Menachot 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

b.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds

only

in those cases

where one formed an intention concerning them contrary to their usual manner, namely, from the eating of the altar to that of a person, or vice versa,

do the Rabbis dispute

Rabbi Eliezer—and deem the offering fit. But the intention

to leave

which is an intention concerning something whose usual practice is in that manner,

everyone agrees that it is unfit

by rabbinic decree.

What is the reason

that it is unfit by rabbinic decree?

It is a decree

against one who intends to leave

part of its blood

until the next day,

lest

he come to intend to leave

all of its blood

until the next day.

And

the intention to leave

all of its blood

until the next day is

a Torah disqualification!

And we find that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an intention to leave renders the offering unfit.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to them

to the Sages who hold that an intention to leave does not render the offering unfit by Torah law, even when one intends to leave all its blood: Surely,

do you not agree with me that if he left it until the next day it would be

itself

unfit,

and since leaving it until the next day renders it unfit, even if he

intended to leave it until the next day as well

it is

unfit!

Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that since, if he were actually to perform the act, the offering would become unfit, an intention likewise renders it unfit.

c.

And Rabbi Elazar came to say—

even in this case,

they dispute an intention to leave, for

Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit!

We raised an objection:

And

does

Rabbi Yehuda hold

that when one intended

to leave some of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that it is unfit?!

And was it not taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: When I went to fulfill my measures,

to resolve my uncertainties,

to Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua—and some say

that Rabbi said as follows: When I went

to fulfill the measures of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua,

to learn and exhaust his wisdom,

I found

the

Babylonian Yosef sitting before him. And he was especially dear to him

Yosef was especially dear to Rabbi Elazar

.

They discussed the laws

until

they reached

one halakha. He said to him

Yosef said to Rabbi Elazar:

My teacher, one who slaughters the offering

with the intention

of leaving some of its blood until the next day—what is the law?

Is this an intention of disqualification, or is it only when one intends to eat or burn it on the next day that the intention disqualifies, but not when one intends merely to leave it until the next day?

In the

morning, he said to him

Rabbi Elazar:

Fit!

At

midday,

he asked him again, and

he said to him: Fit!

At

the afternoon prayer,

he asked him again, and

he said to him: Fit! In the evening

he asked him again, and then

he said to him: Fit, but Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit!

The face of the Babylonian Yosef shone

from joy.

He said to him

Rabbi Elazar:

Yosef! It seems to me that we did not properly direct our traditions,

for when I told you that the offering was fit, it did not appear to you that this was the halakha

until now

when I told you that it was unfit!?

He said to him

Yosef:

Yes, my teacher, yes,

indeed, you had previously directed me to the halakha,

but

the reason my face shone at the end was

that Rabbi Yehuda—

“Unfit,” he taught me! And I went through all the students

of Rabbi Yehuda

and sought for myself a colleague

who would say this in the name of Rabbi Yehuda,

but I did not find one,

and I feared that perhaps I had forgotten and misunderstood Rabbi Yehuda’s words.

Now that you have taught me again—

“Unfit,” you have returned my lost possession to me!

Tears flowed from the eyes of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. He said: Fortunate are you, Torah scholars, that words of Torah are exceedingly dear to you! He applied this verse to him: “How I love Your Torah; all day long it is my conversation”! [

See Emuna u-Bitachon by the Chazon Ish, chapter 3, section 20]

Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua further said to him:

Indeed,

what Rabbi Yehuda told you—“unfit”—was not because that was the halakha, but

because Rabbi Yehuda was the son of Rabbi Ila’i, and Rabbi Ila’i was the student of Rabbi Eliezer; therefore he taught you

Rabbi Yehuda

the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer,

since it was dear to him.

And we conclude the challenge:

And if it enters your mind

that Rabbi Yehuda, who taught the Babylonian Yosef,

“Everyone agrees that it is unfit,”

concerning the intention “to leave,”

taught it to him,

then he taught him,

what is the meaning of “You have returned my lost possession to me”

which Yosef said to Rabbi Elazar? For even when he heard Rabbi Yehuda’s words from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, they were not the same words that the Babylonian Yosef had heard from Rabbi Yehuda, for

he,

Rabbi Elazar,

was also stating a dispute [

it is fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit].

He was saying this to him,

whereas the Babylonian Yosef had heard from Rabbi Yehuda that according to everyone it was unfit?

And we answer:

Rather, what

do you wish to prove from here—that according to Rabbi Yehuda too, an intention to leave is subject to a dispute, and

“It is fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit,” he taught

Rabbi Yehuda to the Babylonian Yosef, as Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua said?

If so, what

is the meaning of what Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua said to the Babylonian Yosef,

“Indeed, because”

and so on—for this implies that he needed to give a reason why Rabbi Yehuda taught Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that the offering is unfit, although the halakha does not follow Rabbi Eliezer? And

we too teach a dispute,

for everywhere we teach even the opinion of the individual, although it is opposed to that of the majority? [Based on the explanation of the Rashash.]

And we conclude the resolution:

Rather, actually, “Everyone agrees that it is unfit,” he taught

Rabbi Yehuda to the Babylonian Yosef. And regarding your difficulty—

“And what is the meaning of ‘You have returned my lost possession to me’”

which Yosef said—for Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua told him that it was a dispute, and not as Rabbi Yehuda had said—this is what he was saying:

He returned to him

that there is

at least some disqualification in the world.

Once Rabbi Elazar told him that there is an opinion according to which “to leave” renders the offering unfit, he had thereby returned his lost possession to him, since from that point he could teach in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that according to everyone it is unfit.

The order of the meal-offering:

One who vows or voluntarily pledges a meal-offering of fine flour brings an isaron of fine flour and a log of oil. First, he places a small amount of oil in a vessel and places the flour upon it. He then pours a small amount of oil over the flour and mixes everything together. Afterward, he pours over it the remainder of the oil left from the log, places frankincense upon it, and brings it to the priest. The priest brings it to the altar at the southwestern corner, at the point of the angle. The priest then takes a handful from the meal-offering, gathers the frankincense, salts them, and burns them on the altar; the remainder is eaten by the priests.

There are meal-offerings that are baked after they have been mixed with oil. After they are baked, he breaks them into pieces the size of an olive-bulk, pours over them the oil remaining from the log, and the priest takes a handful from the pieces and burns it on the altar.

Mishna:

If he did not perform the final pouring of oil over the meal-offering, namely, the pouring of the remainder of the oil, but instead placed the entire log of oil in the vessel before preparing the meal-offering; and likewise, if he

did not mix

the oil with the flour,

and did not break

the meal-offering into pieces, in those meal-offerings that require breaking into pieces ;

and did not salt it, and did not wave it

in the case of that meal-offering which requires waving, such as the meal-offering of a sota and the meal-offering of the omer; and likewise, if he

did not bring it

to the altar,

or broke it into “numerous” pieces,

meaning that the pieces were larger than an olive-bulk;

and

likewise, if he

did not spread oil on them

those meal-offerings that require spreading with oil [and this is a meal-offering that comes as wafers, whose law is that the wafers are to be spread with the log of oil brought with the meal-offering ],

the meal-offering is fit

even if he did not perform any of all these procedures.

Gemara:

We raised an objection:

What does “he did not pour”

stated in the Mishna mean?

If we say that he did not pour at all,

why is the meal-offering fit? For

it is written concerning it that it is indispensable,

since the Torah wrote the law of pouring twice, and we have the principle: “Anything that Scripture repeated concerning a meal-offering is only to make it indispensable.” If so, the law of pouring should be that if he did not perform it, the meal-offering is unfit?

Rather,

this is the meaning of the Mishna:

If a non-priest poured rather than a priest,

it is fit ,

for pouring is one of the Temple services that may be performed by a non-priest. 18 .

And we challenge this:

If so, “he did not mix”

written in the Mishna

also

should be explained in this manner:

if a non-priest mixed rather than a priest,

we would infer from this that specifically when a non-priest mixed it, the offering is fit;

but if he did not mix at all, it is unfit,