Menachot 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states

“In the Holy of Holies you shall eat it” [The verse is speaking of eating offerings of the most sacred order, as it states at its beginning: “for all their sins and for all their guilt offerings.”] This indicates that the reference is to the Sanctuary, for if the reference were to the Temple courtyard, it is explicitly written: “In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.” 25.

And

if this reasoning is valid—that the subordinate may not be more stringent than the principal—

why do I need a verse

to teach that it may be eaten in the Sanctuary?

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

is written,

and the subordinate may not be more stringent than the principal?

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

And we answer:

With regard to service, a person serves

the service of his Master

in his Master’s place

and this is the proper conduct.

We say

with regard to it

that the subordinate may not be more stringent than the principal.

If one may serve in the courtyard, he certainly may serve in the Sanctuary. But

with regard to eating, since a person does not eat in his Master’s place

because this is not proper conduct, the kal va-chomer does not apply. Therefore,

the reason is that the verse states

“In the Holy of Holies you shall eat it”;

had the verse not stated this, we would not say that the subordinate may not be more stringent than the principal.

It was stated: If one mixed

a meal offering with oil

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

Reish Lakish says it is valid.

What is his reason?

For it is written: “And he shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense upon it,” and afterward

it is written:

“And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and he shall take a handful.” —

From the kemitza 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 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 the sanctification of a vessel,

for he performs the mixing in a service vessel ,

although priesthood is not required,

the performance

must at least be performed inside.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: If a non-priest mixed it, it is valid; outside the wall of the courtyard —

it is invalid.

It was stated: With regard to a meal offering that became deficient

after it had been placed in a vessel,

before the kemitza, Rabbi Yohanan says: He shall bring from his house

as much as it became deficient

and replenish it; Reish Lakish

says: He shall not bring from his house and replenish it.

Rabbi Yohanan says: He brings from his house and replenishes it.

What is his reason?

The kemitza establishes it

as a single meal offering in its entirety, so that one cannot alter a portion of it and bring another portion in its place. But before the kemitza, it is not called a meal offering, and he does not expound the verse “from the meal offering”—excluding one that became deficient—as will be explained below.

Reish Lakish says: He shall not bring from his house and replenish it.

What is his reason?

The sanctification of the vessel establishes it

as a single meal offering in its entirety for the sake of a meal offering, and from that point it becomes invalidated by the exposition of the verse “from the meal offering”—excluding one that became deficient.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: If the log

of oil of a leper became deficient,

before he poured

the priest some of the oil onto his left palm,

he shall replenish it!

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

The refutation is conclusive!

Ḥazon Ish was uncertain whether Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish also disagree regarding meal-offerings that are not subject to the taking of a handful, such as the high priest’s daily meal-offering and libation meal-offerings, in which there is no taking of a handful. Does Rabbi Yohanan maintain even in these cases that they are not established until the burning, or perhaps there is no dispute in this case, and even according to Rabbi Yohanan the vessel establishes them? The basis of the uncertainty is the explanation stated above by Tosafot: The law that a meal-offering does not become invalid by leaving its proper area until the taking of the handful applies only to meal-offerings from which a handful is taken. But meal-offerings from which no handful is taken become invalid even before that point. The apparent reason is that they are already considered sanctified for offering, like blood after it has been received. If so, with regard to establishing the meal-offering as well, it is established before the taking of the handful; or perhaps an actual act that establishes it is required. And Rabbi Yitzḥak Ze’ev discussed this matter and proved from Rambam’s words [Laws of Disqualified Consecrated Offerings, chapter 12, halakha 5], who wrote that if a libation meal-offering became deficient, one may fill it either before the sacrifice was offered or after the sacrifice was offered. This indicates that a deficient libation meal-offering can be filled, even though a libation meal-offering has no taking of a handful. Rambam ruled according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says that the taking of the handful establishes it, and it is therefore proven that the principle that the taking of the handful establishes it applies even to meal-offerings from which no handful is taken. And Tosafot raised the difficulty: how Resh Lakish could maintain that sanctification by a vessel establishes the offering. Did Resh Lakish not know the Mishna stating that a deficient log becomes invalid only after the pouring? Had an explicit Mishna escaped him? And Sefat Emet wrote an answer to Tosafot’s difficulty: Reish Lakish held that, since the law of deficiency is derived from verses, as will be explained below, if there is no verse teaching that deficiency invalidates the log, then the log has no disqualification of deficiency at all. Therefore, the law is that if it became deficient before the pouring, he replenishes it, because it has no disqualification of deficiency. The fact that it is explained that once he has poured he may not replenish it is based on the reasoning that, after the pouring has been performed, replenishing it is no longer applicable; but beforehand, since there is no verse, it remains valid. Thus Reish Lakish held that the law of the oil log does not constitute a conclusive contradiction to his ruling. Rather, the Gemara raised the difficulty because it implies from this that there is no disqualification of deficiency before the kemitza. Sefat Emet added that the Torat Kohanim presents a source indicating that deficiency also invalidates the log, proving that its law is like that of a meal offering. It is therefore possible to say that Reish Lakish did not know that this was derived from a verse; he therefore held that, as a matter of reasoning, it becomes invalid only after the pouring, and this does not contradict his fundamental ruling concerning a meal offering that became deficient before the kemitza. However, the Gemara raised the difficulty that the log is invalid by virtue of a law, rather than merely by reasoning. If so, we see that the kemitza establishes it.

It was stated: With regard to the remainder

of a meal offering that remained in the vessel after the kemitza,

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

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

and Reish 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. For we learned: 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, in accordance with the measure of Rabbi Eliezer,

who says with regard to an animal sacrifice that even if the flesh was lost, he sprinkles the blood, so too with regard to the meal offering it is

valid, in accordance with the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says: “If there is no flesh, there is no blood”—

it is invalid .

Accordingly, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that if all its remainder became deficient it remains valid, all the more so here, where only part of it became deficient, it remains valid. Their dispute is therefore according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

The one who deems it invalid

follows Rabbi Yehoshua, while the one who deems it valid

holds:

Rabbi Yehoshua stated that principle there only because nothing remained at all,

but

where something remained, even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah, if an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat remains, he sprinkles the blood,

since the sprinkling comes to permit the eating of a person and the eating of the altar, and here there is something to eat. But if

half an olive-bulk of flesh

and

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

since there is no measure sufficient for eating; the eating by a person and the eating by the altar do not combine.

And with regard to

a

burnt offering, even if

there remains

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

he sprinkles the blood, because a burnt offering is entirely burned

and both the flesh and the fat constitute eating by the altar, and therefore they combine to complete the measure.

But with regard to a meal offering, although it remains entirely intact—

he may not sprinkle.