that the priest would first give her the water of the sota to drink, and only afterward would he sacrifice her meal-offering. Therefore, if the concern were due to the scroll, it would no longer be applicable, as it was already erased in the water of the sota before the meal-offering was brought. The efforts to fatigue her by making her hold the meal-offering must indicate that the Torah is protective of her.

It was taught in the mishna: All meal-offerings, from their beginning until their end, are placed in service vessels and remain there. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the Tosefta (Menaḥot 1:16): What is the procedure for meal-offerings? A person brings his meal-offering from his property in baskets [kelatot] of silver and of gold, and when he reaches the Temple he places it in a service vessel and sanctifies it in the service vessel, and he puts its oil and frankincense on it, and he carries it to the priest. And the priest then carries it to the altar and brings it near to the southwest horn of the altar, opposite the corner of the horn of the altar. And this is sufficient.

The baraita continues: And the priest then removes the frankincense to one side, and he removes a handful from the place where its oil has accumulated and mixed with the flour, and he puts the handful into a service vessel and consecrates it in the service vessel. And he then gathers its frankincense and puts it on top of the handful and brings it up onto the altar. And he brings it up and burns it in the service vessel; and he salts it and places it upon the fires.

The baraita continues: After the handful is sacrificed, the remainders of the meal-offering are eaten. And the priests are permitted to put wine and oil and honey in it, even though it is prohibited to offer honey on the altar. And they are prohibited only from allowing the meal-offering to become leavened.

The Gemara asks: In any event, the baraita teaches that the meal-offering is first placed in baskets of silver and baskets of gold brought from one’s home. This seems to contradict the mishna’s statement that all other meal-offerings are initially in service vessels. Rav Pappa said: The mishna means to say that meal-offerings are placed in vessels of silver and gold, as these are suitable to be service vessels if consecrated.

The Gemara notes: Since the mishna distinguishes in this regard between the meal-offering of the sota and all other meal-offerings, one may learn by inference that an Egyptian wicker basket is not suitable to be a service vessel even if it is consecrated. In accordance with whose opinion is this the case? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to service vessels that were made of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems them unfit, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems them fit.

The Gemara responds: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Say that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that wooden vessels are deemed fit with regard to those of superior quality; but does he say likewise with regard to vessels of lesser quality, e.g., a basket made of palm branches? Doesn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, hold to the principle articulated in the verse: “And when you offer the blind for a sacrifice, is it not evil! …If you would present it now unto your governor, will he be pleased with you or show you favor?” (Malachi 1:8)? Nothing that is unfit for presentation to a ruler may be brought to the Temple. Therefore, even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, must agree that a basket made of palm branches cannot be a service vessel.

§ The baraita states: He places it in a service vessel and sanctifies it in the service vessel. The Gemara asks: Can one learn from the unnecessary repetition of the term service vessel, that service vessels can sanctify their contents only with intention? Must one place the meal-offering in the service vessel with express intent to sanctify it? The Gemara answers: Say: He simply places it in the service vessel in order to sanctify it in the service vessel. He need not intend to sanctify it.

§ The baraita teaches: The owner of the meal-offering puts its oil and frankincense on it. The Gemara cites the source of this halakha: As it is stated: “And when anyone brings a meal-offering unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon” (Leviticus 2:1).

The baraita states: And he carries it to the priest. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:2).

The baraita states: And the priest then carries it to the altar. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written: “And you shall bring the meal-offering that is made of these things unto the Lord; and it shall be presented unto the priest, and he shall bring it unto the altar” (Leviticus 2:8).

The baraita states: The priest brings it near to the southwest horn of the altar, opposite the corner of the horn. And this is sufficient. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

The Gemara responds: As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). And it is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “Before the Lord,” one might have understood this to mean on the western side of the altar, opposite the Holy of Holies. Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar.” This must be the south of the altar, where the ramp is located. If the verse had stated only: In front of the altar, one might have understood it to mean specifically on the southern side. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” indicating the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The priest brings it near to the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the corner of the horn. And this is sufficient.

Rabbi Elazar says another interpretation: One might have thought that he offers it up on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. Say: Anywhere you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the statement of the other, and one of which fulfills itself and nullifies the statement of the other, leave the verse that fulfills itself and nullifies the other, and seize the one that fulfills itself and fulfills the other. The principle is applied as follows: When you say: “Before the Lord,” on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse: “In front of the altar,” on the southern side. But when you say: “In front of the altar,” on the southern side, you have also fulfilled: “Before the Lord,” on the western side. How so? He brings it near to the southern side of the corner.

The Gemara asks: But where have you fulfilled the phrase “before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna holds that the entire altar stands in the north of the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the entire southern side of the altar stood opposite the Holy of Holies in the west, and it can therefore be called: Before the Lord.

The Gemara asks: What is taught by the phrase: And this is sufficient? Rav Ashi said: This phrase was necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say: Require the priest to bring the meal-offering itself near to the corner of the altar without the use of a vessel. The baraita teaches us that this is not so, and one can bring it to the altar in its service vessel.

The Gemara asks: And why not say that this is indeed so? The Gemara responds: The verse states: “And you shall bring the meal-offering that is made of these things unto the Lord; and it shall be presented unto the priest, and he shall bring it unto the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); just as presentation to the priest is in a vessel, so too bringing it to the altar must be in a vessel.

The baraita states: And he removes its frankincense to one side. The Gemara explains: This is done in order that the frankincense not be removed along with the meal-offering when the priest removes a handful. As we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 6a): If he removed the handful and a pebble, or a grain of salt, or a crumb [koret] of frankincense came out in his hand, it is invalid. The handful must be entirely fine flour.

The baraita continues: And he removes a handful from the place where its oil has accumulated. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And he shall take from there his handful of the fine flour thereof, and of the oil thereof” (Leviticus 2:2). The Torah also states: “And the priest shall make the memorial part of it smoke, even of the groats thereof, and of the oil thereof” (Leviticus 2:16). The handful should be taken from the area where there is an abundance of oil.

The baraita continues: And he puts the handful into a service vessel and sanctifies it in the service vessel. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this sanctification? He has already sanctified it once, when he initially brought it to the Temple. The Gemara responds: The sanctification here is just as with the blood of the offerings. Although the knife sanctifies blood by contact with the neck of the animal, since the knife itself is a service vessel, the priest sanctifies it again when he collects it in the service vessel. Here too, it is not different; the meal-offering must be sanctified twice.

The baraita continues: And he gathers its frankincense and puts it on top of the handful. The Gemara cites the source: As it is written: “And he shall take up from his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering” (Leviticus 6:8).

The baraita continues: And he then brings it up