Menachot 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

And if he placed the handful

with his left hand,

and formulated a disqualifying intention,

while it was in his left hand,

concerning it

a disqualifying intention,

whether concerning an intention outside its designated place or an intention outside its designated time—

it is disqualified, but there is no karet

for eating it [because service performed with the left hand is not valid according to Rabbi Shimon],

the statement of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages say: Once he placed it in the left hand—

its placement disqualified it,

placing it in the left hand, and there is no longer any remedy through returning it to the right hand.

And we explain:

What is the reason

of the Sages

? Because

he must sanctify it

the handful must be sanctified

in a vessel

of service.

And once he placed it in the left hand, it became

the status of the handful

like

the status of

the blood

of a sacrifice

that was poured from the neck of the animal

not into a vessel of service, but was poured

onto the floor, and they collected it

from the floor,

which is disqualified

even if they now place it in a vessel of service. Here too, since the handful must be placed in a vessel of service after the act of kemitza, if it was placed in the left hand, returning it to the right hand will no longer help in order to place it in a vessel of service.

And we infer:

By inference, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon,

who say that one may return it from his left hand to his right hand, maintain that

they do not require “placement in a vessel”

that is, placing the handful in a vessel of service after it has been taken by kemitza, for if we say that a vessel is required, placing it in his left hand before placing it in the vessel is considered like blood poured from the neck onto the floor, and it is no longer effective to place it in a vessel of service!

A refutation of Rav Naḥman

who says that everyone agrees that the handful requires sanctification—

a refutation!

But

with regard to Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi—

it supports him,

this beraita, which proves his view: Rabbi Shimon maintains that after kemitza one may perform its service even by hand.

However,

with regard to Rabbi Yannai,

who said that once he took the handful from a vessel of service, he brings it up and burns it even with his belt, and all the more so that he may burn it with his left hand, the question arises—

shall we say that it is a refutation,

for it seemingly follows from here that one must return it to the right hand and may not burn it with the left hand!?

Rabbi Yannai can say to you:

It is impossible to reject my statement on the basis of this beraita, because

I stated my view in accordance with the tanna

of the other beraita, in which it is written that

“the burning

of the fats, as well as the handful and the frankincense, which he brought up, whether by hand or in a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left hand, are valid”; and I will explain the beraita

and it was not taught in a divided manner

as the Gemara said above according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rather, the beraita is to be understood literally: even when one performs its service by hand, he may perform it with the left hand. If so, this is a dispute between beraitot, and there is a tanna who holds in accordance with me:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he burned his handful in two portions—

it is valid!

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

The statement that one may burn the handful

in two portions

when he divided it into two halves is specifically referring to that case,

but not in two portions and two portions,

for he may not burn it in three or four portions. 151 .

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In two portions—

and even in two portions and two portions!

What is the difference between them?—

What is the basis of their dispute and the rationale of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Rabbi Zeira said:

If

there is a handful smaller than two olive-bulk measures, and

if

there is burning of less than an olive-bulk measure—

that is the difference between them!

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds: There is no handful smaller than two olive-bulk measures ,

and there is no burning of less than an olive-bulk measure!

Therefore, the tanna of the Mishna stated “in two portions” specifically: he may divide the handful only into two portions, so that each burning contains at least the measure of an olive-bulk. For if he divides it into several portions, each portion will not contain an olive-bulk measure. 154 .

And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: There is a handful smaller than two olive-bulk measures,

and there is burning of less than an olive-bulk measure,

and therefore we do not care if he divides the handful into many portions. 155 .

It was stated: A handful

that he burned on the altar—

from when

does it

permit

the

remainder to be eaten?

Rabbi Ḥanina says: From when the fire has taken hold of part of it,

that is, from the time the fire has caught hold of part of the handful.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From when the fire consumes most of it!

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar Rav: I will explain Rabbi Yoḥanan’s rationale to you—

the verse states: “And behold, smoke ascended from the earth

like the smoke of a furnace,”

and since it says “and he shall burn” with regard to the handful as well, burning like that of a furnace is required. But

a furnace does not produce smoke until the fire has taken hold of most of it!

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say—

Rav Amram said: It was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the tzav: “It is the burnt-offering that remains upon its burning-place on the altar all night, until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn upon it.”

I have only

learned from the words of the verse

items whose customary time for being offered is at night, such as the limbs

of a burnt-offering

and the fats

the fats of all the sacrifices

that he placed upon the altar and burned them at sunset, after the sun had set, and they continued to be consumed throughout the entire night.

Items whose customary time for being offered is during the day, such as: the handful, the frankincense, the incense, the meal-offering of kohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed kohen, and the meal-offering accompanying libations,

as we learn from “on the day that He commanded” that they are to be offered during the day,

from where

do we learn

that he may place them upon the altar and burn them at sunset.

And we ask: Is it possible to burn them at sunset? The tanna is asking from where it is possible to do so,

but you said

that

their customary time for being offered is during the day?!

And we explain:

Rather,

the tanna intends to say that he places them upon the altar and burns them

with the coming of sunset,

while it is still day, shortly before sunset,

and they continue to be consumed throughout the entire night.

From where

do we know

that this is so?

The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt-offering”—

it included all items that are placed upon the altar, even those whose customary time is to be burned during the day, which continue to be consumed throughout the entire night on the altar.

And now we infer:

But

when he burns the handful

with the coming of sunset—

it is impossible for the fire to take hold of most of it,

and if burning is not considered to have taken place until the fire takes hold of most of it, then the handful would become disqualified at sunset!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult! Here

the beraita that states that he may burn it shortly before sunset is speaking

of causing it to be received ,

for once the fire has taken hold of it, even partially, it has been received upon the altar and is no longer disqualified because of being left overnight; he may burn it on the following day. 158 .

Here,

what Rabbi Yoḥanan said—that as long as the fire has not taken hold of most of it, it is not considered burning—refers to

permitting

the remainder: only when the fire has taken hold of most of it does the burning of the handful permit the remainder to be eaten.

Rabbi Elazar taught it

this beraita, which states that the handful and frankincense are burned

at sunset

and not during the day, shortly before sunset,

and interprets it as referring to

the burning of the handful and frankincense that had already been placed on the altar during the day and had now become

“scattered,”

having leapt out of the fire and fallen, in which case it is permitted to place them upon the altar again throughout the entire night. 159 .

And when Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yannai said:

that this beraita is speaking

of fallen-off pieces.

And we raise an objection:

Did Rabbi Yannai actually say this,

that fallen-off pieces of incense are returned to the altar?

But Rabbi Yannai said: If incense fell off the altar, even if

pieces fell off

from it,

which are significant, whole portions of the incense,

they are not returned?!

And Rabbi Hanina bar Minyomi taught in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

It is stated:

“that the fire shall consume what is placed upon the altar,”

and they derive:

You return what remains of a burnt-offering

when it fell off the altar,

but you do not return what remains of incense!

But if so, there is a difficulty: How did Rabbi Yannai interpret the beraita, in which the word “incense” is written, as referring to fallen-off pieces that one is obligated to return at night? And we answer:

Erase

remove

from here,

from the words of the beraita,

“incense.”

Rav Asi said: When he was expounding,

when

Rabbi Elazar was studying the tractate of Menachot, he raised the following question:

he was uncertain about this law:

If one arranged a kometz

on the altar

and arranged the arrangement of wood upon it

of wood,

what

is its law? Is

this a valid manner of burning

and therefore it is valid,

or is this not a valid manner of burning

and therefore it is invalid?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Ḥizkiya raised a question: If one arranged limbs

on the altar

and arranged the arrangement of wood upon them

of wood,

what

is their law? Is

“upon the wood”

that

the Merciful One said specifically “upon the wood”

and if so, the offering is invalid 160 .

160 .

Or perhaps, since another verse is written: “that the fire shall consume what is placed upon the altar,”

which implies that placing it adjacent to the wood, on the altar, is also acceptable, and if so—

if he wishes

if he wants to do so,

he may do it in this manner

by placing it directly upon the wood;

if he wishes, he may do it in this manner—

by placing it on the altar adjacent to the wood? And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raised a question: If one arranged limbs at the sides of the arrangement of wood,

adjacent to the wood on the altar,

what

is the law?

And they explain Rabbi Yitzḥak’s question:

According to the view of the one who says

below, concerning the location of the bowls, that wherever

the verse says

“upon,”