Menachot 26aמנחות כ״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 26a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
26aכ״ו א

ת"ש דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה הכי קאמר דם שנטמא וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד נטמא בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה:

The Gemara suggests a refutation of Rav Sheila’s opinion based on the first baraita: Come and hear: In the case of blood of an offering that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted and achieves atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. This contradicts Rav Sheila’s statement that even if the priest sprinkled the blood intentionally, it is accepted. The Gemara rejects this proof: According to Rav Sheila, this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it, whether it was sprinkled unwittingly or intentionally, if it was rendered impure unwittingly it is accepted, but if it was rendered impure intentionally then it is not accepted.

מתני׳ נטמאו שיריה נשרפו שיריה אבדו שיריה כמדת ר' אליעזר כשירה וכמדת רבי יהושע פסולה:

MISHNA: If after the handful was removed the remainder of the meal offering became ritually impure, or if the remainder of the meal offering was burned, or if the remainder of the meal offering was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling even if there is no meat that can be eaten, the meal offering is fit, and the priest burns the handful. But according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling only if there is meat that can be eaten, it is unfit and the priest does not burn the handful, as the handful serves to render permitted the remainder.

גמ׳ אמר רב והוא שנטמאו כל שיריה אבל מקצת שיריה לא

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s statement that according to Rabbi Yehoshua the meal offering is unfit if its remainder is rendered impure, Rav says: And this is the halakha only when all of its remainder became impure. But if only a part of its remainder became impure, the meal offering is not unfit.

קא סלקא דעתך נטמא אין אבוד ושרוף לא מאי קסבר אי קסבר שיורא מילתא היא אפילו אבוד ושרוף נמי אי קסבר שיורא לאו מילתא היא ונטמא מאי טעמא דמרצה ציץ אי הכי כל שיריה נמי

The Gemara comments: It enters your mind that Rav holds that only if a part of the remainder became impure, then yes, the meal offering is fit; but if part of the remainder was lost or burned, then the meal offering is not fit. The Gemara asks: What does Rav hold? If he holds that what remains is significant, so that even if a portion of the remainder cannot be eaten the handful is still sacrificed to render the rest permitted, then why would this not also be the halakha even if part of the remainder was lost or burned? Alternatively, if he holds that what remains is not significant, and the Gemara interjects: And accordingly, what is the reason that the handful is sacrificed if a part of the remainder became impure? It is because the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity; if that is so, then even if all of the remainder became impure, the handful should still be sacrificed.

לעולם קסבר שיורא מילתא היא ונטמא והוא הדין לאבוד ושרוף והאי דקאמר נטמא רישייהו נקט

The Gemara explains: Actually, he holds that what remains is significant, and just as when a part of the remainder became impure but the offering is still fit, the rest of the remainder is sacrificed, the same is true with regard to a case where a part of the remainder was lost or burned. And the reason that he stated this halakha specifically in a case where it became impure is that he employed the terminology of the beginning of the mishna, which discusses a case where the remainder became impure.

כדתני' רבי יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר מהן כזית בשר או כזית חלב זורק את הדם

Rava’s statement accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, the priest sprinkles the blood. Similarly, if a part of the remainder can be eaten the handful is still sacrificed, as the status of the remainder relative to the handful corresponds to the status of the meat relative to the blood.

כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית חלב אינו זורק את הדם ובעולה אפי' כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית חלב זורק את הדם מפני שכולה כליל ובמנחה אפי' כולה קיימת לא יזרוק

The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, the priest does not sprinkle the blood. This is because the half olive-bulk of meat and the half olive-bulk of fat do not combine to form one olive-bulk, since the former is eaten and the latter is sacrificed on the altar. And with regard to a burnt offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood, because it is consumed on the altar in its entirety. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine to form one olive-bulk. And with regard to a meal offering, although all of it remains pure, the priest shall not sprinkle the blood.

מנחה מאי עבידתה אמר רב פפא מנחת נסכים ס"ד הואיל ובהדי זבח קא אתיא כגופיה דזיבחא דמיא קמ"ל

The Gemara questions the last ruling of the baraita: What is the mention of a meal offering doing here? The discussion is about sprinkling blood, which is not relevant in the case of a meal offering. Rav Pappa said: The meal offering mentioned is the meal offering that accompanies the libations that accompany animal offerings. It could enter your mind to say: Since this meal offering accompanies the animal offering, it is comparable to the offering itself, and therefore if the offering became impure but the meal offering remained pure, the blood of the offering is sprinkled due to the remaining meal offering. To counter this, the baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha.

מנהני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל ומטו בה משום רבי יהושע בן חנניא אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, ו) והקטיר החלב לריח ניחוח לה' חלב ואע"פ שאין בשר

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the halakha that if only an olive-bulk of the fat remains, the priest sprinkles the blood of the offering. From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and there are those who determined that it was stated in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: The verse states: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall make the fat smoke for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6). This verse never mentions the meat, but only the fat, indicating that the blood is sprinkled even if there is no ritually pure meat, but only fat.

ואשכחן חלב יותרת ושתי כליות מנלן דקתני ובמנחה אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק מנחה הוא דלא יזרוק הא יותרת ושתי כליות יזרוק

The Gemara asks: And we found a source for the halakha that the priest sprinkles the blood if only fat remains. From where do we derive that the priest sprinkles the blood if all that is left is the lobe of the liver or the two kidneys, which are also sacrificed on the altar? The Gemara answers: The halakha that the priest sprinkles the blood in that case is derived from that which is taught at the end of the baraita: And with regard to a meal offering, although all of it remains pure, the priest shall not sprinkle the blood. This teaches that it is in the case of a meal offering that the priest shall not sprinkle the blood, as the meal offering is not part of the animal; but if the lobe of the liver or the two kidneys remain, the priest sprinkles the blood.

מנלן רבי יוחנן דידיה אמר לריח ניחוח כל שאתה מעלה לריח ניחוח

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself says: The verse states: “For a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6). This teaches that the blood is sprinkled whenever anything that you offer up on the altar for a pleasing aroma remains. This includes anything burned on the altar.

ואיצטריך למכתב חלב ואיצטריך למיכתב לריח ניחוח דאי כתב חלב הוה אמינא חלב אין יותרת ושתי כליות לא כתב רחמנא ריח ניחוח ואי כתב רחמנא לריח ניחוח הוה אמינא אפילו מנחה כתב רחמנא חלב:

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write “fat” in that verse, and it was necessary to write “for a pleasing aroma.” As, if the Merciful One had written only “fat,” I would say that if fat remains, yes, the priest sprinkles the blood, but if only the lobe of the liver or the two kidneys remain, since they are not as significant as the fat, the blood is not sprinkled. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “for a pleasing aroma.” And if the Merciful One had written only “for a pleasing aroma,” I would say that it includes even a meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “fat,” to teach that this halakha applies only to sacrificial parts of the animal, but not to accompanying libations and meal offerings.

מתני׳ שלא בכלי שרת פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר הקטיר קומצה פעמים כשרה:

MISHNA: A handful of a meal offering that was not sanctified in a service vessel is unfit, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. If the priest burned the handful of a meal offering twice, i.e., in two increments, it is fit.

גמ׳ אמר רבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מאי טעמא דר' שמעון אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, א) קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם בא לעובדה ביד (כחטאת) עובדה בימין כחטאת בכלי עובדה בשמאל כאשם

GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10). Rabbi Shimon derives from here that the handful of the meal offering may be placed on the altar in the manner of the blood of either a sin offering or a guilt offering. If a priest comes to perform the sacrificial rites of a meal offering with his hand, as one performs the sprinkling of the blood of a sin offering, which is performed with the priest’s right index finger, he must perform its rites with his right hand, like the sin offering. If he performs the sacrificial rites with a vessel, as one performs the sprinkling of the blood of a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel on the altar and whose sprinkling may be performed with the priest’s left hand, he may perform its rites with his left hand, like the guilt offering.

ורבי ינאי אמר כיון שקמצו מכלי שרת מעלהו ומקטירו אפילו בהמיינו ואפילו במקידה של חרש רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר הכל מודים בקומץ שטעון קידוש

And Rabbi Yannai says: According to Rabbi Shimon there are no restrictions on the manner in which the handful is sacrificed, as once the priest has removed the handful from a service vessel, he may bring it up and burn it even if he placed it in his belt, or even in an earthenware vessel. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: All concede that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel before it is sacrificed.

מיתיבי הקטר חלבים ואברים ועצים שהעלן בין ביד בין בכלי בין בימין ובין בשמאל כשרין הקומץ והקטורת והלבונה שהעלן בין ביד בין בכלי בין בימין בין בשמאל כשרין תיובתא דרבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, from a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaḥim 1:11): With regard to the burning of the fats, and the limbs, and the wood that were brought up to the altar, that the priest brought them up to the altar, whether by hand or with a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left hand, they are fit. With regard to the handful, and the incense, and the frankincense, that the priest brought them up to the altar, whether by hand or with a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left hand, they are fit. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who stated that if the handful is sacrificed by hand, it must be sacrificed only with the right hand.

אמר לך רבי יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לצדדין קתני ביד בימין בכלי בין בימין בין בשמאל:

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, could say to you that the tanna of the baraita teaches it disjunctively, and the statement should be understood as follows: If these items are brought up by hand, with the right hand, or with a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left, they are fit.

תא שמע קמצו שלא מכלי שרת וקידשו שלא בכלי שרת והעלו והקטירו שלא בכלי שרת פסול רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון מכשירין במתן כלי

The Gemara attempts to refute the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak that all concede that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel before it is sacrificed. Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: If the priest removed the handful, but not from a service vessel, and sanctified it, but not in a service vessel, and brought it up and burned it, but not in a service vessel, then it is unfit. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem it fit in a case where the handful had been placed in any type of vessel. This contradicts Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s claim that all concede that the handful must be sanctified in a service vessel.

אימא ממתן כלי ואילך

The Gemara responds: Say that according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, from the point when the handful has been placed in a service vessel and sanctified and onward, it is no longer necessary to take it in a service vessel to the altar to sacrifice it. Therefore, the baraita does not contradict Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement.

תא שמע וחכמים אומרים קומץ טעון כלי שרת כיצד קומצו מכלי שרת ומקדשו בכלי שרת ומעלו ומקטירו בכלי שרת ר' שמעון אומר כיון שקמצו מכלי שרת מעלו ומקטירו שלא בכלי שרת ודיו

The Gemara suggests another refutation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta 4:15). Come and hear: And the Rabbis say: The handful requires sanctification in a service vessel. How is this sanctification performed? The priest removes the handful from a service vessel, and sanctifies it in a service vessel, and brings it up and burns it in a service vessel. Rabbi Shimon says: Once the handful is removed from a service vessel, the priest may bring it up and burn it even if it is not in a service vessel, and this is sufficient for it. This baraita demonstrates that, in contrast to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the handful must be sanctified in a service vessel.

אימא כיון שקמצו וקדשו בכלי שרת מעלו ומקטירו ודיו

The Gemara answers: Say that according to Rabbi Shimon, once the priest removes the handful and sanctifies it in a service vessel, he may bring it up and burn it, and this is sufficient for it.

תא שמע קמץ בימינו ונתן בשמאלו יחזיר לימינו בשמאלו

The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear: If the priest removed the handful with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand. If the handful was in his left hand