Menachot 90a (צ.) — the Talmud in English

And therefore we say:

If they are not fit for a mandatory burnt offering, they should be offered as a free-will 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 according to its own matter

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

is there such a thing as a voluntary guilt offering? It is therefore necessarily still subject to the designation of a leper’s guilt offering, obligating it in libations.

It was taught in a beraita in support of Rabbi Yohanan:

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

applied from its blood onto the thumbs

of the leper, as required for 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 sacrificial meat, since the leper becomes permitted to eat sacrificial meat through bringing his offerings.

Mishna:

All the measures in the Temple were heaped,

such as the measure of an issaron, which was in the Temple and held an issaron; they would heap it and thereby give the meal offering more than an issaron.

Except for

the issaron measure

of the High Priest,

which was used to measure the High Priest’s havitei offering—

which was heaped within it,

meaning that it did not need to be heaped, since the measure itself held an issaron together with its heap.

Sacred vessels consecrate what is inside them with the sanctity of the offering, and our Mishna explains the law of the overflow, whether it was consecrated:

The liquid measure: its overflow—

that which spills over the outer sides of the vessel after the measure has been filled— also

is sacred.

But

if

the dry measure: its overflow is profane,

as the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The liquid measure

itself

is sacred,

and

therefore

even

its overflow is sacred.

The dry measure

itself

is profane; therefore, its overflow is profane,

as will be explained further in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is not for this reason

that there is a distinction between them,

but

because

the liquid is detached

from the vessel and becomes consecrated there, and afterward flows outside,

whereas the dry substance is not detached

from within the vessel and is not consecrated, 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 this measure was used for all the meal offerings. In addition, there was an issaron measure and a half-issaron measure that were leveled, and these were used for the High Priest’s havitei offering, which consisted of an issaron, half in the morning and half in the evening.

According to the Sages: The only dry measures in the Temple were an issaron measure and a half-issaron measure, both of which were leveled.

And we raise a difficulty:

Whose

is our Mishna!?

For

if it is Rabbi Meir,

then according to him

only one

measure

was heaped.

If it is the Rabbis, one

issaron

measure was there, and it was leveled.

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 would take were heaped. We learned in the Mishna:

The overflow of the liquid measure is sacred,

whereas the overflow of the dry measure is profane...:

And we explain:

With regard to what do

the three tannaim

disagree? The first tanna holds:

The liquid measures were anointed

with the anointing oil

both inside and outside,

and the interior and exterior of the vessel became consecrated. Therefore, what spilled onto the outside is also consecrated.

Whereas

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

and they do not consecrate what touches the outside of the vessel.

And Rabbi Akiva holds:

The liquid measures were anointed both inside and outside,

and they consecrate everything—

whereas

the dry measures were not anointed at all

and are profane, and they consecrate neither what is inside nor what is outside.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: Both this and that—

both the dry measures and the [unclear: the source repeats “dry measures”; apparently “liquid measures”]

were anointed on the inside but not on the outside.

The overflow of the liquid measure is not consecrated through the outside of the vessel.

But here, this is the reason

that the overflow of the liquid measure is consecrated:

because the liquid is detached and comes from within the vessel

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

v

If the overflow of

the dry measure is not uprooted

from the vessel and was never inside it, and although the overflow spills over the rim of the vessel, the measures were not anointed on the outside, then the measures are not sanctified.

And we raise an objection:

But what if it was uprooted?

What difference does it make that the overflow was uprooted from inside the vessel? It was not sanctified inside it, since

it is the person

who

intends

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

He

answered:

Rav Dimi bar Sheishena said in the name of Rav:

This indicates that service vessels sanctify

even

without awareness

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

Ravina said [he answered]:

[he answered]:

Actually, I could say to you: Service vessels sanctify only with awareness

, and according to Torah law the overflow would not be sanctified, even though it was inside the vessel;

v

nevertheless, it is sanctified by rabbinic decree, because of

a decree lest people say that one may remove something from a service vessel for non-sacred use

. Since the overflow was in a service vessel, it may not be removed for 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; they remain on the Table until the following Shabbat, when 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 proper time, which was on Shabbat], and burned the bowls on Shabbat [the following Shabbat, as with other bowls]—invalid [the bread

].”

That is, since the bowls were not arranged at their proper time, their burning does not permit the bread to be eaten, as is the case with other bread that is permitted through the burning of its bowls. Moreover, even if he wishes to place this bread in the place of the bread that was destined to be arranged on this Shabbat, this too is impossible, because since the bread was arranged on the Table at its proper time, the Table sanctified it so that it would become invalid through overnight lodging after the time of the bread on the following Shabbat had passed. But if

he arranged the bread and the bowls after Shabbat

, meaning that the bread was arranged after its proper time,

and burned the bowls on Shabbat

[“invalid”

, this word is not to be read], the bread is forbidden to be eaten, since the bowls do not permit it because it was arranged at the wrong time; nevertheless, the bread is not rendered invalid—

and

what should he do

with the bread?

He should leave it for the following Shabbat

, in the place of the bread that was supposed to be arranged on this Shabbat. Since

even if it is on the Table for many days

before Shabbat,

there is no consequence

regarding its becoming invalid through overnight lodging on account of those days, because the bread was not sanctified during those days, since it was not arranged at its proper time.

And now this is difficult:

But why

is the bread fit for the following Shabbat? After all,

there too, let us say: A decree lest people say that one may deposit something in a service vessel

—that is, lest people mistakenly say that the reason this bread does not become invalid through overnight lodging is that it was on the Table, which is a service vessel, and that any sacred item deposited [in the sense of being placed in safekeeping] in a service vessel does not become invalid through overnight lodging!?

And we answer:

Are you comparing inside with outside?

Are you raising a difficulty from something done inside the Sanctuary concerning something done outside, in the Courtyard—

and the loaves

, meaning the bread that stood in the Sanctuary,

not everyone knows

that the bread remained there for many days, and people do not concern themselves with the matter—

whereas outside

, meaning the measurements carried out outside, in the Courtyard,

everyone knows

: everyone can see that we are removing the overflow for non-sacred use, and they will say, “They are removing something from a service vessel for non-sacred use.” Therefore, the Sages decreed that this should not be done.

We learned there

in tractate Shekalim:

The surplus of the libations

, what remains from the libations—as the Gemara proceeds to explain—shall go

for the summer offerings of the altar

, meaning that offerings are purchased with it in order to bring them upon the altar when it is idle.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “the surplus of the libations”?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said

[he explained]: The surplus of the libations is

the overflow of

the

measures

with which the libations were measured.

Rabbi Yohanan said [he explained]:

[he explained]:

“The surplus of the libations” means

the case that 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, when the price of fine flour at the time he received the money was four seahs per sela—

during the year the price of the fine flour increased, and it

rose from three

seahs per sela—nevertheless, he must add and

supply four

, meaning that he supplies all the seahs for which he undertook responsibility according to the old price, and he may not reduce the amount because of the new price.