Menachot 72b — the Talmud in English

And

we raise an objection against it: Is it so that

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon did not hear

what his father, Rabbi Shimon, said concerning the burning of the fats and limbs!? Surely he certainly heard it—

Rather,

it is necessarily so that, in any event, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds: If the omer that was not reaped in accordance with its mitzva is valid, it does not follow that its reaping should override Shabbat, because it is a labor fit to be performed on the eve of Shabbat; and the reaping is not comparable to the proof from the burning of the fats, because:

It is different there—concerning the burning of the fats and limbs, which override Shabbat despite the fact that they can be performed after Shabbat—

since

for

already

the slaughtering

of these offerings

overrode Shabbat;

and since Shabbat had already been given to be overridden with regard to this offering in the matter of slaughtering, Shabbat was likewise given to be overridden after the slaughtering in the matter of burning the fats, even though they can be performed after Shabbat. Can you say this with regard to reaping, for at the time of reaping the offering of the omer had not yet overridden Shabbat, since the offering is only afterward?

And

if so,

for Rabbi, it is likewise so:

one may not bring proof from the burning of the fats to the reaping of the omer, since there it is different, because already

the slaughtering overrode Shabbat!?

Rather,

because of this objection the Gemara explains Rabbi’s view as follows: he disagrees with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s proof for another reason. For Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s entire proof is based on his view that reaping the omer overrides Shabbat, in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael; and if so, it is necessarily the case that the omer reaped not in accordance with its mitzva is invalid. But according to Rabbi there is no proof—

because

Rabbi holds: reaping the omer does not override Shabbat,

unlike Rabbi Ishmael.

It should be noted that, apparently, from that same reason itself—namely, that Rabbi was the student of Rabbi Shimon, who was the student of Rabbi Akiva—which compelled the Gemara regarding Rabbi’s view to establish that he holds like Rabbi Akiva concerning the law of overriding Shabbat with a labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat, from that same reason itself it should be proved that he holds that reaping the omer does not override Shabbat, like Rabbi Akiva, who disputed Rabbi Ishmael concerning the exposition “In plowing and in harvest you shall rest,” interpreting it with regard to the Sabbatical year, as brought above in the note from the words of Tosafot; and if so, apparently the Gemara’s initial question is difficult: what did it ask at the outset!? The apparent explanation of the Gemara is that initially the Gemara assumed regarding Rabbi that reaping overrides Shabbat, on the basis of what the Gemara later in the sugya brings to prove straightforwardly, according to Rabbi, that reaping the omer overrides Shabbat, as is the Gemara’s way. And we raise an objection against it:

And

is it so that

not

according to Rabbi

does reaping the omer override Shabbat!?

And did we not learn

in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter:

Rabbi Ishmael says: When the omer came on Shabbat, it came from three seah [only, so as not to increase the labors on Shabbat], and on a weekday it came from five [seah]:

And the Sages say: One

issaron of the omer that comes on

Shabbat, and one

issaron of the omer that comes on

a weekday, came from three

seah of barley

;

thus, even on Shabbat it came from reaping that was performed on Shabbat!?

And we answer: The words of the Sages are

not in accordance with Rabbi,

for according to him the reaping of the omer does not override Shabbat.

And we still ask from the continuation of the Mishna: Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests, says: On Shabbat it was reaped by one person, and on a weekday by three.

And the Sages say: Both on Shabbat and on a weekday

the omer was reaped

by three

people, and they placed the grain

in three baskets, and

they reaped

with three sickles;

thus, the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat!?

And we answer: These words of the Sages, too, are

not in accordance with Rabbi;

they are.

And we still ask from the second Mishna in this chapter: All the towns adjacent to there gathered there, so that it would be reaped [the omer] with great ceremony. When darkness came, he said to them, “Has the sun set?” They said, “Yes.”

And on Shabbat he would say

the reaper

to them: This is Shabbat [shall I reap on Shabbat?]. They said, “Yes”; thus, they reaped the omer on Shabbat!?

And we answer: This Mishna, too, is

not in accordance with

Rabbi.

And we still ask from our Mishna:

And if it was reaped during the day, it is valid and overrides Shabbat,

which must be Rabbi, for:

Whom have we heard say [whom have we heard who said]:

[who was it that we heard say]:

Reaped during the day—

not in accordance with its mitzva—

it is valid?

Surely

it is Rabbi, and

nevertheless

it teaches: And it overrides Shabbat—

Is it not so

that with regard to

reaping

we learned: “And it overrides Shabbat”; thus, even according to Rabbi the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you interpreted it, that it was with regard to reaping that they said, “And it overrides Shabbat,” but rather

with

regard to

the offering,

which overrides Shabbat; but reaping in truth does not override Shabbat according to our Mishna, which is in accordance with Rabbi.

And we raise an objection against it:

But with regard to reaping—

not!?

And it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi says:

It is written in the section of the appointed times [Leviticus 23: after it was explained there that the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses to command the Children of Israel concerning the appointed times]: “

And Moses declared the appointed times of the

Lord to the Children of Israel,” and

what does it teach

us? For we already knew that Moses did as he was commanded and commanded the Children of Israel concerning the appointed times!? Rather, this was stated in order to teach concerning the offerings mentioned there, that they override Shabbat:

Since we learned—

without this verse—

only concerning the daily offering and the Paschal offering

that they override Shabbat, and because

it is said concerning them “

at its appointed time”

and this implies that their time must not pass in any manner, and to teach:

At its appointed time

he shall bring the daily offering and the Paschal offering;

and even on Shabbat, at its appointed time,

he shall bring them;

and even in ritual impurity—

As for the other communal offerings, from where

do we know that they override Shabbat and ritual impurity—

The verse teaches:

In the section of the additional offerings of the appointed times: “

These you shall offer to the

Lord at your appointed times,”

to teach that the communal additional offerings are brought even on Shabbat and even in ritual impurity—

from where is it derived to include

also the

omer and the offering brought with it [the lamb that is offered with the omer], and

the two loaves and the offering brought with them [the two lambs offered with the two loaves], which are not mentioned in that section but only in the section of the appointed times?

the two loaves and the offering brought with them [the two lambs offered with the two loaves],

which are not mentioned in that passage, but only in the passage concerning the appointed times?

Therefore

the verse teaches: “

And Moses declared the appointed times of the

Lord”; the verse established an appointed time for all of them,

to say that even the offerings mentioned there, namely the omer and the two loaves, whose overriding of Shabbat and ritual impurity we still did not know, override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

And from here it is to be learned that, according to Rabbi, the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat, for:

For what purpose,

with regard to what did Rabbi say in this beraita that the omer overrides Shabbat?

If you say: with regard to the offering

alone he said this, but its reaping does not override Shabbat, because a labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat, according to Rabbi, who holds “reaped during the day is valid,” does not override Shabbat, as you said—this cannot be said, because:

For Rabbi also said in this beraita that the two loaves override Shabbat, and are

the two loaves fit for an offering,

so that it could be said that with regard to the offering—which is a labor that can be performed only on Shabbat—Rabbi said that it should override Shabbat and ritual impurity!?

Rather, it is obvious, with

regard to the

grinding and sifting

of the two loaves, Rabbi said that they should override Shabbat, even though they are labors that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat—

And

if so,

the same applies with regard to the omer [the interpretation analogous to the two loaves applies with regard to the omer],

[the interpretation that applies to the two loaves applies similarly to the omer],

to reaping—

which is a labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat according to Rabbi—which is what Rabbi intended;

and

nevertheless

it overrides

the reaping of the omer

on Shabbat!?

It is thus explained that even reaping overrides Shabbat according to Rabbi, despite the fact that it is a labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat, according to Rabbi!?

And we answer:

Rather, the omer

that Rabbi said overrides Shabbat was indeed with regard to

the offering, and

the two loaves,

which he said override Shabbat, were with regard

to baking—

That is to say, not as you hold, that with regard to the grinding and sifting of the two loaves Rabbi said that they override Shabbat, and you will infer from this that likewise with regard to the omer his intention was to labors that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat; it is not so, for even with regard to the two loaves Rabbi’s intention was to a labor that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, namely baking.

And the reason that baking is a labor that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat is:

And Rabbi holds: The oven

of the two loaves is what

sanctifies

them, for the oven is a service vessel,

and

it follows that

if he baked them yesterday, they would be disqualified through lodging overnight [if he bakes the two loaves on the eve of Shabbat, the two loaves will be disqualified through lodging overnight, since they were sanctified in a service vessel]; and if so, he is compelled to bake them on Shabbat, and it is a labor that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat.

[if he baked the two loaves on the eve of Shabbat, the two loaves would become disqualified through overnight, since they were sanctified in a service vessel]. Consequently, he is compelled to bake them on Shabbat, and it is work that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat.

And we raise an objection against it:

And

is it so that

Rabbi holds: The oven sanctifies!?

And it was taught in a beraita:

The lambs of Shavuot [the two lambs brought on Shavuot with the two loaves]

the two lambs brought on Shavuot together with the two loaves]

do not sanctify the

two

loaves

that are brought with them

except through their slaughtering

but the oven does not sanctify them;

how so:

If he slaughtered

the lambs

for their sake, and

also

sprinkled their blood for their sake: The loaves are sanctified.

If he slaughtered them not for their sake, and

also

sprinkled their blood not for their sake, the loaves are not sanctified.

If he slaughtered them for their sake but sprinkled their blood not for their sake, the loaves are sanctified and are not sanctified,

as this clause was explained above, on 47a.

The words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: The loaves are never sanctified

until he

slaughters for their sake and sprinkles their blood for their sake.

We have thus learned that according to Rabbi the slaughtering sanctifies the loaves, and not the oven; how then did you say that Rabbi holds that the oven sanctifies!?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

In truth, the oven sanctifies the loaves according to Rabbi, and do not alter the beraita to read “the loaves were sanctified.” The beraita is not dealing with sanctification; rather, this is the intention of the tanna:

If he slaughtered them for their sake and sprinkled their blood for their sake,

they were designated

thereby—the two loaves were designated for these lambs that were brought with them, and he cannot designate them for another offering.

And

if he slaughtered them not for their sake,

they were not designated.

This is what he

said.

And likewise throughout the entire beraita.

We have returned to you, chapter Rabbi Ishmael

Mishna:

And these

are the

menachot

that are

taken by the handful

by the koen, and his handful is burned upon the altar,

and their remnants

of the menachot — after their handful has been burned — are eaten

by the koanim:

The first seven menachot are voluntary menachot, and the last three menachot are obligatory menachot; eight of the menachot are wheat menachot, whereas the omer offering and the jealousy offering are barley menachot; eight menachot require oil, whereas the sinner’s offering and the jealousy offering are dry, without oil:

A.

The fine-flour offering,

as it is stated [Leviticus 2:1]: “When a person brings an offering, a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be fine flour. And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the koanim, and he shall take his handful from there, from its fine flour and from its oil, together with all its frankincense, and the koen shall burn its memorial portion [the handful that ascends on high is the remembrance of the offering, in which its owner is remembered for good and for acceptance] upon the altar, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And what remains of the offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons, most holy, from the fire-offerings of the Lord.” It is thus explicit that it is taken by the handful and that its remnants are eaten by the koanim. B.

And the griddle offering,

as it is stated [Leviticus 6]: “And this is the law of the meal offering [every wheat meal offering is included in the ordinary designation ‘meal offering’] which the sons of Aaron shall bring. And he shall raise from it with his handful. And what remains of it Aaron and his sons shall eat,” thus the Torah established that all the menachot are taken by the handful and their remnants are eaten by the koanim; and it is further stated [Leviticus 7:9]: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven and everything made in a pan and on a griddle shall belong to the koen who offers it; it shall belong to him.”

C.

And the pan offering,

as it is stated [Leviticus 2:7]: “And if your offering is a meal offering of a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. And you shall bring the meal offering that shall be made from these to the Lord, and he shall bring it to the koen, and he shall present it to the altar. And the koen shall raise from the meal offering its memorial portion [that is, the handful] and burn it upon the altar, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And what remains of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons, most holy, from the fire-offerings of the Lord,” thus it is explicit that it is taken by the handful and that its remnants are eaten by the koanim.

D.

And the loaves

of the oven-baked offering [the one who volunteers an oven-baked offering may bring it entirely as loaves], and they are included in what the Torah said concerning every meal offering, that it is taken by the handful and its remnants are eaten by the koanim; and it is further stated: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven shall belong to the koen who offers it; it shall belong to him.”

E.

And the wafers

of the oven-baked offering [for the one who volunteers may bring it entirely as wafers], and they too are included in what the Torah said: “And this is the law of the meal offering.” And they are included in “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven.”

F.

The offering of gentiles,

that is, a gentile who voluntarily brought one of the menachot listed above, which are voluntary menachot.

G.

And the offering of women,

that is, a woman who voluntarily brought one of the menachot listed above, which are voluntary menachot.

H.

And the omer offering,

as it is stated: “And if you bring a first-fruit meal offering to the Lord, roasted grain over fire, crushed produce of the fresh grain. And the koen shall burn its memorial portion [that is, the handful] from its crushed produce and from its oil, together with all its frankincense, a fire-offering to the Lord.” It is thus explicit that it is taken by the handful, and in the Gemara it will be explained from where it is known that the remnants of the omer offering — which is of barley, unlike ordinary menachot — are eaten by the koanim.

I.

And the sinner’s offering,

this is the meal offering brought by a poor person in extreme poverty, for a sin whose obligation is a “variable offering,” as it is stated [Leviticus 5]: “When a person sins, having heard the voice of an oath, and he is a witness; or a person who touches anything impure; or a person who swears. And he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for his sin that he committed, a female from the flock.

But if his means do not suffice for a sheep, then he shall bring his guilt offering for the sin that he committed, two turtledoves.

But if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or for two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for the sin that he committed, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the koen, and the koen shall take from it his full handful as its memorial portion and burn it upon the altar. And the koen shall effect atonement for him. And it shall belong to the koen like the meal offering [to teach concerning the sinner’s offering that its remnants shall be eaten]”; and it is further stated [Leviticus 7:10]: “And every meal offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, each like his brother,” and the “sinner’s offering” is a dry meal offering.

J.

And the jealousy offering [

the offering of a woman suspected of adultery], as it is stated [Numbers 5]: “If any man’s wife goes astray. And the man shall bring his wife to the koen, and he shall bring her offering for her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. And the koen shall take from the woman’s hand the jealousy offering. And the koen shall take from the meal offering its memorial portion and burn it upon the altar,” and in the Gemara it will be explained from where it is known that even this offering — which comes from barley — has its remnants eaten by the koanim.

But a koen’s offering — both a voluntary offering and a sinner’s offering — is not taken by the handful according to the first tanna, as it is stated [Leviticus 6:16]: “And every meal offering of a koen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even

a koen’s sinner’s offering

is

taken by the handful, and the handful is sacrificed separately, and the remnants are sacrificed separately.

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever we learned,

wherever the Sages taught “and these are the menachot” in order to teach a particular law —

ten

menachot

we learned [

ten menachot were taught there].

The Gemara asks:

What does he come to teach us

Rav Pappa by this? We can count them and find that they are ten!?

And the Gemara explains that this is in order to teach us that there are only ten menachot here, because the oven-baked offering is counted as only two, namely: either loaves or wafers

to exclude Rabbi Shimon [

to teach us that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon]

who says:

One who volunteers an oven-baked offering, if he wishes to bring

half loaves and half wafers, he may bring them,

so that there are three types of menachot in the oven-baked offering — entirely loaves, entirely wafers, and half-and-half — and the total number of menachot is eleven —

He comes to teach us that it is not so,

but rather he shall bring either all loaves or all wafers.

We learned in the Mishna: And these are the menachot that are taken by the handful.

And their remnants are for the koanim:

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know

that the remnants of all these menachot are for the koanim?

And we wonder at the question:

From where do we know [

Is it necessary to ask from where this law is learned]!? For:

That which is written —

is written,

those menachot concerning which this law is explicitly stated, indeed it is stated concerning them,

and that which is not written,

and even those concerning which it is not explicitly written,

it is written concerning it [

Leviticus 6]: “

And this is the law of the meal offering [

every meal offering is included]

which the sons of Aaron shall bring.

And he shall raise from it with his handful.

And what remains of it Aaron and his sons shall eat,”

thus the Torah established that all the menachot are taken by the handful and their remnants are eaten by the koanim —

And if so, what place is there for the question “From where do we know”?

And we explain: Indeed, concerning a meal offering

that comes from wheat —

concerning which the eating of the remnants by the koanim was not explicitly stated —

we do not ask,

because it can be learned from this verse, which deals with ordinary menachot that come from wheat;

what we do ask

is: From where do we know — concerning a meal offering

that comes from barley [

that is, the omer offering and the jealousy offering, concerning which only the taking of the handful was stated] — that they are included in this verse, which deals with ordinary menachot that come from wheat?

And we still wonder: Even a meal offering

that comes from barley as well

has no place for asking from where its remnants are eaten by the koanim, for

since it is taken by the handful

— as explicit in the verse — we automatically know that

its remnants

are eaten

by the koanim!?

And we explain: Indeed,

according to the Rabbis —

who hold that a koen’s sinner’s offering is entirely burned, and according to their view there is no meal offering that is taken by the handful whose remnants are not eaten by the koanim —

we do not ask

from where it is known that, in a barley offering, the remnants are eaten by the koanim, because we already know this automatically from the fact that they are taken by the handful —

What we do ask, according to Rabbi Shimon, who says: There is a meal offering that is taken by the handful but is not eaten [

there is a meal offering that is taken by the handful, and nevertheless its remnants are not eaten by the koanim], and according to his view we must also ask concerning the omer offering and the jealousy offering: perhaps they are taken by the handful, but their remnants are not eaten by the koanim

; for we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: A koen’s sinner’s offering is taken by the handful; the handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remnants are sacrificed by themselves;

and according to his view we ask:

From where do we know

that the remnants of the omer offering and the jealousy offering are eaten by the koanim? Perhaps even though they are taken by the handful, nevertheless their remnants too are sacrificed upon the altar, like a koen’s sinner’s offering?

He said,

he explained

Hezekiah

the source for these two offerings, that their remnants are eaten by the koanim, from

that which the verse says [

Leviticus 7:10]:

And every meal offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron,

“each like his brother,” thus the remnants are eaten by the koanim; and although this verse too must be explained according to its plain meaning as referring to ordinary menachot that come from wheat, nevertheless we learn from it also concerning the omer offering and the jealousy offering —

And because

if it is not applicable —

what the Torah taught in this verse, that the remnants of the menachot are eaten by the koanim —

to a

meal offering

mixed

with oil

of wheat,

for we already knew concerning all wheat offerings mixed with oil that their remnants are eaten by the koanim —

apply it

to this verse

to the case of a meal offering

mixed

with oil

of

barley,

that is, the omer offering, which is mixed with oil, and concerning which it was not stated that its remnants are eaten by the koanim.

And if it is not applicable —

what the Torah said, “And every meal offering … or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron” —

to a dry offering of wheat [

the sinner’s offering] for we already knew this law concerning it,

apply it to the case of a dry offering of barley,

which is the jealousy offering.

And we object to this:

But,

is the verse “And every meal offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, each like his brother”

really coming for this purpose [

did the verse come to teach us that the remnants of the omer offering and the jealousy offering are eaten by the koanim]!?

It is needed for this,

for this verse is necessary

for that which was taught:

The flesh of the most holy offerings from sacrifices and from birds [apart from the burnt offering, which is entirely burned for the Lord], and the remnants of the menachot after their handful has been taken, and the breast and thigh of peace offerings, are priestly gifts divided among the watch of koanim serving on that day.

From where is it derived that they do not divide

the koanim

menachot against sacrifices,

so that one koen may not say to his fellow, “You take your portion from the meal offering, and I shall take my portion from the sacrifice, at the same value as that which you took from the meal offering”; rather, the koanim divide the menachot among them all, and the sacrifices among them all?