לרבנן הוכפלה לבונתו או לא מי אמרינן מתוך שהוכפלה סלתו הוכפלה לבונתו או דילמא מאי דגלי גלי מאי דלא גלי לא גלי according to the Rabbis, who hold that generally one handful of frankincense is divided between the morning and afternoon offerings, is the amount of frankincense doubled or not? Do we say that since in this case its fine flour is doubled, as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour is sacrificed in both the morning and evening, its frankincense is also doubled? Or perhaps that which the verse reveals, i.e., that a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and afternoon, it reveals, and that which it does not reveal, it does not reveal; and therefore, since the verse does not indicate that the amount of frankincense is doubled, only one handful is brought.
ושמן בין לאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי ובין לרבנן מהו And furthermore, what is the halakha concerning the oil of the griddle-cake offering in a case where the High Priest died and was not yet replaced, both according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai and according to the Rabbis? Is the required amount three log, as it is when the High Priest brings the griddle-cake offering, or is the amount of oil doubled just as the amount of fine flour is doubled?
אמר רבא ת"ש ה' קמצין הן ואם איתא זימנין דמשכחת לה ז' Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma concerning the quantity of frankincense that is brought in this case, based upon a mishna (106b): There are five halakhot pertaining to a handful. The halakha of the frankincense sacrificed with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is not included in this number, because only half a handful of frankincense is sacrificed at one time. And if it is so that when there is no High Priest a complete handful is brought in the morning and in the afternoon, then sometimes you find that there are seven halakhot pertaining to a handful.
דאי לא קתני יתיב רב פפא וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב יוסף בר שמעיה לרב פפא והא מעלה קומץ בחוץ דאי הוה וקתני The Gemara rejects this proof: The tanna does not teach cases of what if the High Priest died, and is speaking only about a typical case. The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and teaching this halakha. Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa: But the mishna does list the case of one who intentionally offers up the handful from a meal offering outside the Temple courtyard, who is liable to receive karet. This is not a standard case but rather a case of what if, and nevertheless it is taught in the mishna. Accordingly, Rava’s proof is valid.
מאי הוי עלה אמר ר"נ בר יצחק ת"ש דתניא כ"ג שמת ולא מינו אחר תחתיו שלימה שחרית ושלימה בין הערבים ומפריש לה ב' קמצין קומץ שחרית וקומץ בין הערבים ומפריש לה שלשת לוגין לוג ומחצה שחרית לוג ומחצה בין הערבים The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a High Priest who died and they did not yet appoint another in his stead, a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour is brought for the griddle-cake offering in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is brought in the afternoon. And one separates two handfuls of frankincense for it, and sacrifices one handful with the morning offering and one handful with the afternoon offering. And one separates three log of oil for it, and brings a log and a half with the morning offering and a log and a half with the afternoon offering.
מני אילימא רבנן מאי שנא לבונתה דהוכפלה ומאי שנא שמנה דלא הוכפלה The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what is different about its frankincense such that it is doubled in the case where the High Priest died, and what is different about its oil such that it is not doubled?
אלא אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי היא דאמר חביתי כ"ג בעלמא שני קמצין בעיא ולבונה לא הוכפלה ושמן לא הוכפל Rather, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Dostai, who said: The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest generally requires two handfuls. And therefore when the baraita requires two handfuls of frankincense in the case where the High Priest died and another has not yet been appointed, the frankincense is not being doubled and the oil is also not doubled. Therefore, three log of oil are required, as usual.
ומדשמן לאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי לא הוכפלה לבונתה ושמנה לרבנן נמי לא הוכפלו And from the fact that according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai the requisite oil is not doubled, one can conclude that also according to the Rabbis its frankincense and its oil are not doubled.
א"ר יוחנן הלכה כאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן חמשה קמצין הן This discussion in the Gemara began with Rabbi Yoḥanan presenting the dispute between Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis, and it concludes with his ruling concerning their dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Dostai. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, and we learned in the unattributed mishna cited earlier: There are only five halakhot pertaining to a handful. Since the mishna does not list the fact that a handful of frankincense is offered twice daily with the griddle-cake offering, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan accept that opinion?
אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן: The Gemara answers: They are different amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. One said that Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in accordance with Abba Yosei ben Dostai, and one said that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.
הדרן עלך התכלת
מתני׳ כל המנחות באות מצה חוץ מחמץ שבתודה ושתי הלחם שהן באות חמץ MISHNA: All the meal offerings come to be offered as matza, with care taken to prevent leavening, except for ten loaves of leavened bread among the forty loaves that accompany the thanks offering, and the meal offering of the two loaves that are brought on the festival of Shavuot, as they come to be offered as leavened bread.
ר"מ אומר השאור בודה להן מתוכן ומחמצן The Sages disagree as to the manner in which those meal offerings are leavened. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to the leaven added to the dough to facilitate leavening, one separates [bodeh] part of the flour for the meal offerings from within the flour of the meal offerings themselves, causes it to become leaven, and leavens the meal offerings with it.
ר' יהודה אומר אף היא אינה מן המובחר אלא מביא את השאור ונותנו לתוך המדה וממלא את המדה אמרו לו אף היא היתה חסרה או יתרה: Rabbi Yehuda says: That is also not the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva, as aged leaven is a more effective leavening agent. Rather, one brings the leaven from another, aged, dough and places it into the measuring vessel, and then he adds flour until he fills the measuring vessel, to ensure the appropriate measure of a tenth of an ephah of flour. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: That too is inappropriate, as in that manner the meal offering will either be lacking the requisite measure or be greater than the required measure, as the Gemara will explain.
גמ׳ בעא מיניה רבי פרידא מרבי אמי מנין לכל המנחות שהן באות מצה מנלן דכתיב בה כתיב בה דלא כתיב בה כתיב בה GEMARA: Rabbi Perida raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: From where is it derived with regard to all the meal offerings that they come to be offered as matza? Rabbi Ami was puzzled by this question, and replied: What do you mean when you say: From where do we derive this? Concerning every meal offering with regard to which it is written explicitly in the Torah that it comes as matza, it is written with regard to it, and therefore the dilemma does not arise. And concerning any meal offering where it is not written explicitly with regard to it that it must be matza, nevertheless it is written with regard to it: