Menachot 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this: How can it be said that the tannaim held that even if he placed it in a service vessel it becomes disqualified,

for

if so, it will always become disqualified

when he returns the handful to its place

[to the vessel from which he took the handful] after he took the handful in a disqualifying manner? His returning it to the vessel should be considered placing it in a service vessel, and

it should become consecrated and disqualified

immediately, for there is no distinction between this service vessel and another service vessel ?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: That is to say, service vessels consecrate only

if he placed something in them

with intent

to consecrate it. Here, since he returned it to the vessel without intent to consecrate it, this is not considered taking the handful and consecrating it.

And we ask:

Is that so?

If he placed it in the vessel

with intent

to consecrate it,

do they consecrate it? But Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: What is the status of service vessels—do they consecrate

sacrificial offerings

that are disqualified,

such as when a non-koen took the handful and placed it in a service vessel? Does the service vessel consecrate it and render it fit

to be offered ab initio? And

Rabbi Yohanan

said to him: They do not consecrate it?

And we answer: When Rabbi Yohanan said that they do not consecrate it,

they do not consecrate it

to become valid and

to be offered

is what he meant;

but they do consecrate

disqualified offerings when they are placed in the vessel

so that they become disqualified,

so that he can no longer return them to the vessel and take the handful again.

Rav Amram said: Even if you say that service vessels consecrate without intent, the reason it was not consecrated when he returned it to the vessel from which he had taken the handful is

for example, when he returned it to

a heaped bowl

[a service vessel in which the meal-offering is mixed]

that was full to the brim,

such that the handful he returned protruded above the walls of the vessel; consequently, it was not consecrated, for in order to be consecrated it must be in the airspace of the vessel.

And we ask: If so, if the case is one in which the vessel was full to the brim,

how did he initially take the handful?

After all, he must take it from the airspace of the vessel.

Rather,

this is the explanation:

For example, when he returned it

the handful

to a level bowl,

neither full to the brim nor deficient, so that when he initially took the handful, he took it from within the vessel.

And we ask:

But

since

when he initially took the handful, he made a hollow

in the fine flour that was in the vessel,

and when he returns

the handful

into the vessel,

into that same hollow,

he is returning it,

so should the vessel not consecrate it?

And we answer: Here,

when he returns it

the handful,

he places

it on the wall of the vessel,

on the side of the vessel, beside the hollow,

and

afterward

he shakes it

the vessel,

and it falls

the handful on its own

into the hollow, so that it is as though

the return into the hollow

was performed by a monkey,

since the handful fell into the hollow on its own and he did not return it there himself. When he himself returned it, it was outside the walls of the vessel, and therefore the vessel did not consecrate it.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Let us establish it

that which did not become disqualified when he returned it to the vessel

as referring to a case where he returned it to a vessel resting on the ground,

which does not consecrate it?

And the Gemara answers:

Learn from this that handfuls may be taken from a vessel

that is resting on the ground,

and likewise a handful may be consecrated in a vessel resting on the ground.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya:

In your doubt,

you have touched upon

the matter about which our colleagues were uncertain:

For Avimi taught the tractate of Menahot in the house of

with

Rav Hisda.

And we ask:

Did Avimi teach in the house of Rav Hisda? But Rav Hisda said: “Good blows

—good beatings—

I absorbed

—I received

from Avimi

when I studied Torah with him—

over this matter:

the appraisal of orphans’ property, which is announced in order to sell it for a higher price. In one beraita it is explained that the announcement is made for thirty days, while in another beraita it says sixty days. Avimi answered:

If one comes to announce on consecutive days,

announcing every day of the week, he announces for

thirty days,

but if he announces only

on Mondays and Thursdays,

he announces for

sixty days.

Rav Hisda praised the answer, and Avimi struck him for doing so. This indicates that Rav Hisda was Avimi’s student?

And we answer:

Avimi’s tractate of Menahot had been uprooted

[forgotten]

from him, and he came before Rav Hisda

his student

to recall his learning

[to remind himself of what he had learned].

And we ask:

Why did he not send for him

to Rav Hisda

so that he would come to him?

And we answer: He

thought

Avimi:

This way the matter will be assisted much more

in recalling his learning, because through his own exertion he was assured of success: “If you toil and find, believe it.”

The Gemara now returns to Rav Zeira’s statement concerning a vessel resting on the ground, and relates that when Avimi was studying Menahot with Rav Hisda,

Rav Naḥman encountered him and said to him

to Avimi:

How does one take the handful?

A vessel resting on the ground was lying before them.

He said to him,

Avimi,

“From this vessel,”

the one before us; if it were a consecrated vessel, it would be possible to take the handful from it.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

“Does one take a handful from a vessel resting on the ground?” He said to him:

No, rather,

a koen lifts it,

and then he takes the handful.

Rav Naḥman asked Avimi another question:

How does one consecrate the handful

[the version of the Tza"k] after taking it?

He said to him,

Avimi: He

places

the handful

in this vessel

that is resting on the ground, and consecrates it.

Rav Naḥman wondered:

“Does one consecrate

the handful

in a vessel resting on the ground?” He said to him,

Avimi: No, rather,

a koen lifts it.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

“If so, you have required

for taking the handful

three koanim:

one to lift the vessel from which the handful is taken, one to lift the vessel into which the handful is placed after it is taken, and one to take the handful [and one koen cannot hold both vessels, or hold one vessel and take the handful, because there is no Temple service with the left hand]?

He said to him: “Then it should require

taking the handful even

thirteen

koanim,

as

a

daily offering,

and what of it?

He refuted him:

It is stated in the Mishna below concerning piggul:

“This is the general rule: Anyone who takes the handful, places it in a vessel, carries it, or burns something whose manner is to be eaten, and so on; whereas ‘the one who lifts’

the vessel

is not taught.”

This proves that it is not necessary to lift it?

And we answer: The tanna

taught the order

of the

services

of taking the handful; he

listed

them, but since lifting is not an important service [Rashi, below, 7b], the tanna did not specify it.

They asked Rav Sheshet: What is the law regarding taking a handful from a vessel resting on the ground?

He said to him: “Go see what they do inside,”

in the Sanctuary on Shabbat, when arranging the showbread. For it is stated in the Mishna below:

“Four koanim enter: two with two arrangements in their hands,”

two arrangements of showbread, each consisting of six loaves,

“and two with two bowls in their hands,”

of frankincense, as they would place pure frankincense on each arrangement.

“And four

koanim

precede them: two

in order

to take the two arrangements”

of the old bread from the Table,

“and two”

in order

to take the two bowls

from the Table,