Talmud sobre Menachot 3:12

If he removed with his left hand, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Jehudah ben Rebbi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a fistful³²Of the flour offering. had been sanctified in a dedicated vessel and he burned it whether out of his hand or out of a vessel, whether by his right hand or by the left. Jehudah ben Rebbi said, either like a purification offering from the hand, or like a reparation offering from a vessel, but only with the right hand³³In Lev. 6:10 it is stated that the flour offering is “most holy, like purification offering and like reparation offering.” For purification offerings it is stated (Lev.4:25, 30, 34) that the Cohen has to apply the blood of the sacrifice with his finger to the corners of the altar. This requirement is missing for the reparation sacrifice (Lev.7:1–7.). They objected: Was it not stated, if he received with his right hand and then put it into his left hand, he must return it to the right hand³⁴Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1, Zevaḥim 32a, speaking of the blood received in a vessel and brought to the altar to be poured at the wall.? If from the left hand he returns it for the altar, not so much more to the cup? Rebbi La said, if somebody stated this, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon stated it. As it was stated, it³⁵The fistful taken from a flour offering. does not need sanctification in a cup. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated there³⁶Mishnah Menaḥot3:4., “not in a dedicated vessel it is disqualified, but Rebbi Simeon qualifies it.” How is it? The rabbis who require a dedicated vessel need the right hand³⁷Menaḥot26b.; Rebbi Simeon [who] does not require a dedicated vessel does not need the right hand. Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how the rabbis could compare the removal of ashes to burning, but it can be compared only to the lifting of the fistful, since both are by lifting³⁸Since everybody agrees that at all places where the verse requires that the action be done by a Cohen he must use his right hand; therefor the lifting of the fistful must be with the Cohen’s right hand..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels⁶⁷The regular discipline of flour offerings is that flour and oil are mixed in one sanctified vessel, then the priest takes a fistful, deposits it into a second vessel which he carries to the altar and empties into the flames. Since in any case a second vessel is involved, may the offering be brought from the start in two vessels, and the fistful taken from one and deposited into a third permits the contents of both original vessels to be consumed by the priests?? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel⁵⁹Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Here also because they have to be in their vessel⁶⁸If the offering from the start is in two separate vessels, where is the one vessel which combines the contents such that if part becomes disqualified everything is disqualified? As before the answer is that since no offering may be presented without being in a vessel, that vessel is a necessity of the service and the multitude of original vessels is irrelevant.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”⁶⁹The previous argument is extended from flour offering to incense, which at least for the shewbreads always is in multiple containers, and the other offerings.. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl⁷⁰The scribe’s text is the correct one, confirmed by the Babli (Menaḥot 7a,24a/b). The corrector’s change is erroneous., if one became impure did the other become impure⁷¹While an argument may be made that if part of a flour-offering becomes disqualified the whole becomes disqualified, does the argument extend to actual impurity (or order <4), so that the contents of a vessel can cause impurity or disqualification to anything it comes in contact with, without ever having been touched by anything impure?? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump⁷²From one vessel to another with which it is not in contact.? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other⁷³Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question.? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot 3:3., “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately⁷⁵If the materials of the two offerings are recognizable as distinct. they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other⁷⁶One has to say that the statement that the vessel combines is a biblical one; therefore on the one hand the vessel transmits disqualification from one piece to a disjoint one, and on the other hand permits to take a fistful from the offering although certainly parts of the offering are mixed with another, which without the combining action of the vessel would disqualify.? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels., if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.? Which makes its contents one.⁷⁸Sifry Num. 49, Babli 23b. The reference is to the offerings of the heads of tribes for the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Num.7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80). It would have been sufficient to state that each of them brought “a cup full of incense”. The emphasis 12 times on “one cup full of incense” is explained by that the cup makes the offering an indivisible entity.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it⁷⁹He denies that impurity may be transferred by action at a distance..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels⁶⁷The regular discipline of flour offerings is that flour and oil are mixed in one sanctified vessel, then the priest takes a fistful, deposits it into a second vessel which he carries to the altar and empties into the flames. Since in any case a second vessel is involved, may the offering be brought from the start in two vessels, and the fistful taken from one and deposited into a third permits the contents of both original vessels to be consumed by the priests?? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel⁵⁹Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Here also because they have to be in their vessel⁶⁸If the offering from the start is in two separate vessels, where is the one vessel which combines the contents such that if part becomes disqualified everything is disqualified? As before the answer is that since no offering may be presented without being in a vessel, that vessel is a necessity of the service and the multitude of original vessels is irrelevant.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”⁶⁹The previous argument is extended from flour offering to incense, which at least for the shewbreads always is in multiple containers, and the other offerings.. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl⁷⁰The scribe’s text is the correct one, confirmed by the Babli (Menaḥot 7a,24a/b). The corrector’s change is erroneous., if one became impure did the other become impure⁷¹While an argument may be made that if part of a flour-offering becomes disqualified the whole becomes disqualified, does the argument extend to actual impurity (or order <4), so that the contents of a vessel can cause impurity or disqualification to anything it comes in contact with, without ever having been touched by anything impure?? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump⁷²From one vessel to another with which it is not in contact.? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other⁷³Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question.? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot 3:3., “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately⁷⁵If the materials of the two offerings are recognizable as distinct. they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other⁷⁶One has to say that the statement that the vessel combines is a biblical one; therefore on the one hand the vessel transmits disqualification from one piece to a disjoint one, and on the other hand permits to take a fistful from the offering although certainly parts of the offering are mixed with another, which without the combining action of the vessel would disqualify.? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels., if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.? Which makes its contents one.⁷⁸Sifry Num. 49, Babli 23b. The reference is to the offerings of the heads of tribes for the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Num.7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80). It would have been sufficient to state that each of them brought “a cup full of incense”. The emphasis 12 times on “one cup full of incense” is explained by that the cup makes the offering an indivisible entity.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it⁷⁹He denies that impurity may be transferred by action at a distance..

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..

¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats¹¹⁵Num. 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says¹¹⁶Lev. 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned¹¹⁷Since Num. 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated¹¹⁸Mishnah Menaḥot3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael¹¹⁹The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood¹²⁰For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood¹²¹If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable¹²²Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..