משנה: הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ מִתּוֹךְ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדָהּ. וְכֹהֵן מֵנִיחַ יָדוֹ מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ וּמֵנִיפָהּ. הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר. וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים. MISHNAH: He1The officiating priest. took the flour-offering from the Egyptian palm-leaf basket2See Mishnah 2:1., put it into a Temple vessel and laid that on her hands. The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave3The prescribed movements for the dedication of private offerings. The movements in the six directions (fore and aft, right and left, up and down) are imitated today as the motions of the palm-branch on Tabernacles.. He weaved, presented4Before the altar receives its part, the entire offering in the vessel is presented to the altar at its South-West corner., took a fistful and put it into the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests5As are all offerings except those of a priest; cf. Lev. 6:7–11..
הלכה: הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ כול׳. כְּתִיב וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה אֶת מִנְחַת הַקְּנָאוֹת. וְכִי עַל יָדוֹ הוּא מֵנִיף. וְלֹא עַל יָדָהּ הוּא מֵנִיף. אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁהוּא נוֹטְלָהּ מִתּוֹךְ כְּלִי חוֹל וְנוֹתְנָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְכֹהֵן מֵנִיחַ אֶת יָדוֹ תַחְתֶּיהָ וּמֵנִיפָהּ. וְאֵין הַדָּבָר כָאוּר. מֵבִיא מַפָּה. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. וּמֵבִיא כֹהֵן זָקֵן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. יֶלֶד. שֶׂאֵין יֶצֶר הָרַע מָצוּי לְשָׁעָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. סוֹטָה גִידֶּמֶת שְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים מֵנִיפִין עָל יָדֶיהָ. HALAKHAH: “He took the flour-offering,” etc. It is written6Num. 5:25: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand, weave it before the Eternal and present it to the altar.”: “The Cohen shall take the jealousy-flour-offering from the woman’s hand.” Does he perform the weave? Does not she perform the weave7The verse requires that the Cohen perform the weave. But in the case of an animal sacrifice it is required (Lev. 7:30) that the individual bringing the sacrifice be the actor: “His hands shall bring the Eternal’s gift, the fat on the breast he has to bring, to weave it before the Eternal.” In the Babli, 19a, the parallel expressions his hands, the woman’s hand are taken as proof that the woman has to take part in weaving her gift just as a man has to take part in the weaving of his. The formulation of the Yerushalmi may be interpreted as a question: Since the Mishnah requires the woman to participate and the verse requires the Cohen to perform the weave, how can the Mishnah be justified?? But from here [one understands that] he takes it from a profane vessel and puts it into a Temple vessel. 8The rest of the paragraph is also in Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c).“The Cohen puts his hands under hers and performs the weave.” Does the Cohen put his hands under hers? Is that not objectionable9In the Babli, this would be written כעור. Is the bodily contact between the Cohen and an otherwise married woman not immoral? It is not directly forbidden since the woman has to be pure to enter the Temple but this makes the situation only worse.? He brings a kerchief10Between his and her hands, not to touch the woman.. Does that not separate11It is a general principle that the Temple service has to be by the priest directly. Since the verse requires the priests to serve in the Temple, they may not wear shoes (even in winter) since then the shoes would be in the Temple, not the Cohen directly. If the Cohen has to perform the weave, his hands cannot be separated from the Temple vessel. If, as indicated in the previous Note, the participation of the woman is implicitly required by the verse, her hands do not count as separation.? He brings an elderly Cohen12Presumably he is past all sexual feelings.. You may even say, a young man, since bad inclinations do not happen at that hour13The fear of the Temple will banish all bad thoughts. The commentaries read the sentence to mean that in the short time needed for the weave, bad thoughts cannot develop. This is obviously false.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated14In Qiddušin: R. Ḥiyya stated, it happens (that the Cohen has sinful thoughts). Maybe he implies that since the weaving can be done by two priests for the handless woman, it can be done by two priests for all women. There is no parallel to this baraita in any other known source.: If the suspected wife has no hands, two priests weave in her stead.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּכָל־אָתָר הָדָא הִיא מִילְתָה צְרִיכִין לְרַבָּנִן. מַהוּ מַגִּישׁ. גּוּפָהּ שֶׁלַּמִּנְחָה גּוּפָהּ שֶׁלַּכֵּלִי. Rebbi Yose said: In all cases, the following is an open question for the rabbis: What does he present? The body of the flour offering or the body of the vessel15When the Cohen brings the offering to the altar, does he touch the wall of the altar with the Temple vessel or does he have to turn the vessel so that some of the flour touches the wall? The Babli, 14b, states that the vessel is presented, based on Lev.2:8.?
תְּנוּפוֹת מְנַיִין שֶׁהֵן קוֹדְמוֹת לָהַגָּשׁוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְדָת. מִסּוֹטָה לָֽמְדוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. סוֹטָה לְחִידּוּשָׁהּ יָצָאת. וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לְחִידּוּשׁוֹ אֵין לְמֵידִין הִימֶּינּוּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב. הֵיכָן הִיא תְּנוּפָה. כְּבָר קָֽדְמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר בִּמְנָחוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. וַיי דָא אָֽמְרָה דְאָֽמְרִין וְהֵבֵאתָ לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לָהַגָּשָׁה. וְהִקְרִיב. לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לָהַגָּשָׁה. וּכְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ וְהֵרִים. וְהֵיכָן הִיא תְּנוּפָה. כְּבָר קָֽדְמָה. From where that weaves precede presentations16Mishnah Menaḥot 5:6 states that weave always precedes presentation. One has to wonder about Rashi’s Yerushalmi text since in his commentary to that Mishnah he follows R. Jeremiah.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife17Since Num. 5:25 clearly prescribes first weave and then presentation.. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty18While not in the tannaïtic rules, this is a generally recognized hermeneutical principle in both Talmudim; cf. Babli Ketubot 45a, Sanhedrin 27a. The novelty status of the suspected wife’s offering is explained in Mishnah 2:1; therefore, procedural instructions for this offering cannot imply similar instructions for the other flour offerings.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following19Lev. 6:7. This paragraph deals with technicalities of all flour offerings, whether they need weaving or not. Any special ceremony for certain offerings must precede the ceremonies common to all offerings.: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,20Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that21Lev. 2:9.: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave22Which is prescribed for the offering of the suspected wife in Num.5:25..? It already preceded.
תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן. אֵילּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת וּשְׁיֵרֶיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל וְרִבִּי שמעון בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הֲווֹן יְתִיבִין. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר מְנַיִין שֶׁשְּׁיֵרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מִנְחַת מִנְחַת. מַה מִנְחַת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אַף כָּאן מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. מַה מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שְׁיֵרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. אַף מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שְׁיֵרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מִן דְּקַייְמִין קָם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל עִם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמִית הֵיךְ אַפְרְחֵי הָדֵין דִּידָךְ. מִנְחַת סוֹטָה עַצְמָהּ מְנַיִין שֶׁשְּׁיֵרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. אַייתֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יִצְחָק עֲטוֹשִׁיָּא וְתַנָּא לֵיהּ. וְכָל־מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶׁמֶן. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּבָלוּל שֶׁלַּחִיטִּין. כְּבָר הוּא אָמוּר. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְייָן לְבָלוּל שֶׁלַּחִיטִּין תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְייָן לְבָלוּל שֶׁלַּשְּׂעוֹרִין. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר [וַחֲרֵבָה.] מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּחָרֵב שֶׁלַּחִיטִּים כְּבָר הוּא אָמוּר. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְייָן לֶחָרֵב שֶׁלַּחִיטִּין תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְייָן לֶחָרֵב שֶׁלַּשְּׂעוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּבָלוּל שֶׁלַּחִיטִּין וּבֶחָרֵב שֶׁלַּשְּׂעוֹרִין אֲנָן קַייָמִין. וּלְצוֹרֵךְ אִיתְאֲמָרַת. לְכָל־בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו. הָאִישׁ חוֹלֵק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם. וְאֵין הַקָּטָן חוֹלֵק אַף עַל פִּי [שֶׁהוּא] תָמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרִיבְתָה תוֹרָה בְּדָבָר אֶחָד אַתְּ מַרְבֶּה אוֹתָהּ לְכָל־הַדְּבָרִים. אֶלָּא אַזְכָּרָה אַזְכָּרָה. מַה אַזְכָּרָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן שְׁיֵרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. אַף אַזְכָּרָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה כָּאן שְׁיֵרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. וְיֵידָא אָמְרָה דָא. וְהֵבֵאתָ לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לָהַגָּשָׁה. וְהִקְרִבָהּ. לִרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לָהַגָּשָׁה. וּכְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו קוֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים. There, it was stated24Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]25This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten26The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say27Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of28Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of29Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there28Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here29Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten30This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)31This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He32Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten33For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira34R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil35Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said36The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry35Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour37The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose38The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished39He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished40Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance41Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance42Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,20Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that43While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”