and he intended to partake of the meal offering in an improper manner, whether outside its designated area or beyond its designated time, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability to receive karet if one partakes of it.

The Gemara presents an alternative version of this baraita: If, while the handful was in his right hand, he intended to partake of the meal offering outside its designated area, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability to receive karet if one partakes of it. If he intended to partake of it beyond its designated time, then the offering is piggul and one who partakes of it is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon.

And the Rabbis say: Once he put the handful in his left hand, the placing of it in his left hand renders it unfit and it cannot be rendered fit by returning it to his right hand. What is the reason? It is because it requires sanctification in a service vessel, and once he put it in his left hand, it is considered like blood that spilled from an animal’s neck onto the floor before being collected in a service vessel and one then gathered it, which is unfit and cannot be rendered fit by then being placed in a service vessel.

The Gemara notes: By inference, one can conclude that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon do not require sanctification of the handful by placing it in a service vessel. Accordingly, this serves as a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who stated that even Rabbi Shimon requires sanctification in a service vessel. The Gemara affirms: This is a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Shimon, if the priest transferred the handful to his left hand he should return the handful to his right hand. The Gemara comments: This supports the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as he said that according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the rites of the meal offering must be performed with the priest’s right hand. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, as it teaches that the handful must be transferred back to his right hand, whereas he states that once the handful has been removed from a service vessel it may be sacrificed in any manner?

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yannai could say to you: I stated my ruling in accordance with the opinion of the tanna who taught that the burning of the fats and the limbs and the sacrifice of the meal offering can all take place with either the right or left hand. And I hold that he does not teach it disjunctively, as it was explained in order to reconcile the baraita with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rather, it is to be understood according to its straightforward meaning.

§ The mishna teaches: If the priest burned the handful of a meal offering twice, i.e., in two increments, it is fit. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The handful is fit if it is burned twice, where half of the handful is burned each time, but not if it is burned several times, in smaller increments. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is fit if it is burned twice, and it is fit even if it is burned several times.

The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between the two opinions? Rabbi Zeira said: The dispute between the two is with regard to whether there is significance to a handful that is less than the size of two olives and whether there is significance to the burning of less than an olive-bulk on the altar.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that there is no significance to a handful that is less than the size of two olives and there is no significance to the burning of less than an olive-bulk on the altar. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that the handful may be burned in two increments is meant literally, and the handful may be divided into only two equal portions, where each one contains exactly one olive-bulk. It may not be divided further, since doing so would result in the burning of less than an olive-bulk on the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that there is significance to a handful that is less than the size of two olives and there is significance to the burning of less than an olive-bulk on the altar. Therefore, if the handful was divided into several small portions and each portion was burned separately, it is fit.

§ It was stated: From when precisely does the sacrifice of the handful render permitted the remainder of the meal offering for consumption by the priests? Rabbi Ḥanina says: From when the fire takes hold of it, i.e., when it ignites. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From when the fire consumes most of the handful.

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar Rav Yitzḥak: I will explain to you the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The verse states: “And behold, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace” (Genesis 19:28), and a furnace does not release smoke until the fire takes hold of the majority of the fuel. Rabbi Yoḥanan derived from this verse that the majority of the handful must be consumed by the fire, since the priests are instructed to make the handful smoke, as it is written: “And the priest shall make the memorial part thereof smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 2:2).

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say that Rav Amram said that it is taught in a baraita: I have derived only with regard to items whose usual manner is to be sacrificed at night, for example, the limbs of the burnt offering and the fats [pedarim] of the burnt offering, that the priest may bring them up and burn them after sunset and they are consumed throughout the entire night. This is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning” (Leviticus 6:2).

The baraita continues: With regard to items whose usual manner is to be sacrificed during the day, for example, the handful of the meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations, from where is it derived that the priest may bring them up and burn them after sunset?

The Gemara interjects: Why would they be allowed to be burned after sunset? But didn’t you say that these are items whose usual manner is to be sacrificed during the day? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the question of the baraita is as follows: From where is it derived that these items may be brought up and burned concurrent with the setting of the sun, in which case they are consumed throughout the entire night and not during the day? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2), which included everything that is sacrificed on the altar.

Ravin bar Rav Adda challenges: But if the handful is brought up and burned concurrent with the setting of the sun, you do not find that the majority of it is consumed by the fire before sunset. How does this baraita accord with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the majority of the handful must be consumed by the fire in order to render permitted the consumption of the remainder by the priests? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where the baraita does not require the consumption by fire of the majority of the handful, it is referring only to that which is required in order for the altar to receive the handful, so that it is considered the food of the altar and may continue to burn all night long. There, Rabbi Yoḥanan states that in order to render permitted the consumption of the remainder by the priests, the majority of the handful must be consumed by the fire.

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Elazar teaches the baraita the way it was initially presented, as asking how it is known that items that are usually sacrificed during the day may be burned after sunset. And he interprets the baraita as referring to parts of the offering that were dislodged from the fire after sunset, which may be returned to the fire throughout the night. And similarly, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yannai said the baraita is referring to parts that were dislodged from the fire after sunset.

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yannai in fact say this? But doesn’t Rabbi Yannai say: In the case of incense that was dislodged from on top of the altar, the priests may not return even small lumps of it to the fire? And similarly, Rav Ḥanina bar Minyumi from the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught in a baraita: The verse states: “That which the fire will consume of the burnt offering on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This teaches that if parts of a burnt offering that were partially consumed were dislodged from the external altar you shall return them, but you do not return incense that was partially consumed and was dislodged from the internal altar. The Gemara answers: Remove from the baraita here the word incense, so that it is not included in the list of items that may be burned throughout the night.

Rabbi Asi said: When Rabbi Elazar would explain the halakhot of the meal offerings, he would raise this dilemma: Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: With regard to a handful that a priest arranged on the altar, and he arranged the arrangement of wood on the altar on top of it, what is the halakha? Is this considered a proper manner of burning, or is this not considered a proper manner of burning, since the handful is not arranged on top of the wood? The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Ḥizkiyya raises a dilemma: With regard to the limbs of the burnt offering that a priest arranged on the altar and arranged the arrangement of wood on the altar on top of them, what is the halakha? Do we say that the Merciful One states: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8), teaching that they must be placed specifically upon the wood? Or perhaps, since it is written in another verse: “That which the fire will consume of the burnt offering on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that the burnt offering may be arranged directly on the altar, if the priest desires to arrange the limbs in this manner he may do so, and if he desires to arrange them in that manner he may also do so. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raises a dilemma: With regard to the limbs of an offering that a priest arranged adjacent to the arrangement of wood on the altar, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains: Do not raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the one who says that the phrase “upon [al] the wood” is meant literally,