Menachot 20a — the Talmud in English

For it was taught:

it is written,

“It is a covenant of salt forever”

and we expound it:

that there should be ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page-column location")

a covenant stated concerning salt!

That is: the salt should never cease from the sacrifices, and it follows that this is indispensable,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

From here you learn that it is indispensable:

it is stated here,

concerning sacrifices,

“It is a covenant of salt forever,” and it is stated below,

concerning Pinhas,

“an eternal covenant of priesthood”—

just as sacrifices are impossible without priesthood,

for only the priests offer sacrifices,

so sacrifices are impossible without salt!

It is explained in the beraita that according to everyone salt is indispensable, and this is difficult for Rav, who says that specifically what Scripture repeated is indispensable?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: Rav

who says that salt is not indispensable,

holds like the tanna

of our Mishna,

who says: “If he did not salt”—

it is valid!

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

If so,

since you said that what is written in the Mishna, “If he did not salt,” means that he did not salt at all, then what is written in the Mishna,

“he did not

pour,” likewise,

let us interpret it to mean that

he did not pour at all;

but can this be said? Surely pouring is indispensable!?

Rather,

necessarily what is written:

“he did not pour”

means that he did not pour,

a priest but a non-priest.

And if so,

here too

let us interpret

“he did not salt”

as: he did not salt,

a priest but a non-priest;

but if he did not salt at all, the tanna of the Mishna agrees with Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon that it is invalid. And this is difficult for Rav!?

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rav Yosef: “If he did not salt,” which is written in the Mishna, cannot be interpreted as “he did not salt, a priest but a non-priest,” because

would it enter your mind that a non-priest would approach the altar,

where the sacrifice is salted?

Surely a non-priest is forbidden to enter the priests’ courtyard. Necessarily, “he did not salt” means that it is valid even if he did not salt at all, in accordance with Rav 39 .

Alternatively,

Rav agrees that salt is indispensable, since

because “a covenant” is written concerning it, it is as though Scripture stated it explicitly

as indispensable,

it is comparable to that!

From the words of the Gemara up to here, it has been explained that Scripture did not repeat the law of salt as indispensable; rather, either they hold that salt is not indispensable, or the one who holds that salt is indispensable learns it from the fact that “a covenant” is written.

We raise a question:

And

if

Scripture did not state it explicitly

concerning salt,

but it is written

another verse,

“And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt”?

And we answer:

That

verse, “And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt,”—

is needed for what was taught: Had it said, “Every offering with salt,” I would understand even wood and blood

to require salt in their offering,

for

they

are called “offering”; the verse therefore says, “meal-offering”

and they expound:

Just as a meal-offering is distinctive in that others come as an obligation for it,

for it cannot be offered on the altar as it is, but other things are required along with it in order to offer it—that is, wood is brought for its offering—

so too every

offering

for which others come as an obligation

requires salt. This excludes blood and wood, with which wood is not brought, and they likewise do not require salt.

And

if

you might wish to say that the verse “every offering of your meal-offering” should be expounded in another manner, and we should say:

Just as a meal-offering is distinctive in that it permits

others—the kometz permits the remainder to be eaten—

so too everything that permits

others will require salt, and thereby

I will bring in blood

which requires salt,

for

it

permits

the meat to be eaten, and I have no way to exclude from the verse except wood, since it does not permit others?

The verse therefore says, “from your meal-offering,” and not from your blood!

Could it be that the entire meal-offering,

including the remainder eaten by the priests,

requires salt? The verse says, “offering,”

to tell you:

an offering,

that is, the kometz offered on the altar,

requires salt, but the entire meal-offering does not require salt!

And I have only

that it requires salt,

the kometz. From where to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense

by reasoning that its law is like that of the kometz,

for

it

comes with it in one vessel.

From where to include frankincense that comes by itself

[for it is possible to vow frankincense alone without a meal-offering]

and frankincense that comes in bowls

of the showbread,

and the incense ,

and priests’ meal-offering,

whose law differs from that of an Israelite’s meal-offering, since it is entirely burned,

and the meal-offering of the priest

anointed

which is the griddle meal-offering that the High Priest offers every day,

and libation meal-offering

which they bring with the sacrifice,

the emurim of a sin-offering, the emurim of a guilt-offering, and the emurim of most-holy offerings,

the lambs of Atzeret,

and the emurim of lesser-holy offerings, and the limbs of a burnt-offering and the bird burnt-offering,

all of these require salt—yet the verse speaks of a meal-offering?

The verse therefore says, “With every one of your offerings you shall offer salt.”

The Master said: I have only the kometz; from where to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense, for it comes with it in one vessel.

From where to include frankincense by itself, etc.'.

We raise a question: Why is the verse “with every one of your offerings” needed to include all these?

But you said: Just as a meal-offering is distinctive in that others come as an obligation for it,

so too everything for which others come as an obligation; and included in this are all those listed by the beraita, which require wood for their offering and can be learned from “meal-offering”?

An introduction to the Gemara’s answer: Among the thirteen hermeneutical principles through which the Torah is expounded there is the principle of “a generalization and a specification.” That is, the Torah wrote a word whose meaning is that the law about which the Torah spoke applies to all things. Afterwards the Torah specified one thing, and we say that this law about which the Torah spoke applies only to this specific thing. The reason that the Torah initially wrote the first “generalization” is to include one additional thing.

However, if after the “specification” the Torah wrote another word whose meaning is that this law about which the Torah spoke applies to everything, this is called “a generalization, a specification, and a generalization,” and it is expounded to include everything resembling the “specification.”

And we answer:

This is what the tanna

of the beraita

says:

Let us say that we should not expound to include everything resembling a meal-offering, but should expound as follows:

“Offering” is a generalization, and “meal-offering”

is a specification—a generalization and a specification—

the generalization includes only what is in the specification: a meal-offering, yes,

a meal-offering requires salt;

something else

other sacrifices,

no,

they do not require salt?!

It then said

the beraita:

“With every one of your offerings” returned and made a generalization,

and it became

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization—

and

you may derive only something resembling the specification: just as the specification

of a meal-offering is

explicitly characterized by others coming as an obligation for it, so too everything

of the sacrifices

for which others come as an obligation,

as the beraita said at the beginning, that everything resembling a meal-offering is included.

And we explain:

“Others that come as an obligation for it”—what are they? Wood,

which comes with the meal-offering;

so too everything

with which they bring

wood

requires salt.

We raise a question:

Let us say

that the distinctive feature of a meal-offering, that “others come as an obligation for it,” means that together with the meal-offering sacrifice they bring another sacrifice; and what is it?

Frankincense,

which comes as an obligation with the kometz. And let us say: every sacrifice with which another thing comes as an obligation requires salt,

and

if we expound in this way,

I will bring in

and include also

blood

as requiring salt, because others come as an obligation for it,

for there are libations

that come as an obligation with it, since the libations come with the animal sacrifice?

And we answer:

Libations

are not considered to come with the blood of the sacrifice; rather,

they come together with the emurim!

What is the reason?

It is logical that the offering of the sacrifice requires

“eating and drinking,”

and the wine of the libations is the drinking that comes with the emurim, which are the eating.

And we challenge:

On the contrary,

it is more logical that the wine comes for the sake of the blood of the offering, for the blood is

atonement, and

the wine is

joy,

and the one who receives atonement is accustomed to rejoice after his atonement?

And we answer:

Rather,

for this reason we do not include blood that is accompanied by libations, like the meal-offering that is accompanied by frankincense, since they are not similar, for

frankincense comes with it

with the meal-offering

in one vessel,

whereas

libations do not come

with the blood

in one vessel. But

when we include every offering that is accompanied by

wood,

this is similar to the meal-offering, for

just as it is made fit through them,

through the wood,

the meal-offering—

so all the offerings are made fit through them!

And we examine it:

And say

that we should expound the generalization, specification, and generalization in this manner:

Just as the specification explicitly [teaches] that others come to it as an obligation and it permits,

for the handful permits the remainder to be eaten,

so too everything

that is similar in two aspects,

that others come to it as an obligation and it permits—and what is that?

Frankincense brought in bowls, which permits

for it permits the

showbread

and also requires wood,

but anything else,

the other offerings,

not

shall require salt?

And we answer:

Since it was necessary

for the verse of

“above your meal-offering”

to exclude

“but not above your blood,”

from the fact that the Torah wrote an exclusion that blood does not require salt, learn from it that if not for the exclusion, we would also have included blood, even though it resembles the meal-offering in only one aspect, in that it permits like it.

It follows that all these,

all the offerings that were not excluded,

come

we include them as requiring salt, since they resemble the meal-offering

in one

aspect,

that others come to them as an obligation!

The Master said: “Above your meal-offering,” but not above your blood.

And we examine it:

And say

that we should not exclude blood; rather, we should expound as follows:

“Above your meal-offering,” but not above your limbs,

so that limbs brought upon the altar should not be required to have salt?

And we answer:

It is more logical

that

the limbs should have been included, since

the limbs resemble the meal-offering more than the blood in the following matters:

a.

Others come to it as an obligation, like it.

b. It is burned upon the

fires, like it,

which is not the case with blood, which is not burned upon the altar.

c. It is brought only

outside, like it,

for limbs and meal-offerings are brought only upon the outer altar, whereas there are times when blood enters inside, into the Sanctuary, for sprinkling.

d. One is liable for them to receive excision on account of

leftover, like it.

e. Likewise, there is liability for excision for them if one ate them in a state of

impurity, like it.

f. And if one misused them, one is liable to bring an offering for

misuse, like it,

which is not the case with blood, which was excluded from liability for leftover, impurity, and misuse.