Menachot 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

There are

meal-offerings that are

required to contain oil and frankincense.

And there are meal-offerings that are required to contain

oil but not frankincense.

And there are meal-offerings that are required to contain

frankincense but not oil.

And there are meal-offerings that are required to contain

neither oil nor frankincense.

And these

are the meal-offerings that are

required to contain oil and frankincense:

a.

The fine-flour meal-offering,

which is the only meal-offering that is not baked before the kemitza; rather, the priest takes a handful from the fine flour itself [after he has mixed the flour with oil], and only with regard to this meal-offering did the Torah state that frankincense must be brought with it. From this we learned the same law for all individual meal-offerings with which frankincense is brought.

b.

And

the meal-offering of

the griddle,

which is fried in a flat vessel.

c.

And

the meal-offering of

the deep pan,

which is fried in a deep vessel.

d–e.

And

the baked meal-offering,

the loaves,

which is made in the form of baked loaves,

and the wafers,

thin matza, like our matza.

The Gemara explains that according to the one who holds that a person who vows to bring a baked meal-offering may bring either loaves or wafers, a baked meal-offering is considered two meal-offerings. Whereas according to the one who says that the person who vows may also bring it in a third manner—half loaves and half wafers—a baked meal-offering is considered three meal-offerings.

f.

The priests’ meal-offering,

which is burned entirely on the altar.

g.

The anointed priest’s meal-offering,

which is burned every day, half in the morning and half in the evening.

h.

The gentile’s meal-offering,

as a gentile may voluntarily donate a meal-offering.

i.

The women’s meal-offering,

when they voluntarily donated a meal-offering.

j.

The omer meal-offering,

which, although it is a communal meal-offering, is explicitly stated to be brought with oil and frankincense.

By contrast,

The libation meal-offering,

which accompanies burnt-offerings and peace-offerings—

is required to contain oil but is not required to contain frankincense.

The showbread—

is required to contain frankincense

in the two bowls placed on the Table and burned on the outer altar,

but is not required to contain oil.

The two loaves, the sinner’s meal-offering, and the meal-offering of jealousy

of a sota—

are required to contain neither oil nor frankincense!

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever we learned “

meal-offerings” [in the Mishna of tractate Menachot]—

ten

loaves in each meal-offering

we learned.

Every meal-offering mentioned is a meal-offering made of ten loaves of the same type; and a baked meal-offering consists either of ten loaves or ten wafers,

to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

As

Rabbi Shimon said: One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal-offering” may bring it in three ways: If he wishes to bring ten loaves, he brings loaves; if he wishes to bring ten wafers, he brings wafers; if he wishes to bring

half loaves and half wafers

[five loaves and five wafers]—

he brings

half loaves and half wafers.

Rav Pappa teaches us

by saying that wherever we learned “meal-offering,” the reference is to ten loaves of the same type, that our Mishna is

not

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, because according to him, in a baked meal-offering one may bring the ten loaves from two types—five loaves and five wafers.

The Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to the omer meal-offering:

“And you shall place oil upon it.” “

Upon it”—this is a limitation, teaching that specifically upon it are you commanded to place oil,

but not oil upon the showbread.

One might have thought

that it should be derived by means of a kal va-chomer that the showbread should indeed be required to contain oil. For

is this not a logical inference: Just as the libation meal-offering,

which accompanies burnt-offerings and peace-offerings,

is not required to contain frankincense,

nevertheless it is

required to contain oil

[as it is explicitly written with regard to it: “mixed with pure oil”],

the showbread,

which is more stringent than the libation meal-offering in that

it

is

required to contain frankincense—is it not logical that it should be required to contain oil

like the libation meal-offering!?

The verse therefore states

with regard to the omer meal-offering: “And you shall place

upon it

oil”—

upon it

you place

oil, but not upon the showbread

you place

oil.

It is further written with regard to the omer meal-offering:

“And you shall place frankincense upon it,”

and we exclude from this expression “upon it”:

upon it

you place

frankincense, but not upon the libation meal-offering

you place

frankincense.

One might have thought

that it should be derived by means of a kal va-chomer that the libation meal-offering should be required to contain frankincense. For

is this not a logical inference: Just as the showbread,

which is less stringent,

is not required to contain oil,

nevertheless it is

required to contain frankincense; the libation meal-offering,

which is more stringent than it in that

it

is

required to contain oil—is it not logical that it should be required to contain frankincense?!

The verse therefore states

with regard to the omer meal-offering: “And you shall place

upon it

frankincense”—

upon it

you place

frankincense, but not upon the libation meal-offering

you place

frankincense.

It is further stated later in that same verse concerning the omer meal-offering: “It is a meal-offering.” And we expound it as follows:

“Meal-offering”—

to include the meal-offering

of the

eighth

day of the inauguration

with regard to frankincense.

“It”—

to exclude the two loaves, so that they are not required to contain either oil or frankincense.

The Master said: “Upon it”—oil, but not oil upon the showbread.

We inquire concerning this: From where do we exclude the showbread?

Say—

“Upon it”—oil, but not oil upon the priests’ meal-offering

!?

And likewise not upon the women’s meal-offering or the gentiles’ meal-offering.

And we answer:

It is reasonable—

the priests’ meal-offering should have been included

as requiring oil rather than excluded, because it more closely resembles the omer meal-offering than the showbread,

as

the priests’ meal-offering resembles the omer meal-offering in the following respects:

a.

An isaron.

The omer meal-offering and ordinary meal-offerings come from one isaron of flour, whereas the showbread consists of two isaron per loaf, twenty-four isaron in total.

b.

A vessel.

The omer meal-offering and the other meal-offerings are sanctified in the service vessel in which they are kneaded, whereas the showbread is not sanctified through kneading in a service vessel, but when it is baked in the oven inside the Temple courtyard.

c.

Outside.

All the meal-offerings have all their service performed outside the Sanctuary, on the outer altar, whereas the showbread is arranged on the Table, inside the Sanctuary.

d.

And the

change of

form.

All meal-offerings become disqualified, after being sanctified in a service vessel, if they remain overnight, because after spending the night the form of the meal-offering changes, whereas the showbread remained on the Table from one Shabbat to the next.

e.

Presentation.

All meal-offerings require presentation at the corner of the altar, whereas the showbread does not require presentation.

f.

And fires.

For all meal-offerings, either the handful taken from them or the entire offering is burned on the fire upon the altar, whereas the showbread itself is not burned at all; only the frankincense in the bowls is burned from it.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, the showbread should have been included,

because it resembles the omer meal-offering,

as follows:

a.

A communal offering.

The omer meal-offering and the showbread are communal meal-offerings, whereas the other meal-offerings, such as the priests’, gentiles’, and women’s meal-offerings, are individual meal-offerings.

b.

An obligation.

It is obligatory to bring the omer meal-offering and the showbread, whereas the other meal-offerings mentioned above are optional.

c.

Impurity.

Both are brought in a state of impurity, in accordance with the law that impurity is permitted with regard to communal offerings, unlike individual meal-offerings.

d.

Eating.

The remainder of the omer meal-offering, after its handful has been taken, and the showbread are eaten, whereas the priests’ meal-offering is burned entirely.

e.

Piggul.

The remainder of the omer meal-offering and the showbread become piggul through a piggul intention, but the priests’ meal-offering is not subject to piggul, because the law of piggul applies only to something that has a permitting factor, whether for a person or for the altar. The permitting factor of the remainder of the omer meal-offering is the handful, and the permitting factor of the showbread is the two bowls. But the priests’ meal-offering has no “permitting factor,” because it is entirely burned.

f.

On Shabbat.

The service of the omer meal-offering and the showbread is performed even on Shabbat, whereas an individual meal-offering is not prepared on Shabbat.

Since there are six points of resemblance on each side, why do we include the priests’ meal-offering with regard to oil and exclude the showbread with regard to oil?

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that an individual offering was included with regard to oil. However, it is not derived from the omer meal-offering; rather, because it is stated with regard to the fine-flour meal-offering, which requires oil,

“a person,”

we learned from this that every individual meal-offering, every meal-offering of a single person, requires oil, like the fine-flour meal-offering.

The Master said: “Upon it,”

with regard to the omer meal-offering, you place

frankincense, but not frankincense upon the libation meal-offering.

We inquire concerning this:

Say: “Upon it”—frankincense—

but not frankincense upon the priests’ meal-offering?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that

the priests’ meal-offering should have been included, since

the priests’ meal-offering resembles the omer meal-offering in several respects:

a.

An isaron:

Both come from one isaron, whereas the libation meal-offering comes from three isaron for a bull and two isaron for a ram; only for a lamb does it come from one isaron.

b.

Mixed with a log

of oil. In all meal-offerings, one isaron is mixed with one log of oil, whereas in the libation meal-offering of a lamb, one isaron is mixed with three logs of oil, and for a bull and a ram, each isaron is mixed with two logs of oil.

c.

Presented.

The omer meal-offering and the priests’ meal-offering require presentation at the altar, whereas the libation meal-offering does not.

d.

By virtue of itself.

The omer meal-offering and the priests’ meal-offering are brought by virtue of themselves, whereas the libation meal-offering is brought by virtue of the sacrifice.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, the libation meal-offering should have been included

with regard to frankincense, because it resembles the omer meal-offering,

as follows:

a.

A communal offering:

The omer meal-offering is a communal meal-offering, and the libation meal-offering is brought with communal offerings, since communal sacrifices require libations, whereas the priest’s meal-offering is brought by an individual and not by the community.

b.

An obligation.

It is obligatory to bring the omer meal-offering and the libation meal-offering: One who brings a sacrifice is obligated to bring a libation meal-offering, whereas a priest’s meal-offering is never obligatory.

c.

Impurity.

The omer meal-offering and the libation meal-offerings of communal sacrifices override impurity, whereas the priests’ meal-offering does not override impurity, since it is brought only by an individual.

d.

On Shabbat.

Likewise, the services of communal meal-offerings override Shabbat, whereas those of the priest’s meal-offering do not.

And we answer:

It is reasonable

to include the individual meal-offering of a priest rather than the libation meal-offering, which can also be a communal meal-offering when it accompanies communal sacrifices, because it is stated with regard to the fine-flour meal-offering:

“A person,”

to teach us that every individual meal-offering of a single person like it is required to contain oil and frankincense.

We further expound above from the end of the verse concerning the omer meal-offering:

“Meal-offering”—

to include the meal-offering of the eighth

day of the inauguration

with regard to frankincense.

We inquire concerning this:

And say—

to exclude

the meal-offering of the eighth day, since it was a meal-offering stated only for that time!?

And we answer:

What is this?

Granted, if you say

that the verse “meal-offering”

comes to include, that is well:

it was necessary to include the meal-offering of the eighth day, which, although it was a meal-offering stated only for that time, nevertheless has the laws of a meal-offering for future generations.

But if you say

that the verse

comes to exclude

the meal-offering of the eighth day,

why do I need

a verse to exclude it? After all, by logical reasoning we would say that a

temporary

meal-offering

cannot be derived from a meal-offering for future generations. Therefore, necessarily, the verse comes to include the meal-offering of the eighth day.

Rather, the verse necessarily comes to include the meal-offering of the eighth day.

We further expound from this verse concerning the omer meal-offering: “It is a

meal-offering”—to exclude the two loaves, so that they are not required to contain either oil or frankincense.

We inquire concerning this:

And say—

to exclude the priests’ meal-offering?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable,

that

the priests’ meal-offering should have been included

and the two loaves excluded,

since

the priests’ meal-offering resembles the omer meal-offering in the following respects:

a.

An isaron.

Whereas the two loaves consisted of two isaron.

b.

A vessel.

Whereas the two loaves were sanctified only through their baking in the oven in the Temple courtyard.

c.

Unleavened.

Whereas the two loaves were brought as leavened bread.

d.

And by virtue of itself.

Whereas the two loaves were brought by virtue of the two sheep.

e.

Presentation.

Whereas the two loaves did not require presentation.

f.

And fires.

Whereas the two loaves were not burned on the fire.