Menachot 22a — the Talmud in English

It might enter your mind to say ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

when the Merciful One granted them

that they may salt their offering with salt from the community’s supply

to Israel

it is specifically Israel to whom He granted this, because

they have

Israel

a chamber,

as they gave the shekels to the chamber, and the salt was purchased with them; but

to the priests, who do not have a share in the contribution of the

доли в пожертвовании

chamber,

since they do not contribute the shekels,

the Merciful One did not grant them salt for their offerings

to salt their offerings with it.

It teaches us

that even so, they are permitted to salt with salt from the community’s supply, because this is a stipulation of the court!

And we raise a difficulty:

But as for the wood, regarding which it is obvious to the tanna

of the aforementioned beraita

that it comes from the community’s supply,

it comes from the community’s supply

from where do we know this?

And we answer:

As it is taught in a beraita: One might have thought that when one says, “This is an olah,” he should bring wood from his house, just as he brings the libations from his house.

The verse states: “Upon the wood that is upon the fire that is upon the altar,”

and we derive:

Just as the altar comes from the community’s supply,

so too the wood and the fire come from the community’s supply! This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says:

We derive this as well:

Just as the altar may not have been used by an ordinary person,

as explained in tractate Zevachim, that it must be made from something that an ordinary person has not used,

so too the wood and the fire

may be brought only from something

that an ordinary person has not used!

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the practical difference between them?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

with regard to

new

wood. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, the wood and the fire need not be new, as it does not matter to us whether an ordinary person used them; whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, one must bring new wood 69 .

And we challenge this:

But may he not bring old wood

according to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua?

But it is written: “And Aravna said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up whatever is good in his eyes; see, the cattle for the burnt-offering, and the threshing boards and the implements of the cattle for wood,”

that is, to kindle fire with them upon the altar. This proves that the threshing boards and the implements of the cattle were fit even after Aravna had used them!?

And we answer:

Here too,

it is speaking

of new ones,

as they were new and Aravna had not used them; rather, he had made them solely for the purpose of “threshing boards” 70 .

And we explain:

What are “threshing boards”? Ulla said—

a tribul bed! What is a tribul bed? Rav Yehuda said—

a goat of korkesa, with which they thresh flax!

A solid wooden board fitted with pegs, used for threshing grain, which is tied to oxen and they pull it, thereby threshing the grain.

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse

that indicates that threshing boards are used for threshing? As it is stated:

“Behold, I have made you a new threshing board, sharp, with many teeth; you shall thresh mountains.”

Mishna:

If its handful

of a voluntary meal-offering

became mixed with the handful

of

another,

another voluntary meal-offering, or if it became mixed

with the meal-offering

of

the priests,

or

with the meal-offering of the anointed priest,

which is the griddle-offering that the High Priest offered every day, or

with a libation offering,

which is brought with an animal offering, the entire mixture is

fit

for burning upon the altar, since the status of all these is identical: they are burned upon the altar, like the handful.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If the handful became mixed

with the meal-offering of the anointed priest

or

with a libation offering—

the mixture is unfit,

because

this

the handful of a voluntary meal-offering

has a thick mixture,

as it contains only one log of oil per tenth of an ephah of fine flour,

whereas this,

the meal-offering of the priests and that of the anointed priest,

has a thin mixture,

as three logs are placed in each tenth of an ephah,

and

when they become mixed,

they absorb

oil

from one another

and the greater quantity of oil in the meal-offerings enters the handful and renders it unfit, as this constitutes “increasing its oil”; and the meal-offerings likewise become unfit because of “decreasing its oil” 72 .

Gemara:

We learned there: Blood

of an offering that is to be sprinkled upon the altar

that became mixed with water—

if it contains,

in the mixture,

the appearance of blood,

the blood was not nullified in the water and

it is fit

for sprinkling 73 .

And if the blood

became mixed

of the offering

with wine,

which is red and whose appearance resembles that of blood,

we regard it

the wine

as though it were water!

That is, if the quantity of wine is such that, had that wine been the color of water, the mixture would have had the appearance of blood, the blood is fit for sprinkling. And likewise, if it

became mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal

of non-sacred status

or with the blood of a wild animal, we regard it

the blood of the non-sacred animal or the wild animal

as though it were water,

and if the appearance of blood would be discernible in water, it is fit for sprinkling.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If it became mixed with non-sacred blood, even in a large quantity such that, had it been water, the mixture would not have had the appearance of blood, it is fit, because

blood does not nullify blood!

And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own view, that one species is not nullified by the same species!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both,

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda, who disagree over whether blood nullifies blood,

derive their views from a single verse.

They learned their laws from the same verse. It states, concerning the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur:

“And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat,”

and the intent of the verse is that he should take them when they are mixed together in a single vessel. Yet

it is stated that

it is known that the blood of the bull is greater in quantity than the blood

of the goat

and if water in an amount equal to the blood of the bull had been mixed with the blood of the goat, the mixture would not have had the appearance of blood. Nevertheless, we do not say that the blood of the goat is nullified by the blood of the bull, since the verse calls it “the blood of the goat” even when it is mixed with the blood of the bull.

If according to the Rabbis,

who said above (page 22a) that blood nullifies blood,

they say, “they ascend”

to the altar—for example, the blood of a bull and the blood of a goat that became mixed—

it is only that they do not nullify one another, but kind with its kind

if this one does not ascend to the altar

is nullified,

and if so, carrion and slaughtered meat nullify one another in every manner in which they became mixed!?

If according to Rabbi Judah,

who said that blood does not nullify blood, the amoraim here disagreed; if so, this is difficult—