Talmud for Menachot 7:1

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

The Torah said, four compartments for four paragraphs⁶⁴The word טטפת (Ex. 13:16, Deut.6:8,11:18) “head tefillin” is confirmed by the Babli’s use, Šabbat 57a, as “woman’s headband”. A fancy etymology, which reads the number 4 into the word, to support the statement that head phylacteries must bemade with four compartments (Sanhedrin 4b, Zevahim37b, Menahot 34b) is rabbinic.. If he made five compartments for four paragraphs, he is punishable. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: He is punishable only if he instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah⁶⁵The different kinds of impurity of dead animals are described in Lev. 11 but the details, in particular the minimal quantities which induce impurity, are rabbinic. but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he never is punishable unless he deny and instruct in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim, on condition that he simultaneously deduct in a matter which permits subtraction and addition⁶⁶R. Zeˋira restricts the original saying of R. Hoshaia, which was extended by R. Johanan to include impurity of dead animals. In the Babli 88b it is asserted that in the interpretation here ascribed to R. Zeˋira the only crime a rebellious Elder could be charged with was to instruct to make head phylacteries not with four but with five compartments. Then he obviously adds to the number of compartments but at the same time, since one of the four texts now has to occupy two compartments, he eliminates the rule which determines the order in which the texts have to be placed into compartments. This is simultaneously adding and subtracting; from the following discussion (Notes 63–71) it follows that this also is the interpretation required for the Yerushalmi. It is clear that tefillin of the kind found in the Judean desert (Note 50) are not considered.. The face of Rav⁶⁷This should read “Rebbi”. Hoshaia lit up⁶⁸He was happy that R. Johanan quoted him even though the extension to include carcasses and dead crawling animals was not his formulation.. He⁶⁹R. Johanan. told him, do I need you that you enjoy it? I do not need you, I am adding to your statement. Thirteen years he⁶⁹R. Johanan. went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah objected, did we not state⁷⁰Mishnah Negaˋim 6:1; cf. Nedarim 3:2 Note 49, Maˋserot 5:7 Notes 122–125.
Baheret is a skin disease in which white spots appear on the skin (Lev. 13). The minimum size of such a spot which makes its bearer impure is that of a “square split cilician bean” which is defined as 36 (hairwidths)². All questions are directed to R. Zeˋira; one tries to find a law other than that of phylacteries where a ruling by a rebellious Elder could simultaneously add and subtract from the received norm.
It was shown in Masˋerot, by a question of R. Berekhiah, that square cannot mean that the white spot be an exact square, since nothing in biology exhibits geometrically straight lines and right angles. Therefore, the question can only be whether the spot must contain a square of minimal size or only have surface area of 36 (hairwidths)²., “the body of baheret is the square area of a split cilician bean”? Rebbi Abba Mari said, one who said it is pure⁷¹For ms. דכן “pure” (Mishnah Idiut 8:4) editio princeps has הכן “so”, which made the clause incomprehensible. In Maˋserot and Nedarim, it was determined that the Mishnah has to be read as referring to surface area. An elder who would read the Mishnah as requiring a white spot containing a square of minimal size would actually declare most impure spots as pure. This is diminution; nothing is added.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, did we not state⁷²Mishnah Menahot 3:7. Again the obligation to write words of the Torah on one’s doorposts is biblical (Deut. 6:9,11:19) while the selection of the texts and the details are rabbinic. If one put the two texts into two cases instead of writing them on one sheet of parchment, it would be simultaneously adding and subtracting., “two paragraphs in the mezuzzah”? He told him, phylacteries and mezuzah are the same⁷³It is agreed that instead of “only tefillin” one should accept “only tefillin and mezuzzot” as possible objects of the Elder’s misdeeds since both are mentioned together in the biblical texts.. Rav Hamnuna objected, was it not stated⁷⁴Menaḥot 41b, Bekhorot 39b, determining the minimal length of the unknotted part of the ṣisit, the threads to be attached to the corners of one’s rectangular garment.: The ṣiṣit must be four finger lengths for four threads? He told him, in that he diminished but did not add⁷⁵This is pure diminution; nothing is added.. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, was it not stated⁷⁶Mishnah Menahot 7:1, Menaḥot 89a, Sifra Saw Pereq 11(6). The rules of a thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:12–14) require three kinds of unleavened oiled breads in addition to a set of leavened bread. The rabbinic interpretation requires that the flour be divided into three equal parts but that half of the oil be used on the unleavened bread scalded in hot water like a bagel, the rest being used for the other two kinds. If instead somebody instructed also to distribute the oil evenly, would he not subtract from one kind and add to the others?, one third for the scalded⁷⁷Explanation of Rashi in Menaḥot., one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes. If he used it in thirds, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes? He told him, he subtracts from the scalded and adds for round cakes and flat cakes⁷⁸The questioner considered all three kinds of mazzah as one commandment when in fact they are three different obligations; there is no simultaneity for one obligation..