Let's finish Mishnayos in memory of those who were murdered in Israel.
Pledge Mishnayos
Mishnah.org Logo

Mishnayos Menachos Perek 3 Mishnah 2

מנחות פרק ג׳ משנה ב׳


If one did not pour the oil onto the meal offering, or did not mix the oil into the meal offering, or did not break the loaves into pieces, or did not add salt, or did not wave the omer meal offering or the meal offering of a sota, or did not bring the meal offering to the altar, or if it happened that the priest broke the meal offerings that require breaking into greater pieces than appropriate, or did not smear oil on the wafers requiring this (see Leviticus 2:4), in all these cases the meal offering is fit. If a handful of one meal offering, which is to be burned on the altar, was intermingled with a handful of another meal offering, or with the meal offering of priests, or with the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, or with the meal offering of libations accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings, all of which are burned in their entirety on the altar, it is fit for sacrifice, and the mixture is burned on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, one log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose, three log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.

לֹא יָצַק, לֹא בָלַל, לֹא פָתַת, לֹא מָלַח, לֹא הֵנִיף, לֹא הִגִּישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁפְּתָתָן פִּתִּים מְרֻבּוֹת, וְלֹא מְשָׁחָן, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. נִתְעָרֵב קֻמְצָהּ בְּקֹמֶץ חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִין, כְּשֵׁרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ וּבְמִנְחַת נְסָכִין, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה, וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ:


לא יצק – the order of the meal-offering; at the beginning he places the oil in a utensil and after that places the fine-flour, and after that he returns and pours the oil and stirs it and this is explained in the chapter [seven in Tractate Menahot], "אלו המנחות נקמצות" /These meal-offerings are grabbed” [75a

לא יצק ולא בלל כשר – as for example, he put all of the oil that was in the Log in the first gift which is prior to performing it. But if he was missing its oil, we stated in the first chapter [Tractate Menahot 11a – see Mishnah 3 in Chapter 1] that it is invalid. And in the Gemara in our chapter [18b], it proves that pouring is indispensable (i.e., it invalidates the act by its omission), and it explains [the phrase] “that he didn’t pour,” that a Kohen didn’t pour, but rather a non-Kohen (i.e., literally, “a foreigner”), that from the grabbing of a handful of meal-offering is the command for the priesthood, but pouring and stirring/kneading are appropriate for a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen), but it teaches, that he didn’t stir, by force it means that he didn’t mix/stir at all, for mixing/stirring definitely is not indispensable and our Mishnah should be read as follows: “if a Kohen did not pour but rather [it was done] by a foreigner, or he didn’t stir/mix at all, it is appropriate/kosher.

לא פתת (didn’t break the meal-offering into small pieces) – as it is written (Leviticus 2:6): “Break it into bits [and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering].” Even though it is written regarding a meal offering fried on a flat pan alone, the same law applies for all the meal-offerings that are baked first, such as for example, meal-offerings prepared in a flat pan and meal-offerings prepared in a deep pan, fried in a container filled with oil and that which is baked, it is commandmen to crumble all of them and afterwards take a handful of the meal-offering. And in a case wherehe did not crumble other than in order to take a fistful

לא מלח –[he did not salt] the entire meal-offering, but rather [only] that he took a handful of for a meal offering. But whereas, the salting of the handful is indispensable (i.e., it invalidates an act by omission).

לא הניף – in the sinner’s meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy (i.e., for a husband suspecting his wife of infidelity) requires waving.

לא הגיש – as it is written (Leviticus 2:8): “[it shall be brought to the priest] who shall take it up to the altar.” For the Kohen brings it to the altar and brings it near/offers it in the southwestern corner [of the altar] opposite the point of the corner (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 5, Mishnayot 5-6).

פתיתים מרובות – much larger than the expressed law for the meal-offering of an Israelite , doubling one into two [pieces] and two into four [pieces] and divides them (see Talmud Menahot 18b and Tractate Memahot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4) . And it is necessary to inform/teach us about large broken pieces and even though they inforom us that if he did not break them into small pieces, it is kosher/fit. For o might think I would say that there, where is the the law of loaves upon them, but here where there isn’t the law of loaves , and there are no [small] broken pieces, I would say, no, there it comes to teach us that the opposite is true (i.e., that this is not the case).

ולא משחן (see Mishnah Menahot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 3) – the wafters require anointing [with oil], as it is written (Exodus 29:2): “and unleavened wafers spread with oil,” after their baking we anoint them with oil over and over until he depletes all the oil in the LOG (i.e., a LOG equals the amount displaced by six eggs).

במנחת כהנים כשרה – that all of them are burned entirely like it

כמנחת כהן המשיח ובמנחת נסכים פסולה (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 2) – because the mixture of the handful of meal-offering of an Israelite is thick. One LOG of oil er an Issaron of fine flour, and the meal-offering accompanying libations [of wine] and that of the anointed priest, their mixture is soft, three LOGS for an Issaron (= 10 Ephah) , as it is written for the meal offering accompanying libations (Numbers 15:4): “[the person who presents a gift to the LORD shall bring as a grain offering:] a tenth of a measure of choice flour with a quarter of a HIN mixed in, and in the meal-offering of the anointed priest, it states (Leviticus 6:13): “a tenth of an ephah of choice flour as a regular grain offering, [half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening].” Behold it is for you like the meal-offering of the daily offering with is an Issaron of fine flour in a quarter-log of a Hin.

והן בולעות זו מזו (each absorbs from the other) – the handful of meal-offering absorbs from the meal-offering accompanying libations and from the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and the oil of these meal-offerings is greater than the handful of the meal-offering and nullifies it, and it is a meal-offering whose handful of meal-offering was not offered as incense and that which was gathered in the handful is disqualified. But the meal-offering accompanying libations is fit/kosher, for there wasn’t like its oil had been increased, since it wasn’t intentionally that the oil was mixed when it absorbs it is nullified regarding it, and it is as if it doesn’t exist. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

לא יצק. סדר המנחה, בתחלה נותן שמן בכלי, ואח״כ נותן את הסולת, ואח״כ חוזר ויוצק שמן ובולל והכי מפרש בפרק אלו המנחות נקמצות [דף ע״ה]:

לא יצק ולא בלל כשר. כגון שנתן כל השמן שבלוג במתן ראשון שהוא קודם לעשייתה. דאי חיסר שמנה אמרינן בפרק קמא [דף י״א] שהיא פסולה. ובגמרא בפרקין מוכח דיציקה מעכבת, ומפרש לא יצק, לא יצק כהן אלא זר, דמקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה אבל יציקה ובלילה כשרים בזר. ולא בלל דקתני, על כרחך לא בלל כלל, דבלילה ודאי אינה מעכבת ומתניתין הכי קאמר, לא יצק כהן אלא. זר, או לא בלל כלל, כשר:

לא פתת. [כדכתיב] (ויקרא ב׳) פחות אותה פתים. אע״ג דבמנחת מחבת בלבד כתיב, הוא הדין לכל המנחות הנאפות תחלה, כגון מחבת ומרחשת ומאפה, מצוה לפותתן כולן ואח״כ קומץ. וזה אם לא פתת אלא כדי קמיצה, כשר:

לא מלח. כל המנחה כולה, אלא הקומץ. דאילו מליחת הקומץ מעכבת היא:

לא הניף. במנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות דטעונות תנופה:

לא הגיש. כדכתיב (שם) והגישה אל המזבח. שהכהן מוליכה אצל המזבח ומגישה בקרן דרומית מערבית כנגד חודה של קרן:

פתיתים מרובות. גדולות יותר מהדין שמפורש בהן מנחת ישראל כופל אחת לשנים ושנים לארבע ומבדיל. ואיצטריך לאשמועינן פתיתים גדולות ואע״ג דאשמועינן דאי לא פתת כשרה. דסלקא דעתך אמינא דהתם הוא דאיכא תורת חלות עליהן, אבל הכא דלאו תורת חלות איכא ולא פתיתים איכא אימא לא, קמ״ל:

ולא משחן. הרקיקים הטעונים משיחה, כדכתיב (שמות כ״ט) ורקיקי מצות משוחים בשמן, אחר אפייתן מושחן וחוזר ומושחן עד שיכלה כל השמן שבלוג:

במנחת כהנים כשרה. שכולן כליל כמוהו:

במנחת כהן המשיח ובמנחת נסכים פסולה. לפי שהקומץ דמנחת ישראל בלילתו עבה. לוג אחד שמן לעשרון סלת, ומנחת נסכים ושל כהן משיח בלילתן רכה, שלשה לוגים לעשרון, כדכתיב במנחת נסכים (במדבר ט״ו) עשרון בלול ברביעית ההין שמן, ובמנחת כהן המשיח הוא אומר (ויקרא ו׳) סולת מנחה תמיד. הרי היא לך כמנחת התמיד שהיא עשרון סולת בלול ברביעית ההין:

והן בולעות זו מזו. הקומץ בולע ממנחת נסכים וממנחת כהן משיח, ורבה שמנן של מנחות הללו על הקומץ ומבטלות ליה, והוי מנחה שלא הוקטר קומצה ופסולה הנקמצת. אבל מנחת נסכים כשרה ולא הוי כריבה שמנה, כיון שלא מדעת עירבו השמן שבולעתו בטל לגבה וכמאן דליתיה. ואין הלכה כר׳ יהודה: