Menachot 60a — the Talmud in English

And I have only

the one who acknowledges

this

service, that of carrying,

alone,

for in the verse it is written “the one who offers,” which means carrying.

From where is it derived to include fifteen services

which are also included? And these are:

the pourings

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

and the mixings

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

and the breakings into pieces

in the pan-offering, the deep-pan offering, and the oven-baked offering, which require breaking into pieces after their baking.

And the saltings

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

And the wavings

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

And the presentations

the presentation of the meal-offering at the southwestern corner, opposite the edge of the corner, before the taking of the handful.

And the takings of the handful

the taking of the handful from the meal-offering.

And the burnings

the burning of the meal-offering upon the altar.

And the nippings

the nipping of the bird-offering.

And the receiving

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

And the sprinklings

of the blood upon the altar.

And the giving to drink of the woman suspected of adultery, the breaking of the heifer’s neck, the purification of the afflicted person, and the raising of the hands, both inside

the Temple

and outside

in every city.

From where

is it derived that a priest who does not acknowledge one of these does not share in the sacred offerings?

The verse says: “From the sons of Aaron”

and we derive: Every

service entrusted to the sons of Aaron—

any priest who does not acknowledge it has no portion in the priesthood!

And from the fact that Rabbi Shimon included “pourings” with all the services entrusted to the sons of Aaron, it is proven that Rabbi Shimon holds that pouring requires a priest, and not like the Mishna, which validates pouring by a non-priest?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult

from the Mishna to the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Here,

the words of Rabbi Shimon, that pouring by a non-priest is invalid, are speaking

of a priests’ meal-offering; here,

the Mishna, which validated pouring by a non-priest, is speaking

of an Israelite’s meal-offering.

And we explain:

An Israelite’s meal-offering, which is subject to the taking of the handful,

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

from the taking of the handful onward is a priestly mitzva

to be performed by a priest. And 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. A priests’ meal-offering, which is not subject to the taking of the handful,

for all of it is entirely burned on the altar,

from the outset

from the beginning of its preparation

requires priesthood

even for pouring; and Rabbi Shimon spoke of this.

And we raise an objection:

Rava said to Rav Naḥman

to Rav Naḥman:

Since

indeed,

from where is a law of pouring derived for a priests’ meal-offering?

the law

of pouring,

the Torah did not write the law of pouring concerning a priests’ meal-offering; rather, it is learned

from an Israelite’s meal-offering,

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

Just as there,

with an Israelite’s meal-offering,

pouring is valid

when performed by a non-priest,

so here too,

with a priests’ meal-offering, it should be said that

pouring is valid

when performed by a non-priest,

by a non-priest,

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

There are those who say:

thus

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult

for Rabbi Shimon from the Mishna.

Here,

the Mishna is speaking

of

meal-offerings that are

taken by the handful; here,

Rabbi Shimon is speaking

of

meal-offerings

that are not taken by the handful,

as we explained above according to the first answer in the Gemara. [And the practical difference between the two answers is that according to the ikkha de-amrei, pouring by a non-priest is invalid not only for a priests’ meal-offering, but also for a libation meal-offering, which likewise is not taken by the handful.]

Rava said

to Rav Naḥman:

Since those that are not taken by the handful derive the law of pouring from those that are taken by the handful,

if so, let it be

like those that are taken by the handful—

just as there pouring is valid when performed by a non-priest, so here too pouring should be valid when performed by a non-priest?! [

The explanation of the difficulty is as according to the first ikkha de-amrei.]

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear,

it is clear and evident that

the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

who validate pouring by a non-priest?

And we answer:

The verse says: “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 the handful,”

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

from the taking of the handful onward is 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 by a non-priest, expounds it as follows:

There is a multiplication after a multiplication, and there is no multiplication after a multiplication except to exclude.

Therefore, placing frankincense even upon any amount of the meal-offering invalidates it. And the fact that we require the placing of frankincense in a measure of an olive-bulk is because we derive the placing of frankincense from “And he shall give to the priest the holy thing.”

There are those who say: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said: Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a question: If one placed some oil upon an olive-bulk of a meal-offering, what is the law?

Do we require placing

of an olive-bulk of oil

like the placing

of an olive-bulk of frankincense,

or not

do we require a measure of an olive-bulk in the placing of the oil, but rather some oil invalidates the meal-offering of a sinner?

And we conclude:

Let it stand.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he placed oil upon its remainder,

he does not violate a prohibition.

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the meal-offering of a sinner: “He shall neither place nor put.”

One might have said: The verse speaks of two priests,

one of whom places oil and the other puts frankincense; in a situation in which two priests each performed a separate act, each of them receives lashes for a separate prohibition, but if one priest places oil and puts frankincense, he receives lashes only for one prohibition? —

The verse states: “Upon it,”

to tell you:

The verse speaks of the substance of the meal-offering,

for the prohibitions relate to the meal-offering,

and not to the priest

does the distinction depend; and since the two things were done to it, it makes no difference whether one priest did them or two priests did them: he is liable twice.

One might have said: 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 call it “he shall not place oil upon it, nor put frankincense upon it”;

and if he placed it, did he invalidate it? —

The verse states: “Upon it” —

the verse speaks of the substance of the meal-offering,

that one may not mix the oil or the frankincense into the meal-offering itself, but there is no prohibition against placing a vessel containing oil or frankincense above it.

Mishna:

There are

meal-offerings that

require bringing-near, but do not require waving.

And there are meal-offerings that require

waving but not bringing-near.

And there are meal-offerings that require

bringing-near and waving.

And there are meal-offerings that do not require

either waving or bringing-near.

And these

are the meal-offerings that

require bringing-near and do not require waving:

a.

The meal-offering of fine flour.

b.

And the meal-offering prepared on a griddle.

c.

And the meal-offering prepared in a shallow pan.

d–e.

And the loaves and wafers

of the oven-baked meal-offering.

f.

The meal-offering of priests.

g.

And the meal-offering of the anointed priest.

h.

The meal-offering of gentiles.

i.

The meal-offering of women.

j.

And the meal-offering of a sinner.

Rabbi Shimon says: The meal-offering of priests and the meal-offering of the anointed priest do not have bringing-near,

because they have no taking of the handful, but are entirely burned

and anything that has no taking of the handful —

has no bringing-near.

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever we learned —

we learned ten [

as we explained on the previous page].

What does this teach us? —

To exclude the view of Rabbi Shimon, who said

that with regard to the 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 their dispute, the Rabbis’ and Rabbi Shimon’s, whether there is the mitzva of bringing-near in the meal-offering of priests and in the meal-offering of the anointed priest.

And we explain:

From where are these matters?

That is: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis and of Rabbi Shimon?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the meal-offering prepared in a shallow pan: “And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made from these to the Lord, and he shall bring it near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar.

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

If it had been stated

at the beginning of the verse,

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

[and not as it is written, “And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made from these to the Lord”],

I would have said

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

I have only that which requires bringing-near is the handful alone.

The meal-offering,

before its handful has been taken,

from where

is it known that it requires bringing-near?

The verse states: “And you shall bring the

meal-offering

... and he shall bring it near.”

The meal-offering of a sinner, from where

is it known

that it requires bringing-near?

The verse states: “The meal-offering,”

to include the meal-offering of a sinner for bringing-near.

And it is possible to raise a difficulty: Why is a verse necessary for the meal-offering of a sinner —

for

is it not

a logical inference

that the meal-offering of a sinner should require bringing-near, by the derivation of “in what way”?