## Menachot Daf 58b

###### Menachot 58b:1
[Menachot 58b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58b:1)

וְיֵשׁ הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Abaye consequently maintains that **there is** such a matter as a halakhically significant **burning** of a handful even if it is **less than** the volume of **an olive-bulk.** It follows that the phrase “any leaven” teaches that if one sacrificed less than an olive-bulk of a handful that was leaven, he is liable.


###### Menachot 58b:2
[Menachot 58b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58b:2)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֵין קוֹמֶץ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי זֵיתִים, וְאֵין הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says: There is no** such entity as **a handful** that is **less than** the size of **two olives,** and consequently the mitzva not to burn leaven is referring initially to a full handful of two olive-bulks. **And** Rava holds that **there is no** such matter as a halakhically significant **burning** of a handful if it is **less than** the volume of **an olive-bulk.** Therefore, one cannot derive from the phrase “as any leaven” that one can be liable for sacrificing leaven of less than one olive-bulk. Instead, the phrase must be referring to a case where half the handful is leaven.


###### Menachot 58b:3
[Menachot 58b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58b:3)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה מִשְּׂאוֹר וּמִדְּבַשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אָמַר רָבָא: לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שְׂאוֹר, וְלוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם דְּבַשׁ, לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם עֵירוּבֵי שְׂאוֹר, וּמִשּׁוּם עֵירוּבֵי דְּבַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: **It was stated:** With regard to **one who offers up** a mixture made **of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says:** He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: “As any leaven and any honey, you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He **is flogged** one set **due to** the prohibition against sacrificing **leaven, and he is flogged** a second set **due to** the prohibition against sacrificing **honey,** and **he is flogged** a third set **due to** the prohibition against sacrificing **mixtures of leaven, and** he is flogged a fourth set **due to** the prohibition against sacrificing **mixtures of honey.**


###### Menachot 58b:4
[Menachot 58b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58b:4)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: One is not flogged for a general prohibition,** i.e., a single mitzva in the Torah that includes many different prohibited acts. Since all these actions are covered by the prohibition: “You shall not burn,” it is considered a general prohibition, for which one is not flogged.


###### Menachot 58b:5
[Menachot 58b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58b:5)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: חֲדָא מִיהָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the opinion of Abaye. **There are** those **who say** that Abaye concedes that **in any event** the offender is **flogged** with **one** set of lashes for sacrificing leaven, and he is also flogged a second set of lashes for sacrificing honey, as these are not considered general prohibitions. Since the phrase: “You shall not burn,” is referring to both leaven and honey, it is as though it were written: You shall not burn leaven; you shall not burn honey.


###### Menachot 58b:6
[Menachot 58b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/58b:6)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, חֲדָא נָמֵי לָא לָקֵי, דְּהָא לָא מְיַחַד לָאוֵיהּ כְּלָאו דַּחֲסִימָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that Abaye maintains that the offender **is not even flogged** with **one** set of lashes, **as the prohibition** he transgressed **is not specific** to one matter, **like the prohibition against muzzling.** The principle that one is liable to be flogged for violating a prohibition is derived from the juxtaposition of the mitzva: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain” (Deuteronomy 25:4), with the verses that mention lashes. It is inferred from this juxtaposition that one is not liable to be flogged for violating prohibitions whose circumstances are not similar to that of muzzling, e.g., a general prohibition that is not referring to one specific action.