Menachot 21a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Take out

from the beraita

wood,

and as we said, that the beraita follows the method of Rabbi,

and bring in

the wine of

libations

in its place, to exclude it, that it does not require salt, since other things do not come because of its obligation, for they do not bring wood with it 47 .

20.

For it was taught: But the wine

of libations

and the blood and the wood and the incense do not require salt.

And we consider it:

Who is it?

According to the method of which tannai was this beraita taught?

If [it is] Rabbi, it is difficult

what is written in the beraita, that

wood

does not require salt, for Rabbi holds that wood requires salt.

If [it is] the Rabbis, the incense is difficult,

for from the generalization, specification, and generalization, all things for which other things come because of their obligation were included, [and] they require salt, and the incense is included, for it requires wood?

And we answer:

It is this tannai, for it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says:

the generalization, specification, and generalization stated in the matter of salt is expounded as follows:

Just as the specification

namely, the meal-offering,

is explicit

that it is

a thing that contracts ritual impurity, ascends upon the fires, and is on the outer altar,

and requires salt,

so every thing that contracts ritual impurity, ascends upon the fires, and is on the outer altar

requires salt.

Wood went out—

for it does not contract ritual impurity ;

blood and wine went out—

for they do not ascend upon the fires ;

incense went out —

for it does not

come as an offering

on the outer altar

but on the inner altar , for all these do not require salt.

And we consider it:

Rather, the reason

that blood does not require salt is

because the verse excluded blood; were it not so

without the exclusion,

I would say

I would say

that blood should require

require

salt,

but

since, when one salts it, it leaves the category of blood

and is no longer fit for sprinkling on the altar, and without a verse we know that blood designated for sprinkling does not require salt, for if one salts the blood, it becomes disqualified?

For Ze’iri said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: Blood that one cooked

and ate

one does not transgress for it

because of the prohibition of blood , for the Torah prohibited only blood fit to effect atonement in the sacred offerings, and cooked blood has left the category of blood and is disqualified for the altar.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Ze’iri: Blood that one salted

and ate

one does not transgress for it

because of the prohibition of blood, for it too is disqualified for sprinkling, since salted [food] is like boiling.

And Rav Yehuda himself said: Limbs

of offerings

that one roasted

first outside the arrangement of the altar,

and brought them up

afterward onto the altar,

there is no [status] of “a pleasing fragrance” in them,

for once they have been roasted, no fragrance comes out of them again!?

And we answer: For this reason a verse is needed to exclude placing salt on blood, for

you might say: Throw into it

salt

something merely for the commandment

and through that small amount it would not yet leave the category of blood;

it teaches us

the verse that blood does not require salt.

The body of the matter: Ze’iri said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: Blood that one cooked, one does not transgress for it.

Rava was sitting and stating this teaching. Abaye raised an objection to him:

from what is written in a beraita:

If one coagulated

the blood,

and ate it, or if one melted

the fat and swallowed it—

he is liable

for karet because of blood or fat! At first the Gemara thought that he coagulated the blood through cooking, and nevertheless one is liable for it; and this is difficult for Ze’iri, who says that for blood that one cooked one does not transgress?

And we answer:

It is not difficult. Here

Ze’iri, who exempts for blood that one cooked, speaks when it

was coagulated by fire; here

in the beraita, which states that one is liable for blood that one cooked, it speaks when it

was coagulated by the sun!

And as it explains and proceeds:

If one coagulated the blood

by fire

he is exempt, because

it does not return

it does not return to being as it was, and it is found that the status of blood has been nullified from it. But if one coagulated it

by the sun,

he is liable, since

it returns

to being fluid, as it was at the beginning; therefore, even now, when it is congealed, it has not left the category of blood.

And we challenge: If one coagulated it

by the sun, should we not also say

that one who eats it is exempt, for with the blood of sacred offerings it is no longer fit for sprinkling upon the altar, because

since it was rejected

from sprinkling at the time when it was congealed,

it was rejected

entirely even after it thawed; and since it is not fit for sprinkling were it the blood of sacred offerings, one is not liable for eating it because of eating blood!?

And proof that concerning the blood of sacred offerings that congealed, since it was rejected from sprinkling while it was congealed, it is rejected forever even when it thaws is

for Rabbi Mani asked Rabbi Yohanan: Blood that congealed and one ate it—what is the law?

Is he liable for karet because of blood?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan:

Since it was rejected

from sprinkling at the time when it was congealed,

it shall be rejected

forever. Therefore, one is not liable for eating it!

Rava was silent

Rava!

Abaye said to him

Abaye:

Perhaps

it is not difficult. For

here,

in the beraita, which states that if one coagulated it by the sun and ate it he is liable, it speaks

of

blood

of external sin-offerings,

which is fit to be placed upon the altar even when congealed; consequently, also with ordinary blood one is liable for eating it, since it is fit for atonement among sacred offerings. Whereas

here,

where Rabbi Yohanan exempts for congealed blood, it speaks

of internal sin-offerings,

with regard to which congealed blood is not fit for sprinkling, as it explains below; therefore, one is exempt for it if one ate it.

He said

Rava:

You have reminded me of a matter

you have reminded me of a matter

that Rabbah said in the name of Rav Hisda: Blood that congealed in external sin-offerings and one ate it—

he is liable!

And the reason that he is liable is:

“And he shall take

from the blood of the sin-offering

and shall place

upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering,”

the Merciful One said

concerning the blood of external sin-offerings. And the blood of external sin-offerings, even though it is congealed, is fit for the altar:

it is a thing of taking and placing 57 .

But blood that congealed

in internal sin-offerings and one ate it—

he is exempt.

For

“and he shall dip

in the blood

and shall sprinkle,” the Merciful One said

concerning internal sin-offerings,

and this

congealed blood

is not fit for dipping and sprinkling,

and consequently, while it is congealed, it is not fit with regard to the altar!

And Rabba, his own [opinion],

disagrees with Rav Hisda, and

said: Even

congealed blood

in the inner sin-offerings, and they ate it—

he is liable,

even though it is not fit for atonement through the blood,

since

congealed blood

its counterpart is fit

for placement

in the outer sin-offerings

[which corresponds to the sprinkling in the inner [sin-offerings]].

Rav Pappa said:

Since we have said that even for blood that is not fit for atonement one is liable for eating it, since there is “its counterpart,” blood that is fit for atonement, elsewhere,

therefore, the blood

of

a donkey that congealed, and he ate it—

he is liable,

even though a donkey is not fit for an offering,

since

there is congealed blood

“whose counterpart” is fit

for placement

in the outer sin-offerings!

Rav Giddel said in the name of Ze’iri: Blood, whether

it is

liquid or whether

it is

dry,

it is

a separation

with regard to immersion and with regard to washing of the hands.

He raised an objection:

It is written in a beraita:

The blood, the ink, the honey, and the milk,

when they are

dry—

they are a separation;

when they are

liquid—

they are not a separation!

And this is difficult for Ze’iri, who says that even liquid [blood] is a separation?

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

[statement of] Ze’iri, who said that liquid blood is a separation, spoke of

that which has begun to adhere,

which has begun to dry somewhat;

this,

the beraita, which states that liquid blood is not a separation, spoke of

that which has not adhered,

which is completely liquid.

It is written: “And every offering of your meal-offering, with salt shall you salt.”

And we inquire about it: “

‘You shall salt’—for what purpose has it come?”

It would have sufficed to write: “And every offering of your meal-offering, with salt.”

And we answer:

For that which is taught [in a beraita]:

If only

“with salt”

[had] been written, could one build it up [with salt]? [And below it explains this.]

The verse states: “You shall salt.”

And

if

only “And every offering of your meal-offering

you shall salt”

had been written, could he salt it

with salt-water? The verse states: “With salt,”

specifically! It is further written:

“And you shall not discontinue salt,”

and we expound:

Bring salt that does not cease

either in summer or in winter.

And which [salt is this?]—

This is Sodomite salt,

which the sea continually casts out.

And from where [do we know] that if he did not find Sodomite salt, he brings istronit salt,

which is made from the ground and by human hands?

The verse states: “Upon all your offerings

you shall

offer

salt.” And the word “offer” is superfluous, to expound:

Offer—

from

every

salt

that it may be,

whether Sodomite or istronit! And they further expound from the verse:

Offer—

from every place

that it may be, even from outside the Land of Israel!

Offer—

even on Shabbat!

Offer—

even in a state of ritual impurity!

And the verse teaches us that salting is one of the sacrificial rites, and it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity in communal offerings.

And we inquire about it:

What is “build it up”

that is stated in the beraita?

Rabba bar Ulla said: This is what it means:

If “with salt”

could be written: He could build it up

by placing much salt upon it,

like a tablet

that is placed

in clay;

the verse therefore states, “You shall salt,” meaning that he should place a little salt upon it, in the manner in which one salts.

Abaye said to Rabba

:

If so,

it could

have needed to say “he shall build it up”

in the beraita. Why did the tanna use the expression “could you build it up”?

Rather, Abaye said:

This is what it means:

He could make it like a building,

placing much salt upon it like a building, which is one row upon another row.

Rava said to Abaye

:

If so,

it could

have said “he shall build it up,”

which is an expression of building,

it should have needed

to be written in the beraita?

Rather, Rava said:

It should not be interpreted in accordance with the words of Rabba bar Ulla or in accordance with the words of Abaye. Rather, this is the intention of the tanna of the beraita:

“Could you build it up!”

And the Gemara explains Rava’s words:

What is “build it up”?

Rav Ashi said:

It is an expression of notarikon—

could he place in it

much salt, until he places in it

a flavor like understanding,

which gives a person flavor?

The verse states: “You shall salt.”

[See the explanation of Tosafot!]

How does he perform

the salting

? He brings the limb, places salt upon it, turns it over again, places salt upon it, and brings it up

onto the altar.

Abaye said: And likewise for a pot!

That is, when he salts meat in order to extract its blood and prepare it for eating, he need not salt it any further 63 .