Yoma 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

And with regard to

the taking of the handful from a meal-offering of

a pan-offering or a deep-frying-pan offering

[or an oven-baked offering—Tosafot Yom Tov, Menahot, chapter 1], which are types of fried offerings that are first baked, after which he breaks them into pieces and then takes the handful, their taking is more difficult than taking the handful from a fine-flour meal-offering, whose protrusions fall away on their own [Rashi

explained by the Rashash: The fine-flour meal-offering is mixed with oil before the taking of the handful, and it is impossible that some of it will not extend beyond the handful; and it seems to me that the expression “scrapes level” implies doing so forcefully, which is necessary only with baked offerings]. How does he act so that the handful will not bulge out and extend beyond the fullness of his handful? He

scrapes level

[removes] the protrusions that bulge out and extend

with his thumb from above, and with his little finger

the

small one

[the pinky]

from below.

And this is a difficult Temple service,

to be exacting so that nothing remains in his handful except the handful itself, neither less nor more [Rashi, Menahot 11a]. And we raise an objection: Is

this

a difficult Temple service,

and nothing more

[are there no other difficult services in the Temple]?!

But there is pinching, of a bird, concerning which we likewise learned in a beraita: “And this is a difficult Temple service”?!

But there is also

But there is also

the taking of the handful of incense,

the second one in the Holy of Holies, concerning which we likewise learned in a beraita below: “And this is a difficult Temple service”?! [See below, note 34.]

Rather,

say this:

this

—the taking of the handful from the pan-offering and the deep-frying-pan offering—

is

one

of the difficult services in the Temple.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uzaya raised a question:

Fine flour that enters

between the intervals

[between the koen’s fingers] at the time of taking the handful,

what is its status

—is it included in the handful or not [see note 24]?

Is it included in the handful, or not [see note 24]?

Rabbi Pappa explained

that

what is inside

[what is visible on the inside, Targum Jonathan]

is not subject to inquiry for you; it is certainly the handful.

And

what is outside

[what is visible on the outside, Targum Jonathan]

is likewise not subject to inquiry for you; it is certainly the remainder.

When it is subject to inquiry for you is: what is between the intervals,

that is, what is actually between the fingers, which is visible neither from outside nor from inside [Ritva]—

what

is its status, the handful or the remainder?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uzaya subsequently resolved it: What is between the intervals is uncertain ; and he burns even what is between the intervals because of the uncertainty!

and he burns even that portion because of the doubt!

And we explain:

How does he act,

how does he burn both of them?

Rabbi Ḥanina said: He burns the handful alone

[by itself]

first, and then

[again] he burns what was

between the intervals.

For if you say

that he should burn

what is between the intervals first,

before he burns the handful, then

perhaps it is the remainder, and the remainder

that remained would become

remainder that diminished between the taking of the handful

and the burning;

and

the Master said:

Remainder that diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning—the handful may not be burned on its account !

And we object:

If so

[see note 27], then

now as well

—when he burns the handful first—he will again be unable to burn what is between the intervals afterward?! For perhaps what is between the intervals is the remainder, and

here this principle applies:

[I invoke this prohibition]:

Anything from which a portion is burned on the altar

[once you have given the fire all that is prescribed for it, Rashi],

it is—

what remains—

subject to “You shall not burn any of it”;

and since it is possible that the entire prescribed portion of the meal-offering has already been burned, it is once again impossible to burn what is between the intervals?!

The later authorities inferred from Rashi’s wording, “once you have given the fire all that is prescribed for it,” that the prohibition against burning the remainder applies only after the handful has been burned; and they wrote that this is a dispute among the Rishonim. The Sages derived this law from the verse: “[For any leaven and any honey] you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord. [As an offering of first fruits you may present them to the Lord, but they shall not be brought up on the altar for a pleasing fragrance].” And the Sages expounded: “You shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord”—you shall not burn anything from which a portion is given to the fire.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said:

He should not burn what is between the intervals for the purpose of burning, so that he should not possibly violate “You shall not burn any of it”;

rather,

he should burn it

what is between the intervals

for the sake of wood

alone—and this is how he should act: He should burn what is between the intervals on the altar and say: If it is the handful, and the entire prescribed portion of it has not yet been burned on the altar, I am burning it as a handful; and if it is the remainder, it is as though it were merely wood.

as ordinary wood,

as follows: He should burn the portion between the spaces on the altar and say: If it is the handful, and the entire prescribed portion has not yet been burned for the fire, I am burning it as the handful; and if it is the remainder, it is as though it were ordinary wood.

And this is

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits offering something from which a portion is given to the altar fire for the sake of wood.

For

so

it is taught

concerning limbs of a sin-offering designated for eating that became mixed—after the burning of the sacrificial parts—with limbs of an olah designated for burning, and he must, because of the uncertainty, burn all of them on the altar, since each limb might be from the olah and therefore must be burned; but, on the other hand, since the sacrificial parts of the sin-offering have been burned, its limbs are subject to “anything from which a portion is burned on the altar is subject to ‘You shall not burn any of it.’” —

And Rabbi Eliezer said in the Mishna in Zevaḥim (76a): He should place everything above on the altar, and I regard the flesh of the sin-offering above as though it were wood—

And the beraita explains the rationale of Rabbi Eliezer:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is written: “[For any leaven and any honey] you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord. [As an offering of first fruits you may present them to the Lord], but they shall not be brought up on the altar for a pleasing fragrance.” And we expound “but they shall not be brought up on the altar for a pleasing fragrance” as applying also to the verse’s teaching, “Anything from which a portion is burned on the altar is subject to ‘You shall not burn any of it.’” And this is what we say:

You may not bring it up for a pleasing fragrance

when a portion of it has already been burned on the altar,

but you may bring it up

that same item

for the sake of wood,

because since he does not intend it for burning as an offering, it is permitted [Rashi there].

And we nevertheless ask:

That works according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits offering for the sake of wood that from which a portion is burned on the altar—

But according to the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer [in Zevaḥim there] and prohibit burning it even for the sake of wood,

what can be said? For he cannot offer what is between the intervals after burning the handful, since perhaps it is the remainder, and it is subject to “You shall not burn any of it”?!

Rav Mari said:

Since he cannot burn what is between the intervals, he must avoid creating such a situation, and

strong-fingered koanim should take the handful

[koanim with thick fingers should take the handful], whose finger flesh protrudes and presses the fingers against one another, leaving no space between the intervals.

Once you have arrived at this, according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, initially,

strong-fingered koanim should take the handful—

For even Rabbi Eliezer permitted placing it on the altar for the sake of wood only in the case of olah limbs that became mixed with sin-offering limbs, since there is no other remedy for them, as otherwise they would all have to be taken to the place of burning. But wherever it is possible, it is prohibited to do so initially; and here, wherever possible, we take the handful with a koen whose fingers are thick, so that nothing enters between his fingers in a place that is not visible [Rashi and Ritva].

What is between the intervals; resolved and crushed and scattered; and he thought about it while taking his fellow’s handful—a mnemonic. There are textual corruptions here, as explained in Dikdukei Soferim.

Rav Pappa raised a question: What is the status of what is between the intervals of his full handful—

what is its status?

That is, even if you should conclude that what is between the intervals of the handful is not burned, since what is between the intervals is a protrusion, and the protrusion of the handful is not burned [as above, page 46]—

nevertheless, with regard to taking the handful of incense, we are uncertain, for it is possible that even the protrusions of the taking of the handful of incense are burned [explained according to Shi'aḥ Yitzḥak, following Rashi’s approach].

And we ask:

What is the basis of his question?

That is, what could have led Rav Pappa to be uncertain whether the protrusions of the taking of the handful of incense are burned? It must be because he raised the following question:

Did he derive the verbal analogy “full, full” from there,

from the handful of the meal-offering? And just as the protrusion of the handful of the meal-offering is not burned, because it is written, “with his handful” [as above, page 46], perhaps the same applies to the taking of the handful of incense!

And if so, this is difficult: Earlier, on page 46, we already raised the question of whether we derive “full, full” from the handful with regard to making a measure for the taking of the handful of incense; and the law of a measure for the handful is likewise derived from “with his handful” [as above, page 46]. If so, the two questions are

one and the same?!

For whichever way you look at it: If you say with regard to a measure for the taking of the handful of incense that it too has the law derived from “with his handful,” then you have said that it is as though “with his handful” had been stated with regard to the taking of the handful of incense; and you can then automatically derive from “with his handful” the law concerning the protrusions of the taking of the handful of incense.

And if you do not derive the verbal analogy “full, full” with regard to a measure for the taking of the handful of incense, then what basis is there for saying that with regard to the protrusions of the taking of the handful of incense one should derive the verbal analogy? After all, both are a single derivation from “with his handful.” [See also Rashi below, 48a, s.v. “and here too.”]

And we answer: Rav Pappa’s uncertainty is not whether we derive “full, full” from the handful, since this matter had already been asked in the beit-midrash and remained unresolved—

Rather, this is Rav Pappa’s question:

Even if you should conclude that we do not derive “full, full” from the handful, nevertheless it may be argued that what is between the intervals is not burned, since the incense entered there unintentionally. And this is his question:

It is written: “He shall take the full coal-pan of fiery coals from upon the altar before the Lord, and his full handfuls of finely ground incense, and bring it within the curtain”; it does not say, “He shall take his full handfuls.” If so, the following uncertainty arises:

Perhaps we say: Whatever is

his full handfuls and so on—even if he did not intend to take it in his hands—

and bring

it within the curtain

is required—

That is, “he shall take,” which implies taking intentionally, applies only to the coals and not to the incense. If so, the verse actually implies that even if it entered his hands automatically, he should bring it; and since this is so, he should also burn what is between the intervals, since

there is “his full handfuls,” even though he did not intend it.

Or perhaps: “He shall take”

the full coal-pan of fiery coals and so on, and his full handfuls of finely ground incense,

“and bring”

it within the curtain and so on,

is required—

That is, “he shall take” also applies to taking the incense,

and

since this is so, he does not burn what is between the intervals, since

there is no “he shall take,” which implies that he must take it intentionally?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me

that when the Torah says, “and he shall take from it,”

“his full handful,”

this means taking the handful

in the manner

in which people ordinarily take a handful

[as people generally take a handful].

“his full handful,”

this means taking a handful

in

the

manner in which people ordinarily take a handful

[as people are accustomed to take a handful].

And what is the manner of taking the handful? He places his palm and fingers edgewise upon the meal-offering, presses his hand and fingers into the meal-offering, and “closes” his fingers over his palm; thus the handful is in his hand.

But

Rav Pappa raised a question: If

he

took the handful with the tips of his fingers,

he inserted his fingers diagonally into the meal-offering, with the palm of his hand facing the meal-offering, and once he had inserted his fingers, he “closed” them over his entire palm, so that the handful was in his hand—

what is

the status of taking the handful in this manner? That is, is this a manner of taking a handful, so that this taking of the handful is “in the manner in which people ordinarily take a handful,” or not [Tosafot]?

Rav Pappa further raised a question: If he took the kometz

from below upward

, he inserted his fingers diagonally into the meal, with the back of his hand facing the meal, and once he had inserted his fingers, he “closed” them upward and lifted the kometz onto his palm [this is similar to “with his fingertips,” except that with “with his fingertips” his palm faces the meal, whereas with “from below upward” his palm faces upward].

What

is the status of this taking of the kometz: Is it “as people ordinarily take a kometz”—that is, is this the usual manner of taking a kometz?

Rav Pappa further raised a question:

If he took the kometz

from the side [

according to Rashi:

from the side ],

he placed the back of his hand flat on the meal and pushed his hand into it while pressing it down, until the fine flour entered between his fingers and his palm

what is the ruling?

And we conclude all three of these questions concerning the manner of taking the kometz:

teiku.

Now Rav Pappa raises a question concerning ḥafinah, analogous to what he was uncertain about concerning the kometz:

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me

that

“a full handful

” that the Torah mentioned means

as people ordinarily take a handful;

he inserts the tips of both hands into the ketoret and takes a handful.

But

Rav Pappa raised a question: If he took a handful with his fingertips

[in the manner explained concerning taking the kometz]—

what is the ruling?

From below upward—

what is the ruling?

From the side—

what is the ruling?

Rav Pappa further raised a question concerning ḥafinah:

If he took a handful with

one

hand

alone,

and with

the other

hand

alone,

and brought one close to the other—

what is the ruling?

And we conclude all four of Rav Pappa’s questions concerning ḥafinah:

teiku.