Menachot 11b — the Talmud in English

And we object:

And is it not taught in a beraita: A handful and frankincense from which anything at all was lacking are invalid. [

And in the Tosefta this beraita is cited in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “Rabbi Shimon says: A handful and frankincense from which anything at all was lacking, and so forth” (Rashi)].

And if so, there is a difficulty from Rabbi Shimon against Rabbi Shimon, for here he says that if it stood at one pinch it is valid]?

And we answer:

Teach

in the beraita:

A pinch of frankincense from which anything at all was lacking is invalid.

And if you wish, say: Here—

where Rabbi Shimon said that if anything at all was lacking it is valid—

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

as Rabbi Shimon derives below.

Here—

where Rabbi Shimon said that if anything at all was lacking it is invalid—

is referring to frankincense that comes by itself.

For example, where he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense,” in which case he must bring a handful of frankincense to the altar [as we learned below, 106b]. There, certainly, it is invalid through any deficiency, for there is no derivation that renders it valid.

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

Rabbi Meir,

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

held

that one needs

a handful at the outset —

so that at the time of taking the handful there will be a full handful of frankincense in the vessel—

and a handful at the end,

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

And Rabbi Judah held: A handful at the outset, and two pinches at the end

suffice.

And Rabbi Shimon held: A handful at the outset and one pinch at the end

suffice.

And all three of them

expounded one verse.

It is written:

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

“and he shall burn it on the altar.”

Rabbi Meir held: Until there is,

at the time of burning,

frankincense that was initially fixed together with the meal-offering,

is the implication. And in this all agree that initially a handful of frankincense is required.

And Rabbi Judah held: “All”

is the implication

even one pinch. “And” serves to include another pinch.

And therefore two pinches are required.

And Rabbi Shimon

held that one pinch is sufficient, because

he does not expound “and.”

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This

is the

dispute—

specifically concerning frankincense that comes with the meal-offering,

only;

but concerning frankincense that comes by itself—

everyone requires a handful at the outset and a handful at the end,

for

for this reason it was necessary

to state the verse,

“that is upon the meal-offering,”

to teach that specifically

together with the meal-offering—

yes; by itself—

no.

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

concerning frankincense that comes in the bowls,

which come with the loaves of the Presence,

everyone requires two handfuls [

one handful for each bowl]

at the outset, and two handfuls at the end.

And we ask:

Is it obvious,

for “all,” which implies any amount whatsoever, is not written concerning the bowls?

And we answer:

Since

the bowls of frankincense

come together with the bread,

since they come with the loaves of the Presence, there was room to say that they

are like

the frankincense

“that is upon the meal-offering,”

and we should learn from the verse concerning the frankincense upon the meal-offering to the frankincense of the bowls, that any amount whatsoever is sufficient;

it teaches us this.

And we say:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree about it.

One said: The dispute concerns frankincense that comes with the meal-offering, but concerning frankincense that comes by itself, everyone

requires

a handful at the outset and a handful at the end.

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

We learned in our Mishna:

If its frankincense was lacking, it is invalid.

And we object: It follows from our Mishna:

If there is an excess [

if its frankincense was increased]—

it is valid; but is it not taught in a beraita: Excess renders it invalid?

And we answer:

Rami bar Ḥama said,

that beraita which said that it is invalid is referring to

where he set aside two

handfuls

of frankincense for it, increasing it excessively; but with less than this, it is valid.

And Rami bar Ḥama said: If he set aside two handfuls for it,

and one of them was lost,

if it

was lost before the taking of the handful

was performed,

they were not fixed

as two handfuls of frankincense together with the meal-offering, and it is valid, for at the time of taking the handful only one handful was fixed, and merely setting it aside is not considered “he increased it for it.” But if it

was lost after the taking of the handful,

was performed,

they were fixed

together with the meal-offering, and it became invalid because he increased its frankincense.

[Footnote marker retained from the source: no corresponding source segment.] And Rami bar Ḥama said: If he set aside four handfuls for two bowls

that come with the loaves of the Presence,

and two of them were lost,

if they

were lost before the removal of the bowls

from the Table,

they were not fixed

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

were lost after the removal of the bowls,

were performed,

they were fixed,

and it is invalid.

And we ask:

What further need is there

for the loaves of the Presence

—why do I need it? It is the same thing!

For the removal of the bowls is like the taking of the handful from a meal-offering!?

And we answer: The statement concerning the removal of the bowls is needed, for

it might enter your mind that, since its handful is distinct,

standing by itself and not like the handful of a meal-offering, which is mixed with the meal-offering,

since its

time

of the arrangement of the loaves of the Presence

arrived for removing it

and removing the bowls—

it is like one who has already removed it,

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

it teaches us

that they became fixed only at the time of removing the bowls.

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah, in the section of Tzav: “And if he surely eats from the flesh of his peace-offering on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted. The one who offers it, it shall not be reckoned to him; it shall be piggul” [Leviticus 7]. And they said in the Torat Kohanim [and so it is in Zevaḥim 29a]: The verse does not mean to say that if he ate from the sacrifice on the third day, it becomes piggul, for it says, “the one who offers it,” and necessarily it 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 services of the sacrifice, thought to eat from it beyond the time allotted for its eating [and with peace-offerings, whose law is that they are eaten for two days and one night, this means the third day], and because of this it becomes piggul. And from the fact that the Torah repeated two acts of eating by saying, “And if he surely eats,” they expounded that the thought renders it piggul both with regard to human eating [and with a meal-offering, this means the leftovers], and with regard to altar-eating [and with a meal-offering, this means the handful or the frankincense designated for burning]; in all these cases, if he thought that this eating would take place beyond its time, it is piggul, and one who eats from it is liable for karet.

And because the Torah repeated this law a second time in the section of Kedoshim, saying, “And if he surely eats on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted. And the one who eats it shall bear his iniquity” [Leviticus 19], they expounded: Since it does not pertain to the thought of beyond its time, which was already stated in the section of Tzav, apply it to the thought of beyond its place. That is, even a thought of eating or burning beyond the place designated for eating or burning disqualifies the sacrifice. However, one who eats from it is not liable for karet, for this is excluded from the verse in the section of Tzav, “the soul that eats from it shall bear its iniquity”: specifically, one who eats “from it,” that is, that which was disqualified because of the thought of beyond its time, is liable for karet, whereas one who eats that which was disqualified because of beyond its place is not liable for karet. And the statement in the section of Shemini, “And the one who eats it shall bear his iniquity,” they expounded as liability for karet for one who eats from a sacrifice that remained after the time allotted for its eating.

And since the meal-offering was equated with the sin-offering, they expounded from this: Just as a sacrifice is disqualified through thought, so too the meal-offering is disqualified in this way.

One who takes the handful from the meal-offering and, at the time of taking the handful, thinks with the intention

of eating its leftovers

designated for human eating

outside

the forecourt,

or

with the intention of eating even

an olive-sized portion of its leftovers outside.

And likewise, if he thought

to burn

its

handful,

that is, altar-eating,

outside, or

if he thought to burn

an olive-sized portion

of

its handful outside, or

if he thought

to burn its frankincense outside—

it is invalid,

for the thought of beyond its place disqualifies it,

and there is not in it

an obligation of

karet

if he ate it.

One who takes the handful from the meal-offering with the intention

of eating its leftovers tomorrow,

that is, the thought of beyond its time, for the meal-offering is eaten only for one day and one night,

or an olive-sized portion of its leftovers tomorrow,

or

to burn its handful tomorrow, or an olive-sized portion of its handful tomorrow, or to burn the frankincense tomorrow,