## Menachot Daf 18b

###### Menachot 18b:1
[Menachot 18b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:1)

וְהָתְנַן: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין, וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי אֵינָם נִבְלָלִין מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – כְּשֵׁרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (103b): One who volunteers to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths of an ephah of flour must bring a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel and a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah in a second vessel, because **sixty** tenths of an ephah of flour **can be** properly **mixed** with a *log* of oil but **sixty-one** tenths **cannot be** properly **mixed** with the oil. **And we discussed it** and asked: Even **if** sixty-one tenths of an ephah **do not mix** with one *log* of oil, **what of it? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna here that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil into the meal offering, if **one did not mix** the oil into it, the meal offering is still **fit?**


###### Menachot 18b:2
[Menachot 18b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:2)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Zeira said** the following explanation: For **any** measure of flour **that** is **suitable for mixing** with oil in a meal offering, the lack of **mixing does not invalidate** the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour *ab initio*, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. **And** for **any** measure of flour **that** is **not suitable for mixing** with oil in a meal offering, the lack of **mixing invalidates** the meal offering. This discussion demonstrates that when the mishna here says that the oil was not mixed into the meal offering, it means that it was not mixed at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the meal offering is fit even if the oil was not poured should be understood as referring to a case where the oil was never poured, and not, as the Gemara inferred, as referring to a case where a non-priest poured it.


###### Menachot 18b:3
[Menachot 18b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:3)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ: ״לֹא יָצַק״ – לֹא יָצַק כֹּהֵן אֶלָּא זָר, ״לֹא בָּלַל״ – לֹא בָּלַל כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this proof: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is.** When the mishna states: If one **did not pour** the oil onto the meal offering, it is referring to a case where **a priest did not pour** oil onto the meal offering **but a non-priest** did pour it. When it states: If one **did not mix** the oil into the meal offering, it means **he did not mix** the oil **at all.**


###### Menachot 18b:4
[Menachot 18b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:4)

אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשְׁתָּא לֹא פָּתַת כְּלָל – כְּשֵׁרָה, פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא? מַאי ״פִּתִּין מְרוּבּוֹת״? שֶׁרִיבָּה בִּפְתִיתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Or** if it happened **that** the priest **broke** the meal offerings that require breaking into **greater pieces [*pittim merubbot*]** than appropriate, the meal offering is **fit.** The Gemara asks: **Now** that it has already been stated in the mishna that if one **did not break** the loaves into pieces **at all** the meal offering is **fit, is** it **necessary** to state that if one broke the meal offering into **greater pieces** than appropriate the meal offering is fit? The Gemara answers: **What** does the expression ***pittin merubbot*** mean? It means **that he increased [*ribba*]** the amount of the meal offering’s **pieces** by breaking the loaves into many pieces that were each smaller than an olive-bulk.


###### Menachot 18b:5
[Menachot 18b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:5)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם פִּתִּים מְרוּבּוֹת מַמָּשׁ, וּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא תּוֹרַת חַלּוֹת אִיכָּא וְלָא תּוֹרַת פְּתִיתִין אִיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the mishna is **actually** referring **literally** to **large pieces [*pittim merubbot*], and** it was necessary to teach this explicitly, **lest you say** that the meal offering **is** fit **there,** when the loaves are not broken, **since they have the status of loaves, but here, when** the loaves are broken into excessively large pieces and **no** longer **have the status of loaves,** as they have been broken up, **but** still **do not have the status of pieces,** as they are not the correct size, the offering is not fit. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to **teach us** this *halakha* explicitly.


###### Menachot 18b:6
[Menachot 18b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:6)

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״ – מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Based on the Gemara’s earlier inference that when the mishna states that the meal offering is valid even if the priest did not pour the oil it is referring to a case where a non-priest did perform this action, the Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not admit to** the validity of **the** sacrificial **rites has no portion in** the gifts of **the priesthood. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion”** (Leviticus 7:33). This teaches that one who **admits to** the validity of **the** sacrificial **rites** and accepts responsibility for them **has a portion in the priestly** gifts, but one **who does not admit to** the validity of **the** sacrificial **rites does not have a portion in the priestly** gifts.


###### Menachot 18b:7
[Menachot 18b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:7)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And I have** derived **only** that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not admit to the validity of **these** rites of the presenting of the blood or the burning of the fats **alone,** which are the sacrificial rites of a slaughtered offering, as those rites are enumerated in the verse. **From where** is it derived that this *halakha* also **includes** one who does not admit to the validity of the **fifteen** sacrificial **rites** performed by the priests?


###### Menachot 18b:8
[Menachot 18b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:8)

הַיְּצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, וְהַתְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַהַגָּשׁוֹת, וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת, וְהַקְטָרוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת, וְהַקַּבָּלוֹת, וְהַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* clarifies: These are the rites of a meal offering, i.e., **the pouring** of oil, **the mixing, the breaking, the salting, the waving, the bringing** of the offering to the altar, **the removal of the handful, and the burning** of the handful on the altar. **And** it includes other rites as well: **The pinching** of the nape of the neck of a bird offering, **and the receiving** of the blood in a vessel, **and the sprinkling** of the blood, **and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [*sota*], and the** ritual of **breaking a heifer’s neck, and the purification of a leper, and lifting of the hands** for the Priestly Benediction, **whether inside or outside** the Temple. **From where** is it derived that this *halakha* also includes one who does not admit to the validity of these rites?


###### Menachot 18b:9
[Menachot 18b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:9)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, עֲבוֹדָה הַמְּסוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,”** teaching that with regard to any sacrificial **rite that is entrusted to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to its** validity **does not have a portion in the priestly** gifts. Since the pouring of the oil is included in the list of sacrificial rites entrusted to the priests, according to Rabbi Shimon the offering should not be fit if this service was performed by a non-priest.


###### Menachot 18b:10
[Menachot 18b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:10)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, כָּאן בְּמִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר. מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים דְּלָאו בַּת קְמִיצָה הִיא, מֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** This is **not difficult. There,** in the *baraita*, Rabbi Shimon is referring to **the meal offering of priests,** whereas **here,** in the mishna, the context is **a meal offering of an Israelite.** In the case of **a meal offering of an Israelite, which is** one that **requires the removal of a handful** to be burned on the altar, a verse teaches that **from** the stage of **the removal of the handful onward,** the rites performed with the meal offering are solely **the mitzva of** the members of the **priesthood.** Therefore, this verse also **teaches that** the **pouring** of the oil **and** the **mixing,** rites performed before the removal of the handful, **are valid** even if they are performed **by a non-priest.** By contrast, **the meal offering of priests, which is** one that **does not require the removal of a handful,** as the entire meal offering is burned on the altar, **requires** that **from the outset** the rites must be performed by a member of the **priesthood;** otherwise it is unfit.


###### Menachot 18b:11
[Menachot 18b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִמִּנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: After all,** in the case of **the meal offering of priests, from where** was it **included** that there is an obligation **to pour** the oil? It is derived **from** the *halakha* of **the meal offering of an Israelite,** where this *halakha* is stated explicitly. Therefore, **just as there** the rite is **valid** when performed **by a non-priest, so too here,** the rite is **also valid** when performed **by a non-priest.**


###### Menachot 18b:12
[Menachot 18b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:12)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּנִקְמָצוֹת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** the discussion took place as follows: **Rav Naḥman said:** This is **not difficult. Here,** when the mishna teaches that a meal offering is fit if the oil was poured by a non-priest, it is referring to meal offerings **from which a handful is removed,** whereas **there,** in the *baraita* that lists the pouring of the oil as one of the rites performed by the priests, it is referring to meal offerings **from which a handful is not removed.**


###### Menachot 18b:13
[Menachot 18b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי שֶׁאֵין נִקְמָצוֹת, מֵהֵיכָא אִיתְרַבַּי לִיצִיקָה? מִנִּקְמָצוֹת, כְּנִקְמָצוֹת – מָה הָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: After all,** in the case of meal offerings **from which a handful is not removed, from where was it included** that there is also an obligation **to pour** the oil? It is derived **from** meal offerings **from which a handful is removed,** where this *halakha* is stated explicitly. Therefore, the *halakha* with regard to meal offerings from which a handful is not removed **is like** the *halakha* with regard to those **from which a handful is removed; just as there,** the rite is **valid** when performed **by a non-priest, so too here,** the rite is **also valid** when performed **by a non-priest. Rather,** since Rava deflected Rav Naḥman’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the *baraita*, **it is clear** that **the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Menachot 18b:14
[Menachot 18b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:14)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ״, מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of the Rabbis,** who hold that the offering is fit even if the oil was poured by a non-priest? **The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall remove** his handful” (Leviticus 2:1–2). From here it is derived that **from the removal of the handful onward,** the rites of the meal offering are solely **the mitzva** of the members **of the priesthood.** Therefore, this verse also **teaches** that the **pouring** of the oil **and** the **mixing,** rites performed before the removal of the handful, **are valid** even if they are performed **by a non-priest.**


###### Menachot 18b:15
[Menachot 18b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/18b:15)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what would **Rabbi Shimon** say in response? He would say that when it states: **“Aaron’s sons,**