Menachot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: If the kometz or the frankincense is lacking even any amount, it is invalid. [(

And in the Tosefta this beraita is quoted in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “Rabbi Shimon says: If the kometz or the frankincense is lacking, etc.” (Rashi)].

And if so, there is a difficulty from Rabbi Shimon against Rabbi Shimon, since here he says that if only one particle remains, it is valid]?

And we answer:

Teach

in the beraita:

If the frankincense is lacking even a particle, it is invalid.

And if you wish, say:

here—where Rabbi Shimon said that if it is lacking even any amount it is valid—

is referring to the frankincense that comes with the meal-offering,

as Rabbi Shimon will expound below.

Here—where Rabbi Shimon said that if it is lacking even any amount it is invalid—

is referring to a case in which Rabbi Shimon said that if it is lacking even any amount it is invalid,

the frankincense that comes on its own.

For example, when one says, “This is incumbent upon me as a frankincense-offering,” in which case he must bring a kometz of frankincense to the altar [as we learned below, on page 106b]. In that case, it is certainly invalid if anything is lacking, since there is no exposition that renders it valid.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There are three disputes concerning this matter:

Rabbi Meir,

who is the tanna of our Mishna, which says that if its frankincense is lacking it is invalid,

holds

that one requires

a kometz at the outset —

that at the time of taking the kometz, the vessel must contain a full kometz of frankincense—

and a kometz at the end,

at the time of burning it, so that if it is lacking, it is invalid.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A kometz at the outset and two particles at the end

are sufficient.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: A kometz at the outset and one particle at the end

are sufficient.

And all three of them

expounded the same verse.

It is written:

“And all the frankincense that is upon the meal-offering”

“and he shall burn it on the altar.”

Rabbi Meir holds: “Until there is”

at the time of burning

frankincense that was initially fixed together with the meal-offering

is implied. And in this, everyone agrees that at the outset a kometz of frankincense is required.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “All”

implies

even one particle. “And” includes another particle.

Therefore, two particles are required.

And Rabbi Shimon

holds that one particle is sufficient, because

he does not expound “and.”

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

This

dispute

applies specifically to the frankincense that comes with the meal-offering,

only,

but with regard to frankincense that comes on its own,

everyone agrees that a kometz is required at the outset and a kometz at the end,

since

it was necessary

for the verse

“that is upon the meal-offering”

to teach that specifically

when it is together with the meal-offering—

yes; when it comes on its own—

no.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute applies to the frankincense that comes with the meal-offering. But

with regard to the frankincense that comes in the bowls

that come with the shewbread,

everyone agrees that two kometz-measures [(

a kometz for each bowl)]

are required at the outset and two kometz-measures at the end.

And we ask:

Is that obvious,

since the word “all,” which implies even any amount, is not written with regard to the bowls?

And we answer:

Since

the bowls of frankincense

come together with the bread,

since they come with the shewbread, it could have been said that they

are like

frankincense

that is comparable to “that is upon the meal-offering”,

and that we should derive from the verse concerning the frankincense upon the meal-offering that, with regard to the frankincense in the bowls, any amount is sufficient.

It teaches us otherwise.

And we say:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree about this.

One said: The dispute applies to the frankincense that comes with the meal-offering, but with regard to frankincense that comes on its own, everyone

must

have a kometz at the outset and a kometz at the end.

And one said: Just as there is a dispute concerning this case, so is there a dispute concerning that case.

We learned in our Mishna:

If its frankincense is lacking, it is invalid.

And we raise an objection: This implies from our Mishna:

If it is in excess [(

if its frankincense is in excess)]—

it is valid; but it was taught in a beraita: If it is in excess, it is invalid?

And we answer:

Rami bar Ḥama said:

That beraita which said that it is invalid is referring

to a case in which he set aside two

kometz-measures

of frankincense for it, thereby adding far too much; but if he added less than this, it is valid.

And Rami bar Ḥama said: If he set aside two kometz-measures for it,

and one of them was lost,

if it was

before the taking of the kometz

lost,

they were not fixed

as the two kometz-measures of frankincense together with the meal-offering, and it is valid, because at the time of taking the kometz only one kometz was fixed, and the mere act of setting aside the frankincense is not considered “adding too much for it.” But if it was

after the taking of the kometz

lost,

they were fixed

together with the meal-offering, and it became invalid because he added too much frankincense.

And Rami bar Ḥama said: If he set aside four kometz-measures for two bowls

that come with the shewbread,

and two of them were lost,

if

before the removal of the bowls

from the Table they were lost,

they were not fixed

together with the bread, and it is valid; but if

after the removal of the bowls

they were lost,

they were fixed,

and it is invalid.

And we ask:

What further purpose

—with regard to the shewbread—

does this serve us? It is the same matter!

After all, the removal of the bowls is analogous to the taking of the kometz of a meal-offering!?

And we answer: The statement concerning the removal of the bowls is necessary, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since its kometz is distinct,

standing on its own and not like the kometz of a meal-offering, which is mixed with the meal-offering,

once

its time

for the arrangement of the shewbread

to be dismantled

and the bowls to be removed has arrived,

it is considered as though it has already been dismantled,

and if they were lost after its time had arrived, we would say that they had already been fixed and the bread had become invalid;

it teaches us

that they are fixed only at the time the bowls are removed.

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah, in the portion of Tzav: “And if he indeed eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted. The one who offers it shall not have it reckoned to him; it is piggul” [Leviticus 7]. And they said in the Torat Kohanim [and so too in Zevaḥim 29a]: The verse does not mean that if one ate from the sacrifice on the third day, he becomes piggul, since it is stated, “the one who offers it,” and it necessarily became piggul already at the time of the offering, and not on the third day. Rather, this verse concerns a priest who, while performing one of the sacrificial rites, intended to eat from it beyond the time allotted for its consumption [and in the case of a peace-offering, whose law is that it is eaten for two days and one night, this means the third day], and as a result it becomes piggul. From the fact that the Torah repeated the word “eating” by saying, “And if he indeed eats,” they expounded that the intention renders the offering piggul both with regard to human consumption [and in the case of a meal-offering, this means the remainder] and with regard to consumption on the altar [and in the case of a meal-offering, this means the kometz or the frankincense designated for burning]. In all these cases, if he intended that this consumption take place beyond its time, it is piggul, and one who eats from it is liable to karet.

And when the Torah repeated this law once more in the portion of Kedoshim, saying, “And if he indeed eats on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted. And one who eats it shall bear his iniquity” [Leviticus 19], they expounded: Since this cannot refer to an intention concerning beyond its time, which was already stated in the portion of Tzav, apply it to an intention concerning beyond its designated place. That is, even an intention to eat or burn the offering beyond the place designated for its consumption or burning disqualifies the sacrifice. However, one who eats from it is not liable to karet, because he is excluded by the verse in the portion of Tzav, “The person who eats from it shall bear his iniquity”: specifically, one who eats “from it,” meaning one that became disqualified because of an intention concerning beyond its time, is liable to karet, but one who eats from that which became disqualified because of an intention concerning beyond its place is not liable to karet. And they expounded the statement in the portion of Shemini, “And one who eats it shall bear his iniquity,” as imposing liability to karet for one who eats from an offering that remained after the time allotted for its consumption.

And since the meal-offering was compared to a sin-offering, they expounded from this: Just as a sacrifice is disqualified through an intention, so too is a meal-offering.

If one took the kometz of the meal-offering and, at the time of taking it, intended

to eat its remainder

designated for human consumption

outside,

outside the Temple courtyard,

or

intended to eat even

an olive-sized portion of its remainder outside.

And likewise, if he intended

to burn

the

kometz,

that is, its consumption on the altar,

outside, or

if he intended to burn

an olive-sized portion

of

the kometz outside, or

if he intended

to burn its frankincense outside—

it is invalid,

for an intention concerning beyond its place disqualifies it,

but there is no

liability

to karet

if one eats it.

If one took the kometz of the meal-offering with the intention

of eating its remainder on the following day,

that is, an intention concerning beyond its time, since the meal-offering may be eaten only for one day and one night,

or an olive-sized portion of its remainder on the following day,

or

of burning its kometz on the following day, or an olive-sized portion of its kometz on the following day, or of burning the frankincense on the following day,