Menachot 7b — the Talmud in English

But whereas

the priest would have to be

raising the table

at the time of removing the bezikhim,

it does not teach this; and from this it is proven that it is possible to remove the bezikhim from a table standing on the ground, and the removal of the bezikhim of the leḥem ha-panim is like the kemitza of a meal-offering, which separates the portion belonging to the Most High from the remainder. If so, it is proven that one performs kemitza above the ground

!

And we reject this:

Did you not say there

in the difficulty that you raised from the Mishna of “this is the general rule”

It enumerated the order of the services!

If so, in this Mishna as well, the tanna specified the order of the services; and even according to the tanna, raising is required, but it is not among the important services, and therefore he did not write it in the Mishna.

And we reject the rejection:

Are they comparable?

This Mishna concerning the arrangement of the bread to the Mishna that was brought concerning the law of pigul?

There the tanna did not descend

the tanna

to counting the priests,

but

here,

indeed, he

did descend to counting the priests,

for he wrote “four priests,” and so on. If so,

if it is so

that it is necessary to raise it,

let him teach

also

“he raises it”; rather, learn from it that one performs kemitza from a vessel standing on the ground. Learn from it!

Rava said: It is obvious to me: one takes the handful

of the meal-offering

from a vessel standing on the ground, for thus we find with the removal of the bezikhim

that came with the leḥem ha-panim, which is like a meal-offering: the frankincense is like the handful and the bread is like the remainder. And they remove the bezikhim from a table standing on the ground; if so, one also takes the handful from a vessel standing on the ground.

And it is also obvious to me that

one sanctifies the meal-offering in a vessel standing

on the ground, for thus we find with the arranging of the bezikhim

on the table that is placed on the ground. 12 .

Rava raised a question: The sanctification of the handful

in a vessel standing on the ground—

what

[for it is impossible to learn from the bezikhim, since there is no placing in a vessel there, for they are already in the bazikh, but they are burned immediately]—

from

the sanctification of

the meal-offering

in a vessel

do we learn it,

for we proved that one sanctifies a meal-offering in a vessel standing on the ground,

or from

the receiving of

blood

in a vessel

do we learn it,

for the four services in a meal-offering correspond to the four services with blood, and the sanctification of the handful corresponds to the receiving of the blood; and the receiving of the blood is specifically in a vessel held in the hand, as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall bring the blood,” and we say [Zevakhim 4a]: “‘Shall bring’—this is the receiving of the blood”?!

After he was uncertain,

he subsequently resolved it: We learn it from blood

and it is disqualified in a vessel standing on the ground.

And we ask:

Did Rava indeed say this,

that we learn from blood?

But it was stated: A handful that he divided,

after he had taken it, and placed it

in two vessels, Rav Naḥman said it is not sanctified, and Rava said it is sanctified. And if it is so

that we learn a handful from blood,

let us learn

also this matter

from blood,

which is not sanctified in halves [as below]?

And we say:

Rava retracted from that,

and holds that a handful that he divided is not sanctified, for we learn from blood that it is not sanctified.

And we examine it:

And from where do we know that blood is not sanctified in halves?

And we answer:

For Rav Taḥlifa ben Shaul taught: If he sanctified

the water of the purification of the cow into the ashes,

less than the amount required for sprinkling

that is, the measure in which the tips of the hyssop stems can be dipped into the water and sprinkled [as it is written: “And he shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, etc.”]—

in this vessel, and less than the amount required for sprinkling in that vessel, he has not sanctified!

And they raised a question

concerning the sprinkling of

blood,

if he received in halves the blood for sprinkling of bulls and goats that are burned, for which it is necessary to sprinkle seven times—for example, he received the measure of three sprinklings in this vessel and four sprinklings in that vessel—

what

is the law? Is

it a halakha

given to Moses from Sinai concerning the water of purification, that one may not sanctify in halves,

and we do not learn from a halakha; or perhaps, there

with water,

what is the reason

that he did not sanctify in halves? Because

it is written: “And he shall dip in the water,”

which implies that he must dip in a vessel containing the measure of water;

here too, is it not written: “And he shall dip in the blood” [concerning the anointed priest’s bull: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle from the blood seven times, etc.”]?!

And it was stated: Rabbi Zerika said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Even with blood he did not sanctify

in halves

!

And Rava said: It was also taught so: “And he shall dip”;

his finger in blood is written, and from the fact that “and he shall dip” is written, we learn—

and not wipe,

that he must dip his finger in the blood and not wipe the blood from the sides of the vessel; and from the fact that it is written

“in the blood”

we learn

that there shall be in the blood

in the vessel

the measure required for dipping from the outset,

and not that half shall be in this vessel and half in another vessel; and from the fact that it is written

“from the blood”

we learn

from the blood mentioned in the passage,

as will be explained below.

And it was necessary to write “and he shall dip,” and it was necessary to write “in the blood.”

For if the Merciful One had written

only

“and he shall dip,” I would have said that even though he did not receive

in a vessel containing the

measure

of seven

dippings from the outset,

provided that at the time of each dipping there was the measure for a sprinkling, without wiping; therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in the blood.” And if the Merciful One had written “in the blood,” I would have said even wiping

on the sides of the vessel; therefore

the Merciful One wrote “and he shall dip” 15 .

And we examine it:

“From the blood mentioned in the passage”

which is explained in the beraita—

to exclude what?

Rava said: To exclude the remainder

of blood

that

remained

on the finger,

for he must dip his finger for each and every sprinkling; but what remained on his finger after one sprinkling is disqualified for another sprinkling.

It supports Rabbi Elazar, who said: The remainder

on the finger—

is disqualified

for sprinkling.

Ravin bar Adda said to Rava: Your students say that Rav Amram said: It was taught: If

a priest

was sprinkling

from the blood of a sin-offering

and a sprinkling spurted from his hand

onto a garment, its law is that

if

the blood spurted

before he had sprinkled, it requires

the garment

to be laundered,

for this blood is fit for sprinkling and is considered blood, and it is written: “And whatever sprinkles from its blood upon the garment upon which it is sprinkled shall be washed, etc.” But if it spurted

after he had sprinkled,

it is no longer considered blood and

it does not require laundering!

And we analyze:

Is it not

that what is written “before he had sprinkled” and “after he had sprinkled” means

before he had completed

seven

sprinklings and after he had completed

seven

sprinklings? It is explained that the blood that spurted from his hand requires laundering; if so, it follows that the remainder on his finger is fit for sprinkling, for blood that is not fit for sprinkling does not require laundering?!

And we reject this:

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot prove it from here, for the meaning of the beraita’s words “before he had sprinkled” and “after he had sprinkled” is that

before the sprinkling had left his hand,

blood fell from his hand onto the garment, it

requires laundering,

for this is the essential blood of the sprinkling;

but once the sprinkling had left his hand, and it spurted

onto the garment

from what remained

in his hand,

it does not require laundering,

for these are the remainder. 16 .

Abaye raised an objection to him: When

the priest

finished sprinkling

the blood of the red cow, which he sprinkles on the Mount of Olives opposite the Tent of Meeting before it is burned, he

wipes

the blood remaining in

his hand on the body of the cow!

And we analyze:

“Finished

sprinkling”—

he does not

wipe; but

if he has not finished—

he does not

[wipe]? It is proven from this that the remainder of blood on his finger is fit for sprinkling?

He said to him: If he finished

sprinkling,

he wipes his hand; if he did not finish,

he does not need to wipe his hand, but certainly he

wipes his finger

between one sprinkling and another, so that he should not sprinkle disqualified remainder of blood.

And we ask:

Granted, if he finished

sprinkling, he

wipes it on the body of the cow,

for it is before him, since after he finishes the sprinklings he descends from the Mount of Olives and it is burned before him, as it is written: “And he shall burn the cow before his eyes”; and the law is that the blood must be burned.

But

what you said—

if he did not finish, he wipes his finger; with what does he wipe it?

For the cow is not before him on the Mount of Olives?!

Abaye said: He wipes his finger

on

the lip of the basin

in which the blood is found. And proof that he wipes it on the basin is that the basin is called by the term kefor, which means wiping,

as it is written

in the Book of Ezra:

“golden basins”

that is, basins.

The Gemara returns to the words of Rabbi Elazar, who said that blood received in two vessels is not sanctified in halves,

and we ask:

Did Rabbi Elazar indeed say this,

that even with blood he did not sanctify in halves?

But it was stated: The daily offering of the High Priest,

that is, a tenth of an ephah, which he offers every day, half in the morning and half in the evening:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not sanctified in halves,

for if he placed half an issaron in this vessel and half an issaron in that vessel, he did not sanctify it.

Rabbi Elazar said: Since it is offered in halves,

half in the morning and half in the evening,

it is sanctified in halves,