Menachot 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

And if it is so that blood does not effect consecration by halves,

let us derive from blood

that it should not become consecrated

by halves?

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

such as the chavitei kohen gadol from blood—

he does derive it; for Rabbi Elazar said: A meal-offering

whose prescribed procedure is that its handful be removed in the Temple courtyard, like other offerings—

if its handful was removed in the Sanctuary, it is valid, as we find with the removal of the bowls

which is performed in the Sanctuary; and the removal of the bowls is equivalent to the removal of the handful. This proves that Rabbi Elazar does derive one matter from another?

And we reject this: Rabbi Elazar

derives a meal-offering from a meal-offering,

but

he does not derive a meal-offering from blood.

And we challenge this:

Does he derive a meal-offering from a meal-offering?

But was it not taught in a beraita:

If

before it was dismantled—

the arrangement of the showbread, which is dismantled on Shabbat, and the frankincense is taken from the bowls—

its bread became broken,

one of its loaves,

all the bread is disqualified, and one may not burn upon it

the bowls,

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

But if

after it was dismantled—

meaning that the bowls were removed—

its bread became broken, the bread

is indeed

disqualified,

for it is like the remainder that became deficient between removal of the handful—that is, removal of the bowls—and burning; and the rule is that such remainder may not be eaten,

but one 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 arrived,

that is, six hours had passed [as stated in the chapter Tamid Nishchat: the time for the additional offerings is at six hours, and the time for removing the bowls is in the seventh hour],

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

And if we say that according to Rabbi Eliezer a meal-offering is derived from a meal-offering,

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

which is disqualified. Here, too, it is like the period before removal of the handful, since it was not actually dismantled; and with a meal-offering, the rule is that as long as the handful has not been removed, if it becomes deficient it is not disqualified. This proves that according to Rabbi Eliezer a meal-offering is not derived from a meal-offering?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

Indeed, according to Rabbi Eliezer a meal-offering is derived from a meal-offering, but the meal-offering of the showbread differs from every other meal-offering, for

the handful of an ordinary meal-offering is not discernible,

since it is mixed with the entire meal-offering; therefore, as long as the handful has not been removed, it is not appropriate to say that it is as though it had been removed.

Whereas

with regard to the showbread,

its handful is discernible,

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

And we challenge this:

Rather, let it be—

in a case where its bread became broken before the bowls were burned—

like remainder that became deficient between removal of the handful and burning, in which case the handful is not burned upon it.

Why, then, is it stated in the beraita that the bowls are burned?

And we answer:

Is this not a dispute

below?

Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the one who says that when the remainder becomes deficient between removal of the handful and burning, the handful is burned upon it.

Therefore, here too, when the bread became broken after the bowls had been removed, the bowls are burned.

The essential statement: Concerning the chavitei kohen gadol, Rabbi Yohanan said: It does not become consecrated by halves; and Rabbi Elazar said: Since it is offered by halves, it becomes consecrated by halves.

Rabbi Aha said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan? The verse states: “A meal-offering, half of it”—

and we derive:

Bring

the meal-offering

whole

and afterward divide it!

We challenge this: The chavitei kohen gadol were not brought as halves; rather, he brought a complete tenth and divided it. And it was taught in a beraita: Had the verse stated, “A half-meal-offering,” I would have said that he brings half a tenth from his house in the morning and offers it,

and

half a tenth from his house in the evening and offers it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning,”

which indicates:

He brings half of a complete measure,

that is, “half of it” refers to half of the complete measure that is before him. If so, this beraita poses a difficulty to Rabbi Elazar, who says that it becomes consecrated by halves.

And we answer: What is derived from the verse—that he must bring it whole—applies

as an ideal requirement

only. But after the fact, if he consecrated it by halves, he consecrated it.

Rav Gaviḥa from Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: But the term “statute” is written with regard to it

in the chavitei kohen—“an eternal statute for the Lord”—and the meaning of a statute is that it is indispensable?

He said to him: What is the purpose of the term “statute” written with regard to it?

It

is necessary only

to teach that one must

bring it whole from his house.

But to consecrate it in a sacred vessel, he may do so even by halves.

And we are astonished:

Did Rabbi Yohanan really say this,

that it does not become consecrated by halves?

But it was stated: A person who needed to bring a tenth for a meal-offering [for no meal-offering is less than a tenth]

and

separated half a tenth,

and placed it in a sacred vessel,

with the intention of adding

to it and completing the tenth—

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

And if it is so,

that with regard to the chavitei kohen gadol Rabbi Yohanan said that consecration by halves is ineffective,

let him derive it from the chavitin

that in this case as well it should not become consecrated !

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

which are required to be slaughtered in the courtyard,

if one 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 secondary

that is, the courtyard—

should not be more stringent than the principal

part, namely, the Tent of Meeting, meaning the Sanctuary. And if slaughtering in the courtyard is valid, all the more so in the Sanctuary. We see from this that Rabbi Yohanan derives the Sanctuary from the courtyard; therefore, he should likewise derive from the chavitin that consecration of a meal-offering with the intention of adding is ineffective?

And we answer: The reason Rabbi Yohanan said that the tenth becomes consecrated is that

intending to add is different. As it was taught in a beraita:

“Both of them”

full

of fine flour.

This does not mean that the basins should be

mean that the basins were

actually full;

of flour;

rather,

the tenths of flour consecrated in the basins must be

complete,

and not halves.

And Rabbi Yosei said: When

is it necessary to place complete tenths of flour?

When he does not intend to add. But when he intends to add, each portion as it is placed

in the basins

becomes consecrated.

Even if he initially placed part of a tenth and completed it afterward. We see from this that when he intends to add, consecration by halves is effective. 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.

We inquire:

And Rav,

who said that when one separated half a tenth it is not consecrated,

with regard to the chavitin, whose view does he hold? If it is Rabbi Elazar's,

who said that it becomes consecrated by halves,

let him derive it from the chavitin ?

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

that requires oil and frankincense,

becomes consecrated

even if it was placed in a sacred vessel

without oil,

and one must bring oil and offer it,

as we find with the showbread,

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

without frankincense, as we find with the libation meal-offering,

which contains no frankincense; and likewise it becomes consecrated

without oil and without frankincense, as we find with the sinner's meal-offering,

which is brought without oil and frankincense. This demonstrates that Rav does derive one matter from another!

Rather,

it must be that Rav holds like Rabbi Yohanan

and maintains that with regard to the chavitin consecration by halves is ineffective, and therefore even intending to add is ineffective.

The essential statement: Rav said: A meal-offering

that requires oil and frankincense, which was placed in a sacred vessel without oil, is

consecrated without oil, as we find with the showbread.

Likewise, it is consecrated

without frankincense, as we find with the libation meal-offering.

Likewise, it is consecrated

without oil and without frankincense, as we find with the sinner's meal-offering 21 .

And oil and frankincense likewise become consecrated, each—

oil, if it was placed by itself in a sacred vessel—

without the other—

the flour and frankincense—

and the other without the other,

that is, frankincense without flour and oil.

And we explain:

Oil

by itself becomes consecrated,

as we find with the log of oil of the leper,

which is consecrated by the log without flour and frankincense. And likewise,

frankincense

by itself becomes consecrated,

as we find with the frankincense brought in the bowls,

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