renders [the offering] permissible. But the Sages agree with R. Meir that if it was a Sinner’s Meal-offering or a Suspected Adulteress’s Meal¬ offering, and he purposed an act that would make the Handful to become Refuse, the offering becomes Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred, since it is the Handful [alone] that renders [these] per¬ missible.1 If a man slaughtered one of the lambs purposing to eat the two loaves2 on the morrow, or if he offered one of the dishes [of frank¬ incense] purposing to eat the two rows [of Shewbread] on the morrow, R. Meir says: The offering becomes Refuse, and punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred. But the Sages say: It does not become Refuse unless a man makes all that to become Refuse which renders [the offering] per¬ missible.3 If he slaughtered one of the lambs purposing to eat of it on the morrow, it becomes Refuse, but the other remains valid. [If he slaughtered one of the lambs] purposing to eat of the other on the morrow, they both remain valid.
3. i. If a man took the Handful from the Meal-offering purposing to eat a thing that it is not usual to eat, or to burn a thing that it is not usual to bum, the Handful remains valid. R. Eliezer declares it invalid. [And if he purposed] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat, or to burn a thing that it is usual to burn, and it is less than an olive’s bulk, the Handful remains valid. [If he purposed] to eat a half-olive’s bulk and to burn a half-olive’s bulk, it remains valid, since eating and burning cannot be included together.
2. If he did not pour [the oil over the fine flour], or mingle [the oil with the unleavened cakes], or break up small [the Baking-pan Meal-offering], or salt it, or wave it,4 or bring it near, or if he broke it up too small,5 or did not anoint it, the Meal-offering remains valid.6 If the Handful of one Meal¬ offering was confused with the Handful of another, or with the Priests’ Meal-offering,7 or with the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest,® or with the Meal-offering offered with drink-offerings,9 it remains valid. R. Judah says: If it is confused with the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest or the Meal-offering offered with drink-offerings, it becomes invalid, since the mixture of the one10 is thick and the mixture of the other11 is thin, so that they become swallowed up the one into the other.
3. If two Meal-offerings from which the Handful had not been taken were mixed together, but the Handful can still be taken from each by itself, they remain valid; otherwise they become invalid. If a Handful was mixed with a Meal-offering from which the Handful had not been taken, it may not be burnt, but if it is burnt, the Meal-offering from which the Handful had been taken is reckoned to the credit of its owner,12 but that from which the Handful had not been taken is not reckoned to the credit of its owner. If the Handful was mixed with the residue of a Meal-offering * These two Meal-offerings have no frankincense; Lev. 5", Num. 5“.
3 Lev. 23”. 3 i.e. both lambs or both dishes of incense.
* The Omer or the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal -offering. s See below, 6*.
6 In those cases for which these acts are respectively prescribed. 7 Lev. 6”.
* Lev. 6“. These two were both to be wholly burnt.
9 See p. 472, n. 1 1. Cf. below, 9*. This, too, was wholly burnt.
10 The ordinary Meal-offering; it had one log of oil to the Tenth of an Ephah of flour.
11 The High Priest’s had three logs of oil to the Tenth of an Ephah of flour, while for the ‘Meal-offering offered with drink-offerings’ (i.e. the Meal-offering accompanying Daily and Additional Whole-offerings), the mixture was one Tenth of an Ephah and three logs of oil for a lamb, two Tenths and four logs for a ram, and three Tenths and six logs for a bullock. See below, 9’. 11 So that he need not bring another.
Jl or with that of another Meal-offering, it should not be burnt; but if it is burnt it is reckoned to the credit of its owner. If the Handful had become unclean and yet was offered, the frontlet1 effects acceptance,2 but if it had been taken out [of the Temple Court] and was [afterward] offered, the frontlet does not effect acceptance; for the frontlet effects acceptance for [an offering that was afterward found to be] unclean, but it does not effect acceptance for aught taken out [from the Temple Court].
4. If the residue of a Meal-offering became unclean, or was burnt or lost, according to the rule of R. Eliezer3 it remains valid, but according to the rule of R. Joshua it becomes invalid. If it4 had not been put into a vessel of ministry it is invalid, but R. Simeon declares it valid. If its Hand¬ ful was burnt in two portions, it remains valid.
5. The smaller part5 of the Handful can impair [the validness] of the greater part; of the Tenth [of the Ephah]6 the smaller part can impair the greater part; of the wine7 the smaller part can impair the greater part; of the oil, the smaller part can impair the greater part; of the fine flour and the oil, each can impair the other.
6. Of the two he-goats8 of the Day of Atonement the one can impair the validness of the other; of the two lambs9 of Pentecost the one can impair the validness of the other; of the two loaves10 the one can impair the validness of the other; of the two dishes1' [of frankincense] the one can impair the validness of the other; of the two rows'2 [of the Shewbread] the one can impair the validness of the other; the two rows and the two dishes can each impair the validness of the other; the two kinds [of cakes] in the offering of the Nazirite,13 the three kinds used for the [Red] Heifer,14 and the four kinds used for the Thank-offering,'5 the four kinds used for the Lulab,16 and the four kinds used for the leper,17 can each impair the valid¬ ness of the others. The seven sprinklings'8 [of the blood] of the [Red] Heifer can each impair the validness of the others. The seven sprinklings between the bars'9 and those on the veil [of the Holy of Holies] and those on the Golden Altar can each impair the validness of the others.
7. The seven branches of the candlestick20 can each impair the validness of the others; its seven lamps21 can each impair the validness of the others. The two portions [of Scripture] in the Mezuzah 22 can each impair the valid¬ ness of the other: even the shape of one letter can impair their validness. The four portions [of Scripture] in the phylacteries23 can each impair the 1 Ex. 2818. 2 See Zeb. 812; cf. Pes. 77.
3 Who held (Pes. 77a) that if the blood was sprinkled of a beast whose flesh became un¬ clean or which was lost, the offering is still reckoned valid.
4 The whole of the Meal-offering or the Handful.
s i.c. if aught soever was lacking in it.
6 The quantity of flour prescribed for most Meal-offerings.
7 Prescribed as an adjunct to most animal-offerings. It could also be offered alone as a freewill- offering.
8 Lev. 165. If one was lost or died (see Yom. 61) the other by itself cannot avail; and the same principle, with the necessary modifications, applies in the rest of the items detailed in this and the following paragraDhs.
14 Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool. Num. 106.
18 Unleavened cakes, unleavened wafers, cakes of soaked fine flour, and cakes of leavened bread. Lev. 71-' n.
16 App. I. 20: citron with palm-branch, myrtle, and willow. Lev. 2340.
17 Cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and the two living birds. Lev. 14s.
18 Num. 194. 19 On the Day of Atonement. Lev. 1614' IS; cf. Yom. 5s.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM validness of the others: even the shape of one letter can impair their valid¬ ness. The four Fringes1 can each impair the validness of the others, since the four together are one ordinance. R. Ishmael says: The four are four ordinances.
4. 1. The blue [in the fringes] does not impair the validness of the white, nor does the white impair the validness of the blue.2 The phylactery of the arm cannot impair the validness of the phylactery of the head, nor can the phylactery of the head impair the validness of the phylactery of the arm. The fine flour and the oil cannot impair the validness of the wine,3 nor can the wine impair their validness. The sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer Altar cannot impair the validness of each other.
2. The bullocks and the rams and the he-lambs [for the Feast of Pente¬ cost]4 do not impair the validness of each other. R. Simeon says: If they had [means enough] for the many bullocks but had not [means enough] for the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock with its drink- offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings.
3. The bullock and the rams and the lambs and the he-goat5 do not im¬ pair the validness of the Bread-offering, nor does the Bread-offering impair their validness. The Bread-offering can impair the validness of the lambs but the lambs cannot impair the validness of the Bread-offering. So R. Akiba. R. Simeon b. Nanos said: Not so, but the lambs can impair the validness of the Bread-offering while the Bread-offering cannot impair the validness of the lambs; for like as we find that when Israel was in the wilderness forty years they offered lambs without the Bread-offering,6 so also now they may offer the lambs without the Bread-offering. R. Simeon said: The Ilalakah 7 is according to the words of Ben Nanos, but the reason is not according to his words; for whatsoever [offerings] were enjoined in the Book of Numbers were offered in the wilderness; whereas whatsoever offerings were enjoined in the Book of Leviticus were not offered in the wilderness; but when they were come into the Land [of Israel] they offered both kinds. Why, then, can I say that they may offer the lambs without the Bread-offering? Because it is the lambs that render their own offering permissible1* without the Bread-offering;9 but if the Bread-offering is brought without the lambs, there is naught that renders it permissible.
4. The Daily Whole-offerings10 cannot impair the validness of the Additional Offerings,11 nor can the Additional Offerings impair the valid¬ ness of the Daily Whole-offerings, nor can the Additional Offerings impair the validness of each other. If they have not offered a lamb in the morning they may offer it in the afternoon. R. Simeon said: When? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error; but if they acted wantonly and offered no lamb in the morning, they may not offer it in the afternoon. If 1 In each fringe there should be three white threads and one blue, or two of each, even if a fringe was all white or all blue it remains valid.
3 Flour, oil, and wine were prescribed for most of the animal-offerings.
s Offered with the Bread-offering at Pentecost. Lev. 23161.
6 They had no flour but only manna.
Some texts omit ‘without the Bread-offering’. 10 Num. 283.
The special supplementary offerings brought on Sabbaths, new moons, But 7 9 11 and Festivalthey have not burnt the incense1 in the morning they may burn it in the afternoon. R. Simeon said: The whole [Incense-offering] could be offered in the afternoon, since the Golden Altar was dedicated only by the incense of sweet spices that was offered in the afternoon,2 and the Altar of the Whole-offering only by the Daily Whole-offering of the morning, and the Table only by the Shewbread on the Sabbath, and the Candlestick only by [the kindling of] its seven lamps in the afternoon.
5. The Baken Cakes3 of the High Priest were not brought a half[-Tenth of an Ephah] at a time; but a whole Tenth was brought; this was divided, and a half was offered in the morning and a half in the afternoon. If the [High] Priest that offered the half in the morning died, and they appointed another priest in his stead, he may not bring a half of the Tenth from his own house or the half of the Tenth of the first priest; but he must bring a whole Tenth, and bring one half, and suffer the other half to perish. Thus two halves are offered and two halves are suffered to perish. If they did not appoint another priest, at whose charges was the offering made? R. Simeon says: At the charges of the congregation. R. Judah says: At the charges of the heirs; and a whole Tenth must be offered.
5. 1. All Meal -offerings were offered unleavened, excepting the leavened [cakes prescribed] for the Thank-offering and the Two Loaves,4 which were offered leavened. R. Meir says: The leaven for them is set apart from their own [dough] and [with this] they are leavened. R. Judah says: Even that is not the best way, but [old] leaven is brought and put into the measure and the measure is filled up [with meal]. They5 said to him: Even so [the quantity prescribed for the Meal-offering] may sometimes be too little and sometimes too much.6 2. All Meal-offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water, and care was needful lest they became leavened; if they suffered the residue to become leavened they transgress a negative command, for it is written, No meal offering which ye shall offer unto the Lord shall be made with leaven.1 They may become liable as well in the kneading as in the rolling and as in the baking.
3. Some [Meal-offerings] require oil and frankincense; some require oil but not frankincense; some require frankincense but not oil; and some require neither oil nor frankincense. These require both oil and frankin¬ cense: the Meal-offering of Fine Flour,8 of the Baking-Pan,9 of the Frying- Pan,10 of the Cakes and of the Wafers,11 the Meal-offering of the Priests and the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest;1 2 the Meal-offering of a gentile13 and the Meal-offering of women,14 and the Meal-offering of the Omer.li The Meal-offering offered with drink-offerings16 requires oil but not frankincense; the Shewbread17 requires frankincense but not oil. The Two Loaves'8 and the Sinner’s Meal-offering and the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal-offering19 require neither oil nor frankincense.
- Some texts omit ‘that was offered in the afternoon'.
3 Lev. 6**. These were offered daily, and not only ‘in the day when he is anointed’. Cf.
* At Pentecost. See Lev. 23'’. * Some texts read ‘he’, i.e. R. Meir.
4 In bulk, depending on whether the yeast was thin or thick in consistency.
498 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM 4. A man may become culpable both because of the oil in itself and be¬ cause of the frankincense in itself. If1 he put oil thereon he makes it invalid, and if frankincense, he must pick it off again. If he put oil on the residue he has not transgressed a negative command.2 If he but put the one vessel above the other vessel3 he does not make it invalid.
5. Some [Meal-offerings] require bringing near4 but not waving;5 some require waving but not bringing near; some require both bringing near and waving; some require neither bringing near nor waving. These require bringing near but not waving: the Meal-offering of Fine Flour, of the Baking-Pan, of the Frying-Pan, of the Cakes, and of the Wafers, the Meal-offering of the Priests and the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, the Meal-offering of a gentile, and the Meal-offering of women, and the Sinner’s Meal-offering. R. Simeon says: Bringing near does not apply to the Meal-offering of the Priests and the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, since no Handful is taken from them;6 and where no Handful is taken no bringing near is needed.
6. These require waving but not bringing near: the leper’s log of oil and his Guilt-offering7 (also the First-fruits,8 according to R. Eliezer b. Jacob) and the sacrificial portions of the Peace-offering of the individual and the breast and the thigh thereof whether [they are the offerings of] men or women,9 ([and the waving must be fulfilled] by Israelites and not by others);10 and the Two Loaves and the Lambs of Pentecost. How is the waving fulfilled? The Two Loaves are put beside the two Lambs, and he puts his two hands beneath them and swings them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, Which is waved and which is heaved up.u The waving was on the east side and the bringing near on the west side, and the acts of waving came before the acts of bringing near. The Meal-offering of the Otner and the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal¬ offering require both waving and bringing near. The Shewbread and the Meal-offering offered with drink-offerings require neither waving nor bringing near.
7. R. Simeon says: For three kinds [of offering] there are required three rites, two always for each kind [of offering] but not the third. And these are they: the Peace-offerings of the individual and the Peace-offerings of the congregation, and the leper’s Guilt-offering. The Peace-offerings of the individual require laying on of hands for the living beasts and waving after they are slaughtered, but waving is not required for living beasts. The Peace-offerings of the congregation require waving both for the living beasts and also after they are slaughtered, but the laying on of hands is not required. The leper’s Guilt-offering requires the laying on of hands and waving for the living beast, but waving is not required after it is slaughtered.
8. If a man said, ‘I pledge myself to a Baking-Pan [Meal-offering]’, he may not bring a Frying-Pan [Meal-offering]; and if ‘to a Frying-Pan [Meal¬ offering]’, he may not bring a Baking-Pan [Meal-offering]. Wherein does 1 When oil or frankincense are not prescribed. * Lev. 5U.
J The one containing oil or frankincense over one containing the Meal-offering.
4 To the Altar; Lev. a'. * See par. 6.
6 They are burnt in their entirety. 7 Lev. 14”* **.
10 Because of Lev. 7**, ‘Speak unto the sons of Israel’, thus excluding women and gentiles.
a baking-pan differ from a frying-pan? Only in that the frying-pan has a cover and the baking-pan has no cover. So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel says: A frying-pan is deep and what is cooked therein is spongy, while the baking-pan is flat and what is cooked thereon is solid.
9. If a man said, ‘I pledge myself [to a Meal-offering baked] in an oven’, he may not bring what is baked in a stove or baked on hot tiles or baked in the cauldrons of the Arabs.1 R. Judah says: If he wished he could offer what is baked in a stove. [If he said,] ‘I pledge myself to a baked Meal- offering’, he may not offer the half in cakes and the half in wafers. R. Simeon permits it since both are a like kind of offering.
6. 2 1. From these Meal-offerings is the Handful taken, and the residue falls to the priests: the Meal-offering3 of Fine Flour, and of the Baking- Pan, and of the Frying-Pan, of the Cakes and of the Wafers; the Meal¬ offering of a Gentile, the Meal-offering of women, the Meal-offering of the Omer, the Sinner’s Meal-offering, and the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal¬ offering. R. Simeon says: The Handful is taken from the Sinner’s Meal¬ offering brought by priests and the Handful and the residue are offered each by itself.4 2. The Meal-offering of the Priests, and the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, and the Meal-offering offered with drink-offerings fall [wholly] to the Altar and the priests have no share in them; here the right of the Altar exceeds the right of the priests. The Two Loaves and the Shewbread belong to the priests and the Altar has no share in them; here the right of the priests exceeds the right of the Altar.
3. All Meal-offerings that are made ready in a vessel required three acts in the putting in of the oil — pouring [oil in the vessel], mingling [the meal in the oil], and [again] putting in oil in the vessel — before that they are ready. The cakes, too, were mingled [with oil]. So Rabbi.5 But the Sages say: The fine flour [only].6 The cakes required to be mingled [with oil] and the wafers to be anointed. How did they anoint them? In the form of [a cross like the Greek letter] Chi.7 And the residue of the oil was consumed by the priests.
4. All Meal-offerings that are made ready in a vessel required to be broken in pieces. The Meal-offering of an Israelite was folded into two and the two parts into four, and so sundered; and the Meal-offering of the Priests was folded into two and the two parts into four, but it was not sundered. The Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest was not folded. R. Simeon says: Neither the Meal-offering of the Priests nor the Meal¬ offering of the anointed [High] Priest was broken in pieces, since the Hand¬ ful was not taken from them; and where the Handful is not taken there is no breaking in pieces. And all of them must be broken up into small pieces the size of an olive.
5. All Meal-offerings require to be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The rubbing and the beating apply to the grains of wheat. R. Jose says: To the dough also. All Meal-offerings were offered ten at a time, excepting the Shewbread and the Baken Cakes8 of the High 1 See Kel. 510. 2 In the editions of the Talmud ch. 10 is inserted at this point.
3 See above, 5s.
* Burnt separately, since (Lev. 623) the priests’ Meal-offering is burnt in its entirety.
5 Judah the Patriarch. 6 Some texts here read: Also the fine flour.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM Priest, which were offered twelve at a time. So R. Judah. R. Meir says: All were offered twelve at a time excepting the cakes of the Thank-offering and of the Nazirite’s offering, which were offered ten at a time.
6. The [Meal-offering of the] Omer was offered of the Tenth [of an Ephah] taken from three seahs;' the Two Loaves2 were of two Tenths taken from three seahs; the Shewbread3 was of twenty-four Tenths taken from twenty-four seahs.
7. The Omer was sifted through thirteen sieves, the Two Loaves through twelve, and the Shewbread through eleven. R. Simeon says: There was no prescribed number, but they used to bring fine flour that was properly sifted, as it is written, And thou shall take fine flour and bake it;4 [thou shalt not bake it] until it has been properly sifted.
7. 1. The Thank-offering5 was brought from five seahs, Jerusalem measure (which are six seahs Wilderness measure), or two Ephahs (and the Ephah is three seahs), or twenty Tenths [of an Ephah], ten for what was leavened and ten for what was unleavened. ’Ten for what w’as leavened’ — one Tenth for each cake. ‘And ten for what was unleavened’: of what was unleavened there were three kinds — cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes; thus there were three and a third Tenths of each kind, three cakes to every Tenth. By Jerusalem measure there were thirty kabs,6 fifteen for what was leavened and fifteen for what was unleavened; ‘fifteen for what was leavened’ — a kab and a half for each cake. ‘Fifteen for what was unleavened’: of what were unleavened there were three kinds — cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes; thus there were five kabs for each kind, two cakes to every kab.
2. For the Consecration [-offering]7 they brought what was unleavened in like manner as for the Thank-offering — cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. For the Nazirite’s offering8 they brought twice as much of what was un¬ leavened as for the Thank-offering — cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes; thus there were ten kabs, Jerusalem measure, which are six Tenths and something over. And from each one9 they took one part in ten as Heave- offering, as it is written, And of it he shall offer one out of each oblation for an heave offering unto the Lord;10 one — therefore it may not be taken broken; out of each oblation — that every kind from the offering should be equal and that Heave-offering should not be taken from the one kind instead of from another; it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings — and the residue was consumed by the owner.
3. If a man slaughtered the Thank-offering within [the Temple Court] and the Bread [-offering] thereof was outside the wall,11 the bread is not made holy. If he slaughtered it before [the loaves] became crusted in the oven, or even if all save one had crusted, the bread is not made holy. If he slaughtered it [while purposing an act] outside its proper time or outside 1 Of barley, re-ground and re-sifted until the quantity was reduced to onc-tenth; i.c. the bulk was reduced from three seahs to three-tenths of a seah (three seahs equals one Ephah).
1 The flour for these was ground and sifted until it was reduced from three seahs to three- fifths of a seah.
1 Its flour was sifted until it was reduced from twenty-four seahs to seven and a fifth seahs.
9 Of the four kinds of bread from the Thank-offering and of the two kinds from the Nazirite’s offering. 10 Lev. 714.
11 It is in doubt whether the wall of the City or the wall of the Temple Court is intended. R. Johanan (Gem. 75b) explains it as ‘the wall of Bethphage’. Bethphage marked the limit of the confines of Jerusalem. Cf. below, n*.
its proper place the bread is none the less made holy. If he slaughtered it and it was found terefah,1 the bread is not made holy. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, R. Eliezer says: The bread is none the less made holy. But the Sages say: It is not made holy. If he slaughtered it under another name (so, too, if the ram of the Consecration[-offering] and the two lambs offered at Pentecost were slaughtered under another name), the bread is not made holy.