Menachot 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

And I have derived only

one who affirms

this

service of carrying the blood

alone,

since the verse states “the one who sacrifices,” which refers to carrying the blood,

from where is it derived that fifteen services

are also included? And these are they:

the pourings

the pouring of the oil into the meal-offering three times, [as explained in the introduction to the Mishna],

the mixings

the mixing of the oil and the flour in the meal-offering,

the divisions into pieces

in the meal-offerings prepared on a griddle, in a deep pan, and in an oven, which require division into pieces after baking.

the saltings

the salting of the meal-offerings, as it is written: “And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt.”

the waving

before bringing the meal-offering to the altar, the priest waves it toward the four directions of the heavens, and raises and lowers it. [This law does not apply to all meal-offerings, as explained below, on page 60a]

the presentations

presenting the meal-offering at the southwest corner, opposite the edge of the corner, before the kemitza.

the handfuls

taking the handful of the meal-offering.

the burning

burning the meal-offering upon the altar.

the nipping

nipping the neck of the bird-offering.

the receiving

of the blood of an animal-offering in a vessel.

the sprinkling

of the blood upon the altar.

giving the sota to drink, breaking the heifer’s neck, purifying the leper, and raising of the hands, both from within

the Temple

and from outside

in every city.

From where

is it derived that a priest who does not affirm any one of these services does not receive a share in the sacred offerings?

The verse therefore states: “From the descendants of Aaron,”

and we derive: Every

service entrusted to the descendants of Aaron—

any priest who does not affirm it has no share in the priesthood!

And from the fact that Rabbi Shimon included “the pourings” among all the services entrusted to the descendants of Aaron, it is proven that Rabbi Shimon holds that pouring requires a priest, contrary to the Mishna, which validates pouring performed by a non-priest?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult

from the Mishna to Rabbi Shimon’s statement

. Here

where Rabbi Shimon says that pouring performed by a non-priest is invalid, it is referring to

the meal-offering of priests; here

the Mishna, which validates pouring performed by a non-priest, is referring to

the meal-offering of an Israelite.

And we explain:

The meal-offering of an Israelite, which is subject to the taking of a handful,

we learn that since the Torah states, “And the priest shall take a handful,” the meaning of the verse is that

from the taking of the handful onward, it is a priestly mitzva

to have it performed by a priest. If so,

it teaches concerning pouring and mixing

which precede the taking of the handful

that they are valid when performed by a non-priest. The meal-offering of priests, which is not subject to the taking of a handful,

since it is entirely burned on the altar,

from the outset

from the beginning of its preparation

requires priesthood,

including for pouring; and Rabbi Shimon was speaking of this.

And we object:

Rava said

to Rav Naḥman:

Granted,

indeed,

from where was the law of pouring derived for

the

pouring

of the meal-offering of priests? The Torah did not write the law of pouring with regard to the meal-offering of priests; rather, it is learned

from the meal-offering of an Israelite,

where the law of pouring is written, and from there it is derived for all meal-offerings. If so, we should say:

Just as there

with regard to the meal-offering of an Israelite,

pouring is valid

when performed by a non-priest,

so too here,

with regard to the meal-offering of priests,

pouring is valid

when performed by a non-priest,

as well.

Since there is no basis to distinguish between the meal-offering of an Israelite and the meal-offering of priests, the question returns: Necessarily, the Mishna, which validates pouring performed by a non-priest, is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

There are those who say:

This is how

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult

for Rabbi Shimon in relation to the Mishna.

Here

the Mishna is speaking

of

meal-offerings that

are subject to the taking of a handful; here

Rabbi Shimon is speaking

of

meal-offerings

that are not subject to the taking of a handful,

as we explained above according to the first answer in the Gemara. [The practical difference between the two answers is that according to the second formulation, pouring performed by a non-priest is invalid not only for the meal-offering of priests, but also for the meal-offering accompanying a libation, which likewise is not subject to the taking of a handful.]

Rava said

to Rav Naḥman:

Granted, with regard to those not subject to the taking of a handful, from where was the law of pouring derived? From those subject to the taking of a handful.

If so, they should be

like those subject to the taking of a handful—

just as there pouring is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here pouring should be valid when performed by a non-priest! [The explanation of the objection is as in the first formulation of the second answer.]

We conclude:

Rather, it is clear

that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

it is clear and certain that

the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And we raise a question:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

who validate pouring performed by a non-priest?

And we answer:

The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense upon it, and bring it to the sons of Aaron the priests

and he shall take a handful.”

And we derive from the juxtaposition of the words “the priests and he shall take a handful” that only

from the taking of the handful onward is it a priestly mitzva; it teaches concerning pouring and mixing that they are valid when performed by a non-priest. 24 .

And Rabbi Shimon,

who invalidates pouring performed by a non-priest, expounds the verse as follows:

There is a multiple inclusion after a multiple inclusion, and a multiple inclusion after a multiple inclusion serves only to exclude.

Therefore, placing frankincense even on any amount of a meal-offering invalidates it. And the reason that we require the placement of frankincense in the measure of an olive-bulk is that we derive the placement of frankincense from: “And he shall give to the priest the sacred portion”

Some say: Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said: Rabbi Yohanan raised a dilemma: If one placed any amount of oil upon an olive-bulk of a meal-offering, what is the halakha?

Do we require placement

of an olive-bulk of oil

like the placement

of an olive-bulk of frankincense,

or not?

Do we require a measure of an olive-bulk when placing the oil, or does any amount of oil invalidate the sinner’s meal-offering?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

If one placed oil on its remainder,

he does not violate a prohibition.

The Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to the sinner’s meal-offering: “He shall neither place nor put.”

I might understand that the verse is speaking of two priests,

one of whom places oil and the other puts frankincense; in a case where two priests each performed a separate act, each of them is flogged for a separate prohibition. But if one priest places oil and puts frankincense, he is flogged for only one prohibition?

The verse states: “Upon it,”

to teach you:

The verse is speaking of the substance of the meal-offering,

meaning that the prohibitions relate to the meal-offering,

and not to the priest

does the distinction depend. Since both acts were performed upon it, it makes no difference whether one priest performed them or two priests performed them: he or they are liable for two prohibitions.

I might understand that he may not place a vessel

with oil or frankincense

upon

the vessel

in which the meal-offering is located, for even in such a case we can read: “He shall not place oil upon it, nor put frankincense upon it.”

And if he placed it, does he invalidate it? —

The verse states: “Upon it” —

the verse is speaking of the substance of the meal-offering,

meaning that one may not mix the oil or frankincense into the meal-offering itself; it does not mean that it is prohibited to place a vessel containing oil or frankincense above it.

Mishna:

There are

meal-offerings that

require presentation, but do not require waving.

And there are meal-offerings that require

waving but not presentation.

And there are meal-offerings that require

both presentation and waving.

And there are meal-offerings that require

neither waving nor presentation.

And these

are the meal-offerings that

require presentation but do not require waving:

a.

The fine-flour meal-offering.

b.

And the griddle meal-offering.

c.

And the deep-pan meal-offering.

d–e.

And the loaves and wafers

of the oven-baked meal-offering.

f.

The priests’ meal-offering.

g.

And the anointed priest’s meal-offering.

h.

The gentiles’ meal-offering.

i.

The women’s meal-offering.

j.

And the sinner’s meal-offering.

Rabbi Shimon says: The priests’ meal-offering and the anointed priest’s meal-offering do not require presentation,

because they do not involve taking a handful; rather, they are burned in their entirety,

and any offering that does not involve taking a handful —

does not require presentation.

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever we learned —

we learned ten [

and as we explained on the previous page].

What does this teach us? —

It serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said

that with regard to an oven-baked meal-offering, even

he may bring half loaves and half wafers; it teaches us that this is not so.

Rather, he brings either loaves or wafers.

We learned in the Mishna the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon as to whether the priests’ meal-offering and the anointed priest’s meal-offering require presentation.

And we explain:

From where are these matters

derived? That is: What are the reasons of the Rabbis and of Rabbi Shimon?

As the Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to the deep-pan meal-offering: “And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made from one of these to the Lord, and he shall bring it to the priest, and he shall present it to the altar.

And the priest shall remove from the meal-offering its memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar.”

Had it said

at the beginning of the verse:

“And you shall bring what shall be made from one of these to the Lord,”

[rather than as it is written, “And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made from one of these to the Lord,”]

I would have said

that since the continuation states the law of burning the handful [“its memorial portion”], this is the meaning of the verse:

I know only that the handful requires presentation.

The meal-offering,

before it was taken by the handful,

from where

do we know that it requires presentation?

The verse states: “And you shall bring the

meal-offering

... and he shall present it.”

and he shall bring it near.”

The sinner’s meal-offering—from where

do we know that it requires presentation?

The verse states: “The meal-offering,”

to include the sinner’s meal-offering as requiring presentation.

One may raise the following difficulty: Why is a verse necessary for the sinner’s meal-offering? —

And

does it not follow

by logical inference

that the sinner’s meal-offering should require presentation, by means of the derivation known as “the two aspects”?