Menachot 11bמנחות י״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 11b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
11bי״א ב
1 א

והתניא (ר' שמעון אומר) קומץ ולבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול תני קורט לבונה שחסר כל שהוא פסול ואיבעית אימא כאן בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה כאן בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A handful of flour or frankincense that was decreased by any amount from its full measure is disqualified? The Gemara answers that one should teach the baraita as follows: A pinch of frankincense that was decreased by any amount is disqualified. And if you wish, say instead that here, the first cited statement of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the case of frankincense that comes with a meal offering, and this frankincense is disqualified only when there is less than a pinch, whereas there, the second statement of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the case of frankincense that comes by itself. Such frankincense is disqualified if it comprises any less than its full measure.

2 ב

א"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן ג' מחלוקת בדבר ר"מ סבר קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף ורבי יהודה סבר קומץ בתחילה ושני קרטין בסוף ור"ש סבר קומץ בתחילה וקורט אחד בסוף

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There are three disputes of tanna’im with regard to the matter. Rabbi Meir holds that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning, and ultimately the entire handful must be burned upon the altar. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning, and ultimately at least two pinches from it must be burned upon the altar. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning and ultimately at least one pinch from it must be burned upon the altar.

3 ג

ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא ו, ח) ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה ר"מ סבר עד דאיתא ללבונה דאיקבעה בהדי מנחה מעיקרא ורבי יהודה סבר כל ואפי' חד קורט את לרבות קורט אחר ור"ש את לא דריש

And all three of them interpret a single verse differently. The verse states: “And he shall take up from there his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of the oil of it, and [ve’et] all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering, and shall make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:8). Rabbi Meir holds that one may not make the offering smoke upon the altar unless there remains the entire measure of frankincense that was initially fixed together with the meal offering. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that when the verse states: “All [kol],” it is referring to any part of the frankincense, even a single pinch, as kol can mean any amount (see II Kings 2:4). And when the verse states: Et,” this serves to includ-e another pinch. Accordingly, at least two pinches must remain to be burned upon the altar. And Rabbi Shimon interprets the word “all” in the same manner as does Rabbi Yehuda, but he does not interpret and derive a halakha from the term et,” and he therefore holds that only one pinch must remain to be burned.

4 ד

וא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה ד"ה קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף להכי איצטריך אשר על המנחה דבהדי מנחה אין בפני עצמה לא

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef further says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between these tanna’im is with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering. But with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the priest must bring a handful at the beginning, and ultimately the entire handful must be burned upon the altar. For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: “That is upon the meal offering,” as this indicates that together with a meal offering, yes, one may burn the frankincense even if there remains only a pinch or two, but with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, one may not burn it if it is in that state.

5 ה

וא"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בבזיכין דברי הכל שני קמצין בתחילה ושני קמצין בסוף

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between these tanna’im is with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering. But with regard to frankincense that comes in bowls together with the shewbread, everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, agrees that there must be two handfuls in the beginning, one handful for each bowl, and ultimately there must also be two handfuls.

6 ו

פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דבהדי לחם אתיא כאשר על המנחה דמיא קמ"ל

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is the case, as with regard to this halakha the verse does not state the term: All, from which one might derive that it is referring to any part of the frankincense? The Gemara explains: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that since the frankincense in the bowls comes together with bread, i.e., the shewbread, it should be considered as: “Frankincense that is upon the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:8), and therefore Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that one may sacrifice it even if less than two handfuls remain. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef teaches us that this is not the case.

7 ז

פליגי בה רבי אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא חד אמר מחלוקת בלבונה הבאה עם המנחה אבל בלבונה הבאה בפני עצמה דברי הכל קומץ בתחילה וקומץ בסוף וחד אמר כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו:

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree with regard to the case of frankincense that comes by itself. One says that the dispute between the tanna’im with regard to whether or not a handful of frankincense that became lacking may be sacrificed upon the altar applies only with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering, but with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, everyone agrees that the priest must remove a handful at the beginning and ultimately the entire handful must be burned upon the altar. And one says: Just as there is a dispute in this case, so too, there is a dispute in that case.

8 ח

חיסר לבונתה [פסולה]: הא יתיר כשרה והתניא יתיר פסולה אמר רמי בר חמא כגון שהפריש לה שני קמצין

§ The mishna teaches that if the priest decreased its frankincense beyond its appropriate measure, the meal offering is unfit. The Gemara infers from this statement that if he increased its frankincense, it is fit. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if he increased its frankincense the meal offering is disqualified? Rami bar Ḥama said: The baraita rules that the meal offering is disqualified in a case where he separated two handfuls of frankincense for the meal offering and placed both of them onto the meal offering.

9 ט

ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש לה שני קמצין ואבד אחד מהן קודם קמיצה לא הוקבעו אחר קמיצה הוקבעו

And Rami bar Ḥama says: In a case where one separated two handfuls of frankincense for the meal offering and subsequently lost one of them, if it was lost before the removal of the handful of the meal offering, the additional frankincense was not fixed with the meal offering, and therefore it does not disqualify the meal offering. But if this occurred after the removal of the handful of the meal offering, since both handfuls were already fixed with the meal offering, it is disqualified, as he increased its frankincense by a large amount.

10 י

ואמר רמי בר חמא הפריש ארבעה קמצין לשני בזיכין ואבדו שנים מהן קודם סילוק בזיכין לא הוקבעו לאחר סילוק בזיכין הוקבעו

And Rami bar Ḥama says: In a case where one separated four handfuls of frankincense for placement in the two bowls that accompany the shewbread, and two of them were subsequently lost, the halakha depends on when they were lost. If they were lost before the removal of the bowls from the Table of the shewbread, then the additional frankincense was not yet fixed with the shewbread, and the frankincense remains fit for sacrifice. But if they were lost after the removal of the bowls, then all four handfuls were already fixed with the shewbread, and therefore the frankincense is disqualified.

11 יא

הא תו למה לי היינו הך

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this? This statement of Rami bar Ḥama is identical to that previous statement, as the burning of the frankincense permits the shewbread for consumption just as the frankincense permits the meal offering for consumption. Consequently, the removal of the bowls of frankincense is comparable to the removal of the handful from a meal offering.

12 יב

מהו דתימא כיון דבריר קומץ דידה כיון שהגיע זמנה לפורקה כמאן דפריקה דמיא קמ"ל:

The Gemara explains: The last statement of Rami bar Ḥama is necessary, lest you say that since the handful of frankincense of the shewbread is already considered designated for burning, as it is placed in a separate bowl and burned in its entirety, then once the time arrives for removing the bowls from upon the Table of the shewbread, it is considered as though the bowls were already removed, and the shewbread should therefore be disqualified on account of the additional frankincense. Therefore, Rami bar Ḥama teaches us that the additional handfuls disqualify the shewbread only if they were inside the bowls at the time of their actual removal from the Table.

13 יג

מתני׳ הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה בחוץ או כזית משיריה בחוץ להקטיר קומצה בחוץ או כזית קומצה בחוץ או להקטיר לבונתה בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת לאכול שיריה למחר או כזית משיריה למחר להקטיר קומצה למחר או כזית מקומצה למחר או להקטיר לבונה למחר

MISHNA: With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard, to burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple courtyard, or to burn its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases the offering is unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it. If one had the intent to partake of its remainder on the next day or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder on the next day, to burn its handful on the next day or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful on the next day, or to burn its frankincense on the next day,