Menachot 18b — the Talmud in English

And did we not learn: sixty

issaron-measures of fine flour

are mixed

with one log of oil;

sixty-one

issaron-measures

are not mixed

with a log of oil. And therefore, he may not bring a meal-offering of more than sixty issaron-measures in one vessel.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: When they are not mixed, what of it? But did we not learn: If he did not mix it, it is valid.

And we answer:

And Rabbi Zeira said: Anything fit for mixing

that is, up to sixty issaron-measures,

the mixing does not prevent its validity, but anything unfit for mixing

such as more than sixty issaron-measures,

the mixing prevents its validity

to invalidate it. 19 .

And if so, it is difficult, for from Rabbi Zeira’s words we see that mixing [in a case fit for mixing] does not prevent validity. And necessarily, what the Mishna wrote, “If he did not mix,” does not mean, “If a non-priest mixed it instead of a priest,” but rather, “If he did not mix it at all.” And if so, also what the Mishna wrote, “If he did not pour,” means, “If he did not pour it at all.” Thus the original difficulty returns: Why, if he did not pour it at all, is it valid, when pouring prevents validity?

And we answer:

Are the matters necessarily

equal?

This one is according to its circumstance, and that one is according to its circumstance. “If he did not pour”

means

a non-priest poured it rather than a priest,

whereas

“if he did not mix”

means

he did not mix it at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

Or if he broke them into many pieces, it is valid.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: What is the novelty?

Now,

if he

did not break it at all, it is valid,

as explained in the Mishna, if he broke them into

many pieces

that is, into large pieces,

is it necessary

to tell us that it is valid?

And we answer:

What does “many pieces”

which is written in the Mishna, mean?

That he increased the number of fragments,

that he broke them into pieces that were excessively small. And this is worse than if he had not broken it at all, and it is necessary to tell us that even in this case it is valid.

And if you wish, say: Actually,

the Mishna is speaking of

many pieces in the literal sense,

that is, large pieces,

and

do not raise the difficulty: What is the novelty? Surely it follows all the more so from the case in which he did not break it at all,

for it might have been said: There

when he did not break it at all,

it is

valid

because the status of “loaves” applies to them; but here,

when he broke them into large pieces,

the status of “loaves”

does not apply, since they are not whole,

does apply, and the status of “fragments” does not apply

since they are excessively small pieces, and I would have thought that the meal-offering is invalid.

It teaches us

the Mishna that the meal-offering is valid. 20 .

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Let us say that the Mishna

which validates pouring by a non-priest

is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not acknowledge the service

with which we were commanded by the word of the Almighty

has no portion in the priesthood,

in the division of the sacred offerings,

as it is stated:

“The one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the fat from the sons of Aaron

to him shall be the right thigh as a portion.”

And we derive: Whoever

acknowledges the service has a portion in the priesthood,

but a priest

who does not acknowledge the service has no portion in the priesthood.