Menachot 26b — the Talmud in English

And if he placed the handful

with his left hand, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and thought, while it was in his left hand,

about it

a

disqualifying thought,

whether concerning outside its place or concerning outside its time—

it is disqualified, but there is no excision

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

the words of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages say: Since he gave it to the left hand—

his giving disqualified it

to the left hand, and he no longer has a remedy through returning it to the right hand.

And we explain:

What is the reason

of the Sages

? Because

he needs to sanctify it

the handful must be sanctified

in a vessel

of service,

and since he gave it to the left hand, it became

the status of the handful

like

the status of

the blood

of the 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 into a vessel of service; and here too it is so: since the handful must be placed after the taking of the handful in a vessel of service, if it was placed in the left hand, its return to the right hand can no longer help in order for it to be placed in a vessel of service.

And we infer:

It follows that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon,

who say that he can return it from his left hand to his right hand, hold that

they do not require “placement in a vessel” [that is, placing the handful into a vessel of service after it has been taken],

for if we say that a vessel is required, his placing it into his left hand before the placement in the vessel is considered like the blood being poured from the neck onto the floor, after which it is no longer effective to place it in a vessel of service!

A refutation of Rav Naḥman

who says, everyone agrees that the handful requires sanctification—

a refutation!

But

for Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi—

it supports him,

this beraita, which proves in accordance with his words, that Rabbi Shimon holds that after the taking of the handful he may perform its service even by hand.

However,

for Rabbi Yannai,

who said: Since he took it from a vessel of service, he brings it up and burns it even with his sash, and all the more so he can burn it with his left hand, there is a doubt—

shall we say that it is a refutation,

for apparently it is proven from here that he must return it to the right hand and cannot burn it with the left hand!?

Rabbi Yannai can say to you:

It is impossible to reject my words on the strength of this beraita, because

I state my view in accordance with the tanna

of the other beraita, in which it is written

that “the burning

of the fats, and likewise the handful and the frankincense, which he brought up and burned, whether by hand or by vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left hand, are valid,” and I will explain the beraita:

it was not taught with the clauses referring to different cases,

as the Gemara said above according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, but the beraita is to be understood simply: even if he performs its service by hand, he may perform it with the left hand. If so, this is a dispute between the beraitot, and there is a tanna who holds like me:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he burned its handful in two times—

it is valid!

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

This that it is written that he can burn the handful

in times

when he divided it into two halves—that is specifically so,

but not in times upon times,

for he is not permitted to burn it in three or four times 151 .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: In times—

and even in times upon times!

What is the difference between them?—

What is the basis of their dispute and the reason for the views of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yohanan?

Rabbi Zeira said:

If

there is a handful smaller than two olive-bulk portions and

if

there is a burning smaller than an olive-bulk—

that is the difference between them!

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

and there is no burning smaller than an olive-bulk!

Therefore the tanna of the Mishna stated “two times” specifically, for he can divide the handful only into two times, so that in each burning there will be at least the measure of an olive-bulk; for if he divides it into several times, each portion will not have the measure of an olive-bulk 154 .

And Rabbi Yohanan holds: There is a handful smaller than two olive-bulk portions,

and there is a burning smaller than an olive-bulk,

and therefore it does not matter to us if he divides the handful into many and many portions 155 .

It was stated:

the handful

from what time

it

permits

the

remainder to be eaten?

Rabbi Hanina says: From when the fire has dominated part of it,

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

Rabbi Yohanan says: From when the fire has seized most of it!

Rav Judah said to Rabba bar Rav: I will explain to you the reason of Rabbi Yohanan—

the verse says, “And behold, smoke rose from the earth—

like the smoke of the furnace,”

and since concerning the handful too it says “and he shall burn,” they require burning like the burning of a furnace, and behold,

a furnace does not raise smoke until the fire has seized most of it!

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

Rav Amram said: It was taught:

It is stated in the section of Tzav: “It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood, upon the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn in it.”

I have only

to learn from the words of the verse

things whose manner is to be offered at night, such as the limbs

of a burnt-offering

and the sacrificial fats [of all the sacrifices]

that he brought up and burned at sunset, after the sun had set, and they continued to be consumed throughout the entire night.

Things whose manner is to be offered by day, such as: the handful, the frankincense, the incense, the meal-offering of kohanim, the meal-offering of an anointed koen, and the libation meal-offering,

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

from where

do we learn

that he brought them up and burned them at sunset.

And we are astonished: Is it possible to burn them at sunset, such that the tanna asks from where it is possible

,

but you said

that

their manner is to be offered by day?!

And we explain:

Rather,

the intention of the tanna is to say that he brings them up and burns them

with the coming of the sun,

while it is still day, close to the coming of the sun,

and they continue to be consumed throughout the entire night.

From where

is this so?

The verse says, “This is the law of the burnt-offering”—

it included

all that is brought up, even those whose manner is to burn them by 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 the sun—

you cannot find that the fire will seize most of it,

and if burning is not considered to have occurred until it seizes most of it, then the handful will be disqualified at sunset!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult! Here

in the beraita, which states that he can burn it close to the coming of the sun, it is speaking of

causing it to be received ,

for from the time the fire has dominated part of it, even a small part, it is received upon the altar, and it is no longer disqualified through overnight, and he can burn it on the following day 158 .

Here,

what Rabbi Yohanan said, that so long as the fire has not dominated most of it, it is not considered burning, is speaking concerning

permitting

the remainders: only when the fire dominates most of it does the burning of the handful permit the remainders for eating.

Rabbi Elazar taught it

this beraita, which says that he burns the handful and the frankincense

at sunset

and not while it is still day, close to sunset,

and he establishes it concerning

the burning of the handful and the frankincense that had already been brought up while it was still day, and now they became

“poked out,”

having leapt out from the fire and fallen, which one may bring up throughout the entire night 159 .

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

this beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna—is speaking

of pieces that fell off.

And we were surprised:

Did Rabbi Yannai really say this—

that pieces of incense that fell off must be returned to the altar?

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

pieces fell off

from its clumps,

which are substantial and intact portions of the incense,

they may not be returned!

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

It is stated:

“Which the fire consumes—the burnt-offering upon the altar,”

and this is expounded as follows:

You return pieces of a burnt-offering that have been consumed

when they fell off the altar,

but you do not return pieces of incense that have been consumed!

If so, there is a difficulty: How could Rabbi Yannai have understood the beraita, which speaks of “incense,” as referring to pieces that fell off and must be returned at night? And we answer:

Remove

that is, delete

from here,

from the words of the beraita,

“incense.”

Rav Asi said: When Rabbi Elazar would teach

when he was studying

tractate Menachot, he raised the following question:

He was uncertain about this law:

If one arranged a handful

on the altar

and arranged the arrangement of wood

of logs

upon it, what is the law?

What is its status? Is

this the proper manner of burning it

and is it valid,

or is this not the proper manner of burning it

and is it invalid?

And we conclude:

The question remains without a resolution.

Ḥizkiya raised the following question: If one arranged the limbs

on the altar

and arranged the arrangement of wood

of logs

upon them, what is the law,

what is their status? Is the phrase

“upon the wood”

that

the Merciful One stated specifically that it must be upon the wood

and, if so, the offering is invalid 160 .

Or perhaps, since another verse states: “Which the fire consumes—the burnt-offering upon the altar,”

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

if he wishes,

if he wants to

he may do so

by placing it directly on the wood;

if he wishes, he may do so—

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

The question remains without a resolution.

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

next to the wood on the altar,

what is the law?

And they explain Rabbi Yitzḥak’s question:

According to the one who says

below, concerning the location of the bowls, that wherever the verse states

“upon,”

the verse means that it must be placed directly upon that location,

you need not raise the question.