Menachot 38

גרש ושמן מעכבין ואין דבר אחר מעכב

the bruised corn and the oil are indispensable, but no other thing is indispensable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is evident that the expression 'statute' used in connection with the meal-offering is of no significance, seeing that it was found necessary to derive the teaching that the measures of the bruised corn and of the oil shall each be full, from the emphatic and indeed superfluous particles hbtau 'thereof' attached to each, and not by inferring it from the expression 'statute' (Rashi) . According to Tosaf. (s.v.) the interpretation is: the fact that Scripture repeats here (v. 16) practically the same rite that is mentioned in v. 2, signifies that in this instance the expression 'statute' is of no significance.');">¹</span> [To turn to] the main text: 'Rab said, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse is indispensable.

גופא אמר רב כל מקום שהחזיר לך הכתוב בתורה מנחה אינו אלא לעכב ושמואל אמר גרש ושמן מעכבין ואין דבר אחר מעכב ולשמואל אע"ג דתנא ביה קרא לא מעכבא ליה

Samuel, however, said, The bruised corn and the oil are indispensable, but no other thing is indispensable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the rite is repeated in another verse.');">²</span> Is it then suggested that according to Samuel even though the rite is repeated in another verse it is not indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not; for what else could be the purpose of the repetition of that rite if not to indicate indispensability?');">³</span>

אלא כל היכא דתנא ביה קרא ודאי מעכבא והכא במלא קומצו בקומצו קא מיפלגי דתניא מלא קומצו בקומצו שלא יעשה מדה לקומץ

- Rather [the position is this]: Wherever any rite is repeated in another verse it is certainly indispensable; they differ only as to [the effect of] the interpretation of the phrases 'his han and 'with his hand'. For it was taught: The phrases 'his handful'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 2.');">⁴</span>

רב סבר הא נמי תנא ביה קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ט, יז) ויקרב את המנחה וימלא כפו ממנה ושמואל דורות משעה לא ילפינן

and 'with his hand'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 8. So literally.');">⁵</span> signify that he shall not use a measure for the taking of the handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From these two phrases we learn that the priest must take out the handful with his hand and may not use a measure which holds as much as a handful for the purpose.');">⁶</span>

ולא יליף שמואל דורות משעה והתנן כלי הלח מקדשין את הלח ומדת יבש מקדשין את היבש ואין כלי הלח מקדשין את היבש ולא מדת יבש מקדשין את הלח

Now Rab maintains that this too has been stated in another verse, as it is written, And he presented the meal-offering and filled his hand therefrom;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IX, 17. This verse clearly repeats the injunction that the handful must be taken out with the hand; hence it is indispensable, and if it was taken with a measure it is invalid.');">⁷</span> Samuel, however, says that we cannot derive a permanent law from a temporary enactment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The above verse referred to relates to the meal-offering brought by Aaron at his installation as High Priest, and the provisions stated with regard thereto are obviously temporary enactments only and not rules for all time. Hence, according to Samuel, if the handful was taken with a measure the offering is valid.');">⁸</span>

ואמר שמואל ל"ש אלא מדות אבל מזרקות מקדשין דכתיב (במדבר ז, יג) שניהם מלאים סלת

Is Samuel then of the opinion that we cannot derive a permanent law from a temporary enactment? But we have learnt: The vessels for liquids hallow liquids, and the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow dry stuffs; the vessels for liquids cannot hallow dry stuffs, neither can the measuring vessels for dry stuffs hallow liquids.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 8b; Zeb. 88a.');">⁹</span>

שאני התם דתנא בה קרא תריסר זימנין

And thereupon Samuel had said, This applies only to the measuring vessels [for liquids], but the sprinkling bowls hallow [also dry stuffs], for it is written, Both of them full of fine flour!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VII, 13, and frequently in the chapter. 'Both' refers to the silver dish and the silver sprinkling bowl mentioned previously in the verse in connection with the presentation of gifts and offerings by the Princes of the twelve tribes at the dedication of the altar. These vessels obviously hallowed the flour that was put into them; hence Samuel derives the rule for all time that a sprinkling bowl hallows also dry stuffs.');">¹⁰</span> - This case is different since the verse is repeated twelve times.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the presentation of each of the princes. This oft repeated rite was clearly intended for all times.');">¹¹</span>

א"ל רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב והרי הגשה דתנא בה קרא ולא מעכבא מאן תנא ביה דכתיב (ויקרא ז, א) זאת תורת המנחה הקרב אותה בני אהרן לפני ה'

R'Kahana and R'Assi said to Rab, But is not the bringing nigh [of the meal-offering to the altar] repeated in Scripture, nevertheless it is not indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we have learnt in our Mishnah: OR (IF HE DID NOT) BRING IT NIGH . IT IS VALID.');">¹²</span> - Where is it repeated?

ההוא לקבוע לה מקום הוא דאתא דתניא לפני ה' יכול במערב ת"ל אל פני המזבח

Because it is written, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it nigh before the Lord, [to the front of the altar]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 7. This rite has already been stated previously: And he shall bring it nigh unto the altar (ibid II, 8) .');">¹³</span> But surely that verse merely determines the place [whither it shall be brought].

אי אל פני המזבח יכול בדרום ת"ל לפני ה' הא כיצד מגישה בקרן דרומית מערבית כנגד חודה של קרן ודיו

As it has been taught: [If the verse had only stated,] 'Before the Lord', I might have thought that it meant on the west [side of the altar],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this side of the altar faced the entrance of the Temple (wherein was the Holy of Holies) which was located in the west of the Temple court. V. fig. 1.');">¹⁴</span> the verse therefore added, To the front of the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the south, for here was the ascent leading up to the altar.');">¹⁵</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר יכול יגישנה למערבה של קרן (או) לדרומה של קרן אמרת כל מקום שאתה מוצא שתי מקראות אחד מקיים עצמו ומקיים חבירו ואחד מקיים עצמו ומבטל את חבירו מניחין את שמקיים עצמו ומבטל חבירו ותופשין את שמקיים עצמו ומקיים חבירו

And [if the verse had only stated,] To the front of the altar, I might have thought that it meant on the south side, the verse therefore stated, 'Before the Lord'. So what was the procedure?

שכשאתה אומר לפני ה' במערב בטלתה אל פני המזבח בדרום וכשאתה אומר אל פני המזבח בדרום קיימתה לפני ה'

He brought it nigh unto the south-west corner opposite the point of the altar's horn, and that sufficed. R'Eliezer says, It is possible [to think that the meaning is] he can bring it nigh eit to the west corner or to the south corner;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Tosaf. and Rashi in Sotah 14b. Here Rashi interprets: 'both to the west . . and to the south'.');">¹⁶</span>

והיכא קיימתה אמר רב אשי קסבר האי תנא כוליה מזבח בצפון קאי

but you can answer, Wherever you find two texts, one self-confirmatory and confirming the words of the other, whereas the second is self-confirmatory but annuls the words of the other, we abandon the latter and accept the former. Thus when you emphasize 'before the Lord', i.e., on the west side [of the altar], you annul 'to the front of the altar', which is on the south side; when you emphasize 'to the front of the altar', i.e., on the south side, you confirm 'before the Lord', which is on the west side.

מתקיף לה רב הונא הרי מלח דלא תנא ביה קרא ומעכבא ביה דתניא (במדבר יח, יט) ברית מלח עולם הוא שתהא

But how do you confirm it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the meal-offering is brought to the south side of the altar it can by no means be said to be 'before the Lord', i.e., opposite the entrance of the Temple which is on the west.');">¹⁷</span> - R'Ashi said, This Tanna holds that the whole of the altar stood in the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Temple court. So that the south side of the altar, being in fact nearest to the entrance of the Temple, is described as 'before the Lord'. V. fig. 2.');">¹⁸</span> R'Huna demurred, But the salting [of the meal-offering] is not repeated in Scripture, nevertheless it is indispensable! For it has been taught: The verse, It is a covenant of salt for ever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 19.');">¹⁹</span> signifies that there is