Menachot 59b — the Talmud in English

And we challenged this:

On the contrary, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the two loaves should have been included,

since they resemble the Omer meal-offering,

for:

a.

A communal offering.

The two loaves and the Omer meal-offering are communal offerings.

b.

An obligation.

Both of them are obligatory to bring.

c.

Impurity.

Both of them override impurity, since it is permitted for a communal offering.

d.

Eating.

Both of them are eaten—the two loaves in their entirety, and the Omer meal-offering, its remainder.

e.

Pigul.

The two loaves have the offering of the rams permit them, and the Omer meal-offering has the handful permit it; but a priests’ meal-offering has no permitting element, since it is entirely burned. Therefore, it does not become pigul.

f.

On Shabbat.

Both of them override Shabbat, since they are communal offerings.

g.

A permitting element.

The Omer permits eating the new produce, and the two loaves permit offering meal-offerings from the new grain.

h.

Waving.

The Omer is waved, and the two loaves are waved, but the other meal-offerings are not waved.

i.

In the Land.

The Omer and the two loaves come only from the produce of the Land of Israel, whereas the other meal-offerings may come even from the produce of outside the Land.

j.

At a fixed time.

The Omer and the two loaves have a fixed time, but the other meal-offerings do not have a fixed time.

k.

New.

The Omer and the two loaves come only from the new grain, whereas the other meal-offerings may also come from the old grain.

And these,

which resemble the two loaves more than the Omer meal-offering

are more numerous.

For there are many more matters in which the Omer meal-offering resembles the two loaves than in which it resembles a priests’ meal-offering. If so, we should have included the two loaves with regard to oil and frankincense, and not a priests’ meal-offering!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable

to include a priests’ meal-offering, from that which is written

“a person”

in the fine-flour meal-offering; and from it we derive that all the meal-offerings of an individual require oil and frankincense.

Mishna:

a.

We learned in the previous Mishna that neither oil nor frankincense is placed upon a sinner’s meal-offering.

And

if he nevertheless went and placed it, he is

liable

for lashes

for

placing

the oil

by itself,

and for

placing

the frankincense by itself; and if he placed both oil and frankincense, he is lashed on account of both of them. In total, he is lashed eighty lashes [less two]. For it is stated concerning a sinner’s meal-offering: “He shall not place oil upon it, and he shall not put frankincense upon it.”

And if he placed both oil and frankincense, he is lashed on account of each of them. Thus, altogether he receives eighty lashes [less two]. For it is stated with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner: “He shall not place oil upon it, and he shall not put frankincense upon it.”

b.

If he placed oil upon it—

he invalidated it.

For he cannot remove the oil from the fine flour.

And if he placed

frankincense upon it—

he gathers it up,

and it becomes valid.

c.

If he placed oil upon its remainder

of a sinner’s meal-offering, after the handful had been taken, he again

does not transgress a negative commandment ,

since the prohibition applies only while it is standing to have the handful taken from it for burning.

d.

If he placed a vessel

with oil

on top of a vessel

containing a sinner’s meal-offering—

he did not invalidate it.

For the invalidity applies only when he mixes the oil into the sinner’s meal-offering itself, and not when he places oil in a separate vessel above it.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a sinner’s meal-offering:

“He shall not place oil upon it,” and if he placed

oil upon it—

he invalidated it.

One might

say that I likewise apply this to the placing of frankincense:

“He shall not put frankincense upon it,” and if he put

frankincense—

he invalidated it?

The verse states, “for it is a sin-offering,”

to say that even if he placed frankincense upon it, it is still a valid sin-offering, and it effects atonement.

One might even

read “for it is a sin-offering” with regard to oil, to say that although he transgressed the prohibition by placing the oil, the meal-offering is still valid?

The verse states, “it,”

which is an exclusion, to say: only it—when he placed frankincense in it—remains valid, but not when he placed oil in it, for then it is invalid.

And what did you see to invalidate it with oil, and to deem it valid with frankincense?

I invalidate it with oil

because

it is impossible to gather it up

from within the meal-offering,

and I deem it valid with frankincense, since it is possible to gather it up

and render it valid.

Rabba bar Rav Huna asked Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A sinner’s meal-offering in which he

placed crushed frankincense upon it,

which it is impossible to gather up from the fine flour—

what is

the law? The sides of the uncertainty are:

Is what we deemed valid when he placed frankincense upon it

because it is possible to gather it up

from the fine flour,

and here

crushed frankincense

cannot be gathered up,

and the meal-offering should become invalid?

Or perhaps

what we deemed valid when he placed frankincense upon it is

because it is not absorbed

in the fine flour as oil is; only oil, which is absorbed in the fine flour, invalidates the meal-offering because of its absorption in it, but frankincense, which is merely mixed with the fine flour and is not absorbed in it, does not invalidate it.

And this too,

the crushed frankincense, although it is impossible to gather it up from the fine flour, does not invalidate it, for

it is not absorbed.

Come and hear:

we learned in our Mishna:

and frankincense,

if he placed frankincense upon a sinner’s meal-offering—

he gathers it up.

It is thereby proven that the entire basis for deeming it valid is that he gathers it up, and not that it is not absorbed in the fine flour.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the tanṇay of our Mishna

one

reason,

and another

reason

stated.

That is:

one

reason for deeming it valid is

that it is not absorbed

in the fine flour.

And another

reason—

he gathers it up

and it becomes valid.

Come and hear:

we learned in a beraita:

I deem it valid with frankincense

because

it is possible to gather it up.

It is thereby proven that only if he gathers it up is it valid, and if he does not gather it up, it is invalid, even though the frankincense is not absorbed in the fine flour.

And we reject this:

Here too, he stated “one, and another.”

And we inquire about it:

What was the outcome

of the question that Rabba bar Rav Huna asked Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was taught: A sinner’s meal-offering and a jealousy-offering upon which he placed frankincense—

he gathers up the frankincense, and it is valid

for burning and for effecting atonement.

And if, before he gathered up its frankincense, he formed an intention concerning it,

during the procedures of the meal-offering, to burn the handful or eat its remainder improperly—

whether

he formed the intention of

outside its time, whether

he formed the intention of

outside its place—

the meal-offering is invalid

as an offering,

but there is no karet

for eating it, since the liability of karet applies only when one eats something invalidated solely because of an intention outside its time. Here, however, at the time he formed the intention, the sinner’s offering was invalid also because of the frankincense that was in it.

And if, after he had gathered up its frankincense, he formed an intention concerning it

to burn the handful or eat the remainder

outside its place—

it is invalid, but there is no karet.

And if he formed an intention

outside its time—

it is pigul, and one is liable for it,

for eating it,

to karet.

And since he says that whenever the frankincense is within it, it is invalid, it is proven that its fitness depends on the removal, and not on the fact that it was not absorbed into the fine flour.

And we raised it: Why did he invalidate it through a thought of [sacrificing] outside its time or outside its place while the frankincense was in it? After all, it was then invalid because the frankincense was in it,

and let it be

like a sinner’s offering upon which there fell

a drop of

oil, where it is obvious that a thought of pigul does not take hold in it, since it is permanently invalid because of the oil absorbed into it,

and if so, this offering into which frankincense fell,

why

did he invalidate it through a thought,

and let us say: since at the time when the frankincense was in it, it was invalid, it is

permanently rejected

[and that is, it entered our minds that this beraita follows the one who says that there is rejection with regard to consecrated things]?

And we answered:

Abaye said: “Scripture called it a ‘sin-offering’”

the sinner’s offering, even after he placed frankincense upon it, as it is written: “He shall not place frankincense upon it, for it is a sin-offering.” Therefore, a thought is effective to invalidate it and to give it the law of pigul, despite its rejection.

Rava said: This

tanna of the

beraita

is Hanan the Egyptian, who does not hold

the law of

rejections.

For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says:

The two goats of the Day of Atonement, for which lots are cast—one for the Lord, whose blood enters inside the innermost place, and one which is sent to Azazel—and the goat that is sent dies: we do not say that the inner goat should be rejected because its partner was lost and it is now impossible to sprinkle its blood, and because of this it should be rejected permanently. Rather,

even if

the

blood of

the goat

was in the cup,

that is, it had already been slaughtered, and the blood was rejected after slaughter, he

brings

the goat that is sent,

its fellow, without a lottery,

and pairs it with it.

And now that its partner, the goat that is sent, exists, he can sprinkle the blood inside the innermost place and in the Sanctuary.

And it is proven that Hanan the Egyptian held that the law of rejection does not apply to consecrated things, even when the rejection occurred after slaughter.

Rav Ashi said:

Even if you say that it is the Rabbis, here it is different, for we do not say the law of rejection, because

anything that is in his power

to rectify the cause producing the rejection—for example, here, it is in his power to remove the frankincense—

is not rejection,

and therefore a thought is effective in it.

Rav Adda said: The view of Rav Ashi

who said that wherever it is in his power to rectify it, it is not rejection even according to the one who holds the law of rejection

is reasonable.

And the proof:

Whom do you know who holds

the

law of rejections?

It is Rabbi Judah.

For we learned: Rabbi Judah further said: If the blood

of the inner goat

was spilled, the goat that is sent shall die.

For it was rejected when the blood of its partner was spilled. And likewise, if

the

goat

that is sent

died, they shall spill the blood

of the inner goat onto the ground and shall not sprinkle from it inside, and they shall bring a pair of goats in place of the first two. That is, Rabbi Judah holds that there is no remedy by bringing another goat and pairing it with the goat that was not invalidated, for since it was rejected for one moment when its partner was invalidated, it is permanently rejected.

But wherever it is in his power

to rectify it, we find that Rabbi Judah holds that the law of rejection does not apply to it. For

it was taught: Rabbi Judah says: The priest would fill a cup

the

blood of the mixture

of the Passover sacrifices that was spilled on the floor of the Temple courtyard,

and he would sprinkle

the blood of the mixture

one sprinkling toward the base,

because we are concerned lest the blood had been spilled from the cups into which the blood of the Passover sacrifice had been received onto the floor, and the owners had not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, he would fill [the cup] with the blood of the mixture on the ground, and sprinkle it on the altar, so that some of the spilled blood [which was now found within the mixture] would reach the altar, and the owners would fulfill their obligation through it.

It follows that we do not say: Since the blood was rejected at the time when it was spilled onto the ground from sprinkling, it is permanently rejected. Rather, we say: Since it is in his power to gather it into the vessel and sprinkle it on the altar, it is not considered as something that was rejected.

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If he placed any amount of oil upon an olive-sized sinner’s offering

грешника,

he invalidated

the offering.

What is the reason

that the measure for placing oil is any amount, whereas the measure of the offering is at least an olive-sized amount? Because it is stated concerning oil, “

shall not place,”

and it implies

placing any amount

of oil invalidates, and afterward it is stated

“upon it,”

which implies an amplification,

until there is a measure.

To teach that a measure is required for an offering upon which oil is placed, and the smallest measure is an olive-sized amount.

And Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If he placed an olive-sized amount of frankincense upon any amount of an offering

of a sinner

he invalidated

the offering.

What is the reason

is it the opposite of placing oil?

“He shall not place” is written

concerning frankincense, and we derive from “And he shall give the holy portion to the priest” that he must give the priest something fit to become holy. That is a giving of an olive-sized amount, and likewise, the giving of frankincense is not called “giving”

until there is a giving

of an olive-sized amount of frankincense.

And afterward, with regard to the measure of the offering, there is written an amplification of

“upon it,”

after an amplification of “upon it” had already previously been written concerning oil.