Talmud su Menahot 7:9

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.”

It⁸⁵The statement in Mishnah 4 about the leftover of produce, whose existence is denied by R. Aqiba and R. Ḥanina. is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce⁷⁴The gain made by the Temple in providing flour, oil, and wine, for private sacrifices. is the gain of the Temple⁸⁶The money made by the Temple in selling for a profit flour, oil, and wine, for flour offerings and libations.; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah⁸⁷As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow⁸⁸In order to avoid the sin of me`ilah, the suppliers of produce of all kinds to the Temple have to deliver slightly more than the measure which was contracted for, while the Temple will distribute this product for private libations and flour offerings at the exact measure. The small differences will add up to a considerable amount during a full year; this kind of gain is approved also by the opponents of R. Ismael.. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow<sup>89</sup>He holds that the reason that the Temple always is the beneficiary of changes in the market place also is to serve as a precaution against me`ilah infractions; both kinds of additions have the same status.. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated⁸⁷As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels⁹⁰Since Mishnah 11 is unanimous opinion, the opponents of R. Ismael cannot deny that the Temple always makes money which has to be used for definite purposes.. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.⁹¹This was discussed earlier, Note 14.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated⁹²Mishnah Menaḥot7:4. This is not directly overflow but a third way in which the Temple accumulates a surplus. If a sacrifice was brought and the offerer bought the libations including the flour offering from the Temple, if then these flour offerings could not be used because the sacrifice was disqualified, the priests in charge may use the flour, etc., for the next sacrifice. In this case the Temple is paid twice for the same produce; Tosephta Menaḥot10:8 states that the money accumulated in this way is given to the gift account to buy elevation offerings for the idle altar., “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

Rebbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rebbi Zeïra: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.¹³¹Mishnah Menaḥot 7:5: If somebody made a vow to bring a thanksgiving sacrifice and its breads (Lev. 7:12) from tithe money, he may do so but the bread should be made from wheat bought with tithe money, not wheat that is Second Tithe. Since a thanksgiving sacrifice is a special kind of well-being sacrifice, he may use tithe money for it. However, since a thanksgiving sacrifice only can be eaten for one day and one night, but a regular well-being sacrifice for two days and the night in between, this practice is frowned upon.
The Babli (Menaḥot 81b–82a) gives as a reason for the breads that the verse requires the sacrifice to be brought with its breads, i. e., from the same source. Since Second Tithe itself consists of produce, it is clear that the animal itself must be bought with tithe money. Therefore, the bread also should come from tithe money. (R. Jeremiah disagrees with the Mishnah.)
The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that tithe money is holy and the holiness of a dedicated sacrifice can fall on the wheat only if the latter is profane. This proves R. Zeïra’s point.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Ḥinena asked before Rebbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave¹³²This is not the usual heave but one bread from each kind brought with the thanksgiving sacrifice; it is called heave in Lev. 7:14. to the Cohen and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring¹³³He disagrees with R. Yose whose argument is tenable only if he holds with R. Meїr that tithe money is Heaven’s property. But since the previous paragraph presupposes that we hold with R. Jehudah that Second Tithe and tithe money are property of the farmer, there is no reason why Second Tithe wheat should not be used since all the breads will be eaten in holiness, either by the farmer’s family or by the Cohen.? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled¹³⁴On the way to the altar. The entire sacrifice is invalidated if its blood is not sprinkled on the altar. does the bread not become unusable¹³⁵If anything happens to the sacrifice, the bread is wasted and has to be burned. But if the breads are bought, they will be replaced by other bought breads.?

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we say: “No linear measurements stated by the Sages require ‘more’ except an interrupted trellis?” Did we not state⁵⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 7:2: “The flour sacrifice of a Nazir came in two parts, loaves and flatbreads, but no paste (from flour and oil). It turns out that these are 10 Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess.” Mishnah 7:1 had stated that the three kinds of bread for a thanksgiving sacrifice came from 10 esronim which were 15 Jerusalem qab. Hence, the breads of the Nazir are 6⅔ esronim. The “excess” (in the Hebrew, an otherwise nonexisting plural of “more”) is ⅔ issaron. We use the expression “more” in a domain other than vineyards.: “Ten Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state⁵⁷Mishnah Terumot 4:7: “R. Eliezer says, heave can be lifted by one in 101. Rebbi Joshua says, by one in more than 100; that ‘more’ has no measure. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”. Dema‘, the mixture of profane food and heave, was discussed in Demay, Chapter 4, Note 27. If the amount of heave is small, it is possible to remove an amount equal to the heave and transfer the holiness to that food; the remainder of the food then returns to profane status. R. Eliezer states that in this respect “small” means at most 1 in 100 (1 part heave in 101 overall). R. Joshua requires that the amount be at most 1 in 99+ε; ε >0 being arbitrarily small. R. Yose ben Meshullam requires that the amount of heave be at most 1 in 99.1666̄; if the amount of heave is one seah, the amount of profane grain has to be 99 seah plus one sixth oí the amount causing the trouble, i. e., 99 ⅙ seah. {In Babli Eruvin 83a, “and more” is defined as one twentyfourth of the volume of an egg.}: “Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state⁵⁸Mishnah Eruvin 2:5: “Additionally, R. Jehudah ben Baba said, one may carry (on the Sabbath) in a garden or a corral which measure seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder and are enclosed by a fence ten hand-breadths high on condition that they contain a watchman’s place.” On the Sabbath, one may carry his utensils in his house and in any enclosed space containing a human dwelling. Enclosed spaces no part of which is used as a human dwelling, such as vegetable plots and corrals, are accepted as private domain only if their surface area is not more that 5000 square cubits, the surface area of the enclosed space of the tabernacle (cf. Peah Chapter 2, Note 31). Since √5000 = 70.71068, R. Jehudah ben Baba’s remainder is 0.71068 cubits, a linear measure.: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, the garden and the corral which are seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder”? Samuel said, they taught two thirds of a cubit⁵⁹Samuel notes that for non-mathematicians the domain is limited to 70 cubits 4 hand-breadths square, 70.666̄ cubits square. The excess over 70 is a genuine remainder, less than one cubit, but it is not a “more” which by definition can be at most one hand-breadth, the smallest unit of length accepted in these tractates of the Mishnah..

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..

¹²⁴Babli Zevaḥim 104a. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out¹²⁵If the carcasses become impure inside the sacred precinct they automatically are disqualified. Once disqualified they cannot become more disqualified by being taken out. Either with the classical commentaries one has to delete the words “became impure” and (with the Babli) ask whether bulls and he-goats to be burned, for which being taken outside is a biblical commandment at a later stage, can become disqualified by being taken out in a earlier stage, or one restricts the question to the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement which as public sacrifices may be offered in impurity if most of Israel are impure.? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: ¹²⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 7:3.“If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread¹²⁷A thanksgiving offering has to be brought on loaves of leavened bread (Lev.7:13). This is interpreted to mean that the loaves have to be nearby. The question is the definition of “nearby”. is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem¹²⁸Since the thanksgiving sacrifice as a family celebration may be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem (which takes the place of the camp of the Israelites in the desert), one only requires that the bread be at a place where it may be consumed.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court.¹²⁹He requires that the bread be inside the sacred precinct since the presentation of the sacrifice is possible only there. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal¹³⁰Well-being sacrifices in general may be eaten in the entire city of Jerusalem (Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:7). Nevertheless, meat taken out of the sacred precinct into the city before its time (i. e., before pouring the blood on the altar walls) disqualifies the entire sacrifice. The same argument can be applied to the case under discussion.. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem¹³¹Where the bulls and he-goats to be burned have to be brought. it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them¹³²R. Joḥanan qualifies the thanksgiving offering if all parts are in the place of their final destination at all times. If this argument is applied to bulls and he-goats to be burned, the walls of Jerusalem become irrelevant..