## Menachot Daf 9b

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

מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: **What is** the mention of **a meal offering doing** here, in a *baraita* that discusses slaughtered offerings? There is no sprinkling in the case of a meal offering. **Rav Pappa said:** The *baraita* is referring to **a meal offering** that accompanies the **libations** brought with a slaughtered offering.


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

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבַהֲדֵי זֶבַח אָתְיָא – כִּי גּוּפֵיהּ דְּזֶבַח דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa elaborates: It might **enter your mind to say** that **since** such a meal offering **comes with a** slaughtered **offering, it is considered like** the **offering itself.** Accordingly, if the only part remaining from an offering is the meal offering that is brought with it, perhaps it is considered as though part of the offering itself remains, and therefore the priest may sprinkle the offering’s blood on account of it. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the *halakha*. In any event, Rabbi Yehoshua states in this *baraita* that the blood of an offering is sprinkled if a minimum amount remains from it. The same should apply to the remainder of a regular meal offering.


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

וּמַאן דְּפָסֵל – שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵרִים הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַמִּנְחָה אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, ״הַמִּנְחָה״ – עַד דְּאִיתַהּ לְכוּלַּהּ מִנְחָה לֹא יַקְטִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan cited this *baraita* as proof that even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, if a portion of the remainder of a meal offering remains intact then the handful may be burned on account of it. The Gemara asks: **And** concerning **the one who disqualifies** the handful when the remainder is lacking, i.e., Reish Lakish, how does he explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua? The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish would claim that it **is different here,** in the case of a meal offering, **as the verse states: “And the priest shall remove from the meal offering its memorial part, and shall make it smoke upon the altar”** (Leviticus 2:9). Since it is clear that the verse is discussing a meal offering, the apparently superfluous mention of **“the meal offering”** teaches that **unless the entire meal offering is** intact, the priest **shall not burn** the handful.


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

וְאִידָּךְ, ״מִן הַמִּנְחָה״ – מִנְחָה שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּבָר שְׁלֵימָה בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה יַקְטִיר, אַף עַל גַּב דְּהַשְׁתָּא אֵינָהּ שְׁלֵימָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And the other** *amora*, Rabbi Yoḥanan, how does he interpret that verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan claims that the phrase **“from the meal offering”** is referring to **a meal offering that was already whole at the time of the removal of** its **handful,** and the verse teaches that **he shall burn** its handful **even though it is currently not whole.**


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס הַלֶּחֶם – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין מַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין, וְאִם מִשֶּׁפֵּרְקָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל, וּמַקְטִיר עָלָיו אֶת הַבָּזִיכִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא פֵּרְקָהּ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לְפָרֵק, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פִּירְקָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish** from 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. And 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. And Rabbi Elazar says:** The *baraita* does **not** mean that the priest **actually detached** the shewbread. **Rather,** it means that **once** the **time to detach it has arrived** the frankincense contained in the bowls may be burned, **even though he has not** yet **detached it.** Just as the frankincense contained in the bowls is burned despite the broken shewbread, likewise, the handful of a meal offering should be burned even when the remainder is lacking.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא אָמֵינָא לָךְ מִשְׁנָה שְׁלֵימָה, וְאָמְרַתְּ לִי אַתְּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who permits the burning of a handful even when the remainder has been entirely destroyed. And I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: I am stating a complete *halakha* to you,** i.e., a *baraita* of an unspecified opinion, **and you say to me** that this *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** alone?


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

אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי אִירְיָא נִפְרַס? אֲפִילּוּ שָׂרוּף וְאָבוּד נָמֵי מַכְשַׁר! אִישְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan added: And furthermore, **if** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of only **Rabbi Eliezer,** then **why** does the *baraita* mention **specifically** an instance where the bread **broke?** According to Rabbi Eliezer, **even** if the bread was **burned or lost** entirely, **he deems** the frankincense contained in the bowls **fit** for burning **as well.** The Gemara notes: Reish Lakish **was silent** and did not respond to the objections of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


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

וְאַמַּאי שְׁתֵק? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: צִבּוּר שָׁאנֵי, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתְּרַי טוּמְאָה לְגַבַּיְיהוּ – אִישְׁתְּרַי נָמֵי חֲסֵרוֹת! אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַחֶסְרוֹן כְּבַעַל מוּם דָּמֵי, וְאֵין בַּעַל מוּם בַּצִּבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why was** Reish Lakish **silent? Let him say to** Rabbi Yoḥanan that one cannot cite a proof from a *baraita* that discusses the shewbread, a communal offering, because offerings of the **community are different, since ritual impurity was permitted for them,** i.e., communal offerings may be sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity. Therefore, it **was also permitted** to sacrifice them when they **are lacking. Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** The fact **that** Reish Lakish did not respond in **this** manner **is to say** that a meal offering that is **lacking** in measure **is considered like a blemished** animal, not merely like an impure offering, **and there is no** instance of **a blemished** animal being permitted for use as an offering, even **in** the case of **a communal** offering.


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

יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר שְׁמַעְיָה לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר דְּצִיבּוּר הִיא, וּפְלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Pappa** was once **sitting and saying this *halakha*,** and he noted that Reish Lakish was silent and did not respond to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s objections by differentiating between a communal offering and that of an individual, and that Rav Adda bar Ahava derived from Reish Lakish’s silence that a lack in the measure of a meal offering is tantamount to a blemish. **Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa: Are we not dealing** with a disagreement **that** exists between **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish** even **in** the case of **the *omer* meal offering, which is a communal** offering? **And** even so, they **disagree.** Accordingly, Reish Lakish could not have responded to the objections of Rabbi Yoḥanan by distinguishing between a communal and an individual offering, and therefore one cannot derive from his silence that a meal offering lacking in its measure is like a blemished animal.


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

אָמַר רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, תָּנָא חֲדָא: ״מִסׇּלְתָּהּ״ – שֶׁאִם חָסְרָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא פְּסוּלָה, ״מִשַּׁמְנָהּ״ – שֶׁאִם חָסְרָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further discusses the disagreement between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. **Rav Malkiyu says** that **one** *baraita* **taught:** The verse states: “And he shall remove…**of its fine flour”** (Leviticus 2:2). This indicates **that if** the meal offering **lacks any amount** of its flour, it is **disqualified** and the priest may not remove a handful from it. Similarly, the term: **“Of its oil”** (Leviticus 2:2), teaches **that if** the meal offering **lacks any amount** of its oil, it is **disqualified.**


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

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה״ – פְּרָט לַמִּנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה הִיא, וְשֶׁחָסַר קוּמְצָהּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא הִקְטִיר מִלְּבוֹנָתָהּ כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in **another** *baraita* that the verse that states: **“But that which is left of the meal offering** shall be Aaron’s and his sons’” (Leviticus 2:3), teaches that the remainder of the meal offering is given to the priests only if there was initially a whole meal offering, **to the exclusion of a meal offering that was lacking, or whose handful was lacking, or from which** the priest **did not burn any frankincense.** In such cases, the meal offering is disqualified and its remainder may not be consumed by the priests.


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

תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי בַּחֲסֵרוֹת לְמָה לִי? לָאו חַד לְמִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה, וְחַד לְשִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Malkiyu asks: **Why do I** need **two verses to** disqualify meal offerings that are **lacking?** Is it **not** correct to say that **one** verse is referring **to a meal offering that became lacking before the removal of the handful,** i.e., that one may not refill it, **and one** verse is referring **to** the **remainder** of a meal offering **that became lacking between the removal of the handful and** its **burning** upon the altar, and it teaches that one may not burn a handful on account of such a remainder?


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

וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Malkiyu concludes: **And** if so, then this is **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan in both** instances where he disagrees with Reish Lakish, i.e., in the case of a meal offering that became lacking before the removal of the handful, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that one may refill it, and in the case of the remainder that became lacking between the removal of the handful and its burning, as he holds that the handful may be burned.


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

לָא, חַד לְמִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קְמִיצָה, דְּאִי מֵבִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא, וְחַד לְשִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּמַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן – אוֹתָן שִׁירַיִם אֲסוּרִים לַאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No; one** verse is indeed referring **to a meal offering that became lacking before the removal of the handful,** but it is not teaching that this meal offering is disqualified. Rather, this verse indicates **that if he brings** flour **from his home and fills it** so that the meal offering is no longer lacking, then **yes,** it is fit, **but if** he does **not** bring more flour, it is **not** fit. **And one** verse is indeed referring **to** the **remainder** of a meal offering **that became lacking between the removal of the handful and** its **burning** upon the altar; nevertheless, it does not indicate that the handful may not be burned. Rather, it teaches **that even though** the priest **burns** the **handful on** account of such a remainder, **that remainder is prohibited for consumption.**


###### Menachot 9b:15
[Menachot 9b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9b:15)

דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹתָן שִׁירַיִם מָה הֵן בַּאֲכִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: This is indeed the appropriate explanation of the verses, **as a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: According **to the statement of** the one **who says that** in a case where the **remainder** of a meal offering **became lacking between the removal of the handful and** its **burning** upon the altar, the priest **burns** the **handful on** account of this remainder, concerning the **remainder itself, what** is its status **with regard to consumption,** i.e., may the remainder be eaten?


###### Menachot 9b:16
[Menachot 9b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9b:16)

אָמַר זְעֵירִי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״, וְלֹא הַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַנּוֹתֶרֶת. וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: ״מֵהַמִּנְחָה״ – מִנְחָה שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ze’eiri said** that **the verse states: “But that which is left** of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’,” which teaches that the priests may consume the remainder of a meal offering, **but not the remainder of the remainder,** i.e., if the remainder became lacking before the handful was burned, the remaining part of the remainder may not be consumed. Alternatively, **Rabbi Yannai says** that **“of the meal offering** shall be Aaron’s and his sons’” indicates that the priests may consume only the remainder of **a meal offering that was previously** whole when the handful was burned, not the remainder of the remainder.


###### Menachot 9b:17
[Menachot 9b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9b:17)

קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל – מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״ – כַּף זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִלּוֹג הַשָּׁמֶן וְיָצַק עַל כַּף הַכֹּהֵן הַשְּׂמָאלִית״ – כָּאן שְׂמָאלִית, הָא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כַּף״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא יָמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the priest **removed the handful with** his **left** hand the meal offering is unfit. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Zeira said** that it is derived from **that** which **the verse states: “And the meal offering was presented; and he filled his hand from it”** (Leviticus 9:17). Rabbi Zeira explains: **This hand, I do not know what it is,** i.e., the left hand or the right. **When** the verse **states** with regard to the atonement of a leper: **“And the priest shall take of the *log* of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand”** (Leviticus 14:15), it mentions the left hand. One can therefore derive that **here,** where the verse specifies, the priest must use his **left** hand, whereas in **any place where it is stated** in a verse **“hand”** without specification, it is referring **only** to the **right** hand.


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

וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ? ״שְׂמָאלִית״ אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** how can this conclusion be derived from the verse discussing the atonement of a leper? This verse **is necessary for itself,** i.e., to teach that the oil must be poured on the priest’s left hand, not his right. The Gemara answers that **another** mention of the **left** hand **is written** in the same passage (see Leviticus 14:16). From this additional mention of the left hand it may be derived that any unspecified reference to a hand is referring to the right hand.


###### Menachot 9b:19
[Menachot 9b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9b:19)

וְאֵימָא: אֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת? ״שְׂמָאלִית״ אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב. כָּאן שְׂמָאלִית, וְאֵין אַחֵר שְׂמָאלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But say** that according to the hermeneutical principle that one **restriction after** another **restriction** serves **only to amplify,** it should be inferred from the additional specification of the left hand that the oil may be poured onto the priest’s right hand. The Gemara responds: Yet **another** specification of the **left** hand **is written** in that passage (see Leviticus 14:26). Accordingly, the hermeneutical principle that one restriction after another serves only to amplify does not apply. Instead, the verse indicates that **here** the **left** hand is required, **and there is no other** instance where the Torah requires the **left** hand.


###### Menachot 9b:20
[Menachot 9b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9b:20)

וְאֵימָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, מָה כָּאן שְׂמָאלִית – אַף בְּעָלְמָא נָמֵי שְׂמָאלִית! אַרְבָּעָה ״שְׂמָאלִית״ כְּתִיבִי: תְּרֵי בְּעָנִי, וּתְרֵי בְּעָשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** one can **say** that **on the contrary, just as here** the **left** hand is required, **so too generally,** the **left** hand is required **as well.** The Gemara responds: **Four** mentions of the **left** hand **are written** in the passage, **two with regard to a poor** leper (Leviticus 14:26–27), **and two with regard to a wealthy** one (Leviticus 14:15–16). Accordingly, three of the specifications serve to indicate that the oil may be poured only onto the left hand, while the additional mention serves to restrict the use of the left hand to the case of a leper alone.


###### Menachot 9b:21
[Menachot 9b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/9b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: ״עַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית״ דִּכְתִיב בְּשֶׁמֶן דִּמְצוֹרָע עָשִׁיר לְמָה לִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:** According to your opinion, one interprets homiletically the additional specifications in the passage discussing the purification of a leper. If so, there is another apparently superfluous verse: **“Upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot”** (Leviticus 14:17), **which is written with regard to** the placement of the **oil** upon the right thumb and big toe **of a wealthy leper. Why do I** need the verse to specify that the oil is placed on the leper’s right thumb and big toe?