Menachot 9b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to it:

“What is the function of a meal-offering here?!”

After all, it does not have the sprinkling of the blood.

And we explain:

Rav Pappa said: The libation meal-offering

which comes with the sacrifice is the subject of the beraita: If the meat and the fat of the sacrifice were lost, but the libation meal-offering remains, he may not sprinkle the blood.

It might enter your mind to say: Since it comes together with the sacrifice, it resembles it itself,

as its body,

that is, it resembles the sacrifice,

and it should be considered sheyarei and he should sprinkle the blood.

It teaches us this.

And we say: The one who declares valid sheyarei that became lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning holds even like Rabbi Yehoshua, as we said.

And the one who declares it invalid

what is his reason? After all, only part of the meal-offering is lacking, and it is impossible to learn from Rabbi Yehoshua’s words concerning a sacrifice.

He can say to you:

Here it is different, for the verse says, “

And the priest shall raise up

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

who declares it valid expounds the verse

“from the meal-offering”—

which had already been

complete at the time of the taking of the handful; and although now it is not complete, he shall burn it. 32 .

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish:

If

before it was removed

from the arrangement of the showbread

its bread became broken—

became lacking—

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

But if

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

Elazar said: “It was not removed” does not mean that it was literally removed; rather, once the time for removing it arrived, even though it was not removed [Rabbi Elazar’s words were not needed for the Gemara’s question; rather, since it brought them earlier, on page 8, it brought them here as well]. We see that when the sheyarei became lacking between the removal of the bowls and the burning, they burn upon them?

we see that when the remainders became diminished between the removal of the frankincense bowls and their burning, they may be burned on their account. Is this not a refutation?

He said to him,

Resh Lakish: This

teaching

is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that it is valid even if all the sheyarei were lost.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: “I am telling you a complete Mishna”—

an anonymous Mishna—

“and you say to me, ‘It is Rabbi Eliezer’? If it is Rabbi Eliezer, why specifically ‘became broken’?

After all,

even if it was burned or entirely lost

completely,

he also declares it valid,”

Rabbi Eliezer; 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 raise a difficulty:

And why was he silent? Let him say to him

to Rabbi Yohanan: The showbread, which belongs to

the community, 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 even on Shabbat and in impurity—

lackings were also permitted

when the bread became lacking?

And we say:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

From the fact that he did not answer him this way,

this means: The lack is comparable to a blemished animal,

and just as

there is no

permission for

a blemished animal belonging to the community,

rather, its law is that it is invalid, as with an individual, so too there is no permission for a lacking offering belonging to the community.

Rav Pappa sat and stated this teaching

that Resh Lakish was silent and did not answer Rabbi Yohanan that the community is different.

Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa:

He did well not to answer him this way.

Are we not dealing

with the dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

also

with the meal-offering of

the omer,

which

belongs to

the community,

and they dispute? This proves that even with the community there is the disqualification of lack; therefore Resh Lakish did not answer that the law of the community is different!

Rabbi Malkiyyo said: One [teaching] taught:

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

from its fine flour”—

if anything at all is lacking

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

it is invalid; ‘from its oil’—

if anything at all is lacking

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

it is invalid. And another [teaching] taught:

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

“from the meal-offering”

which implies a complete meal-offering,

excluding a meal-offering that became lacking,

whose sheyarei are not eaten;

and

likewise

if its handful became lacking,

its sheyarei are not eaten, for the sheyarei of a meal-offering that was performed according to its law are required, and a lacking handful is invalid;

and

likewise

if he burned none of its frankincense,

for the burning of the frankincense prevents [the eating of the sheyarei]; but if he burned some of it, the sheyarei may be eaten.

And this is difficult:

Why do I need two verses

concerning “from its fine flour” and “from the meal-offering”

for cases of lack? Is not one for a meal-offering that became lacking before the taking of the handful, and one for the sheyarei that became lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning? And this is a refutation of Rabbi Yohanan in both [matters],

who holds that a meal-offering that became lacking before the taking of the handful is replenished, and likewise who holds that when the sheyarei became lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning, he burns the handful upon them!

And we answer:

No; one [verse is] for a meal-offering that became lacking before the taking of the handful: If he brings [flour] from his house and replenishes it,

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s view—

yes,

it is valid;

but if not,

no. And one [verse is] for the sheyarei that became lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning: Even though he burns the handful upon them, those sheyarei are forbidden to eat [for the verse “from the meal-offering” is written concerning the eating of the sheyarei].

because the verse “from the meal-offering” is written with regard to eating the remainders.

Concerning

this matter—whether the sheyarei are permitted to eat or not—

they raised a question: According to the one who says that when the sheyarei became lacking between the taking of the handful and the burning, he burns the handful upon them, what is the status of those sheyarei with regard to eating?

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

They shall eat,

but not

because the sheyarei became lacking, for they are

“what remains of what remained,”

since the sheyarei themselves are “what remained,” and when they become lacking, they are what remains of what remained.

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

complete at the time

of the taking of the handful; and although it became lacking after the taking of the handful, it is called “what remains of the meal-offering,” and it shall be eaten. Thus, according to Zeiri the sheyarei are forbidden to eat, while according to Rabbi Yannai they are permitted [and Rashi has another wording: even according to Rabbi Yannai they are forbidden, and the difference between them is only in the interpretation of the verses].

We learned in the Mishna:

“He took the handful with the left [hand], etc.”

From where are these matters

that one who takes the handful with the left [hand] is invalid?

Rabbi Zeira said: For the verse says, “And he shall bring the meal-offering and fill his palm from it.” As for ‘palm,’ I do not know what it is,

right or left.

When it says

[concerning the purification of a person with leprosy]

“And the priest shall take from the log of oil and pour it upon the palm of the priest, the left one,”

and we learn

here

“left one”; wherever “palm” is stated, it is only the right [palm]. Therefore, if he took the handful with the left [hand], it is invalid.

Consequently, if he took the handful with the left hand, the offering is disqualified.

And we object:

We need it

for the verse

itself,

to say that he should place it upon his left palm and not his right?

And we answer:

“Left one” is written another time

in the following verse: “from the oil that is upon his left palm.”

And we object:

But say

that the two instances of “left one” constitute a restrictive expression followed by another restrictive expression, and

there is no restrictive expression followed by another restrictive expression except to include,

and we should learn that even the priest’s right palm is valid for the oil of the person with leprosy, which is what the passage is discussing?

And we answer: There is another

“left one” written

[concerning the purification of a poor person with leprosy]. If the verses came for a restrictive expression followed by another restrictive expression, why are three verses necessary? Rather, it is proven that from this we learn:

here, “left one”

concerning the oil of the person with leprosy,

and there is no

valid [hand] in the place of

another “left one.”

And we object:

But say, on the contrary,

we should learn from here:

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

And we answer:

Four instances of “left one” are written: two in

the offering of a poor person with leprosy

and two in that of a wealthy person.

And this is how we learn: one is for itself, that with a person with leprosy the left one is required; one says that specifically here it is the left one, but elsewhere it is the right; one says that you should not say that there is here a restrictive expression followed by another restrictive expression, and there is no restrictive expression followed by another restrictive expression except to include, so that even the priest’s right [hand] is valid for the oil of the person with leprosy; and one says that you should not say, “Just as here it is the left one, so too everywhere it is the left one” [see Rashi for further explanations].

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:

Since you said that every “left one” written in the passage concerning the person with leprosy is expounded,

“upon the thumb of his right hand” and “upon the thumb of his right foot,” which are written

in connection with the oil twice [in the case of the wealthy person and the poor person],

why do I need them?

Why did the verse specify the right thumb of the hand and foot at all concerning the oil of the person with leprosy? After all, it is written that he shall place the oil “upon the blood of the guilt-offering,” and concerning the blood of the guilt-offering it is written [to place it] upon the thumb of the hand and foot; so why does it need to be written 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 upon the middle of the right ear of the one being purified, and upon his right hand, and upon the thumb of his right foot”; and afterward: “And from the remainder of the oil that is upon his palm, the priest shall place it upon the middle of the right ear of the one being purified, and upon the thumb of his right foot, upon the blood of the guilt-offering.” Similar wording is written [both concerning blood and concerning oil] regarding a poor person with leprosy as well, and there it is written: “upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering.”]