Menachot 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to Rav Shila, who said that throwing it, whether unwittingly or intentionally,

come and hear: If blood became impure and one threw it unwittingly, it effects acceptance; if intentionally, it does not effect acceptance!

This indicates that specifically when it was thrown unwittingly, it effects acceptance?

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: If blood became impure and one threw it—he threw it

whether unwittingly or intentionally;

the matter depends on this: If it

became impure unwittingly, it effects acceptance; if intentionally, it does not effect acceptance.

Mishna:

One who performs the kemitza of a meal-offering, and before he burns the kometz,

its remainder became impure,

or

its remainder was burned,

or

its remainder was lost,

the status of the meal-offering depends on the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concerning an offering whose meat was lost before the blood was sprinkled.

According to the measure of Rabbi Eliezer,

who maintains that the blood is sprinkled even when the meat is no longer present, the meal-offering is

valid

for burning its kometz.

And according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua ,

who maintains that when there is no meat, the blood is not sprinkled, the meal-offering is

invalid

for burning its kometz. 132 .

Gemara:

Rav said:

What is stated in the Mishna, that according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is impossible to burn the kometz when the remainder became impure,

that

applies only when

all of its remainder became impure

of the meal-offering;

but

if only

part of its remainder became impure, it is not

the meal-offering disqualified, and it is possible to burn the kometz.

It might have been understood

from Rav’s saying, “That is, when all of its remainder became impure,” that only where part of the remainder

became impure

does Rav say that

yes,

it is permitted to burn the kometz even according to Rabbi Yehoshua; but where part of the remainder was

lost or burned,

Rav

did not

say that the kometz may be burned according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

And we inquire:

What does Rav maintain,

that he distinguishes between part of the remainder becoming impure and part of the remainder being lost or burned?

If Rav maintains

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

the remainder—

what remains of the remainder of the meal-offering—

is significant,

and is important enough to be considered as though the remainder exists, then

even if part was lost or burned,

the remainder

also

should be considered as though all the remainder exists. 133 .

And

if Rav maintains

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

the remainder is not significant,

and therefore when part of the remainder was burned or lost, the kometz is not burned, then when part of the remainder

became impure,

why is part of the remainder sufficient?

For what reason

is the kometz burned? You must say that it is because

the tzitz effects acceptance

for consecrated items that became impure.

If so,

if the kometz is burned because the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity, it is difficult: Why did Rav say that if all of its remainder became impure, Rabbi Yehoshua disqualifies it? If the reason that the kometz may be burned when part of its remainder became impure is that the tzitz effects acceptance, then even if

all of its remainder became impure as well,

the kometz should be burnable, since the tzitz effects acceptance!?

And we answer:

Rav always maintains

that

the remainder is significant ,

and therefore the kometz is burned when part of its remainder became impure, not because of the tzitz effecting acceptance.

And

Rav mentioned the case of part of its remainder

becoming impure,

rather than part of its remainder being lost or burned,

and the same law applies to what was lost or burned. And this is what he said

Rav:

“became impure”—

he mentioned the beginning

of the matter written at the beginning of the beraita

as his example! For the law that “its remainder became impure” is taught first in the Mishna.

For the law of “its remainder became impure” is taught first in the Mishna.

As it was taught

that Rabbi Yehoshua likewise validates the offering when part of the remainder remains, whether the rest became impure or was lost or burned:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the animal offerings in the Torah,

where the meat designated for eating and the fat designated for burning were lost before the blood was sprinkled,

if an olive-bulk of meat or an olive-bulk of fat remained from them—

he sprinkles the blood!

The reason is that the phrase “the meat and the blood” is still applicable. But if an olive-bulk did not remain of either the meat or the fat, and only

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat remained,

he does not sprinkle the blood! The offering is disqualified, because the meat designated for eating and the fat designated for burning are not combined to form an olive-bulk.

The offering is disqualified, because the meat designated to be eaten and the fat designated to be burned are not combined to form an olive-bulk.

But with regard to a burnt-offering,—

even if

there remained

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat—

he sprinkles the blood! For

the burnt-offering is

entirely burned

and the meat and fat are combined for burning.

And with regard to a meal-offering,—

even if it is entirely present—

he should not sprinkle

the blood!

And we are greatly astonished:

A meal-offering—

what function could it have?!

What sprinkling of blood is there in a meal-offering!?

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita is speaking about

a libation meal-offering

that accompanies an animal offering. The entire animal offering was lost, while the libation meal-offering remained; concerning this, the beraita states that one should not sprinkle the blood of the animal offering even though the libation meal-offering remains. The tanna needed to teach us this law because

it might have entered your mind to say: Since it comes together with the animal offering,

it is

considered like the body of the animal offering,

and its remaining should be considered as though the meat of the animal offering exists and the blood may be sprinkled .

It teaches us

that the libation meal-offering is not considered remainder of the meat of the animal offering, for the phrase “the meat and the blood” does not apply to it.

And we inquire:

From where are these matters

derived? From where do we know the law stated in the beraita, that if even an olive-bulk of the fat remains, the phrase “the meat and the blood” applies to it and the blood may be sprinkled?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and they attributed it also to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: The verse says: “And the koḥen shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar, and burn the fat for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord,”

and it implies that the sprinkling of the blood is for the sake of burning the

fat for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord,

even when there is no meat.

And we have found

the law concerning fat: the meaning of the verse proves that the blood is sprinkled on its account. But as for the diaphragm and the two

kidneys,

which are neither edible meat nor fat burned on the altar, but are burned together with the fat,

from where do we know

that if the entire animal offering was lost and only they remained, they are considered as though part of the offering remained, so that the blood may be sprinkled?

As an aside, the Gemara explains that this is indeed the view of the tanna of the beraita: the diaphragm and the two kidneys are considered remainder.

As it teaches

in the beraita:

“And with regard to a meal-offering, even if it is entirely present, he should not sprinkle!”

And they infer:

It is only with regard to a meal-offering that he should not sprinkle,

because it is not considered remainder, since it is not part of the animal offering;

but the diaphragm and the two kidneys,

which are part of the animal offering,

—

he should sprinkle!

And now we return to the matter about which we inquired:

From where

do we know that the diaphragm and the two kidneys are considered remainder?

We did not find the source from which Rabbi Yishmael derived this matter.

Rabbi Yoḥanan himself

said:

This is how it is expounded: “And he shall burn the fat

for a pleasing fragrance”—

everything that you burn for a pleasing fragrance

is like fat. Thus, if only the diaphragm and the two kidneys remain, since they are burned for a pleasing fragrance, this is considered as though part of the body of the animal offering remained, and the blood is sprinkled!

But this can be challenged: Since we derive from “a pleasing fragrance” that the blood is sprinkled on account of everything burned for a pleasing fragrance, why does the verse need to write both terms, “fat” and “a pleasing fragrance”?

And we answer:

It was necessary to write “fat,” and it was necessary to write “for a pleasing fragrance.” If it had written “fat”

alone,

I would have said

that only

fat—

yes,

the blood may be sprinkled if it remains; but

the diaphragm and the two kidneys may not

be considered significant enough for the blood to be sprinkled on their account. Therefore,

the Merciful One writes

also

“a pleasing fragrance.”

And had the Merciful One written “for a pleasing fragrance”

alone,

I would have said—

even a meal-offering

that comes with the animal offering, since it too is burned entirely for a pleasing fragrance on the altar; therefore, if it remained when the animal offering was lost, the blood could be sprinkled on its account.

The Merciful One therefore wrote

“fat,”

which indicates that “a pleasing fragrance” comes only to include something that is part of the animal offering, and not a meal-offering that is not part of the animal offering.

Mishna:

a.

The kometz

that was not

consecrated by placing it

in a service vessel

after the kemitza is

invalid .

And Rabbi Shimon validates it.

unfit

. And Rabbi Shimon declares it valid.

b.

If he burned its kometz

of the meal-offering

twice,

burning half the kometz first and afterward burning the other half—

it is valid!

Gemara:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon

who validates a kometz that was not consecrated in a service vessel after the kemitza?

The verse says

concerning a meal-offering:

“It is most holy,

like a sin-offering and like a guilt-offering,”

teaching you:

If he comes to perform its service

the services of the meal-offering

by hand,

carrying the kometz in his hand after performing the kemitza and burning it on the altar from his hand rather than from a vessel [and burning the kometz is considered analogous to sprinkling the blood on the altar] , he performs its service

by

hand of the

right, like a sin-offering,

whose blood is placed on the altar with a finger and not from a vessel; and he must place it with the finger of his right hand. From the analogy between a meal-offering and a sin-offering, we learn that he may perform the service without a vessel, but his service must be performed with the right hand. 140 .

When it comes to performing it

in a vessel—

performing it with the left hand, as an asham,

whose blood is sprinkled specifically from within a vessel, so that he may hold the vessel in his left hand and sprinkle from it, Rabbi Shimon holds that only wherever both “priesthood” and “finger” are written is the right hand specifically required. Only with regard to a ḥatat are both “finger” and “priesthood” stated, whereas with the other offerings only “priesthood” is stated, and not “finger”".

Therefore, since the menakha was compared also to an asham, he may perform it with his left hand; but in that case he must perform it in a vessel [just as with an asham, whose blood is sprinkled by hand and not from a vessel, and which may be performed with the left hand].

And Rabbi Yannai said:

Rabbi Shimon’s reason is

since he took the handful from a service vessel,

the handful no longer requires an additional sanctification in a service vessel. Rather,

he brings it up

to the altar

and burns it even with his belt

with his sash,

and even with a mekida,

a vessel

of earthenware!

But

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Rabbi Shimon did not validate the handful without placing it in a service vessel. Rather,

everyone agrees with regard to the handful

that it requires sanctification

in a service vessel . Rather, if it has already been sanctified in a service vessel, Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that he may bring it up in his hand and burn it from his hand.

Meytivi:

It is written in the Tosefta:

The burning of the fats

and limbs, and the wood

of the arrangement,

which he brought up

onto the altar—

whether by hand or in a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left, are valid!

The handful, the incense, and the frankincense, which he brought up whether by hand or in a vessel ,

whether with the right hand or with the left -

Valid!

This beraita must have been stated according to the view of Rabbi Shimon, since the tanna of the beraita validates burning the handful even by hand, without a service vessel 146 .

And it states that even if he brought it up with his left hand, the burning is valid—

a refutation of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,

who said: Rabbi Shimon validated performing the service by hand only with the right hand, as with a ḥatat?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, could say to you: It is taught in reference to two distinct cases.

That is, what is written, “whether with the right hand or with the left,” does not apply both to hand and to vessel. Rather, this is the meaning of the beraita: If he brought it up

by hand—

with the right hand!

If he brought it up

in a vessel—

whether with the right hand or with the left!

And we raise an objection to Rav Naḥman:

Come and hear: If he took the handful from a service vessel,

in which the menakha had been sanctified,

and “sanctified it” [

that is, he placed it

without a service vessel, and brought it up and burned it without a service vessel—

it is disqualified!

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon validate it when placed in a vessel

even though it is not a service vessel!

This is a refutation of Rav Naḥman, who said that everyone agrees that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel?!

And we answer: In truth, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon validate it after the handful has been sanctified in a service vessel.

Say

that in their statement, instead of “validate it when placed in a vessel,” one must read: “validate it

from the placing in a vessel onward,”

that is, carrying and burning do not require a service vessel.

Come and hear: And the Rabbis say: The handful requires a service vessel—

how so?

He takes the handful from a service vessel, sanctifies it in a service vessel, and brings it up and burns it in a service vessel!

Rabbi Shimon says: Since he took the handful and sanctified it from a service vessel—

he brings it up and burns it without a service vessel, and that is sufficient!

This is difficult for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who says that everyone agrees that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel?!

And we answer:

Say

that the beraita should read:

Since he took the handful and sanctified it “in a service vessel”—

he brings it up and burns it

even without a service vessel,

and that is sufficient!

Come and hear,

a refutation of Rav Naḥman:

He took the handful with his right hand and placed it in his left [

without a vessel]—

he must return it to his right hand!

As Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: When it comes to performing it by hand, he performs it with the right hand 148 .