Menachot 26a — the Talmud in English

We ask an objection to Rav Shila, who said that his throwing, whether unwittingly or intentionally,

Come and hear: If blood became impure and he threw it unwittingly, it renders [the offering] acceptable; intentionally, it does not render [it] acceptable!

This shows that specifically when he threw it unwittingly, it renders [the offering] acceptable?

And we resolve:

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

whether unwittingly or intentionally;

the matter depends [on this] — if

it became impure unwittingly, it renders [the offering] acceptable; intentionally, it does not render [it] acceptable.

Mishna:

One who took the handful of the meal-offering, and before he burned the handful

its remnants became impure

or

its remnants were burned

or

its remnants were lost,

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

According to the measure of Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that the blood is sprinkled even when the meat does not exist —

valid

is the meal-offering for burning its handful.

And according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua ,

who holds: if there is no meat, the blood is not sprinkled —

invalid

is the meal-offering for burning its handful. 132 .

Gemara:

Rav said:

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

and this

refers only to a case

in which all its remnants became impure

of the meal-offering;

but

if only

some of its remnants became impure, it is not

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

It might have been understood

from Rav’s saying, “and this, when all its remnants became impure,” that only where

it became impure

part of the remnants,

yes,

indeed Rav said that it is permitted to burn the handful even according to Rabbi Yehoshua; but where part of the remnants was

lost or burned,

Rav

not

did Rav say that they can burn the handful according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

We inquire concerning it:

What does Rav hold,

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

If Rav holds

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua

what remains

—that which remained of the remnants of the meal-offering—

is a matter,

is an important thing, to be considered as though the remnants exist, then

even when part was lost or burned

of the remnants,

also

the remnants that remained from the remnants should be considered as though all the remnants exist. 133 .

And

if Rav holds

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua

what remains is not a matter,

and therefore when some of the remnants were burned or lost, they do not burn the handful, then when

part became impure

of the remnants,

for what reason

do they burn the handful? Perforce one must say that it is because

the tzitz renders [it] acceptable

for consecrated things that became impure.

If so,

if they burn the handful because of the acceptance of the tzitz for impurity, it is difficult: why did Rav say that if all its remnants became impure, Rabbi Yehoshua disqualifies it? If the reason it is possible to burn it when some of its remnants became impure is the acceptance of the tzitz, then even if

all its remnants also became impure, he should be able to burn it, since the tzitz renders [it] acceptable!?

one should be able to burn it, since the tzitz accepts it!?

And we resolve:

Rav always holds

Rav

that what remains is a matter ,

and for this reason he burns [the handful] when some of its remnants became impure, and not because of the acceptance of the tzitz.

And

Rav mentioned

“became impure”

some of its remnants,

and the same law applies to the lost and the burned. And that which he said

Rav

“became impure” —

he took the beginning

the matter written at the beginning of the beraita

as an example! For the law of “its remnants 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 when some remnants remained, whether the rest became impure or were lost and burned:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: All the animal offerings in the Torah,

whose meat intended for eating and fat intended for burning were lost before the sprinkling of the blood, if

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

he sprinkles the blood!

The reason is that what is written, “the meat and the blood,” is still fulfilled in this. But if a measure of an olive-bulk remained neither from the meat nor from the fat, but only

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

he does not sprinkle the blood! And the offering is disqualified, because the meat intended for eating and the fat intended for burning are not combined to form a measure of 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.

And with a burnt-offering —

even

if there remained

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

he sprinkles the blood! Because

the burnt-offering is

entirely burned

and the meat and the fat are combined for burning.

And with a meal-offering —

even if it all exists —

he shall not sprinkle

the blood!

And we are greatly astonished:

A meal-offering —

what is its function?!

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

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita is speaking about

a libation meal-offering

that comes with the animal offering, where the entire animal offering was lost and it remained; concerning this the beraita states that one should not sprinkle the blood of the animal offering even though the libation meal-offering exists. And the reason that the tan­ny needed to teach us this law is that

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

it is

considered like the body of the animal offering,

and what remained of it is considered as though the meat of the animal offering exists, and it is possible to sprinkle the blood ;

it teaches us

that the libation meal-offering is not considered what remains of the meat of the animal offering, for we do not apply to it “the meat and the blood.”

We inquire concerning it:

From where are these words

from where do we know the law stated in the beraita, that if even an olive-bulk of the fat remained, we apply to it “the meat and the blood,” and it is possible to sprinkle the blood?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and they related it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania: The verse says “And the koen shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord, and he shall burn the fat as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord”

and he shall burn the fat for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord” .

“as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord”

and it implies that the sprinkling of the blood is because of the burning of the

fat, even though there is no meat.

And we have found [this concerning] fat

the meaning of the verse proves that the blood is also sprinkled on account of it;

the lobe and the two

the

kidneys

which are neither edible meat nor fat that is burned, but are burned together with the fat —

from where do we know

that if the entire animal offering was lost and only they remained, it is considered as though something remained from the animal offering, so that it is possible to sprinkle the blood?

As an aside, the Gemara explains that this is indeed the opinion of the tan­ny of the beraita, that the lobe and the two kidneys are considered a remnant,

for he teaches

in the beraita:

“And with a meal-offering, even if it all exists, he shall not sprinkle!”

And they infer:

It is a meal-offering for which he shall not sprinkle,

since it is not important as a remnant, because it is not from the body of the animal offering;

but the lobe and the two kidneys

which are from the body of the animal offering —

he shall sprinkle!

And now we return to what we inquired:

From where do we know

that the lobe and the two kidneys are considered a remnant?

And we did not find from where Rabbi Yishmael learned this matter.

Rabbi Yohanan himself [

himself]

said: This is how he expounds: “And he shall burn the fat

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!

as a pleasing fragrance” —

everything that you bring up as a pleasing fragrance

is like fat; if even the lobe and the two kidneys remained, since they are brought up as a pleasing fragrance, this is like something remaining from the body of the animal offering, and they sprinkle the blood!

But it is difficult: since they learn from “a pleasing fragrance” that for everything brought up as a pleasing fragrance they sprinkle the blood, why does the verse need to write both of them, both “fat” and “a pleasing fragrance”?

And we resolve:

It was necessary to write “fat,” and it was necessary to write “as a pleasing fragrance.” For if it had written “fat”

only,

I would have thought

that only

fat —

yes [

so] is it possible to sprinkle the blood if it exists, but

the lobe and the two kidneys are not

important for sprinkling the blood on account of them; therefore

the Torah wrote

also

“a pleasing fragrance.”

And if the Torah had written “as a pleasing fragrance”

only,

I would have thought —

even a meal-offering

that comes with the animal offering, since it too is burned entirely as a pleasing fragrance on the altar, and therefore if it remained when the animal offering was lost, he could sprinkle the blood on account of it —

the Torah wrote “fat,”

which implies that “a pleasing fragrance” came to include only something that is from the body of the animal offering, and not a meal-offering that is not from the body of the animal offering.

Mishna:

A.

The handful

that was not

consecrated by placing it

in a service vessel

after the taking of the handful is

invalid

And Rabbi Shimon validates.

B.

If he burned its handful

of the meal-offering

twice,

burning half a handful first and afterward burning the second half of the handful —

valid!

Gemara:

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

who validates a handful that was not consecrated in a service vessel after the taking of the handful?

The verse says

concerning the meal-offering:

“It is most holy” —

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

to teach you:

If one comes to perform it

the acts of the meal-offering

by hand,

bringing the handful in his hand after taking it, and burning it on the altar from his hand and not from a vessel [and the burning of the handful is considered like the sprinkling of the blood on the altar] then he

performs it with the

hand

right, like a sin-offering,

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

When it comes to performing it

with a vessel—

performing it with the left hand, as with an asham,

for its blood is thrown specifically from the vessel, and he can hold the vessel in his left hand and throw from it—Rabbi Shimon holds that only wherever both “priesthood” and “finger” are written is the right hand specifically required; and only with a chatat are “finger” and “priesthood” stated, whereas with the other offerings only “priesthood” is stated and not “finger”

. Therefore, since a mincha was also compared to an asham, he may perform it with the left hand, but then he must perform it with a vessel [like an asham, whose throwing is by hand and not with a vessel, and he may perform it with the left hand]

. And Rabbi Yannai said:

the reason of Rabbi Shimon is—

since he took its kometz from a kli sharet,

the kometz no longer requires an additional sanctification by a kli sharet, but

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!

Whereas

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Rabbi Shimon did not deem the kometz valid without placing it into a kli sharet; rather,

everyone agrees regarding the kometz

that it requires sanctification

in a kli sharet , but if he has already sanctified it in a kli sharet, then Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that he may bring it up with his hand and burn it from his hand.

An objection was raised:

it is written in the Tosefta:

the burning of fats

and limbs and wood

of the arrangement,

which he brought up

onto the altar—

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

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

whether with the right hand or with the left -

They are valid!

And this beraita must necessarily have been stated according to the view of Rabbi Shimon, for the tan(n)ai of the beraita deems the burning of the kometz valid even by hand, without a kli sharet 146 .

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

a refutation of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,

who said: Rabbi Shimon deemed it valid when he performs it by hand only with the right hand, like a chatat!?

We answer:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, could say to you: It is taught with regard to different sides

the beraita; 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: bring it up

by hand—

with the right hand!

Bring it up

with a vessel—

whether with the right hand or with the left!

We challenge Rav Naḥman:

Come and hear: He took its kometz from a kli sharet,

in which the mincha had been sanctified,

and “sanctified it” [

that is, he placed it]

without a kli sharet, and brought it up and burned it without a kli sharet—

invalid!

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem it valid with the placing into a vessel

even though it is not a kli sharet!

A refutation of Rav Naḥman, who said that everyone agrees regarding the kometz that it requires sanctification in a kli sharet!?

We answer: In truth, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem it valid after the kometz has been sanctified in a kli sharet,

say

and in their words one must read, in place of “they deem it valid with the placing into a vessel,” “they deem it valid

from the placing into a vessel onward,”

that is, carrying and burning do not require a kli sharet.

Come and hear: And the Rabbis say: A kometz requires a kli sharet—

How so?

He takes its kometz from a kli sharet, sanctifies it in a kli sharet, and brings it up and burns it in a kli sharet!

Rabbi Shimon says: Since he took its kometz and sanctified it from a kli sharet—

he brings it up and burns it without a kli sharet, and that is sufficient!

And this is difficult for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who says that everyone agrees regarding the kometz that it requires sanctification in a kli sharet!?

We answer:

say

that one must read in the beraita—

since he took its kometz and sanctified it “in a kli sharet”—

he brings it up and burns it

even without a kli sharet,

and that is sufficient!

Come and hear

a refutation of Rav Naḥman:

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

without a vessel]—

he must return it to his right hand!

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