Menachot 19b — the Talmud in English

Infer from this that it is specifically

the groats and the oil invalidate, but nothing else invalidates,

and this reveals that the “statute” written concerning the meal-offering does not come to teach invalidation.

In the matter itself, Rav said: Everywhere that Scripture repeated [a matter] concerning a meal-offering, it is only to invalidate; and Shmuel said: The groats and the oil invalidate

because Scripture repeated them [Tosafot asked that Rashi contradicts himself, from what he wrote previously, that we derive it from the extra heh and not from the fact that Scripture repeated it],

but nothing else invalidates,

even a matter concerning which Scripture repeated [the wording].

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to Shmuel,

is it the case that

even though the verse taught

and repeated

concerning it, it does not invalidate?!

And we answer:

Rather, wherever the verse taught and repeated concerning it, it certainly invalidates,

according to both Rav and Shmuel.

And here, concerning “his full handful,”

they disagree concerning “with his handful,”

Rav and Shmuel, as we explain:

For it was taught:

The verse states, “And he shall take a handful

his full handful,”

and elsewhere Scripture changed its wording and wrote

“with his handful,”

and we expound:

that he should not make a measure

a measuring vessel the measure of a handful

to

take in it the

handful,

but rather he must take it specifically with his hand. 30 .

Rav held:

This law is an indispensable requirement, and if he took [the handful] with a vessel, [the offering] is invalid, for

this too the verse taught and repeated, as it is written

in the account of the inauguration

“and he brought the meal-offering and filled his palm from it,”

which implies his palm and not a vessel. And since Scripture repeated it concerning this, it is indispensable.

And Shmuel

held:

He does not derive

the sanctified offerings of

later generations from

the sanctified offerings of

the שעה,

therefore nothing can be learned from the meal-offering of the eighth day, because it was only for that time. Accordingly, we do not find that Scripture repeated concerning the taking that it must be by hand, and consequently it is not indispensable; and if he took [the handful] with a vessel, it is valid after the fact.

And we raise a difficulty:

Does Shmuel not derive [the offerings of] later generations from [those] of that time?

But we learned: The vessels for liquids

which are vessels designated for the service of moist substances, such as blood or oil,

sanctify liquids

with sanctity of the body: from the moment that one places a moist substance in the vessel for liquids, it can no longer be redeemed.

And the measure for dry substances,

vessels designated for measuring flour, which is dry,

sanctify dry substances!

And vessels for liquids do not sanctify dry substances,

for if one put flour into them, the vessel does not sanctify it,

nor do measures for

the

dry substances sanctify liquids.

And Shmuel said: They taught

that vessels for liquids do not sanctify dry substances

only concerning measures,

that is, vessels designated for measuring moist substances, such as a measure of a hin, since those vessels are not used at all for dry substances;

but bowls

vessels in which blood is cast

do sanctify

dry substances as well,

as it is written

concerning the offerings of the princes, who brought a bowl and a basin, and they were

“both full of fine flour,”

so the basin is used also for dry substances, and therefore sanctifies them.

It follows that Shmuel learns from the offerings of the princes—that is, [he derives] later generations from that time. If so, concerning taking [the handful] with a vessel, he should likewise have derived [the offerings of] that time from [those of] later generations and declared taking with a vessel invalid!?

And we answer:

There it is different

concerning the exposition of “both full of fine flour,”

for the verse taught

and repeated

concerning it

in the offerings of the princes

twelve times,

and therefore we learn from there, even though they are sanctified offerings of that time. 31 .

They said

[they asked]

to Rav, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi:

What you said—that everywhere Scripture repeated [a matter] concerning a meal-offering, it is only to invalidate—

but there is the presentation

of the meal-offering to the corner of the altar,

concerning which the verse taught and it does not invalidate?

And we explain:

And where did the verse teach concerning it,

where do we find that Scripture repeated concerning it?

As it is written

in the section of Tzav:

“This is the law of the meal-offering: bring it near

the sons of Aaron before the Lord”; and the law of presenting a meal-offering had already been stated in the section of Vayikra, and here it was repeated.

And

even so,

we learned: If he did not present it, it is valid?

And we answer:

That

verse in the section of Tzav

came to establish a place

for its presentation

and that is why it came,

and since the verse is not superfluous, it is impossible to learn from it that the matter is indispensable.

For it was taught: “Before the Lord”—one might have thought

that he should present the meal-offering

on the west

of the altar, which is opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary and is called “before the Lord” .

The verse therefore states, “to the face of the altar,”

which is the southern side, for the ramp, which is the face of the altar, was on the south.

If

so, since it is written

“to the face of the altar,” one might have thought

that the presentation should be

on the south? The verse therefore states, “before the Lord,”

which is the western side.

How

then shall these two verses be fulfilled?

He presents it

to the meal-offering

at the southwestern corner, opposite the edge of the corner!

Thus we fulfill both verses, both on the south and on the west.

And it is sufficient

that he bring the vessel to the edge of the corner; it is not necessary that the meal-offering itself touch the altar.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is not necessary to present it at the edge of the corner. Rather, he presents it on the southern side of the altar, at its end, near the western corner.

And Rabbi Eliezer learns as follows:

One might have thought that he should present it on the west of the corner

and also

on the south of the corner. You say:

The verse cannot be interpreted in this way, for we hold that

wherever you find two verses, one fulfilling itself and

when you fulfill what is written in it, you

fulfill

also the words of

its fellow,

that is, when you fulfill what is written in one verse, this does not contradict the other verse,

and [A0147]]the one fulfilling itself and

the one

when you fulfill what is written in it, you

when you fulfill what is written in it, you thereby

nullify

the words of

its fellow,

so that fulfilling the words of one verse constitutes a contradiction to what is written in the other verse,

we leave

aside

the

verse

that fulfills itself and nullifies its fellow, and seize

as primary

the

verse

that fulfills itself and fulfills its fellow!

And likewise in our matter,

when you say

that he should present it on the west, you fulfill what is written,

“before the Lord,”

that is,

on the west,

but

you have nullified

what is written,

“to the face of the altar,”

that is,

on the south. And when you say

that he should present it on the south, so that he fulfills

“to the face of the altar”—

on the south you have fulfilled

by this also

“before the Lord”—

on the west.

And where have you fulfilled it?

Rav Ashi said: This tanna held

Rabbi Eliezer

that the entire altar was

on the side of

the north

of the courtyard

situated.

It follows that the south of the altar was opposite the middle of the entrance of the Sanctuary [for half of the entrance of the Sanctuary was in the north and half in the south], and it too was called “before the Lord.” Thus, when he presents it on the southern side, both verses are fulfilled.

Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav:

:

But there is salt, concerning which the verse did not teach and it is indispensable?