Menachot 8b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Hanina

disagrees and

said, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page-column location")

this one does not acquire sanctity without that one, nor does that one acquire sanctity without that one,

but he must place the fine flour, the oil, and the frankincense together in a vessel, in order to sanctify them.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rabbi Hanina,

the vessel that holds

an issaron

that was in the Temple for the sake of meal-offerings—

why was it anointed

with the anointing oil in order to sanctify it, so as to sanctify that which is placed inside it? But that vessel is capable of containing only the issaron of fine flour, and not the oil and the frankincense; and yet there is no sanctification until all three are together?

And we answer: This issaron was anointed

to

sanctify in it

the meal-offering of a sinner,

in which there are no oil or frankincense.

And we raise an objection:

And

the vessel that holds

a log—why was it anointed,

since there is no sanctification of the oil by itself?

And we resolve:

For the log of oil of a leper,

which comes by itself.

And we say:

And Shmuel, too, holds this opinion of Rav,

who said that sacred service vessels sanctify fine flour by itself. For we learned:

Liquid vessels sanctify liquids, and dry measures sanctify dry substances. And liquid vessels do not sanctify dry substances, nor do dry measures sanctify liquids! And Shmuel said: They taught this

that liquid vessels do not sanctify dry substances

only

in a vessel of

measures,

such as a hin and a half-hin, which are not fit for measuring dry substances, since these measures do not exist with regard to dry substances, and they were anointed only for measuring; therefore they sanctify only by means of measuring.

But bowls

that are made to receive blood, for they were not anointed for measuring; therefore

they sanctify dry substances, as it is stated: “both of them”—

a silver bowl and a basin—“

full of fine flour mixed with oil

for a meal-offering!”

And we see from this that a basin, which is a liquid vessel, sanctifies fine flour. Now, this basin contained the meal-offering of libations, which requires oil, while in the verse it is written only “full of fine flour,” without oil; and we see from this that, according to Shmuel, sacred service vessels sanctify fine flour without oil.

Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina:

How do you derive from this verse that a liquid vessel sanctifies a dry substance? For

it is a liquid meal-offering,

since it is mixed with oil!

He said to him: It is needed only for the dry part in it,

since it is impossible that in a mixed meal-offering there should not be a little dry flour that was not mixed, and nevertheless it was sanctified.

And if you wish, say: With regard to blood, a meal-offering is considered dry,

since the blood is fluid, whereas the meal-offering is a dough; and therefore it is possible to learn from this that a liquid vessel sanctifies a dry substance.

The body of the matter: Rabbi Elazar said: A meal-offering whose handful was taken in the Sanctuary is valid. For we find this with the removal of the frankincense-bowls,

which was performed in the Sanctuary.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection:

It is written, “

and he shall take a handful from there,”

and we learn that “from there” means

from the place where the feet of a non-koen stand,

namely, eleven cubits at the entrance of the courtyard from the east. Is it demonstrated from this specifically that the courtyard is valid!? And the end of the words of the beraita is:

Ben Betira says: From where [do we know] that if he took the handful with the left hand, he must return and take it with the right hand? The verse states, “and he shall take a handful from there”—

from the place where he had already taken the handful.

And we resolve:

There are those who say: He raises the objection and he

himself

resolves it. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Bar Tahlifa explained it to you: It is needed

for this verse, “and he shall take a handful from there,”

only to validate the entire courtyard

for taking the handful, and not to teach that the Sanctuary is invalid for taking the handful,

lest you say: Since

the offering of

a burnt-offering

is

an offering of the most sacred order, and a meal-offering

also is

an offering of the most sacred order, just as a burnt-offering requires

slaughtering in

the north, so too a meal-offering requires

specifically

the north;

the tanna therefore teaches us that the entire courtyard is valid for removal of the handful from a meal offering.

And we refute: How could you have had grounds to derive the law of a meal-offering from a burnt-offering?

What is true of a burnt-offering, for

a burnt-offering

is entirely

for the Most High; can you say this with regard to a meal-offering, whose remainder is for the kohanim?

And we say: Rather,

from a sin-offering

we learn, for it too requires slaughtering in the north.

And we refute:

What is true of a sin-offering, for it atones for those liable for excision,

which is not so with regard to a meal-offering?

And we say: Rather,

from a guilt-offering

it is possible to learn, for it does not atone for those liable for excision and it requires slaughtering in the north.

And we refute:

What is true of a guilt-offering, for

its atonement is

from the types of blood,

for its blood is sprinkled, and the principal atonement is written with regard to blood, as it is written, “for it is the blood that effects atonement through the soul”; this is not so with regard to a meal-offering, whose atonement is not through blood?

And

from all of them,

namely, a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering,

also

it is not possible to derive by the common aspect, for it is possible to object: What is true of a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a guilt-offering,

for

all of them are

from the types of blood?

Rather,

for this reason

it was necessary

to have the verse “and he shall take a handful from there,” to teach that the meal-offering is valid throughout the courtyard, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written, “and he shall bring it to the koen, and he shall present it to the altar, and he shall take a handful,”

I would say:

Just as the presentation

in which he presents the entire meal-offering to the altar before taking the handful is

at the southwestern corner, so too taking the handful is also at the southwestern corner

specifically;

it teaches us

that the entire courtyard is valid.

The body of the matter: Rabbi Yohanan said: Peace-offerings that he slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated, “and they shall slaughter at the entrance of the Tent

of Meeting”; the secondary part

namely, the courtyard,

should not be more stringent than the principal part,

namely, the Sanctuary.

He raised an objection: Rabbi Yehuda ben Betira says: From where [do we know] that if gentiles surrounded the courtyard

in war, and the kohanim are unable to eat in the courtyard because of the danger of the war—

that the kohanim enter the Sanctuary and eat offerings of the most sacred order and the remainder of meal-offerings

and the sacred offerings do not become disqualified by leaving the courtyard for the Sanctuary,