סקר
האם אתה לומד עם גמרא מפורשת/מבוארת?






 

Steinsaltz

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר