סוטה יד

סוטה יד

גַּסְטְרָא שֶׁל בֵּית פְּעוֹר: הַרְאֵנוּ הֵיכָן מֹשֶׁה קָבוּר. עָמְדוּ לְמַעְלָה — נִדְמָה לָהֶם לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה — נִדְמָה לָהֶם לְמַעְלָה. נֶחְלְקוּ לִשְׁתֵּי כִיתּוֹת, אוֹתָן שֶׁעוֹמְדִים לְמַעְלָה — נִדְמָה לָהֶן לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה — נִדְמָה לָהֶן לְמַעְלָה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ״.

the garrison [gastera] of Beth Peor and said to them: Show us where Moses is buried. As the men stood above on the upper section of the mountain, it appeared to them as if the grave was below in the lower section. As they stood below, it appeared to them to be above. They divided into two groups, one above and one below. To those who were standing above, the grave appeared to them to be below; to those who were standing below, the grave appeared to them to be above, to fulfill that which is stated: “And no man knows of his grave to this day” (Deuteronomy 34:6).

רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אַף מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הֵיכָן קָבוּר. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַךְ מֹשֶׁה אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִקְבַּר מֹשֶׁה אֵצֶל בֵּית פְּעוֹר — כְּדֵי לְכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה פְעוֹר.

Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Even Moses our teacher himself does not know where he is buried. It is written here: “And no man knows of his grave,” and it is written there: “And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death” (Deuteronomy 33:1). In other words, even Moses, as he is referred to by the term “man,” does not know his burial place. And Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: For what reason was Moses buried near Beth Peor? In order to atone for the incident that transpired at Beth Peor (Numbers, chapter 25).

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַחֲרֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ״, וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְאָדָם לְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר שְׁכִינָה? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵשׁ אוֹכְלָה הוּא״!

And Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “After the Lord your God shall you walk, and Him shall you fear, and His commandments shall you keep, and unto His voice shall you hearken, and Him shall you serve, and unto Him shall you cleave” (Deuteronomy 13:5)? But is it actually possible for a person to follow the Divine Presence? But hasn’t it already been stated: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24), and one cannot approach fire.

אֶלָּא, לְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מָה הוּא מַלְבִּישׁ עֲרוּמִּים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כׇּתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם״ — אַף אַתָּה הַלְבֵּשׁ עֲרוּמִּים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּיקֵּר חוֹלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה׳ בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא״ — אַף אַתָּה בַּקֵּר חוֹלִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִיחֵם אֲבֵלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ״ — אַף אַתָּה נַחֵם אֲבֵלִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קָבַר מֵתִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״ — אַף אַתָּה קְבוֹר מֵתִים.

He explains: Rather, the meaning is that one should follow the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He. He provides several examples. Just as He clothes the naked, as it is written: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21), so too, should you clothe the naked. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, visits the sick, as it is written with regard to God’s appearing to Abraham following his circumcision: “And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre” (Genesis 18:1), so too, should you visit the sick. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, consoles mourners, as it is written: “And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed Isaac his son” (Genesis 25:11), so too, should you console mourners. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried the dead, as it is written: “And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab” (Deuteronomy 34:6), so too, should you bury the dead.

״כׇּתְנוֹת עוֹר״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הָעוֹר, וְחַד אָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁהָעוֹר נֶהֱנֶה מִמֶּנּוּ.

The Gemara discusses the verse: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the meaning of the term “garments of skin.” One says that these garments were made of something that comes from the skin, and one says that these garments were something from which the skin benefits.

דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: תּוֹרָה תְּחִלָּתָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְסוֹפָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. תְּחִילָּתָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כׇּתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם״, וְסוֹפָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״.

Rabbi Samlai taught: With regard to the Torah, its beginning is an act of kindness and its end is an act of kindness. Its beginning is an act of kindness, as it is written: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). And its end is an act of kindness, as it is written: “And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab” (Deuteronomy 34:6).

דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְאַוָּה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לִיכָּנֵס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל? וְכִי לֶאֱכוֹל מִפִּרְיָהּ הוּא צָרִיךְ?! אוֹ לִשְׂבּוֹעַ מִטּוּבָהּ הוּא צָרִיךְ?! אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר מֹשֶׁה: הַרְבֵּה מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶכָּנֵס אֲנִי לָאָרֶץ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְקַיְּימוּ כּוּלָּן עַל יָדִי.

Rabbi Samlai taught: For what reason did Moses our teacher greatly desire to enter Eretz Yisrael? Did he need to eat of its produce, or did he need to satisfy himself from its goodness? Rather, this is what Moses said: Many mitzvot were commanded to the Jewish people, and some of them can be fulfilled only in Eretz Yisrael, so I will enter the land in order that they can all be fulfilled by me.

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: כְּלוּם אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ אֶלָּא לְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר? מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִילּוּ עֲשִׂיתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָכֵן אֲחַלֶּק לוֹ בָרַבִּים וְאֶת עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְאֶת פּוֹשְׁעִים נִמְנָה וְהוּא חֵטְא רַבִּים נָשָׂא וְלַפֹּשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ״.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Do you seek to enter the land to perform these mitzvot for any reason other than to receive a reward? I will ascribe you credit as if you had performed them and you will receive your reward, as it is stated: “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12).

״לָכֵן אֲחַלֶּק לוֹ בָּרַבִּים״. יָכוֹל כָּאַחֲרוֹנִים וְלֹא כָּרִאשׁוֹנִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶת עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל״, כְּאַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב, שֶׁהֵן עֲצוּמִים בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת. ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ״, שֶׁמָּסַר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Samlai proceeds to expound the verse “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great” to mean that he will receive reward. One might have thought that he will receive reward like the later ones and not like the earlier ones, so the verse states: “And he shall divide the spoil with the mighty,” meaning like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were mighty in Torah and in mitzvot. “Because he bared his soul unto death,” meaning he gave himself over to death on behalf of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Yet now, if You will forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray You, out of Your book that You have written” (Exodus 32:32).

״וְאֶת פּוֹשְׁעִים נִמְנָה״ — שֶׁנִּמְנָה עִם מֵתֵי מִדְבָּר. ״וְהוּא חֵטְא רַבִּים נָשָׂא״ — שֶׁכִּיפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל. ״וְלַפֹּשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ״ — שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה. וְאֵין פְּגִיעָה אֶלָּא תְּפִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה אַל תִּתְפַּלֵּל בְּעַד הָעָם הַזֶּה וְאַל תִּשָּׂא בַעֲדָם רִנָּה וּתְפִלָּה וְאַל תִּפְגַּע בִּי״.

“And was numbered with the transgressors,” meaning that he was counted among those who died in the desert, for, just like them, he did not enter Eretz Yisrael. “Yet he bore the sin of many,” as he atoned for the incident of the Golden Calf. “And made intercession [yafgia] for the transgressors,” as he requested mercy for the sinners of Israel so that they should engage in repentance. And the word pegia means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “Therefore pray not you for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession [tifga] to Me; for I will not hear you” (Jeremiah 7:16).

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ

הָיָה מֵבִיא אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדֶיהָ כְּדֵי לְיַגְּעָהּ.

MISHNA: The husband of the sota would bring his wife’s meal-offering to the priest in an Egyptian wicker basket made of palm branches, and he would place the meal-offering in her hands for her to hold throughout the ritual in order to fatigue her. This might lead her to confess her guilt and not drink the water of a sota unnecessarily.

כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת תְּחִילָּתָן וְסוֹפָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וְזוֹ תְּחִלָּתָהּ בִּכְפִיפָה מִצְרִית, וְסוֹפָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת.

The mishna lists differences between this meal-offering and other meal-offerings. Generally, all meal-offerings, from their beginnings, i.e., the moment they are consecrated, and until their ends, i.e., the moment they are sacrificed, must be in a service vessel. But in the case of this one, its beginning is in a wicker basket and only at its end, immediately before it is offered, is it placed in a service vessel.

כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה. כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת מִן הַחִטִּין, וְזוֹ בָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין — הִיא הָיְתָה בָּאָה גֶּרֶשׂ, וְזוֹ בָּאָה קֶמַח. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ מַעֲשֵׂה בְּהֵמָה, כָּךְ קׇרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה.

All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, and this one requires neither oil nor frankincense. Furthermore, all other meal-offerings are brought from wheat, and this one is brought from barley. Although in fact the omer meal-offering is also brought from barley, it is still different in that it was brought as groats, i.e., high-quality meal. The meal-offering of the sota, however, is brought as unsifted barley flour. Rabban Gamliel says: This hints that just as her actions of seclusion with another man were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food, i.e., barley and not wheat.

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, אַבָּא חָנִין אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: [וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה —] כְּדֵי לְיַגְּעָהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּחֲזוֹר בָּהּ. אִם כָּכָה חָסָה תּוֹרָה עַל עוֹבְרֵי רְצוֹנוֹ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר עַל עוֹשֵׂי רְצוֹנוֹ.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Abba Ḥanin says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: And why is so much done to her? It is in order to fatigue her, so that she will retract and confess her guilt and be spared death. And if the Torah is so protective of those who transgress His will, i.e., the sota, who secluded herself with the man she was warned against, then by a fortiori inference He is protective of those who do His will.

וּמִמַּאי מִשּׁוּם דְּחָסָה הוּא? דִּילְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּימָּחֵק מְגִילָּה! קָסָבַר

The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that they attempt to induce her to confess because the Torah is protective of the sota? Perhaps it is in order that the scroll of the sota, containing the name of God, will not be erased. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Eliezer holds

מַשְׁקָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. דְּאִי מִשּׁוּם מְגִילָּה הָא אִימְּחִיקָא לַהּ.

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.

כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: סֵדֶר מְנָחוֹת, כֵּיצַד? אָדָם מֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ בִּקְלָתוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְשֶׁל זָהָב, וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּמְקַדְּשָׁהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ שַׁמְנָהּ וּלְבוֹנָתָהּ, וּמוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן. וְכֹהֵן מוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, וּמַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן, וְדַיּוֹ.

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.

וּמְסַלֵּק אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה לְצַד אֶחָד, וְקוֹמֵץ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. וּמְלַקֵּט אֶת לְבוֹנָתָהּ וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל גַּבָּיו, וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתוֹ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וּמַעֲלֵהוּ וּמַקְטִירוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וּמוֹלְחוֹ, וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים.

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.

קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, וְרַשָּׁאִין הַכֹּהֲנִים לִיתֵּן לְתוֹכָהּ יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ, וְאֵין אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלְּחַמֵּץ.

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.

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא בִּקְלָתוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וּבִקְלָתוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֵימָא בְּכֵלִים הָרְאוּיִין לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת.

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.

מִכְּלַל דִּכְפִיפָה מִצְרִית לָא חַזְיָא, כְּמַאן — דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן שֶׁל עֵץ, רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

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.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲשׁוּבִין, בִּפְחוּתִין מִי אָמַר? לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ״?!

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.

וְנוֹתְנָהּ לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, וּמְקַדְּשָׁהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ — כְּלִי שָׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת? אֵימָא: נוֹתְנָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת לְקַדְּשָׁהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת.

§ 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.

וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ שַׁמְנָהּ וּלְבוֹנָתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה״.

§ 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).

וּמוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳״.

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).

וְכֹהֵן מוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.

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).

מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ. מְנָלַן —

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?

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, וְתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. אִי אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״. הָא כֵּיצַד — מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן, וְדַיּוֹ.

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.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה בְּמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן — אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירוֹ — מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְסִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ. כְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב — בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן.

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.

וְהֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.

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.

מַאי ״וְדַיּוֹ״? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: תִּיבְּעֵי הַגָּשַׁת מִנְחָה גּוּפַהּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְגוֹ׳ וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ — מָה הַקְרָבָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן בִּכְלִי, אַף הַגָּשָׁה אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ בִּכְלִי.

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.

וּמְסַלֵּק אֶת לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְצַד אֶחָד. כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּקְּמוֹץ בַּהֲדֵי מִנְחָה, כְּדִתְנַן: קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ צְרוֹר אוֹ גַּרְגֵּר מֶלַח אוֹ קוֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה — פָּסוּל.

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.

וְקוֹמֵץ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״מִסׇּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״, ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״.

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.

וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. לְמָה לִי? הָא קַדְּשַׁהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא! מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַדָּם; דָּם, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקַדֵּישְׁתֵּיהּ סַכִּין בְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה, הֲדַר מְקַדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

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.

וּמְלַקֵּט אֶת לְבוֹנָתָהּ וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל גַּבָּיו — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״.

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).

וּמַעֲלֵהוּ

The baraita continues: And he then brings it up