Menachot 58a — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

And Rabbi Yohanan, this

deduction from

“them”—what does he do with it?

And we answer:

He requires it for that which was taught: Could it be that an individual may vow and bring

the two loaves

as a voluntary offering analogous to it,

that is, that every individual could bring it as a voluntary offering, like the offering of the two loaves that the community brings on the festival of Shavuot,

and I apply to it

to this voluntary meal-offering, as the other voluntary offerings are called,

“You shall safeguard and perform what issues from your lips”?

The verse states: “The offering of the first fruits

namely, the two loaves, which are called “the offering of the first fruits,” for they are the first of all the meal-offerings brought from the new grain,

you shall bring”

in the plural, meaning that the community brings it.

We learn from the verse that only

the community, I said to you,

brings the offering of the first fruits,

but not an individual.

Could it be

that the verse excluded specifically that

an individual may not bring

the two loaves as a voluntary offering, because

he

also

does not bring

the two loaves as

his obligatory offering analogous to it. But let the community bring

the two loaves as a voluntary offering,

for

it also

brings its obligatory offering analogous to it?

The verse states: “them”

—to exclude bringing the two loaves as a voluntary offering, even by the community. And this is Rabbi Yohanan’s exposition from the word “them.”

And the Gemara explains:

And what do you have to bring

the offering of the first fruits as an obligatory offering?

The two loaves from leavened dough

by the community,

and first fruits from honey,

namely, from sweet fruits, which every individual brings.

And we raised it:

And

if so,

are the two loaves not offered as a voluntary offering?

But it was taught: If “all leaven” is stated

why is “all honey” stated? And if “all honey” is stated,

why is “all leaven” stated?

Why should we not learn from the “all” stated regarding one of them regarding the other?

Because there is in leaven what is not in honey, and there is in honey what is not in leaven

—and it is impossible to learn one from the other, because

leaven was permitted in some form in the Temple,

although leaven is forbidden for offering, we find that it is permitted in the offering of the two loaves, as will be explained below, but

honey was never permitted in any form in the Temple

for there is no offering that comes from fruits in the Temple.

Honey was permitted

to eat it in the Temple

among the leftovers of meal-offerings,

tak kak koen mozhet zamesit ostatki khlebnogo dara s medom i sest ikh, togda kak

leaven was not permitted among the leftovers of meal-offerings.

And the beraita explains:

Indeed

because there is in leaven what is not in honey, and there is in honey what is not in leaven, it was necessary

for the verse

to state “all leaven,” and it was necessary

for the verse also

to state “all honey,”

for had it written neither “all leaven” nor “all honey,” we would not have learned one from the other. This concludes the wording of the beraita.

And now we infer:

Leaven,

concerning which we say

that it was permitted in some form in the Temple

what is it?

Is it not

the

two loaves, whose meal-offering is brought

as

a voluntary offering,

for the community vowed the two loaves; and it entered our minds that those two loaves which the community vowed, even though they are made from leaven, are permitted to be burned on the altar. If so, we see that the two loaves are offered as a voluntary offering!?

Rav Amram said: No,

you should not say that leaven was permitted in its entirety with regard to the two loaves offered as a voluntary offering; rather, leaven was permitted in the two loaves

to be offered with them,

with the two lambs that come with the bread. Indeed, the lambs are offered upon the altar, but not the two loaves; rather, since the two loaves and the two lambs are considered one offering, the matter is considered as though the leaven was permitted to be offered.

And we refute:

If so,

that even that part of the offering which is not offered is called “permitted in some form,”

first fruits also

should be said to have the prohibition of offering honey permitted in some form, through the permission to offer the bird-offerings that they would customarily bring together with the first fruits, despite the fact that the first fruits themselves are “honey”!?

As we learned: The fledglings that were upon the baskets

which those who brought the first fruits would bring

were burnt-offerings. And the baskets

of the first fruits

that were in their hands

of the owners

were given to the priests?!

And we answer:

Those

birds that were brought as burnt-offerings did not come as obligatory offerings, but

they came to adorn the first fruits,

and therefore they are not considered one offering together with the first fruits, and this is not called the honey having been permitted in some form with regard to a part of an offering that is offered upon the altar.

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: One who offers from the flesh of a bird sin-offering,

which is entirely designated for consumption by the priests, and he offered some of its flesh

upon the altar

what is

the law as to whether he is liable for this offering?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Whether

“Everything from which [a portion] is for the fires”

specifically

the Merciful One said,

it is subject to “You shall not burn its leftovers” upon the altar,

and this,

the bird sin-offering,

has nothing from which [a portion] is for the fires,

because it is not offered at all and is therefore not included in the prohibition of “You shall not burn its leftovers”?

Or perhaps, “everything whose name is offering”

is forbidden to offer after its designated portion has been placed upon the altar,

and this

bird sin-offering

also has the name offering,

and it is forbidden to burn its flesh after its blood has been sprinkled upon the altar?

And Rami bar Hama’s uncertainty is because the verse from which we learn the law that “everything from which [a portion] is for the fires is subject to ‘You shall not burn it’” is followed by “You shall not burn any fire-offering from it to the Lord—a first-fruits offering.” Perhaps this verse should be expounded “before it,” and it should be stated as follows: Anything that is an offering, and a remainder is left, is included in “everything from which [a portion] is for the fires is subject to ‘You shall not burn it,’” even if nothing from it was burned upon the altar!?

“You shall not burn any fire-offering from it to the Lord—a first offering.” Perhaps this verse should be expounded with regard to what precedes it, and should be understood as follows: Anything that is an offering, if some of it remains, is included in the prohibition “Anything from which is brought for the fires is subject to the prohibition ‘You shall not burn its remnants,’” even if nothing of it was burned upon the altar!?

He said to him,

Rav Hisda: Indeed, the verse is expounded “before it”:

Everything whose name is offering

from which a remainder is left is subject to “You shall not burn it,”

and this

bird sin-offering

also has the name offering;

therefore, even though nothing from it is burned, the flesh remaining after its blood has been sprinkled is nevertheless subject to “You shall not burn it.”

And this question, whether an offering from which nothing is offered for the fires is excluded from burning, is

a matter of dispute between the tannaim,

for it is taught as a dispute between the tannaim.

And thus we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Everything from which [a portion] is for the fires,

specifically, is subject to “You shall not burn it”!

Rabbi Akiva says:

Everything whose name is offering!

And we say:

What is the difference between them?

Rav Hisda said: The flesh of a bird sin-offering is the difference between them.

For it is an offering, but nothing from it is offered for the fires.

Rav said: The log of oil of a leper,

which is called an offering but nothing from it is offered upon the altar,

is the difference between them.

For Levi taught: “All their offering,” to include the log of oil of a leper,

and we see that it too is called an offering. And since it is an independent offering that comes separately from the leper’s guilt-offering, and nothing from it is offered upon the altar, it too depends upon the dispute between the tannaim.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“Leaven”

is subject to “You shall not burn it.”

I have only

that it is forbidden to burn

all of it

and he proceeds to explain what “all of it” is.

Part of it

of the leaven,

from where

that it too is forbidden to burn?

The verse states: “all.”

Its mixture,

when it was mixed with unleavened dough and is not recognizable,

from where

that it is forbidden to burn?

The verse states: “for all.”

And we raised it:

What is he saying,

the tanna of the beraita? What measure was he referring to when he said “all of it” and “part of it”?

Abaye said: This is what he is saying: Leaven

is

subject to “You shall not burn it.”

I have only

that it is forbidden to burn

an olive-bulk

of leaven.

Half an olive-bulk

of leaven,

from where

that it too is forbidden?

The verse states: “all.” Its mixture, from where?

The verse states: “for all.”

Rava said: This is what he is saying: “Leaven—you shall not burn it.” I have only

that it is forbidden to burn

only

the entire

handful

of leaven, as he proceeds to explain what the measure of the handful is.

Half a handful

of leaven,

from where

that it too is forbidden to burn?

The verse states: “all.” Its mixture, from where?

The verse states: “for all.”

And we explain:

With regard to what do Abaye and Rava disagree?

—

Abaye holds: There is a handful smaller than two olive-bulks,

and what is written concerning leaven, “You shall not burn it,” signifies a complete handful. And the inclusion of “all” comes to say that it is not specifically a complete handful; rather, even half of it is included in the prohibition against burning.