Commentaire sur Menachot 3:15

הקומץ את המנחה לאכול – outside of its appropriate time period.

Introduction This mishnah deals with various cases where the disqualifying intention does not cause the sacrifice to be invalid. The same mishnah concerning animal sacrifices appeared in Zevahim 3:3.

דבר שאין דרכו לאכול – as for example, the handful of meal-offering and the frankincense.

If he took the handful from the minhah intending to eat [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to burn, the offering is valid. But Rabbi Eliezer says it is invalid. Normally, having an intention to eat or burn something outside of the place or time it should be eaten or burned will invalidate the minhah. However, here he intends to burn or eat something that is not normally burned or eaten. Therefore, this improper intention does not render the sacrifice invalid. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that an improper intention even concerning that which is not normally eaten or burned will still render the sacrifice invalid.

ולהקטיר – outside of its appropriate time period.

If he intended to eat less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to eat, or to burn less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to burn, the offering is valid. Here his improper intention was to do the action with less than an olive’s worth of the minhah, and therefore the minhah is still valid.

דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר – the residue/remnants are accustomed to be consumed but are not accustomed to be offered as incense upon the altar.

If he intended to eat a half of an olive's worth and to burn a half of an olive’s worth, the offering is valid, for eating and burning cannot be reckoned together. As we learned in 1:4, improper intentions with regard to eating a minhah and burning the fistful taken out of it do not join together to add up to the requisite olive’s worth. Therefore, the minhah is still valid.

כשר – that this is not considered thought/intention, for he has rescinded his thought regarding all people.

רבי אליעזר פוסל – as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice is eaten [on the third day, it shall not be acceptable],” Scripture speaks of two consumptions (i.e., האכל יאכל), one is the consumption of a human being and one is the consumption of the altar, to tell you that just as the consumption of a human being invalidates it for a person, as for example, residue/remnants if a person thought of consuming them outside of the appropriate time, and the consumption of the altar for the altar, as for example, a handful of meal-offering, if he considered/intended to offer it up on the altar not at its appropriate time, such his intention/thought invalidates the consumption of a human being if he thought about them regarding the altar to offer them up outside of their appropriate time, since the All-Merciful excluded both of them in the language of “eating,” we learn from this that they are the same, and we account from this one (i.e., food from sacrifices) to that one (i.e., “food” for the altar). But the Rabbis hold, that for thus, the All-Merciful excluded for burning on the altar in the language of “consuming/eating”, to tell you that just as eating is an olive’s bulk, so also consideration of burning on the altar is an olive’s bulk. But always, “eating” is in its manner is implied, the taking of a handful of meal-offering to the altar and the residue/remnants is for a person [for consumption]. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

לא יצק – the order of the meal-offering; at the beginning he places the oil in a utensil and after that places the fine-flour, and after that he returns and pours the oil and stirs it and this is explained in the chapter [seven in Tractate Menahot], "אלו המנחות נקמצות" /These meal-offerings are grabbed” [75a

If he did not pour in [the oil], or if he did not mix it, or if he did not break up [the minhah] into pieces, or if he did not salt it, or wave it, or if he did not draw it near, or if he broke it up into large pieces, or if he did not anoint it [with oil], it is valid. This section deals with a case where the priest preparing the minhah did not prepare it in the precisely correct way. With regard to each case I will first explain the correct way to prepare the minhah and then note what he did wrong. He brings a tenth [of an ephah] of flour and a log (a measure) of oil. He puts a little bit of the oil into a vessel and then he puts the flour on top of it and then he pours the rest of the oil on top and mixes it together. If he didn’t pour the oil on afterwards, but rather poured it all into the vessel before he put the flour in, the minhah is still valid. Similarly, if he didn’t mix it up, it is still valid. After having been mixed up, certain minhahs are kneaded in water and then baked in either a shallow or a deep pan. He would then make ten loaves. After the loaves have been baked, he breaks the loaves up into pieces, each about the size of an olive. If he doesn’t break the loaves up or he breaks them up into large pieces, the minhah is still valid. Before a minhah is burned on the altar, the priest salts it. If he doesn’t salt the minhah and only salts the handful, it is still valid (this is how some commentators understand the mishnah, because if the handful is not salted, it is invalid). Some minhah offerings, such as the minhah of jealousy, are waved before they are burned. If they are not waved, they are still valid. The minhah is brought to the altar before it is eaten. If it is not brought there, it is still valid (we will learn more about this in 5:5-6). Certain minhahs, specifically those made into wafers, are not mixed with oil before they are cooked, but rather afterwards. If he doesn’t anoint these minhah “wafers” they are still valid.

לא יצק ולא בלל כשר – as for example, he put all of the oil that was in the Log in the first gift which is prior to performing it. But if he was missing its oil, we stated in the first chapter [Tractate Menahot 11a – see Mishnah 3 in Chapter 1] that it is invalid. And in the Gemara in our chapter [18b], it proves that pouring is indispensable (i.e., it invalidates the act by its omission), and it explains [the phrase] “that he didn’t pour,” that a Kohen didn’t pour, but rather a non-Kohen (i.e., literally, “a foreigner”), that from the grabbing of a handful of meal-offering is the command for the priesthood, but pouring and stirring/kneading are appropriate for a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen), but it teaches, that he didn’t stir, by force it means that he didn’t mix/stir at all, for mixing/stirring definitely is not indispensable and our Mishnah should be read as follows: “if a Kohen did not pour but rather [it was done] by a foreigner, or he didn’t stir/mix at all, it is appropriate/kosher.

If the handful of one minhah was mixed with the handful of another, or with a priest’s minhah, or with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest, or with the minhah offered with the libations, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if [it was mixed] with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest or with the minhah offered with libations, it is invalid, for since the consistency of the one is thick and the consistency of the other is thin, each absorbs from the other. This section deals with various minhah offerings whose handfuls are mixed up with one another. According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter which handful is mixed up with which handful, they all remain valid and they can all be put on the altar. Rabbi Judah says that if the handful from a regular Israelite minhah gets mixed up with the handful from either the minhah of the high priest or the minhah of libations then the mixture cannot be offered because the consistency of these minhahs is different. The minhah of the high priest and the minhah of libations have three logs of oil per tenth of an ephah of flour, whereas the regular Israelite minhah has only one log per tenth of flour. If they are mixed together the Israelite minhah will absorb from the other minhahs and its mixture will become thinner, and the mixture of the high priest’s minhah or minhah of libations will become thicker. In other words, they will become of uniform viscosity, and neither of them will stay as they are required to be.

לא פתת (didn’t break the meal-offering into small pieces) – as it is written (Leviticus 2:6): “Break it into bits [and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering].” Even though it is written regarding a meal offering fried on a flat pan alone, the same law applies for all the meal-offerings that are baked first, such as for example, meal-offerings prepared in a flat pan and meal-offerings prepared in a deep pan, fried in a container filled with oil and that which is baked, it is commandmen to crumble all of them and afterwards take a handful of the meal-offering. And in a case wherehe did not crumble other than in order to take a fistful

לא מלח –[he did not salt] the entire meal-offering, but rather [only] that he took a handful of for a meal offering. But whereas, the salting of the handful is indispensable (i.e., it invalidates an act by omission).

לא הניף – in the sinner’s meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy (i.e., for a husband suspecting his wife of infidelity) requires waving.

לא הגיש – as it is written (Leviticus 2:8): “[it shall be brought to the priest] who shall take it up to the altar.” For the Kohen brings it to the altar and brings it near/offers it in the southwestern corner [of the altar] opposite the point of the corner (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 5, Mishnayot 5-6).

פתיתים מרובות – much larger than the expressed law for the meal-offering of an Israelite , doubling one into two [pieces] and two into four [pieces] and divides them (see Talmud Menahot 18b and Tractate Memahot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4) . And it is necessary to inform/teach us about large broken pieces and even though they inforom us that if he did not break them into small pieces, it is kosher/fit. For o might think I would say that there, where is the the law of loaves upon them, but here where there isn’t the law of loaves , and there are no [small] broken pieces, I would say, no, there it comes to teach us that the opposite is true (i.e., that this is not the case).

ולא משחן (see Mishnah Menahot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 3) – the wafters require anointing [with oil], as it is written (Exodus 29:2): “and unleavened wafers spread with oil,” after their baking we anoint them with oil over and over until he depletes all the oil in the LOG (i.e., a LOG equals the amount displaced by six eggs).

במנחת כהנים כשרה – that all of them are burned entirely like it

כמנחת כהן המשיח ובמנחת נסכים פסולה (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2) – because the mixture of the handful of meal-offering of an Israelite is thick. One LOG of oil er an Issaron of fine flour, and the meal-offering accompanying libations [of wine] and that of the anointed priest, their mixture is soft, three LOGS for an Issaron (= 10 Ephah) , as it is written for the meal offering accompanying libations (Numbers 15:4): “[the person who presents a gift to the LORD shall bring as a grain offering:] a tenth of a measure of choice flour with a quarter of a HIN mixed in, and in the meal-offering of the anointed priest, it states (Leviticus 6:13): “a tenth of an ephah of choice flour as a regular grain offering, [half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening].” Behold it is for you like the meal-offering of the daily offering with is an Issaron of fine flour in a quarter-log of a Hin.

והן בולעות זו מזו (each absorbs from the other) – the handful of meal-offering absorbs from the meal-offering accompanying libations and from the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and the oil of these meal-offerings is greater than the handful of the meal-offering and nullifies it, and it is a meal-offering whose handful of meal-offering was not offered as incense and that which was gathered in the handful is disqualified. But the meal-offering accompanying libations is fit/kosher, for there wasn’t like its oil had been increased, since it wasn’t intentionally that the oil was mixed when it absorbs it is nullified regarding it, and it is as if it doesn’t exist. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

אם יכול לקמצן מזו בפני עצמה וזו בפני עצמה – that this [meal-offering] fell on this side of the utensil and that [meal-offering] fell on the other side [of the utensil] and there remained from them enough in order to grab a handful that did not get mixed/combined, they are acceptable/fit (i.e., literally, “kosher”). But if not, they are disqualified, for it says in the Law of the Kohanim (i.e., Leviticus 2:2): “[And the priest shall scoop out of it a handful] of its choice flour and its oil, ”but not from the fine flour of its neighbor.

Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid.
If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation.
If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation.
If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable,
But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable.
For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.
Section one: In order for the minhah to be validated, the handful must be removed. So if two minhahs are mixed in together and neither has their handful removed, each minhah will be permitted only if he can definitely remove a handful from each minhah, and he can tell that this handful comes from only one minhah. If it is impossible to tell which minhah is which, then neither is valid because he can’t tell whether he has removed a handful from each.
Section two: Here a handful from one minhah is mixed in with another minhah from which the handful has not been removed. He should not burn this entire mixture because only the handful is supposed to be burned, not the remainder of the minhah offering. He also cannot remove two handfuls because in each handful there may be flour from the other minhah.
However, if he does burn the entire mixture the minhah which had the handful removed counts as fulfilling the obligation of its owners because its handful was properly burned. The other minhah does not fulfill the owner’s obligation because it was completely burned and only the handful should have been burned.

לא יקטיר – and even all of that which is mixed, for the burning on the altar is not a Mitzvah other than when grabbing a handful [of meal-offering], and the person who gathers a handful of meal-offering does not grab two handfuls [of meal-offering] for perhaps in each handful of meal-offeringf there is some from this one that became mixed, and there isn’t a complete handful from one meal-offering.

ואם הקטיר – [if he offered up for burning on the altar] – all of the mixture, it doesn’t go to the credit of its owners, for a handful was not grabbed ‘for a meal-offering] and a freewill meal-offering is not permitted without taking a handful [of meal-offering].

נתערב קומצה בשייריה – he cannot offer it up all of for burning on the altar because the residue/remnants are prohibited to burn on the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 2:11): “[for no leaven or honey] may be turned into smoke as a gift to the LORD,” all that is from it for fire-offerings is included in not turning into smoke (see: Leviticus 2:11): “[for no leaven or honey] may be turned into smoke [as a gift to God].”

נטמא הקומץ והקריבו, הציץ מרצה ([if] the handful was made unclean and one [nonetheless] offered it up, the priest’s frontlet effects acceptance) – as it is written (Exodus 28:38): “[It shall be on Aaron’s forehead,] that Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things [that the Israelites consecrate],” he doesn’t take away anything other than the sin of ritual defilement, in which it has a lenient side which was permitted to the community from its general principle, as it is written, regarding the daily burnt-offering (Numbers 28:2): “at stated times,” and even when in a state of ritual impurity.

ואינו מרצה על היוצא (but it doesn’t effect acceptance for that which goes forth [beyond the veils – see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 8, Mishnah 12) – for even though it also has a lenient side that is permitted on the temporary/improvised altar from its general principle, that is forbidden when it leave from the Tabernacle, but was permitted in the temporary/improvised altar that was in Nob and Givon, where there weren’t veils there, nevertheless, the priest’s frontlet does not affect acceptance when leaving [beyond the veils], as it is written (Exodus 28:38): “to win acceptance for them before the LORD,” yes to a sin before God, no to a sin that leaves the veils [outside of the Tabernacle].

כמדת ר' אליעזר כשרה – on the knowledge of Rabbi Eliezer who stated in the chapter [seven of Tractate Pesahim 77a] “How do they roast [the Passover offering],” the blood even though there is no flesh/meat, that is so [regarding] the handful of meal-offering , even though there is no residue/remnant, it is appropriate/kosher to offer up the handful of meal-offering as incense.

If the remainder of the minhah became unclean or was burnt or lost: According to the rule of Rabbi Eliezer it is valid [to burn the fistful], But according to the rule of Rabbi Joshua it is invalid. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the remainder became unclean, was burnt or lost, the handful can still be burned on the altar. However, Rabbi Joshua holds that if the remainder is no longer there or is no longer pure, then the fistful cannot be burned.

כמדת ר' יהושע – who stated that if there is no flesh, there is no blood, that is so [regarding the meal-offering] that it is also invalidated to offer up the handful of the meal-offering. And this is where there did not remain anything from the residue/remnants that was not defiled. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

If [he did] not [put the fistful] into a ministering vessel it is invalid; But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. The fistful must be put into a ministering vessel before it is burned. If it is not, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon disagrees.

שלא בכלי שרת – for the handful of meal-offering was not sanctified in a sacred vessel. But at the beginning of the meal-offering no one disagrees that it requires a utensil, as we stated in the chapter [eleven of Tractate Menahot, Mishnah 4] “The Two Loaves.”

If he burnt the handful twice, it is valid. If he divided the fistful into two and burned each half separately, it is still valid.

ורבי שמעון מכשיר – the reason of Rabbi Shimon is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 26a), because it states in Scripture (Leviticus 6:10): “it is most holy, like the purification offering and the reparation offering,” and since the All-Merciful made an analogy [between] the meal-offering to the sin-offering in his (i.e., the Kohen’s) service with a gift with his actual finger, we learn from it that the taking of a handful of the meal-offering also, if he wanted, he performs it with his hand without a utensil. And as long as he performs the service with his right hand, similar to the sin-offering where it is stated in regard to it, “finger,” as it is written concerning it (Leviticus 4:25): “The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the purification (i.e., sin) offering [and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering],” and every place where it states “finger” and “priesthood” is not other than with the right-hand. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

הקטיר קומצה פעמים – half of a handful of meal-offering at one time, and half of the handful of the meal-offering at another time. And specifically, that [the Mishnah] used the term “twice,” and not more/further, for no handful of meal-offering can be less than two olives’ bulk and when he disputes the two “occasions” , it is found that the offering up as incense is not less than an olive’s bulk, and therefore it is kosher/appropriate, but if he had divided it into three or four times that he would have made the burning on the altar with less than an olive’s bulk, it would be invalid.

מיעוטו מעכב את רובו – that if it was missing even a little bit, it is invalid, as the All-Merciful states (Leviticus 2:2 and 5:12): “[and present it to Aaron’s sons, the priests. The priest shall scoop out of it] a handful of its choice flour and oil.”

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole.
Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.
Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.
This mishnah begins a series of mishnayot that continues through the fourth mishnah of the next chapter. In this series we learn that the absence of certain things prevents the fulfillment of a mitzvah.
In the first four sections of today’s mishnah we learn that if any of the following components of the minhah are missing even the smallest amount, then the whole is invalid: the handful removed from the minhah, the tenth of flour that constitutes the minhah, and the wine and oil libations that accompany the minhah.
In section five we learn that without the oil one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of offering the flour and vice versa. And in section six we learn that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of burning the handful without also burning the frankincense and vice versa.
The words of the mishnah themselves are straightforward, so you won’t find any additional commentary below.

העשרון – a meal-offering that is less than an Issaron (i.e., one-tenth of an Ephah), even a bit, is invalid.

היין – half of a Hin (a Hin is 12 LOGS or 72 eggs’ volume) for a bull, and one-third of a Hin for a ram, and a fourth of a Hin for a lamb. And similarly, the oil, whether for the meal-offering libations which is like the measurement for the wine, whether for a meal-offering of a free-will offering which is one LOG of oil.

הסולת והשמן – of the meal-offering

מעכבים זה את זה – as it is written (Leviticus 2:16): “[And the priest shall turn a token portion of it into smoke:] some of the grits and oil, [with all of the frankincense, as a gift to the LORD].”

הקומץ והלבונה מעכבים זה את זה – as it is written (Leviticus 6:8): “A handful of the choice flour and the oil of the grain-offering shall be taken from it, with all the frankincense that is on the grain offering, [and this token portion shall be turned into smoke on the altar as a pleasing odor to the LORD].”

שני שעירי יום הכיפורים – “the goat designated by lot for the LORD” (Leviticus 16:9) and “the goat designated by lot [to be sent] to Azazel” (Leviticus 16:10).

Introduction This mishnah continues to provide cases where the absence of one element of a mitzvah prevents the entire mitzvah from being fulfilled.

שני כבשי עצת – the two yearling-lambs of peace-offerings that come as an obligation on the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19-20).

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. On Yom Kippur two male goats are brought, one is sacrificed and one is sent to Azazel. The absence of one goat prevents the fulfillment of any mitzvah with the other goat.

שתי חלות – the two loaves of Arzeret/Shavuot.

Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. On Shavuot two lambs are brought, accompanied by two loaves of bread. If one of the lambs is missing, it prevents one from fulfilling any mitzvah with the other lamb. Similarly, with regard to the loaves.

ושני סדרים – two arrangements [of piles of wood on the altar] of the shewbread, six loaves for each arrangement.

Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. The showbread consisted of two rows of six loaves. On each row was placed a dish of frankincense. The absence of one of the rows or one of the dishes prevents the fulfillment of the other. And, the absence of the rows prevents one from being able to fulfill the mitzvah of the frankincense, and vice versa, the absence of the dishes prevents the fulfillment of the mitzvah of the showbread.

שני בזיכין – two pans in which there is frankincense, which are placed on the arrangements.

Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. The mishnah now lists a series of mitzvoth that have multiple components, the absence of which prevents the fulfillment of the others. I shall give biblical references for each: Two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite: loaves of matzah and wafers of matzah, see Numbers 6:15. The three kinds used for the red cow: cedar wood, hyssop and crimson thread, see Numbers 19:6. The four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah: loaves of matzah, wafers of matzah, boiled flour, and hametz, see Leviticus 7:12. The four kinds [of species] used for the lulav: palm, myrtle, willow and etrog, see Leviticus 23:40. And the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper: two birds, cedar wood, hyssop and crimson thread, see Leviticus 14:4.

הפדרים והבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה – for if the arrangements of the bread are not on the table, he should not place in it the pans/vessels of frankincense. But if there are no pans/vessels, he should not place the bread.

Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. During the red cow purification ceremony, they sprinkle its blood seven times (see Numbers 19:4). If one of these sprinklings is not done, the entire ceremony is invalid.

שני מינים שבנזיר – (see Numbers 6:15) – unleavened cakes and unleavened wafers.

Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. On Yom Kippur the blood is sprinkled seven times between the staves of the ark, seven times on the curtain and seven times on the golden altar (see Leviticus 16:14-15). If even one of these is not done, they are all invalid.

ושלשה שבפרה אדומה – (see Numbers 19:6) – cedar wood, hyssop and crimson stuff.

ארבעה שבתודה – four species of the bread that they bring on the sacrifice of well-being/thanksgiving (see Leviticus 7:12-13) – leavened cakes [with oil mixed in], unleavened wafers [spread with oil] and cakes of choice flour [with oil mixed in, well soaked and cakes of leavened bread.

ארבעה שבלולה – Lulav/palm branches and Etrog/citron fruit, myrtle and willow (see Leviticus 23:40). If he takes all four of them on each day completely, even though he takes one of them in the morning and one of them at eventide, he fulfilled his religious obligation, for we hold that the Lulav does not require binding. But if one of these species is missing and he took all the [other] three, he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah at all.

ארבעה שבמצורע – (see Leviticus 14:6) cedar wood, the crimson stuff and the hyssop, together with the live bird.

שבע הזיות שבפרה – [the seven sprinklings that are connected with the] red heifer , as it is written (Numbers 19:4): “[Eleazar the priest shall take some of the blood with his finger] and sprinkle it seven times towards the front of the Tent of Meeting.”

שבע הזיות של בין הבדים – on Yom Kippur. As it is written (Leviticus 16:14): “and in front of the cover he shall sprinkle some of he blood with his finger seven times.”

ושעל הפרוכת ושעל מזבח הזהב – (see also Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnayot 1-2) on Yom Kippur with the bullock of the anointed priest and with the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for idolatrous worship, all of these require sprinkling on the curtain and on the golden altar like it is explained in the Torah portion of Vayikra and in Aharei Mot, and the goats of idolatrous worship, we increase them from Scripture as it is written (Leviticus 4:20): “He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest’s] bull of purification offering.” “With this bull” – this is the bullock of the anointed priest. “The purification/sin offering” – these are the goats of idolatrous worship. And the four gifts that are on the four corners that are on the golden altar also are indispensable one for another, even though they are not mentioned in the Mishnah.

שבעת קני מנורה – as it is written (Exodus 25:32): “Six branches shall issue from its sides,” and the biddle branc, makes seven branches of the Menorah.

Introduction The mishnah continues to list mitzvoth in which the absence of one element disqualifies the fulfillment of the entire mitzvah. The mishnah is quite simple to understand. Below I have mostly provided biblical references.

שתי פרשיות שבמזוזה – the Shema/”Hear [O Israel]” (i.e., Deuteronomy 6:4-9) and V’Haya Im Shamoah/”If you will surely hearken “(i.e., Deuteronomy 11:13-21).

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Exodus 25:31-32.

ואפילו כתב אחד מעכבן – even one letter which is attached to its neighbor and is not surround by a certain kind of parchment according to the legal requirement is invalid in a Mezuzah and in Tefillin/phylacteries and in a Torah scroll.

Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. The “lamps” refers to the cups that held the oil and the wicks.

ארבע פרשיות שבתפילין –“Kadesh”/”Sancify/Consecrate to Me” (Exodus 13:1-10), “V’Haya Kee Yeviakha”/”And when [the LORD] has brought you”(Exodus 13:11-16), “Shema”/Hear [O Israel] (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) and “V’haya Im Shamoah”/”If you will surely hearken” (Deuteronomy 11:13-21).

Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. The two portions are Deuteronomy 6:4-9, the Shema, and Deuteronomy 11:13-21, Vehaya im Shamoa. If even one letter is missing or not written correctly, the mezuzah is invalid.

מעכבות זו את זו – whether in the Tefillin/phylactery of the head where they write each individual portion in a self-contained piece of superior split parchment, or whether in the Tefillin/phylactery of the hand where all four [of the portions] are written on one piece of superior parchment.

Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. The four portions are: the two portions that are in the mezuzah and Exodus 13:1-10 and Exodus 13:11-16.

ארבעתן ארבע מצות – but they are not indispensable to each other, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yishmael.

Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot. Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12. According to the first opinion, if one corner of the garment does not have tzitzit, then the mitzvah has not been fulfilled. Rabbi Ishmael holds that each corner is its own mitzvah and therefore if one is missing he has fulfilled his mitzvah.