Menachot 100a — the Talmud in English

And lest you say: Just as its mouth

of Gehinnom

is narrow, so all of it is narrow—

The verse states [Isaiah 30:33]: “For arranged from yesterday [the second day of Creation, which has a yesterday but has no day-before-yesterday] is the Tophet [Gehinnom, for everyone who is enticed by his inclination falls there]; it too has been prepared for the king

,

he has deepened, he has widened

[once Gehinnom has deepened, it widens, for only its mouth is narrow], “its pile is fire and abundant wood; the breath of the Lord burns in it like a stream of sulfur.”

And lest you say: For the king—

for a Torah scholar who separated himself from Torah

Gehinnom was not prepared

—

The verse states

there, in Isaiah: “

It too

—Gehinnom—

has been prepared for the king.”

And lest you say: There is no wood

in Gehinnom—

The verse states

there, in Isaiah: “

Its pile is fire and abundant wood.”

And lest you say: This is its reward

for Torah, that it saves from Gehinnom, as Elihu said to Job, while it has no other reward—

The verse states

at the end of Elihu’s words there: “

And your table’s rest is full of fat,”

whatever is placed upon your table will be full of fat and richness [as in, “You anointed my head with oil”;] and this means: moreover, you will delight in spiritual pleasure in the World to Come; [Metzudot].

We learned in the Mishna:

If Yom Kippur occurred to be on Shabbat...

If it occurred to be on the eve of Shabbat, the goat of Yom Kippur is eaten that evening, and the Babylonians eat it while it is raw, because their appetite is strong:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

They are not Babylonians

those gluttons

but Alexandrians

[from Alexandria of Egypt]

they are; and because

the Sages of the Land of Israel

hate the Babylonians, they call

them

those—

and all frivolous people and perpetrators of improper acts—

after

the

Babylonians.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabbi Yose says: They are not Babylonians, but Alexandrians; and because they hate the Babylonians, they call them by the name of Babylonians.

Rabbi Judah said to him—

whose family was from Babylonia—to Rabbi Yose

: May your mind be at rest, for you have set

my

mind at rest!

The Mishna and the sugya before us are explained according to Rashi’s method, and in accordance with the version of the Shita Mekubetzet in his words.

Mishna:

If he arranged the bread

at its proper time

on Shabbat

and the bread was sanctified on the Table,

and

if he

arranged the bowls

on the Table

after Shabbat

not in accordance with their law—

And he burned the bowls on Shabbat

the following, that is, although he burned the bowls on the following Shabbat, like the other bowls that are burned on the second Shabbat:

The bread is

disqualified,

for the bowls were not on the Table from Shabbat to Shabbat, as is their law, and they are not fit to permit the bread for eating—

And included in the disqualification is that he cannot leave this bread for the following Shabbat, so that it will remain there until the Shabbat after it; for since the bread was arranged on the Table at its proper time, the bread was sanctified on the Table, and he can no longer keep it except until the following Shabbat, because after that it will become disqualified through linah, once the night passes over it.

And one is not liable for it—

for this bread whose bowls were arranged not according to their law—

for:

a.

Pigul:

If he burned the bowls—which are what permit the bread for eating—with the intention of eating the bread after its time, it is not pigul, because anything whose permitting agent was not performed according to its commandment is not subject to pigul.

b. And not for

notar:

If he ate the bread after the conclusion of the following Shabbat, he is not liable for it, because the prohibition of notar applies only to something that was fit for eating and remained over, whereas this was never fit for eating, since the bowls did not permit it.

c.

And

not for

impurity:

If he ate the bread while his body was impure, he is not subject to karet, as one who eats other consecrated food is, because one is liable for impurity only for what is permitted to the pure, whereas this bread was not permitted even to the pure.

And if

he arranged the bread and the bowls on Shabbat

the first, according to their law,

and

however

he burned the bowls after Shabbat

the second, not according to their law—

The bread is

disqualified

from being eaten, because the permitting agent was not performed according to its commandment; and it is disqualified from being left until the following Shabbat, for it was sanctified on the Table at its proper time and became disqualified through linah.

And one is not liable for it for pigul, notar, or impurity,

for the same reasons explained above, when the permitting agent was performed not according to its commandment because of the deficiency of time.

And if

he arranged the bread and the bowls after Shabbat

the first, not according to their law,

and he burned the bowls on Shabbat

the second, the bread is disqualified from being eaten, for neither it nor its permitting agents were on the Table according to their law, and one is also not liable for it for pigul, notar, or impurity. However, concerning the bread’s disqualification for the following Shabbat, this manner differs from the other manners; and

what should he do:

Там мы учили

He shall leave it until the following Shabbat,

for it will not become disqualified through linah, because

even if it is on the Table for many days

before Shabbat

that is of no consequence,

that is, the fact that the bread was on the Table before Shabbat, even for several days, is of no consequence for disqualifying it through linah; for the Table sanctifies the bread only when it is arranged upon it at its proper time, on Shabbat, and then it becomes disqualified through linah after the conclusion of the second Shabbat.

Gemara:

We learned there

in tractate Yoma, in the account of the acts of the High Priest on the night of Yom Kippur and his service on Yom Kippur:

When the time arrived for the day to become light, to begin the service,

the appointed officer said to them

over the lotteries [through which they determined: who would slaughter and who would sprinkle

]: Go out and see

on the wall or on the roof

if

the day has become light and

the time for slaughtering

the daily offering has arrived! They went out and saw, and

if it had arrived

—that is, the day had become light—then

the one who sees says “

Свет лица всего востока до Хеврона

Barkai [a term referring to a window, as in, “His lightning lit up the world”; that is, the day has become light!]”

Mattithiah ben Samuel,

who himself was appointed over the lotteries, would say

[asking]

the one standing on the roof:

Has

the face of the entire east become light, as far as Hebron

the place where the Patriarchs are buried [and in order to recall their merit

]? And he,

the one who sees,

says: Yes.

а когда стала известна их ошибка,

And why did they need this,

to send messengers to verify that the day had indeed become light? Because

once the light of the moon rose, and they mistakenly thought

that they had confused the light of the moon with the light of dawn

that the east had become light,

and

they slaughtered the daily offering

on that basis,

and

when their error became known,

they took it

the daily offering

to the place of burning,

for it had become disqualified through slaughtering at night.

And

when the east became light,

they brought the High Priest down to the immersion chamber; this was the rule in the Temple:

Anyone who relieves himself

[for a bowel movement] is

required to immerse.

And anyone who urinates

between his legs is

required to sanctify hands and feet.

Teach

concerning that Mishna in Yoma

the father of Rabbi

Avin:

Not only—

the daily offering slaughtered at night

alone

is taken to the place of burning,

but even:

A bird burnt offering that was pinched at night

whose proper time is during the day—

And a meal offering whose handful was removed at night,

whose proper time is also during the day,

shall be taken to the place of burning.

Гемара отвечает на этот вопрос:

And we raise an objection to it:

Granted, the bird burnt offering

that was pinched at night—it is indeed understandable that it should be burned,

because it is impossible to return it

[it cannot be returned and pinched again during the day].

But a meal offering,

whose handful was removed at night—why should it be burned!? After all:

It is possible to return the handful to its place and remove a handful during the day

[he can return the handful to its place and again remove a handful during the day]!?

The Gemara says regarding this difficulty:

He,

the father of Rabbi Avin,

taught it

this beraita,

and

he too

said it:

Service vessels sanctify

even

not at their proper times,

that is, he placed and sanctified the handful in a vessel, as is its law, for it requires placement in a vessel after the removal of the handful, and the vessel sanctified the handful to be called a handful, even though the vessel’s sanctification was not at its proper time; and once it was sanctified to be a handful, it can no longer be returned and a handful removed again, for it became disqualified because of lacking its proper time.

It was objected

to this principle—that service vessels sanctify not at their proper times—from what was taught:

Everything whose offering is during the day,

that is, whose law is that it be offered during the day, is

sanctified

by a service vessel

during the day

alone.

Everything whose offering is at night: it is

sanctified both during the day and at night.

Шабата и в Шабат воскурил чаши,

It is therefore proven from what we learned: “

Everything whose offering is during the day is sanctified during the day,”

that

during the day it is

indeed sanctified, but

at night it is not

sanctified. How, then, do you say that the handful—whose offering is during the day—is sanctified in a service vessel even at night!?

And we answer: Indeed, it

is not sanctified—

that which enters a service vessel not at its proper time—

to be offered, but it is sanctified

even at night in order

to become disqualified

through linah or through lacking its proper time, as in the case before us.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

from our Mishna:

If he arranged the bread and the bowls after

the

Shabbat, and burned the bowls on Shabbat, what should he do? He shall leave it until the following Shabbat,

for it did not become disqualified through linah,

for even if it is on the Table for many days

before Shabbat

that is of no consequence,

and this is because it was not arranged at its proper time.

And if it should enter your mind that service vessels sanctify

even

not at their proper times

to become disqualified, then

let it be sanctified

by virtue of its having been on the Table, even before its proper time, and

become disqualified

through linah!?

That is, the reason for the law that the bread is not sanctified to become disqualified through linah by virtue of being on the Table before Shabbat is that it was not at its proper time; and it is established from our Mishna that service vessels do not sanctify not at their proper times, even to become disqualified through linah!?

Rav said:

Indeed,

the one who raised the objection raised it well [

the one who objected from our Mishna objected well], however, behold

the father of Rabbi Avin also

did not say this on his own, such that his words were rejected on account of our Mishna, but rather

stated a baraita [

he was reciting a baraita in accordance with his words], and if so, we must toil to reconcile matters so that the words of the baraita do not contradict our Mishna; and thus we have to say:

He holds—

the tanna of the baraita—

night is not a deficiency of time, but days are a deficiency of time;

that is to say, indeed, service vessels sanctify only at their proper time; however, the baraita is dealing with a meal-offering from which a handful was taken at night, and its time will arrive on the following day during the daytime, and the lack of time on account of night is not considered a lack of time, whereas in our Mishna, where days are lacking until its proper time, it is not sanctified, even to become disqualified.