And which rams are meant? Will you say those of the above occasions?1 But only one ram is spoken of there!2 Or will you say those of Pentecost which are ordained in the Book of Leviticus?3 But the expression 'shall be' is used with regard to them!4 - In truth those of Pentecost which are ordained in the Book of Leviticus are meant, and [the Mishnah] teaches that neither the [absence of the] rams which are ordained in Leviticus will invalidate the ram ordained in Numbers nor will [the absence of] the ram ordained in Numbers invalidate the rams ordained in Leviticus. Then [the position is this, is it not], that in regard to the bullocks even [though they are ordained in one passage the absence of] one does not invalidate the other;5 whereas in regard to the rams the absence of what is ordained in one passage does not invalidate what is ordained in another passage, but of what is ordained in one passage the absence of one invalidates the other?6 - The Tanna dealt with different conditions in each case.7
And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish; and six lambs and a ram; they shall be without blemish.8 Why does the text say, 'A bullock'? It is because in the Torah it says, [Two] bullocks;9 but whence do I know that if two are not to be found one must be brought? The text therefore says, 'A bullock'. Again why does the text say. 'Six lambs'? It is because in the Torah it says. Seven lambs;9 but whence do I know that if seven are not to be found six must be brought? The text therefore says, Six lambs. And whence do I know that if six are not to be found five are to be brought, and if not five four, and if not four three, and if not three two, or even one? The text therefore says. And lambs according as his means suffice.10 But since this is so,11 why does the text say, 'six lambs'? To indicate that we must make every effort to obtain as many as possible. And whence do I know that [the absence of] one invalidates the others?12 Because the text says. They shall be.13
Thus saith the Lord God, In the first month, in the first day of the month thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and thou shalt offer it as a sin-offering in the sanctuary.14 A sin-offering'? But surely it is a burnt-offering?15 - R. Johanan said, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future.16 R. Ashi said, [It refers to] the special consecration-offering [to be] offered in the time of Ezra17 just as it was offered in the time of Moses.18 There has also been taught [a Baraitha] to the same effect: R. Judah says, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future. But R. Jose said to him, [It refers to] the consecration-offering [to be] offered in the time of Ezra just as it was offered in the time of Moses. He replied, May your mind be at ease for you have set mine at ease.
The priests shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself [nebelah], or is torn [trefah], whether it be fowl or beast.19 Is it only the priests that may not eat such but the Israelites may?20 - R. Johanan said, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future. Rabina said, It was necessary [to repeat this prohibition] for the priests, for I might have thought that since they are permitted [to eat] a bird-offering of which the head had been nipped off at the neck,21 they are also permitted to eat nebelah and trefah; we are therefore told [that it is not so].
And so thou shalt do on the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple; so shall ye make atonement for the house.22 'Seven',23 says R. Johanan, refers to a sin committed by seven tribes, even though they do not constitute the majority of the community.24 'New [moon]', that is, they decided a new law saying, [e.g.,] that fat is permitted.25 'For every one that erreth and for him that is simple', this teaches that they26 are liable27 only if the ruling [of the Beth din was made] in ignorance and the transgression [of the community] was committed in error.28
Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, That man is to be remembered for good, and Hanina b. Hezekiah is his name; for were it not for him the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, since its sayings contradicted the words of the Torah. What did he do? He took up with him three hundred barrels of oil29 and remained there in the upper chamber until he had explained away everything.
R. SIMEON SAID, IF THEY HAD [MEANS ENOUGH FOR] THE MANY BULLOCKS etc. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And he shall prepare a meal-offering, an ephah for the bullock, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs according as his means suffice, and a bin of oil to an ephah.30 R. Simeon asked, Is the quantity [of flour for a meal-offering] the same for bullocks as for rams?31 But it signifies that if they had [means enough for] the many bullocks but had not [means enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings. And if they had [means enough for]
____________________
(1) As prescribed in the Book of Numbers; v. prec. note.
(2) Whereas our Mishnah speaks of rams in the plural.
(3) Which are offered with the two loaves; v. Lev. XXIII, 18: And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs . . . and one young bullock and two rams; they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the Lord.
(4) V. prec. note. The expression 'shall be' invariably implies indispensability of every item and detail; thus conflicting with our Mishnah.
(5) And if one bullock was lost the other may nevertheless be offered.
(6) I.e., the two rams offered with the two loaves on Pentecost, ordained in Lev. XXIII, 18, are indispensable to each other, and one cannot be offered without the other.
(7) I.e., the position as described is quite correct, and the Tanna of our Mishnah was in no way concerned with the facts that the cases of the bullocks and of the rams were not on all fours.
(8) Ezek. XLVI, 6.
(9) Num. XXVIII, 11.
(10) Ezek. XLVI, 7.
(11) That less than the prescribed number of seven may be brought.
(12) I.e., if there were seven (or any lesser number of) lambs each one is indispensable and the absence of one of them would prevent the offering of the others. So Rashi; but v. Tosaf. s.v. ומנין, and Sh. Mek. n. 3.
(13) Ezek. XLVI, 6. This expression indicates indispensability
(14) Ezek. XLV, 18. The word וחטאת rendered in the versions 'and thou shalt purify' is understood as though it were read וחטאת 'and a sin-offering'.
(15) The special sacrifices of the New Moon were burnt-offerings, v. Num. XXVIII, 11.
(16) This means that it is beyond our power to reconcile this verse with the ordinance of the Torah and will be explained by Elijah the Prophet, the herald of the Messianic era, who is to make the truth known.
(17) V. Sh. Mek. n. 4.
(18) For on the eighth day of the consecration of the Sanctuary in the time of Moses, which coincided with the New Moon of Nisan, sin-offerings, and not the usual burnt-offerings, were brought. The prophet Ezekiel foretells a similar consecration of the Temple on the New Moon in the future, when in place of the usual burnt-offerings sin-offerings will be offered.
(19) Ezek. XLIV, 31.
(20) Surely not; for nebelah and trefah are expressly forbidden in the Torah to all Israelites, v. Deut. XIV, 21, and Ex. XXII, 30.
(21) Bird-offerings were not slaughtered in the usual manner but their heads were nipped off at the neck, v. Lev. I, 15. After the application of the blood as prescribed, the priests were allowed to eat the flesh of the bird, although for profane purposes such nipping would render the bird nebelah.
(22) Ezek. XLV, 20.
(23) The expression בשבעה בחדש, 'on the seventh day of the month' is interpreted separately, שבעה meaning seven, and חדש the new moon.
(24) The reference is to the special sin-offering of a bullock brought on behalf of the community when the whole community or the greater part thereof or even the majority of the tribes had committed a sin by acting upon the erroneous ruling of the Beth din; v. Lev. IV, 13.
(25) Whereas the fat is forbidden by the Torah on penalty of kareth; v. Lev. VII, 25.
(26) Sc. the community.
(27) To bring the special sin-offering of a bullock.
(28) I.e., the people acted in accordance with the new ruling of the Beth din and actually ate forbidden fat.
(29) To serve him for lighting.
(30) Ezek. XLVI, 7.
(31) Of course not, for the quantity of flour for the meal-offering which accompanied the offering of a bullock was three tenths of an ephah whereas that which accompanied a ram was two tenths. V. Num. XV, 6, 9.the many rams but had not [means enough for] the meal-offerings,1 they should bring one ram and its meal-offering and should not offer them all without meal-offerings.
MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BULLOCK,2 OR THE RAMS, OR THE LAMBS OR THE HE-GOAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING,3 NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATE THEM. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS,4 BUT THE [ABSENCE OF THE] LAMBS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING. SO R. AKIBA. R. SIMEON B. NANOS SAID, IT IS NOT SO, BUT RATHER THE [ABSENCE OF THE] LAMBS INVALIDATES THE BREAD-OFFERING, WHILST THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE LAMBS; FOR SO WE FIND IT WAS THE CASE THAT WHEN THE ISRAELITES WERE IN THE WILDERNESS FOR FORTY YEARS THEY OFFERED THE LAMBS WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING;5 THEREFORE NOW TOO THEY MAY OFFER THE LAMBS WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING. R. SIMEON SAID, THE HALACHAH IS ACCORDING TO THE WORDS OF BEN NANOS BUT THE REASON IS NOT AS HE STATED IT; FOR EVERY OFFERING STATED IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS WAS OFFERED IN THE WILDERNESS, BUT NOT EVERY OFFERING STATED IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS WAS OFFERED IN THE WILDERNESS; HOWEVER, WHEN THEY CAME INTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL THEY OFFERED BOTH KINDS. WHY THEN DO I SAY THAT THE LAMBS MAY BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING? BECAUSE THE LAMBS RENDER THEMSELVES PERMISSIBLE.6 AND [WHY DO I SAY THAT] THE BREAD-OFFERING MAY NOT BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE LAMBS? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE.7
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And ye shall present with the bread,8 that is, as an obligation with the bread-offering;9 seven lambs without blemish,10 that is, even though there is no bread-offering. Then why does the verse say, 'With the bread'? To teach that there was no obligation to bring the lambs before there was the obligation to bring the bread-offering.11 This is the view of R. Tarfon.12 You might think that the lambs stated here13 are the identical ones which are stated in the Book of Numbers;14 but you must say that this is not the case, for when you come to the bullocks and the rams it is evident that they are not the identical ones;15 but these16 are brought on their own account, whilst those17 are brought on account of the bread-offering.18 It will thus be seen that those offerings stated in the Book of Numbers were offered in the wilderness but those stated in the Book of Leviticus were not offered in the wilderness. Perhaps the bullocks and the rams [of the two Books] are not the identical ones, but the lambs are the identical ones?19 - Since those [the former] are certainly different ones,20 these [the latter] too are not the identical ones. And why must one say that the bullocks and the rams are different ones? perhaps the Divine Law meant to say, If it is so desired one bullock and two rams are to be offered or, if preferred, two bullocks and one ram? - Since the order is different21 they must be other sacrifices.
THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS. What is the reason for R. Akiba's view? - He infers the expression 'they shall be' [yiheyu]22 from the other expression 'they shall be' [tiheyenah]:23 as in the latter case it refers to the bread-offering, so in the former it refers to the bread-offering. Ben Nanos, however, infers the expression 'they shall be' [yiheyu]22 from the other expression 'they shall be' [yiheyu]:24 as in the latter case it refers to the lambs, so in the former it refers to the lambs. And why does not Ben Nanos infer [yiheyu] from tiheyenah, [and say:] as in the latter case it refers to the bread-offering so in the former it refers to the bread-offering? - One may infer yiheyu from yiheyu25 but one may not infer yiheyu from tiheyenah. But what does this [variation] matter? Was it not taught in the school of R. Ishmael that in the verses, And the priest shall come again,26 and And the priest shall come in,27 'coming again' and 'coming in' have the same import [for purposes of inference]? - That is permissible only where there is no identical expression [on which to base the inference], but where an identical expression exists, the inference must be drawn from the identical expression. And why does not R. Akiba infer yiheyu from yiheyu? - One should infer that [offering] which provides a gift to the priest from that which provides a gift to the priest.28 but the others29 are burnt-offerings. Alternatively I can say that they differ on the interpretation of this very verse: They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest.30 R. Akiba maintains, What is it that is entirely for the priest? I should say, It is the Bread-offering. And Ben Nanos, [what does he say]? Does the verse say, 'They shall be holy to the priest'? It says, 'They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest'. What is it that is partly to the Lord and partly for the priest? I should say, It is the lambs. And R. Akiba [what does he say to this]? - Does the verse say, 'They shall be holy to the Lord and for the priest'? It says, 'To the Lord for the priest'. It is as stated by R. Huna, for R. Huna said, God31 acquired it and granted it to the priest.
R. Johanan said, All agree
____________________
(1) Lit., 'their ephahs'.
(2) The animals here enumerated are the special offerings prescribed for Pentecost, cf. Lev. XXIII, 17-19; the bullock, the two rams and the seven lambs for burnt-offerings, and the he-goat for a sin-offering.
(3) I.e., the two loaves; cf. ibid. 17.
(4) Sc. the two lambs for peace-offerings; ibid. 19.
(5) For only flour from the Land of Israel was to be used for the Bread-offering and the 'Omer-offering; v. infra 83b.
(6) The sprinkling of the blood of the lambs renders the sacrificial portions permissible for sacrifice and the rest of the flesh permissible to be eaten; thus the validity of the lambs is in no wise dependent on the bread-offering.
(7) For it is the slaughtering of the lambs that renders the bread-offering permissible to be eaten, so that in the absence of the lambs there is naught to render the bread-offering permissible.
(8) Lev. XXIII, 18.
(9) And one may not be offered without the other.
(10) Ibid.
(11) And this obligation only commenced when they entered the Land of Israel.
(12) In cur. edd. are added the words: 'R. Akiba says'. They are not found in the parallel passage in the Sifra and in all extant MSS., and are struck out by Sh. Mek. V. Glosses of Strashun a.l.
(13) In Lev. ibid. where the verse reads: And ye shall present seven lambs . . . and one young bullock and two rams.
(14) Num. XXVIII, 27: Two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs.
(15) Since the number of each kind is different in each passage.
(16) Those animals stated in Numbers are offered as additional sacrifices and are not related to the bread-offering.
(17) Mentioned in Leviticus.
(18) And since the bread-offering was not offered in the wilderness the sacrifices stated in connection with it were similarly not offered in the wilderness.
(19) Since the number of lambs is seven in each passage.
(20) For the number of animals of each kind is different in the two texts.
(21) Cf. the verses of Lev. and Num. supra p. 274, nn. 8 and 9. The fact that in Lev. the seven lambs are stated in the verse before the bullock and the rams and in Num. after them signifies that they are not the identical ones.
(22) Lev. XXIII, 20: And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. Now the expression 'they shall be' יהיו implies that the offering cannot be dispensed with, but the doubt is as to which offering is meant, whether the bread-offering or the two lambs.
(23) Ibid. 17: סלת תהײנה, they shall be of fine flour; this clearly refers to the bread-offering.
(24) Ibid. 18: יהיו. This expression clearly refers to the seven lambs and the other burnt-offerings.
(25) Being identical expressions.
(26) Ibid. XIV, 39 and 44. The reference is to the treatment of a leprous spot in the walls of a house.
(27) v. p. 275, n. 8.
(28) The two lambs for the peace-offerings provided a gift to the priest, for after the burning of the sacrificial portions the flesh was eaten by the priests, and so, too, did the two loaves, for they were entirely eaten by the priests.
(29) Sc. the seven lambs etc.
(30) Lev. XXIII, 20.
(31) Lit., 'the Name'.that if they were attached to each other the [absence of] one invalidates the other.1 And what creates this attachment? - It is the slaughtering.2
'Ulla reported that in the West [Palestine] the following question was raised: Does the waving3 create any attachment or not? - But surely this can be solved from the foregoing statement of R. Johanan, for since R. Johanan said that the slaughtering creates the attachment, it follows that the waving does not! - That very statement of R. Johanan gave rise to doubts, viz., Was R. Johanan certain that the slaughtering creates an attachment and that the waving does not, or was he certain only about the slaughtering, but about the waving he was in doubt? - This remains undecided.
R. Judah b. Hanina said to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, Behold, the verse, 'They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest', is written after the rite of waving, nevertheless Ben Nanos and R. Akiba differ!4 - But according to your view, too, [this same argument can be put forward, for is the verse written] only after the rite of waving and not after the slaughtering?5 You have therefore no alternative but to say that [the rule contained in this verse]6 applies to the early stage of the offering,7 and that the verse, 'They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest', is to be understood in the sense that later on they will be for the priest; then one can say the same here, too,8 that only later on they will be for the priest.
And does the slaughtering create any attachment? But the following contradicts it, for it was taught: If a cake9 broke10 before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, he11 should bring another cake and then the offering may be slaughtered. If the cake broke after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled12 and the flesh may be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow; moreover the bread is invalid.13 If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake broke], he must give as the priestly offering14 a whole cake in place of the broken one. If a cake had been taken outside15 before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, it should be brought in again and then the offering may be slaughtered. If the cake had been taken outside after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten, but he has not thereby fulfilled his vow; moreover the bread is invalid. If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake had been taken outside], he must give as the priestly offering a cake which had remained inside in place of that which had been taken outside.16 If a cake had become unclean before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, he should bring another cake and then the offering may be slaughtered. If the cake had become unclean after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten, and he has also fulfilled his vow,17 for the [High Priest's] plate renders acceptable the offering which became unclean; but the bread is invalid. If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake became unclean], he must give as the priestly offering a clean cake in place of that which had become unclean. Now if one were to hold that the slaughtering creates an attachment [between the animal offering and the cakes], then surely when this attachment has already been created by the slaughtering and thereafter the cakes become invalid, the thankoffering should also be invalid,18 should it not? - The thank-offering is a special case, for Holy Writ refers to it as a peace-offering,19 and as peace-offerings are offered without any bread-offering so the thank-offering too may be offered without the bread-offering.
R. Jeremiah said, If you were to say that the waving creates an attachment, then it is clear that if the bread-offering was lost20
____________________
(1) I.e., if the two loaves and the two lambs were together in the Sanctuary intended and ready for the Festival-offering, that fact attached them to each other; and therefore if one kind, either the loaves or the lambs, was lost, the remaining kind may not be offered, but must be taken away to be burnt.
(2) I.e., if the loaves were in the Sanctuary at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs they at once become attached to each other, and one may not be offered without the other.
(3) Which is prior to the slaughtering, for the two lambs were waved before the Lord whilst still living together with the two loaves, v. Lev. XXIII, 20.
(4) As to whether it is the lambs that may be offered in the absence of the loaves or vice versa, but one may certainly be offered without the other; it is evident, therefore, that the waving stated at the beginning of the verse in question creates no attachment whatsoever between the lambs and the loaves.
(5) This verse clearly relates to the time after the slaughtering, for only then can they be considered for the priest, and yet they differ as to which is indispensable; hence the argument could be adduced to prove that even the slaughtering does not create any attachment.
(6) Sc. that one may be offered without the other.
(7) Before the slaughtering.
(8) Viz., that the rule that one may be offered without the other relates only to the early stage of the offering, namely, before the waving, for the waving, it may be said, creates an attachment.
(9) For the four kinds of bread which accompanied the thank-offering v. Lev. VII, 22,23.
(10) The disqualifying effect of a broken loaf is derived according to Rashi from the Shewbread (v. Rashi).
(11) The offerer of the thank-offering.
(12) As an ordinary peace-offering and not as a thank-offering.
(13) I.e., none of the cakes may be eaten. V. Rashi.
(14) The priestly share of the bread-offering was one out of every ten cakes; moreover what he received had to be whole and not broken; v. infra 77b.
(15) Outside the walls of Jerusalem.
(16) When giving the tenth part to the priest the broken cake or what was taken outside or what was unclean must be included in the total, although these particular cakes may not be given to the priest.
(17) According to MS.M.: 'He has not fulfilled his vow', and omitting 'for the plate . . . unclean'; so also in Tosef. Men. VIII. This text is preferred by Tosaf. s.v. מששחטה, and by Sh. Mek.
(18) And the blood should not be permitted to be sprinkled even as a peace-offering.
(19) Cf. Lev. VII, 15.
(20) After the waving.the lambs must be destroyed, and if the lambs were lost the bread must be destroyed. But if you were to say that the waving does not create an attachment, then in the case where the bread-offering and the lambs had been brought [into the Sanctuary] and after they had been waved together the bread was lost and other bread was brought in its place, the question would arise, must the second bread be waved or not? Of course, if it was the lambs that were lost [and other lambs were brought in their place], there is no question at all that [the second pair of lambs] must be waved.1 The question can only arise when it was the bread that was lost. And again, according to Ben Nanos, who said that the lambs constitute the main part of the offering, this question cannot arise;2 but it can only arise according to R. Akiba, who maintains that the bread constitutes the main part of the offering. And the question is, Shall we say that since the bread constitutes the main part of the offering, it3 requires to be waved; or perhaps, since it is the lambs which render the bread permissible it does not require to be waved? - This must remain undecided.
Abaye said to Raba, Why is it that the two lambs4 hallow the bread and [their absence] renders [the bread] invalid, whereas the seven lambs and the bullock and the rams4 do not hallow the bread and [their absence] does not render [the bread] invalid? - He replied, It is because they have become attached to each other by the waving.5 But take the case of the thank-offering, where [the animal-offering and the bread] are not attached to each other by any waving, and yet the one hallows the other and the [absence of] one invalidates the other! - Let us indeed compare it with the thank-offering, as the thank-offering is a peace-offering [and that alone hallows the bread] so here too it is the peace-offering [alone which hallows the bread].6 But can we make this comparison? In that case7 there are no other offerings with it, but here,8 since there is another kind of offering that goes with it, both kinds should hallow [the bread]? - We should, however, compare this case with the ram of the Nazirite; as with the ram of the Nazirite, although there are other offerings that go with it,9 it is the peace-offering only and nothing else that hallows the bread, so it is in this case too. And whence do we know this there? - Because it is written,10 And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread,11 which teaches us that the basket [of bread] comes as an obligation for the ram, and the slaughtering of the ram hallows it. Therefore, if it was slaughtered under the name of any other offering, the bread is not hallowed thereby.
Our Rabbis taught: If the Two Loaves were brought alone,12 they must [none the less] be waved, and then their appearance must be spoilt,13 and they must be taken away to the place of burning. But say what you will, if they14 are brought to be eaten then let them be eaten, and if they are brought to be burnt then let them be burnt immediately! Wherefore is it necessary that their appearance be spoilt? - Rabbah answered, Actually they are brought to be eaten but [they are forbidden to be eaten] as a precautionary measure lest in the following year, when they have the lambs, they15 might say, 'Last year did we not eat the loaves without offering the lambs? We can do the same this year', and they will not appreciate the fact that last year the loaves rendered themselves permissible because there were no lambs, but now that there are lambs it is the lambs that render them permissible.16
Rabbah said, Whence do I arrive at this view?17 Because we have learnt:18 R. Judah said, Ben Bokri testified at Jabneh that a priest who paid the shekel has committed no sin. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said to him, Not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel has committed a sin. The priests, however, used to expound the following verse to their advantage, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten.19 Since the 'Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?20 Now what are the circumstances with regard to the Two Loaves referred to? If they are offered with the sacrifice then [the question will at once be asked], Do not the priests make a freewill-offering of a thank-offering and its loaves and also eat them?21 It must be that they are offered by themselves, yet it says above, 'How can they be eaten?' We thus see that [when brought alone] they are brought to be eaten. But Abaye said to him, I maintain that it is a case when they are offered with the sacrifice, and as to your difficulty raised from the thank-offering and its loaves, [it is no difficulty at all], for the loaves of the thank-offering are nowhere referred to as a meal-offering, whereas the Two Loaves are referred to as a meal-offering,22 for it is written, When you bring a new meal-offering unto the Lord.23
R. Joseph said, In fact they are brought to be burnt, but the reason why we do not burn them [immediately] is that we must not burn holy things on a Festival. But Abaye said to him, Where is the comparison? There24 the precept is not to do so,25 but here since it is the precept to do so they should be burnt [on the Festival], as is the case with the bullock and the he-goat offered on the Day of Atonement! - Rather, said R. Joseph, it is to be feared that later on [during the day] they might obtain lambs.26 Said Abaye to him, This is very well [to delay the burning] as long as the time for the offering thereof continues,27 but after that time they should be burnt, should they not? - The expression 'their appearance must be spoilt' indeed means that they must be kept as long as the time for the offering thereof continues.
Raba said, I maintain that they are brought to be eaten, [yet they are not eaten] because of the precautionary measure stated by Rabbah,28 but [the law]29 is not derived from the passage adduced by him, but from a Scriptural verse. For I derive it, said Raba, from the following verse: Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves . . . for firstfruits unto the Lord.30 As firstfruits are offered by themselves so the Two Loaves may also be offered by themselves; and it follows also, as the firstfruits are offered to be eaten so the Two Loaves also are offered to be eaten.
____________________
(1) Together with the two loaves, for in the first place, it is the lambs which render the two loaves permissible to be eaten, and secondly, the rite of waving is stated primarily of the lambs; cf. Lev. XXIII, 20.
(2) For since the lambs are still here and have once been waved nothing further is required.
(3) Sc. the second bread, brought as a substitute for the first which was lost.
(4) Offered on the Feast of Weeks.
(5) The two lambs must be waved before the Lord together with the two loaves.
(6) Whereas the seven lambs, the bullock, and the rams are burnt-offerings.
(7) Sc. the thank-offering.
(8) With regard to the offerings of the Feast of Weeks.
(9) The Nazirite at the fulfilment of his period of consecration must bring a ram for a peace-offering as well as a male lamb for a burnt-offering and an ewe lamb for sin-offering, v. Num. VI, 14.
(10) So MS.M. and Sh. Mek. In cur. edd. 'For it was taught'.
(11) Ibid. 17.
(12) Where the two lambs were not available the loaves, according to R. Akiba, may be offered by themselves, since they constitute the main part of the Festival-offering.
(13) I.e., they must be kept overnight whereby they become invalid and then are burnt, for it is forbidden to destroy an offering that is still valid.
(14) Sc. the Two Loaves when brought without the lambs.
(15) Sc. the priests.
(16) But since the Two Loaves are in fact a valid offering they must not be destroyed unless they were first made invalid.
(17) That the Two Loaves even when brought by themselves without the lambs, are offered to be eaten.
(18) Shek. I, 4. V. supra p. 139 and the notes thereon.
(19) Lev. VI, 16.
(20) They argued that if they were to contribute the shekel for the public-offerings they would then have a share in the public-offerings, and as the priest's meal-offering must be burnt then it would follow that every meal-offering, e.g. the Shewbread, would be forbidden to be eaten, and this would be contrary to Scripture.
(21) And therefore the priests' argument 'How can they be eaten?' cannot apply to this case.
(22) And the meal-offering of priests must be wholly burnt, hence their argument from the Two Loaves.
(23) Num. XXVIII, 26.
(24) In the rule stated that holy things may not be burnt on a Festival. Cf. Shab. 23b.
(25) The holy thing was originally not intended for burning but for eating, but as it became invalid it was condemned to be burnt; that burning may not be carried out on the Festival.
(26) So that it is possible that later during the day the ceremony might be carried out in the manner ordained; it is therefore proper to delay the burning of the loaves as long as possible.
(27) I.e., so long as the evening daily sacrifice has not been offered (Rashi). After this, even if lambs were obtained they would not be offered.
(28) V. supra p. 281.
(29) That the Two Loaves are brought to be eaten even when offered by themselves.
(30) Lev. XXIII, 17.Our Rabbis taught: The lambs of Pentecost hallow the bread only by their slaughtering. Thus, if they were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name, the bread is hallowed thereby;1 if they were slaughtered under another name and their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is not hallowed; if they were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is hallowed and not hallowed. So Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says, [The bread] always remains unhallowed unless [the lambs] were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name.
What is the reason for Rabbi's view? - Because it is written, And the ram he shall offer by slaughtering it as a peace-offering unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread,2 that is to say, the slaughtering hallows [the bread]. And R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? - The expression 'he shall offer' implies that he must perform all the rites of the offering.3 And Rabbi? Is not the expression 'he shall offer' used? - Had the term 'slaughtering' been followed by 'he shall offer' I agree that the meaning would be as you say;4 but now that it is written 'he shall offer' and then 'slaughtering', it clearly means, he shall offer it by the act of slaughtering. And R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? Is not the expression 'slaughtering' used? - That is necessary for R. Johanan's teaching, for R. Johanan said, All5 agree that the bread must be there at the time of the slaughtering.
What is meant by 'hallowed and not hallowed'? - Abaye said, It is hallowed but not completely so. Raba said, It is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten]. What is the practical difference between them?6 - There is a difference between them as to whether redemption is effective; according to Abaye the redemption is effective, according to Raba it is not.7 Now according to Raba there is clearly a difference of opinion between Rabbi and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon;8 but according to Abaye what difference is there between Rabbi and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon?9 - There is a difference between them as to whether it would become invalid if taken out [of the Sanctuary].10
R. Samuel b. R. Isaac enquired of R. Hiyya b. Abba: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, may the bread be eaten or not? According to whose view does this question arise? If [you say] according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, [then there is no question at all for] he holds that it is the sprinkling that hallows the bread.11 And if [you say] according to Rabbi, [then there is also no question about it for] whether one accepts the interpretation of Abaye or of Raba [the bread] is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten].12 The question can arise only according to the view of the following Tanna. For the father of R. Jeremiah b. Abba taught: If the Two Loaves were taken out [of the Sanctuary] between the slaughtering [of the two lambs] and the sprinkling of their blood, and subsequently [the priest] sprinkled the blood of the lambs [and expressed at the time the intention of eating the flesh] outside the prescribed time, R. Eliezer says, The bread is not subject to the law of piggul13 but R. Akiba says, The bread is subject to the law of piggul. And R. Shesheth said, Both these Tannaim agree with Rabbi that the slaughtering hallows the bread,14 but R. Eliezer maintains his view that the sprinkling has no effect upon what was taken out,15 and R. Akiba his that the sprinkling has an effect upon what was taken out.16
____________________
(1) The bread, i.e., the Two Loaves, may now be eaten, and if taken out of the Sanctuary would become invalid.
(2) Num. VI, 17, literally translated. The reference is to the sacrifice brought by the Nazirite, but the law is the same for the lambs of Pentecost.
(3) Including the sprinkling of the blood.
(4) I.e., that in addition to the slaughtering there is also another essential act of offering, namely the sprinkling.
(5) Even R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who maintains that the sprinkling is the principal service.
(6) For according to Abaye too, since it is not completely hallowed it certainly may not be eaten.
(7) The underlying principle is that whatever is consecrated only for its value (קדושת דמים) can be redeemed and its sanctity is thereby transferred to the money set aside for the purpose, whilst the thing itself becomes profane; but whatever is hallowed bodily (קדושת הגוף) cannot be redeemed. Now, dealing with Rabbi's view, according to Abaye since the bread is not completely hallowed it may be redeemed; according to Raba, however, it is hallowed entirely, and therefore the redemption is of no effect. The text adopted is that which is preferred by Rashi. In cur. edd. the opinions are reversed, thus according to Abaye the redemption is ineffective etc.
(8) For according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon the redemption is effective and according to Rabbi it is not.
(9) For both are of the opinion that the redemption is effective.
(10) According to Rabbi it would thereby become invalid but not so according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.
(11) Consequently the bread has not been hallowed at all; obviously then it may not be eaten.
(12) V. supra n. 1.
(13) V. Glos.
(14) R. Akiba and R. Eliezer therefore both agree that the bread becomes invalid by being taken out.
(15) Consequently the bread remains invalid but is not affected by the piggul intention expressed during the sprinkling.
(16) For in as much as the invalidity of the bread is due to an external cause (it having been taken out of the Sanctuary) and not to any defect inherent in it, the sprinkling can affect it, and as the wrongful intention expressed during the sprinkling renders the offering piggul, it also renders the bread piggul.For we have learnt:1 If the sacrificial portions of the Less Holy offerings were taken out [of the Sanctuary] before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, R. Eliezer says, They are not subject to the law of sacrilege,2 and one is not liable on account of them for any transgression of the laws of piggul, nothar,3 and uncleanness.4 R. Akiba says, They are subject to the law of sacrilege, and one is also liable on account of them for any transgression of the laws of piggul, nothar, and uncleanness.5 Now what is the position [in the aforementioned case6 according to R. Akiba]? Shall we say that as the sprinkling performed with a piggul - intention renders the bread7 piggul like the flesh of the offering,8 so too, the sprinkling performed under another name will render the bread permissible;9 or do we say so only where the result tends to stringency10 but not where it tends to leniency?11 R. Papa, however, demurred12 saying, Why do you assume that they differ in the case where [the loaves] were still outside [the Sanctuary]? Perhaps in the case where they were still outside all agree that the sprinkling can have no effect upon what is outside;13 but they differ only in the case where they were brought in again, R. Eliezer adopting Rabbi's view that the slaughtering hallows them, consequently they have become invalid by their having been taken outside, whereas R. Akiba adopts the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon that the slaughtering does not hallow them, consequently they have not become invalid by their having been taken outside! - How can this be? It is well if you say that R. Akiba adopts Rabbi's view that the slaughtering hallows [the loaves], for then the slaughtering hallows them, and having been hallowed by the slaughtering they are rendered piggul by the sprinkling. But if you say that he adopts the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon that the slaughtering does not hallow them, then [it will be asked,] Can the sprinkling performed with a piggul-intention hallow them?14 Has not R. Giddal said in the name of Rab, A sprinkling performed with a piggul-intention does not bring within the law of Sacrilege nor does it take out of the law of Sacrilege; it does not bring within the law of Sacrilege-that refers to the sacrificial parts of Less Holy offerings;15 nor does it take out of the law of Sacrilege - that refers to the flesh of Most Holy offerings?16 - Was not R. Giddal's statement refuted?17
R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under their own name and then the [Two] Loaves were lost, may the blood be sprinkled now under another name18 so that the flesh be permitted to be eaten?19 - He replied, Do you know of any offering which if offered under its own name is invalid but under another name is valid? But is there not? What of a Passover-offering offered before midday, which if offered under its own name is invalid20 but under another name18 is valid? - [He replied,] This is what I mean: Do you know of any offering which was at one time fit to be offered under its own name but was rejected21 from being offered under its own name, and now if offered under its own name it is invalid but under another name it is valid? But what of the Passover-offering after midday?22 - This is what I mean: Do you know of any offering which at one time was fit to be offered under its own name, and indeed was slaughtered under its own name, but was rejected from being offered under its own name, and now if offered under its own name it is invalid but under another name it is valid? But what of the thank-offering?23 - It is different with the thank-offering for the Divine Law referred to it as a peace-offering.24
Our Rabbis taught: If the two lambs were slaughtered [accompanied] by four loaves,25 two of them should be selected and waved26
____________________
(1) Me'il. 6b, Zeb. 89b.
(2) Cf. Lev. V, 15. For the sprinkling, he maintains, has had no effect upon those portions that were taken out, so that they were not consecrated for the altar; consequently no guilt-offering is incurred by the one who derives enjoyment or use therefrom.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) Piggul does not apply to these sacrificial portions since they are already invalid, so that if a man were to eat of them he would not be liable to the penalty of kareth. So, too, if he were to eat of them whilst he was in an unclean state, or after they had been left over beyond the time prescribed for eating, he would not be liable.
(5) For the sprinkling has had an effect upon the sacrificial portions that were taken out of the Sanctuary.
(6) The case put by R. Samuel b. Isaac to R. Hiyya supra, as to the permissibility of the bread where the blood of the lambs was sprinkled under another name.
(7) According to R. Akiba, not withstanding that the bread is already invalid by having been taken out.
(8) Hence the bread is deemed to be affected in the same way as the flesh of the offering. The text adopted is that of many MSS. and Tosaf., reading בפיגול כבשר, and omitting the word ביוצא.
(9) Since the flesh of the offering is permissible in such circumstances, for all offerings even though slaughtered under another name are permitted to be eaten; v. Zeb. 2a.
(10) As in the case of piggul.
(11) Whereby the bread is rendered permitted.
(12) To the assumption that both R. Akiba and R. Eliezer accept Rabbi's view.
(13) Even R. Akiba would agree that the sprinkling can have no effect upon the bread that is still outside, for the bread cannot be regarded in the same category as the sacrificial portions of the offering, since these are part of the offering whereas the bread is something distinct and apart from it.
(14) And at the same time render them piggul! This surely cannot be.
(15) These normally are subject to the law of Sacrilege only after the sprinkling of the blood, but where the sprinkling was not validly performed these sacrificial portions are never subject to the law of Sacrilege.
(16) This is subject to the law of Sacrilege only until the sprinkling of the blood, for after the sprinkling the flesh is permitted to be eaten by the priests, and the principle is well established that whatsoever is permissible to the priests is not subject to the law of Sacrilege (cf. Me'il. 2a). Where, however, the sprinkling was not validly performed the flesh, not being permissible to the priests, remains for all time subject to the law of Sacrilege.
(17) His statement was indeed refuted, v. Me'il. 3b. The position is now that R. Papa's objection stands good, and so it is not known for certain according to whose view did R. Samuel b. Isaac raise his question.
(18) I.e., as an ordinary peace-offering. To sprinkle the blood under their own name as lambs of Pentecost would not render their flesh permitted for the two loaves are absolutely indispensable to the validity of the offering.
(19) For in the absence of the loaves the lambs can be regarded as peace-offerings.
(20) For the proper time to offer the Passover lamb is after midday on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan; cf. Ex. XII, 6.
(21) By reason of the loss of the loaves.
(22) Which was available at the proper time and yet if held over till after the festival and offered under its own name as a Passover-offering is invalid, but if offered as a peace-offering is valid. The text adopted here is that of MS.M., which agrees with that in Rashi and in Sh. Mek.
(23) If one of the cakes of the thank-offering was broken after the slaughtering of the animal, the blood is sprinkled as though it were a peace-offering, and not a thank-offering, and the flesh may be eaten; v. supra p. 278. Here then the thank-offering was slaughtered under its own name, was rejected from being offered under its own name, and yet is valid if offered under another name; contra R. Zera.
(24) Cf. Lev. VII, 15. And as the peace-offering is offered without the accompaniment of loaves, the thank-offering also may be offered under its own name even without the loaves. In other words the offering of the thank-offering as a peace-offering is not regarded as offering it under another name.
(25) Instead of the prescribed two loaves.
(26) It is an essential rite to wave the loaves with the lambs both before and after the slaughtering of the lambs; v. infra 61a.and the other [two] may be eaten after redemption. The Rabbis who recited this in the presence of R. Hisda said, This surely does not agree with Rabbi's view,1 for according to Rabbi who holds that the slaughtering hallows [the loaves], where can they be redeemed?2 If they are [all taken] outside [the Sanctuary], and redeemed there, they3 become at once invalid for having been taken out, for it is written, Before the Lord;4 and if inside,5 one is thus bringing unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary! Thereupon R. Hisda said to them, It is indeed in agreement with Rabbi's view and [the loaves] are actually redeemed inside [the Sanctuary], for they became unconsecrated of themselves.6
Rabina said to R. Ashi, But it has been taught that when they are redeemed they must be redeemed outside [the Sanctuary] only! - He replied, That [Baraitha] is clearly in agreement with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon,7 for according to Rabbi they would at once become invalid on being taken out.
R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, Shall we say that [in this Baraitha] we have a refutation of R. Johanan's view? For it was stated: If the thank-offering was slaughtered [accompanied] by eighty cakes,8 Hezekiah said, Forty out of the eighty are hallowed; but R. Johanan said, Not even forty out of the eighty are hallowed!9 - Was it not also reported thereon that R. Zera said, All agree that where [the slaughterer] declared, 'Let forty out of the eighty be hallowed', they are hallowed? Then here, too, we will say that he declared, 'Let two out of the four be hallowed'.
R. Hanina of Tirta10 recited before R. Johanan: If four lambs were slaughtered [on the Pentecost accompanied] by two loaves, two of the lambs should [first] be drawn to one side and their blood sprinkled under another name,11 for if you do not decide to act in this way12 you forfeit the last [pair of lambs].13 Thereupon R. Johanan said to him, Should we bid a man, 'Arise and sin, so that you may thereby obtain a benefit'?14 Surely we have learnt:15 If the limbs of a sin-offering16 were mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering,17 R. Eliezer says, Let them all be put above [upon the altar], for I regard the flesh of the sin-offering that is above as wood. But the Sages say, Their appearance must first be spoilt18 and they must all be taken away to the place of burning. But why?19 Should we not say, 'Arise and sin, so that you may thereby obtain a benefit'?20 - We would say, 'Arise and sin with the sin-offering so that you may thereby obtain some benefit in regard to the sin-offering itself',21 but we would not say, 'Arise and sin with the sin-offering so that you may thereby obtain a benefit in regard to the burnt-offering'.
And do we say it of one subject?22 But it was taught:23 If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under another name, or if they were slaughtered either before or after the proper time,24 the blood is to be sprinkled25 and the flesh may be eaten. If [the Festival] was on the Sabbath, the blood must not be sprinkled;26 if, however,
is valid and may be eaten', v. Zeb.13 a; and the second pair of lambs will Serve for the Pentecost-offering together with the two loaves. it was sprinkled, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the sacrificial portions must be burnt after dark. But why? Should we not say, 'Arise and sin, so that you may gain an advantage'?27 - We would say, 'Arise and sin on the Sabbath so that you may gain an advantage on the Sabbath',28 but we would not say, 'Arise and sin on the Sabbath so that you may gain an advantage on a weekday'.
And do we not say it of two subjects?29 But we have learnt:30 If a barrel [of wine of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the winepress and in the lower part there was unclean [ordinary wine], R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if a man can save a quarter [log] of it in cleanness he must save it;31 but if not, R. Eliezer says,
____________________
(1) But it agrees with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who holds that it is the sprinkling that hallows the loaves, accordingly none of the loaves have as yet been hallowed, and therefore any two may be taken for the offering and the other two redeemed like all holy things consecrated for their value only.
(2) Two of these loaves have already been hallowed by the slaughtering of the lambs and two have not, and the latter are therefore to be redeemed. The difficulty, however, is as to the place of the redemption, since the hallowed loaves are not distinguished and separated from the others.
(3) The hallowed loaves.
(4) Lev. XXIII, 20.
(5) I.e., the redemption is to take place inside the Sanctuary and all four loaves are to be eaten inside, since it is not known which are the hallowed and which the redeemed loaves.
(6) There is no transgression committed here, for the loaves only become unconsecrated when already in the Sanctuary.
(7) Who maintains that the slaughtering of the lambs does not hallow the loaves, consequently, at any time before the sprinkling of the blood, two loaves can be selected to be hallowed for the offering, and the remaining two must be redeemed outside the Sanctuary.
(8) Instead of the prescribed forty.
(9) The foregoing Baraitha which states that two out of the four loaves are hallowed thus conflicts with R. Johanan's view.
(10) Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonian, p. 185, identifies it with Tirastan in the region of Mahuza.
(11) These lambs may be eaten in accordance with the principle, 'Every offering offered under another name
(12) But sprinkle the blood of the first pair of lambs for the Pentecost-offering.
(13) The second pair of lambs would now be invalid and would be forbidden to be eaten, for since they were at one time fit to be offered under their own name, and indeed were slaughtered as such, but are now rejected, they cannot be valid if offered under another name. V. supra p. 288.
(14) I.e., in order to save two lambs, that they may be eaten, a sin is deliberately committed by offering a sacrifice under some other name.
(15) Zeb. 77a.
(16) That are consumed by the priests.
(17) That are burnt upon the altar.
(18) I.e., all the limbs must be kept overnight.
(19) Why should everything be burnt?
(20) One should commit the sin of burning the limbs of a sin-offering upon the altar for the sake of the limbs of the burnt-offering, so that the latter be rendered acceptable.
(21) And likewise with the lambs of Pentecost: a sin is committed by sprinkling the blood of the lambs under another name and the advantage is thereby gained that these lambs may be eaten.
(22) I.e., where both the sin committed and advantage gained relate to the same thing.
(23) Bez 20b; Naz. 28b.
(24) Sc. the Festival.
(25) Under another name.
(26) For since the offering is no longer on behalf of the community the services in connection therewith do not supersede the Sabbath laws.
(27) Let the sin of sprinkling the blood on the Sabbath be committed so as to gain the advantage of burning the sacrificial portions upon the altar after the Sabbath and then the flesh would be permitted to be eaten.
(28) I.e., the advantage gained must be enjoyed on the same day as the commission of the sin, as is the case with the lambs of Pentecost, v. supra, p. 290, n. 10.
(29) I.e., to sin in one thing so as to gain an advantage in another.
(30) Ter. VIII, 9; Pes. 15a.
(31) He must endeavour to obtain clean vessels so long as he can save a quarter log of the terumah wine, although in the meantime the terumah wine is flowing down and mixing with the unclean non-terumah wine, thereby rendering the entire mixture absolutely unfit.Let it run down and become unclean, but he must not render it unclean with his own hands;1 and R. Joshua says, He may even render it unclean with his own hands!2 - In that case it is different, since in any event it will become unclean.3
When R. Isaac came [from Palestine] he recited: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered not according to the prescribed rite,4 they are invalid; their appearance must be spoilt5 and they must be taken away to the place of burning. R. Nahman said to him, You, Master, who compare [the lambs of Pentecost] with the sin-offering6 recite that they are invalid, but a Tanna of the School of Levi who infers obligatory peace-offerings from freewill peace-offerings7 recites that they are valid. For Levi taught:8 And so with the peace-offerings of a Nazirite, if they were slaughtered not according to the prescribed rite, they are valid but they do not count in fulfilment of their owner's obligation; they may be eaten the same day and evening [until midnight], and they do not require any cakes nor the offering of the shoulder [to the priest].9
An objection was raised: If for the guilt-offering that requires a lamb of the first year10 a sheep of the second year was offered, or for that which requires a sheep of the second year11 a lamb of the first year was offered,it is invalid; its appearance must be spoilt and it must be taken away to the place of burning. But if the burnt-offering of the Nazirite, or of a woman after childbirth, or of a leper, was a sheep of the second year and it was slaughtered, it is valid.12 This is the general principle: Whatsoever is valid for a freewill burnt-offering is also valid for an obligatory burnt-offering, and whatsoever is invalid for a sin-offering is also invalid for a guilt-offering except [when the offering was slaughtered] under another name!13 - The author of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the School of Levi.
Come and hear from the following which Levi taught: If the guilt-offering of the Nazirite14 and the guilt-offering of the leper were slaughtered under another name, they are valid, but they do not count in fulfilment of the owner's obligation. If they were slaughtered before the time had arrived for the owner to offer them,15 or if they were of the second year, they are invalid. Now if this were so,16 he should then draw an inference from the peace-offering!17 - He infers peace-offering from peace-offering but he does not infer guilt-offering from peace-offering. But then if he infers peace-offering from peace-offering he should also infer guilt-offering from guilt-offering, viz., the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper from the guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege, and then the guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege from the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper!18 - R. Shimi b. Ashi answered, We infer what is offered not according to the prescribed rite from what is similarly offered not according to the prescribed rite,19 but we do not infer what is offered not according to the prescribed rite from what is offered according to the prescribed rite.20 Do we not? Surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that if what had been taken out [of its proper place] was later brought up upon the altar it must not come down again? From the fact that with regard to the high places what was taken out was still valid to be offered!21 -
____________________
(1) By collecting the whole of the terumah wine in an unclean vessel; he must not deliberately render it unclean, in order to save the unclean non-terumah wine.
(2) Hence, according to R. Joshua, we bid a man to sin in respect of the terumah wine in order to benefit from the non-terumah wine.
(3) Lit., 'it goes to uncleanness'. It is therefore not regarded as a sin to render unclean this terumah.
(4) I.e., under another name, as some other sacrifice. Aliter: instead of lambs of the first year those of the second year were offered.
(5) They should be allowed to remain overnight whereby they become invalid and then burnt, for it is not proper to destroy any sacrificial portions that are still valid.
(6) V. Lev. XXIII, 19; as the sin-offering is invalid if offered under another name (or, if the animal offered was over a year old), so it is with these lambs.
(7) As ordinary peace-offerings are valid even though offered under another name (or, if the animal offered was over the prescribed age), so it is with these obligatory peace-offerings of Pentecost.
(8) Nazir 24b; Tosef. Nazir IV.
(9) As would be the case were the offering accepted in fulfilment of the Nazirite's obligation (cf. Num. VI, 19). Now, although the peace-offering of the Nazirite is mentioned alongside with his sin-offering in verse 14 ibid., and one could conclude therefrom that the former, if offered not according to its prescribed rite, is invalid, Levi prefers to draw the inference between the identical kinds of offerings, namely from the freewill peace-offering to the obligatory peace-offering. Accordingly any obligatory peace-offerings, e.g., the Nazirite's peace-offering or the lambs of Pentecost, are valid even though offered not according to the prescribed rite, as is the case with freewill peace-offerings.
(10) That is, the guilt-offering brought by a Nazirite when rendered unclean, or the guilt-offering of a leper at his purification, in connection with which Holy Writ uses the expression כבש 'a lamb', i.e., of the first year; v. Parah I, 3.
(11) That is, the guilt-offering for robbery, or the guilt-offering for sacrilege, in connection with which the term איל 'a ram' is used, i.e., a sheep of the second year; v. Parah ibid.
(12) These obligatory burnt-offerings, although prescribed to be lambs of the first year, are nevertheless valid, for in the case of a freewill burnt-offering, if an older animal was offered in place of a younger one, the offering is valid. V. infra 107b.
(13) In which case if the offering was a sin-offering it would be invalid, but if a guilt-offering it would be valid. It will thus be seen that obligatory burnt-offerings are placed on the same footing as freewill burnt-offerings and are not compared with sin-offerings (although these are mentioned in the same verse as the obligatory burnt-offerings, cf. Lev. XIV, 19; Num. VI, 14); likewise obligatory peace-offerings are to be compared with freewill peace-offerings but not with sin-offerings; contra R. Isaac.
(14) Brought by the Nazirite who had been rendered unclean unwittingly during the continuance of his Nazirite vow. Cf. Num. VI, 12.
(15) In the case of the leper, before the period of seven days had elapsed from the beginning of his cleansing rites v. Lev. XIV, 8; and in the case of the Nazirite, before he had rendered himself clean, v. Num. VI, 12.
(16) That the Tanna of the school of Levi draws an inference from the freewill-offering to the obligatory offering.
(17) Thus, as the freewill peace-offering is valid even though a sheep of the second year was offered in place of the lamb of the first year that was vowed, so it should be with the obligatory guilt-offering.
(18) With the result that all guilt-offerings are valid whether the lamb offered was of the first year or of the second year.
(19) Thus the lambs of pentecost, when offered not according to their prescribed rite but e.g., under another name, are valid by inference drawn from the case of freewill peace-offerings, which are valid even though not offered according to their prescribed rite.
(20) I.e., that the guilt-offering of the Nazirite or of the leper should be valid when offered not according to its prescribed rite (e.g., if a sheep of the second year was offered), by inference from the guilt-offering for robbery or for sacrilege which according to the prescribed law must be a sheep of the second year.
(21) For the law of hallowed things being taken out does not apply to the high places (i.e., private altars) as there were no restrictions of place in regard to the sacrifices offered at the high places. V. supra p. 34, nn. 3 and 4. Now here is an instance of an act though not in accordance with the prescribed rite (sc. the offering upon the altar of what was taken outside the Sanctuary) being regarded as valid by inference from the high places where such an act is permitted.That Tanna in fact relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering,1 which includes [all things that were brought up].
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah recited before Rab: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered as rams,2 they are valid, but they do not count to the owners3 in fulfilment of their obligation; whereupon Rab said to him, They certainly count as such. Said R. Hisda, Rab's view is reasonable in the case where [the slaughterer] believing them to be rams slaughtered them as lambs, for then lambs were in fact slaughtered as lambs; but not where he believed them to be rams and slaughtered them as rams, for even a mistaken variation4 is considered a variation. Rabbah, however, says: A mistaken variation is no variation.5 Rabbah6 said, I raised an objection against my own statement from the following: Priests who rendered the flesh in the Sanctuary piggul, if they did so deliberately, are liable to pay compensation.7 It follows that if they did so unwittingly they are exempt. And in connection therewith it was taught: What they rendered piggul [although unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul. Now what were the circumstances [where the priest acted unwittingly]? If the priest knew that [the offering] was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering,8 then surely he was not acting unwittingly but deliberately! We must say, therefore, that he believed that it9 was a peace-offering and treated it as though it were a peace-offering; and yet it has been taught: 'What they rendered piggul [though unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul', thus proving that a mistaken variation is considered a variation! - Abaye answered, I can still say that the priest knew that it was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering, [and yet he was acting unwittingly] for he believed that it was permitted [to change the character of the sacrifice].
R. Zera raised an objection from the following:10 R. Simeon says, All meal-offerings from which the handful was taken under some other name are valid, and also discharge the owner's obligation, since meal-offerings are unlike animal-offerings; for when the priest takes the handful from a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and refers to it as one prepared in a pan, [his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that it is a meal-offering prepared on a griddle. Or if he is dealing with a dry11 meal-offering and refers to it as one mixed with oil, [his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that it is a dry meal-offering. But it is not so with animal-offerings: the same slaughtering is for all offerings, the same manner of receiving the blood for all, and the same manner of sprinkling for all. Now what are the circumstances? If the priest knows that it is in fact a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and yet when taking the handful refers to it as one prepared in a pan, then what does it matter that the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering? He has deliberately varied the offering, has he not? We must say, therefore, that he believes it12 to be a meal-offering prepared in a pan and when taking the handful refers to it as such, but he is mistaken; now in this case only [is his intention of no consequence], since the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering, but in all other cases we say that a mistaken variation is considered a variation? - Abaye answered him, I can still say that the priest knows that it is in fact a meal-offering prepared on a griddle yet when taking the handful refers to it as one prepared in a pan, and as for the question, 'What does it matter that the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering?' [I answer that] Rabbah is consistent with his view, for Rabbah has said, only a wrongful intention which is not manifestly [absurd] does the Divine Law declare capable of rendering an offering invalid, but a wrongful intention which is manifestly [absurd] the Divine Law declares incapable of rendering invalid.13
MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS,14 NEITHER DOES [THE ABSENCE OF] THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS INVALIDATE THE DAILY OFFERINGS; MOREOVER OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHER. EVEN THOUGH THEY15 DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB16 IN THE MORNING THEY MUST OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING.17 R. SIMEON SAID, WHEN IS THIS? ONLY WHEN THEY HAD ACTED UNDER CONSTRAINT OR IN ERROR, BUT IF THEY ACTED DELIBERATELY AND DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING THEY MAY NOT OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. IF THEY DID NOT BURN THE INCENSE IN THE MORNING18 THEY BURN IT TOWARDS EVENING. R. SIMEON SAID, THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING,19 FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES,20 THE ALTAR FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING ONLY BY THE DAILY OFFERING OF THE MORNING, THE TABLE ONLY BY THE SHEWBREAD ON THE SABBATH, AND THE CANDLESTICK ONLY BY [THE KINDLING OF] SEVEN LAMPS TOWARDS EVENING.
GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abin enquired of R. Hisda, If the community had not [means enough] for the Daily Offerings as well as for the Additional Offerings, which take precedence? But what are the circumstances? If you say that the reference is to the Daily Offerings required for to-day and the Additional Offerings also for to-day, then surely it is obvious that the Daily Offerings take precedence, for they are more frequent21 and holy!22 We must therefore say, the reference is to the Daily Offerings required for the morrow and the Additional Offerings for to-day. Shall we say that the Daily Offerings take precedence for they are more frequent, or the Additional Offerings, since they are holy?23 - He replied, But you have learnt it: THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS NEITHER DOES [THE ABSENCE OF] THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS INVALIDATE THE DAILY OFFERINGS; MOREOVER OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS THE[ ABSENCE OF] ONE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHER. Now what are the circumstances? if you say that [both kinds of offerings] are available and it is only a question of precedence,24 surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that no offering should be sacrificed prior to the Daily Offering of the morning? Because it is written, And he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it,25 and Raba stated, 'The burnt-offering' implies the first burnt-offering.26
____________________
(1) Lev. VI, 2. By interpreting עולה (rendered 'burnt-offering') as whatsoever is brought up' from עלה 'to go up', the rule is established that whatsoever is brought upon the altar, although unfit, must not come down again. Accordingly the rule is not derived by inference from the case of the high places.
(2) The slaughterer believed and expressly declared that he was slaughtering rams (i.e., sheep of the second year).
(3) Sc. the community
(4) For the slaughterer did not know that they were in fact lambs of the first year.
(5) And the owners' obligation is 'thereby fulfilled.
(6) So MS.M. and also B.H. In cur. edd. 'Raba'.
(7) To the owners who, owing to the priests' wrongful intention, must now provide a fresh sacrifice. V. Git. 54b.
(8) By expressly declaring his intention of eating of the flesh of the offering for the next two days, which intention in a sin-offering renders piggul, for a sin-offering may be eaten the same day and night but no more.
(9) Sc. the sin-offering.
(10) V. supra 2b.
(11) I.e., one that is not mixed with oil, e.g., a sinner's meal-offering; cf. Lev. V, 11.
(12) Sc. the meal-offering prepared on a griddle.
(13) Where the priest's actions belie his expressed intention, obviously his words cannot be taken seriously, and they therefore cannot render the offering invalid.
(14) Offered on Sabbaths and on Festivals; cf. Num. XXVIII.
(15) Sc. the priests.
(16) Of the Daily Offering.
(17) I.e., the lamb for the evening Daily Offering is nevertheless to be offered.
(18) Cf. Ex. XXX, 7, 8; one half-maneh of incense was offered every morning and the other half-maneh every evening.
(19) I.e., the whole maneh.
(20) Consisting of one whole maneh offered towards evening; v. Gemara infra.
(21) For the one was offered daily whereas the other only on Sabbaths and Festivals.
(22) I.e., more holy. For on Sabbaths and Festivals the Daily Offering is offered prior to the Additional Offering. Aliter: 'holy' in that they are offered on a holy day.
(23) For these are to be offered on a holy day whereas the Daily Offerings are for the morrow, a weekday. Or, according to the first interpretation given on p. 297, n. 8: the Additional Offerings in this case are sacrificed prior to the Daily Offerings, since the former are offered to-day and the latter on the morrow.
(24) And by stating that one does not invalidate the other the Mishnah teaches us that any one may be offered first.
(25) Lev. VI, 5.
(26) The definite article, העולה emphasizes the importance of this burnt-offering.Obviously then there are not sufficient means [for the two kinds of offerings]; now if both are required for to-day how [can it be said that either the one or the other may be offered]? Surely what is more frequent and holy takes precedence!1 We must say, therefore, [that one is required] for the morrow, and yet it states, that [the absence of] one does invalidate the other, thus proving that they are on a par. Thereupon Abaye said to him, I can still say that [both kinds of offerings] are available and it is only a question of precedence and as for your objection that nothing should be offered prior to [the Daily Offering, I say that] that is only a recommendation.2
Come and hear: We have learnt:3 There must never be less than six inspected4 lambs in the chamber of lambs, sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year.5 Now what are the circumstances? Shall I say that [lambs] are available, then surely many more are required for the Daily Offerings and the Additional Offerings!6 Obviously there are not sufficient lambs; we thus see that the Daily Offerings take precedence!7 - This is not so, for actually lambs are available [for all the offerings], but this is what [that Mishnah] says: There must never be less than six lambs, inspected four days before the slaughtering,8 in the chamber of lambs. And the author [of that Mishnah] is Ben Bag Bag. For Ben Bag Bag says, Whence do we know that the lamb for the Daily Offering must be inspected four days before the slaughtering? Because it is written here, Ye shall observe to offer unto Me in its due season9 , and there it is written, And ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month;10 as in the latter case the lamb was inspected four days before the slaughtering,11 so in the former case the lamb must be inspected four days before the slaughtering.
Rabina said to R. Ashi, Why six? Surely seven are necessary, for one must reckon also the lamb for the morning [Daily Offering] on Tuesday!12 And according to your argument, [retorted the other], are not eight necessary? For one must also reckon the lamb for the evening Daily Offering on Friday!13 - This is no difficulty, for [the Tanna] assumed that [the Friday evening Daily Offering] had been offered.
____________________
(1) And that is the Daily Offering.
(2) But in fact offerings may be sacrificed before the morning Daily Offering.
(3) 'Ar. 13a.
(4) I.e., examined and found free from all physical blemishes.
(5) When the three fall on consecutive days six lambs would be required for the Daily Offerings; v. 'Ar. 13a.
(6) Actually twenty two lambs would be required for these three days, six for the Daily Offerings and sixteen for the Additional Offerings.
(7) Since all the six lambs are reserved for the Daily Offerings in preference to the Additional Offerings.
(8) This requirement was essential for the Daily Offerings only.
(9) Num. XXVIII, 2.
(10) Ex. XII, 6. In both these verses a form of the root שמר 'to keep' 'observe' is used.
(11) For the lamb was taken on the tenth of the month of Nisan and slaughtered on the fourteenth of the same month. Cf. ibid. 3,6.
(12) When the New Year falls on Sunday and Monday, the six inspected lambs would, it is true, serve for the Daily Offerings of the three days, namely the Sabbath, Sunday and Monday, but surely another lamb must be had in readiness for the morning Daily Offering on Tuesday, since there is no opportunity to obtain one during the preceding three days. There is another reading: 'for the morning Daily Offering on Sunday'. The interpretation is similar but the assumption is that the New Year preceded the Sabbath and fell on Thursday and Friday.
(13) It being assumed that the evening offering on Friday had not yet been offered, consequently the number of lambs stated by the Tanna would have to include this lamb too.At all events seven are necessary! - We must say that the Tanna [of that Mishnah] speaks in general,1 and the expression 'sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year' serves merely as a mnemonic. This can indeed be proved [from the wording]; for it reads, 'Sufficient for a Sabbath', and not 'For the Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year'. This is conclusive.
EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING . . . R. SIMEON SAID THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING, FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES. Who speaks of dedication here? - A clause has been omitted and it really should read as follows: EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING, they must not offer the lamb towards evening. This is the rule only if the altar had not been dedicated,2 but if the altar had once been dedicated, THEY MUST OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING.3 R. SIMEON SAID, WHEN IS THIS? ONLY WHEN THEY HAD ACTED UNDER CONSTRAINT OR IN ERROR, BUT IF THEY ACTED DELIBERATELY AND DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING THEY MAY NOT OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. IF THEY DID NOT BURN THE INCENSE IN THE MORNING THEY BURN IT TOWARDS EVENING. Whence is this derived? From the following which our Rabbis taught: It is written, And the second lamb thou shalt offer towards evening:4 the second is to be offered towards evening but the first may not be offered towards evening. This is so only if the altar had not been dedicated, but if the altar had once been dedicated, even the first lamb may be offered towards evening. R. Simeon said, When is this? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they must not offer the lamb towards evening; if they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening.
['If they did not offer the lamb in the morning, they must not offer the lamb towards evening'].5 Is the altar to be idle because the priests have been remiss? - Raba explained, It means, They6 must not offer it, but other priests should offer it. 'If they did not burn the incense in the morning, they burn it towards evening'. For since it is not so frequent,7 and moreover it enriches,8 it is therefore most dear to them and they would not be remiss about it.9
R. SIMEON SAID, THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING, FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES OFFERED TOWARDS EVENING etc. But it has been taught: Only by the incense of spices offered in the morning! - Tannaim differ on this point. Abaye said, It is more logical to accept the view of him who says, 'Only by the incense of spices offered towards evening', for it is written, Every morning when he dresseth the lamps he shall burn it,10 and how can he dress [the lamps] in the morning If they were not kindled the previous evening?11 But he who says, 'Only by the incense of spices offered in the morning', infers it from the altar for burnt-offering: as that was dedicated by the morning Daily Offering so the golden altar was dedicated by the incense of spices offered in the morning.
THE TABLE ONLY BY THE SHEWBREAD ON THE SABBATH. Does this mean to say that [the table] was not dedicated thereby,12 but that it nevertheless hallowed it?13 - It really teaches us that the dedication of the table and the hallowing [of the bread] was only on the Sabbath, as it reads in the last clause: AND THE CANDLESTICK ONLY BY [THE KINDLING OF] ITS SEVEN LAMPS TOWARDS EVENING.14
Our Rabbis taught: That was [the only case of] an offering of incense which was offered by an individual upon the outer altar, and it was a special ruling.15 To what [does it refer]? - R. Papa said, [To incense-offering] by the princes [of the tribes].16 Does this mean then that an individual may not offer [incense] upon the outer altar but he may upon the inner altar? And furthermore, that an individual may not offer incense upon the outer altar but the community may? Behold it was taught: One might think that an individual may make a freewill-offering [of incense] in the same manner17 and offer it, for I would apply the verse, That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do,18 Holy Writ therefore says, Ye shall not offer strange incense thereon.19 One might further think that an individual may not offer it since he does not offer the like as an obligation,
____________________
(1) I.e., at all times of the year there must be six lambs in readiness, each inspected four days previously, so that whatever the circumstances there would always be sufficient lambs to last for three days. The expression used by the Tanna 'sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year' is merely a mnemonic suggesting the number six. To ensure that every day there would be at least six lambs inspected four days previously it was necessary at the dedication of the Temple, when sacrifices commenced, to have twelve lambs each inspected free from blemish four days previously. On the following day two lambs were taken from the twelve for the Daily Offering and two other lambs, inspected on this day, were added; and so regularly on subsequent days. After four days the lambs added on the first day belonged to the category of lambs inspected four days previously, and on the fifth day two more were added to this class and so on. So Rashi; but v. com. of R. Gershom and also Rashi's interpretation in 'Ar. 13a and b.
(2) The altar had only recently been erected and sacrifices had not yet been offered thereon.
(3) Even though the morning offering had been omitted.
(4) Ex. XXIX, 39.
(5) V. Glosses of Bah, n. 1.
(6) Sc. those priests who had been negligent and had omitted to offer the morning offering.
(7) Incense was offered only twice daily whereas burnt-offerings were frequent all the day.
(8) Sc. the priest that offered the incense; v. Yoma 26a.
(9) And therefore even though it did happen that the priest had omitted to offer the morning incense, he may nevertheless offer the incense in the evening.
(10) Ibid. XXX, 7.
(11) Obviously then the candlestick was dedicated and inaugurated for use in the evening, and so it was too with the inauguration of the incense offering, for it is written (ibid. 8): And when Aaron lighteth the lamps towards evening he shall burn it.
(12) If the Shewbread was placed on the table on a weekday.
(13) But this is not correct for we have learnt (infra 100a) that the placing of the Shewbread on the table on a weekday does in no wise hallow the bread.
(14) And as the entire service of the Candlestick, i.e., the kindling of its lamps, was to be at its dedication in the evening, so the entire service in connection with the table, i.e., the hallowing of the bread, must be at its dedication on the Sabbath.
(15) Lit., 'a decision for the hour'.
(16) Cf. Num. VII, 12ff.
(17) As the princes of the tribes did at the dedication of the altar.
(18) Deut. XXIII, 24.
(19) Ex. XXX, 9.but the community may offer [incense as a freewill-offering] since it offers the like as an obligation,1 Holy Writ therefore says, Ye shall not offer.2 One might further think that [the community] may not offer it upon the inner altar but it may [offer it] upon the outer altar, Holy Writ therefore states, And the anointing oil and the incense of sweet spices for the holy place; according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do;3 thus there is only offered that which is stated in the context! - R. Papa said, It is a case of 'it goes without saying'; thus, it goes without saying that a community may not offer [incense] upon the outer altar, for we find no such case; similarly that an individual may not offer [incense] upon the inner altar, for we find no such case. But even an individual may not offer [incense] upon the outer altar, although we find that this was the case with the princes, for that was a special ruling.
MISHNAH. THE HIGH PRIEST'S GRIDDLE-CAKES4 MUST NOT BE BROUGHT IN [TWO SEPARATE] HALVES, BUT HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH AND THEN DIVIDE IT, OFFERING A HALF IN THE MORNING AND A HALF TOWARDS EVENING. IF THE [HIGH] PRIEST THAT OFFERED THE HALF IN THE MORNING DIED AND THEY APPOINTED ANOTHER PRIEST IN HIS STEAD, [THE SUCCESSOR] MAY NOT BRING A HALF-TENTH FROM HIS HOUSE, NEITHER [MAY HE USE] THE REMAINING HALF-TENTH OF THE FIRST [HIGH PRIEST], BUT HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH AND DIVIDE IT, OFFERING ONE HALF AND LEAVING THE OTHER HALF TO PERISH. THUS THE RESULT IS THAT TWO HALVES ARE OFFERED AND TWO HALVES ARE LEFT TO PERISH.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Had Scripture stated, 'For a meal-offering a half', I should then have thought that he must bring a half-tenth from his house in the morning and offer it and a half-tenth from his house in the evening and offer it; but Scripture states, Half of it in the morning,5 that is, he must offer a half of the whole [tenth]. Thus he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. Where the half that was to be offered towards evening became unclean or was lost, I might say that he should bring a half-tenth from his house and offer it, Scriptures therefore states, And half thereof in the evening,6 that is, he must offer a half of a whole [tenth]. Thus he must bring [another] whole tenth and divide it, offering one half and leaving the other half to perish; and so the result is that two halves are offered and two halves are left to perish. Where the High Priest that offered the half in the morning died and they appointed another High Priest in his place, I might say that he may bring a half-tenth from his house or that he may use the remaining half-tenth of the first [High Priest]. Scripture therefore states, 'And half thereof in the evening'; he must offer a half of a whole [tenth]. Thus he must bring [another] whole tenth and divide it, offering one half and leaving the other half to perish; and so the result is that two halves are offered and two halves are left to perish.
A Tanna7 recited before R. Nahman: As for the half left by the first [High Priest] and the half left by the second, their appearance must first be spoiled8 and they are then taken away to the place of burning. Whereupon R. Nahman said to him, I grant you that the first9 should be treated so, since it was once valid for offering;10 but as for the second, why must its appearance first be spoiled? From the very outset it was intended for destruction, was it not?11 He who told you this rule must be a Tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha who has said that even piggul12 must have its appearance spoiled [before it is destroyed]. R. Ashi said, This rule may be even in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, for each half was valid for offering inasmuch as at the time when it was divided either the one half or the other half could have been offered.
It was stated: How did they prepare the High Priest's griddlecakes? - R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, They were first to be baked [in an oven] and then fried;13 R. Assi said in the name of R. Hanina, They were first to be fried and then baked. R. Hiyya b. Abba said, My view is more probable, for 'tufine'14 signifies 'to be baked whilst still attractive'.15 But R. Assi said, My view is more probable, for 'tufine' signifies 'to be baked when already half-done'.16 Indeed Tannaim differ with regard to it, for it was taught: 'Tufine' signifies 'to be baked whilst still attractive'. Rabbi says, It signifies 'to be baked when already half-done'. R. Dosa17 says, It signifies 'to be baked several times'.18 He accepts the interpretation 'half-done' as well as the interpretation 'attractive'.
We learnt elsewhere:19 The kneading, the shaping and the baking of the High Priest's griddle-cakes were performed within [the Temple Court],20 and they overrode the Sabbath. Whence is this derived?21 - R. Huna said, Since tufine signifies 'to be baked whilst still attractive', if they were baked on the day before [the Sabbath] they would lose their freshness. R. Joseph demurred, Surely they could be preserved in herbs!22 In the School of R. Ishmael it was taught: It shall be prepared,23 even on the Sabbath; 'it shall be prepared', even in uncleanness. Abaye said, The verse says, Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily,24
____________________
(1) Sc. the daily incense-offering on behalf of the community.
(2) Ex. XXX, 9. The plural of the verb is used so as to refer to the whole community too.
(3) Ibid. XXXI, II.
(4) I.e., the חביתי כהן גדול or מנחת חביתין, a meal-offering prepared on a griddle offered by the High Priest daily, consisting of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, half of which was offered in the morning and the other half in the evening. Cf. Lev. VI, 12ff.
(5) Lev. VI, 13. 'Of it' signifies that there is before us a whole tenth but that only a half of it is to be offered.
(6) Ibid. The inference is derived from the waw, 'and' at the beginning of this phrase, which is regarded as superfluous.
(7) V. Glos. (s. v. b).
(8) I.e., they should be kept overnight.
(9) I.e., the half left over by the first High Priest.
(10) It therefore may not be burnt until it becomes invalid by being left overnight when 'its appearance becomes spoiled'.
(11) It should accordingly be destroyed at once.
(12) Which is invalid by the law of the Torah. For piggul v. Glos.
(13) On a griddle after being smeared with oil.
(14) Lev. VI, 14. תפיני, is explained as a composite word.
(15) תאפינה נאה, they must look fine at the time of baking, hence they must not be fried first for then they would be blackened somewhat by reason of the open griddle and the oil, and would not be so attractive.
(16) תאפינה נא: they must be half-done, i.e., fried in a griddle, before being baked.
(17) So in all MSS. and in the parallel passages and in R. Gershom; in cur. edd. 'R. Jose'.
(18) תאפינה רבה. They must be baked once before the frying so that they should look attractive (נאה) at the time of baking, and also after the frying so that they should be half-done (נא) at the second baking. Var. lec. רכה. V. Rashi for other interpretations.
(19) Infra 96a.
(20) For the half-tenth measure, whereby the tenth of flour was divided, was anointed as a vessel of ministry, so that whatsoever was put into it was immediately hallowed and liable to be rendered invalid if taken out of the Temple Court.
(21) That the kneading etc. overrode the Sabbath.
(22) So as to retain their freshness.
(23) Lev. VI, 14.
(24) Ibid. 13.they are thus like the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering.1 Raba said, The expression 'on a griddle' implies that they require the use of a vessel of ministry, and [that being so] if they were baked on the day before [the Sabbath] they would be invalid by being kept overnight.2
There has been taught a Baraitha which coincides with Raba's view. The expression 'on a griddle' implies that it3 requires the use of a vessel of ministry. 'With oil' signifies that it must have much oil; yet I know not how much, argue therefore as follows: here it is written oil, and there in connection with the meal-offering accompanying the lambs4 [of the Daily Offering] it is also written oil,5 as there it has three logs [of oil] to the tenth so here it must have three logs to the tenth. Or perhaps I should argue thus: here it is written oil and there in connection with the freewill meal-offering it is also written oil,6 as there it has only one log so here it should have only one log! Let us then see to which [of the two] is this case most similar. We may infer a meal-offering which is characterized by T.B.Sh.T.7 - it is offered daily, is an obligation, and overrides the Sabbath and uncleanness - from another meal- offering which is also characterized by T.B.Sh.T, but we may not infer a meal-offering which is T.B.Sh.T. from another which is not T.B.Sh.T. Or perhaps I should argue thus: we may infer a meal-offering which is characterized by Y.G.L.8 - it is an individual offering, brought on its own account, and requires frankincense - from another which is also characterized by Y.G.L., but we may not infer a meal-offering which is Y.G.L. from another which is not Y.G.L.! R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka [therefore] said, It is written, Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily;9 it is to be similar to the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering; as that meal-offering has three logs of oil to the tenth, this too must have three logs to the tenth. R. Simeon says, Here much oil is required and there also in connection with the meal-offering accompanying the lambs [of the Daily Offering] much oil is required; as there it has three logs to the tenth so here too it must have three logs to the tenth. Or perhaps I should argue thus: here much oil is required, and there also in connection with the meal-offering accompanying the offering of bullocks and rams much oil is required,10 as there it has two logs [of oil] to the tenth so here too it must have two logs to the tenth! Let us then see to which [of the two] is this case most similar. We may infer a meal-offering consisting of one tenth from another meal-offering also consisting of one tenth,11 but we may not infer a meal-offering consisting of one tenth from a meal-offering consisting of two or three tenths.
Is not the above passage self-contradictory? It states at first, '"With oil" signifies that it must have much oil', and then it states, 'Here it is written, '"oil", and there in connection with the freewill meal-offering it is also written, "oil"'!12 - Abaye answered,13 The Tanna of the clause, '"With oil" signifies that it must have much oil', is R. Simeon, whilst he that argues otherwise by inference [from the freewill meal-offering] is R. Ishmael. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, The whole [of the anonymous part of the Baraitha] is by R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, and he argues thus: 'With oil' signifies that it must have much oil, for to establish merely that it requires oil no verse would be necessary, since the expression 'on a griddle' indicates that it shall be like any meal-offering prepared on a griddle. But perhaps it is not so, but that ['with oil'] signifies merely that it requires oil, for had not Holy Writ stated 'with oil' I might have said that it shall be like the sinner's meal-offering!14 And then he said, Be it even so, that it signifies merely that it requires oil, but surely it can be argued by an inference15 [that three logs are required]. He then argued by the inference15 but could not prove his case;16 whereupon he had to resort to the verse, 'Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily', as is expressly stated by R. Ishmael in his concluding remarks. Rabbah said, The whole [of the anonymous part of the Baraitha] is by R. Simeon and he argues thus: 'With oil' signifies that it must have much oil, for to establish merely that it requires oil no verse would be necessary since the expression 'on a griddle' indicates that it shall be like any meal-offering prepared on a griddle. But even without the expression 'with oil' I can arrive at the same conclusion by means of an inference. He thereupon argued by the inference but could not prove his case, so that he had to resort to the expression 'with oil'. He then said, Let it be similar to the meal-offering accompanying the offering of bullocks or of rams;17 but he rebutted this by saying, We may infer
____________________
(1) Which certainly overrides the Sabbath.
(2) For whatsoever has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry becomes invalid if kept overnight.
(3) Sc. the High Priest's meal-offering.
(4) So MS.M. and Rashi; in cur. edd. 'the drink-offering', which was also part of the Daily Offering.
(5) Ex. XXIX, 40. The quantity of oil prescribed is a 'fourth part of a hin', i.e., three logs.
(6) Lev. II, 1. The quantity of oil is fixed at one log, v. infra 88a.
(7) תבשט. These are the initial letters of the features characterizing the High Priest's meal-offering, viz., תדיר-ת, a regular daily offering', באה חובה-ב 'is obligatory', שבת-ש and טומאה-ט 'it overrides the Sabbath and the law of uncleanness'. The meal-offering accompanying the Daily Offering is also characterized in this manner; these features, however, are absent from the freewill meal-offering.
(8) יגל. So according to Sh. Mek.; cur. edd. יגיל. The High Priest's meal-offering can be characterized by the following features: יחיד-י 'an individual offering', גלל עצמה-ג 'brought on its own account' i.e., not accompanying another offering, and לבונה-ל 'requires frankincense'. These features are present in the freewill meal-offering but are absent from the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering.
(9) Lev. VI, 13.
(10) Cf. Num. XV, 4ff. The meal-offering which accompanied the offering of a ram consisted of two tenths of fine flour mingled with the third part of a hin (i.e., four logs) of oil, and that which accompanied the offering of a bullock of three tenths of flour mingled with half a hin (i.e., six logs) of oil.
(11) The meal-offering which accompanied the Daily Offering consisted of one tenth of fine flour which is not the case with the bullocks and rams; v. prec. n.
(12) The purpose of the inference, namely to establish that not more than the normal quantity of oil (i.e., a log) is required, is contradicted by the verse which indicates the requirement of much oil, i.e., more than the usual quantity.
(13) From here to the end of the passage until the next Mishnah the text is in a doubtful state and the MSS. vary considerably from the present text. V. Sh. Mek. where the text is extensively altered. The above translation is based entirely upon the text as in cur. edd. For the variants v. D.S. a.l.
(14) Which had no oil at all; cf. Lev. V, 11.
(15) From the meal-offering which accompanied the Daily Offering.
(16) By reason of the counter argument, namely, let the inference be drawn from the freewill meal-offering.
(17) I.e., granted that it must have more oil than the ordinary meal-offering, it might nevertheless be compared with the meal-offering which accompanied bullocks or rams where only two logs to the tenth are required.a meal-offering consisting of one tenth etc.
MISHNAH. IF THEY DID NOT APPOINT ANOTHER PRIEST IN HIS STEAD, AT WHOSE EXPENSE WAS IT1 OFFERED? R. SIMEON SAYS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMUNITY; BUT R. JUDAH SAYS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HEIRS; MOREOVER A WHOLE [TENTH] WAS OFFERED.2
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, whence do we know that his meal-offering must be offered at the expense of his heirs? Because it is written, And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it.3 I might think that they offer it a half-[tenth] at a time,4 Scripture therefore stated 'it', implying the whole [tenth] but not half of it. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says, It is a statute for ever,3 this implies that it is offered at the expense of the community.5 It shall be wholly burnt,3 that is, the whole of it shall be burnt.6
Does then the verse, 'And the anointed priest etc.' serve the above purpose? Surely it is required for the teaching of the following Baraitha: It is written, This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed.7 Now I might think that Aaron and his sons shall together offer one offering,8 the text therefore states, 'Which they shall offer unto the Lord', Aaron shall offer his separately and his sons theirs separately.9 [The expression] 'his sons' refers to the ordinary priests.10 You say 'the ordinary priests': but perhaps it refers only to the High Priests?11 When it says, 'And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons', it has already spoken of the High Priest; how then must I interpret 'his sons'? It must refer to the ordinary priests! - If so,12 the verse should read, 'And [if] the anointed priest [died], his sons in his stead shall offer'; why does the verse read 'from among his sons'? You may thus infer both teachings.13
For what purpose does R. Simeon utilize the expression 'it'?-He requires it for the following teaching: If the High Priest died14 and they appointed another in his stead, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [High Priest].15 But was not this rule derived from the expression 'And half thereof'?16 He bases no exposition upon the letter waw ['and'].
And for what purpose does R. Judah utilize the expression a statute for ever'? - It means, a statute binding for all time. And what is the purpose of the expression, 'It shall be wholly burnt'? - He requires it for the following which was taught: I only know that the former,17 namely the High Priest's meal-offering, must be wholly burnt, and that the latter, namely the ordinary priest's meal-offering, must not be eaten; but whence do I know that what is said of the former applies also to the latter and what is said of the latter applies also to the former? The text therefore stated 'wholly' in each case for the purposes of analogy; thus, it is written here 'wholly' and it is written there 'wholly',18 as the former must be wholly burnt so the latter must be wholly burnt, and as in the latter case there is a prohibition against eating it, so in the former case there is a prohibition against eating it.
Is then R. Simeon of the opinion that by the law of the Torah it19 must be offered at the expense of the community? Surely we have learnt:20 The Beth din ordained seven things and this was one of them.21 [They also ordained that] if a gentile sent his burnt- offering from a land beyond the sea and also sent with it the drink-offerings,22 they [the drink-offerings] are to be offered of his own means; but if he did not [send the drink-offerings], they are to be offered at the expense of the community. Similarly, if a proselyte died and left animal-offerings, if he also left the drink-offerings,22 they are offered of his own means; but if he did not [send the drink-offerings], they are to be offered at the expense of the community.23 It was also a condition laid down by the Beth din that if the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, his meal-offering shall be offered at the expense of the community!24 - R. Abbahu explained, There were two ordinances. By the law of the Torah it should be offered at the expense of the community; but when they25 saw that the funds in the Chamber were being depleted26 they ordained that it should be a charge upon the heirs. When they saw, however, that [the heirs] were neglectful about it, they reverted to the law of the Torah.
'And concerning the Red Cow [they ordained] that the law of sacrilege does not apply to its ashes'.27 Is not this the law of the Torah? For it was taught: It is a sin-offering:28 this teaches that it is subject to the law of sacrilege; and 'it' implies that only it [the cow] is subject to the law of sacrilege
____________________
(1) This daily meal-offering of the High Priest, during the interregnum.
(2) In the morning and also in the evening. This is the opinion of R. Simeon too, v. infra n. 7.
(3) Lev VI, 15.
(4) As their father the High Priest had done during his lifetime.
(5) The Heb. עולם 'for ever' is interpreted in the later Heb. sense of 'world', 'people', 'the whole community'.
(6) None of it shall be left over to be eaten. Or better: a whole tenth shall be offered both morning and evening, thus agreeing with R. Judah's view in the Mishnah, v. supra n. 3.
(7) Lev. VI, 13.
(8) At their ordination.
(9) The sons offer their meal-offering at their ordination only, this is known as מנחת חינוך 'the meal-offering of initiation'; whereas the High Priest must offer his daily, from the day that he is anointed and onwards.
(10) I.e., every priest at the commencement of his ministry must offer a meal-offering of initiation.
(11) I.e., the descendants of Aaron, those anointed High Priest.
(12) That the verse in question (And the anointed priest etc.) only serves to teach that the heirs of the High Priest must continue at their expense their father's daily meal-offering until the appointment of a successor.
(13) The rule given in the prec. note and also the rule that ordinary priests at their ordination shall offer a meal-offering.
(14) After he had offered the half-tenth for the morning meal-offering.
(15) But must bring a whole tenth from his house; this being derived from the term 'it'.
(16) V. supra p. 304, n. 2, where this rule is derived from the letter wow which stands at the head of the phrase ומחציתה בערב.
(17) Cf. Lev. VI, 15.
(18) Cf. ibid. 16. In this verse as also in the preceding verse the expression כליל 'wholly' is used.
(19) Sc. the meal-offering of the High Priest.
(20) Shek. VII, 6.
(21) The law stated in the earlier Mishnah Shek. VII, 5.
(22) I.e., the money for the drink-offerings.
(23) Since a proselyte has no heirs.
(24) Evidently it was only an ordinance of the Beth din and not the law of the Torah.
(25) The Beth din.
(26) By reason of the frequent changes in the office of the High Priest, v. Yoma 9a.
(27) This too is one of the seven things ordained by the Beth din. Shek. VII, 7. For the law of sacrilege. i.e., the unintentional appropriation of the property of the Sanctuary, v. Lev. V, 15.
(28) Num. XIX, 9.but its ashes are not subject to the law of sacrilege! - Said R. Ashi: There were two ordinances. By the law of the Torah only it [the cow] is subject to the law of sacrilege but not its ashes; but when they saw that people treated [the ashes] lightly and applied them to wounds, they ordained they should be subject to the law of sacrilege. When they saw, however, that people in doubtful cases of uncleanness would avoid the sprinkling,1 they reverted to the law of the Torah.
Our Rabbis taught: The [money for the] bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error or for the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry must be collected for the purpose.2 So R. Judah. R. Simeon says, It must be taken from the funds3 of the [Shekel] Chamber. But the reverse has been taught!4 Which of these was taught last?5 Now the scholars argued before R. Ashi: Surely the former version was taught last for we already know that R. Simeon is concerned about possible neglect.6 Whereupon R. Ashi said to them, You may even say that the latter version was taught last, because R. Simeon is concerned about possible neglect only in that case where they themselves receive no atonement by it, but where they themselves receive atonement thereby R. Simeon is not apprehensive about neglect.7
What is the decision? - Rabbah the Younger said to R. Ashi, Come and hear [the following teaching]: The verse, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season,8 includes the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error and the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry, that these too are offered from the funds of the [Shekel] Chamber;9 so R. Simeon.10
MOREOVER A WHOLE [TENTH] WAS OFFERED. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan had raised the question: Does it mean a whole tenth in the morning and a whole tenth in the evening, or a whole tenth in the morning and in the evening it was dispensed with? - Come and hear, said Raba, for we have learnt: The eighth bore the [High Priest's] meal-offering.11 Now if it were so, that it was dispensed with in the evening, then it would sometimes happen that the eighth did not bear the [High Priest's] meal-offering, for example, at the time when the High Priest died and they did not appoint another in his stead. When the scholars repeated this in the presence of R. Jeremiah he exclaimed, These foolish Babylonians! because they dwell in a dark country they must say dark sayings!12 That Mishnah also states: The seventh bore the fine flour;13 the ninth bore the wine.12 Now were these never omitted? Surely it has been taught: Their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,14 even at night; their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,14 even on the following day.15 We must say that the Tanna of that Mishnah is not concerned with the exception,16 so here too he is not concerned with the exception.17 When this was reported back again to Raba he remarked, They always report to them18 any indiscreet saying of ours, our wise sayings they never report to them. Later Raba said, This too is one of our wise sayings, for the verse says, Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily,19 it is like the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering.20
What is the decision then?21 R. Nahman b. Isaac said, Come and hear; for it was taught: A whole tenth was offered in the morning and a whole tenth in the evening.
R. Johanan said, There is a difference of opinion between Abba Jose b. Dosethai and the Rabbis. Abba Jose b. Dosethai says, He22 must set aside for [his meal-offering] two handfuls of frankincense, one handful to be offered in the morning and the other in the evening. But the Rabbis say, He must set aside for it one handful, half to be offered in the morning and the other half in the evening. On what principle do they differ? - Abba Jose b. Dosethai maintains that we know of no case when half a handful was offered; but the Rabbis maintain that we know of no case when a tenth required two handfuls.23
R. Johanan raised the following question: If the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead,
____________________
(1) For fear that they might be making unnecessary use of the ashes and would be liable to bring a guilt-offering for their sacrilege.
(2) Lit., 'in the beginning they collect them'. I.e., when the occasion arises it must be collected from the members of the community.
(3) I.e., from the funds of the community accumulated in the Temple treasury.
(4) In Hor. 3b, where R. Simeon's opinion here is ascribed to R. Judah, and vice versa.
(5) The later version of a statement is regarded as the more reliable since the author may have reconsidered and changed his view. Moreover it is necessary to arrive at the correct version in order to establish the halachah which would follow R. Judah's view.
(6) V. Mishnah supra where R. Simeon maintains that the High Priest's meal-offering is offered out of the funds of the community and not left to be offered by the heirs at their expense for fear of neglect. Accordingly here the more reliable view of R. Simeon would be that these offerings are also taken out of the funds of the community, which view agrees with the former version.
(7) The heirs of the High Priest in as much as they receive no atonement from the meal-offering might conceivably be neglectful about it, but there is no such fear of neglect by the members of the community where the offering is to effect atonement on their behalf.
(8) Num. XXVIII, 2.
(9) This is derived from the use of the plural 'for offerings' which includes other offerings to be offered like the Daily Offering from the funds of the Temple Treasury.
(10) This view of R. Simeon, derived from the verse, is undoubtedly the correct one and, as it corresponds with the former version, that version must have been taught last.
(11) Tamid 31b, where it is stated that thirteen priests were engaged in the sacrifice of the Daily Offering and all that accompanied it in the morning, and likewise in the evening.
(12) V. Pes., Sonc. ed., P 158, n. 1.
(13) The fine flour for the meal-offering and the wine for the drink-offering which accompanied the Daily Offering.
(14) Num. XXIX, 18.
(15) V. supra 44b. It can thus happen that the meal-offering and the drink-offerings were, for some reason, not offered during the day, in which case the seventh and ninth priest would not be required. And yet these are included in the list.
(16) Lit., 'if', i.e., with the exceptional case when part of the service was omitted. The Tanna merely states the number of priests engaged in the service and the function of each when in normal circumstances everything was in accordance with the manner prescribed.
(17) Although in fact the High Priest's meal-offering might very well be dispensed with in the evening in the circumstances of our Mishnah.
(18) To the Palestinian Rabbis.
(19) Lev. VI, 13.
(20) Which under no circumstances may be dispensed with; so it is, too, with the High Priest's meal-offering.
(21) Whose opinion is to prevail? Raba's or R. Jeremiah's?
(22) The High Priest in bringing daily for his meal-offering a tenth of fine flour which he divided and offered half in the morning and half in the evening.
(23) With the one meal-offering, notwithstanding the handfuls are offered one at a time.must the quantity of frankincense, according to the view of the Rabbis,1 be doubled or not? Should we say that since the quantity of flour has been doubled2 the quantity of frankincense must also be doubled, or perhaps this is so only where it has been expressly stated3 and not where it has not been expressly stated? And this question is also to be asked with regard to the quantity of oil,4 both according to the view of the Rabbis and of Abba Jose b. Dosethai.
Come and hear: for we have learnt: The handful is specified in five cases.5 Now if that were so,6 there would sometimes be seven!7 - The Tanna is not concerned with the exception.8
R. Papa was sitting and reciting the above when R. Joseph b. Shemaiah said to him, 'Is not the case of a man offering the handful outside the Sanctuary an exceptional case',9 and yet he reckoned it?
What is the decision then? - R. Nahman b. Isaac said, Come and hear: For it has been taught: If the High Priest died and they did not appoint another in his stead a whole tenth must be offered in the morning and a whole tenth in the evening. Two handfuls [of frankincense] must be set aside, one to be offered in the morning and one in the evening; and three logs of oil must be set aside, one log and a half to be offered in the morning and one log and a half in the evening. Now who is the author of this Baraitha? If you say it is the Rabbis, then it will be asked, Why is it that the quantity of frankincense is doubled and the quantity of oil is not? It must therefore be Abba Jose b. Dosethai who maintains that at all times the High Priest's meal-offering requires two handfuls of frankincense, so that neither the quantity of frankincense nor the quantity of oil has been doubled. And since according to Abba Jose b. Dosethai the quantity of oil is not doubled,10 likewise according to the Rabbis the quantities of frankincense and of oil are not doubled.11
R. Johanan said, The halachah follows Abba Jose b. Dosethai.12 But could R. Johanan have said so? Did not R. Johanan say that the halachah always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah, and we have learnt: 'The handful is specified in five cases'?13 - Different Amoraim report R. Johanan's opinion differently.14
MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS MUST BE OFFERED UNLEAVENED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LEAVENED CAKES OF THE THANK-OFFERING15 AND THE TWO LOAVES [OF PENTECOST].16 WHICH ARE OFFERED LEAVENED. R. MEIR SAYS, THE LEAVEN MUST BE TAKEN FROM [THE MEAL-OFFERINGS] THEMSELVES AND WITH THIS THEY ARE LEAVENED.17 R. JUDAH SAYS, THAT IS NOT THE BEST WAY,18 BUT [FIRST OF ALL] LEAVEN MUST BE BROUGHT AND PUT INTO THE MEASURING VESSEL AND THEN THE MEASURING VESSEL IS FILLED UP [WITH FLOUR]. BUT THEY SAID TO HIM, EVEN SO [IT IS NOT SATISFACTORY]; FOR IT WOULD BE SOMETIMES TOO LITTLE AND SOMETIMES TOO MUCH.19
GEMARA. R. Perida enquired of R. Ammi, Whence is it derived that all meal-offerings must be offered unleavened? - 'Whence?' you ask, [R. Ammi replied] but surely where this20 is expressly stated21 it is expressly stated, and where it is not expressly stated there is the general statement,
____________________
(1) According to Abba Jose there is no doubt at all, for one never offers two handfuls at one time with one meal-offering.
(2) For a whole tenth of fine flour must be brought both in the morning and in the evening. Likewise a whole handful of frankincense must be brought morning and evening.
(3) In connection with the flour, v. supra 51b.
(4) The High Priest used to bring from his own house daily a tenth of fine flour and three logs of oil, which he divided and offered, half (i.e., a half-tenth of flour and one log and a half of oil) in the morning and half in the evening. During an interregnum, however, since the quantity of flour is doubled it might well be that the oil must also be doubled.
(5) V. infra 106b. The handful of frankincense which accompanied the High Priest's meal-offering is not included in that list since it was offered a half-handful at a time.
(6) That even the Rabbis hold that during an interregnum a whole handful was to be offered morning as well as evening.
(7) For although the two handfuls belong to the one offering, they should nevertheless be reckoned as two in the list; cf. the two handfuls of frankincense offered with the Shewbread which are reckoned as two in the list.
(8) I.e., with the case when the High Priest died. The Tanna merely listed five normal cases that happen daily or regularly.
(9) Likewise he should reckon the handful of frankincense offered morning and evening during an interregnum.
(10) The reason being no doubt that only that is doubled which is expressly so indicated in the Torah.
(11) For the same reason as given by Abba Jose, v. prec. note; thus solving the problem raised by R. Johanan.
(12) That the High Priest must offer with his meal-offering one handful of frankincense in the morning and another in the evening.
(13) V. p. 315, n. 6. But according to Abba Jose the number should be seven so as to include the two handfuls of the High Priest's meal-offering.
(14) Obviously R. Johanan could not have made both statements; some scholars report that he made only the former statement, namely, that the halachah follows Abba Jose, others that he made only the latter statement, that the halachah follows the anonymous Mishnah.
(15) The thank-offering was accompanied by an offering of forty cakes, thirty being unleavened and ten leavened, cf. Lev. VII, 12,13.
(16) V. ibid. XXIII, 17.
(17) I.e. a little flour is taken from the meal-offering, is mixed with water and is allowed to stand for some time until it becomes leavened, and this serves as yeast for leavening the rest of the meal-offering.
(18) For the yeast is too fresh and not sufficiently potent to leaven well the rest of the meal-offering.
(19) For if the yeast used was hard and compressed and of small bulk, there would be more than the usual quantity of flour in this meal-offering, and if, on the other hand, the yeast was of a thin consistency, taking up much space in the vessel, there would be less than the usual quantity of flour, and in either case the meal-offering would be invalid.
(20) That the meal-offering shall be unleavened.
(21) Cf. ibid. II, 4 and 5.And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord in front of the altar . . . And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; it shall be eaten as unleavened bread!1 - He [R. Perida] said to him, As to the proper performance of the precept I have no doubt at all, I ask only whether it is indispensable.2 But, said the other, even with regard to the question of indispensability there is written, It shall not be baked leavened,3 but only unleavened.4
R. Hisda demurred, perhaps it means, 'It shall not be baked leavened', but only si'ur!5 - What si'ur is meant? If as defined by R. Meir, it is absolutely unleavened according to R. Judah. If as defined by R. Judah, it is absolutely leavened according to R. Meir. If as defined by R. Meir and following R. Meir's ruling. It is absolutely leavened, since one incurs stripes for [eating] it [on the Passover]! - What is meant is that [si'ur] as defined by R. Judah and following R. Judah's ruling.6
R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred, Perhaps it means, 'It shall not be baked leavened', but only halut!7 -What does halut mean? Soaked [in hot water]. But surely if [the meal-offering] must be offered soaked, it is expressly stated so,8 and this9 is not prescribed to be soaked! - Perhaps the meaning is: whatsoever is prescribed to be soaked must be offered soaked, but whatsoever is not prescribed to be soaked may be offered either soaked or unleavened!
Rabina demurred, Perhaps the verse, 'It shall not be baked leavened', merely imposes a prohibition upon the person, but [the meal-offering] does not become invalid thereby? Whence then is it derived?10 - From the following teaching: One might think that 'unleavened'11 was only a recommendation, Holy Writ therefore stated, It shall be;11 the verse thus laid it down as an obligation.
R. Perida enquired of R. Ammi, Whence is it derived that all meal-offerings, seeing that they were kneaded in lukewarm water,12 must be specially watched lest they become leavened?13 Shall we infer it from the Passover concerning which it Is written, And ye shall watch the unleavened bread!14 - He replied. In that very passage15 It is written, it shall be unleavened,11 that is, keep it so.16 But have you not utilized this verse to indicate indispensability? - If for that alone Scripture would have used the expression 'It is to be unleavened'; why 'It shall be'? You may thus infer two things.
The Rabbis said to R. Perida, 'R. Ezra, the grandson of R. Abtolos, who is the tenth generation from R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, who is the tenth generation from Ezra, is standing at the door' - Said he to them, 'Why all this [pedigree]? If he is a learned man, it is well; if he is a learned man and also a scion of noble ancestors, it is all the better; but if he is a scion of noble ancestors and not a learned man may fire consume him'. They told him that he was a learned man, whereupon he said, 'Let him come in'. He at once saw that his [R. Ezra's] mind was troubled, so he began his discourse and said, I said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord; my gratefulness is not with thee.17 The congregation of Israel said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Lord of the universe, Show Thy gratefulness unto me for making Thee known in the world'. He replied. 'My gratefulness is not with thee, but with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who first made Me known in the world, as it is said, With the holy that are in the earth; they are the mighty ones in whom is all my delight.'18 As soon as he [R. Ezra] heard the expression mighty',19 he began his discourse, saying, Let the Mighty One come and take vengeance for the sake of the mighty from the mighty by means of the mighty. 'Let the Mighty One come' - that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, The Lord on high is mighty.20 'And take vengeance for the sake of the mighty' - that is, Israel, as it is written, They are the mighty ones in whom is all my delight. 'From the mighty' - that is, the Egyptians, as it is written, The mighty sank like lead in the waters.21 'By means of the mighty' - that is, the water, as it is written, Above the voices of many waters, mighty waters, breakers of the sea.20 Let the beloved22 the son of the beloved come and build the beloved for the Beloved in the portion of the beloved that the beloved may receive atonement therein. 'Let the beloved come' - that is King Solomon, as it is written, And He sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet, and he called his name Jedidiah [beloved of the Lord], for the Lord's sake.23
____________________
(1) Lev. VI, 7, 9.
(2) That the meal-offering must be unleavened, and otherwise it would be invalid.
(3) Ibid. 10.
(4) R. Perida's question is therefore superfluous.
(5) שיאור 'dough in the early stage of fermentation'. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to what stage is meant. According to R. Meir it is that stage when the surface of the dough has become pale; after that it is regarded as absolutely leavened. According to R. Judah it is the advanced stage when the surface of the dough has become wrinkled; before that it is regarded as unleavened. V. Pes. 48b.
(6) According to R. Judah he who eats si'ur (as defined by him) is not liable to any punishment. Consequently it could be said that the meal-offering may be si'ur and not necessarily absolutely unleavened, hence R. Perida's question.
(7) חלוט 'soaked or saturated with hot water'. The suggestion is that the meal-offering may be leavened provided it is not baked but only scalded in water.
(8) As in the case of the High Priest's meal-offering which is expressly prescribed to be soaked; cf. ibid. 14.
(9) Sc. the ordinary meal-offering. The verse therefore can only imply that a meal-offering must be unleavened.
(10) That meal-offerings must be unleavened or else they are invalid.
(11) Lev. II, 5.
(12) Infra 55a.
(13) They must be continually kneaded till the time of baking (Rashi).
(14) Ex. XII, 17; so according to Rabbinic interpretation. E.VV.: And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread.
(15) In connection with the meal-offering itself.
(16) I.e., guard it against its becoming leavened; v. Pes. 48b.
(17) Ps., XVI, 2.
(18) Ps. XVI, 3.
(19) Heb. אדיר, which word is used in all the following verses quoted.
(20) Ibid. XCIII, 4.
(21) Ex. XV, 10.
(22) Heb. ידיד, which word is used in all the verses quoted.
(23) II Sam. XII, 25.'The son of the beloved' - that is, the son of Abraham, as it is written, What hath My beloved to do in My house?1 'And build the beloved' - that is, the Temple, as it is written, How lovely are Thy tabernacles!2 'For the Beloved' - that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, Let me sing of my Beloved.3 'In the portion of the beloved' - that is, Benjamin, as it is said, Of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him.4 'That the beloved may receive atonement therein' - that is, Israel, as it is written, I have given the dearly beloved of My soul into the hand of her enemies.5 Let the good come and receive the good from the Good for the good. 'Let the good come' - that is, Moses, as it is written, And she saw that he was good.6 'And receive the good' - that is, the Torah, as it is written, For I give you good doctrine.7 'From the Good' - that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, The Lord is good to all.8 'For the good' - that is, Israel, as it is written, Do good, O Lord, unto the good.9 Let this come and receive this from This for this people. 'Let this come' - that is, Moses, as it is written, For as for this Moses, the man.10 'And receive this' - that is, the Torah, as it is written, And this is the Torah which Moses set.11 'From This' - that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, This is my God and I will glorify Him.12 'For this people' - that is, Israel, as it is written, This people that Thou hast gotten.13
R. Isaac said, At the time of the destruction of the Temple the Holy One, blessed be He, found Abraham standing in the Temple. Said He, 'What hath My beloved to do in My house?'14 Abraham replied, 'I have come concerning the fate of my children' . . . Said He, 'Thy children sinned and have gone into exile'. 'Perhaps', said Abraham, 'they only sinned in error?' And He answered, 'She hath wrought lewdness'.15 'Perhaps only a few sinned?' 'With many',15 came the reply. 'Still', he pleaded, 'Thou shouldst have remembered unto them the covenant of circumcision'. And He replied, 'The hallowed flesh is passed from thee.'16 'Perhaps hadst Thou waited for them they would have repented', he pleaded. And He replied, 'When thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest!'14 Thereupon he put his hands on his head and wept bitterly, and cried, 'Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is no hope for them'. Then came forth a Heavenly Voice and said, The Lord called thy name a leafy olive-tree, fair with goodly fruit:17 as the olive-tree produces its best only at the very end,18 so Israel will flourish at the end of time.
Because of the noise of the great tumult He hath kindled fire upon it, and its branches are broken.17 Said R. Hinena b. Papa, Because of the noise of the words of the spies the branches19 of Israel were broken; for R. Hinena b. Papa said, A grievous statement did the spies make at that moment when they said, For they ore stronger than we.20 Read not 'than we', but 'than He';21 as it were, even the Master of the House cannot remove His furniture from there.22
R. Hiyya b. Hinena demurred, Then why does the verse read 'Because of the noise of the great tumult'? It should read, 'Because of the noise of the great word'.23 Rather [it must be interpreted thus]: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham, 'I heard thy voice and will have compassion upon them.24 I had said that they shall be subjected to four successive Empires,25 each to endure the length of time that the four Empires together [actually lasted], but now each shall endure only the time alotted to it'. Another version: 'I had said [that they shall be subjected to the four Empires] in succession, but now [they shall be subjected to the four] concurrently'.26
R. Joshua b. Levi said, Why is Israel likened to an olive-tree? To tell you that as the olive-tree loses not its leaves either in summer or in winter, so Israel shall never be lost either in this world or in the world to come. R. Johanan said, Why is Israel likened to an olive-tree? To tell you that just as the olive produces its oil only after pounding, so Israel returns to the right way only after suffering.
R. MEIR SAYS, THE LEAVEN MUST BE TAKEN FROM [THE MEAL-OFFERINGS] THEMSELVES AND WITH THIS THEY ARE LEAVENED etc. What is meant by SOMETIMES TOO LITTLE AND SOMETIMES TOO MUCH? - R. Hisda explained, If the yeast [used] was of a thick consistency, then there would be too much [flour in the meal-offering], and if it was thin, there would be too little.27 But in any event only a tenth is measured!28 - Rabbah and R. Joseph both said that we must measure it according to its former state.29 But one can surely take a little of the flour30 and have it leavened outside, and then it can be brought back and kneaded with the rest [of the flour]! - It is to be feared that one might bring leaven from elsewhere.31
Our Rabbis taught: One may not leaven [the meal-offering]32
____________________
(1) Jer. XI, 15. Beloved here refers to Abraham, v. infra.
(2) Ps. LXXXIV, 2.
(3) Isa. V, 1.
(4) Deut. XXXIII, 12. The Temple was built in the territory of Benjamin.
(5) Jer. XII, 7.
(6) Ex. II, 2.
(7) Prov. IV, 2.
(8) Ps. CXLV, 9.
(9) Ibid. CXXV, 4.
(10) Ex. XXXII, 1.
(11) Deut. IV, 44.
(12) Ex. XV, 2.
(13) Ibid. 16.
(14) Jer. XI, 15.
(15) Ibid. The word המזמתה implies premeditated wickedness; cf. Ps. CXXXIX, 20.
(16) Jer. ibid. They attempted to disguise their circumcision.
(17) Ibid. 16.
(18) It is only after many years that the olive-tree bears fruit.
(19) I.e., the strength and glory of Israel.
(20) Num. XIII, 31.
(21) ממנו 'than He' instead of ממנו 'than we', a difference of pronunciation in the Oriental or Babylonian Massorah in order to distinguish between the third person masc. sing. and the first person plur.; v. Sot., Sonc. ed., p. 172, n. 1.
(22) Even God is powerless against them.
(23) I.e., מלה 'word' instead of המולה 'tumult'.
(24) Interpreting המולה as חמלה 'compassion'.
(25) The Babylonian, Persian, Grecian and Roman Empires.
(26) Some under one Empire and others under another.
(27) V. supra p. 317, n. 5.
(28) For when the measure is filled up with flour there is already yeast in the vessel; it is therefore immaterial how much is taken up by the yeast, so long as the measure is full.
(29) I.e., when it was flour. In measuring we must have regard to the amount of flour used in the yeast. From this standpoint there would be either too much or too little flour according to the consistency of the leaven.
(30) After a full tenth has been measured for the meal-offering.
(31) And not take it from the flour of the meal-offering, so that an onlooker might be led to believe that one may add to the meal-offering.
(32) I.e., the two loaves of Pentecost and the ten loaves of the Thank-offering, which must be leavened.with apples. In the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel they said, One may do so. R. Kahana reports this in the name of R. Hanina b. Teradion. With whom will the following agree? For we have learnt:1 If an apple [of terumah] was chopped up and put into dough so that it leavened it, the dough is forbidden.2 Now with whom does this agree? Shall we say with R. Hanina b. Gamaliel and not with the Rabbis?3 - You may even say that this agrees with the Rabbis too, for although it is not the finest leaven it is, however, an inferior leaven.4
R. Ela said, From no meal-offering is it more difficult to take out the handful than from the sinner's meal-offering.5 R. Isaac b. Abdimi said, The sinner's meal-offering may be mixed with water6 and it is valid. Shall we say that they differ in this: one7 holds that we must measure [the handful] according to its present state,8 and the other9 holds that we must measure it according to its former state?10 - No, both agree that we must measure it according to its present state, but they differ in this: one' holds that dry11 means, dry without oil, and the other9 holds that dry means, dry without any kind [of liquid].
We have learnt there:12 Calf's flesh13 that had swelled14 and the flesh15 of an old beast that had shrivelled,16 must be measured17 according to their present state. Rab, R. Hiyya and R. Johanan read: 'according to their present state'; whereas Samuel, R. Simeon b. Rabbi and Resh Lakish read: 'according to their former state'.
An objection was raised: If a piece of calf's flesh which was not of the prescribed size15 swelled so that it is now of the prescribed size until now it has been clean but from now onwards it is unclean!18 - It is only so Rabbinically. If so, consider the next clause: And so it is, too, with regard to the flesh of an offering that was piggul or nothur.19 Now if you hold that this rule20 is Scriptural then it can well apply to piggul and to nothar; but if you hold that it is only Rabbinical, it will be asked: Is one liable [to kareth] for [eating] what is regarded as piggul or nothar Rabbinically?21 - Render: And so it is, too, with regard to the uncleanness of what is piggul or nothar.22 For I might have said that since the uncleanness attaching to what is piggul or nothar is only a Rabbinic ordinance, the Rabbis would certainly not apply this rule23 to that which is only a Rabbinic ordinance; we are therefore taught [otherwise].
Come and hear: If the flesh of an old beast which was of the prescribed size had shrivelled up so that it is now less than the prescribed size, until now it could have been unclean but from now onwards it remains clean!24 - Rabbah explained the position thus: If a [forbidden] thing was of the prescribed size but now it is not so, then it is not so;25 and if at first it was not of the prescribed size and now it is, then it is so Rabbinically.26
____________________
(1) Ter. X, 2.
(2) To be eaten by any but a priest, since the dough which was hullin and not terumah was leavened by an apple which was of terumah.
(3) For the Rabbis, i.e., the first Tanna of the Baraitha, hold that apples cannot leaven.
(4) It is spoilt or hard leaven, and although it is not the best thing to use for leavening the meal-offering, it certainly has a leavening effect upon the substance into which it has been put.
(5) Since it was without oil, the taking of the handful was a difficult operation indeed, for when taking out the handful of dry flour and then smoothing away the flour that is bursting between the fingers, much skill would be required in preventing the flour from slipping out of the hand.
(6) So as to make the taking out of the handful easier. The Torah prohibited only the application of oil.
(7) R. Isaac.
(8) The handful is to be taken out after the flour has been mixed with water, when it is easy to do so.
(9) R. Ela.
(10) The measure is to be a handful of flour only, and therefore if taken out after the flour has been mixed with water, it would contain either too much or too little flour according to the consistency of the mixture.
(11) Lev. VII, 10.
(12) 'Uk. II, 8.
(13) Less than an egg's bulk.
(14) To an egg's bulk.
(15) An egg's bulk.
(16) To less than an egg's bulk.
(17) With regard to the laws of uncleanness. Foodstuffs, if of an egg's bulk in quantity, can become unclean and can convey uncleanness.
(18) I.e., it can become unclean since it is now the size of an egg; contra Resh Lakish and the others.
(19) This means, presumably, that if a piece of flesh that was piggul or nothar, and which was less than an olive's bulk (which is the minimum in regard to forbidden food), had swelled to the size of an olive's bulk and one ate it, the penalty of kareth would thereby be incurred, for we estimate a thing according to its present size. For piggul and nothar v. Glos.
(20) That we must consider everything according to its present size.
(21) Surely there is no penalty incurred, since by the law of the Torah there was not the prescribed bulk.
(22) It is a Rabbinical ordinance that consecrated flesh that was rendered piggul or nothar is unclean and conveys uncleanness to the hands; v. Pes. 85a. We are now taught that if piggul or nothar less than an egg's bulk had swelled to the size of an egg, it will render the hands unclean.
(23) V. p. 324, n. 14.
(24) Thus contrary to Resh Lakish and the others who maintain that we must measure everything in the condition in which it was before.
(25) I.e., it is no longer a forbidden thing since it is not of the prescribed size. The term 'forbidden' is used here in an extended sense to include 'defilement'.
(26) By Rabbinical ordinance it is regarded as a forbidden thing.They differ only in the case where it was at first of the prescribed size but it shrivelled up and then it swelled up again. One is of the opinion that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition,1 but the other maintains that there can be no such absolute rejection.2
Is there anyone who maintains that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition? But we have learnt:3 If an egg's bulk of foodstuff was left in the sun and shrank, likewise if an olive's bulk of a corpse, an olive's bulk of nebelah,4 a lentil's bulk of a [dead] reptile, an olive's bulk of [consecrated flesh that was] piggul4 or nothar,4 and an olive's bulk of forbidden fat [shrank], they5 are now clean, and one is not liable thereby6 [to the penalties] for [eating] piggul or nothar or forbidden fat. If later they were left in the rain and swelled, they5 become unclean and one is liable thereby6 [to the penalties] for [eating] piggul or nothor or forbidden fat. This clearly refutes the view of him who says that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition! It is indeed a refutation.
Come and hear: One may give by number fresh figs [as tithe] in respect of pressed figs.7 Now if you hold that we measure a thing in the condition in which it was before, it is well;8 but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it is now, then too much is given as tithe,9 and it has been taught: If one gave too much tithe the produce is duly tithed but the tithe is unfit!10 - What then shall we say? That we measure in the condition in which it was before? But read the next clause: And [one may give] pressed figs by measure [as tithe] in respect of fresh figs.11 Now if you hold that we measure In the condition in which it is now, then it is well;12 but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it was before, then too much is given as tithe?13 - We are dealing here with the 'great terumah',14 and the first clause as well as the second deals with the case of a man that is liberal.15 If so, read the final clause: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said, My father used to take ten pressed figs from the cake in respect of the ninety [fresh figs] in the basket. Now if we are dealing with the 'great terumah', why is 'ten' mentioned?16 - We are really dealing here with the terumah of the tithe,17 and it is in accordance with the teaching of Abba Eleazar b. Gomel. For it was taught: Abba Eleazar b. Gomel18 says, It is written, And your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you.19 Scripture speaks of two heave-offerings,20 one the 'great terumah' and the other the terumah from the tithe. Just as the 'great terumah' is set aside by estimate21 and by intention,22 so the terumah of the tithe is set aside by estimate
____________________
(1) Resh Lakish and his colleagues maintain that when the forbidden thing shrivelled up to less than the prescribed quantity the prohibition thereof vanished completely, and, by the law of the Torah, cannot return even though the substance later swelled up to the prescribed size.
(2) R. Johanan and his colleagues hold that the prohibition has only been suspended temporarily.
(3) Toh. III, 4.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) The first four cases mentioned which relate to uncleanness.
(6) If one ate this shrunken olive's bulk of piggul or nothar or of forbidden fat.
(7) Thus ten fresh figs may be given as tithe in respect of ninety pressed figs.
(8) Accordingly the pressed figs are considered in the condition in which they were before, namely fresh; and therefore ten fresh figs would be the exact quantity for the tithe, whether we reckon the tithe by number or by capacity.
(9) For reckoning by capacity ten fresh figs would probably take up as much as one fifth of the capacity of ninety pressed figs.
(10) For the tenth part only is the tithe, the excess being untithed produce (tebel), and as the two are inextricably mixed up the whole is forbidden, even to Levite or priest, until it has been made fit by the proper separation.
(11) Thus one kab of pressed figs may be given as tithe in respect of nine kabs of fresh figs.
(12) For reckoning by capacity or weight one measure of dried figs is given in respect of the remaining nine measures of fresh figs.
(13) For one kab of dried figs would very likely be as much as two kabs when fresh.
(14) The first levy of the produce of the field given to the priest. V. Glos.
(15) Lit. 'with a kindly eye'. A generous owner would give one-fortieth, one less generous one-fiftieth, and a mean person one-sixtieth of his produce as terumah. The clauses of the Baraitha apply to a generous owner, accordingly the objection that too much is given cannot stand.
(16) The use of the numbers ten and ninety suggests that the offering is the tithe and not the terumah.
(17) The heave-offering of one tenth given to the priest by the Levite form the tithe he receives. V. Num. XVIII, 25ff.
(18) Var. lec. 'Gimel', 'Gamala' (so Git. 30b), and 'Gamaliel' (Aruch).
(19) Num. XVIII, 27.
(20) For the verse continues, As though it (the terumah of the tithe) were the corn of the threshing-floor (the 'great terumah'); thus the verse speaks of two terumoth.
(21) It was not necessary to measure out exactly the fiftieth part usually given for the terumah (Rashi). According to Tosaf. (s.v. ניטלת) it was not right to measure out the terumah but it should be given by estimate only.
(22) A man could mentally set aside one portion of a heap of produce as terumah and immediately eat of the rest.and by intention; and just as the 'great terumah' should be given generously so the terumah of the tithe should be given generously.1 But [there is yet a difficulty] from here, for R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said, My father used to take ten pressed figs from the cake in respect of the ninety [fresh figs] in the basket. Now if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it was before, it is well; but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it is now, then too little is given [as tithe]!2 When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Eleazar that the case of the pressed figs is different since they can be boiled and so restored to their former condition.
Our Rabbis taught: One may give fresh figs3 as terumah in respect of pressed figs in that place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed; but one may not give pressed figs as terumah in respect of fresh figs even in the place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed.
The Master stated: 'One may give fresh figs as terumah in respect of pressed figs in that place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed'. This is so, then, only where there is this custom, but not where there is no such custom. But what are the facts of the case? If there is a priest present, then why is this not allowed even where there is no such custom? Have we not learnt that wherever there is a priest present one must give the terumah from the choicest kind?4 Obviously then there is no priest present.5 Now read the next clause: 'But one may not give pressed figs as terumah in respect of fresh figs even in the place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed'. But if there is no priest present why is one not allowed to do so? Have we not learnt that where there is no priest one must give the terumah from that which is most durable?6 Obviously then there is a priest present.7 Must we then say that in the case of the first clause there is no priest present whilst in the case of the second clause there is a priest present? - Yes. In the case of the first clause there is no priest present but in the case of the second clause there is a priest present. Said R. Papa, You may infer from this that we endeavour to interpret [two clauses of] a passage by suggesting two sets of facts rather than suggest that they represent the views of two Tannaim.8
MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS MUST BE KNEADED WITH LUKEWARM WATER AND MUST BE WATCHED LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED. IF ONE ALLOWED THE REMAINDER9 TO BECOME LEAVENED ONE TRANSGRESSES A PROHIBITION, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, NO MEAL-OFFERING WHICH YE SHALL BRING UNTO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE LEAVENED.10 ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING.
GEMARA. Whence is this derived?11 - Resh Lakish said, It is written, It shall not be baked leavened: their position,12 that is, even their portion must not be baked leavened. And is this verse required for this purpose? But it is required for the following which was taught: Wherefore does the text say, It shall not
____________________
(1) I.e., even more than a tenth, accordingly the previous objection that too much is given cannot stand.
(2) For when reckoning by weight the quantity set aside, sc. ten pressed figs, would be much less than a tenth.
(3) By number.
(4) V. Ter. II, 4. Accordingly the best (i.e., fresh figs) must be given to the priest, irrespective of custom.
(5) And therefore only dried figs which last longer should be set aside for the priest.
(6) In this case pressed figs.
(7) And therefore dried figs may not be given to the priest but only fresh ones, even though the priest will press them later on, for it is the custom to do so.
(8) For one could have answered that in each case no priest was available and the reason why in the second clause one is not allowed to set aside dried figs is that the Tanna of this Baraitha is of the opinion that in every case the best must be given as terumah, even in the absence of a priest. This indeed is the opinion of R. Judah; v. Ter. loc. cit
(9) I.e., what is left of the meal-offering after the handful has been taken out.
(10) Lev. II, 11. The prohibition of this verse refers to the meal-offering as a whole, i.e., before the taking out of the handful. That the remainder must not be leavened is derived from another verse; v. Gemara, infra.
(11) That the remainder must not be leavened. V. prec. note.
(12) Ibid. VI, 10. The Heb. may be translated: 'their portion shall not be baked leavened'.be baked leavened? Has it not already stated, It shall not be made leavened?1 From the verse, It shall not be made leavened, I might have said that one is liable only once for all [the works involved], Scripture therefore says, It shall not be baked leavened. Now baking was included in the general prohibition; why was it specifically mentioned? So that every other work shall be like it; thus as the work of baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it, so I will include the work of kneading and of shaping and every other specific work, including also the work of smoothing2 which is also a specific work, that one is liable on account of each alone! - We derive our rule from the expression 'their portion'.3 Perhaps then the whole verse refers to this only!4 - If so [the prohibition] should have been, 'Their portion shall not be baked leavened'; why does Scripture say, It shall not be baked leavened: their portion? You can therefore infer both [prohibitions]. But perhaps the interpretation should be thus: for the baking which is expressly prohibited by the Divine Law one is liable once, but as for the other works one is only liable once for all of them! - This is a case of a subject which though included in a general proposition is specifically mentioned in order to teach us something concerning it, in which case what is specifically mentioned is not stated only for its own sake but to teach that the same affects the whole general proposition.5 But perhaps I should say that the verse 'it shall not be made leavened' is a general [prohibition] and the verse 'It shall not be baked leavened' is a particular [prohibition]; we thus have a general rule followed by a specific particular, in which case the general rule is limited to the particular specified, so that only the baking is prohibited but no other work! - R. Aptoriki explained, Here the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other,6 and in every case where the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular does not apply.7
R. Adda b. Ahabah (some say, Kadi) objected, Do you say that where the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular does not apply? Surely it has been taught: It is written, And he shall slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering before the Lord; it is a sin-offering.8 Now where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? On the north side;9 this too is slaughtered on the north side. But do we derive it from here?10 Is it not written, In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered?11 Why then is the former verse8 necessary? It serves to make the rule absolute,12 namely, that if it was not slaughtered on the north side it is invalid. You say that it serves to make this rule absolute, but perhaps it is not so but teaches rather that this [sin-offering] must be [slaughtered] on the north side but no other13 requires the north side! The text therefore states, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering;14 this establishes the rule that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered on the north side. Now this is the conclusion because the Divine Law has also written, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering, but without this verse I would have held that only this [sin-offering] requires the north side but no other requires the north side. And why? Is it not because this would be a case of a general rule followed by a specific particular, which would be governed by the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular, notwithstanding that the two are far away from each other?15 Thereupon R. Ashi demurred, Is this an instance of a general rule followed by a specific particular? It is an instance of a specific particular followed by a general rule,16 in which case the general rule extends beyond the scope of the specific particular, and includes every [sin-offering]17 Rather the fact is that the Tanna's counter-argument was based upon the expression 'it';18 and he argued thus: 'perhaps it is not so but teaches rather that this [sin-offering] must be [slaughtered] on the north side but no other requires the north side', since the Divine Law stated 'it'.
Now that the general rule19 is derived from the verse, 'And he shall slaughter the sin-offering', what does the term 'it' exclude? - (Mnemonic: Nahshon, the slaughterer, a bird, the Passover-offering.) It teaches that it must be on the north side, but Nahshon's he-goat20 'was not [slaughtered] on the north side. For I might have thought that since the latter was included under the law of laying on of hands it was also included under the law requiring the north side; we are therefore taught [that it was not so]. And whence do we know that this was so concerning the laying on of hands?21 - For it was taught: The verse, And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the he-goat,22 includes also Nahshon's he-goat, for the requirement of the laying on of hands. So R. Judah. But R. Simeon says,
____________________
(1) Ibid. II, 11.
(2) Sc. the surface of the dough with moist hands (Rashi). Others: cutting away a lump of dough sufficient for each loaf (R. Gershom); or, shaping the loaf (Maim.).
(3) Which expression, following immediately upon the prohibition 'It shall not be baked leavened', signifies that even the remainder shall not be baked leavened.
(4) I.e., that the remainder shall not be leavened. Whence then do we know that the meal-offering as a whole, before the taking out of the handful, is subject to this prohibition?
(5) The general prohibition 'It shall not be made leavened' includes every work in connection with the meal-offering, and certainly the baking, but the latter was specifically prohibited to teach that for the baking alone, as well as for any single work in connection with the meal-offering, one is liable.
(6) The former is stated in Lev. II, 11, whilst the latter in VI, 10.
(7) V. Pes. 6b.
(8) Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler.
(9) Cf. ibid. I, 11.
(10) That the sin-offering must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar.
(11) Ibid. VI, 18.
(12) The repetition of this rule establishes it as an obligation and absolutely indispensable.
(13) E.g., the communal sin-offerings offered on the Festivals. V. Sh. Mek. n. 3.
(14) Ibid. IV, 29.
(15) In VI, 18 the rule is stated with regard to sin-offerings generally whilst in IV, 24 it is stated with regard to the special case of a sin-offering of a ruler.
(16) For the specific case is stated before the general rule, v. prec. note.
(17) Accordingly the verse, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering (ibid. IV, 29), is rendered superfluous.
(18) Heb. אותו, 'it' to the exclusion of others. The third verse (Lev. IV, 29) was therefore necessary to extend the rule generally so as to include all sin-offerings.
(19) That all sin-offerings must be slaughtered on the north side.
(20) The he-goat offered as a sin-offering by Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, (and likewise by each of the princes of the other tribes, v. Num. VII, 12ff) at the dedication of the altar. This sin-offering was peculiar in that it was offered not in expiation of any sin committed.
(21) That Nahshon's he-goat required the laying on of hands before slaughtering.
(22) Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler. Other offerings of a he-goat are included in this verse by reason of the fact that 'he-goat' is expressly mentioned here instead of the more usual expression 'upon its head'.It includes the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry for the requirement of the laying on of hands.1 Rabina demurred, [saying], It is well according to R. Judah's view,2 but what is to be said if R. Simeon's view is followed?3 Thereupon Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina, But even according to R. Judah should we not say that that which is expressly included4 is included, and that which is not included5 is not included? And if you retort that without a verse to exclude it5 you would have included it by virtue of the general principle,6 then with regard to the requirement of laying on of hands Scripture should have been silent concerning it since it would have been included by virtue of the general principle. But [you would answer that] we may not derive [the regulations applicable, to] a temporary enactment7 from a permanent law, then with regard to this,5 too, we may not derive a temporary enactment from a permanent law!8 - This then is the interpretation: 'It' must be [slaughtered] on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand at the north side.9 But is not this to be derived from R. Ahiyah's teaching? For it was taught: R. Ahiyah says, Wherefore does the text state, And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward?10 It is because concerning the receiving [of the blood] we know that [the priest] must stand on the north side and receive [the blood] on the north side, and if he stood on the south side and received [the blood] on the north side the offering is invalid;11 now I might have thought that it is the same here [with regard to the slaughtering], Scripture therefore stated 'it', signifying that 'it' must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand on the north side!12 - Rather [then interpret it thus]: 'It' must be on the north side but [the killing of] a bird-offering need not be on the north side. For I might have argued [that this was essential] by an a fortiori argument from a lamb-offering thus: if [the slaughtering of] a lamb-offering, which does not require the services of a priest, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that [the killing of] a bird-offering, which requires the services of a priest, shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so13 with a lamb-offering because it requires an instrument [for the slaughtering]!14 - Rather then [we must interpret it as follows]: 'It' must be on the north side, but the slaughtering of the Passover-offering need not be on the north side. But is not the [exclusion of the] Passover-offering derived from the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? For it was taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, One might think that the Passover-offering requires slaughtering on the north side by reason of this a fortiori argument: if the slaughtering of a burnt-offering, which has no fixed time for the slaughtering, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that the slaughtering of the Passover-offering, which has a fixed time for the slaughtering thereof,15 shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so13 with a burnt-offering because it is wholly burnt! - One can argue the case from the sin-offering. But surely [one can retort that] this is so with the sin-offering because it effects atonement for those that are liable to the penalty of kareth! - One can argue the case from the guilt-offering. But surely this is so with the guilt-offering because it is a Most Holy offering.16 And if one were to argue the case from all these offerings, [one could retort that] this is so with all these mentioned because they are all Most Holy offerings! - Rather [we must say that the interpretation] is indeed as stated previously: 'It' must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not be on the north side; and as for your objection 'Is not this to be derived from R. Ahiyah's teaching?' [I say that] R. Ahiyah comes [not to teach] that the slaughterer need not be on the north side; he teaches rather that, in contradistinction from the slaughterer who need not be on the north side,17 the receiver of the blood must be on the north side. But is not this rule regarding the receiver of the blood derived from [the fact that Scripture states], 'And he shall take'18 and not 'he shall take'?19 - He [R. Ahiyah] does not base any exposition on the fact that Scripture states 'And he shall take' and not 'he shall take'.
ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING. R. Papa said, If a man baked [the meal-offering leavened], he has incurred stripes on two counts, once for shaping it [while leavened] and again for baking it.20 But have you not said above21 'As the baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it'? - This is no difficulty, for in the one case he shaped it and also baked it,22 but in the other case another shaped it and he baked it.23
Our Rabbis taught: If a firstling24 was attacked with congestion, it may be bled in a place where no blemish would result, but it may not be bled in a place where a blemish would result.25 So R. Meir. The Sages say, It may be bled even in a place where a blemish would result, provided that it is not slaughtered by reason of that blemish.26 R. Simeon says,
____________________
(1) V. infra 92b.
(2) For since he maintains that Nahshon's he-goat required laying on of hands just like an ordinary sin-offering, it would also have required slaughtering on the north side; therefore an express term was necessary in order to exclude the latter requirement.
(3) For according to him Nahshon's he-goat was different from ordinary sin-offerings, since it did not require laying on of hands, and presumably it did not require slaughtering on the north side; hence no term was necessary to exclude this.
(4) The rite of laying on of hands.
(5) The requirement of slaughtering on the north side.
(6) I.e., as all sin-offerings required slaughtering on the north side so this offering also required it.
(7) Sc. the offering of Nahshon's he-goat at the dedication of the altar.
(8) So that even according to R. Judah only that rite which was expressly stated as applying to Nahshon's he-goat did apply, but none other; hence slaughtering on the north side was not required for it; accordingly the term 'it' must be otherwise interpreted.
(9) He may stand on the south side and slaughter the animal which is on the north side by using a long knife for the purpose.
(10) Lev. I, 11.
(11) V. Zeb. 48a.
(12) So that the term 'it', stated in Lev. IV, 24, has not been satisfactorily interpreted.
(13) That slaughtering on the north side is essential.
(14) Whereas the killing of a bird sacrifice is performed by the priest nipping off the head with his thumb; cf. Lev. I, 15.
(15) It must be slaughtered on the eve of the Passover Festival on the fourteenth day of Nisan in the afternoon.
(16) Whereas the Passover-offering is of the Less Holy offerings.
(17) This is derived from the term 'it' (Lev. IV, 24) stated in connection with the sin-offering of a ruler.
(18) Ibid. IV, 25.
(19) The rule is derived from the superfluous waw 'and' (R. Gershom). According to Sh. Mek. the text should read: 'From (the fact that Scripture states), And he shall take, which signifies, and he shall take himself'. I.e., the receiver of the blood shall betake himself to the place where he is about to receive the blood, namely, the north side. V. Zeb. 48a.
(20) The baking is regarded as a twofold work, as the completion of the work of shaping and as the baking proper.
(21) Supra p. 329.
(22) In this case he would not be liable on two counts for the baking, since he has already incurred liability for the shaping as a separate work. Only in this sense can the baking be described as a single and specific work.
(23) The other would then be liable for the shaping, whilst he would be liable for the baking which involves two counts, the baking proper and the completion of the shaping. V. however, Tosaf. s.v. אפאה, and com. of R. Gershom.
(24) The firstling, after Temple times, since it can no longer be offered, is given to the priest, but he is forbidden to slaughter it unless it is blemished. It is, however, forbidden to blemish a firstling or any consecrated beast.
(25) E.g., to bleed the firstling at the ear or lip would leave a scar or blemish.
(26) For otherwise it is to be feared that the owner would bleed it deliberately, although it was not suffering from congestion, in order to be allowed to slaughter it.It may even be slaughtered by reason of that blemish.1 R. Judah says, It may not be bled2 even though it would otherwise die.3
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, All agree4 that whosoever leavens [the meal-offering] after it was already leavened5 is liable, for it is written, It shall not be made leavened,6 and it is also written, It shall not be baked leavened.7 And that whosoever castrates a beast after it was already castrated8 is liable, for it is written, That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn off or cut, [. . . neither shall ye do thus in your land].9 Now if one is liable for cutting how much more so for tearing off! [Wherefore is the latter mentioned?] To teach that one is also liable if one tears them away after they were already cut. They4 only differ as to whether one may blemish a blemished animal. R. Meir says, It is written, There shall be no blemish at all therein;10 but the Rabbis say, It is written, It shall be perfect to be accepted.11 Against R. Meir [it will be objected], is there not written, 'It shall be perfect to be accepted'? - That would only exclude what was born blemished.12 But what was born blemished is no better than a tree! - It excludes rather consecrated animals that have been rendered unfit [by reason of a blemish] and have been redeemed; for I might have argued that since these may not be sheared of their wool nor put to any labour it is also forbidden to inflict any further blemish upon them, we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. And against the Rabbis [it will be objected], is it not written, 'There shall be no blemish at all therein'? - That verse is necessary for the following teaching: It is written, 'There shall be no blemish at all therein': I gather from this that one may not inflict any blemish upon it, but whence do I know that one may not cause it to suffer a blemish indirectly,13 [e.g.] that one may not place a lump of dough or a pressed fig upon its ear so as to tempt a dog to take it?14 The text therefore says, 'No blemish at all'; not only does it say 'no blemish' but also 'no blemish at all'.15
R. Ammi said, If a man placed leaven upon the dough [of a meal-offering] and went and sat him down, and the dough became leavened of its own, he is liable for it, just as it is an act of work on the Sabbath.16 But would one be liable for doing such an act of work as this on the Sabbath? Has not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said
____________________
(1) Since the bleeding was not intended to blemish the beast but merely to relieve it from its congestion, the blemish that results is regarded as accidental and the beast may be slaughtered on account of it; this being in accordance with R. Simeon's view that a result not intended is ignored; v. Shab. 133a.
(2) Even in a place from which no physical blemish would result for it is to be feared that in his anxiety to save the beast the owner would not be careful as to the place where he bleeds it and might do so even in a place from which a blemish would certainly result.
(3) V. Bek. 33b.
(4) I.e., R. Meir and the above Rabbis who differ concerning the propriety of blemishing a beast which is already blemished, for here the firstling is indeed blemished by reason of its congestion which would prove fatal if it were not bled.
(5) I.e., if one shaped or baked the dough of the meal-offering which had been made leavened by another person.
(6) Lev. II, 11.
(7) Ibid. VI, 10. Hence it is clear that for baking it leavened even after it had already been 'made' leavened one is liable.
(8) I.e., one man had wrenched the testicles away from the body and left them in the scrotum, and another came and cut them away entirely.
(9) Ibid. XXII, 24. The latter part of this verse is understood as a general prohibition against castration.
(10) Ibid. 21. Even though the beast is blemished there shall be no further blemish therein.
(11) Ibid. Only such as are fit for offering may not be blemished.
(12) And therefore was at no time holy. This certainly may be blemished.
(13) Lit., 'by other means'.
(14) And to bite its ear at the same time, thus causing a blemish.
(15) Including blemishes indirectly caused.
(16) E. g., if one placed meat on the coals on the Sabbath one would be liable for roasting, although the roasting was done of its own accord.in the name of R. Johanan, If a man placed meat on coals [on the Sabbath] and also turned it over, he is liable, but if he did not turn it over he is not liable? - Raba answered; He meant to say, He is liable for it just as the act of roasting on the Sabbath.1
The text [above stated]: 'Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man placed meat on coals [on the Sabbath] and also turned it over, he is liable, but if he did not turn it over he is not liable'. How is this to be understood? If I say that the meat would not have been roasted if he had not turned it over, then obviously [he is not liable if he did not turn it over]; and if it would have been roasted even though he had not turned it over, why then is he not liable [where he did not turn it over]? - It is necessary to be stated only for the circumstance where, had he not turned it over, it would have been roasted on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai,2 but with turning it over it would have been roasted on both sides to that extent. Now we are here taught that whatsoever is done on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai is insignificant.
Raba said, If it had been [well] roasted3 in one place the size of a dried fig, one would be liable.4 Rabina said to R. Ashi, Is it then that only [if roasted] in one place [to the size of a dried fig] one is [liable], but not [if roasted] in two or three places?5 But we have learnt: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable.6 Now what can this mean? Will you say it means [a hole] in one place? But of what use can a tiny hole be? Obviously then it means [holes] in two or three places, [no matter how small], since they can be joined together.7 - No, I still say it means a hole in one place, for it can serve as a keyhole.
Another version states: Raba said, Even if it had been roasted in two or three places [together making up the size of a dried fig, one would be liable]. Rabina said to R. Ashi, We have learnt in a Mishnah to the same effect: He who bores a hole, however small, is liable. Now what can this mean? Will you say it means a hole in one place? But of what use can a tiny hole be? It must mean [holes] in two or three places, [no matter how small,] since they can be joined together! - No, I still say it means a hole in one place, for it can serve as a keyhole.
Our Rabbis taught: Had Scripture only stated, Which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall not be made leavened,8 I should have said that only the handful shall not be made leavened, but whence would I know [that this prohibition applies to] the whole meal-offering?9 The text therefore added, 'Meal-offering'.8 And whence would I know that this applies to other meal-offerings too?10 The text therefore stated, 'Every meal-offering'.8 'Which ye shall bring unto the Lord' signifies what is valid, but not what is invalid;11 hence they said, He who leavens a valid meal-offering is liable, but he who leavens what is invalid is not liable.
R. Papa enquired, What is the law if a man leavened the meal-offering and it was then taken out [of the Sanctuary], and afterwards he again leavened it?12 [Shall I say,] since it has been taken out it has thereby become invalid, and consequently by leavening it thereafter he cannot be held liable for leavening what was already leavened; or perhaps I should say, since it has been leavened it cannot be affected by being taken out, and consequently by leavening it again he would be liable for leavening what was already leavened? This question remains undecided.
R. Mari enquired, What is the law if he leavened [the handful] at the head of the altar? Does not the Divine Law say, 'Which ye shall bring', and this has already been brought up;13 or perhaps I should say, since it still requires to be burnt it is as though the act [of bringing] has not been completed? This question remains undecided.
And now that the general prohibition has been derived from 'every meal-offering', wherefore is the expression 'which ye shall bring'14 stated? - It is required for the following which was taught: Which ye shall bring includes the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening.15 So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, It includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening.16 But is not the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings prepared with fruit juice,17
____________________
(1) I.e., the placing of leaven on dough, which is the whole act of leavening, is equivalent to placing meat on coals and turning it over for the other side to roast, which two acts together constitute the act of roasting.
(2) The name of a bandit who used to eat his food slightly done; gen. a third done.
(3) Cur. edd. add here: 'on one side'. This is not found in MS.M. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.
(4) Even though it had not been turned over.
(5) Which together make up the size of a dried fig.
(6) Shab. 102b.
(7) To make one large hole. Similarly here, the parts roasted should be reckoned together so as to make up the size of a dried fig.
(8) Lev. II, 11.
(9) I.e., before the handful was taken out.
(10) For the prohibition is expressly stated in connection with a meal-offering prepared in a pan.
(11) E.g., if the meal-offering was taken out of the Sanctuary and thereby had become invalid or if it had become unclean.
(12) I.e., he performed another work with this dough which had already been leavened, e.g. he baked it.
(13) To the head of the altar before it was leavened.
(14) Which refers specifically to the handful only.
(15) For this meal-offering is different in that no part thereof is eaten but it is wholly burnt upon the altar; it was therefore necessary for this to be expressly included within the prohibition of leavening. On the other hand, the Shewbread does not come within this prohibition according to R. Jose, for he is of the opinion that the Shewbread was hallowed only when set upon the table and not before when the flour was measured out, for the measuring vessels for dry goods were not consecrated as vessels of ministry.
(16) R. Akiba maintains that the measuring vessels for dry goods were consecrated and so the flour was hallowed for a meal-offering (for such is the Shewbread) as soon as it was measured out; hence it comes within the prohibition of leavening.
(17) The meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings required a large quantity of oil, three logs to the tenth, and presumably no water was added to it; accordingly it cannot possibly become leavened.and fruit juice cannot render aught leaven? - Resh Lakish answered that R. Jose the Galilean was of the opinion that it was permitted to mix the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings with water.1 But was not the [flour for the] Shewbread put into a measuring vessel for dry goods, and we know that R. Akiba is of the opinion that the measuring vessel for dry goods was not consecrated?2 - Rabin3 sent the following answer in the name of R. Johanan: That is, indeed, the proper construction of the teaching, but the authorities must be reversed: 'Which ye shall bring' includes the Shewbread, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening. So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, It includes the meal-offering which is offered with the drink-offerings, so that it too comes within the prohibition of leavening.
R. Johanan is indeed consistent in his view, for R. Johanan has said that R. Jose the Galilean and one of the disciples of R. Ishmael - namely, R. Josiah-both hold the same view, For it was taught: It is written, And had anointed them and sanctified them.4 R. Josiah says, The liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside, while the dry-measures were anointed inside but not outside. R. Jonathan says, The liquid-measures were anointed inside but not outside, while the dry-measures were not anointed at all. This can be proved from the fact that they do not hallow [what was put into them], for it is written, Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for firstfruits unto the Lord;5 when are they appointed unto the Lord? Only after they have been baked.6
Wherein do they differ? In the interpretation of the word 'them'.7 R. Josiah maintains that the word 'them' excludes the outside of the dry-measure; but R. Jonathan holds that the dry-measure was not holy at all and no verse is necessary to exclude it; the word 'them' can thus serve to exclude only the outside of the liquid-measure.
And why did not [R. Johanan] say that R. Akiba and one of the disciples of R. Ishmael - namely R. Jonathan - both said the same thing?8 - Because they do not agree entirely about the liquid-measures.9
R. Papa said to Abaye, Was not a bowl used [for the kneading of the Shewbread], and that was [a measuring vessel] for liquids?10 - He replied, It might have been kneaded on a slab.11 But if so, when R. Jonathan said 'This can be proved from the fact that they do not hallow [what was put into them]', [his colleague] could have retorted that it might have been measured out in an unconsecrated tenth measure!12 - [The two cases] cannot be compared; for with regard to the bowl, since the Divine Law did not expressly prescribe a bowl for the kneading, if it was kneaded on a slab it did not matter in the least; but with regard to the tenth measure, since the Divine Law directed that a tenth measure be made wherewith the flour might be measured, would one reject the consecrated tenth measure and measure with an unconsecrated tenth measure?
Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it derived that whosoever offers of the flesh of a sin-offering or of a guilt-offering, of the flesh of a Most Holy13 or of a Less Holy offering, of the residue of the 'Omer-offering, of the residue of the Two Loaves, of the Shewbread, or of the remainder of meal-offerings, transgresses a negative precept? Because the text states, For any leaven or any honey ye shall not burn of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord,14 signifying that any offering, if only a portion of it is offered upon the fire, comes under the prohibition of ye shall not burn.15 But is any part of the Two Loaves or of the Shewbread offered upon the fire? Surely it has been taught: Thus the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are excluded16 since no part of them is offered upon the fire! - R. Shesheth answered, It meant there that no part of them is actually offered upon the fire.17
It was reported: If a person brought up any of the abovementioned parts upon the ascent,18 R. Johanan said, He is liable;19 but R. Eleazar said, He is not liable. 'R. Johanan said, He is liable', for it was taught: The verse says, The altar:20 I know this21 only of the altar, whence do I know it of the ascent too? The text states: But they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar.20 'R. Eleazar said, He is not liable', because the verse says, Leaven and honey . . . as an offering of firstfruits ye may bring them unto the Lord;20 only with regard to these22 is it implied that the ascent is on a par with the altar, but with no other offering is it so.
____________________
(1) It can therefore become leavened.
(2) V. infra 90a. Hence it cannot be subject to the prohibition of leavening since it was not hallowed as a meal-offering until set upon the table, for even the kneading need not have been in a vessel of ministry.
(3) So MSS., Rashi, and Sh.Mek. Cur. edd.: 'R. Reuben'.
(4) Num. VII, 1. The reference is to the anointing of the altar vessels which were vessels for liquids.
(5) Lev. XXIII, 17.
(6) So that, although the flour must have been measured out in a measuring vessel, it was not hallowed 'unto the Lord' until after the baking in the oven of the Sanctuary.
(7) Heb. אותם. The suggestion is that this word signifies the essential part of the vessel, namely the inside only.
(8) Since R. Akiba and R. Jonathan both hold that the dry-measures were not consecrated.
(9) For R. Akiba maintains that the liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside so as to hallow whatsoever was put inside them as well as what was on the outside; v. infra 90a.
(10) The kneading bowl, being a vessel of ministry, would assuredly have hallowed the loaves before they were put into the oven.
(11) Which was of leather and was not consecrated as a vessel of ministry.
(12) Just as the kneading was not done in the usual vessel of ministry, one can also say that the flour was measured out in an unconsecrated measure, and on that account the loaves were only hallowed at the baking and not before. Had they, however, been measured out in a consecrated measure they would have become hallowed forthwith.
(13) E.g., the two lambs offered on the Pentecost as peace-offerings. They would not include burnt-offerings which are wholly offered on the altar.
(14) Lev. II, 11. 'It is apparent that the expression 'of it', Heb. ממנו, is superfluous in the verse, and is interpreted therefore as the basis for the rule, that once the prescribed portion of an offering has been duly offered up on the altar the rest may not under any circumstances be burnt upon the altar.
(15) Accordingly each offering enumerated in this Baraitha is subject to the prohibition of 'ye shall not burn', since a portion of each has already been offered as an offering by fire on the altar. Thus, of the animal sacrifices the fat parts have been offered, of the meal-offerings the handfuls, of the Two Loaves the fat parts of the two lambs which accompanied them, and of the Shewbread the two dishes of frankincense.
(16) They are not to be 'presented' or brought near to the altar. V. infra 60b.
(17) In contradistinction from other offerings from which a handful is offered. Nevertheless since the offering consisted of the Loaves and the lambs or of the Shewbread and the frankincense, it is also true to say that part of the offering is offered upon the fire.
(18) The slope which leads to the altar.
(19) Just as if he had offered the part upon the altar.
(20) Lev. II, 12.
(21) That it is prohibited to burn the remainder of an offering whereof a part has been duly offered up.
(22) Limited by the pronoun 'them', אותם. The verse applies only to those offerings which are described as 'an offering of firstfruits', namely, the Two Loaves and the Firstfruits.And to what purpose does R. Johanan employ the term 'them'? - He requires it for the following which was taught: One might think that an individual may make a freewill-offering [of two loaves] in the same manner and offer it; for I would apply the verse, That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do,1 the text therefore states, As an offering of firstfruits ye may bring, meaning only the community may bring them but not an individual.2 One might further think that an individual may not offer them since he does not offer the like as an obligation, but the community may offer them [as a freewill-offering] since it must offer the like as an obligation, the text therefore states 'them'; only these are to be offered, namely, the Two Loaves which are with leaven and the offering of firstfruits which includes honey.
But was it then not permissible to offer the Two Loaves as a freewill-offering? Surely it has been taught: Since Scripture has stated any leaven,3 why has it also stated any honey?3 Or since it has stated any honey, why has it also stated any leaven? It is because there is a condition which applies to leaven but not to honey, and there is also a condition which applies to honey but not to leaven. Leaven admits of an exception in that it is permitted in the Temple but honey does not admit of any exception in the Temple. Honey is permitted to be used in the remainder of a meal-offering4 but leaven is not permitted to be used in the remainder of a meal-offering. Therefore, since there is a condition which applies to leaven but not to honey, and there is a condition which applies to honey but not to leaven, Scripture had to state 'any leaven' and also 'any honey'. Now to what did it refer when it said 'Leaven admits of an exception in that it is permitted in the Temple'? No doubt to the Two Loaves, which may be offered as a freewill-offering!5 - No, said R. 'Amram; it referred to what was offered with them.6 But then it is the same with the firstfruits, is it not?7 For we have learnt: The pigeons that were upon the baskets [of firstfruits] were sacrificed as burnt-offerings, but those which the people carried in their hands they gave to the priests!8 - Those were only for adorning the firstfruits.9
Rami b. Hama enquired of R. Hisda, What is the law if one offered upon the altar the flesh of a sin-offering of a bird? Does the Scriptural rule10 refer only to that offering of which a portion has been offered upon the fire, and of this no portion has been offered upon the fire; or [does it refer] to everything that is called an offering, and this too is called an offering? - He answered, [It refers to] everything that is called an offering and this too is called an offering.11
Tannaim differ on this point. R. Eliezer says, [The prohibition12 refers only to] that offering of which a portion has been offered upon the fire; but R. Akiba says, [It refers to] everything that is called an offering. Wherein lies the difference between them? - R. Hisda said, In regard to the flesh of the sin-offering of a bird.13 Rab said, In regard to the log of oil of a leper.13 (For Levi taught: The expression 'every offering of theirs'14 includes the log of oil of the leper.)15
Our Rabbis taught: Leaven . . . ye shall not burn.16 From this I only know the rule17 for the whole, but whence do I know it for a part thereof? Because the text states, Any leaven.16 And whence do I know it for the mixture? Because the text states, For any leaven.16 What does this mean?18 - Abaye said, It means this: 'Leaven . . . ye shall not burn'. From this I only know the rule for an olive's bulk,19 but whence do I know it for a half-olive's bulk?20 Because the text states, 'Any leaven'. And whence do I know it for the mixture?21 Because the text states, For any leaven'. Raba said, It means this: 'Leaven . . . ye shall not burn'. From this I only know the rule for the [whole] handful, but whence do I know it for half of the handful? Because the text states, 'Any leaven'. And whence do I know it for the mixture? Because the text states, 'For any leaven.
Wherein do they differ? - Abaye maintains that the handful may be less than two olives' bulk
____________________
(1) Deut. XXIII, 24.
(2) For the verb תקריבו, 'ye may bring', is in the plural.
(3) 'Any', Heb. כל need not have been stated in both cases, since whatever rule is derived from one (v. infra) would equally apply to the other.
(4) Cf. Hul. 132b.
(5) Upon the altar. For the Two Loaves which were brought as an obligation were not offered on the altar.
(6) I.e., the two lambs which were offered as an obligation together with the Two Loaves may also be offered as a freewill-offering upon the altar.
(7) For pigeons which were offered with the firstfruits may also be offered as a freewill-offering; hence it cannot be said that the rules concerning leaven do not apply to honey.
(8) Bik. III,5
(9) But were not offered as an obligation with the firstfruits.
(10) That what remains of the offering may not be burnt upon the altar.
(11) Cf. Lev. I, 14.
(12) That what remains of the offering may not be burnt upon the altar.
(13) Which is referred to as an offering (cf. Lev. I, 14 and XIV, 12) although none of it is burnt upon the altar.
(14) Num. XVIII, 9.
(15) This teaching of Levi is omitted in all MSS. and apparently was not in the text before Rashi. It is struck out here by Sh. Mek.
(16) Lev. II, 11.
(17) That it must not be burnt upon the altar leavened.
(18) What is meant by 'the whole' and 'the part'?
(19) Since this may be the whole handful.
(20) That this quantity is nevertheless reckoned as a 'burning' and therefore comes under the prohibition of 'ye shall not burn'.
(21) I.e., if the handful consisted of what was partly leavened and partly unleavened and the one was not distinguishable from the other.and that the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk counts as an offering;1 whereas Raba maintains that the handful may not be less than two olives' bulk and that the burning of a quantity less than an olive's bulk does not count as an offering.
It was stated: If a man offered leaven and honey2 upon the altar, he has incurred stripes, said Raba, once for offering leaven, again for offering honey, again for offering leaven in a mixture, and yet again for offering honey in a mixture. But Abaye said, He does not suffer stripes for the breach of a negative precept which includes a number of prohibitions.3 Some say that he suffers stripes but once;4 but others say that he does not suffer stripes at all,5 since the negative precept is not as specific as that of 'muzzling'.6
____________________
(1) Hence one is liable for burning a half-olive's bulk of leaven upon the altar.
(2) In one mixture (Rashi). According to Tosaf. he offered some leaven, some honey, and a mixture of leaven and honey. Hence he suffers stripes four times.
(3) Accordingly he does not suffer stripes for offering the mixture, since the negative precept of the mixture (implied in the term 'for any' v. supra) includes prohibitions for the mixture of leaven and the mixture of honey. V. Tosaf. s.v. המעלה and אין.
(4) For the inclusive negative precept. In the case in question, therefore, he would suffer stripes three times, once for offering the leaven, again for the honey, and a third time for the mixtures.
(5) For the inclusive negative precept; so that he would suffer stripes but twice.
(6) Sc. the ox when treading the corn, Deut. XXV, 4. This is given as an example of a specific negative precept because it follows immediately upon the law concerning stripes, Deut. XXV, 1ff.MISHNAH. SOME [MEAL-OFFERINGS] REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE, SOME REQUIRE OIL BUT NOT FRANKINCENSE, SOME FRANKINCENSE BUT NOT OIL, AND SOME NEITHER OIL NOR FRANKINCENSE. THESE REQUIRE OIL AND FRANKINCENSE: THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR,1 THAT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE, THAT PREPARED IN A PAN, THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS,2 THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST,3 THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE,4 THE MEAL-OFFERING OF WOMEN,5 AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE 'OMER.6 THE MEAL-OFFERING OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS7 REQUIRES OIL BUT NOT FRANKINCENSE. THE SHEWBREAD REQUIRES FRANKINCENSE BUT NOT OIL. THE TWO LOAVES,8 THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING9 AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY10 REQUIRE NEITHER OIL NOR FRANKINCENSE.
GEMARA. R. Papa said, All [the meal-offerings] enumerated in the Mishnah must consist of ten [cakes].11 He thus rejects R. Simeon's view who said, He may offer half in cakes and half in wafers;12 and so he teaches us [that it is not so].
Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And thou shalt put oil upon it,13 - upon it but not upon the Shewbread. For [without the verse] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if the meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings, which does not require frankincense, nevertheless requires oil, how much more does the Shewbread, which requires frankincense, require oil! The text therefore stated 'Upon it', - upon it shall be oil but not upon the Shewbread. [It is further written], And thou shalt lay frankincense upon it,14 - upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. For [without the verse] I would have argued by an a fortiori argument thus: if the Shewbread, which does not require oil, nevertheless requires frankincense, how much more does the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, which requires oil, require frankincense! The text therefore stated, 'Upon it' - upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings. Meal-offering14 - this includes the meal-offering offered on the eighth day15 [of consecration], so that it too required frankincense. It is14 - this excludes the Two Loaves, so that they require neither oil nor frankincense.
The Master said, 'Upon it shall be oil but not upon the Shewbread'. Might I not say, Upon it shall be oil but not upon the meal-offering of the priests? - It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of the priests, since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer it consists of] a tenth [of an ephah],16 [requires] a vessel of ministry,17 is prepared outside,18 [becomes unfit when] its appearance [is spoilt],19 requires bringing near [to the altar],20 and [is burnt upon] the fire [of the altar].21 On the contrary it is more reasonable to include the Shewbread since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer it is an offering on behalf of] the community,22 is obligatory,22 [may be offered in] uncleanness,23 is eaten,24 [is subject to] piggul,25 [and is offered] on the Sabbath!26 - The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one.27
The Master said, 'Upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings'. Might I not say, Upon it shall be frankincense but not upon the meal-offering of the priests? - It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of the priests, since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer it consists of] a tenth, is mixed [with a log of oil],28 is brought [near the altar], [and is offered] by itself.29 On the contrary it is more reasonable to include the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer it is an offering on behalf of] the community,30 is obligatory, [and may be offered in] uncleanness [and] on the Sabbath? - The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one.31
'Meal-offering-this includes the meal-offering offered on the eighth day [of consecration], so that it too required frankincense'. Perhaps it excludes it? - It is out of the question; if you say that it includes it, it is well,32 but if you say that it excludes it, the expression is then superfluous, for surely we would not infer a temporary enactment from a permanent law!
'It is - this excludes the Two Loaves, so that they require neither oil nor frankincense'. Might I not say that it excludes the meal-offering of priests? - It is more reasonable to include the meal-offering of priests, since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer it consists of] a tenth, [requires] a vessel [of ministry], is unleavened, [is offered] by itself, must be brought near [to the altar], [and is burnt upon] the fire [of the altar].33 On the contrary,
____________________
(1) Cf. Lev. II, 1. A promise of a meal-offering without further specification, entails the bringing of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, together with oil and frankincense; they were mixed together and then the priest took out a handful from it and burnt it on the altar. This is the only individual meal-offering for which the Torah expressly prescribes oil and frankincense. The others enumerated in the Mishnah are derived by analogy from this meal-offering.
(2) Of the meal-offering baked in an oven, Lev. II, 4. It may consist either of ten unleavened cakes or ten unleavened wafers; v. Gemara.
(3) The daily meal-offering of the High Priest known as חביתי כהן גדול cf. Lev. VI, 13ff.
(4) All freewill-offerings may be accepted from gentiles, v. Shek. I, 5.
(5) I.e., when a woman offers a meal-offering of her free will.
(6) V. Lev. II, 14, and XXIII, 9-14.
(7) V. Num. XV, 4ff.
(8) Of Pentecost. V. Lev. XXIII, 17.
(9) Brought by a person of poor means as a sin-offering on the commission of any one of the transgressions mentioned in Lev. V, 1-4.
(10) Brought by a woman suspected by her husband of adultery; v. Num. V, 15.
(11) The first four meal-offerings mentioned in our Mishnah must each be baked into ten cakes, so that even the fourth kind of meal-offering, namely that baked in an oven, for which an alternative is allowed, must consist nevertheless either of ten cakes or of ten wafers, but not of five cakes and five wafers, contra R. Simeon. Another interpretation is: The meal-offerings enumerated in our Mishnah (as requiring both oil and frankincense) are ten in number, reckoning 'THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS' as two. According to R. Simeon, however, it must be reckoned as three, since the meal-offering baked in an oven may consist of either ten cakes or ten wafers or five cakes and five wafers.
(12) V. infra 63a and b.
(13) Lev. II, 15, with reference to the meal-offering of the 'Omer.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Cf. Lev. IX, 4.
(16) Whereas each cake of the Shewbread was of two tenths of flour.
(17) Wherein to knead the meal-offering, at which time it was hallowed. The Shewbread, on the other hand, was not hallowed until it was baked in the oven of the Sanctuary.
(18) The offering is performed upon the altar in the Temple court, whereas the offering of the Shewbread, i.e., the setting of the loaves on the table, was performed in the Temple proper, in the היכל.
(19) An expression signifying that it must not be kept overnight, as it belonged to the Most Holy class of offerings. The Shewbread, however, was kept for seven days upon the table, from Sabbath to Sabbath,
(20) Which is not the case with the Shewbread.
(21) The priest's meal-offering was wholly burnt upon the altar, and from the 'Omer-offering a handful was burnt; but no part of the Shewbread was burnt upon the altar.
(22) Which is not the case with the meal-offering of the priests.
(23) Every offering brought by the community as an obligation overrides the laws of uncleanness, cf. Pes. 76b. This is not so with the offering of an individual.
(24) The Shewbread and the remainder of the 'Omer-offering were shared amongst the priests and eaten, whereas the priests' meal-offering was wholly burnt.
(25) V. Glos. It is established law that every offering which is rendered permissible, either for the altar or for man, by a certain rite (the mattir, v. Glos.), is subject to the law of piggul. V. Zeb. 43a. The priests' meal-offering, however, since it is wholly burnt is outside the scope of this rule.
(26) The 'Omer-offering was brought even on the Sabbath (v. infra 63a), and the Shewbread was regularly offered, i.e., set, on the Sabbath; but no individual offering was brought on the Sabbath.
(27) Lev. II, 1. Lit., 'a soul', i.e., an individual. Since here in connection with the meal-offering of fine flour, where oil (as well as frankincense) is expressly prescribed, Scripture uses the term 'any one', it is inferred that every individual meal-offering requires oil (and also frankincense, v. infra). Hence the priests' meal-offering is included.
(28) Whereas the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings varied in quantity: one tenth for a lamb, two for a ram, and three for a bullock; and the quantities of oil also varied, the tenth of the lamb requiring to be mixed with three logs of oil, and each tenth of the ram and the bullock with two logs of oil. V. Num. XV, 4ff.
(29) The meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings did not require bringing near the altar; moreover it was not offered by itself but always accompanied an animal-offering.
(30) For it was offered as an obligation with the communal Daily Offerings, accordingly it overrode the rules of uncleanness and the laws of Sabbath.
(31) V. p. 349, n. 7.
(32) For otherwise, without the Scriptural direction, I should have thought that that meal-offering of consecration was without frankincense, as one could not apply the general law of the meal-offering to a particular temporary enactment.
(33) The Two Loaves, on the other hand, consisted of two tenths, had to be leavened, and were only hallowed when baked in the oven of the Sanctuary. They were not an offering by themselves but were brought together with the two lambs of Pentecost, and were subsequently eaten by the priests.it is more reasonable to include the Two Loaves since [like the meal-offering of the 'Omer] they are offered on [behalf of] the community, are obligatory, [may be offered] in uncleanness, are eaten, [are subject to] piggul, [may be offered] on the Sabbath, render aught permissible,1 [require] waving, [must be from the produce of] the land [of Israel],2 [are offered on a fixed] date,3 [and must be offered from the] new [produce]; and here we have more points in common!4 - The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one.5
MISHNAH. [A MAN IS] LIABLE BECAUSE OF THE OIL BY ITSELF AND BECAUSE OF THE FRANKINCENSE BY ITSELF.6 IF HE PUT IN OIL, HE HAS RENDERED IT INVALID, BUT IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN. IF HE PUT OIL ON THE REMAINDER, HE HAS NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE PRECEPT. IF HE PUT ONE VESSEL ABOVE THE OTHER VESSEL,7 HE HAS NOT THEREBY RENDERED IT INVALID.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: He shall put no oil upon it,8 but if he put oil thereon he has made it invalid. I might also say, Neither shall he put any frankincense thereon,8 but if he did, he has made it invalid, the text therefore states for a sin-offering.9 I might then say that this is so with the oil too, the text therefore states it is.8 But why do you declare it invalid if oil was put thereon and valid if frankincense was put thereon? I declare it invalid if oil was put thereon, since it cannot be picked off again, but I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off again.
Raba son of R. Huna enquired of R. Johanan, How is it if he put upon it fine frankincense? Is it [valid if frankincense was put thereon] because it can be picked off again, but in this case it cannot be picked off again; or is it because it does not become absorbed,10 and this too does not become absorbed? Come and hear: AND IF FRANKINCENSE, HE MUST PICK IT OFF AGAIN,11 - Perhaps there are two reasons for it: firstly, that it does not become absorbed, and another reason is that it can be picked off again.12
Come and hear: 'I declare it valid if frankincense was put thereon, since it can be picked off'! - Here again we can reply that there are two reasons for it.
How is it then? - R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, It was taught: If a man put frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy, he must pick it off again and the meal-offering is valid. If before he had picked off the frankincense he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper time13 or place, it is invalid but the penalty of kareth14 is not incurred.15 But if after he had picked off the frankincense16 he expressed an intention [concerning an act to be performed] outside its proper place, it is invalid and the penalty of kareth is not incurred, but if outside its proper time, it is piggul14 and the penalty of kareth is incurred.
Surely it should be regarded as rejected!17 - Abaye answered, Scripture still refers to it as a sin-offering.18 Raba said, This represents the view of Hanan the Egyptian who does not consider anything as absolutely rejected. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says, Even though the blood is still in the bowl he may, without casting lots, bring another goat and pair it with the other.19 R. Ashi said, Whatsoever still remains in his power [to rectify] is never regarded as rejected.20
R. Adda said that R. Ashi's view is the more probable; for who is it that regards a matter as absolutely rejected? It is R. Judah, as we have learnt: Moreover, said R. Judah, if the blood21 was poured out, the Scapegoat must be left to die;22 and if the Scapegoat died, the blood must be poured out.23 Nevertheless, in regard to a matter which is still in his power [to rectify], it has been taught: R. Judah says, A cup was filled with the mingled blood [that was spilt on the ground]24 and it was sprinkled in one action towards the base [of the altar].25
R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man put the minutest quantity of oil upon an olive's bulk of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? For 'he shall not put'26 implies the putting of any quantity, however little; whilst 'upon it'26 implies at least the minimum quantity.27
R. Isaac b. Joseph also said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man put an olive's bulk of frankincense upon the minutest quantity of the [sinner's] meal-offering, he has thereby rendered it invalid. What is the reason? Because it is written, He shall not give [any frankincense],28 which signifies that there must be a quantity thereof worthy to be given. And as for the term 'upon it',
____________________
(1) The 'Omer rendered the new produce permissible to be eaten in the land of Israel, while the Two Loaves rendered it permissible to be used henceforth in the Temple.
(2) Whereas all other meal-offerings could be brought from produce grown outside Palestine.
(3) The 'Omer on the sixteenth day of Nisan and the Two Loaves at Pentecost.
(4) As all these features are absent in the meal-offering of the priests the points in common between the 'Omer-offering and the Two Loaves certainly outnumber those enumerated above as common between the 'Omer-offering and the meal-offering of the priests.
(5) V. supra p. 349, n. 7.
(6) I.e., if he put either oil or frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy.
(7) A vessel containing oil for frankincense was put over the one containing the sinner's meal-offering.
(8) Lev. V, 11, with reference to the sinner's meal-offering.
(9) Ibid. It is a valid sin-offering even though it has had frankincense put upon it.
(10) In the flour, as is the case with the oil.
(11) Evidently the main reason is that it can be picked off again; consequently where this is not possible, as in our case where the frankincense was ground fine, it would be invalid.
(12) And one reason is valid without the other so that even though it cannot be picked off again it is still valid since it is not absorbed in the flour.
(13) E.g., if during the taking out of the handful he intended to burn it outside its proper time or to eat of the remainder outside its proper time.
(14) V. Glos.
(15) For since the meal-offering is invalid by reason of the frankincense thereon the penalty for piggul cannot be incurred. V. supra 16b.
(16) And the meal-offering is valid once again. It is evident, therefore, that the sole reason why the addition of frankincense to the meal-offering does not render it absolutely invalid is that it can be picked off and so become valid once again.
(17) This is the text strongly supported by Tosaf. and for which there is MS. authority (v. Dik. Sof. a.l. n. 60), and the interpretation is as follows: Why is it taught in our Mishnah and in the Baraitha quoted in the Gemara that the frankincense may be picked off from the meal-offering? But surely, once the meal-offering has had frankincense put upon it, it became invalid and so absolutely rejected as a meal-offering! How then can it become valid after it had once been made invalid? Cf. the similar question in Zeb. 34b and the identical answers of Raba and R. Ashi. The text in cur. edd. reads: 'Let it be regarded as though a cruse (of oil had been poured out over the meal-offering); wherefore then is it rendered invalid by any wrongful intention? Surely it has become absolutely rejected!' And the interpretation is: why is it stated in the last-mentioned Baraitha that if a person expressed a wrongful intention with regard to the meal-offering whilst it had the frankincense upon it he has thereby rendered it invalid? But surely the wrongful intention cannot affect it since it has been already rejected as a meal-offering by reason of the frankincense that is upon it.
(18) Lev. V, 11. It is still valid as a sin-offering even after it has had frankincense upon it.
(19) Where the Scapegoat had died before the blood of the goat that was to be offered unto the Lord on the Day of Atonement had been sprinkled, the latter is by no means rejected as invalid so as to necessitate the bringing anew of two goats and to cast lots over them, but rather this blood becomes fit again for its purpose as soon as another goat is brought as a Scapegoat, v. Yoma 63b.
(20) Accordingly this meal-offering is not regarded as rejected as the frankincense can easily be picked off and so become valid once again.
(21) Of the goat that was to be offered inside unto the Lord.
(22) For it is absolutely rejected, and two goats must be brought anew.
(23) Yoma 62a.
(24) After all the Passover lambs had been slaughtered.
(25) The purpose being to render valid by this sprinkling any Passover-offering whose blood might have been spilt on the ground. V. Pes. 64a. Hence it is clear that a matter is not absolutely rejected provided it lies within one's power to set it right again.
(26) Lev. V,11.
(27) Namely an olive's bulk.
(28) Ibid. Usually translated He shall not lay thereon. The Heb. נתן 'give', however, is used, which verb in another context, Lev. XXII, 14, clearly implies something worthy to be given, at least an olive's bulk. V. Sh. Mek. n. 9.it is an amplification following an amplification, and whenever an amplification follows another amplification it signifies limitation only.1
Others report it as follows: R. Isaac b. Joseph said that R. Johanan raised the following question, What is the law if a man put the minutest quantity of oil upon an olive's bulk of the [sinner's] meal-offering? Are we to say that in the putting [of oil] there must be the same quantity as the giving [of frankincense],2 or not? The question remains unanswered.
IF HE PUT OIL ON THE REMAINDER. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, 'He shall not put', and 'He shall not give'. I might think that these prohibitions refer to two priests,3 the text therefore states 'upon it'; thus the [prohibitions in the] verse clearly refer to the meal-offering itself and not to the priest. I might also think that he should not put one vessel above the other vessel, and that if he did so he has rendered it invalid, the text therefore states 'upon it', the verse clearly refers to the actual meal-offering.4 MISHNAH. SOME [MEAL-OFFERINGS] REQUIRE BRINGING NEAR5 BUT NOT WAVING,6 SOME REQUIRE BRINGING NEAR AND ALSO WAVING, SOME REQUIRE WAVING BUT NOT BRINGING NEAR, AND SOME REQUIRE NEITHER BRINGING NEAR NOR WAVING. THESE REQUIRE BRINGING NEAR BUT NOT WAVING: THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR,7 THAT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE, THAT PREPARED IN A PAN, THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF WOMEN, AND THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING. R. SIMEON SAYS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST DO NOT REQUIRE BRINGING NEAR, SINCE NO HANDFUL IS TAKEN OUT OF THEM, AND WHERE NO HANDFUL IS TAKEN OUT BRINGING NEAR IS NOT NECESSARY.
GEMARA. R. Papa said,8 All [the meal-offerings] enumerated in the Mishnah must consist of ten [cakes]. What does he teach us?-He wishes to exclude thereby R. Simeon's view who said, He may offer half in cakes and half in wafers; and so he teaches us [that it is not so].
Whence is it derived?9 - Our Rabbis taught:10 Had [Scripture] stated, And thou shalt bring that which is made of these things unto the Lord, and he shall present it unto the priest and he shall bring it unto the altar,11 I would have said that I learn from this that the handful alone required bringing near; but whence would I know this of the whole meal-offering?12 The text therefore states 'meal-offering'. And whence would I know this of the sinner's meal-offering? The text therefore states 'the meal-offering'. But surely this could be derived by the following argument:13 [Scripture] speaks of the offering of
____________________
(1) The fact that the term 'upon it', which is an amplification signifying a minimum of an olive's bulk, is repeated indicates that in the second case, re frankincense, this minimum quantity is not essential.
(2) Namely at least an olive's bulk.
(3) But if the same priest put both oil and frankincense upon it he would only be liable once.
(4) The oil (or frankincense) must not be put actually upon the flour of the meal-offering and mixed with it, but it is of no consequence if the oil, being in a vessel, was placed over the meal-offering.
(5) I.e., to be taken by the priest to the south-west corner of the altar.
(6) The ceremony in which the priest put his hands under those of the person bringing the meal-offering and waved it to and fro before the altar; v. infra 61a Mishnah.
(7) For the explanation of the various kinds of meal-offerings v. foregoing Mishnah, supra p. 346 and notes thereon.
(8) For the two interpretations of this statement of R. Papa v. supra p. 347, n. 10.
(9) That the meal-offerings enumerated in our Mishnah require bringing near.
(10) The whole of the following Gemara till the next Mishnah is to be found in the Sifra, Lev. II, 8.
(11) The reference is to Lev. II, 8, and the verse in full reads: And thou shalt bring the meal-offering that is made etc.
(12) That the whole meal-offering must be brought near before the taking of the handful.
(13) That the sinner's meal-offering requires bringing near, so that "the" in the above verse is rendered superfluous.a meal-offering as an obligation and it also speaks of the offering of a meal-offering as of free will: just as the freewill meal-offering requires bringing near, so the obligatory meal-offering requires bringing near. And [if it be objected that] this1 is so of the freewill meal-offering since it requires both oil and frankincense,2 then the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress can prove [the contrary].3 And [if it be objected that] this is so of the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress since it requires waving, then the freewill meal-offering can prove [the contrary].4 The argument thus goes round. The distinguishing feature of this [meal-offering] is not that of the other [meal-offering], and the distinguishing feature of the other [meal-offering] is not that of this one.5 Their common features,6 however, are that they are alike with regard to the taking of the handful and also with regard to bringing near; I will then also include the sinner's meal-offering, that since it is like unto them with regard to the taking of the handful it shall be like unto them also with regard to the bringing near. But [it will be objected that] there is yet another common feature, namely that the same offering is valid for the rich as for the poor, whereas in the case of the sinner's meal-offering the same offering is not valid for the rich as for the poor.7 The text therefore [must] state 'the meal-offering'. R. Simeon says, 'And thou shalt bring' - this includes the meal-offering of the 'Omer, so that it too requires bringing near, as it is said, Ye shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest.8 'And he shall present it' - this includes the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, so that it too requires bringing near, as it is said, And he shall present it unto the altar.9 But surely this could be derived by the following argument:10 if the sinner's meal-offering, which does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, how much more does the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, which requires waving, require bringing near! But [if it be objected that] this11 is so of the sinner's meal-offering since it is offered from wheat,12 then the meal-offering of the 'Omer can prove [the contrary].13 And [if it be objected that] this is so of the meal-offering of the 'Omer since it requires both oil and frankincense, then the sinner's meal-offering can prove [the contrary]. The argument thus goes round. The distinguishing feature of this [meal-offering] is not that of the other, and the distinguishing feature of that [meal-offering] is not that of this one. Their common features,14 however, are that they are alike with regard to the taking of the handful and also with regard to bringing near; I will then also include the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, that since it is like unto them with regard to the taking of the handful it shall be like unto them also with regard to the bringing near. But [it will be objected that] there is yet another common feature, namely that coarse flour is not valid in either case,15 whereas in the case of the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress [only] coarse flour is valid. The text [must] therefore state, 'And he shall present it'. R. Judah says, 'And thou shalt bring', includes the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, so that it too requires bringing near, as it is said, And he shall bring her offering for her.16 For the meal-offering of the 'Omer, however, no verse is necessary,17 since it can be inferred from the following argument: if the sinner's meal-offering, which does not require waving, requires bringing near, how much more does the meal-offering of the 'Omer, which requires waving, require bringing near! But [if it be objected that] this is so of the sinner's meal-offering since it is offered of wheat, then the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress can prove [the contrary]. And [if it be objected that] that this is so of the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress since it is brought to discover guilt,18 then the sinner's meal-offering can prove [the contrary].19 The argument thus goes round. The distinguishing feature of this [meal-offering] is not that of the other, and the distinguishing feature of the other [meal-offering] is not that of this one. Their common features,20 however, are that they are alike with regard to the taking of the handful and also with regard to bringing near; I will then include the meal-offering of the 'Omer, too, that since it is like unto them in respect of the taking of the handful it shall be like unto them in respect of bringing near. And what objection can you now raise against this? R. Simeon, however, objects to it on this ground: there is yet another common feature, namely that those may happen frequently.21 But R. Judah maintains that, on the contrary; this22 is more frequent, whereas the others may never happen at all.
But perhaps the expression 'And thou shalt bring'23 serves rather to intimate that an individual may of his free will bring a meal-offering other than those mentioned in the context!24 And this can even be supported by the following argument: the community brings a meal-offering of wheat25 as an obligation and it also brings a meal-offering of barley26 as an obligation, then likewise an individual, since he brings a meal-offering of wheat of his free will, may also bring a meal-offering of barley of his free will. The text therefore states these:23 only these that are mentioned in the context. But perhaps the expression 'these' serves only to signify that a person who says 'I take upon myself to offer a meal-offering' must bring the five kinds.27 The text therefore states 'of these', implying that if he so wishes he may bring one only, and if he so wishes he may bring the five kinds.
R. Simeon says, The expression 'the meal-offering'23 includes other meal-offerings,28 so that they too require bringing near. But I might say that it includes also the Two Loaves and the Shewbread, the text therefore states of these. And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread [rather than the reverse]?29 include other meal-offerings since part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar,' but I exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread since no part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar. But the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings is put entirely upon the fire, is it not? Then I would say that it requires bringing near! The text therefore states, And he shall present it.30 But have you not employed this expression for another purpose?31 - [For that alone, Scripture could have stated] 'And he shall present', but it says, And he shall present it.32 And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings [rather than the reverse]?
____________________
(1) The rite of bringing near.
(2) Whereas the obligatory meal-offering, namely the sinner's meal-offering, requires neither oil nor frankincense; and that being so, it would also not require bringing near.
(3) This meal-offering requires neither oil nor frankincense and yet requires bringing near; the same would be said of the sinner's meal-offering.
(4) The freewill meal-offering does not require waving yet requires bringing near; the same could be said of the sinner's meal-offering.
(5) The rite of waving prescribed in the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress cannot be said to be the cause entailing the bringing near since this cause is not found with the freewill meal-offering. And, on the other hand, the need for oil and frankincense in the freewill meal-offering cannot be the cause entailing the bringing near since this cause is not found with the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress.
(6) Between the freewill meal-offering and the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress.
(7) The meal-offering brought as a sin-offering is prescribed only for a person in poor circumstances; a person of better means must bring a pair of doves, and a rich person a lamb, for a sin-offering. V. Lev. V, 6, 7, 11.
(8) Ibid. XXIII, 10, where the same expression 'bring' is used.
(9) Num. V, 25, where the same expression 'present' is used,
(10) That the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress requires bringing near, so that the verse which expressly includes it becomes superfluous.
(11) The rite of bringing near.
(12) Whereas the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress was of barley; cf. Num. V, 15.
(13) The 'Omer meal-offering was of barley and yet required bringing near; the same would then be said of the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress.
(14) Between the 'Omer meal-offering and the sinner's meal-offering.
(15) The sinner's meal-offering must be of fine flour of wheat and the 'Omer meal-offering, although of barley, must also be fine and not coarse.
(16) Num. V, 15, where the same expression 'bring' is used.
(17) To teach that it requires bringing near. According to R. Judah the expression 'And he shall present it' is utilized later for another purpose; v. infra.
(18) To ascertain whether this woman committed adultery or not. The 'Omer meal-offering, on the other hand, has no relation to sin.
(19) For it is not brought in order to discover sin but rather to atone for a sin committed, and yet requires bringing near; the same would be said of the meal-offering of the 'Omer, namely, although it has no relation to any sin it requires bringing near.
(20) Between the sinner's meal-offering and the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress.
(21) Those two meal-offerings (v. p. 358, n. 6) may be offered quite frequently, whereas the 'Omer meal-offering is offered but once a year, on the sixteenth day of Nisan.
(22) The 'Omer meal-offering.
(23) Lev. II, 8.
(24) I.e., that an individual be allowed to offer a meal-offering of barley of his free will, for all the meal-offerings mentioned in the context are of wheat.
(25) The Two Loaves at Pentecost.
(26) The meal-offering of the 'Omer.
(27) That are enumerated in this passage viz., the meal-offering of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, and that, baked in the oven which is of two kinds, of cakes and of wafers.
(28) Namely, the sinner's meal-offering, thus in agreement with the view of the first Tanna stated supra 60a, ad fin. The additional words in the text, e.g., 'the meal-offering of a gentile and the meal-offering of women' are not found in the MSS., or in the parallel passage in the Sifra, and evidently were not in the text before Rashi. They are struck out by Sh. Mek.
(29) Sc. the handful. And in this respect they are like those meal-offerings mentioned in the context.
(30) Lev. II, 8.
(31) Supra p. 357. The expression, as stated above, includes the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress.
(32) It is therefore the pronominal suffix 'it' which excludes this meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings.I include other meal-offerings since they may be offered by themselves,1 but I exclude the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings since it may not be offered by itself. But the meal-offering of the priests and the meal-offering of the anointed High Priest are offered by themselves, are they not? Then I would say that they require bringing near! The text therefore states, 'And he shall bring it near', But surely this expression is required for its own sake, namely that [the meal-offerings mentioned in the context] require bringing near! - [For that alone Scripture could have stated] 'And he shall bring near', but it says, And he shall bring it near.2 And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offering of the priests and the meal-offering of the anointed High Priest [rather than the reverse]? I include the other meal-offerings since [like the meal-offerings stated in the context] part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar, they are offered by themselves, and part thereof3 is eaten by the priests, but I exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread since no part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar, [I exclude] the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings since it is not offered by itself, and [I exclude] the meal-offering of the priests and the meal-offering of the anointed High Priest since no part thereof is eaten by the priests.
And he shall take out:4 I might think with a vessel; the text therefore states [elsewhere], And he shall take out therefrom with his handful;5 as the taking out in the latter case is with his handful, so the taking out in the former is with his handful.
MISHNAH. THESE REQUIRE WAVING BUT NOT BRINGING NEAR: THE LOG OF OIL OF THE LEPER AND HIS GUILT-OFFERING,6 THE FIRSTFRUITS ACCORDING TO R. ELIEZER B. JACOB, THE SACRIFICIAL PORTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PEACE-OFFERINGS AND THE BREAST AND THIGH THEREOF, WHETHER THEY ARE THE OFFERINGS OF MEN OR OF WOMEN, BY ISRAELITES BUT NOT BY OTHERS;7 THE TWO LOAVES AND THE TWO LAMBS OF PENTECOST. HOW IS IT PERFORMED? HE PLACES THE TWO LOAVES UPON THE TWO LAMBS AND PUTS HIS TWO HANDS BENEATH THEM AND WAVES THEM FORWARD AND BACKWARD AND UPWARD AND DOWNWARD, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, WHICH IS WAVED AND WHICH IS HEAVED UP.8 THE WAVING WAS PERFORMED ON THE EAST SIDE9 [OF THE ALTAR] AND THE BRINGING NEAR ON THE WEST SIDE. THE CEREMONY OF WAVING COMES BEFORE THAT OF BRINGING NEAR.10 THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE 'OMER AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY REQUIRE BRINGING NEAR AND WAVING. THE SHEWBREAD AND THE MEAL-OFFERING WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS REQUIRE NEITHER BRINGING NEAR NOR WAVING.
R. SIMEON SAYS, THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF OFFERING WHICH [BETWEEN THEM] REQUIRE THREE RITES; TWO [OF THE THREE RITES] APPLY TO EACH KIND OF OFFERING, BUT THE THREE ARE WITH NONE. AND THESE ARE THEY: THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE COMMUNITY11 AND THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER. THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRES THE LAYING ON OF HANDS FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL AND WAVING12 AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL. THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRES WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL AND ALSO AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER REQUIRES THE LAYING ON OF HANDS AND ALSO WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAVING AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall offer it for a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and shall wave them for a wave-offering;13 this teaches us that they14 are to be waved together. But whence is it inferred that it is valid even if each was waved separately? The text therefore states, And he shall offer it for a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and shall wave.15 Perhaps then they14 should first be waved [together] and again be waved [separately]?16 The verse clearly states, 'For a wave-offering', and not for wave-offerings. Before the Lord,17 that is, on the east side of the altar.18 But has it not been said, 'Before the Lord:19 perhaps this means on the west side'?20 - I answer, That was said only of the meal-offering for it is designated a sin-offering, and a sin-offering requires the base of the altar,21 whereas at the south-east corner there was no base;22 here,23 however, we certainly can speak of the east side as 'before the Lord'.
THE FIRSTFRUITS ACCORDING TO R. ELIEZER B. JACOB. What is the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? - It was taught: And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand:24 this indicates that the firstfruits require waving; so R. Eliezer b. Jacob. What is the reason of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? - It is derived from the occurrence of the word 'hand' both here and in connection with the peace-offerings. Here it is written, 'And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand', and there it is written, His25 own hands shall bring the offerings.26
____________________
(1) And in this respect it is like the meal-offerings mentioned in this context.
(2) The former general expression informs us of the requirement of bringing near, whilst the suffix 'it' excludes others from this ceremony.
(3) I.e., the remainder after the handful has been burnt.
(4) Lev. II, 9.
(5) Ibid. VI, 8.
(6) Brought by the leper on the day of his cleansing, cf. ibid. XIV, 10, 12.
(7) Explained in the Gemara, infra p. 364.
(8) Ex. XXIX, 27.
(9) According to Rashi this means, even on the east side, but it is all the better if performed on the west side which is the side nearest to the inner Sanctuary and thus best fulfils the expression 'before the Lord' used in connection with the waving (Lev. XIV, 12). According to Maim. it is to be performed on the east side only; v. Yad, Ma'aseh ha-Korbanoth IX, 7.
(10) In those offerings where both ceremonies must be performed.
(11) These are the two lambs of Pentecost.
(12) Sc. of the breast and thigh.
(13) Lev. XIV, 12.
(14) The log of oil and the lamb of the guilt-offering.
(15) Interpreting 'and shall wave' as referring to the last mentioned, namely the log of oil by itself.
(16) So as to fulfil both possible interpretations of the verse.
(17) Lev. XIV, 12.
(18) I.e., even on the east side, v. supra p. 361, n. 7.
(19) Ibid. VI, 7.
(20) V. supra 19b. It is clear therefore that the expression 'before the Lord' could well mean the west side.
(21) Where the residue of the blood of the sin-offering must be tossed.
(22) V. Mid. 35b. Accordingly 'before the Lord' in connection with the bringing near of the meal-offering must be interpreted as the south-west corner; west being essential on account of the base; and south also, so as to fulfil the requirement 'to the front of the altar' (Lev. VI, 7), since that is considered as the front of the altar, for there the ascent begins.
(23) In the case of the waving.
(24) Deut. XXVI, 4.
(25) Sc. the owner's.
(26) Lev. VII, 30, with reference to the waving of the breast and thigh of the peace-offering.Just as here the priest [is stated], so there too the priest [is meant]; and just as there the owner [is referred to], so here too the owner [is required]. How is it to be done? The priest places his hand under the hands of the owner and waves.
And why does not [the Mishnah] say, 'The firstfruits also according to R. Judah'? For it was taught: R. Judah says, And thou shalt set it down:1 this refers to the rite of waving. You say that it refers to the waving, but perhaps it means literally 'setting it down!' As it has already said, And set it down, setting down [in the literal sense] has already been indicated. What then is the meaning of, 'And thou shalt set it down'? It can only refer to the waving! - Raba answered, It is only because his2 verse is stated earlier in the chapter.3 R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, It is because his2 knowledge was exceptional.4
THE SACRIFICIAL PORTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PEACE-OFFERINGS AND THE BREAST AND THE THIGH THEREOF, WHETHER THEY ARE THE OFFERINGS OF MEN OR OF WOMEN, BY ISRAELITES BUT NOT BY OTHERS. What does this mean? Said Rab Judah: It means this: WHETHER THEY ARE THE OFFERINGS OF MEN OR OF WOMEN these offerings require waving, but the rite of waving shall be performed by Israelites and not by women.5
Our Rabbis taught: The children of Israel may perform the rite of waving but not gentiles; the children of Israel may perform the rite of waving but not women. R. Jose said, Since we find that Scripture has distinguished between the offering of an Israelite and the offering of a gentile or of a woman with regard to the laying on of hands,6 should we not also make this distinction with regard to the rite of waving?7 No; for whereas there is good reason to make such a distinction with regard to the laying on of hands, by virtue of the fact that the laying on of hands must be performed by the owner of the offering,8 is there any reason to make such a distinction with regard to the rite of waving, seeing that the priests [also] perform the waving?9 Why then10 does the text expressly state 'the children of Israel'?11 To teach that the children of Israel may perform the waving but not gentiles;12 the children of Israel may perform the waving but not women.13
Another [Baraitha] taught: It is written, The children of Israel. I know from this that the children of Israel [perform the waving]; whence do I know to include also proselytes and freed slaves? The text therefore states, He that offereth.14 Perhaps 'he that offereth' refers only to the priest! But since the verse states subsequently, His own hands shall bring the offerings,15 the owners are already indicated. How is it then to be explained?16 The priest places his hand under the hands of the owner and waves.
____________________
(1) Deut. XXVI, 10.
(2) Sc. R. Eliezer b. Jacob's.
(3) Since R. Eliezer b. Jacob based his exposition on Deut. XXVI, 4, and R. Judah on v. 10, the Tanna of the Mishnah therefore only quoted R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
(4) Lit., 'his strength was great'. Cf. 'Er. 62b.
(5) A woman's peace-offering was waved by the priest on her behalf.
(6) For the offering of a woman or a gentile does not require the laying on of the hands, not even by proxy.
(7) That the offering of women or of gentiles shall not be waved at all, not even by a priest on their behalf.
(8) Personally and not by proxy; hence the rite of laying on the hands cannot apply to the offerings of women and gentiles as it is not proper for them to enter the Sanctuary for this purpose.
(9) So that in the case of women and gentiles the priest may act on their behalf.
(10) Seeing that as a result of the foregoing argument the offerings of women and gentiles require waving by the priest on their behalf.
(11) Lev. VII, 29, stated with reference to the rite of waving.
(12) Personally; the priest, however, waves it on their behalf.
(13) V. Dik. Sof. for a variant text that is inserted here. V. also Sh. Mek. n. 2.
(14) Lev. VII, 29, stated with reference to the rite of waving.
(15) Ibid. 30.
(16) The latter verse speaks of the owner himself performing the waving, whereas the previous verse, it has been suggested, refers to the rite as being performed by the priest. How are these verses to be reconciled?How was it arranged?1 The sacrificial portions were put upon the palm of the hand and the breast and thigh above them; and whenever there were cakes [to be waved] the cakes were always on top, Where [is this seen]?2 - R. Papa said, At the consecration [of the priests].3
Why is it so?4 Shall I say it is because it is written, The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving they shall put upon the fat of the fire-offering, to wave it for a wave-offering?5 But is it not also written, He shall bring the fat upon the breast?6 - Abaye answered, The latter refers to the manner in which the priest brings them from the slaughtering place and turns them over [into the hands of the priest that is about to wave them].7 But is it not also written, And they put the fat upon the breasts?8 - This refers to the handing over of these to the priest that is about to burn them.9 These verses incidentally teach us that three priests are required [for this part of the service], as it is said, In the multitude of people is the king's glory.10
THE TWO LOAVES AND THE TWO LAMBS OF PENTECOST. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] And the priest shall wave then, upon ['al] the bread of the firstfruits [for a wave-offering before the Lord upon ['al] the two lambs].11 I might think that he should put the lambs upon the bread, the text therefore states, Upon the two lambs.11 If [I had only the expression] 'upon the two lambs' [to go by], I might think that he should put the bread upon the lambs, the text therefore states, 'upon the bread of the firstfruits'. Now the verse is equally balanced and I know not whether the bread shall be upon the lambs or the lambs upon the bread; since, however, we find that in all cases the bread is on top, then here, too, the bread shall be on top. (Where was it so? - R. Papa said, At the consecration [of the priests].)12 R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam says, The lambs shall be on top. And how can I explain, 'Upon the two lambs'? to exclude the seven lambs.13 Hanina b. Hakinai says, He must put the two loaves between the thighs of the lambs and wave them;14 thus fulfilling both verses, the bread upon the lambs and the lambs upon the bread. Said Rabbi, Surely before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so,15 how much less before the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He! Therefore, he should put one beside the other and wave them. But we have to conform with [the expression] 'al!16 - R. Hisda said to R. Hamnuna (others say, R. Hamnuna said to R. Hisda), Rabbi follows his general view that 'al means 'near to'; as it was taught: It is written, And thou shalt put pure frankincense 'ai each row.17 Rabbi says, 'Al means near to'. You say that 'al means 'near to'; but perhaps it is not so but rather it signifies literally 'upon'? Since it states, And thou shalt put a veil 'al the ark,18 conclude that 'al means 'near to'.
AND WAVES THEM FORWARD AND BACKWARD AND UPWARD AND DOWNWARD. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, FORWARD AND BACKWARD,19 that is to Him unto Whom the [four] directions belong; UPWARD AND DOWNWARD, that is to Him unto Whom heaven and earth belong. In the West20 it was taught as follows: R. Hama b. 'Ukba said in the name of R. Jose b. R. Hanina, FORWARD AND BACKWARD, in order to keep off violent winds; UPWARD AND DOWNWARD, in order to keep off harmful dews.
R. Jose son of R. Abin said, This proves that even the dispensable rites of a precept21 [when performed] ward off punishment, for the rite of waving is dispensable in the precept and yet it keeps off violent winds and harmful dews.
Rabbah said, Likewise with the lulab.22 R. Aha b. Jacob used to swing it forward and backward, and hold it out and say, 'An arrow in the eyes of Satan!'23 But it is not proper to do so, for it is a challenge [to Satan] to contend with him.
Our Rabbis taught: The peace-offerings of the community require waving [also] after they are slaughtered, and the waving must be of them as they are.24 So Rabbi. But the Sages say, Only of the breast and thigh. Wherein do they differ? - R. Hisda said to R. Hamnuna (others say, R. Hamnuna said to R. Hisda), They differ as to whether we say 'Deduce from it and again from it', or 'Deduce from it and establish it in its own place'.25 The Rabbis maintain the principle, 'Deduce from it and again from it'. ['Deduce from it':] as the individual's peace-offering requires waving after it is slaughtered, so the peace-offerings of the community also require waving after they are slaughtered; and 'again from it': just as the waving there26 is of the breast and thigh, so here it is also of the breast and thigh. Rabbi, however, maintains the principle 'Deduce from it and establish it in its own place'. ['Deduce from it':] as the individual's peace-offering requires waving after it is slaughtered, so the peace-offerings of the community also require waving after they are slaughtered; and 'establish it in its own place': whereas there26 the waving is of the breast and thigh only, here it is of them as they are, that is, as they are when alive.
____________________
(1) For the waving.
(2) That the cakes were put on top.
(3) Cf. Lev. VIII, 26, 27. where it is expressly stated that the cakes were put on top.
(4) That the breast and thigh shall be placed above the sacrificial portions i.e., above the fat.
(5) Lev. X, 15.
(6) Ibid. VII, 30.
(7) So that now in the hands of the priest that waves them the breast and thigh are above the fat.
(8) Ibid. IX, 20.
(9) The priest that waved them when handing them to another priest to be burnt would naturally turn them over into that other priest's hands, so that now the fat would be on top.
(10) Prov. XIV, 28.
(11) Lev. XXIII, 20. The Heb. על usually connotes 'upon', but this term precedes 'the bread' and also 'the two lambs', hence the difficulty as to which was in fact 'upon' the other.
(12) V. supra p. 365, n. 8.
(13) The seven lambs brought as burnt-offerings with the bread (ibid. 18) were not waved with it.
(14) He must lay down the lambs on their sides, place the loaves between their legs, i.e., above the lower but beneath the upper leg, and thus wave them.
(15) It is most undignified to present the bread in this manner.
(16) Which usually means 'upon'.
(17) Lev. XXIV, 7, with reference to the two rows of the Shewbread.
(18) Ex. XL, 3. The veil was not 'upon' the ark but 'near to' i.e., in front of it, Screening it off and serving as a partition between the holy place and the Holy of Holies.
(19) I.e., in all four directions.
(20) In Palestine.
(21) Lit., 'the remainder of a precept', i.e., those rites which even if omitted do not affect the validity of the service. Among such are the rites of laying on the hands and waving.
(22) The palm branch required for the Festival of Tabernacles must be waved in the same manner as the waving of the offering. viz., 10 the four directions and upward and downward.
(23) An expression of defiance, as if to say, 'I defy you Satan!' Or: 'this is an arrow or weapon against your wiles, Satan!' (R. Gershom).
(24) I.e., the whole of the slaughtered beast must be waved and not only the breast and thigh.
(25) Whenever a subject is inferred from another by means of analogy or by 'the common features' the question always arises as to the extent to which the inference must be carried. The rule 'deduce from it and again from it' clearly suggests that the two subjects must in the end be brought to absolute agreement on every point. On the other hand, 'deduce from it and establish it in its place' suggests that the inference is to be made with regard to one point only, and as for the rest each subject is regulated by the rules governing its other aspects.
(26) The individual's peace-offering.R. Papa said, All accept the principle 'Deduce from it and again from it', but this is Rabbi's reason, namely, it1 must be analogous with the rule there: and as in that case all that which is given as a gift to the priest [must be waved], so here also all that which is given as a gift to the priest [must be waved].2 Rabina said, All accept the principle 'Deduce from it and establish it in its own place', but this is the reason of the Rabbis: It is written, Their peace-offerings,3 which is an inclusive term.
R. SIMEON SAYS, THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF OFFERING WHICH [BETWEEN THEM] REQUIRE THREE RITES; TWO [OF THE THREE RITES] APPLY TO EACH KIND OF OFFERING, BUT THE THREE ARE WITH NONE. AND THESE ARE THEY: THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER, THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRES THE LAYING ON OF HANDS FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL AND WAVING AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL. THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRES WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL AND ALSO AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER REQUIRES THE LAYING ON OF HANDS AND ALSO WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAVING AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED. But [surely one could argue by the following] a fortiori argument that the peace-offering of the individual should require waving for the living animal: for if the peace-offering of the community, which does not require the laying on of hands for the living animal, requires waving for the living animal, how much more does the peace-offering of the individual, which requires the laying on of hands for the living animal, require waving for the living animal! - The Divine Law stated in connection with the peace-offering of the community the exclusive term 'them'4 in order to exclude the peace-offering of the individual. Again [one could argue by the following] a fortiori argument that the' peace-offering of the community should require the laying on of hands: for if the peace-offering of the individual, which does not require waving for the living animal, requires the laying on of hands, how much more does the peace-offering of the community, which requires waving for the living animal, require the laying on of hands! - Said Rabina: There is a tradition that among the offerings of the community only two require the laying on of hands.5 And again [one could argue by the following] a fortiori argument that the guilt-offering of the leper should require waving after it is slaughtered: for if the peace-offering of the individual, which does not require waving for the living animal, requires waving after it is slaughtered, how much more should the guilt-offering of the leper, which requires waving for the living animal, require waving after it is slaughtered! - The Divine Law therefore stated the exclusive term 'it'6 in connection with the peace-offering of the individual in order to exclude the guilt-offering of the leper.
Our Rabbis taught: If five persons brought one offering [jointly], one of them performs the rite of waving on behalf of them all. In the case of a woman, the priest waves [the offering] on her behalf. And so, too, if a person sent his offerings from across the seas, the priest waves them on his behalf.
____________________
(1) The peace-offering of the community.
(2) Here the whole beast is a gift to the priest, whilst in the case of an individual's peace-offering only the breast and thigh 'are given to the priest.
(3) Lev. VII, 34. with reference to the peace-offering of an individual. The use of the plural 'peace-offerings' signifies that even in another kind of peace-offering, namely that of the community, only the breast and the thigh are to be waved.
(4) Lev. XXIII, 20.
(5) And these are: the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error and the Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement,
(6) Lev. VII, 30.MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID, 'I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER A MEAL-OFFERING] PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE', HE MUST NOT BRING ONE PREPARED IN A PAN; IF 'IN A PAN', HE MUST NOT BRING ONE PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GRIDDLE [MAHABATH]1 AND A PAN [MARHESHETH]?2 THE PAN HAS A LID TO IT, BUT THE GRIDDLE HAS NO LID. SO R. JOSE THE GALILEAN. R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL SAYS, A PAN IS DEEP AND WHAT IS PREPARED THEREIN IS SPONGY,3 A GRIDDLE IS FLAT AND WHAT IS PREPARED THEREON IS HARD.
GEMARA. What is R. Jose's reason?4 Shall I say that marhesheth is so called because it is offered for the stirrings of the heart,5 as it is written, My heart is stirred [rahash] by a goodly matter,6 and mahabath because it is offered for the pratings of the mouth,7 as people remark 'He is prating' [menabah nabuhe]?8 But the reverse might just as well be said, namely, mahabath is so called because it is offered for the secrets of the heart, as it is written, Wherefore didst thou flee secretly [nahbetha],9 and marhesheth because it is offered for the whispering [of the lips], as people remark 'His lips were whispering [merahshan]'!10 - We must say that it is established so by tradition.11
R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL SAYS etc. The pan is a deep vessel, for so it is written, And all that is prepared in the pan;12 the griddle is flat, for so it is written, And on the griddle.12
Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say, If a man said, 'I take upon myself [to offer] a marhesheth',13 [the vow] must stand over until Elijah comes. They are in doubt as to whether [these terms]12 refer to the vessel or to the pastry prepared therein. But Beth Hillel say, There was a vessel in the Temple called marhesheth, resembling a deep mould, which gave the dough that was put into it the shape of Cretan apples and Grecian nuts. Furthermore it is written, And all that is prepared in the pan and on the griddle;12 we thus see that these terms refer to the vessels and not to the pastry prepared therein.
MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] 'I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER A MEAL-OFFERING BAKED] IN AN OVEN', HE MUST NOT BRING WHAT IS BAKED IN A STOVE14 OR ON TILES OR IN THE FIREPLACE OF THE ARABS.15 R. JUDAH SAYS, IF HE SO WISHES HE MAY BRING WHAT IS BAKED IN A STOVE. [IF HE SAID,] I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER] A BAKED MEAL-OFFERING', HE MAY NOT BRING HALF IN CAKES AND HALF IN WAFERS.16 R. SIMEON PERMITS IT SINCE BOTH KINDS BELONG TO THE SAME OFFERING.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Baked in the oven17 - but not baked in a stove or on tiles or in the fireplaces of the Arabs. R. Judah says, Oven18 is stated twice, in order to permit even what is baked in a stove. R. Simeon says, 'Oven' is stated twice, once to teach that it must be baked in an oven, and once that it is hallowed by the oven. But is R. Simeon of this view?19 Surely we have learnt:20 R. Simeon says, Accustom thyself to say, The Two Loaves and the Shewbread were valid whether made in the Temple court or in Beth Page!21 - Raba answered, Say rather, it should be consecrated for the oven.22
[IF HE SAID,] 'I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER] A BAKED MEAL-OFFERING', HE MAY NOT BRING HALF IN CAKES etc. Our Rabbis taught: And when thou bringest,17 that is, when thou bringest, doing so as a matter of free choice. An offering of a meal-offering:17 R. Judah said, Whence do I know that if a man said, 'I take upon myself [to offer] a baked meal-offering', he may not bring half in cakes and half in wafers? Because the text states, 'An offering of a meal-offering': I spoke to thee of one offering but not of two or three offerings. Said to him R. Simeon,
____________________
(1) מחבת.
(2) מרחשת.
(3) Heb. רוחשין, from the root רחש, 'to move', 'vibrate'. 'Every thing that is soft and spongy, because of the liquid contained therein, appears as though it were creeping and moving' (Rashi on Lev. II, 7).
(4) For his view that the מרחשת, the pan, is covered with a lid and that the מחבת, the griddle, has no lid.
(5) I.e., sinful thoughts which are covered and hidden from all; accordingly the offering must be prepared in a covered vessel.
(6) Ps. XLV, 2. Heb. רחש which is also the root of מרחשת.
(7) I.e., sinful talk, like slander; as it is spoken openly without concealment the offering too must be prepared in an open vessel without a cover.
(8) מנבח נבוחי, which words resemble מחבת. There are many variants of these words in MSS., v. Rabbinowicz, Dik. Sof. n. 90.
(9) Gen. XXXI, 27. Heb. נחבאת which word resembles מחבת. Accordingly the מרחשת should be a covered vessel.
(10) מרחשן which word resembles מרחשת. Accordingly the מרחשת should be an open vessel.
(11) That the מרחשת is a covered vessel and the מחבת an open one.
(12) Lev. VII, 9.
(13) The expression used is ambiguous. He did not say 'a meal-offering prepared in a marhesheth'; neither did he say 'a marhesheth meal-offering'. By 'marhesheth' he might have meant to offer this kind of vessel to the Temple. (8) Marhesheth and Mahabath.
(14) A small oven only large enough for one pot to be placed on it.
(15) Improvised fireplaces of the Arabs, a cavity in the ground laid out with clay (Jast.).
(16) For the baked meal-offering either ten cakes or ten wafers must be offered, but not, e.g., five of one kind and five of the other.
(17) Lev. II, 4.
(18) Ibid. and in VII, 9.
(19) That the oven hallows the offering.
(20) Infra 95b.
(21) בית פאגי, a place outside the Temple court but within the walls of Jerusalem. V. infra 78b, P. 468, n. 6. Now if R. Simeon were of the opinion that the oven hallowed the offering, it would surely become invalid as soon as it was taken out of the Temple court! V. however, Tosaf. s.v. וכשרות, and Sh. Mek. n. 27.
(22) I.e., when setting aside the flour for this meal-offering one should expressly state that it is to be baked in the oven.Is the term 'offering' stated twice in the verse?1 'Offering' is stated only once, and concerning it are mentioned cakes and wafers; so that if he so desires he may bring cakes or he may bring wafers or he may 'bring half in cakes and half in wafers. He must mingle them [with oil] and the handful must be taken from the two [kinds].2 If when taking the handful there came into his hand only one of the two [kinds], it is valid. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, Whence do I know that if a man said, 'I take upon myself [to offer] a baked meal-offering', he may not bring half in cakes and half in wafers? Because it is written, And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and every [meal-offering] that is prepared in the pan, and on the griddle, shall be the priest's that offereth it. And every meal-offering mingled with oil or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have.3 Just as the term 'every' in the latter cases refers to two distinct kinds,4 so the term 'every' in the former case refers to two distinct kinds.5
And what can R. Judah [say]? R. Simeon is quite right in his argument!6 - [R. Judah] can reply, since the expression 'with oil'7 is stated twice in the verse it is as though the expression 'offering' had been repeated. And R. Simeon, [what would he say to this]? - Had not the expression 'with oil' been repeated I would have said that the offering must consist half of cakes and half of wafers, but not of cakes alone or of wafers alone; we are therefore taught [otherwise].
Is not the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah identical with that of his father? - There would be a difference between them in the case where one actually did so.8
MISHNAH. R. ISHMAEL SAYS, ON THE SABBATH10 THE OMER11 WAS TAKEN OUT12 OF THREE SE'AHS13 [OF BARLEY]. AND ON A WEEKDAY OUT OF FIVE. BUT THE SAGES SAY, WHETHER ON THE SABBATH OR ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THREE SE'AHS. R. HANINA THE VICE-HIGH PRIEST14 SAYS, ON THE SABBATH IT WAS REAPED BY ONE MAN WITH ONE SICKLE INTO ONE BASKET, AND ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS REAPED BY THREE MEN INTO THREE BASKETS AND WITH THREE SICKLES. BUT THE SAGES SAY, WHETHER ON THE SABBATH OR ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS REAPED BY THREE MEN INTO THREE BASKETS AND WITH THREE SICKLES.15
GEMARA. The opinion of the Rabbis is quite clear, for they hold that a tenth of the finest [flour] can be obtained out of three se'ahs, and therefore it is all one whether it was a Sabbath or a weekday. But what can be the opinion of R. Ishmael? If he holds that a tenth of the finest [flour] can be obtained only out of five se'ahs, then on a Sabbath too [five should be necessary]; and if it can be obtained out of three se'ahs then on a weekday too [three should be sufficient]! - Raba said, R. Ishmael is of the opinion that a tenth of the finest [flour] can be obtained out of five se'ahs without much labour, but with much labour out of three. On a weekday, therefore, it is taken out of five se'ahs, as this would give the best results;16 but on the Sabbath it is better that [the Sabbath be profaned] by one work, namely sifting, [being repeated many times,]17 rather than by many works [being performed once only].18
Rabbah said, R. Ishmael and R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka both hold the same view. For it was taught: If the fourteenth of Nisan fell on a Sabbath, one should flay the Passover-offering only as far as the breast:19 such is the opinion of R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka. But the Sages say, One should flay the whole of it. Now did not R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka say there that where it is possible [to manage with a little] we must not trouble to do more on the Sabbath? Here, too, since it is possible [to manage with less] we must not trouble [to do more on the Sabbath]! Whence [do you know this]? Perhaps R. Ishmael only said so20 here, since there is no disrespect to the offering. but there, since there is actual disrespect to the offering.21
____________________
(1) To suggest that the cakes constitute a separate offering and the wafers a separate offering.
(2) The cakes and the wafers must be crushed fine and mixed together, then mingled with oil, and the handful taken from the mixture which contains the two kinds.
(3) Lev. VII, 9, 10.
(4) Viz., the marhesheth meal-offering and the mahabath meal-offering in the one case, and the dry meal-offering and the meal-offering mingled with oil in, the other case. There is no doubt at all that part of the one kind of meal-offering cannot combine with part of the other to constitute a valid offering.
(5) And the two kinds, cakes and wafers, cannot combine to constitute one offering.
(6) That the two kinds belong to the same offering since the term 'offering' is stated only once in the verse.
(7) Lev. II, 4.
(8) According to R. Jose son of R. Judah a baked meal-offering consisting partly of cakes and partly of wafers is absolutely invalid, just as the meal-offering would be invalid if brought partly dry and partly mingled with oil. According to the father, however, if a person brought cakes and wafers for his meal-offering it would be accepted as valid.
(9) In the separate editions of the Mishnah this chapter is inserted after chapter nine, which is indeed its proper place.
(10) I.e., if the second day of the Passover, which is the sixteenth day of Nisan, fell on a Sabbath. As the work in connection with the Omer involved the infringement of the laws of Sabbath, on the Sabbath therefore a smaller quantity of barley was used and fewer men employed.
(11) The tenth of an ephah of barley flour offered as a meal-offering. Cf. Lev. XXIII, 10ff.
(12) Lit., 'came'.
(13) Which amount to one ephah. This quantity was sifted again and again so as to produce the tenth of choicest flour.
(14) Segan, v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 97, n. 1.
(15) In order to give the matter greater publicity. V. Gemara.
(16) Since only the choicest of each se'ah would be taken.
(17) In order to obtain the finest out of the smaller quantity of three se'ahs.
(18) Since the extra two se'ahs would entail the infringement of many acts of works on the Sabbath, such as reaping, winnowing, cleaning, grinding, etc.
(19) I.e., sufficient only to take out from the lamb the sacrificial portions. Since the rest of the saying is only for the purpose of preparing the meat for the table it must be left over till the evening.
(20) That no more than is absolutely necessary may be done on the Sabbath.
(21) By leaving the carcass of the offering, partly flayed, hanging on the hook the whole day until nightfall.I would say that he is in agreement with the Sages.1 And, on the other hand, perhaps R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka only said so there, since the requirements for the Most - High have been fulfilled,2 so that there is no further need to profane the Sabbath; but here, since the requirements for the Most High have not yet been fulfilled,3 so that there is a need to profane the Sabbath, I would say that he is in agreement with the Sages!4 - Said Rabbah, R. Ishmael and R. Hanina the Vice-High Priest both hold the same view. For we have learnt: R. HANINA THE VICE-HIGH PRIEST SAYS, ON THE SABBATH IT WAS REAPED BY ONE MAN WITH ONE SICKLE INTO ONE BASKET, AND ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS REAPED BY THREE MEN INTO THREE BASKETS AND WITH THREE SICKLES. BUT THE SAGES SAY, WHETHER ON THE SABBATH OR ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS REAPED BY THREE MEN INTO THREE BASKETS AND WITH THREE SICKLES. Now did not R. Hanina the Vice-High Priest say there that where it is possible [to manage with one] we must not trouble [more to work on the Sabbath]? Here, too, since it is possible [to manage with less] we must not trouble [to do more on the Sabbath]. Whence [do you know this]? Perhaps R. Ishmael only said so here, since there is no opportunity for making the matter public,5 but there, since there is an opportunity for making the matter public,6 I would say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis.7 And, on the other hand, perhaps R. Hanina the Vice-High Priest only said so there, for after all, whether one man or three are employed, the service to the Most High is performed according to its prescribed rites, but here, since the service to the Most High is not performed according to its prescribed rites,8 I would say that he is in agreement with the Sages!9 - Rather. said R. Ashi, R. Ishmael and R. Jose both hold the same view. For we have learnt: Whether [the new moon] was clearly visible or not, they may profane the Sabbath because of it.10 But R. Jose says. If it was clearly visible they may not profane the Sabbath because of it.11 Now did not R. Jose say there that wherever it is possible [to manage without them] we do not trouble [them to profane the Sabbath]? Here, too, since it is possible [to manage with less] we must not trouble [to do more on the Sabbath]. Whence [do you know this]? Perhaps R. Ishmael only said so here, since the reason 'it will result that you will prevent them from coming in the future' does not apply, but there, since the reason 'it will result that you will prevent them from coming in the future12 applies, I would say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis.13 And, on the other hand, perhaps R. Jose only said so there, since the matter in question is no service to the Most High,14 and moreover the Sabbath has not been overridden [by another service], but here, since it is a service to the Most High.15 and the Sabbath has already been overridden [by other acts of work].16 I would say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis.
It was stated: If a man slaughtered [on the Sabbath] two sin-offerings for the community when only one was necessary, Rabbah (others say. R. Ammi) said, He is liable17 for the slaughtering of the second but not for the first, even though atonement was effected through the second offering.18 and even though the first proved to be a lean animal.19 But could Rabbah have really said so? Surely Rabbah has said, If a man had before him [on the Sabbath] two sin-offerings [for the community],20 one beast being fat and the other lean, and he first slaughtered the fat beast and then the lean one, he is liable; if he first slaughtered the lean beast and then the fat one, he is not liable; and not only that but we even bid him [after he has slaughtered the lean one]. Go at once and fetch a fat one and slaughter it!21 - If you wish, you can say, Strike out the clause about the lean beast in the first statement; or if you prefer you may say, That first statement was taught by R. Ammi.
Rabina asked R. Ashi, What is the law if the first beast was found [after the slaughtering of the second] to be lean in its entrails?22 Are we to decide the issue by his intention and this man certainly intended to do what was forbidden, or by his actual deed? - He replied; Is this not the case agreed upon by Rabbah and Raba? For it was stated: If a man heard that a child had fallen into the sea and he spread nets [on the Sabbath] to catch fish23 and he caught fish, he is liable. If he spread nets to catch fish and he caught fish and also the child, Rabbah says, He is not liable; but Raba says, He is liable. Now only in that case says Rabbah that he is not liable, for since he heard [of this accident], we say that his intention was also concerning the child; but where he did not hear of it [Rabbah] would not [say that he was not liable].24 Others say that he25 answered him as follows: This is a matter of dispute between Rabbah and Raba. For It was stated: If a man had not heard that a child had fallen into the sea and he spread a net [on the Sabbath] to catch fish and he caught fish, he is liable. If he spread the net to catch fish and he caught fish and also the child, Rabbah says, He is not liable; but Raba says, He is liable. 'Rabbah says, He is not liable' because we decide the matter by his actual deed. 'Raba says, He is liable' because we decide the matter by his intention.
Rabbah said, If one fig was prescribed for a sick person26 and ten men ran27 and returned together bringing ten figs, they are all not liable, and [it is the same] even if they brought them one after the other, and even if the sick person had recovered after he had taken the first one.
Raba raised this question. If two figs were prescribed for a sick person and there happened to be two figs on two stalks28 and also three figs on one stalk, which are we to bring? Should we bring the two figs as they only are required, or the three, for then there is less plucking? - Surely it is obvious that we should bring the three figs [on the one stalk].
____________________
(1) That the whole must be flayed.
(2) By the removal and offering of the sacrificial portions.
(3) For it is more commendable to derive the tenth from a larger quantity, thereby obtaining the choicest.
(4) That in regard to the 'Omer there is no distinction between the Sabbath and a weekday. But the Sages are satisfied that the choicest is obtainable even out of three se'ahs.
(5) For whether the 'Omer is obtained out of five or three se'ahs the people will learn nothing of importance thereby.
(6) The employment of more persons in the service of the 'Omer obviously gives the matter greater publicity and impresses immediately the mind of the people with the Rabbinic standpoint that the 'Omer must be offered on the second day of the Passover irrespective of the day of the week, thus creating stronger opposition to the Sadducees who held that the 'Omer must always be offered on a Sunday; v. infra 65a.
(7) That although one person would be sufficient three are to be employed to create greater publicity.
(8) For according to R. Ishmael the 'Omer must be taken out of five se'ahs and not three in order to obtain the choicest flour.
(9) V. supra n.1.
(10) Any who saw the new moon may transgress the Sabbath limits to go and give evidence before the court of the appearance of the new moon. As the calendar was not fixed the evidence of witnesses was a matter of the greatest importance for the determination of the dates of the Festivals.
(11) As it is most probable that the members of the court themselves had also seen the appearance of the new moon, so that it would be unnecessary for any to profane the Sabbath for this purpose; R.H. 21b.
(12) For even when the new moon was not clearly visible to all, those who did see it might refrain from going to give their evidence believing that they were not justified in profaning the Sabbath on its account as others too might have seen the appearance of the new moon like themselves.
(13) That whatever the circumstances people should be encouraged to go and give their evidence.
(14) For it is no offering, neither is it an important need of the community since the new moon was seen clearly everywhere.
(15) To offer the choicest of five se'ahs.
(16) Viz., the reaping, winnowing, etc. of the three se'ahs.
(17) Since he acted in error, believing that he may slaughter any number of beasts on the Sabbath for the community, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
(18) E.g., where the blood of the first beast was poured away after the second had been slaughtered, so that it was necessary in the end to use the blood of the second beast. In this case therefore it might be said that the slaughterer was not liable since in fact two beasts were necessary. On the other hand, when he slaughtered the second beast he had no reason to believe that the first would be unfit.
(19) Before the slaughtering of the second beast. It is a meritorious act to offer for a sacrifice a fine beast; cf. Mal. I, 8.
(20) And only one sin-offering was necessary.
(21) Thus contradicting Rabbah's previous statement that he is liable for slaughtering the fat beast after the lean one.
(22) When slaughtering the second beast he had no knowledge that the entrails of the first beast were lean and not fit to be offered, consequently the slaughtering of the second beast was undoubtedly a forbidden act. On the other hand, it might be said that he is not liable, since it was proved in the end that it was right to have slaughtered the second beast.
(23) An act forbidden on the Sabbath.
(24) And, therefore, in the case stated by Rabina, since he did not know of the unfitness of the first beast when he slaughtered the second, he is certainly liable according to all views.
(25) R. Ashi.
(26) For a sick person not only is it permitted to profane the Sabbath but it is even a meritorious act to do so.
(27) And profaned the Sabbath by plucking the figs.
(28) The stalks in either case were attached to the tree so that in any event it was necessary to transgress the Sabbath by breaking off the stalks from the tree. In the one case, however, two stalks would have to be broken off, whilst in the other case only one.for even R. Ishmael only said so1 in that case, since the less one uses2 the less one reaps, but in this case, where the less one uses the more one has to pluck,3 we should certainly bring the three [figs]. MISHNAH. THE PRECEPT OF THE 'OMER IS THAT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT FROM [WHAT GROWS] NEAR BY. IF [THE CROP] NEAR JERUSALEM WAS NOT YET RIPE, IT COULD BE BROUGHT FROM ANY PLACE. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE OMER WAS BROUGHT FROM GAGGOTH ZERIFIN4 AND THE TWO LOAVES FROM THE PLAIN OF EN SOKER.4
GEMARA. Why is this So?5 - If you wish. I may say, Because it is written, Fresh corn shalt thou bring;6 or if you wish, I may say, Because of the rule 'One must not pass over [the first occasion for performing] the precept'.7
IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE 'OMER WAS BROUGHT FROM GAGGOTH ZERIFIN. Our Rabbis taught: When the Kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another,8 Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within [the city wall]. Each day [those that were within] used to let down [to the other party] denars in a basket, and haul up [in return] animals for the Daily Offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom, spoke with them in Greek wisdom,9 saying. 'As long as they carry on the Temple service they will never be delivered into your hands'. On the morrow they let down denars in a basket and hauled up a pig. When it reached halfway up the wall, it stuck its claws into the wall, and the land of Israel was shaken over a distance of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs. At that time they declared, 'Cursed be the man who rears pigs and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom!' It was concerning this time [of siege] that we learnt: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE 'OMER WAS BROUGHT FROM GAGGOTH ZERIFIN AND THE TWO LOAVES FROM THE PLAIN OF EN SOKER. For when the time for the 'Omer arrived they did not know from whence they could take it.10 They at once proclaimed the matter, whereupon a deaf-mute came forward and pointed11 with one hand to the roof and with the other to a cone-shaped hut. Then spake Mordecai,12 'Is there anywhere a place by name Gaggoth Zerifin13 or Zerifin Gaggoth?' Thereupon they searched and found the place. When they should have brought the Two Loaves they did not know from whence they could take it. They at once proclaimed the matter, whereupon a deaf-mute came forward and put one hand on his eye and the other hand on the socket of the bolt. Then spake Mordecai,12 'Is there anywhere a place by name En Soker14 or Soker En?' Thereupon they searched and found the place.
Once three women brought three pairs of doves to the Temple. One said, 'It is for my zibah'; the other said, 'It is for my yammah'; and the third said, 'It is for my 'onah'. Now they [the priests] thought that by zibah15 [the woman] actually meant her flux, by yammah16 her stream, and by 'onah17 her period, and therefore of each pair of doves, one bird was to be offered for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering.18 Then spake Mordecai, 'Perhaps the one had been in danger by reason of her flux, the other had been in danger by reason of a sea journey,19 and the third had been in danger by an infection of the eye,20 and therefore all the doves were to be offered for burnt-offerings!'21 Thereupon they enquired into the matter and found that it was so.
____________________
(1) That on the Sabbath one must reap less for the 'Omer.
(2) Lit., 'eats'.
(3) For to obtain the two figs one must break off two stalks.
(4) These places are identified respectively with Sarafand near Lydda and Assaker near Nablus. V. Neub. Geog. pp. 81, 170.
(5) That the 'Omer must be brought from barley growing near Jerusalem.
(6) Lev. II, 14. If the barley were brought from a distance it would lose its freshness on the way and would not be fit.
(7) And therefore the crops found growing outside Jerusalem should be used for the religious purpose.
(8) V. parallel passages in B.K. 82b (Sonc. ed. p. 469. and notes) and Sot. 49b (Sonc. ed. p. 268, and notes). V. also Graetz, Geschichte III, pp. 710ff on this passage.
(9) This old man was in Jerusalem and addressed his words of betrayal to the besiegers outside. 'Greek wisdom', according to Rashi means 'gestures and signs', but most probably it means the Greek language which was not understood by the people in the city.
(10) This was due to the devastation of the land round about Jerusalem by the hostile forces.
(11) Lit., 'put'.
(12) A high Temple official who on account of his sagacity bore the name of Mordecai (Tosaf.). V. infra.
(13) A place-name whose literal meaning is 'roofs, cone-shaped huts'.
(14) A place-name whose literal meaning is 'eye, the socket of the bolt'.
(15) זיבה the usual term for an issue or flux. This woman had apparently suffered from an issue and now being cleansed was offering a pair of doves as her prescribed sacrifice. V. Lev. XV, 25ff.
(16) ימה an excessive flux, from ים 'the sea'. Here, too, the doves were offered on her being cleansed of her issue.
(17) עונה 'period'. The period of her seven clean days having been fulfilled she now offers a pair of doves as her prescribed sacrifice; v. ibid. 28, 29.
(18) Cf. ibid. 30.
(19) Taking ימה in its usual meaning 'the sea'.
(20) עונה is thus interpreted as עינה 'her eye'.
(21) For they were no doubt brought as freewill-offerings or in fulfilment of vows which the women vowed to bring on their delivery out of danger. In these circumstances the offerings were to be dealt with as burnt-offerings.This is indeed what we have learnt: Petahiah was over the bird-offerings.1 This same Petahiah was Mordecai; why was his name called Petahiah?2 Because he was able to open matters and interpret them,' and he knew seventy languages.3 But did not every member of the Sanhedrin know seventy languages? For R. Johanan said, None are to be appointed members of the Sanhedrin but men of wisdom, of good appearance, of fine stature, of mature age. men with a knowledge of sorcery and who know seventy languages, in order that the court should have no need of an interpreter!4 - Say, rather, that he used to mix together5 expressions and explain them; and on that account it is written of Mordecai 'Bilshan'.6
MISHNAH. WHAT WAS THE PROCEDURE? THE MESSENGERS OF THE BETH DIN USED TO GO OUT ON THE DAY BEFORE THE FESTIVAL AND TIE THE UNREAPED CORN IN BUNCHES TO MAKE IT THE EASIER TO REAP. ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWNS NEAR BY ASSEMBLED THERE,7 SO THAT IT MIGHT BE REAPED WITH MUCH DISPLAY. AS SOON AS IT BECAME DARK HE8 CALLED OUT, 'HAS THE SUN SET'? AND THEY ANSWERED. 'YES.' HAS THE SUN SET'? AND THEY ANSWERED, 'YES.' WITH THIS SICKLE'?9 AND THEY ANSWERED, 'YES'. 'WITH THIS SICKLE'? AND THEY ANSWERED, YES'. 'INTO THIS BASKET'? AND THEY ANSWERED, 'YES'. INTO THIS BASKET'? AND THEY ANSWERED. 'YES'. ON THE SABBATH HE CALLED OUT FURTHER, ON THIS SABBATH'? AND THEY ANSWERED. 'YES'. 'ON THIS SABBATH'? AND THEY ANSWERED. 'YES'. 'SHALL I REAP'?10 AND THEY ANSWERED, REAP'. 'SHALL I REAP'? AND THEY ANSWERED, 'REAP'. HE REPEATED EVERY MATTER THREE TIMES, AND THEY ANSWERED, 'YES.' 'YES.' 'YES'. AND WHY WAS ALL THIS? BECAUSE OF THE BOETHUSIANS11 WHO MAINTAINED THAT THE REAPING OF THE 'OMER WAS NOT TO TAKE PLACE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE [FIRST DAY OF THE] FESTIVAL.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught:12 'On the following days fasting, and on some of them also mourning, is forbidden: From the first until the eighth day of the month of Nisan, during which time the Daily Offering was established, mourning is forbidden;13 from the eighth of the same until the close of the Festival, during which time the date for the Feast of Weeks was re-established, fasting is forbidden.14 'From the first until the eighth day of the month of Nisan, during which time the Daily Offering was established, mourning is forbidden'. For the Sadducees used to say that an individual may of his own free will defray the cost15 of the Daily Offering. What was their argument? - It is written, [said they]. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning and the other lamb shalt thou offer at dusk.16 And what was the reply [of the Rabbis]? - It is written, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe.17 Hence all sacrifices were to be taken out of the Temple fund.18
'From the eighth of the same until the close of the Festival [of Passover], during which time the date for the Feast of Weeks was re-established, fasting is forbidden'. For the Boethusians held that the Feast of Weeks19 must always be on the day after the Sabbath.20 But R. Johanan b. Zakkai entered into discussion with them saying, 'Fools that you are! whence do you derive it'? Not one of them was able to answer him, save one old man who commenced to babble and said, 'Moses our teacher was a great lover of Israel, and knowing full well that the Feast of Weeks lasted only one day he therefore fixed it on the day after the Sabbath so that Israel might enjoy themselves for two successive days'. [R. Johanan b. Zakkai] then quoted to him the following verse, 'It is eleven days' journey from Horeb unto Kadesh-Barnea by the way of mount Seir.21
____________________
(1) He was the officer in charge of the chest inscribed 'Bird-offerings' in the Temple. As the bird-offerings gave rise to complicated problems (v. Tractate Kinnim) he was chosen for his sagacity and profound understanding.
(2) The literal meaning of this name is 'The Lord has opened'.
(3) V. Shek., Sonc. ed., p. 18 notes.
(4) V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 87.
(5) I.e., transfer the meanings of expressions from one sense to another; cf. supra in connection with Gaggoth Zerifin.
(6) Neh. VII, 7. The name בלשן is regarded as made up of בלל to mix, and לשן expression.
(7) On the night after the first day of the Passover.
(8) The reaper to the people assembled.
(9) I.e., shall I reap the corn with this sickle and into this basket?
(10) On the Sabbath.
(11) A sect in opposition to the Pharisees and often regarded as synonymous with the Sadducees. They held that the expression (Lev. XXIII, 11), ממחרת השבת, 'the morrow after the Sabbath', must be taken in its literal sense, the day following the first Saturday in Passover. The Pharisees, however, argued that the Sabbath meant here 'the day of cessation from work', i.e., the Festival of Passover. Accordingly the 'Omer was to be offered on the second day of the Festival, and the reaping of the corn on the night preceding, at the conclusion of the first day of the Festival.
(12) V. Megillath Ta'anith, I.
(13) And needless to say that fasting is forbidden. V. Tosaf. s.v. אילין
(14) But mourning is permitted. So according to Rashi, Sh. Mek. and most MSS. In cur. ed. 'mourning is forbidden'. V. Tosaf. s.v. מריש. Cf. also Ta'anith 17b.
(15) Lit., 'may offer and bring'.
(16) Num. XXVIII, 4. The precept is stated in the singular, directed to the individual.
(17) Ibid. 2. The use of the pronoun 'ye' clearly imposes the obligation upon the community.
(18) Lit., 'the offering of the Chamber'.
(19) Azereth, lit., 'the closing'; the Feast of Weeks being regarded as the closing festival to Passover.
(20) l.e., on a Sunday, at the completion of seven full weeks from the offering of the 'Omer which, according to them, was offered on a Sunday.
(21) Deut. I, 2.If Moses was a great lover of Israel, why then did he detain them in the wilderness for forty years'? 'Master', said the other, 'is it thus that you would dismiss me'? 'Fool', he answered, 'should not our perfect Torah be as convincing as your idle talk! Now one verse says. Ye shall number fifty days.1 while the other verse says, Seven weeks shall there be complete.2 How are they to be reconciled?3 The latter verse refers to the time when the [first day of the] Festival [of Passover] falls on the Sabbath,4 while the former to the time when the [first day of the] Festival falls on a weekday.5 (Mnemonic: R. Eliezer 'numbers'; R. Joshua 'counts'; R. Ishmael 'from the 'Omer'; R. Judah 'below'.)6 R. Eliezer says, This is not necessary, for Scripture says, Thou shalt number unto thee,7 that is, the numbering depends upon the [decision of the] Beth din;8 accordingly the Sabbath of the creation cannot be intended,9 as the numbering would then be in the hands of all men.10 R. Joshua says. The Torah says. Count days11 and sanctify the new moon,12 count days and sanctify the Feast of Weeks.13 Just as in regard to the new moon there is something distinctive at the commencement [of the counting],14 so with the Feast of Weeks there is something distinctive at the commencement [of the counting].15
R. Ishmael says. The Torah says. Bring the 'Omer-offering on the Passover, and the Two Loaves on the Feast of Weeks. Just as the latter are offered on the Festival, and indeed at the beginning of the Festival, so the former, too. Is offered on the Festival, and indeed at the beginning of the Festival.16 R. Judah b. Bathyra says. There is written 'Sabbath' below17 and also 'Sabbath' above;17 just as in the former case the Festival, and indeed the beginning of the Festival, is near [to the Sabbath].18 so in the latter case, too, the Festival, and indeed the beginning of the Festival, is near [to the 'Omer].19
Our Rabbis taught: And ye shall count unto you.20 that is, the counting is a duty upon every one. On the morrow after the Sabbath,20 that is, on the morrow after the Festival. Perhaps it is not so but rather on the morrow after the Sabbath of Creation. R. Jose b. Judah says, Scripture says, Ye shall number fifty days,21 that is, every time that you number it shall not be more than fifty days. But should you say that the verse refers to the morrow after the Sabbath of Creation, then it might sometimes come to fifty-one and sometimes to fifty-two and fifty-three and fifty-four and fifty-five and fifty-six.22 R. Judah b. Bathyra says. This is not necessary.
____________________
(1) Lev. XXIII, 16.
(2) Ibid. 15.
(3) For the former verse speaks of counting fifty days irrespective of the completeness of the weeks, whereas the latter verse speaks of seven weeks complete, by which it is understood full weeks each commencing on a Sunday.
(4) In this case there are seven complete weeks.
(5) It is evident therefore that the Feast of Weeks may fall on any day of the week and not only on Sunday. On the motives underlying this controversy v. Lichtenstein HUCA VIII-IX. pp. 276ff and Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I. p. 115ff.
(6) And aid for remembering the various proofs adduced by the Rabbis mentioned.
(7) Deut. XVI, 9.
(8) For inasmuch as the Beth din fixed the date of the Festivals, it is left to them to inform the community the time from which to commence counting the days of the 'Omer. Cur. edd. insert here the following gloss: For they know to interpret 'the morrow after the Sabbath' as the morrow after the Festival.
(9) In the expression 'the morrow after the Sabbath'.
(10) Obviously no guidance would be necessary were the counting always to commence on the Sunday, after the Sabbath of Creation, i.e., the ordinary Sabbath of the week.
(11) Cf. the expression 'a month of days', Num. XI, 20.
(12) I.e., after counting twenty-nine days the thirtieth day should be sanctified as the new moon.
(13) Lev. XXIII, 15,16.
(14) Namely the new moon, for the twenty-nine days are counted from the first day of the new month.
(15) Namely the Festival of Passover. Now if the counting always commenced on Sunday, this distinctiveness would not always be evident, for sometimes the counting might commence on the seventeenth day of Nisan, and sometimes on the eighteenth, or on the nineteenth of that month. V. Tosaf. s.v.מה חדש. Cur. edd. insert here the gloss: And should you say that the Feast of Weeks always falls on the day after Sabbath, how would there be anything distinctive at its commencement?
(16) Save that in order to fulfil the expression 'on the morrow after the Sabbath' it must be offered on the second day of the Festival. If, however, it was to be offered always on a Sunday it might happen sometimes that it is offered at the end of the Festival; v. prev. note.
(17) Below, in respect of the Feast of Weeks, unto the morrow of the seventh Sabbath, Lev. XXIII, 16; and above, in respect of the 'Omer, On the morrow after the Sabbath, ibid. 11.
(18) Since the Festival follows immediately the 'Sabbath'. Here, of course, the word Sabbath signifies 'week', as the Festival must be at the end of seven complete Sabbaths or weeks.
(19) Thus the Festival of Passover is to immediately precede the 'Omer; accordingly 'Sabbath' clearly means the Festival.
(20) Lev. XXIII, 15.
(21) Ibid. 16.
(22) Just as in that year when the Passover falls on a Sabbath and the counting, according to all views, begins on the Sunday, only fifty days are numbered from the second day of the Festival, so also in the other years when the Festival falls on a weekday only fifty days are to be numbered from the second day of the Festival. Now if it is held that the numbering must always begin on a Sunday, then as compared with the former year, the number of days from the second day of the Festival would be fifty-one, if the Festival fell on a Friday, or fifty-two if it fell on a Thursday, and so on.for Scripture says, Thou shalt number unto thee,1 that is, the numbering depends upon [the decision of] the Beth-din; accordingly the Sabbath of the Creation cannot be intended as the numbering would then be in the hands of all men.2 R. Jose says. On the morrow after the Sabbath means on the morrow after the Festival. You say that it means on the morrow after the Festival, but perhaps it is not so, but rather on the morrow after the Sabbath of Creation! I will prove it to you. Does Scripture say, 'On the morrow after the Sabbath that is in the Passover week'? It merely says, 'On the morrow after the Sabbath'; and as the year is full of Sabbaths, then go and find out which Sabbath is meant.3 Moreover, 'Sabbath' is written below,4 and 'Sabbath' is written above; just as in the former case it refers to the Festival, and indeed to the beginning of the Festival, so in the latter case, too, it refers to the Festival, and indeed to the beginning of the Festival.4 R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, One verse says. Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread,5 whereas another verse says, Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread.6 How are they to be reconciled?' [In this way:] you may not eat unleavened bread of the new produce the seven days. but you may eat unleavened bread of the new produce six days.7 From the day that ye brought [the 'Omer of the waving]...shall ye number:8 now I might think that the 'Omer must be reaped and offered [on the day stated], but the counting may begin whenever one wishes,9 the text therefore also states, From the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn thou shalt begin to number.10 But from [this verse], 'From the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn thou shalt begin to number', I might think that the 'Omer must be reaped and then one begins to count, but it is to be offered whenever one wishes, the text therefore states, From the day that ye brought [the 'Omer...shall ye number].11 But from [this verse], 'From the day that ye brought', I might think that it must be reaped and offered and the counting begun all by day, the text therefore states 'Seven weeks shall there be complete;12 and when do you find seven weeks complete? Only when you begin to count from the [previous] evening.13 I might think, then, that it must be reaped and offered and the counting begun all by night, the text therefore, states, 'From the day that ye brought'. How is it to be then? The reaping and the counting must be on the [previous] night, but the bringing on the [following] day.14
Said Raba: All the above interpretations can be refuted, excepting those of the last two Tannaim of the first Baraitha and of the last two Tannaim of the second Baraitha,15 which cannot be refuted, If [it were to be derived from] R. Johanan b. Zakkai's interpretation it can be refuted thus: Perhaps [the explanation of the conflicting verses is] as given by Abaye; for Abaye said, It is the precept to count the days and also the weeks.16 If from R. Eliezer's and R. Joshua's interpretations it can be refuted thus: How do they know that it17 refers to the first day of the Festival? It may refer to the last day of the Festival! R. Ishmael's and R. Judah b. Bathyra's interpretations cannot be refuted. If from R. Jose son of R. Judah's interpretation it can be refuted thus: Perhaps the fifty days excludes those six days!18 If from R. Judah b. Bathyra's interpretation19 it can be refuted thus: How does he know that it17 means' the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it means the last day of the Festival! R. Jose also realized this same difficulty, and he therefore added the second interpretation 'Moreover.
The [above] text [stated]: Abaye said, It is the precept to count the days and also to count the weeks. The Rabbis of the school of R. Ashi used to count the days as well as the weeks. Amemar used to count the days but not the weeks, saying, It is only in commemoration of Temple times.20
MISHNAH. THEY REAPED IT, PUT IT INTO THE BASKETS, AND BROUGHT IT TO THE TEMPLE COURT; THEN THEY PARCHED IT21 WITH FIRE IN ORDER TO FULFIL THE PRECEPT THAT IT SHOULD BE PARCHED [WITH FIRE].22 SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THEY FIRST BEAT IT WITH REEDS OR STEMS OF PLANTS THAT THE GRAINS SHOULD NOT BE CRUSHED,23 AND THEN THEY PUT IT INTO A PIPE THAT WAS PERFORATED SO THAT THE FIRE MIGHT TAKE HOLD OF ALL OF IT. THEY SPREAD IT OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT SO THAT THE WIND MIGHT BLOW OVER IT.24 THEN THEY PUT IT INTO A GRISTMILL25 AND TOOK OUT OF IT A TENTH [OF AN EPHAH OF FLOUR] WHICH WAS SIFTED THROUGH THIRTEEN SIEVES. WHAT WAS LEFT OVER WAS REDEEMED AND MIGHT BE EATEN BY ANY ONE; IT WAS LIABLE TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING26 BUT EXEMPT FROM TITHES.27 R. AKIBA DECLARES IT LIABLE BOTH TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING AND TO TITHES.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: 'Abib':28 this signifies fresh ears of corn; 'parched with fire': this teaches us that Israel used to parch it with fire in order to fulfil the precept 'parched'. So R. Meir. But the Sages say,
____________________
(1) Deut. XVI,9.
(2) V. supra p. 386. n. 8.
(3) Obviously then 'the Sabbath' means the Festival.
(4) V. supra p. 387 nn. 2,3 and 4.
(5) Ibid. 8.
(6) Ex. XII, 15.
(7) For after the offering of the 'Omer, on the second day of the Festival, there are left six days of the Festival on which one may eat unleavened bread of the new produce; thus the verses are reconciled. If, however, the 'Omer was always to be offered on a Sunday, then it would frequently happen that there would be less than six days from the offering of the 'Omer to the end of the Festival.
(8) Lev. XXIII, 15, 16.
(9) On any day after the bringing of the 'Omer.
(10) Deut. XVI, 9. From this verse it appears that the counting must begin immediately after the reaping and apparently even before the offering of the 'Omer.
(11) We thus learn that the reaping and the offering of the 'Omer and the commencement of the counting must all take place on the same day.
(12) Lev. XXIII, 15.
(13) Since the complete day consists of the day and the preceding night.
(14) And it is arrived at in this way: the reaping must clearly be before the counting, since it is written, 'From the time that the sickle is put to the standing corn thou shalt begin to number'; and the counting must be at night because of the verse which says, 'Seven weeks shall there be complete'. The counting. however, precedes the bringing of the 'Omer, the verse 'From the day that ye brought the 'Omer shall ye number' notwithstanding, as this verse does necessarily indicate precedence but rather that both shall take place on the same day.
(15) I.e., R. Jose in his second interpretation and R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
(16) Cf. P.B. p. 270ff. This is established by Abaye from the fact that one verse speaks of counting the days and the other of counting the weeks.
(17) The expression 'Sabbath'. Granted that it cannot mean the ordinary Sabbath of the week, it may mean nevertheless the last day, and not necessarily the first day, of the Festival.
(18) For it might be said that the counting of the fifty days is to commence from the first Sunday in the Passover festival, exclusive of the six (or less) intervening days between the second day of the Festival and the Sunday.
(19) In the second Baraitha.
(20) He maintains that after the destruction of the Temple, when the 'Omer is no longer offered, the counting is no absolute obligation; hence it is sufficient if only the days are counted.
(21) The whole ears of corn.
(22) Lev. II, 14.
(23) It was not threshed in the usual manner with flails as these would bruise the fresh and tender corn.
(24) In order to dry it.
(25) Which grinds very coarsely so that only the husk is separated from the grain.
(26) Cf. Num. XV, 18ff. Since at the time when dough becomes liable to the dough-offering, i.e. at the rolling out of the dough, it is no longer consecrated, it is therefore liable to the dough-offering.
(27) Since the obligation of tithes falls due at the last work in connection with the corn (i.e. the smoothing of the pile), and at that time the corn was still consecrated, it is therefore exempt from tithes.
(28) 'Corn in the ear'. Lev. II, 14.By koli1 we do not mean [what is parched] over the fire but [what is parched] with something [intervening between the fire and the grain]. (Another version reads: By koli we understand what is parched in a vessel.)2 How was it done then? There was there [in the Temple] a pipe for parching corn which was perforated like a sieve so that the fire might take hold of it on all sides. Corn in the ear, parched...crushed: now I know not whether the fresh ears of corn must be parched or the crushed grain must be parched;3 but when the verse says '[parched] with fire', it thus interrupts the subject.4 Karmel [fresh corn] means, rak [tender] and mal [easily crushed].5 In like manner6 [we interpret the word in the following] verse: And there came a man from Baal-shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh corn beziklono. And he said, Give unto the people that they may eat.7 [Beziklono means]: He came and poured out for us, and we ate, and it was fine. And so, too, [when it says, Let us solace ourselves [nith'alsah] with loves,8 [nith'alsah means:] Let us talk together and then let us go up [on the couch] and rejoice and revel in caresses. And so, too, [when] it says, The wing of the ostrich [ne'elasah] beateth joyously,9 [ne'elasah means:] It carries [the egg], flies upwards [with it] and deposits it [in the nest]. And so, too, [when] it says, Because thy way is contrary [yarat] unto me,10 [yarat means:] She [the ass] feared when she saw [the angel] and she turned aside. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: Karmel means, kar [rounded, and male [full].11
R. AKIBA DECLARES IT LIABLE BOTH TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING AND TO TITHES. R. Kahana said, R. Akiba used to say that the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] the Temple does not exempt it [from tithes].12
R. Shesheth raised the following objection: What did they do with what remained of those three se'ahs?13 It was redeemed and could be eaten by any one; it was liable to the dough-offering but exempt from tithes. R. Akiba declares it liable both to the dough-offering and to tithes. But [the Sages] said to him, Let what is redeemed from the hand of the Temple treasurer prove the case,14 for that is liable to the dough-offering yet is exempt from tithes. Now if it is right to say, [R. Akiba holds the view that] the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging to] the Temple does not exempt [from tithes], then what was the point of their argument, it is just the same case?15 Furthermore, R. Kahana b. Tahlifa raised an objection against R. Kahana's statement [from the following Baraitha]: R. Akiba declares it liable both to the dough-offering and tithes, for Temple money was only used for what was necessary!16 - Rather, said R. Johanan,it is an accepted teaching in the mouth of R. Akiba that Temple money was only used for what was necessary.17
Raba said, I am quite certain that the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] the Temple exempts it [from tithes], for even R. Akiba only declares it liable [to tithes] in that case alone, since Temple money was only used for what was necessary, but elsewhere [all agree that] the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging to] the Temple exempts from tithes.
With regard to the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] a gentile there is a difference of opinion between Tannaim. For it was taught: One may give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce also bought from an Israelite, and from produce bought from a gentile for other produce also bought from a gentile,18 and from produce bought from a Cuthean19 for other produce also bought from a Cuthean, and from produce bought from any one of these for other produce also bought from any one of these.20 So R. Meir and R. Judah. But R. Jose and R. Simeon say, One may give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce also bought from an Israelite, and from produce bought from a gentile for other produce bought from a Cuthean, and from produce bought from a Cuthean for other produce bought from a gentile, but one may not give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean, nor from produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean for other produce bought from an Israelite.21
____________________
(1) Heb. קלי. The reference is to the word קלוי in Lev. ibid. The text is in a very bad state here; v. the parallel passage in Sifra (ed.' Friedmann, p. 121-2) and notes thereon where all the parallel texts are collected and examined. V. also Dik. Sof. n. 9. The translation is based on the text as emended by Sh. Mek
(2) Heb. קליל: a receptacle of burnished bronze (Rashi).
(3) The term קלי 'parched' appears in the verse between two substantives, so that it is uncertain whether it refers to the preceding expression 'corn in the ear', in which case the fresh ears of corn must first be parched and then crushed, or to the subsequent expression 'crushed', in which case the corn must first be crushed and then parched.
(4) Hence it cannot refer to the subsequent expression but only to the one preceding, so that the fresh ears of corn must be parched.
(5) The Heb. כרמל is interpreted as two words: רך (by transposing the first two letters of the word) 'soft', 'tender', and מל 'brittle', 'easily crushed'.
(6) Lit., 'and thus it says'. Here follow some examples of interpretation of words by the method known as נוטריקון (stenographic or abbreviated), whereby any particular word is regarded as a combination of the initial or characteristic letters of the words in a sentence.
(7) II Kings IV, 42. The Heb. word בצקלונו (translated in the versions 'in his sack') is here expanded into the following sentence: בא ויצק לנו ואכלנװנוה
(8) Prov. VII, 18. The word נתעלסה is expanded into: נשא ונתן ונעלה ונשמח ונתחטא It must be noted that the letter 'sin' is often substituted for 'samech'; similarly the 'heth' for 'he'.
(9) Job XXXIX, 13. The word נעלסה is expanded into: נושא עולה ונתחטא V. Rashi. Jastrow, Dict. p. 449. translates 'He raises his wings and rises and enjoys himself'.
(10) Num. XXII, 32. Heb. ירט expanded into: יראה ראתה נתטה
(11) Heb. כר and מלא; the ears of corn must be quite ripe, each grain filling the husk. According to R. Gershom, Aruch and Rashi: Each ear must be full (מלא) of grain as a cushion (כר) is stuffed with feathers.
(12) When later the corn is acquired by an Israelite.
(13) That were reaped for the purposes of the 'Omer; v. Mishnah supra 63b.
(14) I.e., corn produced and grown by the Temple authorities. Such produce apparently even R. Akiba would agree is exempt from tithes when it is acquired by an Israelite.
(15) For just as R. Akiba declares the remainder of the 'Omer-offering liable to tithes he also declares any corn redeemed from the Temple treasurer liable, so that the proof adduced by the Sages in their argument fails in its purpose.
(16) I,e., the tenth for the 'Omer-offering. The remainder, however, was not covered by Temple money and was not regarded as consecrated hence it is subject to tithes. It follows, however, that if the corn was produced by the Temple authorities and the pile was smoothed whilst it still belonged to the Temple, it is exempt from tithes.
(17) R. Kahana's statement thus stands refuted.
(18) For R. Meir and R. Judah are of the opinion that a gentile cannot own property in the Land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe; so that produce bought from a gentile is liable to tithe even though at the time that the pile of corn was smoothed it belonged to the gentile.
(19) A member of one of the tribes that settled in the Northern Kingdom after the deportation of the Ten Tribes of Israel by the Assyrian king. Some of the peoples came from Cutha and so gave their name to the new settlers as a whole. They are also known as Samaritans. They accepted a form of semi-Judaism, and their status as Jews varied at different times.
(20) So that it is permitted to give terumah from produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean for produce bought from an Israelite, or vice versa, for the smoothing of the pile belonging at the time to a gentile does not exempt it from tithes.
(21) For R. Jose and R. Simeon hold the view that produce which was finished and stacked into a pile and smoothed off whilst in the possession of a gentile or a Cuthean is exempt henceforth from tithes; and clearly what is exempt from tithe may not be given as tithe for other produce that is liable.
