Menachot 57b — the Talmud in English

And fruit juices do not cause leavening,

and if so, how can the leavening of the libation meal-offering be possible, concerning which the warning was stated according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili would say -

The libation meal-offering is kneaded with water

if water is needed in addition to the oil,

and it is valid.

Since one is permitted to add water to it, it can therefore become leavened.

Furthermore, we raise the following difficulty: How can we say that, according to Rabbi Akiva, the term “that you shall offer” serves to include the showbread in the prohibition against leavening? The showbread was not consecrated until it was placed upon the Table, and by then the bread had already been baked, so there was no longer any possibility of leavening it. And as long as it had not acquired the sanctity of a sacred vessel, it could not be prohibited as leavening a meal-offering, since it did not yet have the status of a meal-offering!?

Every meal-offering is consecrated from the moment it is placed in the bisa, a sacred vessel, in order to knead it, and from that point it is prohibited to leaven it. But

the showbread

is not placed in a bisa. The only vessel into which it is placed is the tenth-ephah measure, in which the flour is measured; and this tenth-ephah measure

is a dry measure,

used only to measure flour, and not to measure liquids.

And we have heard Rabbi Akiva say that a dry measure

was not consecrated.

Therefore, the showbread was not consecrated until it was placed upon the Table. If so, why is it prohibited to leaven it according to Rabbi Akiva!?

Ravin sent word in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Indeed,

, this is the formulation of the Mishna

[of that same beraita in which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree], but

reverse

their statements and say as follows:

“That you shall offer”

serves to include the showbread in the prohibition against leavening; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says: It serves to include the libation meal-offering in the prohibition against leavening.

The difficulty raised by the Gemara is thereby resolved.

And Rabbi Yohanan proceeded

in his interpretation that the showbread is included according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

in accordance with his own reasoning.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and one of the students of Rabbi Yishmael stated the same principle. And who is he?

as both of them hold that a dry measure was consecrated.

As it was taught:

It is stated in the portion of Naso: “And it came to pass on the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle, and anointed it, and consecrated it, and all its vessels; and the altar and all its vessels

and anointed them and consecrated them.”

With regard to the explanation of the verse “and anointed them and consecrated them,” which speaks of the vessels of the altar, these two tannaim disagree as to whether measuring vessels were anointed, and how they were anointed:

who was a student of Rabbi Yishmael,

says:

A vessel that is

a liquid measure,

made to measure the oil of meal-offerings or the wine of libations,

is anointed both on the inside and on the outside.

But a vessel that is

a dry measure,

made to measure the flour of meal-offerings,

is anointed on the inside

alone,

and is not anointed on the outside.

Rabbi Yonatan says:

A vessel that is

a liquid measure is anointed on the inside and is not anointed on the outside.

But vessels that are

dry measures are not anointed at all.

Know

that the vessels used to measure dry flour were not consecrated at all,

for

we find that dry measures

do not consecrate,

as is evident from

that which is written

with regard to the two loaves:

“From your dwelling places you shall bring two loaves as a wave-offering; they shall be of two tenth-ephahs of fine flour; they shall be baked leavened, as first fruits to the Lord.”

The wording of the verse indicates:

When are they

consecrated

to the Lord?

Only

after they have been baked

and consecrated in the oven that stood in the Courtyard, and not beforehand, despite the fact that they had been measured with the tenth-ephah flour measure. This proves that the dry measure was not consecrated at all.

And we explain the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiyya and Rabbi Yonatan:

With regard to what do they disagree? Regarding

the exclusion in this verse: “And anointed them and consecrated

.

Rabbi Yoshiyya holds: “Them”

serves to exclude the dry measure,

which is not anointed

on the outside,

as “them” indicates the inner surfaces of the vessels, but not their outer surfaces.

And Rabbi Yonatan holds: The dry measure

is ordinary,

and was not consecrated at all.

And the verse

“them”

was not needed to exclude

the dry measure from anointing. Rather,

when the verse was needed for an exclusion,

it was to exclude the anointing of

the liquid measure on the outside.

And we raise a difficulty:

Let Rabbi Yohanan likewise say

who says that the dry measure was not consecrated at all, and

one of the students of Rabbi Yishmael—and who is he?

Rabbi Yonatan—stated the same principle.

For Rabbi Yonatan likewise held that the dry measure is ordinary!?

And we answer: The reason it was not said that they both “stated the same principle” is

because they do not agree with regard to the liquid measure.

Rabbi Yonatan holds that the liquid measure was not consecrated on the outside, whereas Rabbi Akiva holds that it was consecrated both inside and outside.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

Can you say that the showbread was not consecrated until it was placed upon the Table because the tenth-ephah flour measure was not consecrated when the flour was measured in the dry vessel [because it was not anointed]?

But there is the bisa, which is

a

liquid

measure, which was consecrated, and in which the dough of the showbread was kneaded. It follows that the bread was consecrated even before it was placed upon the Table, was it not?

Abaye said

to Rav Pappa: Here we are not speaking of kneading it in a bisa, in which case the bread would become consecrated. Rather, it is

a case where he kneaded it on a katbelia,

a leather surface that is not a sacred vessel.

And we challenge this:

If so,

it should be difficult that

Rabbi Yonatan said

know

that dry measures were not anointed at all,

for the tenth-ephah measure does not consecrate

the flour of the two loaves, and therefore they are not consecrated until they are baked in the oven in the Courtyard.

But Rabbi Yoshiyya could say

to him that the case in which the tenth-ephah does not consecrate concerns

a case where he measured

the flour

with an ordinary tenth-ephah measure,

just as Rabbi Yonatan explained that one may knead the showbread or the two loaves on a leather katbelia, which is not a sacred vessel, rather than in an anointed and consecrated bisa!?

And we reject this:

Can this be compared?

It is impossible to say so!?

Granted, with regard to the bisa, the Merciful One did not say that one must make a bisa in order to knead in it,

for no command appears in the Torah to make a bisa so that one can knead a meal-offering in it. Therefore,

even if

one

kneads it

the dough of the showbread or the two loaves

on a katbelia—

we have no problem with it.

But

the tenth-ephah

measure: Since the Merciful One said, “Make a tenth-ephah measure,”

for the Torah states, “and a tenth-ephah of fine flour” [which constitutes a command to make a tenth-ephah measure, so that we obtain such a measure of flour],

and he measured with it,

and you measure with it, if so, how can he

leave

the

consecrated tenth-ephah measure,

which the Torah commanded him to make in order to measure with it, and

measure with an ordinary tenth-ephah measure!?

The Sages taught: From where

do we know that one who offers upon the altar

the flesh of a sin-offering or the flesh of a guilt-offering,

which was given to the priests to eat,

or

one who offers

the flesh of sacrificial offerings of the highest sanctity,

which are the communal peace-offerings, namely, the lambs of Shavuot,

or

one who offers

from

the flesh of

sacrificial offerings of lesser sanctity,

which are eaten by their owners,

or from the remainder

of the meal-offering of

the omer

after its handful has been removed,

or from the remainder of the two loaves, or from the showbread

[as will be explained below, although nothing at all is offered from the loaves themselves, they are nevertheless considered “remainder”],

or

one who offers upon the altar

from the remainder of meal-offerings

from which the handfuls were removed and which are eaten by the priests,

that

in all these cases

he

transgresses

a prohibition?

The verse states: “For any leaven or any honey you shall not offer as a fire-offering to the Lord.”

And we interpret it:

Anything

that has already been offered

from it

some portion upon the altar

as offerings consumed on the altar—

it is subject to the prohibition “you shall not offer,”

and it is prohibited to add and offer more of it upon the altar.

With regard to the flesh of a guilt-offering and a sin-offering, the lambs of Shavuot, and sacrificial offerings of lesser sanctity, their sacrificial portions had already been offered first. And with regard to the remainder of meal-offerings from which the handfuls had been removed, the handful had already been offered. With regard to the two loaves, since they come together with the lambs of Shavuot, the offering of the lambs’ fats causes them to be considered as though a portion of the loaves themselves had also been offered. Likewise, with regard to the showbread, the offering of the frankincense bowls that were arranged together with it causes it to be considered as though a portion of the showbread itself had been offered. Therefore, it is prohibited to add and offer more of them.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

since

the two loaves and the showbread

are considered as though

a portion of them had been offered on the altar? But was it not taught: The two loaves and the showbread are excluded

from requiring presentation to the altar, because

nothing from them

is

offered on the altar,

and presentation to the altar applies only to something that will be offered on the altar!?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said:

«

“nothing from their substance is offered on the altar.”

That is what necessitates presentation. But with regard to the rule that “anything from which a portion has been offered on the altar is subject to the prohibition ‘you shall not offer,’” the two loaves and the showbread are also considered as something from which a portion has been offered on the altar. For the fats of the lambs are offered with the two loaves, and the bowls are offered with the showbread; these are parts of the offering, and with regard to this rule they are subject to the prohibition “you shall not offer.”

It was stated: One who offers from all of them

from all those mentioned above [the flesh of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, the remainder of meal-offerings, and the like]

upon the ramp,

and offers them upon it:

Rabbi Yohanan says: He is liable

for violating the prohibition that “anything from which a portion has been offered on the altar is subject to the prohibition ‘you shall not offer,’” since this is considered as though he had placed it upon the altar.

And

Rabbi Elazar says—

he is exempt.

The law of the ramp is not like the law of the altar.

And we explain:

Rabbi Yohanan says he is liable, as it was taught:

“You shall not offer from it—and upon

the altar

they shall not be placed.” We learn from here that anything from which a portion was offered on the altar may not subsequently have the remainder placed upon it.

I have only

the prohibition against placing the remainder of it upon

the altar;

what is the source that it is prohibited to place it upon

the ramp

?

The verse states: “And upon the altar they shall not be placed for a pleasing aroma.”

This verse is superfluous, since it was already stated above: “You shall not offer from it a fire-offering to the Lord.” Rather, the verse comes to include the prohibition against placing anything from which a portion has been offered on the altar even upon the ramp, just as upon the altar.

And Rabbi Elazar says he is exempt. What is his reasoning?

Because

the verse states:

“For any

leaven or

any

honey

you shall not offer from it a fire-offering to the Lord.

You shall offer them as an offering of first fruits

to the Lord, but they shall not be placed upon the altar for a pleasing aroma.”

And the verse is expounded as follows: “Them,”

that is, the things that derive from leaven and honey and that are also called “first fruits,” namely:

a. The two loaves, which come leavened, and which are the first of all the meal-offerings that come from the new grain.

b. First fruits that come from all seven species, which are referred to as “honey,” and which are “the first fruits of your land.”

“Them” is what the verse teaches you:

Only them did the Torah include as prohibited even to place upon the ramp. Since the phrase “but they shall not be placed upon the altar” is superfluous, it teaches us that the

ramp

is

like the altar

with regard to the prohibition against placing leaven and honey upon it.

But anything else,

something whose prohibition is likewise derived from that verse—namely, something prohibited under the rule that anything from which a portion has been offered on the altar

is not

included in the prohibition against placing it upon the ramp as upon the altar.