרן הכהן וקמץ מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה לימד על יציקה ובלילה שכשירה בזר
14 Well, as there [the pouring in] may be performed by a non-priest, in this case too it may be performed by a non-priest! (Others have the following version. There is no difficulty, said R'Nahman. Here it deals with meal-offerings from which the handful is taken, there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha taught by R. Simeon.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
טו ורבי שמעון בני אהרן
15 with meal-offerings from which the handful is not taken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering of a priest and also the meal-offering which accompanied most sacrifices; cf. Num. XV, 4ff.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Thereupon Raba said to him, Just see, whence do we deduce that the rite of pouring in the oil applies also to meal-offerings from which the handful is not taken? From those meal-offerings from which the handful is taken, do we not? Well then they must be like unto those from which the handful is taken, and as in the latter case [the pouring in] may be performed by a non-priest, here too it may be performed by a non-priest!) - Obviously, then, our Mishnah is not in agreement with R'Simeon, What is the reason of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold the view of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>22</sup></span> - It is written, And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests; and he shall take thereout his handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II,1,2.');"><sup>23</sup></span> From the taking of the handful and onwards is the function of the priesthood; we thus learn that the pouring in [of the oil] and the mingling are valid [even though performed] by non-priests. And R'Simeon? - [He says,] The Scriptural expression 'Aaron's sons
Previous ChapterNext Chapter