a covenant stated with regard to salt, ensuring that the offerings should always be salted; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), and it is stated there, with regard to the reward given to Pinehas: “The covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). This teaches that just as it is impossible for the offerings to be sacrificed without the involvement of the priesthood, so too, it is impossible for the offerings to be sacrificed without salt. The baraita demonstrates that the rite of salting is an indispensable requirement, despite the fact that the rite is not repeated in the verses.

Rav Yosef said: Rav, who holds that the only sacrificial rites that are indispensable are the ones repeated in the verses, holds in accordance with the tanna of our mishna, who says: If one did not add salt, the meal offering is still fit. According to this tanna, adding salt is not indispensable. Abaye said to him: If that is so and you understand the mishna to be referring to a case where no salt is added at all, then you should also understand the mishna’s statement: If one did not pour the oil, as referring to a case where he did not pour oil at all. This cannot be, as the rite of pouring oil is repeated in the verses and is clearly indispensable. Rather, the mishna must be referring to a case where a priest did not pour oil onto the meal offering, but a non-priest did pour the oil. Here too, the tanna of the mishna means only that a priest did not add salt, but a non-priest did add salt. If no salt is added, even this tanna holds that the meal offering is unfit.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: But could it enter your mind that a non-priest would approach the altar to salt the handful of the meal offering? A non-priest may not enter the area near the altar. Since it is not conceivable that this would take place, it must be that when ruling that the meal offering is fit, the tanna of the mishna is referring to a case where the salt was never added.

And if you wish, say instead that Rav holds that since with regard to the application of salt, the term “covenant” is written about it, it is considered as though it were repeated in another verse, as the term “covenant” teaches that it is an indispensable rite.

With regard to the question that was raised to challenge the statement of Rav, the Gemara asks: And is it correct that the application of salt is not repeated in the verse? But isn’t it written: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13)? The Gemara answers: That verse does not function as a repetition, since it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every offering you shall season with salt, I would derive that this applies to even the wood and the blood, which are also termed: An offering.

To counter this, the verse states: “And every meal offering of yours,” to teach that just as the meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering, so too any item that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. By contrast, the wood and the blood do not require salting, as the wood itself requires no wood, and the blood is presented on the altar and does not require wood.

The baraita continues: If that logic is employed, one could say: Just as the handful of the meal offering that is burned is unique in that it permits the remainder of the meal offering to be eaten by the priests, and it requires salting, so too, any item that is unique in that it permits other items requires the application of salt. Accordingly, I will include blood in the obligation to be salted, as its presentation permits the offering to be sacrificed and eaten. To counter this, the continuation of the verse states: “Neither shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,” demonstrating that it cannot be lacking from the meal offering, but not from your blood.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the entire meal offering requires salting, including the remainder of the offering that is eaten by the priests. To counter this, the verse states: “And every meal offering [korban] of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13), teaching that the handful, which is burned as an offering [korban] on the altar, requires salting, but the entire meal offering [minḥa] does not require salting.

And I have derived only that the handful of a meal offering requires salting. From where is it derived to include the frankincense, which is also burned on the altar, in the requirement to be salted? I include the frankincense due to the fact that it comes along with the handful in one vessel and is therefore included in the expression “offering.”

From where is it derived to include in the requirement to be salted the frankincense that comes by itself as a separate offering? One may accept the obligation to bring an offering of frankincense to be burned on the altar. From where is it derived that this frankincense requires salting? Moreover, from where is it derived to include in the requirement to be salted the frankincense that comes in bowls together with the shewbread, and the incense?

Moreover, from where is it derived in the requirement of salting in the case of the meal offerings from which a handful is not removed, i.e., the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest that is brought every day by the High Priest, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with burnt offerings and peace offerings? From where is it derived in the requirement of salting with regard to the sacrificial portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar, and the sacrificial portions of the guilt offering, and the sacrificial portions of the offerings of the most sacred order, and the sacrificial portions of the offerings of lesser sanctity, and the limbs of the burnt offering, and the bird burnt offering? From where is it derived that all these require salting?

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: “You shall sacrifice salt with all your offerings” (Leviticus 2:13), demonstrating that everything burned on the altar requires salting. From this baraita, it is apparent that the mitzva to apply salt is necessary in order to teach about the circumstances where salt is added, and therefore it cannot be used as an instance where the mitzva is repeated in order to teach that the rite is indispensable.

§ The Gemara discusses the baraita cited above: The Master said: I have derived only that the handful of a meal offering requires salting. From where is it derived to include the frankincense, which is also burned on the altar, in the requirement to be salted? I include the frankincense, due to the fact that it comes along with the handful in one vessel and therefore is included in the expression “offering.” The Gemara asks: Why is this verse needed? But didn’t you state earlier that just as a meal offering is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement requires the application of salt? Therefore, it is already known that the frankincense and all the other items require salting, since wood is required for their burning.

The Gemara answers: When the tanna says: I have derived only that the handful of the meal offering requires salting, this is what he is saying: One might understand the verse “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13) differently and say the following exposition: The term “offering” that appears here is a generalization, while “meal offering” is a detail. According to the hermeneutical principles, in the case of a generalization and a detail, there is nothing in the generalization other than what is in the detail. Therefore, in the case of a meal offering, yes, it requires salting, but anything else does not require salting. From where, then, is the halakha of salting in all other cases derived?

Therefore, the verse then states: “You shall sacrifice salt with all your offerings” (Leviticus 2:13), and it then generalized again, so that the verse includes a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in which case according to the hermeneutical principles you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it requires the application of salt. That is why the latter part of the verse is needed.

The Gemara elaborates: What are the other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering? This is referring to the wood, as the wood is required for the burning of the handful of the meal offering. So too, the expression: Anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it, is referring to anything that requires wood so that it may be burned on the altar.

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering is referring to the frankincense, which accompanies the meal offering, and therefore by means of the hermeneutical principle applying to a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, include blood, which is accompanied by libations? The Gemara answers: The libations are not considered to accompany the sprinkling of the blood; rather, they accompany the sacrificial portions that are burned on the altar. What is the reason? It is because the burning of the sacrificial parts and the pouring of the libations are the eating and drinking of the altar. The Gemara counters: On the contrary, the libations are considered to accompany the blood, since the atonement that is effected by the presentation of the blood is followed by the joy that is displayed in the libation of wine.

Rather, one must say that since the frankincense comes together with the meal offering in one vessel, while the blood is not brought together with the libations in one vessel, the blood is not comparable to the meal offering. But when it is explained that the expression: The other items that come as a requirement for the meal offering, is referring to the wood, this means that just as the meal offering is rendered fit by means of the wood, so too, all offerings are rendered fit by means of the wood.

The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the item mentioned in the detail, i.e., the handful of the meal offering, is clearly defined as an item for which other items come as a requirement, and in addition it renders other items permitted, so too, anything that is unique in that other items come as a requirement for it and renders other items permitted requires the application of salt. And what is included due to this derivation? Frankincense that comes in the bowls that are placed upon the shewbread, as it renders the bread permitted to be eaten. But every other item should not be included.

The Gemara answers: It is apparent that all other items require only the factor of having other items come as a requirement for them to be considered similar to the meal offering. This is clear from the fact that in the case of blood, which is similar to the meal offering only in that it renders the offering permitted, it was necessary to teach that salt is not placed on blood, by means of the phrase: “Neither shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,” from which it is derived: But not from your blood. Had it been necessary for all items to have both aspects in common with the meal offering, there would be no need for a derivation to exclude blood. By inference, these other items derived from a meal offering are similar to it in one respect.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita: The Master said above: The verse states: “Neither shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering,” demonstrating that salt cannot be lacking from the meal offering, but not from your blood. The Gemara asks: But since the verse does not allude to blood explicitly, why not say that the verse teaches that salt cannot be lacking from your meal offering, but not from your limbs of the burnt offering that are sacrificed on the altar?

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the limbs of a burnt offering should be included in the requirement to have salt applied, since they share many characteristics with a meal offering that blood does not. The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the characteristics that they share: Alef, shin, beit, nun; tet, mem, alef. These are a reference to others [aḥerim], fire [ishim], external [baḥutz], notar; ritual impurity [tuma], and misuse of consecrated property [me’ila].

In the case of the limbs of a burnt offering, other items come as a requirement for it, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering. The burnt offering requires wood in order to be burned on the altar, which is not the case with regard to the blood. The limbs of the burnt offering are burned in the fire of the altar, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, whereas the blood is presented on the corners of the altar. The burnt offering is sacrificed on the external altar, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, as opposed to the blood, which is presented inside the Sanctuary in the cases of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to partake of its leftover [notar] parts, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not relevant to blood.

It is prohibited to partake of a burnt offering while in a state of ritual impurity, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not relevant to blood. It is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, as is the halakha with regard to a meal offering, which is not so with regard to the blood.