Menachot 90a — the Talmud in English

And therefore we say:

if they were not fit for a mandatory burnt offering, offer them as a voluntary burnt offering

and their law is like that of other burnt offerings.

Rather, here—

with regard to the leper’s guilt offering—

if you do not establish it in its matter

[if you do not give it all the laws of a leper’s guilt offering], then

is there a voluntary guilt offering? Necessarily, the status of a leper’s guilt offering still applies to it, requiring it to have libations.

It was taught in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yohanan:

A leper’s guilt offering that they slaughtered not for its sake, or that they did not

place of its blood upon the thumbs

of the leper, as is the law of a leper’s guilt offering,

is a burnt offering

for burning

on the altar, and requires libations

like a leper’s guilt offering.

And

the leper

requires another guilt offering in order to permit him

to eat sacred things, for the leper is permitted to eat sacred things through bringing his offerings.

Mishna:

All the measures in the Temple were heaped,

such as the measure of an issaron that was in the Temple: it held an issaron, and they heaped it and gave the meal offering more than an issaron;

except for

the measure of an issaron

of the High Priest,

with which they measured the High Priest’s griddle-offering—

which was heaped within it,

meaning that they did not need to heap it, for it itself held an issaron together with its heap.

Sacred vessels sanctify what is within them with sanctity of the body, and our Mishna explains the law of the overflow, whether they sanctify it:

The liquid measure: its overflow—

that which spills over the walls of the vessel on the outside, after the measure has been filled— also it

is sacred.

And

if

the dry measure: its overflow is non-sacred,

as the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The liquid measure

itself

is sacred,

and

therefore

also

its overflow is sacred.

The dry measure

itself

is non-sacred; therefore, its overflow is non-sacred,

as will be explained further in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is not because of this

that there is a distinction between them,

but

because

the liquid is uprooted

from the vessel and becomes sanctified there, and afterward goes outside,

whereas the dry substance is not uprooted

from within the vessel and is not sanctified, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All the measures in the Temple were heaped, except for that of the High Priest, whose heap was within it:

Now, above, on page 87, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagreed:

According to Rabbi Meir: There were two issaron measures in the Temple, one heaped, and they used this measure for all the meal offerings; and there was also an issaron measure and a half-issaron measure, both leveled, and they used these measures for the High Priest’s griddle-offering, which consisted of an issaron, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.

According to the Sages: In the Temple there were only an issaron measure and a half-issaron measure among the dry measures, and both were leveled.

And we raise an objection:

Whose

is our Mishna!?

But

if it is Rabbi Meir,

then according to his view

one

alone

was heaped.

If it is the Sages, one

issaron

was there, and it was leveled.

And if so, according to whose view is our Mishna!?

And we answer:

Actually, it is Rabbi Meir

whose view is expressed in our Mishna.

And what

“all the measures”

means is: all the measurements

that they measured were heaped. We learned in the Mishna:

The liquid measure: its overflow is sacred,

and the dry measure: its overflow is non-sacred...

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree,

the three tannaitic authorities?

The first tanna holds:

The liquid measures were anointed

with anointing oil

both on the inside and on the outside,

and the inside of the vessel and its outside became sacred; therefore, that which spilled upon its outside is also sanctified.

Whereas

the dry measures were anointed on the inside, but were not anointed on the outside,

and it does not sanctify that which touches the outside of the vessel.

And Rabbi Akiva holds:

The liquid measures were anointed both on the inside and on the outside,

and they sanctify everything—

whereas

the dry measures were not anointed at all

and are non-sacred, and they sanctify neither inside nor outside.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: both this and that,

both the dry measures and the liquid measures,

were anointed on the inside but were not anointed on the outside,

and the overflow of the liquid is not sanctified through the outside of the vessel.

And here, this is the reason

that the overflow of the liquid is sanctified: because

the liquid is uprooted and comes from the interior of the vessel

[what spilled was inside the vessel, and comes from it], and the overflow was already sanctified when it was inside the anointed vessel.

If the overflow of

the dry measure is not displaced

from inside the vessel and had never been there, and although the overflows run over the back of the vessel, the measures were nevertheless not anointed on the outside.

And we raise an objection:

But if it was displaced, what of it?

What difference does it make that the overflow was displaced from inside the vessel? It was not sanctified within it, for

the person concerning what he needs

is the one who

intends

that it should be sanctified through the vessel; but concerning the overflow, which he does not need, he does not intend that the vessel should sanctify it!?

He said—

he answered:

Rav Dimi bar Shishena in the name of Rav:

This indicates: service vessels sanctify

even

without awareness,

and it does not matter to us that he does not intend to sanctify them.

Ravina said

he answered:

Actually, I can say to you: service vessels sanctify only with awareness,

and by law the overflows would not have been sanctified, even though they were inside the vessel;

nevertheless, they are sanctified by rabbinic ordinance, because of

a decree lest people say that one removes from a service vessel to non-sacred use,

and since the overflows were in a service vessel, they may not be removed to non-sacred use.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

from a Mishna below, on page 100a, concerning the lehem ha-panim, whose procedure is to arrange the bread and the frankincense bowls on Shabbat, and they remain on the Table until the following Shabbat; on the following Shabbat the bowls are burned, and the bread becomes permitted for eating through their burning: “

He arranged the bread on Shabbat [as prescribed], and the bowls after Shabbat [after their time, which was on Shabbat], and burned the bowls on Shabbat [the following one, like the other bowls] invalid [the bread]”—

That is, since the bowls were not arranged at their proper time, their burning does not permit the bread as it does other bread, which is permitted through their burning; and not only that, but even if he wishes to place this bread in the place of the bread that he was due to arrange on this Shabbat, this too is impossible, because since the bread was arranged on the Table at its proper time, the Table sanctified the bread so that it would become invalid through overnight retention after the time of the bread on the following Shabbat had passed.

But if

he arranged the bread and the bowls after Shabbat

when the arranging of the bread was after its proper time,

and burned the bowls on Shabbat,

invalid

[we do not read this], the bread is forbidden for eating, since the bowls do not permit it because the arranging was not at its proper time; nevertheless, the bread is not rendered invalid—

and

what shall he do

with the bread?

He shall leave it until the following Shabbat

in the place of the bread that he was supposed to arrange on this Shabbat, and because

even if it is on a Table for many days

before Shabbat,

it is nothing

for it to become invalid through overnight retention on account of those days, since the bread was not sanctified during those days, because it was not arranged at its proper time.

And now this is difficult:

why

is the bread fit for the following Shabbat? Surely

there too let us say: a decree lest people say that one deposits in a service vessel

—that is, lest people err and say that this bread was not rendered invalid through overnight retention because it was on the Table, which is a service vessel, and any sacred item that one deposits [in the language of a deposit] in a service vessel does not become invalid through overnight retention!?

And we answer:

Are you comparing inside to outside?

Can you raise an objection from something done inside, in the Sanctuary, against something done outside, in the courtyard—

and the inside

that is, the bread that stood in the Sanctuary—

not everyone knows

that many days had passed over the bread, and they do not discuss the matter—

outside,

that is, measurements performed outside, in the courtyard,

everyone knows:

everyone can see that we are removing the overflows for non-sacred use, and they will say: “One removes from a service vessel to non-sacred use.” Therefore they decreed not to do so.

We learned there

in tractate Shekalim:

The surplus of libations,

what remains from the libations—and the Gemara proceeds to explain it—shall go

for the summering of the altar,

that is, they shall purchase burnt-offerings with it, to offer them on the altar when it is idle.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the surplus of libations?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said

he explained: The surplus of libations is

the overflows

of the

measures

with which they measured the libations.

Rabbi Yohanan said

he explained:

“The surplus of libations” means

like that which we learned:

a.

One who undertakes to supply fine flour at four

seahs per sela—that is, a supplier of fine flour who received money from the treasurer in order to supply fine flour for meal-offerings throughout the year, and the price of the fine flour at the time he received the money was four seahs per sela—

and during the year the fine flour became more expensive and

stood at three

seahs per sela—nevertheless, he shall add and

supply at four,

that is, he shall supply all the seahs that he undertook to supply according to the old price, and shall not reduce them because of the new price.