Menachot 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection:

And as for Rabbi Yohanan, what does he do with this

restriction of

“those”?

And we answer:

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

the two loaves

as a voluntary offering,

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

and I would apply to it

to this voluntary offering the same verse that is applied to the other voluntary offerings,

“You shall observe and perform what emerges from your lips”?

The verse states: “You shall bring the first offering

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

”

in the plural, meaning that the community brings it.

We learn from the verse that only

the community, I told you,

brings the first offering,

but not an individual.

One might have thought

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 in the same manner. But perhaps the community may bring

the two loaves as a voluntary offering,

since

it also

brings its obligatory offering in the same manner?

The verse states: “those”—

to exclude bringing the two loaves as a voluntary offering, even by the community. This is Rabbi Yohanan’s derivation from the word “those.”

The Gemara explains:

And what do you have that may be brought

as a first offering as an obligation?

The two loaves from leaven

by the community,

and first fruits from honey,

namely, sweet fruits, which every individual brings.

And we raised an objection:

And

if so,

may the two loaves not be brought as a voluntary offering?

But it was taught in a baraita: If “all leaven”—

why state “all honey”? And if “all honey”—

why state “all leaven”?

Why should we not derive from the word “all” stated with regard to one of them that the same applies to the other?

Because there is something about leaven that is not found in honey, and something about honey that is not found in leaven—

and it is impossible to derive one from the other, because

leaven was permitted in a particular instance in the Temple,

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

honey was never permitted in a particular instance in the Temple,

as no offering that comes from fruit is brought in the Temple.

Honey was permitted

to be eaten in the Temple

among the remnants of meal-offerings,

as the koen is permitted to knead the remnants of the meal-offering with honey and eat them, whereas

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

And the baraita explains:

Indeed—

because there is something about leaven that is not found in honey, and something about honey that is not found in leaven, it was necessary

for the verse

to state “all leaven,” and it was necessary

for the verse also

to state “all honey,”

because had it stated neither “all leaven” nor “all honey,” we could not have derived one from the other. This concludes the language of the baraita.

And now we infer:

Leaven,

as we say

that it was permitted in a particular instance in the Temple—

what is that?

Is it not

the two loaves, for which

their meal-offering was brought

as

a voluntary offering,

as the community vowed to bring the two loaves? And it entered our minds that those two loaves vowed by the community, although they are made from leaven, are permitted to be burned on the altar; if so, we see that the two loaves may be brought as a voluntary offering!?

Rav Amram said: No.

Do not say that leaven was permitted in a particular instance with regard to the two loaves brought as a voluntary offering. Rather, leaven was permitted in the two loaves

to be brought together with them,

with the two sheep that accompany the loaves. Indeed, the sheep are brought upon the altar, but not the two loaves. However, since the two loaves and the two sheep are considered a single offering, it is considered as though leaven was permitted to be brought.

And we refute this:

If so,

if even that part of the offering that is not brought is called “permitted in a particular instance,”

the first fruits also

should be said to have been permitted in a particular instance: The prohibition against burning honey was overridden by permission to bring the bird-offerings that people customarily brought together with the first fruits, although the first fruits themselves are “honey”!?

As we learned in the Mishna: The fledglings that were on the baskets

that 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 kohanim!?

And we answer:

Those

birds that were brought as burnt-offerings were not brought as obligatory offerings; rather,

they came to adorn the first fruits,

and therefore they are not considered a single offering together with the first fruits. Thus, this is not called a case in which honey was permitted in a particular instance with regard to one part of an offering brought upon the altar.

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: If one brings up from the flesh of a bird sin-offering,

which is entirely designated for consumption by the kohanim, and he brings some of its flesh

upon the altar—

what is the law,

is he liable for bringing it up?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Does

“Anything from which is brought for the fires”

specifically

the Merciful One said

that it is subject to the prohibition “You shall not burn its remnants upon the altar,” and

this

bird sin-offering

has nothing from which is brought for the fires,

as none of it is brought at all, and therefore it is not included in the prohibition against burning its remnants?

Or perhaps, “Anything whose designation is an offering”

is forbidden to be brought after the part of it that is to be placed upon the altar has been placed there as required, and

this

bird sin-offering

also has the designation of an offering,

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

The uncertainty of Rami bar Hama arises because the verse from which we learn the law that “anything from which is brought for the fires is subject to the prohibition ‘You shall not burn its remnants’” continues:

“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!?

Rav Hisda said to him:

Indeed, the verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it:

Anything whose designation is an offering,

if some of it remains, is subject to the prohibition “You shall not burn its remnants,” and

this

bird sin-offering

also has the designation of an offering. Therefore, although nothing of it is burned, the flesh that remains after its blood has been sprinkled is nevertheless subject to the prohibition “You shall not burn its remnants.”

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

a matter of dispute between tanna’im,

as it is stated as a dispute between tanna’im.

And so we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Anything from which is brought for the fires,

specifically, is subject to the prohibition “You shall not burn its remnants”!

Rabbi Akiva says:—

Anything whose designation is an offering!

And we say:

What is the practical difference between them?

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

as it is an offering, but nothing of it is brought for the fires.

Rav said: The log of oil of a leper,

which is called an offering but none of it is brought upon the altar,

is the difference between them.

As Levi taught: “All their offerings”—to include the log of oil of a leper,

and we see that it too is called an offering. Since it is an independent offering that comes separately from the leper’s guilt-offering, and nothing of it is brought upon the altar, it too is subject to the dispute between the tanna’im.

The Sages taught:

The Torah states

“leaven”—

“You shall not burn it.”

I have only

that it is forbidden to burn

all of it

ee vsyu

[the baraita proceeds to explain what is meant by “all of it”].

A part of it,

of the leaven,

from where

do we know that it too is forbidden to burn?

The verse states: “all.”

Its mixture,

when it was mixed with unleavened bread and is not discernible,

from where

do we know that it is forbidden to burn?

The verse states: “for all.”

And we raised an objection:

What is the tanna

of the baraita saying? What measure was he addressing when he said “all of it” and “a part of it”?

Abaye said: This is what he is saying: Leaven

is

subject to the prohibition “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

do we know 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 the baraita proceeds to explain the measure of a handful.

Half a handful

of leaven,

from where

do we know 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 the statement concerning leaven, “You shall not burn it,” indicates an entire handful. The additional word “all” teaches that it is not specifically an entire handful; rather, half of it is also included in the prohibition against burning.