Menachot 43

כי זכי להו רחמנא לישראל דאית להו לשכה לכהנים דלית להו לשכה לא זכי להו רחמנא קמ"ל

the Divine Law granted this privilege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of the Temple supply of salt for their offerings.');">¹</span> only to Israelites since they have a [share in the] chamber, but not to the priests as they have no [share in the] chamber; we are therefore taught [that this is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the Beth din expressly granted them this concession. V. Shek. VII, 7.');">²</span> Now as to wood, concerning which the Tanna is certain that it is taken from the public supplies, whence does he know it? From the following: I might have thought that if a man said, 'I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering', he must provide the wood himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he must bring from his house'.');">³</span>

ועצים דפשיטא ליה לתנא דמשל ציבור מנלן דתניא יכול האומר הרי עלי עולה יביא עצים מתוך ביתו כדרך שמביא נסכים מתוך ביתו ת"ל (ויקרא א, ח) על העצים אשר על האש אשר על המזבח מה מזבח משל ציבור אף עצים ואש משל ציבור דברי רבי אלעזר בר ר"ש

just as he must provide the drink-offerings himself; the verse therefore states, On the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 12.');">⁴</span> as the altar was [set up] out of the public funds so the wood and the fire shall also come out of the public funds. So R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, R'Eleazar B'Shammua' said, As the altar has not been used by a layman, so the wood and the fire shall not have been used by a layman. What is the [practical] difference between them? - The difference between them is [as to whether] new<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., new wood which had never been used for any other purpose. R. Eleazar b. Shammua' insists upon new wood, whereas the first Tanna allows even used wood. ohdhrun');">⁵</span>

רבי אלעזר בן שמוע אומר מה מזבח שלא נשתמש בו הדיוט אף עצים ואש שלא נשתמש בהן הדיוט מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו חדתי

[wood is necessary or not]. And [can it be said that] old wood is not [allowed]? But it is written, And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, the oxen for the burnt-offering, and the morigim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">⁶</span> and the furniture of the oxen for the wood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Sam. XXIV, 22.');">⁷</span>

ועתיקי לא והכתיב (שמואל ב כד, כב) ויאמר ארונה אל דוד יקח ויעל אדוני המלך הטוב בעיניו ראה הבקר לעולה והמוריגים וכלי הבקר לעצים הכא נמי בחדתי

- These were also new. What are morigim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">⁶</span> - 'Ulla said, It is a 'turbel bed',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' **, a threshing sledge consisting of a wooden platform studded with sharp pieces of flint or with iron teeth (Jast.)');">⁸</span> And what is a 'turbel bed'? - Rab Judah said, A 'goat with hooks',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. A.Z. ');">⁹</span>

מאי מוריגים אמר עולא מטה של טרבל מאי מטה של טרבל אמר רב יהודה עיזא דקורקסא דדשו בה דשתאי אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה (ישעיהו מא, טו) הנה שמתיך למורג חרוץ חדש בעל פיפיות תדוש הרים:

wherewith the threshers thresh. Said R'Joseph, What is the Scriptural [evidence]? It is written, Behold, I make thee a new morag having sharp teeth; thou shalt thresh the mountains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLI, 15. It is evident from this verse that is a threshing instrument.');">¹⁰</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE HANDFUL OF ONE MEAL-OFFERING WAS MIXED WITH THE HANDFUL OF ANOTHER, OR WITH A PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These meal-offerings are wholly burnt and therefore correspond to the handful of an ordinary meal-offering.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתערב קומצה בקומץ חבירתה במנחת כהנים במנחת כהן משיח במנחת נסכים כשרה

OR WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED [HIGH] PRIEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These meal-offerings are wholly burnt and therefore correspond to the handful of an ordinary meal-offering.');">¹¹</span> OR WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These meal-offerings are wholly burnt and therefore correspond to the handful of an ordinary meal-offering.');">¹¹</span> IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the handful, as well as the other meal-offering.');">¹²</span> IS VALID.

רבי יהודה אומר במנחת כהן משיח במנחת נסכים פסולה שזו בלילתה עבה וזו בלילתה רכה והן בולעות זו מזו:

R'JUDAH SAYS, IF [IT WAS MIXED] WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED [HIGH] PRIEST OR WITH THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS, IT IS INVALID, FOR SINCE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc, the handful of the ordinary meal-offering. It had one log of oil to the tenth of an ephah of flour.');">¹³</span> IS THICK AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THE OTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest's meal-offering required three logs of oil to the tenth of an ephah of flour; while for the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings the mixture was one tenth of an ephah of flour and three logs of oil for a lamb, two tenths and four logs for a ram, and three tenths and six logs for a bullock.');">¹⁴</span> IS THIN, EACH ABSORBS FROM THE OTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are therefore invalid; the handful because it sucked some oil from the other meal-offering so that it has had too much oil, and the other meal-offering because it has had too little oil.');">¹⁵</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 77b, Hul. 87b.');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנן התם דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם כשר נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם בהמה או בדם חיה רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים רבי יהודה אומר אין דם מבטל דם

If the blood [of a sacrifice] was mixed with water and it still has the appearance of blood, it is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sprinkling upon the altar.');">¹⁷</span> If it was mixed with wine, it must be regarded as though it was water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if an equal quantity of water when mixed with this blood would not alter the appearance of the blood, it is valid.');">¹⁸</span> If it was mixed with the blood of [unconsecrated] cattle or of a wild animal, it must be regarded as though it was water. R'Judah says, Blood cannot neutralize blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the blood of a sacrifice, even though mixed in a considerably larger quantity of unconsecrated blood, still retains its identity and sacred character, and the mixture is valid for sprinkling. For R. Judah is of the opinion that in a mixture of like kinds, either liquids with liquids or solids with solids, one element cannot neutralize the other, irrespective of the quantities of each.');">¹⁹</span>

א"ר יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא טז, יח) ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר הדבר ידוע שדמו של פר מרובה מדמו של שעיר רבנן סברי

R'Johanan said, Both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Tanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rabbis') and R. Judah.');">²⁰</span> [derived their views by] expounding the same verse, viz. , And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 18, in connection with the service on the Day of Atonement. The priest had to mix the blood of both animals and sprinkle it upon the altar; cf. Yoma 53b.');">²¹</span> Now it is well known that the blood of a bullock is more than the blood of a goat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless the goat's blood, whose quantity is considerably less than that of the bullock, has not 'lost itself' i.e., it has not become neutralized in the mixture, since Scripture expressly names each blood separately.');">²²</span> the Rabbis therefore conclude