## Menachot Daf 9a

###### Menachot 9a:1
[Menachot 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:1)

״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
“Every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they may render unto Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons. **In the Sanctuary you shall eat them”** (Numbers 18:9–10). This indicates that although the mitzva is to consume offerings of the most sacred order in the courtyard, in certain instances the priests may consume these offerings inside the Sanctuary, the most holy place.


###### Menachot 9a:2
[Menachot 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:2)

וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא? לֵימָא: ״בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ״, וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its objection: **But** according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, **why do I** need this **verse? Let him say** here as well that as the verse states: **“In the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it”** (Leviticus 6:9), i.e., in the Temple courtyard, it is logical that the *halakha* with regard to the **minor** area **should not be more stringent than** the *halakha* with regard to **the major** one, i.e., if one may consume a peace offering in the Temple courtyard then all the more so may he consume it in the Sanctuary.


###### Menachot 9a:3
[Menachot 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:3)

עֲבוֹדָה, דְּאָדָם עוֹבֵד בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ, אָמְרִינַן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר. אֲכִילָה, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם אוֹכֵל בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ, טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב קְרָא, הָא לָא כְּתַב קְרָא – לֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Consuming an offering is not the same as slaughtering it. The slaughter of an offering is part of the sacrificial **service,** and it is not considered disrespectful **for a person** to **serve** his master **in the place of his master,** i.e., within the Sanctuary as well as in the courtyard. Therefore, **we say that** the *halakha* with regard to the **minor** area **should not be more stringent than** the *halakha* with regard to **the major** one. By contrast, with regard to the **consumption** of an offering, **since a person may not eat in the place of his master, the** only **reason** that it is permitted to consume an offering inside the Sanctuary is **that** it is **written** in **the verse:** “In a most holy place you shall eat them.” **Had** this **not** been **written** in **the verse** explicitly, **we** would **not say** that the *halakha* with regard to the **minor** area **should not be more stringent than** the *halakha* with regard to **the major** one.


###### Menachot 9a:4
[Menachot 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:4)

אִיתְּמַר: בְּלָלָהּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת עֲזָרָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר כְּשֵׁרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה״, וַהֲדַר ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים וְקָמַץ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** If one **mixed** the oil of a meal offering into **it outside the wall of** the Temple **courtyard, Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is **disqualified,** and **Reish Lakish says** that it is **valid. Reish Lakish says:** It is **valid, as it is written: “And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense upon it”** (Leviticus 2:1), **and then** it is written: **“And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove”** (Leviticus 2:2).


###### Menachot 9a:5
[Menachot 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:5)

מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרִין בְּזָר, וּמִדִּכְהוּנָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא, פְּנִים נָמֵי לָא בָּעֲיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish explains: The Sages derived from here that **from the removal of the handful onward** the rites performed with the meal offering are solely **a mitzva of** the **priesthood.** Accordingly, the verse **taught about pouring and mixing that they are valid** when performed **by a non-priest. And from** the fact **that** the **priesthood is not required** for the mixing, it may be derived that it **is also not required** that its performance be **inside** the walls of the Temple courtyard.


###### Menachot 9a:6
[Menachot 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה, כֵּיוָן דַּעֲשִׂיָּיתָהּ בִּכְלִי הוּא, נְהִי דִּכְהוּנָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא, פְּנִים מִיהַת בָּעֲיָא. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּלָלָהּ זָר – כְּשֵׁרָה, חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** This meal offering is **disqualified, since** a meal offering’s **performance is in** a service **vessel.** Therefore, **granted that** the **priesthood is not required,** yet **in any event** its performance **inside** the Temple courtyard **is required.** The Gemara notes that **it is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** If a meal offering was **mixed** by a **non-priest** it is **valid.** But if it was mixed **outside the wall of the** Temple **courtyard** it is **disqualified.**


###### Menachot 9a:7
[Menachot 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:7)

אִיתְּמַר: מִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנָּה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לָא יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** With regard to a **meal offering that became lacking** in its full measure **before the removal of the handful, Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that the owner **shall bring** additional flour **from within his home and shall fill** the missing part of the measure of the meal offering. **Reish Lakish says: He shall not bring** flour **from within his home and fill it.** Instead, he must bring a new meal offering.


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

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנָּה, קְמִיצָה קָבְעָה לֵיהּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לָא יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנָּה, קְדוּשַּׁת כְּלִי קָבְעָה לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **he brings** flour **from within his home and he fills it,** as the **removal of the handful establishes it** as a meal offering to the extent that it may become disqualified. Before the removal, one may always add flour to the meal offering. **Reish Lakish says: He shall not bring** flour **from within his home and fill it,** as **the sanctity of** the service **vessel establishes it** as a meal offering. Therefore, once the meal offering was placed in a service vessel and sanctified, it is disqualified if it becomes lacking.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: חָסֵר הַלּוֹג, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצַק – יְמַלְּאֶנּוּ, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,** Reish Lakish, from a mishna (*Nega’im* 14:10) discussing the *log* of oil brought by a leper: In a case where **the *log* lacked** a full measure, **if** it became lacking **before** the priest **poured** from it into his palm in order to place it on the right thumb and big toe of the leper, **he shall fill it.** Clearly the service vessel containing the *log* does not sanctify the oil to the extent that it can become disqualified. The Gemara notes: Indeed, this is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Reish Lakish.


###### Menachot 9a:10
[Menachot 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:10)

אִיתְּמַר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן. אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** With regard to the **remainder** of a meal offering **that became lacking between** the **removal of the handful and** its **burning** upon the altar, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that one **burns the handful on** account of such a remainder, and that the remainder is then permitted for consumption. **And Reish Lakish says** that one does **not burn the handful on** account of the remainder. The Gemara notes: **According to** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees** that the handful is burned on account of the remainder. In other words, both *amora’im*, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, concur that this is the *halakha* according to the *tanna* Rabbi Eliezer. **When they disagree,** it is concerning the *halakha* **according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua.**


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

דִּתְנַן: נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, נִשְׂרְפוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, אָבְדוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ – כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּשֵׁרָה, כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the dispute in question. **As we learned** in a mishna (26a): If, after the handful was removed, **the remainder of** the meal offering **became ritually impure,** or if **the remainder of** the meal offering **was burned,** or if **the remainder of** the meal offering **was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer,** who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling even if there is no meat that can be eaten, the meal offering is **fit,** and the priest burns the handful. **But according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua,** who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling only if there is meat that can be eaten, it is **unfit** and the priest does not burn the handful, as the handful serves to render the remainder permitted.


###### Menachot 9a:12
[Menachot 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:12)

מַאן דְּפָסֵל – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וּמַאן דְּמַכְשַׁר – עַד כָּאן לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם אֶלָּא דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּיַיר, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִישְׁתְּיַיר – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The one who disqualifies** the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking between the removal of the handful and its burning upon the altar, i.e., Reish Lakish, holds **in accordance with** the plain meaning of the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. And the one who deems** that remainder **fit,** i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, maintains that when **Rabbi Yehoshua says** that the remainder is unfit, he says so **only there,** in a case **where nothing remained** from the meal offering other than the remainder. Since the handful is intended to render permitted for consumption the remainder of the meal offering, if there is no remainder at all then the handful is not burned. **But** in a case **where there remained** a portion of the remainder, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that **even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to** Rabbi Eliezer that the handful is fit to be burned.


###### Menachot 9a:13
[Menachot 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶם כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק הַדָּם, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is clear that this is Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** With regard to **any of the offerings that** are mentioned **in the Torah from which there remains** either **an olive-bulk of meat or an olive-bulk of fat,** the *halakha* is that the priest **sprinkles the blood** of that offering and thereby permits either the remaining meat for consumption or the remaining fat for sacrifice upon the altar. But if there remains only **half an olive-bulk of meat** and **half an olive-bulk of fat, he does not sprinkle the blood,** as the consumption or burning of anything less than an olive-bulk is not significant enough to warrant the sprinkling of the blood. The volumes of the meat and the fat do not combine to form a whole olive-bulk.


###### Menachot 9a:14
[Menachot 9a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9a:14)

וּבָעוֹלָה, אֲפִילּוּ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּעוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל, וּבַמִּנְחָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And in** the case of **a burnt offering, even** if there remains only **half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of fat, he sprinkles the blood, because in** the case of **a burnt offering it is entirely consumed,** i.e., as the flesh and fat are both burned upon the altar, there is in fact an olive-bulk of the offering that is designated for burning upon the altar. **And with regard to a meal offering, even though it** remains **entirely intact, he shall not sprinkle.**