Menachot 59a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

There are

meal-offerings that are

requiring oil and frankincense.

And there are meal-offerings that are requiring

oil but not frankincense.

And there are meal-offerings that are requiring

frankincense but not oil.

And there are meal-offerings that are not requiring

neither oil nor frankincense.

And these

are the meal-offerings that are

requiring oil and frankincense:

a.

The meal-offering of fine flour,

which is the only meal-offering that is not baked before the kemitza, but rather the priest takes a handful from the fine flour itself [after he has mixed the fine flour with oil], and only concerning it did the Torah write that frankincense is to be brought with it. And from here we learned concerning all individual meal-offerings that frankincense is brought with them.

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,

made in the form of baked loaves,

and the wafers,

thin matzot, like our matzot.

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

f.

The meal-offering of priests,

which is burned entirely upon the altar.

g.

The meal-offering of the anointed priest,

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

h.

The meal-offering of a gentile,

who may vow to bring a meal-offering.

i.

The meal-offering of women,

who vowed to bring a meal-offering.

j.

The omer meal-offering,

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

And in contrast,

The libation meal-offering

that comes with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings—

requires oil but does not require frankincense.

The showbread—

requires frankincense

in the two bowls placed upon the table and burned upon the outer altar,

but does not require oil.

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

of a sota—

do not require either oil or frankincense!

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever we learned “

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

ten

loaves in each meal-offering

we learned.

For every meal-offering mentioned is a meal-offering made of ten loaves of the same type, and the baked meal-offering comes either as ten loaves or ten wafers,

to exclude the view of Rabbi Shimon.

For

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 may bring loaves. If he wishes to bring ten wafers, he may bring wafers. If he wishes to bring

half loaves and half wafers

[five loaves and five wafers]—

he may bring

half loaves and half wafers.

This teaches us

Rav Pappa’s point: When we learned “meal-offering” anywhere, the reference is to ten loaves of the same type, and our Mishna is

not

like Rabbi Shimon, because according to him, in the baked meal-offering it is possible to bring the ten loaves from two types—five loaves and five wafers.

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the omer meal-offering,

“And you shall place oil upon it.” “

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

but not oil upon the showbread.

One might have thought

that it should be said, by means of a kal va-chomer, that the showbread should indeed require oil. For

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

which comes with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings,

which does not require frankincense,

nevertheless

requires oil

[as is explicitly written concerning it, “mixed with crushed oil”].

The showbread,

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

it

is

requiring frankincense—is it not logical that it should require oil

like the libation meal-offering?!

The verse states

concerning the omer meal-offering, “And you shall place

upon it

oil”—

upon it

you place

oil, but not upon the showbread

do you place

oil.

It is further written concerning the omer meal-offering,

“And you shall place frankincense upon it,”

and we exclude from this “upon it”:

upon it

you place

frankincense, but not upon the libation meal-offering

do you place

frankincense.

One might have thought

that it should be learned by a kal va-chomer that the libation meal-offering should require frankincense. For

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

which is lenient,

does not require oil,

nevertheless it is

requiring frankincense. The libation meal-offering,

which is more stringent than it in that

it

is

requiring oil—is it not logical that it should require frankincense?!

The verse states

concerning the omer meal-offering, “And you shall place

upon it

frankincense”—

upon it

you place

frankincense, but not upon the libation meal-offering

do you place

frankincense.

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

“Meal-offering”—

to include the meal-offering

of the

eighth

day of the inauguration

for frankincense.

“It”—

to exclude the two loaves, so that they should require neither oil nor frankincense.

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

And we considered this: From where is the exclusion of the showbread derived? And

say—

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

?!

And likewise not upon the meal-offering of women nor upon the meal-offering of gentiles.

And we answer:

It is reasonable—

the priests’ meal-offering should have been included

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

for

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

a.

An issaron.

The omer meal-offering and ordinary meal-offerings come from one issaron of flour, whereas each showbread comes from two issaron, and together they comprise twenty-four issaron.

b.

A vessel.

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

c.

Outside.

All the meal-offerings, all their service, is outside the Sanctuary, upon the outer altar, whereas the arrangement of the showbread is upon the table, inside the Sanctuary.

d.

And

the passing of the

form.

All meal-offerings become disqualified, after they have become sanctified in a service vessel, if they remained overnight, because after an overnight stay the form of the meal-offering changes, whereas the showbread remained upon the table from one Shabbat to the next.

e.

Presentation.

All meal-offerings require presentation at the altar’s horn, whereas the showbread does not require presentation.

f.

And fire-offerings.

From all meal-offerings the handful is burned, or they are all burned, upon the fire on the altar, whereas the showbread itself is not burned at all; only the frankincense in the bowls is burned from it.

And we refute this:

On the contrary, the showbread should have been included,

because it resembles the omer meal-offering,

for:

a.

Communal.

The omer meal-offering and the showbread are communal meal-offerings, whereas the other meal-offerings, such as the meal-offering of a priest, a gentile, or women, are individual meal-offerings.

b.

Obligatory.

The omer meal-offering and the showbread must be brought, whereas the other meal-offerings above are optional.

c.

Impurity.

Both of them are brought in a state of impurity, according to the law that impurity is permitted for communal offerings, unlike individual meal-offerings.

d.

Eaten.

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

e.

Piggul.

The remnants of the omer meal-offering and the showbread become piggul through a thought of piggul, but the priests’ meal-offering has no piggul, because the law of piggul applies only to something that has a permitting element, whether for a person or for the altar. The permitting element of the remnants of the omer meal-offering is the handful, and the permitting element of the showbread is the two bowls. But the priests’ meal-offering has no “permitting element,” because it is burned entirely.

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 performed on Shabbat.

And since there are six matters of resemblance against six matters of resemblance, 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 meal-offering was included with regard to oil. But it is not learned from the omer meal-offering; rather, because it is stated concerning the meal-offering of fine flour, which requires oil,

“a person,”

and from here we learned concerning every individual meal-offering that every meal-offering of an individual person requires oil, like the meal-offering of fine flour.

The Master said: “Upon it,”

concerning the omer meal-offering, you place

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

And we considered this:

Say, “upon it” means frankincense—

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

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that

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

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

a.

An issaron:

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

b.

Mixed with a log

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

c.

Presented.

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

d.

Because of itself.

The omer meal-offering and the priests’ meal-offering come because of themselves, whereas the libation meal-offering comes because of the offering.

And we refute this:

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

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

for:

a.

Communal:

The omer meal-offering is a communal meal-offering, and the libation meal-offering comes in a communal context, since communal offerings require libations, whereas the priests’ meal-offering comes as an individual offering and not communally.

b.

Obligatory.

The omer meal-offering and the libation meal-offering must be brought: one who brings an offering is obligated in the libation meal-offering, whereas the priests’ meal-offering is never obligatory.

c.

And impurity.

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

d.

On Shabbat.

Likewise, the service of communal meal-offerings overrides Shabbat, but not the priests’ meal-offering.

And we answer:

It is reasonable

to include the individual meal-offering of a priest rather than the libation meal-offering, which also comes as a communal meal-offering when it comes with communal offerings, because it is stated concerning the meal-offering of fine flour

“a person,”

to teach us that every individual meal-offering of an individual person like it requires 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

for frankincense.

And we considered this:

And say—

to exclude

the meal-offering of the eighth day, because it is a meal-offering stated only for its time?!

And we answer:

What is this?

If you say that

the verse “meal-offering” comes

to include, it is well:

it was necessary to include the meal-offering of the eighth day, because although it is a meal-offering stated only for its time, nevertheless the laws of a meal-offering apply to it for all 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? Is it not logical that a meal-offering

for a time from

a meal-offering

for all generations is not learned. Rather, it necessarily comes to include the meal-offering of the eighth day.

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

meal-offering,”

“it”—to exclude the two loaves, so that they should require neither oil nor frankincense.

And we considered this:

And say—

to exclude the priests’ meal-offering?!

And we answer:

It is reasonable,

because

the priests’ meal-offering should have been included

and the two loaves excluded,

for

the two loaves resemble the omer meal-offering in these matters:

a.

An issaron.

The two loaves, however, were two issaron.

b.

A vessel.

The two loaves, however, become sacred only through their baking in the oven in the courtyard.

c.

Matzah.

The two loaves, however, come as leavened bread.

d.

And itself.

The two loaves, however, come because of the two lambs.

e.

Presentation.

The two loaves, however, do not require presentation.

f.

And fire-offerings.

The two loaves, however, are not burned upon the fire.