Menachot Daf 26 (מנחות דף כ״ו)
Daf: 26 | Amudim: 26a – 26b | Date: February 5, 2026
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (26a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
What happens when the remainder of a meal offering becomes impure, burned, or lost
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ קָמַץ וְנִטְמָא הַקּוֹמֶץ אוֹ אָבַד הַקּוֹמֶץ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָקְרְבוּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָקְרְבוּ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If the priest took the handful from the meal offering, and the handful became ritually impure before being placed on the altar, or if the handful was lost, Rabbi Eliezer says: The remainder may be sacrificed. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The remainder may not be sacrificed.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna introduces a fundamental dispute about the interdependence between the handful (kometz) and the remainder (shirayim) of a meal offering. When a priest takes the handful — the portion that will be burned on the altar — and that handful subsequently becomes impure or is lost before being offered, what happens to the remainder that priests normally eat?
Rabbi Eliezer holds that the remainder may still be consumed. His logic: once the handful was properly taken (kemitza), the separation of the portions was complete. The subsequent loss or impurity of the handful does not retroactively affect the already-separated remainder.
Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees: the remainder may NOT be consumed. His reasoning: the burning of the handful is what “permits” the remainder for priestly consumption. Without that burning, the remainder remains forbidden — it is still tevel (untithed produce) in a sense, awaiting its permitting act.
Key Terms:
- קומץ (kometz) = The handful of flour and oil scooped from a meal offering
- שיריים (shirayim) = The remainder of the meal offering, eaten by the priests
- נטמא (nitma) = Became ritually impure
- אבד (avad) = Was lost
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה — המשך
The reverse case: when the remainder becomes impure, burned, or lost
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרַיִם אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפוּ הַשְּׁיָרַיִם אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ הַשְּׁיָרַיִם – כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, יִקָּרֵב. כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא יִקָּרֵב.
English Translation:
If the remainder became ritually impure, or if the remainder was burned, or if the remainder was lost, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the handful may be sacrificed. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the handful may not be sacrificed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now presents the mirror image case: what if the REMAINDER becomes impure, is accidentally burned, or is lost — can the HANDFUL still be offered on the altar?
The same dispute applies: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the handful can still be offered. The handful and remainder, once separated, are independent. The disqualification of one does not affect the other.
Rabbi Yehoshua maintains consistency: the handful cannot be offered. His reasoning appears to be that the offering is a unified whole — without a viable remainder to permit, there is no point in burning the handful. Alternatively, he may hold that the burning of the handful serves to permit the remainder, and if the remainder is already disqualified, the permitting act is meaningless.
Key Terms:
- נשרפו (nisrefu) = Were burned (accidentally, not as part of proper ritual)
- כמדת (k’midat) = According to the opinion/measure of
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — ברייתא
The complete baraita: four cases of the remainder becoming disqualified
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קָמַץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה, וְנִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפוּ, אוֹ יָצְאוּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ – כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, יִקָּרֵב הַקֹּמֶץ. כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא יִקָּרֵב.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest took the handful from the meal offering, and the remainder became ritually impure, or the remainder was burned, or the remainder left the area inside the curtains that surround the Temple courtyard, or the remainder was lost, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the handful may be sacrificed, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the handful may not be sacrificed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita adds a fourth category to the mishna’s three: “left the area inside the curtains” (yatza chutz laklayim). This refers to the remainder leaving the Temple courtyard — the disqualification of yotzei that we encountered on yesterday’s daf (25). This addition clarifies that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua covers all forms of disqualification of the remainder: impurity, accidental burning, leaving the courtyard, and loss.
Key Terms:
- קלעים (klayim) = The curtains surrounding the Temple courtyard
- יצאו חוץ לקלעים (yatzu chutz laklayim) = Left the area inside the curtains — disqualified as yotzei
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — תוספתא
The Tosefta adds: partial disqualification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּטְמָא כוּלּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף כּוּלּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא כוּלּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד כּוּלּוֹ. אֲבָל נִטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ, אוֹ נִשְׂרַף מִקְצָתוֹ, אוֹ יָצָא מִקְצָתוֹ, אוֹ אָבַד מִקְצָתוֹ – יִקָּרֵב הַקֹּמֶץ, וְהַשְּׁיָרִים יֵאָכְלוּ.
English Translation:
In what case is this statement, that there is a dispute if the handful may be sacrificed, said? It is said in a case where the entire remainder became ritually impure, or the entire remainder was burned, or the entire remainder left the Temple courtyard, or the entire remainder was lost. But if only part of the remainder became ritually impure, or part of the remainder was burned, or part of the remainder left the Temple courtyard, or part of the remainder was lost, the handful is sacrificed, and the remainder that was not disqualified is eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Tosefta introduces a critical limitation: the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua only applies when the ENTIRE remainder is disqualified. If only PART of the remainder was lost, burned, became impure, or left the courtyard, everyone agrees: the handful is offered, and whatever portion of the remainder remains valid is eaten by the priests.
This makes sense: as long as something remains to be “permitted” by the burning of the handful, and something remains for the priests to eat, the offering can proceed normally. The dispute is specifically about cases where nothing of the remainder survives in a fit state.
Key Terms:
- מקצתו (miktzato) = Part of it
- כולו (kulo) = All of it / entirely
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s source?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now seeks to understand the underlying logic of each position. It begins with Rabbi Eliezer, whose view is the more lenient one — that the handful may be offered even when the remainder is completely disqualified.
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ — דרשה
Rabbi Eliezer derives from Scripture that the handful and remainder are independent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ מִסֹּלֶת הַמִּנְחָה וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, וְשְׁיָרֶיהָ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו – שְׁיָרֶיהָ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שְׁיָרִים.
English Translation:
As it is written: “And he shall take 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, and shall burn it upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:8), and its remainder shall be for Aaron and for his sons. The verse states: “Its remainder,” indicating that which has a remainder, and teaches that the handful is offered even if it no longer has a remainder, i.e., even if its remainder was burned, lost, or became impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the verse’s language. The Torah says “and its remainder shall be for Aaron and his sons” — using the phrase “its remainder” (shirayeha) in a way that implies the handful is offered even when “it has a remainder” — meaning, the verse contemplates situations where the remainder exists and situations where it doesn’t. The handful is offered regardless.
The key exegetical move is reading “its remainder” as a conditional description — “that which has a remainder” — rather than as defining the essential structure of the offering.
Key Terms:
- והרים (v’herim) = “And he shall lift/take” — the act of kemitza
- שיריה (shirayeha) = Its remainder
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
What is Rabbi Yehoshua’s source?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַאי טַעְמָא?
English Translation:
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having explained Rabbi Eliezer’s derivation, the Gemara now turns to Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning for his stricter position.
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ — דרשה
Rabbi Yehoshua learns that the handful and remainder are interdependent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תַקְרִיב קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה״, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כָּל הַקָּרְבָּן קַיָּים.
English Translation:
He derives his opinion from that which the verse states: “And when any soul brings a meal offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:1). The verse emphasizes that it is an offering, which indicates that the meal offering is not sacrificed until the entire offering exists, i.e., both the handful and the remainder must be intact.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua derives from a different verse, emphasizing the word “offering” (korban mincha). He reads this as requiring that the entire offering — both the handful to be burned and the remainder to be eaten — must exist and be viable. If the remainder is lost or disqualified, there is no complete “offering” to bring.
This represents a holistic view of the meal offering: the handful and remainder together constitute the korban. Separating them conceptually is artificial — they rise or fall together.
Key Terms:
- קרבן (korban) = Offering/sacrifice
- קיים (kayam) = Exists / is intact
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge to Rabbi Yehoshua from animal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הָא כְּתִיב: ״שְׁיָרֶיהָ״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua, isn’t it written: “Its remainder”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehoshua: the verse that Rabbi Eliezer cited (“its remainder”) does seem to suggest flexibility — that the handful can be offered even without a viable remainder. How does Rabbi Yehoshua understand this verse?
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yehoshua interprets “its remainder” differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: שְׁיָרֶיהָ – וְלֹא שְׁיָרֵי שְׁיָרֶיהָ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua requires that verse for the following: The verse states its remainder, and not the remainder of the remainder. The verse is necessary to teach that only the portion called “the remainder” is eaten by the priest; the priest may not take part of the remainder and leave part of it, and then eat of the part that he left.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua uses the same verse for a different derivation entirely. “Its remainder” teaches that what the priests eat is THE remainder — the direct product of separating the handful. If a priest were to take a portion from the remainder and leave some behind, that leftover would be “the remainder of the remainder” — and this is not what the verse permits. The verse defines specifically what the priests may eat.
Key Terms:
- שירי שיריה (shirei shirayeha) = The remainder of the remainder
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge to Rabbi Eliezer: what about the verse Rabbi Yehoshua cited?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא כְּתִיב: ״קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, isn’t it written: “A meal offering”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now challenges Rabbi Eliezer with the verse that Rabbi Yehoshua cited. The phrase “offering” (korban mincha) does seem to suggest the entire offering must be intact. How does Rabbi Eliezer handle this?
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Eliezer interprets “meal offering” to refer to the handful
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַהוּא – בְּמִנְחָה דְּהַקְטָרָה קָמִיירֵי, וְהַקְטָרָה הַיְינוּ קֹמֶץ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Eliezer interprets that verse as referring specifically to the handful of the meal offering, which is the portion that is burned, and the burning is performed with the handful. The verse does not require that both the handful and the remainder be intact.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer deflects this challenge by reading “meal offering” (mincha) in the verse as referring specifically to the handful — the portion that is burned on the altar. That portion must be intact for the offering to proceed. The verse says nothing about the remainder needing to exist.
This interpretive move narrows the scope of “the offering” to the altar-bound component only, allowing the remainder to be treated as a separate matter.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Does Rabbi Yehoshua require the remainder to be fit for consumption?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא, וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁיָרִים רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה. קָמַץ וְאָבַד הַקֹּמֶץ, קוֹמֵץ אַחֵר לֹא יָבִיא, דְּקָא חָסְרָן שְׁיָרִים לַהֲדֵי קֹמֶץ.
English Translation:
Rava said: And furthermore, the handful may be sacrificed only when the remainder is fit for consumption. Similarly, if the priest took the handful and the handful was lost, another handful should not be taken, since the amount of the remainder diminished along with the original handful and there no longer remains a full measure of meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava introduces an important practical principle: the remainder must not only exist, but be “fit for consumption” (re’uyin la’akhila). Furthermore, if the handful is lost, you cannot simply take another handful from the same mincha. Why not? Because when the first handful was taken, the remainder was defined as everything except that handful. Taking a second handful would reduce the remainder further — now you have “remainder minus two handfuls.” This diminished quantity is no longer a proper “remainder.”
This ruling shows that the quantities matter: the Torah defined specific proportions between the handful and the remainder, and those proportions cannot be altered mid-process.
Key Terms:
- ראויין לאכילה (re’uyin la’akhila) = Fit for consumption
- חסרן (chasran) = Were diminished
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — דיון
Can blood be sprinkled from an olive-bulk that left the courtyard?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָרַק הַדָּם, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁיָּצָא כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, הוּרְצָה. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – הָא מַעִיקָּרָא, מֵאֲבוּהּ אֲבוּד!
English Translation:
The mishna taught: If the priest cast the blood, and it became known that an olive-bulk of flesh had left the area inside the curtains, the offering is accepted. The Gemara asks: When did this olive-bulk of flesh leave? If we say that it left before the casting of the blood, it should have been disqualified from the outset due to being lost.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to a related mishna about animal offerings. If blood was sprinkled and it was subsequently discovered that an olive-bulk of meat had left the courtyard (yotzei), the offering is accepted. The Gemara asks: when exactly did the meat leave?
If it left BEFORE the blood was sprinkled, then at the moment of sprinkling, the priest should have known that part of the offering was disqualified. The question is whether such prior knowledge matters.
Key Terms:
- כזית (kazayit) = An olive-bulk — the standard minimum measure for many halachic purposes
- הורצה (hurtzah) = Was accepted / effected atonement
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
The case is when it left after the sprinkling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, וְאַהַנִי זְרִיקָה לְמַאי דְּאִיכָּא.
English Translation:
Rather, it left after the casting of the blood, and the casting of the blood is effective for what there is. This statement indicates that if some of the offering remains fit, the casting of the blood is effective for that portion, even if part was subsequently disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies: the meat left AFTER the blood was already sprinkled. At the moment of sprinkling, everything was in order. The sprinkling “worked” on whatever was present at that time. The subsequent disqualification of part of the meat does not retroactively invalidate the sprinkling.
This principle — “the sprinkling is effective for what there is” (ahani zerika l’mai d’ika) — means that partial disqualification after sprinkling does not undo the entire offering.
Key Terms:
- אהני (ahani) = Was effective / helped
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Question about the service using a vessel for the handful
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: קֹמֶץ שֶׁלֹּא קִדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי – פָּסוּל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה: מְנָא לָךְ הָא?
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A handful that the priest did not sanctify in a service vessel is disqualified. Rava said to Rav Yehuda: From where do you derive this halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a new topic: the handful must be placed in a sacred service vessel (keli sharet) to be sanctified before being burned on the altar. A handful that was not sanctified in this way is disqualified. Rava asks Rav Yehuda for the source of this rule.
Key Terms:
- קידשו בכלי (kidsho bikhli) = Sanctified it in a vessel
- כלי שרת (keli sharet) = A sacred service vessel
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ — דרשה
The source: “the fire-offerings of the Lord”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּכְתִיב ״לְכׇל קׇרְבָּנָם וּלְכׇל מִנְחָתָם וּלְכׇל חַטָּאתָם וּלְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda said to him: As it is written: “For all their offerings, and for all their meal offerings, and for all their sin offerings, and for all their guilt offerings” (Numbers 18:9). This verse teaches that the handful of a meal offering must be consecrated in a vessel like other offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda cites Numbers 18:9, which groups meal offerings together with other sacrifices. Just as animal offerings require sanctification through the service vessels (the blood in the basins, etc.), so too the handful of a meal offering must be sanctified in a service vessel.
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Question: Rabbi Shimon disagrees
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קֹמֶץ שֶׁלֹּא קִדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר קִדְּשׁוֹ כְּלִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: A handful that the priest did not sanctify in a service vessel is fit, as the vessel, i.e., the vessel that held the meal offering, already sanctified it when the flour was placed in it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita is cited where Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rav’s ruling. Rabbi Shimon says the handful does NOT require separate sanctification in a service vessel — because it was already sanctified when the entire meal offering was placed in a vessel at the beginning of the process. The handful, having come from the already-sanctified mincha, is inherently sanctified.
Key Terms:
- שכבר קידשו כלי (shekvar kidsho keli) = For the vessel already sanctified it
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Rav’s ruling follows the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא, דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that the handful requires a separate sanctification in a vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Rav’s statement that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel follows the opinion of the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. According to the Sages, even though the mincha as a whole was sanctified, the handful requires its own act of sanctification in a service vessel before being placed on the altar.
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Can the handful be burned in increments?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: קֹמֶץ שֶׁהִקְטִירוֹ פְּעָמִים – פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If the priest burned the handful on the altar in increments, placing part on the altar and then the rest, the handful is disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav rules that the handful must be burned on the altar all at once. If the priest placed part of it on the altar, then went back for the rest, the offering is disqualified. The handful must be offered as a single, unified act of haktara (burning).
This requirement may reflect the idea that the handful represents a unified portion of the offering, and fragmenting its offering undermines its integrity.
Key Terms:
- פעמים (pe’amim) = In increments / times
- הקטירו (hiktiro) = Burned it (on the altar)
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא
Question: What is the minimum measure for burning?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכַּזַּיִת!
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection: There is no valid act of burning less than an olive-bulk!
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita is cited stating that there is no valid haktara (burning on the altar) with less than an olive-bulk. This seems to suggest that multiple burnings could be valid, as long as each one is at least an olive-bulk. How does this fit with Rav’s statement that burning in increments disqualifies?
Key Terms:
- אין הקטרה פחותה מכזית (ein haktara pechuta mikazayit) = There is no burning less than an olive-bulk
Segment 22
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: There IS valid burning of less than an olive-bulk in certain cases
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא – יֵשׁ הַקְטָרָה בְּפָחוּת מִכַּזַּיִת.
English Translation:
This statement indicates that there is indeed valid burning of less than an olive-bulk in certain cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies: there ARE cases where burning less than an olive-bulk is valid. The baraita’s statement about “no burning less than an olive-bulk” applies to certain contexts (perhaps voluntary offerings where minimum measures are required), but in other contexts, smaller amounts can be validly burned. This does not necessarily contradict Rav’s ruling about incremental burning of the handful.
Amud Bet (26b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — המשך
Clarification: burning sesame at the end of the handful
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן שֻׁמְשְׁמִין שֶׁבְּסוֹף קֹמֶץ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: For example, there is valid burning of less than an olive-bulk when the priest burns the sesame seeds that are at the end of a handful. The sesame seeds are less than an olive-bulk, but their burning is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa provides a practical example: when a meal offering contains sesame seeds, and the priest burns the handful, some sesame seeds inevitably remain stuck to his hand and are burned last. These seeds are less than an olive-bulk, yet their burning is valid as part of the overall handful. This shows that the “no burning less than an olive-bulk” rule has exceptions.
Key Terms:
- שומשמין (shumshemin) = Sesame seeds
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — בעיא
Question: At what point does the handful permit the remainder?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: קֹמֶץ, מֵאֵימָתַי מַתִּיר אֶת הַשְּׁיָרִים לַאֲכִילָה? מִשֶּׁתִּתְלַקֵּט הָאוּר בְּרוּבּוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִשֶּׁיּוּצַת הָאוּר בְּרוּבּוֹ?
English Translation:
Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: From when does the handful permit the remainder for consumption? Is it permitted from when the fire spreads over the majority of the handful, or perhaps from when the fire catches the majority of the handful?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa raises a fascinating practical question: at what precise moment does the burning of the handful “permit” the remainder for the priests to eat? Two possibilities are suggested:
- When the fire “spreads over” (titlaket) the majority of the handful — meaning the fire has reached most of it, even if it hasn’t fully caught
- When the fire “catches” (yutzat) the majority — meaning the handful is actually burning and being consumed
This distinction matters for determining exactly when the priests may begin eating the remainder.
Key Terms:
- תתלקט האור (titlaket ha’ur) = The fire spreads/gathers
- יוצת האור (yutzat ha’ur) = The fire catches/ignites
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ — ראיה
Proof from the daily offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַתָּמִיד נִשְׁחָט עַל שְׁמוֹנָה וְאֵין נֶאֱכָל עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ.
English Translation:
Come and hear a proof: The daily offering is slaughtered at eight and one-half hours into the day, and it is not eaten until it becomes dark.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a proof from the laws of the daily tamid offering. The afternoon tamid is slaughtered relatively early in the day (at 8.5 hours, or around 2:30 PM), but the meat is not eaten until nightfall. This delay suggests that there is a process involved in permitting the consumption — the burning of the fats must reach a certain stage.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — הסבר
The consumption depends on the burning of the fats
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא לָא מִסְתַּיֵּיךְ עַד צֵאת הַכּוֹכָבִים!
English Translation:
But it is not completed until the emergence of the stars! The burning of the fats and limbs of the daily offering is not completed until nightfall.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies: the reason the tamid meat is not eaten until nightfall is that the burning of its fats and limbs on the altar is not complete until then. This suggests that the permitting act — the burning — must reach completion (or at least a significant stage) before consumption is permitted.
Segment 5
TYPE: מסקנה
Conclusion: permitted when the fire catches the majority
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁיּוּצַת הָאוּר בְּרוּבּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, the remainder is permitted from when the fire catches the majority of the handful.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes that the remainder is permitted when the fire “catches” (yutzat) the majority of the handful — meaning the majority is actually burning and being consumed, not merely that the fire has spread over it. This is the definitive moment when the permitting act takes effect.
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Question: Must the entire handful be consumed?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רָבִינָא אָמַר רָבָא, קֹמֶץ וּלְבוֹנָה, מַאי טַעְמָא נִקְטְרֵי בָּתַר תְּמִידָא דְּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם?
English Translation:
Where was this statement said? Ravina said that Rava said: The handful and the frankincense — what is the reason they are burned after the daily afternoon offering?
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion turns to the timing of burning the handful and frankincense. Rava, cited by Ravina, asks why these are burned after the afternoon tamid offering. The Torah states that the tamid should be the last offering on the altar each day — so how can the handful be burned after it?
Key Terms:
- לבונה (levona) = Frankincense
- תמיד של בין הערביים (tamid shel bein ha’arbayim) = The daily afternoon offering
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Answer: They are sanctified by the vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא עַל כׇּרְחָךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּקָדְשִׁי בִּכְלִי.
English Translation:
Rather, you must perforce say that the handful and frankincense may be burned after the daily afternoon offering because they were sanctified in a vessel earlier in the day.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer: the handful and frankincense were already sanctified in a service vessel earlier in the day. Once sanctified, they have a claim to be burned on the altar that day. The tamid being “last” refers to offerings that are initiated at the end of the day — but items already sanctified can still be burned afterward.
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
Scriptural basis: “the law of the burnt offering”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? ״תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ – רִיבָּה.
English Translation:
What is the reason? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2) — the word “this” is inclusive, teaching that other items may be burned on the altar after the daily offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a scriptural source. The verse “This is the law of the burnt offering” (torat ha’olah) is read as an inclusion (ribbah): the word “this” expands the scope to include other items that may be burned on the altar even after the tamid, as long as they were properly prepared earlier.
Key Terms:
- תורת העולה (torat ha’olah) = The law of the burnt offering
- ריבה (ribbah) = Included / expanded
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — מעשה
A practical incident involving burning the handful
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי זֵירָא הֲוָה מְסַדֵּר מַתְנִיתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira was organizing the mishnayot before Rav Chisda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira was arranging the order of mishnayot before Rav Chisda. This provides context for an exchange that follows about the proper understanding of our mishna.
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Rav Chisda’s question about the dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: וְכִי הַקֹּמֶץ מַתִּיר? מַאי שְׁנָא מֵחַטָּאת דְּדָמָהּ מַתִּיר?
English Translation:
Rav Chisda said to him: Does the handful really permit the remainder? What is different from a sin offering, where the blood permits the flesh for consumption?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda asks a fundamental question: we say the handful “permits” the remainder for consumption. But how exactly? In animal offerings, it is the BLOOD sprinkling that permits the meat. Does the handful work the same way?
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira’s response
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי נָמֵי, דָּם מַתִּיר וְקֹמֶץ מַתִּיר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said to him: Indeed, blood permits and the handful permits.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira confirms: yes, just as blood sprinkling permits the meat of animal offerings for consumption, so too the burning of the handful permits the remainder of meal offerings for the priests. Both function as the “matir” — the permitting agent — for their respective offerings.
Key Terms:
- מתיר (matir) = The permitting agent — what makes the offering permissible for consumption
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — חקירה
Further analysis: the precise mechanism of permitting
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַה בֵּין דָּם לְקֹמֶץ?
English Translation:
And what is the difference between blood and the handful?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes deeper: if both blood and the handful function as permitting agents, what distinguishes them? There may be differences in the precise mechanism or the timing of when the permitting effect takes place.
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
The difference: blood sprinkles, handful burns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּם – נִזְרָק, קֹמֶץ – נִקְטָר.
English Translation:
Blood is sprinkled; the handful is burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction is in the mode of offering: blood is SPRINKLED (nizrak) on the altar, while the handful is BURNED (niktar) on the altar. Though both are permitting agents, their physical actions differ.
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Question about partial burning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָמַץ קֹמֶץ וְחִסֵּר הַקֹּמֶץ, מַהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא מִן הַשְּׁיָרִים וִימַלֵּא?
English Translation:
If the priest took a handful and the handful became diminished, what is the halakha — may he bring from the remainder and complete the handful?
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical question: if the handful was properly taken but some of it was lost (it “became diminished”), can the priest take additional flour from the remainder to complete the handful? This would involve taking a “second handful” to supplement the first.
Key Terms:
- חיסר (chiser) = Became diminished / lacking
- ימלא (yemale) = Complete / fill
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: He may not supplement from the remainder
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
The dilemma stands unresolved (teiku).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara leaves this question unresolved — teiku. We do not have a definitive ruling on whether one may supplement a diminished handful from the remainder. This is one of the famous unresolved questions in the Talmud.
Key Terms:
- תיקו (teiku) = The question stands — unresolved
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — כלל
General principle about the handful and frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קֹמֶץ וּלְבוֹנָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּזְּרוּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָרִצְפָּה – מְלַקֵּט מֵהֶן כַּזַּיִת וּמַקְטִיר.
English Translation:
Rav Huna said: If the handful and frankincense were scattered on the floor, the priest gathers from them an olive-bulk and burns it on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna addresses a case where the handful and frankincense were accidentally scattered on the floor. The ruling: the priest gathers at least an olive-bulk and burns that on the altar. Even though the full handful cannot be recovered, the minimum measure (kazayit) can still be offered.
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Question: Is an olive-bulk sufficient?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קֹמֶץ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא!
English Translation:
But we require a handful, and there is not a full handful!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges: the Torah requires a HANDFUL (kometz), not merely an olive-bulk. If the scattered material cannot be fully gathered into a handful, how can an olive-bulk suffice?
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: An olive-bulk is sufficient for burning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קֹמֶץ לִקְמִיצָה, כַּזַּיִת לְהַקְטָרָה.
English Translation:
A handful is required for the taking of the handful, but an olive-bulk is sufficient for burning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes between two stages: the act of TAKING the handful (kemitza) requires a full kometz — the proper measure as defined by how much fits in the priest’s closed fist. But the act of BURNING (haktara) only requires an olive-bulk. If the handful was properly taken but then some was lost, the burning can proceed with whatever remains, as long as it’s at least an olive-bulk.
Key Terms:
- קמיצה (kemitza) = The act of taking the handful
- הקטרה (haktara) = The act of burning on the altar
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא — הלכה
Practical ruling on scattered frankincense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא לְבוֹנָה, כְּתִיבָא בַּהּ ״כׇּל״!
English Translation:
But regarding frankincense, it is written: “all”!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a difficulty regarding frankincense. The Torah says “ALL the frankincense” must be burned. If some was scattered, how can we burn only part of it?
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: “All” means all that is available
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כׇּל״ – מֵהַנְּהוּ דְּאִיכָּא.
English Translation:
“All” means all of that which is available.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves: “all the frankincense” means all that is AVAILABLE — whatever can be gathered. If some was irretrievably scattered, the priest burns all that he can collect. The requirement of “all” is satisfied by burning everything that remains accessible.
This concludes the daf’s discussion, having covered the core dispute about the interdependence of the handful and remainder, the requirements for sanctifying the handful, the question of incremental burning, and the precise moment when the burning permits the remainder for consumption.