Menachot 18b:6מנחות י״ח ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
18bי״ח ב

והתנן ששים נבללין ששים וא' אין נבללין והוינן בה כי אינם נבללין מאי הוי והתנן לא בלל כשרה

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (103b): One who volunteers to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths of an ephah of flour must bring a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel and a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah in a second vessel, because sixty tenths of an ephah of flour can be properly mixed with a log of oil but sixty-one tenths cannot be properly mixed with the oil. And we discussed it and asked: Even if sixty-one tenths of an ephah do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’t we learn in the mishna here that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil into the meal offering, if one did not mix the oil into it, the meal offering is still fit?

ואמר ר' זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו

And Rabbi Zeira said the following explanation: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא לא יצק לא יצק כהן אלא זר לא בלל לא בלל כלל:

The Gemara refutes this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. When the mishna states: If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, it is referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering but a non-priest did pour it. When it states: If one did not mix the oil into the meal offering, it means he did not mix the oil at all.

או שפתת' פתים מרובות כשרה: השתא לא פתת כלל כשרה פתין מרובות מיבעיא מאי פתין מרובות שריבה בפתיתין

§ The mishna teaches: Or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces [pittim merubbot] than appropriate, the meal offering is fit. The Gemara asks: Now that it has already been stated in the mishna that if one did not break the loaves into pieces at all the meal offering is fit, is it necessary to state that if one broke the meal offering into greater pieces than appropriate the meal offering is fit? The Gemara answers: What does the expression pittin merubbot mean? It means that he increased [ribba] the amount of the meal offering’s pieces by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם פתים מרובות ממש ומהו דתימא התם הוא דאיכא תורת חלות עליהן אבל הכא דלא תורת חלות איכא ולא תורת פתיתין איכא קמ"ל

And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is actually referring literally to large pieces [pittim merubbot], and it was necessary to teach this explicitly, lest you say that the meal offering is fit there, when the loaves are not broken, since they have the status of loaves, but here, when the loaves are broken into excessively large pieces and no longer have the status of loaves, as they have been broken up, but still do not have the status of pieces, as they are not the correct size, the offering is not fit. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha explicitly.

לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל כהן שאינו מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכהונה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים ואת החלב מבני אהרן לו תהיה שוק הימין למנה מודה בעבודה יש לו חלק בכהונה שאינו מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכהונה

§ Based on the Gemara’s earlier inference that when the mishna states that the meal offering is valid even if the priest did not pour the oil it is referring to a case where a non-priest did perform this action, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This teaches that one who admits to the validity of the sacrificial rites and accepts responsibility for them has a portion in the priestly gifts, but one who does not admit to the validity of the sacrificial rites does not have a portion in the priestly gifts.

ואין לי אלא זו בלבד מנין לרבות ט"ו עבודות

The baraita continues: And I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not admit to the validity of these rites of the presenting of the blood or the burning of the fats alone, which are the sacrificial rites of a slaughtered offering, as those rites are enumerated in the verse. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of the fifteen sacrificial rites performed by the priests?

היציקות והבלילות והפתיתות והמליחות והתנופות וההגשות והקמיצות והקטרות והמליקות והקבלות והזאות והשקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע ונשיאות כפים בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ מנין

The baraita clarifies: These are the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of oil, the mixing, the breaking, the salting, the waving, the bringing of the offering to the altar, the removal of the handful, and the burning of the handful on the altar. And it includes other rites as well: The pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering, and the receiving of the blood in a vessel, and the sprinkling of the blood, and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck, and the purification of a leper, and lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple. From where is it derived that this halakha also includes one who does not admit to the validity of these rites?

ת"ל מבני אהרן עבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה

The baraita continues: The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” teaching that with regard to any sacrificial rite that is entrusted to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to its validity does not have a portion in the priestly gifts. Since the pouring of the oil is included in the list of sacrificial rites entrusted to the priests, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering should not be fit if this service was performed by a non-priest.

אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן במנחת כהנים כאן במנחת ישראל מנחת ישראל דבת קמיצה היא מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה לימד על יציקה ובלילה שכשירה בזר מנחת כהנים דלאו בת קמיצה היא מעיקרא בעיא כהונה

Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. There, in the baraita, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the meal offering of priests, whereas here, in the mishna, the context is a meal offering of an Israelite. In the case of a meal offering of an Israelite, which is one that requires the removal of a handful to be burned on the altar, a verse teaches that from the stage of the removal of the handful onward, the rites performed with the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest. By contrast, the meal offering of priests, which is one that does not require the removal of a handful, as the entire meal offering is burned on the altar, requires that from the outset the rites must be performed by a member of the priesthood; otherwise it is unfit.

אמר ליה רבא מכדי מנחת כהנים מהיכא איתרבי ליציקה ממנחת ישראל מה התם כשירה בזר אף הכא נמי כשירה בזר

Rava said to him: After all, in the case of the meal offering of priests, from where was it included that there is an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from the halakha of the meal offering of an Israelite, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, just as there the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא כאן בנקמצות כאן בשאין נקמצות

There are those who say the discussion took place as follows: Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna teaches that a meal offering is fit if the oil was poured by a non-priest, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is removed, whereas there, in the baraita that lists the pouring of the oil as one of the rites performed by the priests, it is referring to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed.

אמר ליה רבא מכדי שאין נקמצות מהיכא איתרבי ליציקה מנקמצות כנקמצות מה התם כשירה בזר אף הכא נמי כשירה בזר אלא מחוורתא מתניתין דלא כר' שמעון

Rava said to him: After all, in the case of meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, from where was it included that there is also an obligation to pour the oil? It is derived from meal offerings from which a handful is removed, where this halakha is stated explicitly. Therefore, the halakha with regard to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed is like the halakha with regard to those from which a handful is removed; just as there, the rite is valid when performed by a non-priest, so too here, the rite is also valid when performed by a non-priest. Rather, since Rava deflected Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

מ"ט דרבנן אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, א) ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה והביאה אל בני אהרן הכהן וקמץ מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה לימד על יציקה ובלילה שכשירה בזר

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who hold that the offering is fit even if the oil was poured by a non-priest? The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall remove his handful” (Leviticus 2:1–2). From here it is derived that from the removal of the handful onward, the rites of the meal offering are solely the mitzva of the members of the priesthood. Therefore, this verse also teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mixing, rites performed before the removal of the handful, are valid even if they are performed by a non-priest.

ורבי שמעון בני אהרן

The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Shimon say in response? He would say that when it states: “Aaron’s sons,