Menachot 8a — the Talmud in English

And if it is so

that blood was not consecrated by halves,

let him learn from blood

that it should not become consecrated ?

And if you say: Rabbi Elazar does not derive one matter from another matter

such as the high priest’s griddle-cakes from blood—

he did not derive it; but Rabbi Elazar said: A meal-offering

whose law is that its handful is taken in the Temple courtyard, like the other offerings—

whose handful was taken in the Sanctuary is valid, for thus we find concerning the removal of the bowls

which is performed in the Sanctuary, and the removal of the bowls is the taking of the handful; and it is proven from this that Rabbi Elazar does derive one matter from another matter?

And we reject: Rabbi Elazar

learns meal-offering from meal-offering,

but

he does not learn meal-offering from blood.

And we raise a difficulty:

And does he learn meal-offering from meal-offering?

But it was taught in a beraita:

If

before it was dismantled

—the arrangement of the showbread, which they dismantle on Shabbat and take the frankincense from the bowls—

its bread was broken

one of its loaves, all

the bread is disqualified, and one does not burn upon it

the bowls,

for it is like a meal-offering that became deficient before the taking of the handful, which is disqualified.

But if

after it was dismantled

that is, after he removed the bowls,

its bread was broken, the bread

is indeed

disqualified,

for it is like remnants that became deficient between the taking of the handful—that is, the removal of the bowls—and the burning; and the law is that the remnants are forbidden for eating,

and he burns the bowls upon it.

And Rabbi Elazar said:

What we said, “after it was dismantled,”

does not mean that it was actually dismantled; rather, once the time for dismantling it arrived

that is, six hours had passed [as it is stated in the chapter “The Daily Offering Was Slaughtered”: the time of the additional offerings is at six hours, and the time for removing the bowls is at the seventh hour],

even though it was not dismantled, it is considered as though it was dismantled.

And if we say that according to Rabbi Eliezer one learns meal-offering from meal-offering,

let it be like a meal-offering that became deficient before the taking of the handful,

which is disqualified. For here, it is like the time before the taking of the handful, since it was not actually dismantled. And with regard to a meal-offering, the law is that as long as he has not taken the handful, there is no disqualification when it becomes deficient. Thus it is proven that according to Rabbi Eliezer one does not learn meal-offering from meal-offering?

And we answer:

This is not difficult,

for in truth, according to Rabbi Eliezer one learns meal-offering from meal-offering, but here the meal-offering of the showbread differs from every meal-offering, for

a meal-offering does not have its handful discernible,

since it is mixed with the entire meal-offering, and therefore as long as he has not taken the handful, it is not applicable to say that it is as though he had taken the handful;

but this one,

the showbread,

has its handful discernible,

for it is the bowls of frankincense, which stand separately. Therefore, once the time for dismantling it arrived, it is considered as though it was dismantled.

And we raise a difficulty:

Rather, let it be

where its bread was broken before the burning of the bowls,

like remnants that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning, upon which one does not burn the handful,

and why is it stated in the beraita that he burns the bowls?

And we answer:

Is this not a dispute

below?

Rabbi Elazar holds like the one who says: With regard to remnants that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning, one burns the handful upon them;

therefore here, when it was broken after it was dismantled, he burns the bowls.

The essential text: The high priest’s griddle-cake offering: Rabbi Yohanan said, It is not consecrated by halves; and Rabbi Elazar said, Since it is offered by halves, it is consecrated by halves.

Rabbi Aha said: What is Rabbi Yohanan’s reason? The verse says, “A meal-offering, half of it,”

and we learn:

Bring

the meal-offering

complete,

and afterward divide it!

He raises an objection: The high priest’s griddle-cake offering did not come in halves; rather, he brought a complete tenth-measure and divided it. And it was taught in a beraita: Had it been stated, “A meal-offering, half,” I would say: He brings half a tenth-measure from his house in the morning and offers it,

and

half a tenth-measure from his house in the evening and offers it. The verse therefore says, “Half of it in the morning,”

which implies:

He brings half of a complete measure,

that is, “half of it” of this complete measure that is before him. If so, this beraita is difficult for Rabbi Elazar, who says that it is consecrated by halves?

And we answer: What we learn from the verse, that he must bring a complete measure, is

as a mitzva,

merely; but after the fact, if he consecrated it by halves, he consecrated it.

Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: But “a statute” is written concerning it

in the high priest’s griddle-cake offering, “an eternal statute for the Lord,” and the meaning of “statute” is that it prevents validity?

He said to him: What is written concerning it, “a statute,”

The statute written concerning it

is needed only

with regard to the requirement

to bring it complete from his house;

but to consecrate it in a service vessel, he can also do so by halves.

And we wonder:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this

that it is not consecrated by halves?

But it was stated:

With regard to one who needed to bring a tenth-measure for a meal-offering [for a meal-offering is not less than a tenth-measure], and

separated half a tenth-measure

and placed it in a service vessel,

and his intention was to add

and complete it to a tenth-measure,

Rav said it is not consecrated, and Rabbi Yohanan said it is consecrated.

And if it is so

that with regard to the high priest’s griddle-cake offering Rabbi Yohanan said that there is no consecration by halves,

let him learn from the griddle-cake offering

that even in this situation it should not be consecrated !

And if you say: Rabbi Yohanan does not derive one matter from another matter; but Rabbi Yohanan said: With regard to peace-offerings

whose law is that they must be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

if he slaughtered them in the Sanctuary, they are valid, as it is written

with regard to peace-offerings,

“And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

that is, in the courtyard opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

and the subordinate should not be

that is, the courtyard,

more stringent than the principal

of the Tent of Meeting, that is, the Sanctuary. And if it is valid to slaughter it in the courtyard, all the more so in the Sanctuary. It is evident from this that Rabbi Yohanan learns the Sanctuary from the courtyard, and if so, let us also learn that the intention to add is not effective with regard to a meal-offering from the high priest’s griddle-cake offering?

And we answer: The reason Rabbi Yohanan said that the tenth-measure is consecrated is because

his intention to add is different. For it was taught: “Both of them

two

full

measures of fine flour.”

It does not mean that the bowls should be

mean that the basins were

full

literally,

but

that the tenth-measures of flour consecrated in the bowls should be

complete,

and not halves.

And Rabbi Yosei said: When

is it necessary that he place complete tenth-measures of flour?

When his intention is not to add. But when his intention is to add, each one as he places it,

that he places in the bowls,

is consecrated.

And even if at first he placed part of a tenth-measure and completed it afterward. It is evident from this that when his intention is to add, it is consecrated by halves 19 .

And the Keren Ora at the beginning of the chapter “The Two Loaves” raised a difficulty: How did they bake the two loaves one at a time? There is a rule that an offering must be sanctified when it is complete, and since the two loaves constitute one offering, they should have been baked together according to the view that an oven sanctifies. If they are baked one at a time, this is sanctification by halves; how, then, is sanctification effective? The Griז answered that since the requirement that the offering be complete is a requirement concerning the vessel, it applies only to a vessel that has a measured capacity. An oven, however, is not a measuring vessel, and therefore this requirement does not apply to it. Consequently, there is no difficulty that the two loaves should have been baked together: Since the oven is not a measuring vessel, it is not subject to the requirement that it sanctify the entire offering together.

And we inquire:

And Rav,

who said that one who separated half a tenth-measure has not consecrated it,

with regard to the high priest’s griddle-cake offering, whose view does he hold? If he holds like Rabbi Elazar,

who says that it is consecrated by halves,

let him learn from the griddle-cake offering ?

And if you say: Rav does not derive one matter from another matter; but Rav said: A meal-offering

that requires oil and frankincense

is consecrated

even though it was placed in a service vessel

without oil,

and he must bring oil and offer it,

for thus we find with the showbread

which is like a meal-offering and comes without oil; and likewise a meal-offering is consecrated

without frankincense, for thus we find with the libation meal-offering

which has no frankincense; and likewise it is consecrated

without oil and without frankincense, for thus we find with the sinner’s meal-offering

which comes without oil and frankincense. It is evident from this that Rav derives one matter from another matter!

Rather,

Rav must hold like Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds with regard to the high priest’s griddle-cake offering that there is no consecration by halves, and therefore even when his intention is to add, it is not effective.

The essential text: Rav said: A meal-offering

that requires oil and frankincense, when it was placed in a service vessel without oil, is

consecrated without oil, for thus we find with the showbread.

And it is likewise consecrated

without frankincense, for thus we find with the libation

meal-offering.

And it is likewise consecrated

without oil and without frankincense, for thus we find with the sinner’s meal-offering 21 .

And oil and frankincense are also consecrated, this one—

oil, if he placed it alone in a service vessel—

without this one—

fine flour and frankincense—

and this one without this one,

that is, frankincense without fine flour and oil.

And we explain:

Oil

alone is consecrated,

for thus we find with the log of oil of the leper,

which the log consecrates it without fine flour and frankincense. And likewise,

frankincense

alone is consecrated,

for thus we find with the frankincense that comes in the bowls

with the showbread, which was consecrated by itself without oil and fine flour, since they are not placed with it in the bowls.