(במדבר יח, י) בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו “Every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they may render unto Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons. In the Sanctuary you shall eat them” (Numbers 18:9–10). This indicates that although the mitzva is to consume offerings of the most sacred order in the courtyard, in certain instances the priests may consume these offerings inside the Sanctuary, the most holy place.
והא למה לי קרא לימא בחצר אהל מועד יאכלוה ולא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר The Gemara explains its objection: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, why do I need this verse? Let him say here as well that as the verse states: “In the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:9), i.e., in the Temple courtyard, it is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major one, i.e., if one may consume a peace offering in the Temple courtyard then all the more so may he consume it in the Sanctuary.
עבודה דאדם עובד במקום רבו אמרינן שלא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר אכילה שאין אדם אוכל במקום רבו טעמא דכתב קרא הא לא כתב קרא לא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר לא אמרי' The Gemara explains: Consuming an offering is not the same as slaughtering it. The slaughter of an offering is part of the sacrificial service, and it is not considered disrespectful for a person to serve his master in the place of his master, i.e., within the Sanctuary as well as in the courtyard. Therefore, we say that the halakha with regard to the minor area should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major one. By contrast, with regard to the consumption of an offering, since a person may not eat in the place of his master, the only reason that it is permitted to consume an offering inside the Sanctuary is that it is written in the verse: “In a most holy place you shall eat them.” Had this not been written in the verse explicitly, we would not say that the halakha with regard to the minor area should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major one.
איתמר בללה חוץ לחומת עזרה ר' יוחנן אמר פסולה ר"ל אמר כשרה ר"ל אמר כשרה דכתיב ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה והדר והביאה אל בני אהרן הכהנים וקמץ § It was stated: If one mixed the oil of a meal offering into it outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is disqualified, and Reish Lakish says that it is valid. Reish Lakish says: It is valid, as it is written: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense upon it” (Leviticus 2:1), and then it is written: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove” (Leviticus 2:2).
מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה לימד על יציקה ובלילה שכשרין בזר ומדכהונה לא בעיא פנים נמי לא בעיא Reish Lakish explains: The Sages derived from here that from the removal of the handful onward the rites performed with the meal offering are solely a mitzva of the priesthood. Accordingly, the verse taught about pouring and mixing that they are valid when performed by a non-priest. And from the fact that the priesthood is not required for the mixing, it may be derived that it is also not required that its performance be inside the walls of the Temple courtyard.
ורבי יוחנן אמר פסולה כיון דעשייתה בכלי הוא נהי דכהונה לא בעיא פנים מיהת בעיא תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן בללה זר כשרה חוץ לחומת העזרה פסולה: And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This meal offering is disqualified, since a meal offering’s performance is in a service vessel. Therefore, granted that the priesthood is not required, yet in any event its performance inside the Temple courtyard is required. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If a meal offering was mixed by a non-priest it is valid. But if it was mixed outside the wall of the Temple courtyard it is disqualified.
איתמר מנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה ר' יוחנן אמר יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה ריש לקיש אמר לא יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה § It was stated: With regard to a meal offering that became lacking in its full measure before the removal of the handful, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the owner shall bring additional flour from within his home and shall fill the missing part of the measure of the meal offering. Reish Lakish says: He shall not bring flour from within his home and fill it. Instead, he must bring a new meal offering.
ר' יוחנן אמר מביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה קמיצה קבעה ליה ריש לקיש אמר לא יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה קדושת כלי קבעה ליה The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he brings flour from within his home and he fills it, as the removal of the handful establishes it as a meal offering to the extent that it may become disqualified. Before the removal, one may always add flour to the meal offering. Reish Lakish says: He shall not bring flour from within his home and fill it, as the sanctity of the service vessel establishes it as a meal offering. Therefore, once the meal offering was placed in a service vessel and sanctified, it is disqualified if it becomes lacking.
איתיביה ר' יוחנן לרשב"ל חסר הלוג אם עד שלא יצק ימלאנו תיובתא: Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish, from a mishna (Nega’im 14:10) discussing the log of oil brought by a leper: In a case where the log lacked a full measure, if it became lacking before the priest poured from it into his palm in order to place it on the right thumb and big toe of the leper, he shall fill it. Clearly the service vessel containing the log does not sanctify the oil to the extent that it can become disqualified. The Gemara notes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish.
איתמר שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה רבי יוחנן אמר מקטיר קומץ עליהן וריש לקיש אמר אין מקטיר קומץ עליהן אליבא דר' אליעזר כ"ע לא פלוגי כי פליגי אליבא דר' יהושע § It was stated: With regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking between the removal of the handful and its burning upon the altar, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one burns the handful on account of such a remainder, and that the remainder is then permitted for consumption. And Reish Lakish says that one does not burn the handful on account of the remainder. The Gemara notes: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees that the handful is burned on account of the remainder. In other words, both amora’im, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, concur that this is the halakha according to the tanna Rabbi Eliezer. When they disagree, it is concerning the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
דתנן נטמאו שיריה נשרפו שיריה אבדו שיריה כמדת ר' אליעזר כשרה כמדת רבי יהושע פסולה The Gemara cites the dispute in question. As we learned in a mishna (26a): 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 the remainder permitted.
מאן דפסל כר' יהושע ומאן דמכשר עד כאן לא אמר רבי יהושע התם אלא דלא אישתייר אבל היכא דאישתייר אפי' ר' יהושע מודה ליה The one who disqualifies the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking between the removal of the handful and its burning upon the altar, i.e., Reish Lakish, holds in accordance with the plain meaning of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. And the one who deems that remainder fit, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, maintains that when Rabbi Yehoshua says that the remainder is unfit, he says so only there, in a case where nothing remained from the meal offering other than the remainder. Since the handful is intended to render permitted for consumption the remainder of the meal offering, if there is no remainder at all then the handful is not burned. But in a case where there remained a portion of the remainder, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer that the handful is fit to be burned.
דתניא ר' יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר מהם כזית בשר או כזית חלב זורק הדם כחצי זית בשר כחצי זית חלב אינו זורק את הדם The Gemara cites a proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is clear that this is Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to any of the offerings that are mentioned in the Torah from which there remains either an olive-bulk of meat or an olive-bulk of fat, the halakha is that the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering and thereby permits either the remaining meat for consumption or the remaining fat for sacrifice upon the altar. But if there remains only half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, he does not sprinkle the blood, as the consumption or burning of anything less than an olive-bulk is not significant enough to warrant the sprinkling of the blood. The volumes of the meat and the fat do not combine to form a whole olive-bulk.
ובעולה אפי' כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית חלב זורק את הדם מפני שבעולה כולה כליל ובמנחה אף על פי שכולה קיימת לא יזרוק The baraita continues: And in the case of a burnt offering, even if there remains only half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of fat, he sprinkles the blood, because in the case of a burnt offering it is entirely consumed, i.e., as the flesh and fat are both burned upon the altar, there is in fact an olive-bulk of the offering that is designated for burning upon the altar. And with regard to a meal offering, even though it remains entirely intact, he shall not sprinkle.