לא זו קדושה בלא זו ולא זו קדושה בלא זו

Neither is this substance sanctified without that, nor is that sanctified without this. Rather, any meal offering that requires oil and frankincense is sanctified by a service vessel only when the flour, oil, and frankincense are all placed in the same vessel at the same time.

ולרבי חנינא עשרון למה נמשח והלא אינו עשוי אלא למדידת קמח בלבד והקמח אינו קדוש בלא שמן למנחת חוטא

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, for what purpose was the vessel that measured a tenth of an ephah anointed, making it possible for it to sanctify items placed inside it? This vessel was fashioned only for measuring flour, and according to Rabbi Ḥanina the flour is not sanctified without oil. What then does this vessel sanctify? The Gemara answers: The vessel was anointed for the purpose of sanctifying the meal offering of a sinner, which contains neither oil nor frankincense.

ולוג למה נמשח ללוג של מצורע

The Gemara further asks: And for what purpose was the vessel that measured one log of oil anointed? After all, according to Rabbi Ḥanina oil for a meal offering cannot be sanctified by itself. The Gemara explains: It was anointed for the purpose of sanctifying the log of oil of a leper, which is not brought as part of a meal offering. This oil is sanctified without flour or frankincense.

ואף שמואל סבר לה להא דרב דתנן כלי הלח מקדשין את הלח ומדות היבש מקדשין את היבש ואין כלי הלח מקדשין את היבש ולא מדות היבש מקדשין את הלח

The Gemara notes: And Shmuel also holds in accordance with this statement of Rav, that a service vessel sanctifies the flour of a meal offering even without its oil, as we learned in a mishna ( Zevaḥim 88a): The vessels used for liquids sanctify only the liquids, and the vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only the dry goods. But the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify the dry goods, and the vessels that serve as dry measures do not sanctify the liquids.

ואמר שמואל לא שנו אלא מדות אבל מזרקות של דם מקדשות את היבש שנאמר שניהם מלאים סלת בלולה בשמן למנחה

And Shmuel says with regard to this mishna: They taught that vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry goods only with regard to vessels used as measures. But bowls that are used for collecting and tossing the blood of offerings sanctify the dry goods as well, as it is stated with regard to the offerings of the princes brought during the inauguration of the Tabernacle:“ Both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), which indicates that the bowl sanctifies meal offerings, which are dry.

אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא מנחה לחה היא אמר ליה לא נצרכא אלא ליבש שבה דהיינו לבונה

The Gemara continues its proof: And Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina, with regard to this derivation of Shmuel: But the meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mingled with oil. How then can one derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry? Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel is necessary only to teach that the dry part of a meal offering, that is, the frankincense, which invariably does not come into contact with the oil, is sanctified by the bowls as well.

ואי סלקא דעתך קסבר שמואל אין מנחה קדושה עד שיהו כולן יבש שבה היכי משכחת לה והלא כולן לחים הן מפני השמן אלא שמע מינה קסבר שמואל האי בלא האי

The Gemara concludes its proof with regard to Shmuel’s opinion: And if it enters your mind that Shmuel holds that a meal offering is not sanctified by a service vessel until all of its components are together in the vessel, then how can you find a case where the dry parts of a meal offering are by themselves? Is it not correct that when meal offerings are sanctified, all of them are liquids, due to the oil that is mixed with them? Rather, conclude from here that Shmuel holds that this substance may be sanctified without that one.

ואיבעית אימא מנחה לגבי דם כיבש דמיא

And if you wish, say instead in answer to Rav Aḥa of Difti’s question: A meal offering, even when it is mixed with oil, is, relative to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one may derive from the verse that the bowls sanctify dry items, and just as a bowl sanctifies a meal offering that contains oil, as it is considered dry in comparison to blood, so too, it sanctifies a meal offering that is entirely dry, i. e., that contains no oil, as claimed by Rav.

גופא אמר רבי אלעזר מנחה שקמצה בהיכל כשרה שכן מצינו בסילוק בזיכין

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: A meal offering from which the priest removed a handful while inside the Sanctuary is valid, despite the fact that the handful should be removed in the Temple courtyard; the reason is that we find a similar case in the Sanctuary, with regard to the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the Table of the shewbread. Just as the bowls permit the shewbread for consumption, so too, the handful permits the remainder of the meal offering for consumption.

מתיב רבי ירמיה וקמץ משם ממקום שרגלי הזר עומדות

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita discussing the verse: “ And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2). The verse indicates that the removal of a handful from a meal offering may be performed from the place where the feet of the non-priest may stand, i. e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.

בן בתירא אומר מנין שאם קמץ בשמאל שיחזיר ויקמוץ בימין תלמוד לומר וקמץ משם ממקום שקמץ כבר

The baraita continues: Ben Beteira, who holds that a handful is not disqualified when removed with the left hand, says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: From where is it derived that if one removed a handful with his left hand, that he must return the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? The verse states: “ And he shall remove from there. ” This indicates that the handful is removed from the place where he already removed it, i. e., the handful is returned to the meal offering and thereupon removed from the same meal offering, this time with his right hand. It is clear from the statement of the first tanna that the handful of a meal offering may be removed only in the place where the feet of a non-priest may stand, but not in the Sanctuary.

איכא דאמרי הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה איכא דאמרי אמר ליה רבי יעקב לרבי ירמיה בר תחליפא אסברא לך לא נצרכא אלא להכשיר את כל עזרה כולה שלא תאמר הואיל ועולה קדשי קדשים ומנחה קדשי קדשים מה עולה טעונה צפון אף מנחה טעונה צפון

Some say that Rabbi Yirmeya raises the objection and he resolves it as well. And some say that Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain to you the resolution of this objection: The verse is necessary only to permit the entire Temple courtyard for removing the handful there, not to prohibit the removal of a handful inside the Sanctuary. The reason is that you should not say: Since a burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, and a meal offering is likewise an offering of the most sacred order, then just as a burnt offering requires that its slaughter be performed in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, so too, a meal offering requires that the removal of its handful be in the northern part.

מה לעולה שכן כליל מחטאת

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this comparison: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it is more sacred, as it is consumed in its entirety upon the altar. The Gemara responds: The same comparison may be drawn from a sin offering, which is also an offering of the most sacred order and is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar, and yet it must be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.

מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות מאשם

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this comparison as well: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that the halakhot of a sin offering are more stringent, as its sacrifice atones for those sins whose transgression causes one to be liable to receive karet. The Gemara responds: The comparison may be drawn from a guilt offering, as it too is an offering of the most sacred order, it is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar, it does not atone for such sins, and yet it must be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.

מה לאשם שכן מיני דמים מכולהו נמי שכן מיני דמים

The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that a guilt offering has a loftier status, as it is one of the types of offerings whose atonement is achieved through their blood, i. e., it is an animal offering. The Gemara adds: Once this claim has been accepted, from all of them as well, i. e., from a burnt offering and sin offering, one cannot draw a comparison to a meal offering either, as they are all of the types of offerings whose atonement is achieved through their blood.

אלא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב והקריבה אל הכהן והגישה אל המזבח וקמץ מה הגשה בקרן דרומית מערבית אף קמיצה נמי בקרן דרומית מערבית קא משמע לן

Rather, the verse was necessary in order to permit the removal of a handful anywhere in the Temple courtyard because it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “ And it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), and it states:“ And he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), one could claim: Just as the bringing of the meal offering is in the southwestern corner of the altar, so too, the removal of the handful must also be performed in the southwestern corner. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the removal of the handful may be performed anywhere in the Temple courtyard, but this does not serve to exclude the Sanctuary.

גופא אמר רבי יוחנן שלמים ששחטן בהיכל כשרין שנאמר ושחטו פתח אהל מועד ולא יהא טפל חמור מן העיקר

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Peace offerings that were slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated: “ And slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i. e., in the courtyard. And it is logical that the halakha with regard to the minor area, i. e., the courtyard, should not be more stringent than the halakha with regard to the major one, the Tent of Meeting or the Sanctuary.

מיתיבי רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר מנין שאם הקיפו גוים את העזרה שהכהנים נכנסין להיכל ואוכלין בקדשי קדשים ושירי מנחות תלמוד לומר

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the Temple courtyard and were firing projectiles inside to the point that it became impossible to remain in the courtyard on account of the threat, that the priests enter the Sanctuary and partake of the offerings of the most sacred order and the remainders of the meal offerings while inside the Sanctuary? The verse states: