## Menachot Daf 11b

###### Menachot 11b:1
[Menachot 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:1)

וְהָתַנְיָא (רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר): קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּסוּל. תְּנִי: קוֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה שֶׁחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּסוּל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כָּאן בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, כָּאן בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: A handful** of flour **or frankincense that** was **decreased** by **any amount** from its full measure is **disqualified?** The Gemara answers that one should **teach** the *baraita* as follows: **A pinch of frankincense that** was **decreased** by **any amount** is **disqualified. And if you wish, say** instead that **here,** the first cited statement of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the case **of frankincense that comes with a meal offering,** and this frankincense is disqualified only when there is less than a pinch, whereas **there,** the second statement of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the case **of frankincense that comes by itself.** Such frankincense is disqualified if it comprises any less than its full measure.


###### Menachot 11b:2
[Menachot 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקֹת בַּדָּבָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: קוֹמֵץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֵץ בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וּשְׁנֵי קְרָטִין בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹרֶט אֶחָד בַּסּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** There are **three disputes** of *tanna’im* **with regard to the matter. Rabbi Meir holds** that the priest must remove **a handful at the beginning, and ultimately** the entire **handful** must be burned upon the altar. **And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the priest must remove **a handful at the beginning, and ultimately** at least **two pinches** from it must be burned upon the altar. **And Rabbi Shimon holds** that the priest must remove **a handful at the beginning and ultimately** at least **one pinch** from it must be burned upon the altar.


###### Menachot 11b:3
[Menachot 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:3)

וּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: עַד דְּאִיתָא לִלְבוֹנָה דְּאִיקְּבַעָה בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״כׇּל״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ חַד קוֹרֶט, ״אֶת״ – לְרַבּוֹת קוֹרֶט אַחֵר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן ״אֶת״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** all **three of them interpret a single verse** differently. The verse states: “And he shall take up from there his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of the oil of it, **and [*ve’et*] all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering,** and shall make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:8). **Rabbi Meir holds** that one may not make the offering smoke upon the altar **unless there** remains **the** entire measure of **frankincense that was initially fixed together with the meal offering. And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that when the verse states: **“All [*kol*],”** it is referring to any part of the frankincense, **even a single pinch,** as *kol* can mean any amount (see II Kings 2:4). And when the verse states: **“*Et*,”** this serves **to include another pinch.** Accordingly, at least two pinches must remain to be burned upon the altar. **And Rabbi Shimon** interprets the word “all” in the same manner as does Rabbi Yehuda, but he **does not interpret** and derive a *halakha* from the term **“*et*,”** and he therefore holds that only one pinch must remain to be burned.


###### Menachot 11b:4
[Menachot 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:4)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֶץ בַּסּוֹף. לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״, דְּבַהֲדֵי מִנְחָה – אִין, בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef** further **says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The **dispute** between these *tanna’im* is **with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering. But with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, everyone,** even Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, **agrees** that the priest must bring **a handful at the beginning, and ultimately** the entire **handful** must be burned upon the altar. **For this** reason it **was necessary** for the verse to state: **“That is upon the meal offering,”** as this indicates **that together with a meal offering, yes,** one may burn the frankincense even if there remains only a pinch or two, but with regard to frankincense that comes **by itself,** one may **not** burn it if it is in that state.


###### Menachot 11b:5
[Menachot 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:5)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בַּתְּחִילָּה, וּשְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בַּסּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The **dispute** between these *tanna’im* is **with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering. But with regard to frankincense that comes in bowls** together with the shewbread, **everyone,** even Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, **agrees** that there must be **two handfuls in the beginning,** one handful for each bowl, **and ultimately** there must also be **two handfuls.**


###### Menachot 11b:6
[Menachot 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:6)

פְּשִׁיטָא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּבַהֲדֵי לֶחֶם אָתְיָא, כַּ״אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״ דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that this is the case, as with regard to this *halakha* the verse does not state the term: All, from which one might derive that it is referring to any part of the frankincense? The Gemara explains: This ruling is necessary, **lest you say** that **since** the frankincense in the bowls **comes together with bread,** i.e., the shewbread, it should be **considered as:** “Frankincense **that is upon the meal offering”** (Leviticus 6:8), and therefore Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that one may sacrifice it even if less than two handfuls remain. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Menachot 11b:7
[Menachot 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:7)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַמִּנְחָה, אֲבָל בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קוֹמֶץ בַּתְּחִילָּה וְקוֹמֶץ בַּסּוֹף, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree with regard to** the case of frankincense that comes by itself. **One says** that the **dispute** between the *tanna’im* with regard to whether or not a handful of frankincense that became lacking may be sacrificed upon the altar applies only **with regard to frankincense that comes with a meal offering, but with regard to frankincense that comes by itself, everyone agrees** that the priest must remove **a handful at the beginning and ultimately** the entire **handful** must be burned upon the altar. **And one says: Just as** there is **a dispute in this** case, **so too,** there is **a dispute in that** case.


###### Menachot 11b:8
[Menachot 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:8)

חִיסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ – הָא יָתֵיר כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהָתַנְיָא: יָתֵיר פְּסוּלָה! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the priest **decreased its frankincense** beyond its appropriate measure, the meal offering is unfit. The Gemara infers from this statement that if **he increased** its frankincense, it is **fit.** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if he **increased** its frankincense the meal offering is **disqualified? Rami bar Ḥama said:** The *baraita* rules that the meal offering is disqualified in a case **where he separated two handfuls** of frankincense **for** the meal offering and placed both of them onto the meal offering.


###### Menachot 11b:9
[Menachot 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:9)

וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין, וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה – לֹא הוּקְבְּעוּ, אַחַר קְמִיצָה – הוּקְבְּעוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rami bar Ḥama says:** In a case where **one separated two handfuls** of frankincense **for** the meal offering **and** subsequently **lost one of them,** if it was lost **before the removal of the handful** of the meal offering, the additional frankincense **was not fixed** with the meal offering, and therefore it does not disqualify the meal offering. But if this occurred **after the removal of the handful** of the meal offering, since both handfuls **were** already **fixed** with the meal offering, it is disqualified, as he increased its frankincense by a large amount.


###### Menachot 11b:10
[Menachot 11b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:10)

וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִפְרִישׁ אַרְבָּעָה קְמָצִין לִשְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין, וְאָבְדוּ שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן קוֹדֶם סִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין – לָא הוּקְבְּעוּ, לְאַחַר סִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין – הוּקְבְּעוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rami bar Ḥama says:** In a case where **one separated four handfuls** of frankincense **for** placement in the **two bowls** that accompany the shewbread, **and two of them** were subsequently **lost,** the *halakha* depends on when they were lost. If they were lost **before the removal of** the **bowls** from the Table of the shewbread, then the additional frankincense **was not** yet **fixed** with the shewbread, and the frankincense remains fit for sacrifice. But if they were lost **after the removal of** the **bowls,** then all four handfuls **were** already **fixed** with the shewbread, and therefore the frankincense is disqualified.


###### Menachot 11b:11
[Menachot 11b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:11)

הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ הָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I also** need **this? This** statement of Rami bar Ḥama is identical to **that** previous statement, as the burning of the frankincense permits the shewbread for consumption just as the frankincense permits the meal offering for consumption. Consequently, the removal of the bowls of frankincense is comparable to the removal of the handful from a meal offering.


###### Menachot 11b:12
[Menachot 11b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:12)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּבְרִיר קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפוֹרְקָהּ – כְּמַאן דִּפְרִיקָה דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The last statement of Rami bar Ḥama is necessary, **lest you say** that **since** the **handful of** frankincense of the shewbread **is** already considered **designated** for burning, as it is placed in a separate bowl and burned in its entirety, then **once the time arrives for removing** the bowls from upon the Table of the shewbread, **it is considered as though** the bowls were already **removed,** and the shewbread should therefore be disqualified on account of the additional frankincense. Therefore, Rami bar Ḥama **teaches us** that the additional handfuls disqualify the shewbread only if they were inside the bowls at the time of their actual removal from the Table.


###### Menachot 11b:13
[Menachot 11b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/11b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כְּזַיִת קוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִקּוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who removes a handful from the meal offering** with the intent **to partake** of **its remainder outside** the Temple courtyard **or** to partake of **an olive-bulk of its remainder outside** the Temple courtyard, **to burn its handful outside** the Temple courtyard **or** to burn **an olive-bulk** of **its handful outside** the Temple courtyard, **or to burn its frankincense outside** the Temple courtyard, in all these cases the offering is **unfit, but there is no** liability for ***karet*** for one who partakes of **it.** If one had the intent **to partake** of **its remainder on the next day or** to partake of **an olive-bulk of its remainder on the next day, to burn its handful on the next day or** to burn **an olive-bulk of its handful on the next day, or to burn** its **frankincense on the next day,**