Menachot 8aמנחות ח׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Menachot 8a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
8aח׳ א

ואם איתא לילף מדם וכי תימא רבי אלעזר מילתא ממילתא לא גמר והא אמר ר' אלעזר מנחה שקמצה בהיכל כשרה שכן מצינו בסילוק בזיכין

And if it is so that Rabbi Elazar holds that blood may not be sanctified in halves, let him derive the halakha of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering from that of blood. And if you would say that in this case Rabbi Elazar does not derive the halakha of the matter of a meal offering from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A meal offering from which the priest removed a handful while inside the Sanctuary is valid, despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is that we find a similar case in the Sanctuary, with regard to the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread? Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption when removed in the Sanctuary, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption. This indicates that Rabbi Elazar does derive the halakha of a meal offering from that of another matter.

מנחה ממנחה יליף מנחה מדם לא יליף

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar does derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering from that of another meal offering; the shewbread is considered a meal offering. But he does not derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering from that of blood.

ומנחה ממנחה מי יליף והתניא עד שלא פרקה נפרס לחמה הלחם פסול ואין מקטיר עליו את הבזיכין משפרקה נפרס לחמה הלחם פסול ומקטיר עליו את הבזיכין

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar derive the halakha of one meal offering from that of another meal offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If before the priest detached the arrangement of shewbread and the bowls of frankincense from upon the Table, the bread broke into pieces, the bread is unfit for consumption and the priest does not burn the frankincense contained in the bowls on account of it. If the bread broke after the priest detached it, the bread is unfit but the priest burns the frankincense contained in the bowls on account of it.

ואמר ר' אלעזר לא פרקה ממש אלא כיון שהגיע זמנה לפרק אע"פ שלא פרקה כמי שפרקה דמיא

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Elazar says: When the baraita refers to the detachment of the shewbread, it does not mean that the priest actually detached it. Rather, it means that once the time to detach it has arrived, even though he has not yet detached it and has not removed the bowls, it is considered as though he has detached it. Accordingly, if the shewbread broke after that time, the frankincense is burned.

ואמאי תיהוי כמנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה

The Gemara explains its question: And if Rabbi Elazar derives the halakha of one meal offering from another, why does he say that frankincense contained in the bowls are burned in a case where the shewbread broke when the time to detach the bread had arrived? It should be like the case of a meal offering that became lacking in its measure before the removal of the handful. Such a handful is not removed and is not sacrificed upon the altar. Likewise, the frankincense was still on the Table when the shewbread broke and should therefore be disqualified.

הא לא קשיא מנחה לא בריר ברירה קומץ דידיה והא בריר ברירה קומץ דידה וכיון שהגיע זמנה לפרק כמאן דפרקה דמיא

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a difference between these meal offerings. In the case of a meal offering that became lacking before the removal of a handful, its handful was not clearly designated. Consequently, if the meal offering became lacking before a handful was removed, one may no longer remove a handful from it. But in the case of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, its handful, i.e., the frankincense, was clearly designated at the time when the frankincense was placed in the bowls, since the frankincense is in a separate container from the bread. And therefore, once the time to detach the bread has arrived, it is considered as though he has detached it.

אלא מעתה תיהוי כשירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה דאין מקטירין קומץ עליהן לאו פלוגתא נינהו רבי אלעזר סבר לה כמ"ד שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה מקטיר קומץ עליהן

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, then even if the time to detach the shewbread arrived, why is the frankincense burned? It should be like a case where the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning upon the altar; the halakha in this case is that one does not burn the handful on account of such a meal offering. The Gemara responds: Isn’t it a dispute among the amora’im (9a) whether or not the handful is burned in such a case? One can say that Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that if the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning, the priest burns the handful on account of such a meal offering.

גופא חביתי כהן גדול רבי יוחנן אמר אינה קדושה לחצאין ור' אלעזר אמר מתוך שקרבה לחצאין קדושה לחצאין א"ר אחא מאי טעמא דרבי יוחנן אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, יג) מנחה מחציתה הביא מנחה ואח"כ חוציהו

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: With regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is not sanctified in halves, and Rabbi Elazar says: Since it is sacrificed in halves, as half of the meal offering is sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon, it may likewise be sanctified in halves. Rav Aḥa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The verse states: “A meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This means: First bring a whole meal offering, and only afterward divide it into halves.

מיתיבי חביתי כהן גדול לא היו באות חצאין אלא מביא עשרון שלם וחוצהו ותניא אילו נאמר מנחה מחצית הייתי אומר מביא חצי עשרון מביתו שחרית ומקריב חצי עשרון מביתו ערבית ומקריב ת"ל מחציתה בבקר מחצה משלם הוא מביא

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The mishna teaches (50b): The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings a full tenth of an ephah and then divides it into two. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If it were stated: A meal offering, half in the morning, and half in the evening, I would say: He brings half of a tenth from his home in the morning and sacrifices it, and another half of a tenth from his home in the evening and sacrifices it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning,” indicating that he brings a half from a whole, and he does not bring a half by itself.

למצוה אמר ליה רב גביהא מבי כתיל לרב אשי והא חוקה כתיב בה אמר ליה לא נצרכא אלא להביאה שלם מביתו

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar maintains that the verse requires that a whole meal offering be brought in the morning only for a mitzva, i.e., ab initio. Nevertheless, if half of a tenth was brought in the morning it is valid after the fact. Rav Geviha from Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: But the term “statute” is written with regard to the griddle-cake offering, as the verse states: “A statute forever” (Leviticus 6:15), and there is a principle that whenever the Torah calls a mitzva a statute, the details of its performance are indispensable. Rav Ashi said to him: It was necessary for the Torah to define this mitzva as a statute only with regard to the requirement that the High Priest bring a full tenth from his home. With regard to its sanctification in a service vessel, it can be sanctified in halves.

ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא איתמר הפריש חצי עשרון ודעתו להוסיף רב אמר אינו קדוש ור' יוחנן אמר קדוש ואם איתא לילף מחביתין

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But it was stated: If one set aside half a tenth of an ephah for any meal offering, and his intention was to add to the half in order to reach a full tenth, Rav says that it is not sanctified, as he did not bring a full tenth, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is sanctified. And if it is so that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the griddle-cake offering cannot be sanctified in halves, let him derive from the griddle-cake offering that no meal offering may be sanctified in halves.

וכי תימא ר' יוחנן מילתא ממילתא לא יליף והאמר רבי יוחנן שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשירין דכתיב (ויקרא ג, ב) ושחטו פתח אהל מועד שלא יהא טפל חמור מעיקר

And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not derive the halakha of one matter with regard to consecrated items from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Peace offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is written: “And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: It is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area, i.e., the courtyard, should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major area, the Tent of Meeting. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan derives a halakha with regard to the Sanctuary from the Temple courtyard.

דעתו להוסיף שאני דתניא (במדבר ז, יג) מלאים אין מלאים אלא שלמים (כלומר שאינו קדוש עד שיהא עשרון שלם) ואמר רבי יוסי אימתי בזמן שאין דעתו להוסיף אבל בזמן שדעתו להוסיף ראשון ראשון קדוש

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact derive the halakha of one matter from another, and therefore he learns the halakha with regard to all meal offerings from the griddle-cake offering, that in general they are not sanctified in halves. But a case where one expresses his intention to add to the half measure is different, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Both of them full of fine flour” (Numbers 7:13). “Full” is a reference only to full measurements; that is to say, the flour is not sanctified until there is a full tenth inside the vessel. And Rabbi Yosei said: When is it the halakha that the flour is sanctified only if a full tenth is inside the vessel? It is at a time when his intention was not initially to add to that which he placed inside the vessel. But at a time when his intention was initially to add, each initial bit of flour is sanctified by the vessel.

ורב בחביתין כמאן ס"ל אי כר' אלעזר לילף מחביתין

The Gemara asks: And Rav, who holds that standard meal offerings are not sanctified in halves even if one’s initial intention was to add to the half measure, with regard to a griddle-cake offering, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that a griddle-cake offering can be sanctified in halves, then let him derive from the halakha of griddle-cake offerings that all meal offerings may be sanctified in halves.

וכי תימא רב מילתא ממילתא לא יליף והאמר רב מנחה קדושה בלא שמן (ובלא לבונה) שכן מצינו בלחם הפנים בלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת נסכים

And if you would say that Rav does not derive the halakha of one matter from that of another matter, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rav say: A standard meal offering, which is brought with oil and frankincense, is sanctified by a service vessel even without its oil and without its frankincense. It is sanctified without its oil, as we find such a halakha with regard to the shewbread, which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering accompanying the libations of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.

בלא שמן ובלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת חוטא על כרחיך רב כר' יוחנן ס"ל

Finally, a standard meal offering is sanctified by a service vessel even without its oil and without its frankincense, as we find with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which includes neither of these. This indicates that Rav does derive the halakha of a meal offering from other meal offerings. Rather, perforce, with regard to the griddle-cake offering, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that this offering is not sanctified in halves, and it is derived from there that no meal offerings are sanctified in halves.

גופא אמר רב מנחה קדושה בלא שמן (ואין דינה כעשרון חסר) שכן מצינו בלחם הפנים בלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת נסכים בלא שמן ובלא לבונה שכן מצינו במנחת חוטא

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says that a meal offering is sanctified without its oil, and its halakha is not the same as when a tenth of an ephah of flour is lacking, as we find such a halakha with regard to the shewbread, which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering accompanying the libations of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified. Additionally, a meal offering is sanctified even without its oil and without its frankincense, as we find such a halakha with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which lacks both oil and frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.

ושמן ולבונה קדשי האי בלא האי והאי בלא האי שמן שכן מצינו בלוג שמן של מצורע לבונה שכן מצינו בלבונה הבאה בבזיכין ורבי חנינא אמר

Rav continues: And oil and frankincense are each sanctified by service vessels, this substance without that one, and that substance without this one. Oil is sanctified on its own, as we find such a halakha with regard to the log of oil of a leper, which is sanctified on its own. Frankincense is sanctified on its own, as we find such a halakha with regard to the frankincense that comes in the bowls that are brought with the shewbread; there is no oil in that case and yet the frankincense is sanctified in the bowls. And Rabbi Ḥanina says: