Menachot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection to it:

What is a meal-offering doing here!?

After all, it does not involve the sprinkling of the blood?

And we explain:

Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a meal-offering accompanying a sacrifice.

The beraita is discussing a meal-offering accompanying the sacrifice: If the meat and the fats of the sacrifice were lost, but the accompanying meal-offering remains, he may not sprinkle the blood.

You might have thought: Since it comes together with the sacrifice, it is like its very body, [

as its body]

and is comparable to the sacrifice,

so the remainder would be considered present and he may sprinkle the blood.

It therefore teaches us otherwise.

And we say: The one who deems valid the remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning holds even in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, as we said.

And as for the one who deems it invalid,

what is his reason? After all, only part of the meal-offering is missing, and Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement concerning a sacrifice cannot be used to derive the law regarding it?

He could say to you:

Here it is different, as the verse says:

“And the priest shall lift”

“from the meal-offering”—

until the entire meal-offering is present, he shall burn it; but if not, he shall not burn it. And the other one,

the one who deems it valid, expounds the verse

“from the meal-offering”—

“that had already been complete”:

It was complete at the time of taking the handful, and even though it is not complete now, he may burn it. 32 .

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish:

If

before the arrangement

of the Lehem ha-Panim

its bread became broken—

became deficient—

the bread is invalid, and the frankincense bowls may not be burned upon it.

But if

after its arrangement its bread became broken, the bread is invalid, but the frankincense bowls may be burned upon it. And Rabbi

Elazar said: “After its arrangement” does not mean literally after its arrangement; rather, once the time for its arrangement arrived, even though it had not yet been arranged [

Rabbi Elazar’s words were not necessary for the Gemara’s objection; rather, since he cited them above, on page 8, he cited them here as well]. We see, then, that when the remainder became deficient between the removal of the frankincense bowls and their burning, they may be burned upon it?

He said to him,

Resh Lakish: This

Mishna

is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that it remains valid even if all the remainder was lost.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: I am citing to you an entire Mishna

—an unattributed Mishna—

and you tell me that it is Rabbi Eliezer’s? If it is Rabbi Eliezer’s, why specifically when it became broken?

After all,

even if it was completely burned or lost,

entirely,

Rabbi Eliezer likewise deems it valid,

and from the fact that the tanna wrote only “became broken,” it is proven that this is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer?

Resh Lakish was silent.

Resh Lakish.

And we question:

But why did he remain silent? Let him say to him:

Regarding the Lehem ha-Panim, which belongs to the

community, it is different, since impurity was permitted for them,

for the community, as it is written concerning the daily offering, “at its appointed time,” whose meaning is that it is offered even on Shabbat and in a state of impurity;

deficiency was likewise permitted

—that the bread may be deficient?

And we say:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

From the fact that he did not answer him in this manner,

this indicates that deficiency is comparable to a blemish;

and just as

there is no

permission to offer

a blemished offering of the community,

but its law is that it is invalid, as in the case of an individual, so too there is no permission for a deficiency in an offering of the community.

Rav Pappa sat and stated this teaching,

that Resh Lakish remained silent and did not answer Rabbi Yohanan that an offering of the community is different.

Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa:

He acted properly by not answering him so.

Are we not dealing

with the dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

also

with regard to the meal-offering [

of the Omer]

that

belongs to the

community,

and they disagree concerning it? This proves that even in the case of an offering of the community there is the disqualification of deficiency. Therefore Resh Lakish did not answer that the law of an offering of the community is different!

Rabbi Malkiyyo said: One tanna taught:

It is written, “And he shall take from it his full handful,”

“of its fine flour”—

if it is deficient by any amount

from the tenth of an ephah of fine flour required for the meal-offering—

it is invalid. “Of its oil”—

if it is deficient by any amount

from the log of oil required for the meal-offering—

it is invalid. And another tanna taught:

It is written, “And what remains of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons,”

“from the meal-offering”—

this implies an entire meal-offering;

excluding a meal-offering that became deficient,

whose remainder may not be eaten.

And

likewise,

if its handful became deficient,

its remainder may not be eaten, for the remainder must be from a meal-offering performed in accordance with its law, and a deficient handful is invalid.

And

likewise,

if none of its frankincense was burned,

for burning the frankincense is indispensable; but if some of it was burned, the remainder may be eaten.

And this is difficult:

Why do I need two verses

—“of its fine flour” and “from the meal-offering”—

with regard to deficiencies? Is one not for a meal-offering that became deficient before the taking of the handful, and the other for the remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning? This would be a refutation of Rabbi Yohanan in both cases,

as he holds that a meal-offering that became deficient before the taking of the handful should be replenished, and likewise holds that when the remainder became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning, the handful may be burned upon it!

And we answer:

No. One is for a meal-offering that became deficient before the taking of the handful: If he brings from his house and replenishes it,

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s opinion,

it is

valid;

but if not,

it is not. And the other is for the remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning: Even though he burns the handful upon it, that remainder is forbidden to eat [

for the verse “from the meal-offering” is written with regard to eating the remainder].

Regarding

this matter—whether the remainder may be eaten or not—

they raised a dilemma: According to the one who says that when the remainder became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning, he burns the handful upon it, what is the status of that remainder with regard to eating?

Zeiri said: The verse says, “And what remains of the meal-offering.”

They shall eat it,

but not

remainder that became deficient, for it is

remainder of the remainder.

The remainder itself is “remainder,” and when it becomes deficient, it is remainder of the remainder.

And Rabbi Yannai said: “From the meal-offering” that had already been

complete at the time of

the taking of the handful, and although it became deficient afterward, it is called “what remains of the meal-offering,” and may be eaten. Thus, according to Zeiri the remainder is forbidden to eat, whereas according to Rabbi Yannai it is permitted [and Rashi has another version, according to which even Rabbi Yannai holds that it is forbidden, and they differ only in the manner of expounding the verse].

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he took the handful with the left hand, etc.”

From where are these matters

that taking the handful with the left hand renders the offering invalid, derived?

Rabbi Zeira said: The verse says, “And he shall bring the meal-offering and fill his palm from it.” With regard to the term “palm,” I do not know what it means:

the right or the left.

When it says [

with regard to the purification of a leper]

“And the priest shall take from the log of oil and pour it onto the priest’s left palm,”

and we learn:

Here

it says “left”; therefore, everywhere that “palm” is stated, it means only the right.

Therefore, if he took the handful with the left hand, it is invalid.

And we challenge this:

We need that verse

for the verse’s

own purpose,

to teach that he should place it on his left palm and not his right?

And we answer:

“Left” is written another time

in the following verse: “From the oil that is on his left palm.”

And we challenge this:

Perhaps

the two occurrences of “left” constitute a restrictive exclusion following a restrictive exclusion, and

a restrictive exclusion following a restrictive exclusion serves only to include;

so we should derive that even the priest’s right palm is valid for the oil of the leper, which is the subject of the passage?

And we answer: Another

“left” is written [

with regard to the purification of a poor leper]. If the verses were intended as a restrictive exclusion following a restrictive exclusion, why are three verses necessary? Rather, it is proven that we learn from this:

Here, “left”

—with regard to the oil of the leper—

and there is no

valid hand in place of

another “left.”

And we challenge this:

Perhaps, on the contrary,

we should derive from here:

Just as here it is “left,” so too everywhere else it is “left”?

And we answer:

Four occurrences of “left” are written: two in

the offering of a

poor leper and two in that of a wealthy one.

And this is how we learn: One is for its own purpose, that in the case of a leper the left hand is required; one teaches that specifically here the left is required, but elsewhere the right; one teaches that you should not say that there is here a restrictive exclusion following a restrictive exclusion, which serves only to include, so that even the priest’s right hand would be valid for the oil of a leper; and one teaches that you should not say, “Just as here it is the left, so too everywhere it is the left” [see Rashi for further explanations].

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:

Since you said that every occurrence of “left” written in the passage concerning the leper is expounded,

“on his right thumb” and “on his right great toe,” as it is written

twice with regard to the oil [in the case of the wealthy and the poor leper],

why do I need this?

Why did the verse specify the right thumb of the hand and foot at all with regard to the oil of the leper? After all, it is written that the oil is placed “upon the blood of the guilt-offering,” and regarding the blood of the guilt-offering it is written that it is placed on the thumb of the hand and foot. Why is it necessary to write this here? [

This is the wording of the verse: “And the priest shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering and the priest shall place it on the cartilage of the right ear of the one being purified, and on his right hand, and on his right great toe.” And afterward: “And from the remaining oil that is on his palm, the priest shall place on the cartilage of the right ear of the one being purified and on his right great toe, upon the blood of the guilt-offering.” Similar wording is written [both regarding the blood and regarding the oil] in the case of the poor leper as well, and there it says, “upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering”].