Menachot 53

דעל העצים כתיב

for here is written, Upon the wood. The question arises only according to him who maintains that 'upon' may mean 'near to'.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד על בסמוך מאי ה"נ על בסמוך או דלמא על העצים דומיא דעל המזבח מה התם על ממש אף ה"נ על ממש תיקו:

How is it then? Do we also explain 'upon' here as 'near to'; or perhaps, since the phrases 'upon the wood' and 'upon the altar' are in juxtaposition, as in the latter phrase 'upon' is taken in its litera meaning so in the former 'upon' is to be taken in its literal meaning? - This, too, remains undecided.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הקומץ מיעוטו מעכב את רובו עשרון מיעוטו מעכב את רובו היין מיעוטו מעכב את רובו השמן מיעוטו מעכב את רובו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>OF THE HANDFUL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the smaller part hinders the larger part'. The offerings mentioned must be absolutely whole, but if they were lacking even the smallest quantity they are invalid as offerings.');">¹</span> OF THE TENTH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenth of an ephah of flour prescribed for the meal-offering.');">²</span>

הסולת והשמן מעכבין זה את זה הקומץ והלבונה מעכבין זה את זה:

THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE WINE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which formed part of the drink-offerings offered with most sacrifices, cf. Num. XV, 4ff: a half-hin for a bullock, a third-hin for a ram, and a quarter-hin for a lamb.');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, ב) מלא קומצו תרי זימני

THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE OIL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Offered with the drink-offerings in the same quantity as prescribed for the wine (v. prec. n.) , or the log of oil required for the freewill meal-offering.');">⁴</span>

עשרון מיעוטו מעכב את רובו מאי טעמא אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, ב) מסלתה שאם חסרה כל שהוא פסולה

THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. OF THE FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'<big><b>GEMARA:</b></big>

היין מיעוטו מעכב את רובו ככה

[OF THE HANDFUL THE ABSENCE OF THE SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE.] Why is it so? - Because Scripture stated his handful twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. II, 2 and V, 12. This repetition signifies that it must be absolutely whole and that every part thereof is indispensable. v');">⁵</span> OF THE TENTH THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE.

השמן מיעוטו מעכב את רובו דמנחת נסכים ככה ומנחת נדבה אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, ב) ומשמנה שאם חסר כל שהוא פסולה

Why? - Because it is written, Of the fine flour thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 2. This rule is derived from the superfluous suffix in the word, corresponding to the Eng. 'thereof'.');">⁶</span> [signifying that] if any part thereof was lacking it is invalid

השמן והסולת מעכבין זה את זה מסלתה ומשמנה מגרשה ומשמנה

OF THE WINE THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. [Because it is written,] Thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 11. The term 'thus' indicates that it must be offered in the manner prescribed without any variations whatsoever.');">⁷</span>

הקומץ והלבונה מעכבין זה את זה (ויקרא ב, ב) על כל לבונתה (ויקרא ו, ח) ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה:

OF THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF THE] SMALLEST PART INVALIDATES THE WHOLE. [As to the oil] of the drink-offerings, [because it is written], Thus, and of the freewill meal-offering, because it is written, An of the oil thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 2. This rule is derived from the superfluous suffix in the word, corresponding to the Eng. 'thereof'.');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שני שעירי יה"כ מעכבין זה את זה שני כבשי עצרת מעכבין זה את זה ב' חלות מעכבות זו את זו

[signifying that] if any part thereof was lacking it is invalid. OF THE FINE FLOUR AND THE OIL THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER, [Because it is written,] Of the fine flour thereof and of the oil thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 2. This rule is derived from the superfluous suffix in the word, corresponding to the Eng. 'thereof'.');">⁶</span>

שני סדרין מעכבין זה את זה שני בזיכין מעכבין זה את זה הסדרין והבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה

and further, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 16. According to Rabbinic interpretation 'bruised corn' and 'fine flour' are identical save that the former is applied to the 'Omer-offering. Hence there is a repetition of the items to indicate their indispensability.');">⁸</span> OF THE HANDFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'[Because it is written,] With all the frankincense thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 2.');">⁹</span>

ב' מינים שבנזיר ג' שבפרה וד' שבתודה וד' שבלולב וארבע שבמצורע מעכבין זה את זה

and further, And all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 8.');">¹⁰</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>OF THE TWO HE-GOATS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVI, 5.');">¹¹</span>

שבעה הזאות שבפרה מעכבות זו את זו ז' הזיות שעל בין הבדים שעל הפרכת שעל מזבח הזהב מעכבות זו את זו:

OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE TWO LAMBS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 19.');">¹²</span> OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE TWO LOAVES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Offered with the lambs on the Feast of Weeks, cf. ibid. 17.');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> שני שעירי יה"כ מעכבין זה את זה חוקה

THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE TWO ROWS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. XXIV, 5ff.');">¹⁴</span> [OF THE SHEWBREAD] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE TWO DISHES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. XXIV, 5ff.');">¹⁴</span>

שני כבשי עצרת מעכבין זה את זה הויה שתי חלות הויה

[OF FRANKINCENSE] THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE ROWS AND THE DISHES THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER'OF THE TWO KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE OFFERING OF THE NAZIRITE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unleavened leaves and unleavened wafers; v. Num. VI, 15.');">¹⁵</span> OF THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool; v. ibid. XIX, 6.');">¹⁶</span>

שני סדרין חוקה שני בזיכין חוקה הסדרין והבזיכין חוקה

OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unleavened cakes, unleavened wafers, cakes of soaked fine flour, and leavened cakes; v. Lev. VII, 12, 13. ckik');">¹⁷</span> OF THE FOUR KINDS [OF PLANTS] USED FOR THE LULAB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , the palm-branch, which with the citron, the myrtle and the willow branches, was used in the Temple and Synagogue service on the Feast of Tabernacles; v. ibid. XXIII, 40.');">¹⁸</span>

שני מינים שבנזיר דכתיב כן יעשה ג' שבפרה חוקה

AND OF THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE [PURIFICATION OF THE] LEPER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and the two living birds; v. ibid. XIV, 6.');">¹⁹</span> THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS.

ארבעה שבתודה דאיתקש לנזיר דכתיב (ויקרא ז, יג) על זבח תודת שלמיו ואמר מר שלמיו לרבות שלמי נזיר

OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 4.');">²⁰</span> THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS.

וארבעה שבמצורע דכתי' (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת תהיה תורת המצורע וד' שבלולב (ויקרא כג, מ) ולקחתם לקיחה תמה

OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat on the Day of Atonement; v. Lev. XVI, 14, 15.');">²¹</span> AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the blood of the abovementioned offerings (v. p. 172, n. 13) and also of the blood of the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error (Lev. IV, 17,18) . and of the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error (ibid 6, 7) .');">²²</span>

אמר רב חנן בר רבא ל"ש אלא שאין לו אבל יש לו אין מעכבין

THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>OF THE TWO HE-GOATS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE [ABSENCE OF ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 34. The term 'statute' used in connection with any law or ceremony implies the absolute indispensability of the rites connected therewith.');">²³</span>

מיתיבי ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות וב' מהם אין עושין פירות העושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לשאין עושין ושאין עושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לעושין פירות ואין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בהן עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת

OF THE TWO LAMBS OF THE FEAST OF WEEKS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHER - for the expression 'shall be' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 17. The expression 'shall be' invariably indicates indispensability.');">²⁴</span> THE TWO LOAVES - for the expression 'shall be' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 17. The expression 'shall be' invariably indicates indispensability.');">²⁴</span>

וכן ישראל בהרצאה עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת שנאמר (עמוס ט, ו) הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה

THE TWO ROWS - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIV, 9.');">²⁵</span> THE TWO DISHES - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIV, 9.');">²⁵</span>

תנאי היא דתניא לולב בין אגוד בין שאינו אגוד כשר ר' יהודה אומר אגוד כשר שאינו אגוד פסול

THE ROWS AND THE DISHES - for the term 'statute' is used therewith. THE TWO KINDS [OF CAKES] USED IN THE OFFERING OF THE NAZIRITE - for it is written, So he must do.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 21.');">²⁶</span>

מאי טעמא דר' יהודה גמר קיחה קיחה מאגודת אזוב

THE THREE KINDS USED FOR THE RED COW - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 2.');">²⁷</span> THE FOUR KINDS OF CAKES USED IN THE THANK-OFFERING - for [the thank-offering] has been placed side by side with the offering of the Nazirite, in the verse, With the sacrifice of his peace-offerings f thanksgiving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 13.');">²⁸</span>

מה להלן באגודה אף כאן באגודה ורבנן לא גמרי קיחה קיחה

and the Master said, Of his peace-offerings, includes the peace-offering of the Nazirite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 78a.');">²⁹</span> THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LEPER - for it is written, This shall be the law of the leper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 2. o,jeku jeku o,');">³⁰</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא לולב מצוה לאוגדו ואם לא אגדו כשר כמאן אי כרבי יהודה לא אגדו אמאי כשר אי רבנן מאי מצוה

THE FOUR KINDS USED FOR THE LULAB - for it is written, And ye shall take,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 40. The Heb. is interpreted as though divided into two words: , 'and he shall take', and , 'wholly' 'completely'; hence all the four kinds must be taken together.');">³¹</span> signifying the taking of them all.

לעולם רבנן ומאי מצוה משום (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו:

R'Hanan B'Abba said, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the absence of any one kind invalidates the others.');">³²</span> was taught only in the case where he did not have them at all, but where he had them all one does not invalidate the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the purposes of the precept they need not be taken bound together in one hand.');">³³</span>

שבע הזאות שבפרה מעכבות זו את זו חוקה

An objection was raised against him. It was taught: Of the four kinds used for the lulab two are fruit-bearing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ethrog (the citron) and the lulab (the palm branch) .');">³⁴</span>

שבע הזאות שעל בין הבדים ושעל מזבח הזהב ושעל הפרוכת מעכבות זו את זו דיה"כ כתיב חוקה

and two are not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The myrtle and the willow.');">³⁵</span> those which bear fruits must be joined to those which bear no fruits and those which bear no fruits must be joined to those which bear fruits.

דפר כהן משוח ודפר העלם דבר של ציבור ודשעירי עבודת כוכבים כדתניא (ויקרא ד, כ) ועשה לפר כאשר עשה לפר מה ת"ל לכפול בהזאות

And a man does not fulfil his obligation unless they are all bound in one band. And so it is with Israel's conciliation with God, [it is achieved] only when they are all in one band, as it is said, That buildet his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his band upon the earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amos IX, 6. The people are founded and established on earth only when they are in one band - that is, when all the sections of the community are united, the righteous (the fruit-bearing) and the unrighteous (the non-fruit-bearing) ; this is symbolized by the taking and binding together in one band of the four species. It is evident therefore from this Baraitha that the four species must be bound together, contra R. Hanan.');">³⁶</span> - This is a matter of dispute between Tannaim. For it was taught: The lulab is valid whether it be bound with the others or not; but R'Judah says, If it is bound with the others it is valid, and if it is not so bound it is not valid. What is the r for R'Judah's view? - He draws an analogy by means of the expression 'taking' used [both here and] also in connection with the bunch of hyssop:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in the purification rites of the leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4.');">³⁷</span> as there the kinds must be bound in one bunch, so here they must be bound in one band. The Rabbis, however, do not draw this analogy by means of the expression 'taking'. With whose view then would the following Baraitha agree? For it was taught: It is a meritorious act to bind the lulab with the other species; nevertheless if one did not bind it, it is valid! If with R'Judah's view, why then is it valid if one did not bind it? And if it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, why does it say 'It is a meritorious act'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to the Rabbis it is immaterial whether they are bound together or not.');">³⁸</span> - Indeed it agrees with the view of the Rabbis, and it is a meritorious act only on the principle of This is my God and I will beautify him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XV, 2. Thus it is a meritorious act generally to perform the precepts in the most beautiful manner possible.');">³⁹</span> OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS [OF THE BLOOD] OF THE RED COW, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS - for the term 'statute' is used therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 2.');">⁴⁰</span> OF THE SEVEN SPRINKLINGS BETWEEN THE STAVES OF THE ARK, AND OF THOSE TOWARDS THE VEIL AND UPON THE GOLDEN ALTAR, THE [OMISSION OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS. As for the offerings of the Day of Atonement, because the term 'statute' is used therewith;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 34.');">⁴¹</span> and as for the bullock offered when the anointed High Priest sinned in error, and the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry, because of the following teaching: It is written, Thus shall he do with the bullock, as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 20. This verse is stated in connection with the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and its purport apparently is to direct that the service of this offering be performed in the same manner as the offering of the anointed High Priest mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. On examination, however, it will be seen that this injunction is superfluous, since all the details of the service, as stated in connection with the foregoing offering, are repeated here in full.');">⁴²</span> Wherefore is it written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 20. This verse is stated in connection with the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error, and its purport apparently is to direct that the service of this offering be performed in the same manner as the offering of the anointed High Priest mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. On examination, however, it will be seen that this injunction is superfluous, since all the details of the service, as stated in connection with the foregoing offering, are repeated here in full.');">⁴²</span> In order to repeat thereby the laws of the sprinkling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus rendering the sprinklings indispensable.');">⁴³</span>