Menachot 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

And did we not learn: Sixty

tenths of an ephah of fine flour

may be mixed

with one log of oil;

sixty-one

tenths

may not be mixed

with one log of oil. Therefore, one may not bring a meal-offering of more than sixty tenths in a single vessel.

And we raised a contradiction: When they may not be mixed, what of it? 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 tenths

is not rendered invalid by the absence of mixing, but anything unfit for mixing

such as more than sixty tenths

is rendered invalid by the absence of mixing

and is thereby disqualified. 19 .

If so, this is difficult: From Rabbi Zeira's statement it is apparent that the absence of mixing, where the mixture is fit to be performed, does not invalidate the offering. Therefore, necessarily, when the Mishna states, “If he did not mix it,” it does not mean, “If a non-priest mixed it rather than a priest,” but rather, “If he did not mix it at all.” Accordingly, when the Mishna also states, “If he did not pour,” it means, “If he did not pour at all,” and the initial question returns: Why is it valid if he did not pour at all, when pouring is an indispensable requirement?

And we answer:

Are these matters comparable

that they should be identical?

This one is as it is, and that one is as it is. “If he did not pour”

means

“If a non-priest poured it rather than a priest,”

whereas

“If he did not mix it”

means

“If he did not mix it at all.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Or if he divided it into many pieces, it is valid.

And we raised a question: What is the novelty here?

Now

if

he did not divide it at all, it is valid,

as explained in the Mishna, if he divided it into

many pieces

that is, into large pieces,

is it necessary

to tell us that it is valid?

And we answer:

What is meant by “many pieces”

as written in the Mishna? It means

that he made many small pieces,

that he divided it into pieces that were excessively small. This is worse than if he had not divided it at all, and the Mishna must teach us that in this case too it is valid.

And if you wish, say:

the Mishna is indeed referring to

many actual pieces

that is, large pieces,

and

do not raise the difficulty that this is obvious, as it follows by a fortiori reasoning from the case where he did not divide it at all, because

it might have entered your mind that there

where he did not divide it at all

is

the reason that it is valid

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

when he divided them into large pieces,

the status of “loaves”

does not apply, since they are not whole,

nor does the status of “pieces” apply,

since they are excessively large pieces; and I might have thought that the meal-offering is invalid.

The Mishna therefore teaches us

that the meal-offering is valid. 20 .

And we raised a question:

Shall we say that the Mishna

which validates pouring performed by a non-priest

is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not affirm the sacrificial service

with which we were commanded by the command of the Almighty

has no share in the priesthood,

in the division of the sacred offerings,

as it is stated:

“The one who sacrifices the blood of the peace-offerings and the fat from the descendants of Aaron

shall have the right thigh as his portion”

and we derive: One who

affirms the sacrificial service has a share in the priesthood,

but a priest

who does not affirm the sacrificial service has no share in the priesthood.