## Menachot Daf 8a

###### Menachot 8a:1
[Menachot 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:1)

וְאִם אִיתַהּ, לֵילַף מִדָּם? וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא גָּמַר? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ בַּהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is so** that Rabbi Elazar holds that blood may not be sanctified in halves, **let him derive** the *halakha* of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering **from** that of **blood. And if you would say** that in this case **Rabbi Elazar does not derive** the *halakha* of the **matter** of a meal offering **from** that of another **matter,** that is difficult: **But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A meal offering** from **which** the priest **removed a handful** while **inside the Sanctuary** is **valid,** despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is **that we find** a similar case in the Sanctuary, **with regard to the removal of** the **bowls** of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread? Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption when removed in the Sanctuary, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption. This indicates that Rabbi Elazar does derive the *halakha* of a meal offering from that of another matter.


###### Menachot 8a:2
[Menachot 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:2)

מִנְחָה מִמִּנְחָה יָלֵיף, מִנְחָה מִדָּם לָא יָלֵיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar does **derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a meal offering from** that of another **meal offering;** the shewbread is considered a meal offering. But **he does not derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a meal offering from** that of **blood.**


###### Menachot 8a:3
[Menachot 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:3)

וּמִנְחָה מִמִּנְחָה מִי יָלֵיף? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וְאֵין מַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין. מִשֶּׁפֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וּמַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** Rabbi Elazar **derive** the *halakha* of one **meal offering from** that of another **meal offering? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If **before** the priest **detached** the arrangement of shewbread and the bowls of frankincense from upon the Table, the **bread broke** into pieces, **the bread** is **unfit** for consumption **and** the priest **does not burn the** frankincense contained in the **bowls on** account of **it.** If the **bread broke after** the priest **detached it, the bread is unfit but** the priest **burns the** frankincense contained in the **bowls on** account of **it.**


###### Menachot 8a:4
[Menachot 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:4)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא פֵּרְקָהּ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ, כְּמִי שֶׁפֵּרְקָהּ דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And Rabbi Elazar says:** When the *baraita* refers to the detachment of the shewbread, it does **not** mean that the priest **actually detached it. Rather,** it means that **once** the **time to detach it has arrived, even though he has not** yet **detached it** and has not removed the bowls, **it is considered as though he has detached it.** Accordingly, if the shewbread broke after that time, the frankincense is burned.


###### Menachot 8a:5
[Menachot 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:5)

וְאַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its question: **And** if Rabbi Elazar derives the *halakha* of one meal offering from another, **why** does he say that frankincense contained in the bowls is burned in a case where the shewbread broke when the time to detach the bread had arrived? **It should be like** the case of **a meal offering that became lacking** in its measure **before the removal of the handful.** Such a handful is not removed and is not sacrificed upon the altar. Likewise, the frankincense was still on the Table when the shewbread broke and should therefore be disqualified.


###### Menachot 8a:6
[Menachot 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:6)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, מִנְחָה לָא בְּרִיר (בְּרֵירָה) קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, וְהָא בְּרִיר (בְּרֵירָה) קוֹמֶץ דִּידַהּ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק – כְּמַאן דְּפָרְקַהּ דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult,** as there is a difference between these meal offerings. In the case of **a meal offering** that became lacking before the removal of a handful, **its handful was not clearly designated.** Consequently, if the meal offering became lacking before a handful was removed, one may no longer remove a handful from it. **But** in the case of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, **its handful,** i.e., the frankincense, **was clearly designated** at the time when the frankincense was placed in the bowls, since the frankincense is in a separate container from the bread. **And** therefore, **once** the **time to detach** the bread **has arrived, it is considered as though he has detached it.**


###### Menachot 8a:7
[Menachot 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:7)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תֶּיהְוֵי כְּשִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה, דְּאֵין מַקְטִירִין קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן! לָאו פְּלוּגְתָּא נִינְהוּ? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה – מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **if that is so,** then even if the time to detach the shewbread arrived, why is the frankincense burned? **It should be like** a case where the **remainder** of a meal offering **became lacking between** the **removal of the handful and** the **burning** upon the altar; the *halakha* in this case is **that** one **does not burn the handful on** account of such a meal offering. The Gemara responds: **Isn’t it a dispute** among the *amora’im* (9a) whether or not the handful is burned in such a case? One can say that **Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that if the **remainder** of a meal offering became **lacking between** the **removal of the handful and** the **burning,** the priest **burns the handful on** account of such a meal offering.


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

גּוּפָא: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה לַחֲצָאִין, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקְּרֵבָה לַחֲצָאִין, קְדוֹשָׁה לַחֲצָאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִיתָהּ״, הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֳצֵיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself:** With regard to the **griddle-cake** offering **of** the **High Priest, Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **it is not sanctified in halves, and Rabbi Elazar says: Since it is sacrificed in halves,** as half of the meal offering is sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon, it may likewise be **sanctified in halves. Rav Aḥa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The verse states: “A meal offering** perpetually, **half of it** in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This means: First **bring** a whole **meal offering, and** only **afterward divide it** into halves.


###### Menachot 8a:9
[Menachot 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאוֹת חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ; וְתַנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִית״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מֵבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וּמַקְרִיב, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וּמַקְרִיב; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The mishna teaches (50b): The **griddle-cake** offering **of** the **High Priest did not come in halves. Rather,** the High Priest **brings a full tenth** of an ephah **and** then **divides it** into two. **And it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to this mishna: **If it were stated: A meal offering, half** in the morning, and half in the evening, **I would say: He brings half of a tenth from his home** in the **morning and sacrifices** it, and another **half of a tenth from his home** in the **evening and sacrifices** it. Therefore, **the verse states: “Half of it in the morning,”** indicating that **he brings a half from a whole,** and he does not bring a half by itself.


###### Menachot 8a:10
[Menachot 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:10)

לְמִצְוָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב גְּבִיהָא מִבֵּי כְתִיל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא ״חוּקָּה״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַהֲבִיאָהּ שָׁלֵם מִבֵּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Elazar maintains that the verse requires that a whole meal offering be brought in the morning only **for a mitzva,** i.e., *ab initio*. Nevertheless, if half of a tenth was brought in the morning it is valid after the fact. **Rav Geviha from Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: But** the term **“statute” is written with regard to** the griddle-cake offering, as the verse states: “A statute forever” (Leviticus 6:15), and there is a principle that whenever the Torah calls a mitzva a statute, the details of its performance are indispensable. Rav Ashi **said to him: It was necessary** for the Torah to define this mitzva as a statute **only with regard to** the requirement that the High Priest **bring a full** tenth **from his home.** With regard to its sanctification in a service vessel, it can be sanctified in halves.


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

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: הִפְרִישׁ חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן, וְדַעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף – רַב אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ. וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** really **say this? But it was stated:** If one **set aside half a tenth** of an ephah for any meal offering, **and his intention** was **to add** to the half in order to reach a full tenth, **Rav says** that **it is not sanctified,** as he did not bring a full tenth, **and Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is **sanctified. And if it is so** that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the griddle-cake offering cannot be sanctified in halves, **let him derive from** the **griddle-cake** offering that no meal offering may be sanctified in halves.


###### Menachot 8a:12
[Menachot 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:12)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא יָלֵיף, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁירִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מֵעִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan does not derive** the *halakha* of one **matter** with regard to consecrated items **from** that of another **matter,** that is difficult: **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Peace offerings that** were **slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is written: “And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”** (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: It is logical **that** the *halakha* with regard to the **minor** area, i.e., the courtyard, **should not be more stringent than** the *halakha* with regard to the **major** area, the Tent of Meeting. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan derives a *halakha* with regard to the Sanctuary from the Temple courtyard.


###### Menachot 8a:13
[Menachot 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:13)

דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף שָׁאנֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֵאִים״ – אֵין ״מְלֵאִים״ אֶלָּא שְׁלֵמִים (כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם), וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹסִיף – רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact derive the *halakha* of one matter from another, and therefore he learns the *halakha* with regard to all meal offerings from the griddle-cake offering, that in general they are not sanctified in halves. But a case where one expresses **his intention to add** to the half measure **is different, as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “Both of them **full** of fine flour” (Numbers 7:13). **“Full”** is a reference **only** to **full** measurements; **that is to say,** the flour **is not sanctified until there is a full tenth** inside the vessel. **And Rabbi Yosei said: When** is it the *halakha* that the flour is sanctified only if a full tenth is inside the vessel? It is **at a time when his intention** was **not** initially **to add** to that which he placed inside the vessel. **But at a time when his intention** was initially **to add, each initial** bit of flour is **sanctified** by the vessel.


###### Menachot 8a:14
[Menachot 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:14)

וְרַב, בְּחָבִיתִין כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לֵילַף מֵחֲבִיתִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rav,** who holds that standard meal offerings are not sanctified in halves even if one’s initial intention was to add to the half measure, **with regard to a griddle-cake** offering, **in accordance with whose** opinion **does he hold? If** he holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** who says that a griddle-cake offering can be sanctified in halves, then **let him derive from** the *halakha* of **griddle-cake** offerings that all meal offerings may be sanctified in halves.


###### Menachot 8a:15
[Menachot 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:15)

וְכִי תֵּימָא רַב מִילְּתָא מִמִּילְּתָא לָא יָלֵיף, וְהָאָמַר רַב: מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן (וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה) – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בְּלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **Rav does not derive** the *halakha* of one **matter from** that of another **matter,** that is difficult: **But doesn’t Rav say:** A standard **meal offering,** which is brought with oil and frankincense, **is sanctified** by a service vessel even **without** its **oil** and without its frankincense. It is sanctified without its oil, **as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the shewbread,** which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even **without** its **frankincense, as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the meal offering** accompanying the **libations** of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.


###### Menachot 8a:16
[Menachot 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:16)

בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, עַל כׇּרְחָיךְ רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, a standard meal offering is sanctified by a service vessel even **without** its **oil and without** its **frankincense, as we find with regard to the meal offering of a sinner,** which includes neither of these. This indicates that Rav does derive the *halakha* of a meal offering from other meal offerings. Rather, **perforce,** with regard to the griddle-cake offering, **Rav holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** that this offering is not sanctified in halves, and it is derived from there that no meal offerings are sanctified in halves.


###### Menachot 8a:17
[Menachot 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/8a:17)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: מִנְחָה קְדוֹשָׁה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵין דִּינָה כְּעִשָּׂרוֹן חָסֵר – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. בְּלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים. בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: Rav says** that **a meal offering is sanctified without** its **oil, and its *halakha* is not** the same **as** when **a tenth** of an ephah of flour is **lacking, as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the shewbread,** which is sacrificed without oil and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel. Similarly, it is sanctified even **without** its **frankincense, as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the meal offering** accompanying the **libations** of an offering, which is sacrificed without frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified. Additionally, a meal offering is sanctified even **without** its **oil and without** its **frankincense, as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the meal offering of a sinner,** which lacks both oil and frankincense and is nevertheless sanctified by a service vessel.


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

וְשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה קׇדְשִׁי הַאי בְּלָא הַאי וְהַאי בְּלָא הַאי; שֶׁמֶן – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, לְבוֹנָה – שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בִּלְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין, וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav continues: **And oil and frankincense are** each **sanctified** by service vessels, **this** substance **without that** one, **and that** substance **without this** one. **Oil** is sanctified on its own, **as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the *log* of oil of a leper,** which is sanctified on its own. **Frankincense** is sanctified on its own, **as we find** such a *halakha* **with regard to the frankincense that comes in the bowls** that are brought with the shewbread; there is no oil in that case and yet the frankincense is sanctified in the bowls. **And Rabbi Ḥanina says:**