Menachot 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Hanina

disagrees and

said,

neither of these achieves sanctification without the other, nor does the other achieve sanctification without this one;

rather, one must place the flour, the oil, and the frankincense together in a vessel in order to sanctify them.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Hanina,

the vessel that holds

an issaron

and was in the Temple for the purpose of preparing meal-offerings,

why was it anointed

with the anointing oil in order to sanctify it, so that it would sanctify whatever was placed inside it? That vessel could contain only the issaron of flour, but 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 with it

a sinner’s meal-offering,

which contains neither oil nor frankincense.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

the vessel that holds

a log—why was it anointed?

After all, the oil is not sanctified by itself.

And we answer:

For the log of oil of a leper,

which comes by itself.

And we say:

And Shmuel likewise held this ruling of Rav,

who said that Temple service vessels sanctify flour by itself. As we learned in a Mishna:

Vessels for liquids sanctify liquids, and measures for dry substances sanctify dry substances. Vessels for liquids do not sanctify dry substances, nor do measures for dry substances sanctify liquids! And Shmuel said: They taught

that vessels for liquids do not sanctify dry substances

only

in a

measuring

vessel, such as a hin or a half-hin, which are not fit for measuring dry substances, since there are no such measures for dry substances. These vessels were anointed only for measuring; therefore, they sanctify only through measuring.

But bowls

that are made to receive blood, as they were not anointed for measuring, consequently

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 it follows from this that a basin, which is a vessel for liquids, sanctifies flour. Yet the meal-offering of libations was in this basin, and it requires oil, whereas the verse states only “full of flour,” without mentioning oil. It follows that, according to Shmuel, Temple service vessels sanctify flour without oil. 22

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

How can you derive from this verse that a vessel for liquids sanctifies a dry substance? After all,

it is a wet meal-offering,

as it is mixed with oil!

He said to him: It is necessary only for the dry portion in it,

since it is impossible that a meal-offering mixed with oil does not contain some dry flour that was not mixed in, and nevertheless it was sanctified.

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

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

As for the matter itself, Rabbi Elazar said: A meal-offering whose kemitza was performed in the Sanctuary is valid. For we find this in the removal of the bowls of frankincense,

which is performed in the Sanctuary. 23

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection:

It is written, “

and he shall take a handful from there,”

and we derive that “from there” means

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

namely, eleven cubits inside the courtyard from the eastern entrance. Is it not proven from this specifically that the courtyard is valid? And the conclusion of the beraita is:

Ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if he took a handful with his left hand, he must return and take a handful with his right hand? The verse states, “and he shall take a handful from there”—

from the place where he had already taken a handful.

And we answer:

Some say: He raised the objection and he

himself

resolved it. And some say that Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Bar Taḥlifa explained it to you: This verse, “and he shall take a handful from there,” was

not necessary

except to render the entire courtyard valid

for kemitza, and not to teach that the Sanctuary is invalid for kemitza,

lest you say: Since

it is a

burnt-offering,

it is

most sacred, and a meal-offering

is also

most sacred, just as a burnt-offering requires

slaughter in the

north, so too a meal-offering requires

specifically the

north;

therefore, the tanna informs us that the entire courtyard is valid for the kemitza of the meal-offering.

And we refute this: How could you have considered deriving the law of a meal-offering from that of a burnt-offering?

What is unique about a burnt-offering is that

a burnt-offering is

entirely

offered to the Most High; would you say the same of a meal-offering, whose remainder is given to the kohanim?

And we say: Rather,

from a sin-offering

we derive it, since it too requires slaughter in the north.

And we refute this:

What is unique about a sin-offering is that it atones for those liable to karet,

unlike a meal-offering.

And we say: Rather,

from a guilt-offering

it is possible to derive it, since it does not atone for those liable to karet and it requires slaughter in the north.

And we refute this:

What is unique about a guilt-offering is that

its atonement is

through types of blood-offerings,

as its blood is sprinkled, and the primary form of atonement is stated with regard to blood, as it is written: “For the blood—it is the life—that effects atonement”; this is not so with a meal-offering, whose atonement is not through blood.

And

from all of them,

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

also

it is not possible to derive the law through a common aspect, since one can refute the derivation by saying: What is unique about a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a guilt-offering

is that

all of them are

types of blood-offerings?

Rather,

for this reason

the verse

“and he shall take a handful from there” was

necessary: One might have thought, since it is written, “And he shall bring it to the kohein, and he shall present it to the altar, and he shall take a handful,”

I would have said:

Just as the presentation

in which he presents the entire meal-offering to the altar before the kemitza

is at the southwestern corner, so too the kemitza is also at the southwestern corner

specifically;

it teaches us

that the entire courtyard is valid.

As for the matter itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Peace-offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated, “And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent

of Meeting.” The peripheral

namely, the courtyard,

should not be more stringent than the essential

namely, the Sanctuary. 24

A refutation was raised: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the courtyard

in wartime, and the kohanim cannot eat in the courtyard because of the danger of the war,

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

and the offerings are not disqualified by leaving the courtyard for the Sanctuary,