Yoma 47b — the Talmud in English

and in

the taking of the handful of a meal-offering of

a pan and a deep pan [or an oven-baked offering — Tosafot Yom Tov, Menahot, chapter 1],

which are types of frying that are first baked, and he then breaks them up and afterward takes a handful, and their taking is more difficult than the taking of a handful of a fine-flour meal-offering, whose protrusions fall away by themselves [Rashi]] .

How does he act so that the handful does not bulge and protrude beyond the fullness of his handful? He

scrapes off [removes]

the protrusions that bulge and protrude —

with his thumb from above, and with his

the

little finger [the pinky]

[the pinky]

from below.

And this is difficult service in the Temple,

to be exacting that nothing remain in his handful except the handful itself, neither less nor more [Rashi, Menahot 11a]. And we wonder: Is it indeed that

this is

difficult service in the Temple,

and nothing else [are there no additional difficult services in the Temple]?!

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

But there is pinching

of a bird, concerning which too we learned in the beraita: And this is difficult service in the Temple?!

But there is

also

the taking of the handful

the second one in the Holy of Holies, concerning which too we learned in the beraita below: And this is difficult service in the Temple?! [see below, note]] 34]

Rather,

say this:

this —

the taking of the handful of the pan and the deep pan —

is

one

of the difficult services in the Temple.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uzaa raised a question:

Fine flour that enters

between the intervening spaces [between the priest’s fingers]

at the time of taking the handful,

what is its status,

whether is it included within the handful, or not [see note]] ?

He said

explained

Rav Pappa: “the inner” [what is visible inside, Aramaic translation]

[what is visible inside, in the translation of the Aramaic version]

do not raise the question for yourself; it is certainly a handful.

And

“the outer” [what is visible outside, Aramaic translation]

also

do not raise the question for yourself; it is certainly the remainder.

When you do raise the question for yourself: “that which is between the intervening spaces,”

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

what

is it: a handful or the remainder?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uzaa subsequently resolved it: what is between the intervening spaces is doubtful ;

and because of the doubt he burns even what is between the intervening spaces!

And we explain:

how does he act,

how does he burn both of them?

Rabbi Hanina said: He burns the handful by itself [alone] —

[alone]

first, and afterward [again] burns what was

[again] he burns what was

between the intervening spaces.

For if you say:

he should burn

what is between the intervening spaces first

before he burns the handful, then

perhaps they are the remainder, and they become

the remainder that remained:

remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful

and the burning;

and

behold

the Master said: With regard to remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning, one does not burn the handful on account of it !

And we wonder:

If so [see note]

behold

now too —

when he burns the handful first, he will again be unable to burn what is between the intervening spaces after it?! For perhaps what is between the intervening spaces is the remainder, and

here this applies [I call this matter]:

[I invoke this prohibition]:

“Anything from which is for the fires” [since you have given to the fire all that is prescribed for it, Rashi],

[once you have given its entire prescribed portion to the fire, Rashi]

it is —

what remains —

subject to “You shall not burn”;

and since it is possible that all that is prescribed for the meal-offering has already been burned, it is again impossible to burn what is between the intervening spaces?!

And the Sages learned this law from the statement of the verse: “[For every leavening and every honey] you shall not burn from it a fire-offering to the Lord. [As an offering of first fruits you may bring them to the Lord, but on the altar they shall not ascend for a pleasing fragrance]”; and the Sages expounded: “You shall not burn from it a fire-offering to the Lord” — you shall not burn something from which [a portion] has been given to the fire.

Rabbi

answered

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi:

he should not burn what is between the intervening spaces for the purpose of burning, so that he should not transgress, due to the doubt, “You shall not burn”;

rather

he burns it

what is between the intervening spaces

for the sake of wood

merely — and this is what he does: He burns what is between the intervening spaces on the altar and says: If it is a handful, and all that is prescribed for it has not yet been burned for the fires, I am burning it for the sake of a handful; and if it is the remainder, it is as though it were merely wood.

And

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits offering something from which [a portion] has been given to the fires — for the sake of wood.

For

thus

it was taught

concerning limbs of a sin-offering designated for eating that became mixed — after the burning of the sacrificial portions — with limbs of a burnt-offering designated for burning, and because of the doubt he must burn them all on the altar, for each limb may be a limb of a burnt-offering and must be burned; while, on the other hand, the limbs of the sin-offering, since the sacrificial portions have been burned, are subject to “anything from which is for the fires is subject to ‘You shall not burn.’” -

And Rabbi Eliezer said in the Mishna in Zevahim [76a]: He shall 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 reason for Rabbi Eliezer:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is written, “[For every leavening and every honey] you shall not burn from it a fire-offering to the Lord [as an offering of first fruits you may bring them to the Lord], and on the altar they shall not ascend for a pleasing fragrance,” and we expound “and on the altar they shall not ascend for a pleasing fragrance” as also applying to the exposition of the verse, “Anything from which is for the fires is subject to ‘You shall not burn.’” And this is what we say:

“For a pleasing fragrance you may not raise”

that from which a portion has already been burned for the fires,

but you may raise

it

for the sake of wood,

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

But we still wonder:

This works according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits offering for the sake of wood that from which [a portion] is for the fires —

but according to the Rabbis,

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

what is there to say,

for he cannot offer what is between the intervening spaces after burning the handful, for perhaps it is remainder, and it is subject to “You shall not burn”?!

Rav Mari said:

Since he cannot burn what is between the intervening spaces, one must avoid coming to this situation, and

well-fed priests shall take the handful [well-fed priests shall take the handful of the meal-offering],

for the flesh of their fingers protrudes and presses one against the other, and there is no intervening space there.

Now that you have arrived at this, according to Rabbi Eliezer too, ideally well-fed priests shall take the handful —

For even Rabbi Eliezer permitted raising [it] for the sake of wood only with limbs of a burnt-offering that became mixed with limbs of a sin-offering, since they have no other remedy, for otherwise they would all go to the place of burning; but wherever it is possible, it is forbidden to do so initially. Here, wherever it is possible, we perform the taking of the handful with a well-fed priest, so that nothing enters between the fingers in a place that is not visible [Rashi and Ritba]. [ בין הביניים פשט ומחץ ופזר וחשב בחפינת חבירו —

The portion between the spaces: resolve, strike, scatter, and think during another person’s taking of the handful—

a mnemonic; there are corruptions here, as explained in “Dikdukei Soferim”].

Rav Pappa raised a question: What is the status of what is between the intervening spaces of the fullness of his handfuls —

what is its status?

That is: Even if you should say that what is between the intervening spaces of a handful is not burned, since what is between the intervening spaces is a protrusion, and the protrusion of the handful is not burned [as above, first side] —

nevertheless, concerning taking the handful of incense we are uncertain, for it is possible that even the protrusions of the handful of incense are burned [explained according to “Siah Yitzhak,” following Rashi’s method].

And we wonder:

What is he raising a question about?

That is: From where does it follow that Rav Pappa is uncertain whether the protrusions of the handful of incense are burned? Certainly because he is raising the question:

Whether he derives the gzera shava, “full, full,” from there,

from the handful of the meal-offering, and just as with the handful of the meal-offering its protrusion is not burned because it is written, “with his handful” [as above, first side], perhaps so too with taking the handful of incense!

And since this is so, it is difficult: We already raised the question above, on the first side, whether we derive “full, full” from the handful, concerning making a measure for taking the handful of incense; and the law of a measure concerning the handful we likewise derive from “with his handful” [as above, first side]. If so, the two questions are

the same thing?!

For in either event: If you say concerning the measure for taking the handful of incense that even with taking the handful of incense there is the law learned from “with his handful,” then you have said that it is as though “with his handfuls” were said concerning taking the handful of incense; and again, you can automatically learn from “with his handfuls” concerning the protrusions of taking the handful of incense.

]And if you do not learn — concerning the measure for taking the handful of incense — the gzera shava, “full, full,” then from where would it follow that concerning the protrusions of taking the handful of incense one should learn the gzera shava? For everything is one teaching from “with his handful.” [And see further in 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 was already asked in the study hall and was not resolved —

rather

this is what Rav Pappa is asking:

Even if you should say that we do not derive “full, full” from the handful, nevertheless one must consider that what is between the intervening spaces is not burned, since the incense entered there unintentionally; and this is what he is raising as a question:

It is written: “And he shall take the coal-pan full of fiery coals from upon the altar, and the fullness of his handfuls” — and it did not say, “And he shall take the fullness of his handfuls” — “of finely ground incense of spices, and bring it from within the curtain”; and if so, there is room for uncertainty:

Do we say: Everything that is

“the fullness of his handfuls” and so forth, even if he did not intend to take it in his handfuls,

even if he did not intend to take it in his handfuls,

“and bring”

from within the curtain

is required —

that is: “And he shall take,” which implies that he shall take intentionally, applies only to the coals and not to the incense; and if so, on the contrary, it implies that even if it enters his handfuls automatically, he shall bring it; and since this is so, he shall also burn what is between the intervening spaces, for

there is

“the fullness of his handfuls,” even though he did not intend [to take it].

Or perhaps: “And he shall take”

“the coal-pan full of fiery coals, and the fullness of his handfuls of finely ground incense of spices”

“and bring”

from within the curtain and so forth,”

is required —

that is: “And he shall take” also applies to taking the incense,

and

since this is so, he does not burn what is between the intervening spaces, for

there is not

“and he shall take,” which implies: he shall take intentionally?

And we conclude:

let it stand unresolved.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me,

that what the Torah said, “And he shall take a handful from there,”

“the fullness of his handful,”

means taking a handful

in the

manner

in which people take a handful [as they 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 on their edge upon the meal-offering, presses his hand and fingers into the meal-offering, and “closes” his fingers over his palm, and behold, a handful is in his hand.

But

Rav Pappa raised a question:

If

he took a handful with the tips of his fingers,

he inserted his fingers — with the palm of his hand facing the meal-offering — diagonally into the meal-offering, and once he inserted his fingers, he “closed” them over his “entire” palm, and behold, a handful is in his hand —

what is its status

whether taking a handful in this manner is effective; that is, is this a manner of taking a handful, so that this taking is “taking in the manner in which people take a handful,” or not [Tosafot]?

Again Rav Pappa asks: If he took a handful

from below upward

, he inserted his fingers—when the back of the hand was turned toward the meal-offering—diagonally into the meal-offering, and once he had inserted his fingers, he “closed” them upward and lifted the handful onto his palm [and this is similar to “the tips of his fingers,” except that with “the tips of his fingers” his palm is turned toward the meal-offering, whereas with “from below upward” his palm is turned upward].

What

is this taking of a handful: “taking a handful as people take handfuls”? That is, is this the manner of taking a handful?

Again Rav Pappa asks:

If he took a handful

from the side

[in Rashi:

from the side

], he placed the back of his hand flat upon the meal-offering and pushed his hand while pressing it into the meal-offering, until the fine flour entered between his fingers and his palm

what is [the law]?

And we conclude regarding all three of these questions about the manner of taking a handful:

teiku.

And now Rav Pappa asks concerning taking a handful of incense, analogous to what he was uncertain about concerning the handful:

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me

, that

“full handfuls

” that the Torah stated means:

as people take handfuls;

he inserts the edges of both his hands into the incense and takes a handful.

But

Rav Pappa asks: If he took a handful with the tips of his fingers

[and in the manner explained concerning taking a handful]—

what is [the law]?

From below upward—

what is [the law]?

From the side—

what is [the law]?

Again Rav Pappa asks concerning taking a handful of incense:

With

one

hand

alone,

and with

the other

hand

alone,

and he brings this one next to the other—

what is [the law]?

And we conclude regarding all four of Rav Pappa’s questions concerning taking a handful of incense:

teiku.