Menachot 52

וחישב עליה בין חוץ למקומו בין חוץ לזמנו פסול ואין בו כרת

he expressed the intention [of eating the remainder] outside the prescribed place or outside the prescribed time it is invalid, but there is no penalty of kareth; if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage is omitted in many MSS. The translation is based upon the text as emended by Sh. Mek.');">¹</span>

(ל"א) חישב עליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת דברי ר' אלעזר ור"ש

while it was in his right hand he expressed the intention [of eating the remainder] outside the prescribed place it is invalid but there is no penalty of kareth but if [he intended to eat it] outside the prescribed time it is piggul and there is also the penalty of kareth.

וחכ"א כיון שנתנו לשמאל פסלתו מתנתו מ"ט משום דבעי קדושה בכלי וכיון שנתנו לשמאל נעשה כדם שנשפך מצואר בהמה על הרצפה ואספו שפסול

This is the opinion of R'Eleazar and R'Simeon, But the Sages say, As soon as he transferred it into his left hand the transfer rendered it invalid, the reason being that it still required sanctification in a vessel, and since it has been transferred into the left hand it is on the same footing as when the blood of an offering had poured out from the throat on to the ground and had been gathered up, in which case it is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For did it not require sanctification in a vessel then the placing of the handful in the left hand would be regarded on the same footing as when the blood of an animal-offering had poured out from the vessel on to the ground, in which case all agree that it may be gathered up again and it is valid. Cf. Yoma 48a.');">²</span>

מכלל דר"א ור"ש לא בעו מתן כלי תיובתא דרב נחמן תיובתא

Hence it is clear that according to R'Eleazar and R'Simeon the putting into the vessel of ministry is not essential.

לרבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מסייעא לי' לרבי ינאי לימא תיהוי תיובתא

This surely refutes R'Nahman's view, and supports the view of R'Judah the son of R'Hiyya.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Baraitha states that he must transfer it back again to the right hand which conforms with R. Judah's teaching that if the hand is used it must be the right hand only.');">³</span>

אמר לך רבי ינאי אנא דאמרי כתנא דהקטר ולאו לצדדים קתני:

Is it also a refutation of R'Jannai's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Jannai who allows the offering of the handful in a potsherd would surely allow it to be offered in the left hand, nevertheless this Baraitha insists upon its being transferred back again into the right hand.');">⁴</span>

הקטיר קומצה פעמים כשרה: אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי פעמים ולא פעמי פעמים ור' יוחנן אמר פעמים ואפילו פעמי פעמים

- R'Jannai can answer, I am in agreement with the Tanna who taught the Baraitha concerning the burning [of the fat etc.], and the terms thereof are not to be taken as separate cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 166. According to that Baraitha it is permitted to offer the handful in the left hand.');">⁵</span>

מאי בינייהו א"ר זירא יש קומץ פחות משני זיתים ויש הקטרה פחותה מכזית איכא בינייהו

IF HE BURNT THE HANDFUL TWICE IT IS VALID.

ריב"ל סבר אין קומץ פחות משני זיתים ואין הקטרה פחותה מכזית ורבי יוחנן סבר יש קומץ פחות משני זיתים ויש הקטרה פחותה מכזית:

R'Joshua B'Levi said, Twice but not more than twice.

איתמר קומץ מאימתי מתיר שירים באכילה רבי חנינא אומר משמשלה בו את האור רבי יוחנן אמר משתצית בו את האור ברובו

But R'Johanan said, Twice and even more than twice.

אמר ליה רב יהודה לרבה בר רב יצחק אסברה לך טעמא דר' יוחנן אמר קרא (בראשית יט, כח) והנה עלה קיטור הארץ כקיטור הכבשן אין כבשן מעלה קיטור עד שתצית האור ברובו

What is the issue between them? - R'Zera answered, The issue between them is as to whether the handful may be less than the quantity of two olives' bulk and whether the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk counts as an offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is a burning of less than an olive's bulk'.');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רבין בר רב אדא לרבא אמרי תלמידיך אמר רב עמרם תניא אין לי אלא דברים שדרכן ליקרב בלילה כגון אברים ופדרים שמעלן ומקטירן מבוא השמש ומתעכלין והולכין כל הלילה כולה

R'Joshua B'Levi is of the opinion that the handful may not be less than two olives' bulk and also that the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk does not count as an offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if the handful, which must not be less than two olives' bulk, was divided equally into two parts there would be an olive's bulk for each burning, but this would not be so if it were divided into more than two parts.');">⁷</span>

דברים שדרכן ליקרב ביום כגון הקומץ והלבונה והקטרת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משוח ומנחת נסכים שמעלן ומקטירן מבוא השמש

but R'Johanan maintains that the handful may be less than the quantity of two olives' bulk and that the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk counts as an offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is therefore immaterial whether it is divided into two or more parts.');">⁸</span>

והא אמרת דרכן ליקרב ביום אלא עם בא השמש שמתעכלין והולכין כל הלילה מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ו, ב) זאת תורת העולה ריבה

It was stated: From what time does the handful render the remainder permissible to be eaten?

והא עם בא השמש לא משכחת לה שתצית האור ברובו לא קשיא כאן לקלוט כאן להתיר

R'Hanina says, As soon as the fire has taken hold of it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if only a part thereof.');">⁹</span>

רבי אלעזר מתני לה מבוא השמש ומוקים לה בפוקעין וכן כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי ינאי בפוקעין

and R'Johanan says, Only when the fire has burnt the greater part of it.

ומי אמר רבי ינאי הכי והא א"ר ינאי קטרת שפקעה מעל גבי המזבח אפילו קרטין שבה אין מחזירין אותן ותני רב חנינא בר מניומי בדבי ר"א בן יעקב (ויקרא ו, ג) אשר תאכל האש את העולה על המזבח עיכולי עולה אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר עיכולי קטרת סמי מיכן קטרת

Rab Judah said to Rabbah B'R'Isaac, I will explain to you the reason for R'Johanan's view; for it written, And lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XIX, 28. rhyevu ruyhe');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר אסי כי פשיט רבי אלעזר במנחות בעי הכי (בעי ר' אלעזר) קומץ שסידרו וסידר עליו את המערכה מהו דרך הקטרה בכך או אין דרך הקטרה בכך תיקו:

and a furnace does not send up smoke until the fire has burnt up the greater part.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And of the handful it is written (Lev. II, 2) , which would mean, and he shall cause the smoke () to go up.');">¹¹</span>

בעי חזקיה אברין שסידרן וסידר עליהן את המערכה מהו על העצים אמר רחמנא דוקא על העצים או דלמא כיון דכתיב קרא אחרינא אשר תאכל האש את העולה על המזבח אי בעי הכי עביד אי בעי הכי עביד תיקו:

Rabin B'R'Adda said to Raba, Your pupils report that R'Amram pointed out [the following difficulty]: It was taught: I only know that things that are usually offered by night, e.g. , the limbs and the fat parts of the offering, may be offered up and burnt after sunset and are allowed to continue burning throughout the night; but whence do I know that things that are usually offered by day, e.g. , the handful, the frankincense, the incense-offering, the meal-offering of the priests,the anointed High Priest's meal-offering and, the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, may also be offered up and burnt after sunset? - But have you not said, 'Things that are usually offered by day'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there can be no doubt at all that such may not be offered after sunset.');">¹²</span>

בעי רבי יצחק נפחא אברין שסידרן בצידי המערכה מהו אליבא דמ"ד על ממש לא תיבעי לך

Say rather: at sunset,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., just before sunset.');">¹³</span> - whence then do I know that these also are allowed to continue burning throughout the night? From the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 2. 'The law' is a comprehensive and all-inclusive expression, and here teaches that one law applies to all things that are brought up on the altar.');">¹⁴</span> an inclusive expression. Now if it is offered up at sunset it can hardly be possible that the fire will have burnt the greater portion of it [by sunset]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the handful has not been offered before the sunset of that day it becomes invalid; consequently, since it may be placed upon the altar just before sunset, as soon as the fire has taken hold of it it is deemed to be offered, which is contrary to R. Johanan.');">¹⁵</span> - This is no difficulty, for here [in the latter cas it deals with the handful being taken up, and there with it rendering the remainder permissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is true that as soon as the fire has taken hold of it it is deemed to be offered, but only in the sense that it has been taken up and accepted by the altar as an offering on the same day before sunset, so that it is valid. But, maintains R. Johanan, it will only render the remainder permissible to be eaten when the fire has burnt the greater part of it.');">¹⁶</span> R'Eleazar reads [in the above]: 'after sunset', and explains it as referring to the pieces that have burst off the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And these may be put back upon the altar throughout the night. The handful, however, had been placed on the altar before sunset.');">¹⁷</span> And so, too, when R'Dimi came [from Palestine] he explained it in the name of R'Jannai as referring to the pieces that had burst off the altar. But could R'Jannai have said so? Surely R'Jannai has said, Any part of th incense which had burst off the altar, even if it was a whole grain, may not be put back! Moreover, R'Hanina B'Minyomi taught at the school of R'Eliezer B'Jacob: It is written, Whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 3.');">¹⁸</span> that is, you may put back unconsumed parts of the burnt-offering [if they had burst off the altar], but you must not put back unconsumed parts of the incense! - Omit 'incense'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the Baraitha quoted by R. Amram according to which portions of incense which had burst off the altar may be put back.');">¹⁹</span> R'Assi said, When R'Eleazar was studying the laws of the meal-offering he raised the following question: How is it if he placed the handful [upon the altar] and then put the wood-pile on top of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Normally the wood-pile is arranged upon the altar and the parts of the offering are put on top of the wood.');">²⁰</span> Is this regarded as a way of burning or not? - This question remains undecided. Hezekiah raised the question: How is it if he placed the limbs [of an offering upon the altar] and then put the wood-pile above them? [Shall we say,] since the Divine Law says, Upon the wood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 8: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces . . in order upon the wood . . which is upon the altar.');">²¹</span> then they must actually be upon the wood; or, since there is another verse which reads, Whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid VI, 3, which verse shows that the burnt-offering was put actually upon the surface of the altar and not necessarily upon the wood.');">²²</span> he may do it either the one way or the other? - This, too, remains undecided. R'Isaac Nappaha raised the question: How is it if he placed the limbs by the side of the wood-pile? Of course according to him who maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 96a.');">²³</span> that 'upon' must be taken in its literal meaning, there can be no question here,