Menachot 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

:

On the contrary, blood should have been included,

for it resembles a meal-offering in that

it:

it:

.

renders

the offering permitted to be eaten,

like it.

.

becomes invalid at sunset, like it,

for blood is not sprinkled at night; likewise, with a meal-offering, its kometz is not offered at night, and consequently both become invalid the following day because of linah. But the limbs do not become invalid at sunset, since they may be offered throughout the night 44 .

.

And we answer: In any event,

these

matters in which the limbs resemble a meal-offering

are more numerous

than the two matters in which blood resembles a meal-offering.

The Master said: I might have thought that even wood and blood, which are called an “offering,” [would be included.]

And we inquire concerning this:

Who is

the tanna who

you heard say that wood is called a complete “offering,”

as he equated wood with blood?

Rabbi!

And if so, why did you say that wood does not require salt?

According to Rabbi, it certainly requires salt!

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written: “When a person presents an offering, a meal-offering,” and the verse is expounded:

“an offering”—

this teaches that one may voluntarily donate wood

for the altar pyre!

And how much? Two logs.

And likewise

we find that wood is called an “offering,” for

it says: “And we cast lots concerning the offering of the wood.”

Rabbi says: Wood is a complete

offering;

they are, and they require

salt

and they require being brought near

to the altar, like a meal-offering!

And Rava said: According to Rabbi, wood requires taking a kometz

as a meal-offering: one crushes the wood into thin splinters and takes a kometz from them.

And Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi,

those who voluntarily donate

wood require

to bring with them

wood

to burn them, just as wood is brought with the other offerings.

And we answer: Indeed,

remove

delete

“wood” from here!

We do not read in the beraita that wood is excluded from the requirement of salt, for the beraita was stated according to Rabbi’s opinion, and according to him wood requires salt.

And we challenge this:

But then, the verse

of “meal-offering,” from which the beraita derives the exclusion of anything for which others are not brought as an obligation,

what does it come to exclude? If it comes to exclude blood

alone, there is no need to learn this from the fact that it does not resemble a meal-offering, for from the derivation

from “upon your meal-offering”

and not “upon your blood”

it follows?!