Menachot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

But whereas

the priest would have to

lift the Table

at the time of removing the bowls,

it does not teach this, and it is thereby proven that the bowls can be removed from a Table resting on the ground. The removal of the bowls of the shewbread is analogous to 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 from a vessel resting on the ground!

And we reject this:

And we reject this:

Did you not say there

in the question you raised from the Mishna of “This is the general rule”

: It lists the order of the rites!

If so, in this Mishna as well, the tanna specified the order of the rites. Even according to the tanna, lifting is required; it is simply not among the principal rites, and therefore it was not mentioned in the Mishna.

We reject this rejection:

Are the cases comparable?

This Mishna concerning the arrangement of the bread is comparable to the Mishna cited with regard to the law of piggul?

There, the tanna did not descend

to count the priests,

but here he did descend to count the priests,

as it states: “Four priests,” and so on. Therefore,

if it is indeed the case

that it is necessary to lift it,

let it teach

this as well:

“He lifts it.”

Rather, learn from this that one performs kemitza from a vessel resting on the ground. This proves it!

let it teach

also

“he lifts it.” Rather, conclude from this that one takes a handful from an implement resting on the ground. Conclude from this!

Rava said: It is obvious to me that one performs kemitza

of the meal-offering

from a vessel resting on the ground, as we find with the removal of the bowls,

which came with the shewbread, which is analogous to a meal-offering: the frankincense is analogous to the kometz, and the bread is analogous to the remainder. The bowls are removed from the Table, which rests on the ground; therefore, one also performs kemitza from a vessel resting on the ground.

And it is also obvious to me that

one consecrates a meal-offering in a vessel resting on

the ground, as we find with the arrangement of the bowls,

on the Table, which rests on the ground. 12 .

Rava raised a dilemma: The consecration of a kometz

in a vessel resting on the ground—

what is the law? [Since it cannot be derived from the bowls, for there is no placing in a vessel there, as they are already in the bowl and are burned immediately,]

The bowls of frankincense cannot serve as a source for this, because there is no placing in an implement there: they are already in the bowl and are burned immediately.] Is it learned

shall we derive it from

the consecration

of a meal-offering

in a vessel,

or shall we derive it

from the fact that we established that a meal-offering is consecrated in a vessel resting on the ground,

or shall we derive it from

the receiving of

blood

in a vessel,

for we derive it from that, since the four rites of a meal-offering correspond to the four rites involving blood, and the consecration of the kometz corresponds to the receiving of the blood? 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: “They shall bring”—this refers to the receiving of the blood!?

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 considering the matter uncertain,

he subsequently resolved it: We derive it from blood,

and it is invalid in a vessel resting on the ground.

We raise an objection:

And did Rava say this,

that it is derived from blood?

But it was stated: If one divided a kometz

after performing kemitza and placed it

in two vessels, Rav Naḥman said it is not consecrated, and Rava said it is consecrated. And if it is indeed the case

that the kometz is derived from blood,

let us derive

this matter as well

from blood,

which is not consecrated in halves [as will be explained below]?

And we say:

Rava retracted that ruling,

and holds that a kometz that was divided is not consecrated, since from blood we derive that it is not consecrated in halves.

We inquire:

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

And we answer:

For Rav Taḥlifa ben Shaul taught: If one consecrated

the waters of the red heifer together with the ashes

in an amount less than that required for sprinkling,

that is, an amount in which one can dip the tips of the hyssop stalks into the water and sprinkle—as it is written: “And he shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and so on”—

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

And they raised a dilemma

concerning sprinkling with

blood:

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

what is the law?

Is

it a halakha

given to Moses from Sinai concerning the waters of the red heifer that one may not consecrate them in halves,

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

with regard to the water,

what is the reason

that one does not consecrate it in halves? It is because

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

which indicates that he must dip it into a vessel containing the requisite measure of water.

Here too, is it not written: “And he shall dip it in the blood,” [with regard to the bull of the anointed priest: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times, and so on”]!?

concerning the bull brought by an anointed priest: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times, and so on”]?!

And it was stated: Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Elazar said: Even with blood, he has not consecrated it

in halves!

And Rava said: This is taught in a beraita as well: “And he shall dip”

his finger in the blood is written, and from the fact that it says “and he shall dip,” we derive:

“and not absorb,”

meaning that he must dip his finger into the blood, and not wipe the blood from the sides of the vessel. From the fact that it says

“in the blood”

we derive

that there must be in the blood

in the vessel

the amount required for dipping from the outset,

rather than half being in this vessel and half in another vessel. From the fact that it says

“of the blood”

we derive

“of 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 had the Merciful One written

only

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

in a vessel containing

the amount

of seven

dippings from the outset,

provided that at the time of each dipping there was enough for a sprinkling, without absorbing it from the sides. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in the blood.” And had the Merciful One written “in the blood,” I would have said that he may even absorb it

from the sides of the vessel. Therefore

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

We inquire:

“Of the blood mentioned in the passage,”

as stated in the beraita—

to exclude what?

Rava said: To exclude the remainder

of blood

that

remained

on the finger.

He must dip his finger for each and every sprinkling, but what remains on his finger after one sprinkling is invalid for another sprinkling.

This supports Rabbi Elazar, who said: The remainder

on the finger

is invalid

for sprinkling.

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

a priest

sprinkling

the blood of a sin-offering

and a sprinkling spurted from his hand

onto a garment, the law is that

if

the blood spurted

before he sprinkled, the garment requires

washing,

for it must be washed,

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

after he had sprinkled,

it is no longer considered blood, and

it does not require washing!

And we infer:

Is it not

the meaning of what is written, “before he sprinkled” and “after he sprinkled,”

before he completed

the seven

sprinklings and after he completed

the seven

sprinklings?

It is thus apparent that blood that spurted from his hand requires washing. If so, this shows that the remainder on his finger is fit for sprinkling, since blood that is unfit for sprinkling does not require washing!?

And we reject this:

No,

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

before a sprinkling left his hand,

blood fell from his hand onto the garment, and it

requires washing,

since this is the actual blood of the sprinkling;

but once a sprinkling had left his hand, and what spurted

onto the garment was

from what remained

in his hand,

it does not require washing,

since this is the remainder. 16 .

Abaye raised an objection to him: Once

the priest

finished sprinkling

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

wipes

the blood remaining in

his hand on the body of the heifer!

And we infer:

“Finished

sprinkling”—

yes,

he wipes it; but

if he has not finished—

no,

he does not wipe it. This proves that the remainder of blood on his finger is fit for sprinkling?

He said to him: Once he has finished

sprinkling,

he wipes his hand; if he has not finished,

he need not wipe his hand, but he certainly

wipes his finger

between one sprinkling and the next, so that he will not sprinkle invalid remainder.

And we ask:

Granted, once he has finished

sprinkling, he

wipes it on the body of the heifer,

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

But

what you said, that

if he has not finished he wipes his finger, on what does he wipe it?

The heifer is not before him on the Mount of Olives!?

Abaye said:

He wipes his finger

on the rim of the basin

in which the blood is found. Proof that he wipes it on the basin is that the basin is called by the term kappor, which denotes wiping,

as it is written

in the Book of Ezra:

“golden basins,”

that is, basins.

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

and we ask:

And did Rabbi Elazar say this,

that even with blood one does not consecrate in halves?

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

that is, one-tenth of an eifa, which he offers every day, half in the morning and half in the evening:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not consecrated in halves,

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

Rabbi Elazar said: Since it is offered in halves,

half in the morning and half in the evening,

it is consecrated in halves,