Menachot 9a — the Talmud in English

The verse teaches: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“You shall eat it in the Holy of Holies” [The verse is discussing the eating of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity, as it states at the beginning: “For all their sin-offerings and all their guilt-offerings.” This indicates that the verse is referring to the Sanctuary, since if it were referring to the courtyard, it is explicitly written: “In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.”] 25 .

And

And

if this reasoning is valid—that an accessory cannot be subject to a stricter rule than the primary matter—

why do I need a verse

to teach that the offering may be eaten in the Sanctuary?

Let us say: “In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it,”

is written,

“and an accessory cannot be subject to a stricter rule than the primary matter”?

And we answer:

Service is different, because a person performs his master’s service

the service of his Master

in his Master’s place

and this is proper conduct.

We say

regarding it

that an accessory cannot be subject to a stricter rule than the primary matter.

If he may perform the service in the courtyard, then certainly he may perform it in the Sanctuary. But

eating is different, because a person does not eat in his Master’s place

as this is not proper conduct; therefore, the a-fortiori inference does not apply. Consequently,

the reason is that the verse states

“You shall eat it in the Holy of Holies”;

had the verse not stated this, we would not say that an accessory cannot be subject to a stricter rule than the primary matter.

It was stated: If he mixed

a meal-offering with oil

outside the wall of the courtyard, Rabbi Yohanan says it is invalid, and Resh Lakish says it is valid 26 .

Resh Lakish says it is valid.

What is his reason?

As it is written: “He shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense upon it,” and afterward

it is written:

“He shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and he shall take his handful.” -

From the taking of the handful onward, it is a priestly mitzva; this teaches regarding the pouring

of oil

and the mixing, which are valid when performed by a non-priest,

and since priesthood is not required

for the pouring and mixing, performing them

inside

the courtyard

is likewise not required 27 .

And Rabbi Yohanan says it is invalid.

What is his reason?

Since it is sanctified through a vessel,

as the mixing is performed in a service vessel ,

although priesthood is not required,

the performance

must nevertheless be performed inside.

A beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, teaches in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: If a non-priest mixed it, it is valid; if he mixed it outside the wall of the courtyard —

it is invalid.

It was stated: If a meal-offering became deficient

after it had been placed in a vessel

before the taking of the handful, Rabbi Yohanan says: He should bring from his home

the amount by which it became deficient

and fill it, while Resh Lakish

says: He should not bring from his home and fill it.

Rabbi Yohanan says: He brings from his home and fills it.

What is his reason?

The taking of the handful establishes it

as one complete meal-offering, so that one cannot change part of it and bring another portion in its place. But before the taking of the handful, it is not yet called a meal-offering, and he does not interpret the verse “from the meal-offering” to exclude one that became deficient, as will be stated below.

Resh Lakish says: He should not bring from his home and fill it.

What is his reason?

The sanctification by the vessel establishes it

as one complete meal-offering, and from that point onward it becomes invalid based on the interpretation of the verse “from the meal-offering”—to exclude one that became deficient.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish: If the log-measure

of oil of a person afflicted with leprosy became deficient,

before he poured

the priest the oil onto his left palm

he should fill it!

This shows that we do not say that the sanctification by a vessel—that is, that the log is in a service vessel—establishes it.

A conclusive refutation!

It was stated: Regarding the remainder

of a meal-offering that remained in the vessel after the taking of the handful,

if it became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning, Rabbi Yohanan says: He burns the handful over it

—over this remainder, since the deficiency does not invalidate the handful for burning;

and Resh Lakish says: He does not burn the handful over it.

And we say:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees; they disagree according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a Mishna: If

all

its remainder

of the meal-offering became impure before the burning of the handful, or

its remainder was burned,

or

its remainder was lost, according to the standard of Rabbi Eliezer,

who says regarding an animal offering that even if the meat was lost, he sprinkles the blood, so too in the case of a meal-offering it is

valid, according to the standard of Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says: If there is no meat, there is no blood—

it is invalid .

If so, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that when all the remainder became deficient the offering is valid, all the more so here, where only part of it became deficient, it is valid. Rather, their dispute is according to Rabbi Yehoshua:

The one who invalidates

follows Rabbi Yehoshua, and the one who declares it valid

maintains:

Rabbi Yehoshua stated that principle there only when nothing remained

—

but where something remained, even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which an olive-bulk of meat or an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat remained, he sprinkles the blood,

since the sprinkling comes to permit human consumption and consumption on the altar, and here there is something to consume. But if

half an olive-bulk of meat

and

half an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat remained, he does not sprinkle the blood,

because there is no measure sufficient for consumption, and human consumption and consumption on the altar do not combine.

And with regard to

an

elevation-offering, even if

there remained

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat—

he sprinkles the blood, because the elevation-offering is entirely burned on the altar

and both the meat and the fat are forms of consumption on the altar; therefore, they combine to complete the required measure.

But with regard to a meal-offering, even though it is all present—

he may not sprinkle.