Menachot 11a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“He took a handful, and a pebble or a grain of salt came up in his hand” ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

“or a pinch of frankincense—it is disqualified.”

And we raise an objection:

“All these”—

why do I need them?

And we answer:

“It is necessary. For if it had taught only a pebble,”

we would have thought that specifically this is so

because it is not fit for offering;

therefore it disqualifies it because the place of the pebble is missing from the measure of the handful,

but salt ,

which is fit for offering,

for after the handful was upon the altar, he would salt it,

say that it is valid.

And if it had taught salt,

we would have thought that specifically this disqualifies

because it was not established together with the meal-offering from the outset,

but was salted only upon the altar.

But frankincense, which was established together with the meal-offering from the outset,

which he brings with the meal-offering,

say that it is valid; it teaches us

that it is not.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Because they said: a deficient or excessive handful is disqualified.”

And we raise an objection:

“Why specifically

is it disqualified when a pebble and so forth came up in his hand

because of deficiency or excess? Let it follow that it is disqualified because of an interposition,”

for the pebble interposes between his hand and the flour [or it may be explained: an interposition between flour and flour, and it appears as two half-handfuls, Rashi], and an interposition disqualifies in consecrated matters?

And we answer:

“Rabbi Yirmeya said: On the side.”

The case is that the pebble is beside the thumb, or the ring finger is at the side of the flour; now the pebble does not interpose between his hand and the flour [nor between flour and flour], but there is deficiency.

Abaye said to Rava: How does one take the handful?

He said to him: As people take handfuls—

that is, with all the fingers. The Gemara now assumes that he actually takes the handful with all the fingers, with flour between all his fingers.

He raised an objection to him

from what we learned concerning a person’s five fingers.

“This is the little finger”—

the smallest finger—for the measure of the breastplate, whose length was a span.

“This is the ring finger”—

the finger beside the little finger—from which the taking of the handful begins.

“This is the middle finger”—

with which the measure of a cubit is measured.

“This is the index finger”—

which the kohen dips into the blood.

“This is the thumb”—

for the law of the thumb of a leper.

And it proves that he does not take the handful with all the fingers, but begins only with the finger called “the ring finger”?

And we answer: What we said, that he takes the handful as people take handfuls—with all the fingers,

“to level it”

we said. If he took the handful and flour came out from the side of the fingers toward the thumb or the little finger, he erases it with these fingers and levels it, for the handful must not be heaped.

And now we explain:

“How does he perform”

the taking of the handful, since we said that he begins to take it from the ring finger?

Rav Zutra bar Tovya said that Rav said: He covers

bends

his three fingers until he reaches the palm of his hand—

and takes the handful.

It was also taught thus:

it is written,

“the fullness of his handful”; one might say, heaped—

heaped.

The verse says, “with his handful.” If

“with his handful,” one might say

that he takes

with the tips of his fingers

and does not reach the palm of his hand,

the verse says, “the fullness of his handful.” How so? He covers his three fingers over his palm, and takes the handful.

“With a pan and with a deep pan,”

after they have been baked, he breaks them into pieces and then takes the handful; the pieces are coarse, and when he takes the handful they emerge and protrude beyond the three fingers with which he takes it. He therefore

erases with his thumb from above, and with his little finger from below,

in order to level the handful,

and this is

a difficult service in the Temple,

for he must level it so that it is neither deficient nor excessive in relation to the handful.

And we raise an objection: Is

this

alone a difficult service,

and nothing else!?

But there is pinching, and there is the taking of handfuls of the incense, concerning which it is said elsewhere that this is a difficult service?

And we answer:

Rather,

say:

“This is one of the difficult services in the Temple.”

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me: “the fullness of his handful”—

as people take handfuls,

that is, he inserts his hand extended, with the little finger downward, and presses his hand into the flour until the flour enters his hand, and he takes the handful.

Rav Pappa raised a question: If he took the handful with the tips of his fingers,

that is, he inserted the tips of his fingers into the flour while his palm was toward the flour, and took the fullness of his handful up to his palm—

what is the law?

If he took the handful from the sides,

that is, he placed the back of his hand into the flour and moved it across the surface of the flour until the flour entered his hand from its sides—

what is the law?

If he took the handful from below upward,

that is, he thrust the tips of his fingers into the flour, with the back of his hand facing the flour, and took the handful upward,

what is the law?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me: “the fullness of his cupped hands,”

which is written concerning the incense of Yom Kippur, means

as people cup their hands,

that they insert the sides of their hands and cup.

If he cupped with the tips of his fingers,

as above concerning the handful,

what is the law? From the sides, what is the law? From below upward, what is the law? If he cupped with this one and this one—

in each hand separately,

and

afterward

brought one handful alongside the other—

what is the law?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Rav Pappa raised a question: If he attached

stuck

the handful to the wall

of the vessel

when sanctifying it in the vessel,

what is the law?

Do we require it to be inside a vessel, and it is so,

for the handful is inside the vessel,

or perhaps we require placement inside it, and it is not so,

for it is attached to its wall and is not placed in it?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Bar bar Rav Ashi raised a question: He turned over the vessel and attached the handful to the bottom

at its bottom

of the vessel,

as, for example, the vessel has a receptacle also on its back, and he placed it in that receptacle,

what is the law?

We require placement inside it, and it is so; or perhaps we require it in its proper manner, and it is not so,

for when he places it on its inverted side, it is not placed in its proper manner.

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Mishna:

If he increased its oil,

of the meal-offering, by placing in it more than a log, or

decreased its oil,

or

decreased its frankincense,

whose measure is the fullness of a handful—

it is disqualified.

Gemara:

And we consider it:

“What are the circumstances of ‘he increased its oil’?”

Rabbi Elazar said: For example, he designated two log

of oil for it, and mixed them with it, so that it appeared like two meal-offerings.

And we challenge this:

“Let us establish it as a case in which he mixed into it

a little

ordinary oil, or

or

oil of another one,”

that is, of another meal-offering?

And if you would say that oil

of ordinary property and oil of another one do not

disqualify, but from now on, the meal-offering of a sinner which is disqualified if he places

oil in it,

as it is written, “He shall not place oil upon it,” and we say below [59b] that if he placed oil in it, he disqualified it—

how can you find it?

For

if

the oil is

its own, it has none,

and he cannot “increase” it;

if

he adds oil,

ordinary

oil or

oil of another one,

have you not said that it does not disqualify?

And we answer:

“And Rabbi Elazar stated it in the form of ‘it is not necessary.’”

“It is not necessary

if he added oil

of ordinary property and of another one,

for

certainly

it disqualifies; but if he designated two log for it,

since this

log

is fit for it, and this

log

is fit for it, say that it should not be disqualified; it teaches us

that the addition disqualifies.

And we raise an objection:

“And from where does Rabbi Elazar derive this?”

Perhaps it is specifically oil of ordinary property and oil of another one that disqualifies?

And we say:

“Rava said: The Mishna troubled him. Why specifically did it teach, ‘he increased its oil’

which implies that all of it was designated for its sake,

let it teach, ‘he increased oil for it’? Rather,”

necessarily,

“it teaches us this: Even though he designated two log for it”—

which are the oil of the meal-offering—

it is disqualified.

We learned in our Mishna:

“He decreased its frankincense.”

The Sages taught: If its frankincense was deficient

the frankincense

and stood at one pinch, it is disqualified.

And if it stood

at two pinches ,

it is valid; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says,

it stood

on one pinch, it is valid; less than this, it is invalid.