Menachot 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

This proves that it is specifically

grits and oil that are indispensable, but nothing else is indispensable,

and this reveals that the “statute” written concerning the meal-offering was not stated to teach that it is indispensable.

In the body of the matter, Rav said: Wherever the verse repeats a requirement concerning a meal-offering, it is only to render it indispensable; and Shmuel said: Grits and oil are indispensable

because the verse repeated them [Tosafot raised the difficulty that Rashi apparently contradicts himself, since earlier he wrote that we derive this from the superfluous letter he, and not from the fact that the verse repeated it],

but nothing else is indispensable,

even something concerning which the verse repeated its wording.

And we challenged this:

But according to Shmuel,

is it the case that

even though the verse repeats

a requirement

concerning it, it is not indispensable?!

And we answered:

Rather, wherever the verse repeats a requirement concerning it, it is certainly indispensable,

according to both Rav and Shmuel.

And here, with regard to “his full handful,”

Rav and Shmuel disagree concerning “with his handful,”

as we explain:

As it was taught:

The verse states, “And he shall take a handful,”

“his full handful,”

and elsewhere the verse changed its wording and stated

“with his handful,”

and we derive:

He may not make a measure

a measuring vessel whose capacity is that of a handful

to

take with it the

handful,

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

Rav held:

This law is indispensable, and if he took the handful with a vessel, the offering is invalid, because

the verse also repeats this requirement, as it is written

in the account of the inauguration on the eighth day,

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

which indicates his palm and not a vessel. Since the verse repeated the requirement, it is indispensable.

And Shmuel

held:

He does not derive

the offerings of

future generations from the

offerings of

a particular time.

Therefore, nothing can be learned from the meal-offering of the eighth day, since it was only for that time. Consequently, we do not find that the verse repeated, with regard to taking the handful, that it must be done by hand; and therefore it is not indispensable. If he took the handful with a vessel, the offering is valid after the fact.

And we challenged this:

Does Shmuel not derive offerings of future generations from offerings of a particular time?

But we learned: Wet-measure vessels

that are vessels designated for the service of wet substances, such as blood or oil,

sanctify wet substances

with the sanctity of the body; once a wet substance has been placed in a wet-measure vessel, it can no longer be redeemed.

And dry measures,

vessels designated for measuring flour, which is dry,

sanctify dry substances!

But wet-measure vessels do not sanctify dry substances,

for if flour was placed in them, the vessel does not sanctify it,

nor do dry measures

of

sanctify wet substances.

And Shmuel said: They taught

that wet-measure vessels do not sanctify dry substances

only with regard to measures,

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

but sprinkling basins,

vessels into which blood is cast,

do sanctify

dry substances as well,

as it is written

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

“both full of fine flour.”

Thus, the sprinkling basin is also used for dry substances, and therefore it sanctifies them.

It follows that Shmuel derives this from the offerings of the tribal princes—that is, he derives offerings of future generations from offerings of a particular time. If so, with regard to taking the handful with a vessel as well, he should have derived an offering for a particular time from offerings of future generations and ruled that taking the handful with a vessel is invalid!?

And we answered:

That case is different,

with regard to the exposition of “both full of fine flour,”

because the verse repeated

the matter

in the verse

concerning the tribal princes

twelve times,

and therefore we derive from there, even though they are offerings for a particular time. 31 .

They said [they asked]

to

Rav, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi:

You said that wherever the verse repeats a requirement concerning a meal-offering, it is only to render it indispensable.

But what of the presentation

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

concerning which the verse repeats the requirement, yet it is not indispensable?

And we explain:

And what did the verse repeat concerning it,

where do we find that the verse repeated the requirement?

As it is written

in the portion of Tzav,

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

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

And

even so,

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

And we answered:

That

verse in the portion of Tzav

came to establish a place

for its presentation

and that is all it came to do;

since the verse is not superfluous, it is impossible to derive from it that the presentation is indispensable.

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

that he should present the meal-offering

on the western side

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

the verse states, “to the front of the altar,”

which is the southern side, since the ramp, which is the front of the altar, was on the south.

If

so, since it is written,

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

that the presentation should be

on the south; the verse states, “before the Lord,”

which is the western side.

How, then,

can these two verses be fulfilled?

He presents it

the meal-offering

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

Thus, both verses are fulfilled: it is presented both on the south and on the west.

And it is sufficient

to bring the vessel to the edge of the corner; the meal-offering itself need not 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, adjacent to the southwest corner.

And this is how Rabbi Eliezer derives the matter:

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

and also

on the southern side of the corner. You must say

that this is not how the verse is interpreted, for it is an established principle that

wherever you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and

when you fulfill what is written in it, you thereby

fulfill

also the words of

the other,

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

but

the one

fulfills itself and

when you fulfill what is written in it, you thereby

nullify

the words of

the other,

so that fulfilling the words of one verse creates a contradiction with what is written in the other [as will be explained below]—

we set aside

and abandon

the

verse

that fulfills itself and nullifies the other, and we accept

as primary

the

verse

that fulfills itself and fulfills the other!

And the same applies in our case:

when you say

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

“before the Lord,”

namely,

on the west,

but

you nullify

what is written in

“to the front of the altar,”

namely,

on the south. But when you say

that he should present it on the south so that he will fulfill

“to the front of the altar”—

on the south you fulfill it,

and through this you also fulfill

“before the Lord”—

on the west.

And where have you fulfilled it?

Rav Ashi said: This tanna,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that the entire altar stood on the

side of

the north

of the courtyard

and was situated there,

so the southern side of the altar was aligned with the middle of the entrance to the Sanctuary [for half the entrance 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 challenged

Rav:

What of salt, concerning which the verse did not repeat the requirement, yet it is indispensable?