Menachot 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

if he took a kometz and a pebble or a grain of salt came up in his hand

or a pinch of frankincense, it is unfit.

And we ask:

all these—

why do I need them?

And we answer:

It is necessary. For had it taught only pebble—

we would have thought that specifically this is so

because it is not fit for offering;

therefore it invalidates the kometz, because the place occupied by the pebble is missing from the measure of the kometz.

But salt ,

which is fit for offering,

as he would salt it after the kometz had been placed on the altar,

say that it renders it fit.

And had it taught salt,

we would have thought that specifically this invalidates

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

but was salted only on the altar.

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

as it is brought with the meal-offering,

say that it renders it fit; it teaches us

that it does not.

We learned in the Mishna:

Because they said: A kometz that is deficient or excessive is unfit.

And we ask:

Why specifically

is the case in which a pebble and so forth came up in his hand unfit

because it is deficient or excessive? Let it derive its invalidity from the fact that it is an interposition,

for the pebble interposes between his hand and the flour [or, alternatively, the interposition is between one portion of flour and another, making it appear like two half-komatzim, Rashi], and an interposition invalidates sacrificial offerings?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is referring to [a pebble] at the side,

meaning that the pebble is beside the thumb or the little finger, at the side of the flour. In that case the pebble does not interpose between his hand and the flour [nor between one portion of flour and another], but there is nevertheless a deficiency.

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

He said to him: As people take a handful—

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

He raised an objection

from what we learned concerning the five fingers of a person.

This is the zeret—

the little finger, used for measuring the choshen, whose length is a zeret.

This is the kemitza—

the finger beside the little finger, from which the taking of the kometz begins.

This is the ama—

the finger used to measure an ama.

This is the etzba—

the finger that the koen dips into blood.

This is the thumb—

for the halakha of the thumb of a leper.

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

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

was said with regard to leveling .

If, after taking the kometz, flour protruded from the side of the fingers toward the thumb or the little finger, he levels it with those fingers, for the kometz must not be heaped.

And now we explain:

How does he do it

with regard to taking the kometz, since we said that he begins taking it with the finger of kemitza?

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya said that Rav said: He covers—

bends—

his three fingers until they reach the palm of his hand—

and takes the kometz.

It was taught likewise in a beraita:

It is written,

“the fullness of his kometz”; one might have thought, heaped,

—heaped above the hand.

The verse states, “with his kometz.” If

“with his kometz,” one might have thought

that he should take it

with the tips of his fingers

without reaching the palm of his hand.

The verse states, “the fullness of his kometz.” How is this achieved? He covers his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and takes the kometz.

With regard to a meal-offering baked in a pan or in a deep pan,

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

levels it with his thumb from above and with his little finger from below,

in order to level the kometz,

and this is a service

that is difficult in the Temple,

for he must level it so that the kometz is neither deficient nor excessive.

And we ask: Is

this

the only difficult service,

and no other!?

But there is melika, and there is the handfuling of the incense, concerning which it is stated elsewhere that these are difficult services?

And we answer:

Rather,

say:

This is one of the difficult services in the Temple.

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

is as people take handfuls,

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

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

meaning that he inserted the tips of his fingers into the flour with the palm of his hand facing the flour, and took a full kometz up to the palm of his hand—

what is the law?

If he took the kometz from the sides,

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

what is the law?

If he took the kometz from below upward,

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

what is the law?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

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

written with regard to the incense of Yom Kippur, means

as people cup their hands,

that is, they insert the sides of their hands and cup them.

If he cupped it with the tips of his fingers,

as above with regard to the kometz,

what is the law? If he cupped it from the sides, what is the law? If from below upward, what is the law? If he cupped it with this hand and that hand—

separately with each hand—

and

afterward

brought the handful of one offering alongside the other—

what is the law?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Rav Pappa raised a question: If he attached it—

stuck it—

to the kometz on the side

of the vessel,

when sanctifying it in the vessel,

what is the law?

Is being inside a vessel required, and here it is inside,

for the kometz is within the vessel,

or perhaps being placed inside it is required, and that is absent,

for it is attached to its wall and is not resting inside it?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Bar Bar Rav Ashi raised a question: If he turned over the vessel and attached the kometz to the bottom

of it,

of the vessel,

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

what is the law?

Placement inside it is required, and here it is present; or perhaps placement in its proper manner is required, and that is absent,

for when he places it on its inverted side, it is not resting 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

if he reduced its oil,

or

if he reduced its frankincense,

whose measure is the fullness of a kometz—

it is unfit.

Gemara:

We inquire:

What are the circumstances of increasing its oil?

Rabbi Elazar said: For example, he set aside two log of oil

and mixed it with the meal-offering, making it appear like two meal-offerings.

And we object:

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

a small amount of

non-sacred oil, or

or

oil from another meal-offering,

that is, from a different meal-offering?

And should you say that oil

from non-sacred sources and oil from another meal-offering do not

invalidate it, then with regard to a sinner’s meal-offering, which is invalidated if he placed

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 invalidated it—

how can you find such a case?

For

if

the oil is

its own, it has none,

and he cannot “increase” it;

if

he adds oil

from non-sacred sources, or

oil

from another meal-offering,

you have said that it does not invalidate it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar stated the case of “it is not necessary.”

It is not necessary

if he added oil

from non-sacred sources or from another meal-offering,

for

it certainly

invalidates it; but if he set aside for it

two log, since this

log

is suitable for it, and this

log

is suitable for it, say that it should not become unfit; it teaches us

that the addition invalidates it.

And we ask:

And from where does Rabbi Elazar derive this?

Perhaps specifically non-sacred oil and oil from another meal-offering invalidate it?

And we say:

Rava said: The Mishna posed a difficulty for him. Why does it specifically teach, “If he increased its oil”

—which implies that all of it was set aside for its sake—

let it teach, “If he increased oil for it”? Rather,

necessarily,

this teaches us that even though he set aside two log for it—

which are the oil of the meal-offering—

it is unfit.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he reduced its frankincense.

The Sages taught: If the frankincense was reduced

and

only one pinch remained, it is unfit.

But if it remained

at two pinches ,

it is fit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says,

it amounted to

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