Menachot 22 – Using Communal Wood, Mixing Handfuls

When one brings his personal sacrifices, he gets to use the Temple wood, bought with communal funds. For you might think that he needs to bring his own wood, just as he brings his own libations. To dispel this notion, the Torah said, “On the wood that is on the fire that is on the Altar.”  Just as the Altar comes from the communal funds, so too the fire and the wood.

If the handful of flour from one offering became mixed with the handful from another offering, or with the flour offering of a regular kohen, or with the daily offering of the High Priest, they are all still valid and can be burned on the Altar. Rabbi Yehudah disagrees with regard to the High Priest's offering, which contains three times as much oil. Since it is loose like batter, it will mix with our less oily handful and nullify it.

But Rabbi Yehudah's own opinion everywhere in the Talmud is that like substances never nullify each other, so how can he rule differently here? He will answer that our case is different: we view the oil in our handful as if not present, and then the oil in the High Priest's offering nullifies our flour.

Art: Alexis de Leeuw - Chopping Firewood

Menachot 21 – Wooden Blocks are Also Sacrifices

According to Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, one can bring wood blocks as a standalone sacrifice. The minimum in this case would be two blocks, and their dimensions are one by one cubit. Since it is a sacrifice, it requires two more blocks of wood to burn it, like any other sacrifice.

Rabbi Yehudah derives this opinion from the words “flour offering sacrifice.” Since flour offering is already a sacrifice, this means some other offering, namely wood. Moreover, just like flour, wood offering needs to be salted. And, just like flour, one needs to take off a handful. For this, one needs to chip away at it, until a handful is collected.

The salt was stored in the Temple in three places: in the chamber of salt – for the hides, on the ramp – for the limbs, and at the top of the Altar – because there they would salt the handful of flour, its frankincense, and the incense.

Art: William H. Snape - Chopping Firewood

Menachot 20 – Covenant of Salt

Rav stated a rule that any law about flour offering that is repeated in the Torah is essential and cannot be omitted. But consider the salt: any flour offering must be salted before the handful is brought, and the salt requirement is not repeated in the Torah. In mathematical logic we could answer that repetition means that it is essential, but that it can be essential even without repetition. However, in teaching the Torah this answer does not work, because such teaching would be confusing to the students. Even though Rav stated only one side of the requirement, he really meant “if and only if.”

One answer is that according to Rav salting is indeed not essential and can be omitted. Or, if you wish, we can answer that since the word “covenant” is written with regard to salt, it is as if the requirement has in fact been repeated.

Art: Ferdinand Loyen Du Puigaudeau - Landscape with Mill near the Salt Ponds

Menachot 19 – Torah Repetitions Emphasize Requirement

Rav said, “Wherever the Torah stated 'law' and 'decree', it means to make the step essential, so that if it is omitted, the whole procedure has to be repeated.” The Talmud asked Rav questions, based on the laws of Nazir, thanksgiving offering, and Yom Kippur, and changed the understanding of what Rav said to: only 'decree' indicates the requirement, but 'law', although similar, does not.

In regard to flour offering, Rav gave an additional rule: any time that the Torah repeated a specific law about flour offerings, it did so to emphasize that it is required. For example, the Torah repeated the requirements of finely ground flour and oil to show that they cannot be omitted. Shmuel disagrees on that. But how could Shmuel disagree with the rule that repetition means a requirement? - Actually, they argue about one point only, the requirement to use one's hand for the handful. It is stated about Aharon and is repeated for the future. Rav says that this is valid repetition, but Shmuel states that we cannot learn new laws from the one-time happening with Aharon.

Art: Emmanuel de Witte - Interior of the Portuguese synagogue

Menachot 18 – Proper Procedure for the Flour Offering

Yosef the Babylonian asked Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, “Teacher, if one slaughters a sacrifice with the intent to leave over some of its blood until the next day, what is the law?” Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua replied that it was valid. This repeated in the morning, but in the afternoon he added “but Rabbi Eliezer makes it invalid.” At this Yosef's face lit up and he explained that finally after years of searching he found the source for what his teacher taught him. Rabbi Elazar cried with joy and applied to Yosef “How I love your Torah, all day it is my conversation.”

The proper flour offering is prepared as follows: some oil is put in the vessel, then flour and more oil is added and everything is mixed, then more oil is poured on top, some types are baked into 10 breads and are broken into pieces by folding them over many times, some types are waved, and the handful is salted before burning it on the Altar. If he omitted any of these steps, the offering is still valid, provided that the right amounts were used. The last oil pouring is essential.

Art: Felice Giani - The Sacrifice Of David

Menachot 17 - The “Eating” of the Altar

The handful of flour taken from the offering is burned on the Altar. If one wants to eat it instead, beyond permitted time, the offering remains valid. Actually, we learned it before on page 12, and it is mentioned here only to introduce the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who declares it invalid.

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Burning on the Altar and eating is described by the same term “achilah,” or consumption, as in the phrase “if some of the meat of the peace-offering will be consumed at all,” literally, “consumed, will be consumed.” Thus we see that the two are equated, and if one intends to eat what should be burned on the Altar or to burn what should be eaten by men, and plans to do it at the wrong time, the offering becomes rejected.

What do the Sages say to this? They agree that consumption by the Altar is called eating, but only to make the thought of the kohen effective, whether he said “I will burn it on the Altar” or “I will make the Altar eat it” - but not to equate it with human consumption.

Art: Reynier Fransz Hals - Boy eating Porridge

Menachot 16 – Libations are Rejected because the Sacrifice is Rejected

Many sacrifices were accompanied by libations in the form of wine and flour. If the kohen had the wrong intent to eat the meat of the sacrifice beyond allotted time, then if the libations were already in a Temple vessel, they too became rejected – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Once the libations are put in a vessel, they become an integral part of the sacrifice. The Sages, however, disagree, since libations for a sacrifice can be brought many days after the sacrifice itself is brought.

The flour sacrifice has a two-part “permitter”: the handful taken from it, and the frankincense. Both need to be burned on the Altar. If one intended to consume the flour at the wrong time when he was burning one of the permitters - either the handful or the frankincense – the whole offering becomes rejected, and one who eats it deserves to be cut off from the people. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it can be summarized as “there is rejection with half of the permitter.” But the Sages disagree and say that it is not rejected unless he had the wrong intent for both.

Unknown Painter - Man with a Glass of Wine, Portuguese 1450