Menachot 6b — the Talmud in English

And by rights the sin-offering for forbidden fat

that is, an ordinary sin-offering

should require libations

like the other offerings, so that

the sinner should not profit; and for what reason does it not require

libations

? So that his offering should not be enhanced.

It might have entered your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon said

this reasoning, that

so that his offering should not be enhanced, when he takes the handful

of the offering of a sinner

it too should become fit through disqualified persons; it teaches us

the Mishna, that it is not fit through disqualified persons.

And we raise an objection:

If so, there too,

in tractate Zevahim [at the beginning of chapter 2], where we learned there: “All the sacrifices whose blood was received by a non-kohen, an acute mourner, one who immersed that day, etc.”

let it teach

in this wording

“both the sin-offering for forbidden fat and all the sacrifices whose blood was received by a non-kohen, an acute mourner, etc.”, and let it say that it was needed according to Rabbi Shimon

as regarding the offering of a sinner, which the tannai specified separately

. It follows

that we see from this that

since it taught

the wording

“all” and did not teach “except”

for a particular offering

it implies all of them

and a verbal superfluity is not needed for Rabbi Shimon

; here too

in our Mishna

since it taught “all” and did not teach “except” -

does it imply all of them?

And we answer:

It was needed. It might have entered your mind to say: Since we established

according to the view of Rabba and Rava that the Mishna’s

first clause

at the beginning of the chapter, that all the meal-offerings whose handfuls were taken not for their own sake did not fulfill the obligation

is not according to Rabbi Shimon,

I might say that

the latter clause too,

that is, our Mishna,

is not according to Rabbi Shimon,

for Rabbi Shimon also disagrees in the latter clause and declares an offering of a sinner fit through disqualified persons

; it teaches us

through the superfluous Mishna, “both the offering of a sinner, etc.”, that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the latter clause.

Rav said: If a non-kohen took the handful

of the meal-offering

, he shall return

the handful to the vessel and a kohen shall take the handful from it, as required.

And we are astonished:

But we learned, “disqualified,”

in our Mishna, and this implies that it is entirely disqualified and that returning it is of no avail?

And we answer:

What does “disqualified” mean? Disqualified until he returns it

to the vessel; but once he has returned it, he can take the handful from it as required.

And we raise an objection:

If so, that is Ben Bag-Bag

mentioned in our Mishna: “He shall return it and again take the handful,” etc. If so, what is Rav’s innovation, since this is a dispute between tannaim in the Mishna?

And we answer:

If the handful is present in its entirety

in its complete state

the Sages do not disagree with Ben Bag-Bag

that he shall return it and again take the handful

. When do they disagree? When the handful is lacking

from what it had been when he took the handful.

The Sages hold: He may not bring from his house and fill it,

for once the meal-offering was placed in the vessel, it was fixed as a meal-offering, and if it subsequently became lacking, it was disqualified.

Ben Bag-Bag holds: He may bring from his house and fill it,

for he holds that it is fixed as a meal-offering only through the taking of the handful; and if it became lacking beforehand, it was not disqualified, and here, since the handful was taken in disqualification, it is like the period before the taking of the handful.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

why is it written

“Ben Bag-Bag says: He shall return it and again take the handful with the right hand”?

But

“Ben Bag-Bag says: He shall return it, bring from his house and fill it, and again take the handful with the right hand” should have been required to be written,

for this is the essence of their dispute: whether he may complete it from his house!?

And we answer:

Rather,

in truth, according to the Sages he shall not return it, and

when Rav said

“If a non-kohen took the handful, he shall return it,” he said it according to the opinion of

Ben Bag-Bag

.

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious?!

What did Rav come to teach us through this? And we answer:

It might have entered your mind to say: Ben Bag-Bag declared it fit for returning it only

when he took the handful

with the left hand, but with regard to the other disqualified persons

that we learned in our Mishna

he did not say

that he shall return it and again take the handful

; it teaches us

that Rav said that with regard to all the disqualified persons he shall return it and again take the handful as required.

And we are astonished:

What is different

when he took the handful with the

left hand

that there was reason to say that specifically in this case he shall return it, since

we find its fitness on Yom Kippur

when the High Priest takes the coal-pan of incense with his left hand, but the disqualification of a

non-kohen we likewise find to have fitness, in slaughter,

which is fit when performed by a non-kohen? And we answer:

Slaughter is not sacrificial service.

And this is not considered a qualification with regard to the other services.

And we are astonished:

Is

slaughter not considered a service?

But Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: “The slaughter of the red cow

[by a non-kohen]

by a non-kohen is disqualified.” And Rav said concerning it:

What is the reason?

“Elazar”

the kohen is written with regard to it, that he shall slaughter it [see tractate Yoma 42a, where there is a dispute concerning this],

and “a statute”

which implies that this is essential

is written with regard to it,

meaning that its slaughter by a kohen is essential. If so, it implies that slaughter is a service, and therefore it is disqualified when performed by a non-kohen?

And we answer:

The cow is different,

for its slaughter is disqualified when performed by a non-kohen not because it is a service

—

for

it is property dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple,

and service is not applicable to it; rather, it must be a scriptural decree that a non-kohen is disqualified in it.

And we are astonished:

Is this not a kal va-chomer

that slaughter is called a service? And just as the red cow, which is

property dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple, requires priesthood

for its slaughter, because its slaughter is considered a service,

property dedicated for the altar,

with which all the services are practiced,

does it not

follow all the more that its slaughter

requires priesthood

because it is a service!? And it is proved from this that the Torah permitted slaughter by a non-kohen, for we found permission for a non-kohen in a service!?

And we answer:

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said:

In truth, slaughter is not called a service, and what is required is a kohen for the cow is a scriptural decree,

just as the examination of skin afflictions, which is not a service and requires priesthood,

for the law is that specifically a kohen must examine the afflictions, although it is not a service, and it must be a scriptural decree. If so, also with regard to the slaughter of the cow, the requirement of a kohen is a scriptural decree, and consequently there is no proof that this is a service.

And we raise an objection: What is the need to teach what Rav said, “If a non-kohen took the handful, he shall return it,” and you said that it was according to Ben Bag-Bag?

Let us derive it from a private altar,

where service was made fit through a non-kohen, for they offered on it before Aaron was sanctified, and the service was performed by the firstborn, who were non-kohanim. If so, just as when he took the handful with the left hand he shall return it because it has a qualification on Yom Kippur, so too, when a non-kohen took the handful, it is obvious that he shall return it, since it has a qualification at a private altar!?

And if you would say: We do not derive from a private altar,

since Aaron had not yet been sanctified and there was not yet a concept of disqualification as a non-kohen,

but it was taught: From where do I know regarding something that went outside

from the portions of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering beyond the curtains

that

although it is disqualified,

if it went up, it need not come down,

for we find

something that went outside

that is

fit—

at a private altar,

for there were no curtains there, and every disqualification that has a qualification in another place, if it went up, need not come down! And we see that one learns from a private altar even though the matter of curtains did not yet exist. If so, with regard to a non-kohen who took the handful, let us learn from a private altar that a non-kohen who took the handful shall return it?

And we answer:

The tannai

of the teaching concerning something that went outside

relied upon “This is the law of the burnt-offering,”

from which they learn, “one law for all that go up, that if they went up they need not come down,”

and not upon

the private altar. And what the tannai said, “for we find something that went outside fit at a private altar,” is support for his words; in truth, one may not learn from a private altar.

And we raise an objection:

Rather, the reason Rav taught us

that Ben Bag-Bag said that with regard to all the disqualified persons he shall return it and take the handful,

is that otherwise I would have said that, with regard to the other disqualified persons, Ben Bag-Bag declared it disqualified?

But it was taught: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon say: Ben Bag-Bag would declare it fit with regard to all the disqualified persons?

And

there is another proof that Ben Bag-Bag said this with regard to all the disqualified persons, for

it was taught:

It is written, “and he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the kohanim,

and he shall take a handful from there,”

which implies

from the place where the feet of the non-kohen

who brought the meal-offering [stood]—he takes a handful! This is the place of the treading of the feet of Israelites, which is eleven cubits on the east of the Temple courtyard. And it teaches us that it is not necessary to be in the north, like those sacred offerings whose service is in the north; rather, the entire courtyard is fit for taking the handful.

Ben Bag-Bag says: From where is it derived that if he took the handful with the left hand

he shall return it and again take the handful with the right hand? It is stated: “And he shall take a handful from there,”

which implies that he shall take a handful

from the place from which he had already taken a handful

and returned it there because of disqualification! And since the verse “and he shall take a handful from there” is written without specification, if so,

what difference is there between the left hand and the other disqualified persons?

For the verse gives no greater indication concerning the left hand than concerning the other disqualifications.

Rather,

the Gemara retracts what it said, that Rav’s innovation is that this applies even to the other disqualified persons:

Rav teaches us this

through what he said, “If a non-kohen took the handful, he shall return it”: -

He took the handful and even performed the placing in a vessel

of the handful, by placing it in a service vessel; nevertheless, he shall return it,

and to exclude those tannaim.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yosei son of Yasin and Rabbi Yehuda the baker said: We stated this law only when he took the handful but did not perform the placing in a vessel; however,

when he took the handful and

performed the placing in a vessel—

he disqualified it.

Some say

that Rav said as follows:

Taking the handful

alone

does not

suffice, but if he has already

performed the placing in a vessel

with the vessel,

no! According to whom?

According to those tannaim,

and not according to the first tanna, who disagrees in the beraita and says that even if he performed the placing in a vessel, he shall return it.

Rav Naḥman challenged them: What do these tannaim hold? If

they hold that

taking a handful by disqualified persons is a service

and is considered disqualifying the meal-offering, then

even though he did not perform the placing in a vessel,

the meal-offering should be disqualified, for he has already performed a disqualified service through the taking of the handful itself. And

if

they hold that

taking a handful by disqualified persons is not a service

because it was performed by disqualified persons, then

when he performs the placing in a vessel, what has happened?

For this too is not considered a service?

Rav Naḥman then said: In truth,

taking a handful by disqualified persons

is a service, but the service

of taking the handful

is not complete until he performs the placing in a vessel.

Therefore, only when he completed the entire service did he disqualify the meal-offering.