We begin today's discussion in the Talmud Bavli, on page 7b. The text previously taught that Rabbi El-Azhar stated a specific law concerning the blood of a *zeva* offering: it cannot be sanctified in halves. This means one cannot place half the blood into a vessel, then the other half into a separate vessel, and subsequently mix them. The entire measure of blood must be placed into a single vessel initially.
The Gemara questions this, asking if Rabbi El-Azhar indeed holds this view. It cites a related teaching regarding the Habitei Kohen Gadol, the High Priest's daily meal offering. The law states that the High Priest must bring a meal offering each morning and evening. Concerning these Habitei Kohen Gadol, Rabbi Yohanan stated that they are not holy if placed into a vessel in halves. Rashi explains that the Habitei Kohen Gadol is a *tenth of an ephah* of fine flour, which must initially be placed whole into one vessel. If half is placed in one vessel and half in another, Rabbi Yohanan deems it invalid. Rabbi El-Azhar, however, holds that since this offering is brought in half-measures (half in the morning, half in the evening), it can be sanctified in half-measures. Thus, just as it is brought in halves, it can be sanctified in halves.
The Gemara then asks: if Rabbi El-Azhar rules that the blood of a *zeva* offering cannot be sanctified in halves, why doesn't he derive the law for the Habitei Kohen Gadol from the law of blood? Just as blood cannot be sanctified in halves, perhaps the Habitei Kohen Gadol also cannot be sanctified in halves. The initial response suggests that perhaps Rabbi El-Azhar does not derive one sacrificial service from another. Perhaps he does not compare the laws of a meal offering to the laws of blood.
This answer is challenged: how can it be said that he does not compare one service to another? We find a case where the taking of a handful of flour from a meal offering (the *kimitzah*) is normally performed in the Temple courtyard (*Azara*). However, if the *kimitzah* of a meal offering was performed in the Sanctuary (*Hechal*), it is deemed valid. This is learned from the removal of the frankincense spoons (*bazikin*) from the Lechem Hapanim (showbread) table, which is considered a type of *kimitzah*. Just as this *kimitzah* performed in the Sanctuary is valid, so too an irregular *kimitzah* of a meal offering performed in the Sanctuary is valid. This demonstrates that one matter can be learned from another. Therefore, just as the law of *kimitzah* is learned from the *bazikin*, so too the law of the Habitei Kohen Gadol should be learned from the law of blood.
The Gemara refutes this comparison, stating there is a significant difference: a meal offering can be learned from another meal offering, but not from blood. The removal of the *bazikin* from the Lechem Hapanim table is akin to a meal offering, allowing for a derivation from one meal offering to another. However, this does not mean one can derive a law for a meal offering from blood. The Gemara then asks: does one truly derive laws from one meal offering to another? It is taught in a Beraita that if, before the removal of the Lechem Hapanim from the table, the bread became broken, it is invalid, and the frankincense spoons may not be offered. However, if the bread was removed from the table and *then* became broken, even though the bread itself is not eaten, the frankincense spoons may still be offered on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer states that "removal" does not necessitate actual physical removal; rather, once the time for removal arrives (e.g., Shabbat afternoon), it is considered as if it has already been removed. If the bread breaks after this time, it does not matter, as the frankincense spoons can still be offered.
The Gemara then asks: if you compare one meal offering to another, why don't you apply this same logic to a regular meal offering? If a meal offering became deficient before the *kimitzah* was taken, why not say that once the time for *kimitzah* arrives, it is considered as if the *kimitzah* has already been taken? In that case, the deficiency would have occurred after the "virtual" *kimitzah*, and thus the offering should not be problematic. The Gemara answers that this comparison is not analogous. The Lechem Hapanim is distinct and stands alone on the table. Therefore, once the time for its removal arrives, it can be considered as if it has already been removed. In contrast, the fine flour of a meal offering, before the *kimitzah* is taken, is still mixed together in the vessel and not yet distinct. Therefore, it cannot be considered as if the *kimitzah* has been taken before it actually is.
The Gemara continues its line of questioning: if reaching the time for removal is considered equivalent to actual removal, then what about the leftovers (*shirayim*) of a meal offering that became deficient between the *kimitzah* and the burning on the altar (*haktara*)? In such a case, the handful of flour (*kometz*) is not burned on the altar. Why not? Since the *kometz* was already taken, it should be considered as if it has already been placed on the altar, and thus the subsequent deficiency of the *shirayim* should not matter. The response is that the *shirayim* must remain complete. If they become deficient, the *kometz* cannot be offered. The argument is that the concept of "anything that is destined to be removed" being considered "as if removed" applies to the Lechem Hapanim, but not to the *shirayim* being considered "as if offered" on the altar. The *shirayim* must remain complete until the *haktara*.
Returning to the core dispute: concerning the Habitei Kohen Gadol, Rabbi Yohanan stated that it is not holy if sanctified in halves, while Rabbi El-Azhar stated that since it is brought in halves, it can be sanctified in halves. Rava explains Rabbi Yohanan's reasoning: the verse states, "a complete meal offering, then divide it." This implies that the offering must first be complete before any division. However, the Habitei Kohen Gadol is not brought in half-measures in the sense that one brings half from home in the morning and the other half later. Rather, the full measure is brought at once, and then it is divided for the morning and evening offerings. Rava clarifies that while one must bring the entire offering from home in one go, when placing it into the vessel in the Temple, it can be placed in halves. This is the understanding of the Beraita.
The Gemara then presents a different scenario: what if a High Priest places half of a regular meal offering into a vessel with the intention to add the other half immediately? Rav states that it is not holy, while Rabbi Yohanan states that it is holy. Rabbi Yohanan's view is that if one places the first half with the intention of completing it, it is valid. The Gemara questions this: if Rabbi Yohanan holds that the Habitei Kohen Gadol is invalid if sanctified in halves, how can he rule that a regular meal offering is valid if placed in halves with the intention to complete it? He should learn from the Habitei Kohen Gadol that this case should also be invalid. Conversely, if he allows it for a regular meal offering, he should allow it for the Habitei Kohen Gadol.
The Gemara responds that each case is different, and one does not learn from one type of meal offering to another in this specific context. This is challenged again: we find that one does learn from one offering to another. For example, if peace offerings (*shelamim*) were stored in the Sanctuary (*Hechal*) even though they are meant to be stored in the courtyard (*Azara*), they are still valid. This is because the verse states that they must be stored "at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting," which is a secondary location, implying that even the Sanctuary is acceptable. Just as laws of the courtyard are learned from the Sanctuary, so too laws of meal offerings can be learned from each other.
The Gemara reconciles the views of Rav and Rabbi Yohanan regarding the meal offering placed in halves. In the case of a regular meal offering, when one initially places half with the intention to immediately fill it completely, it is considered as if it was done in one continuous action. However, in the case of the Habitei Kohen Gadol, if one places half with the intention to leave it as half (for the morning portion, with the other half for the afternoon), then it is invalid, because the intention was only for a half-measure. The verse states "full," implying that the measure is considered complete only when there is no intention to add more. If one places half with no intention to add, that first half is holy because the intention was for that specific half to be complete in itself.
The Gemara then questions Rav's position. Rav holds that a regular meal offering must be placed into the vessel all at once and not separately. If Rav holds like Rabbi El-Azhar (who permits sanctifying the Habitei Kohen Gadol in halves), then Rav should also permit a regular meal offering to be sanctified in halves. If Rav does not derive one meal offering from another, this is also challenged. We find that a meal offering without oil is valid because we find the Lechem Hapanim has no oil. A meal offering without frankincense is valid because we find a private meal offering (such as a Minchat Nesachim) does not have frankincense. A dry meal offering (without oil or frankincense) is valid because we find the Minchat Chote (sinner's meal offering) is dry. This shows that Rav *does* compare one meal offering to another. Therefore, Rav must hold like Rabbi Yohanan that the Habitei Kohen Gadol is invalid if done in halves, and consequently, a regular meal offering done in halves is also invalid.
The discussion then delves into the ingredients of the meal offering. A meal offering brought without oil is holy, as we find no oil in the Lechem Hapanim. One brought without frankincense is holy, as we find in a meal offering of libations (*Minchat Nesachim*) that no frankincense is added. A dry meal offering (without oil or frankincense) is holy, as we find in the Minchat Chote. The Torah states that oil and frankincense of the meal offering can become holy on their own, meaning each can be sanctified separately, even if placed alone in a vessel. How do we know that oil can become holy on its own? From the oil of the Metzora (leper), which is just oil and is sanctified alone. How do we know frankincense can become holy on its own? From the frankincense placed in the spoons (*bazichin*) on the Lechem Hapanim table, which is sanctified alone.
Rabbi Hanina, however, states that none of these ingredients of a meal offering become holy unless accompanied by the other necessary ingredients. For a meal offering requiring fine flour, oil, and frankincense, it is not holy until all three ingredients are together. The Gemara asks against Rabbi Hanina: why was the measuring cup for the *tenth of an ephah* of fine flour sanctified? If fine flour alone does not become holy, why sanctify the vessel used to measure it? This implies it *does* become holy at that point. Rabbi Hanina would answer that the measuring cup is sanctified for the Minchat Chote, which consists only of fine flour. Similarly, the *log* measure for oil is sanctified for the oil of the Metzora, which is only oil.
Shemuel offers a different perspective. He states that liquid vessels (*kli halach*) sanctify liquids, and dry measures (*middot hayavesh*) sanctify dry items. However, liquid vessels do not sanctify dry items, nor do dry measures sanctify liquids. Shemuel clarifies that this rule about liquid vessels not sanctifying dry items applies only to measuring vessels. But for sprinkling bowls (*mezrakot*) or other bowls (*ka'arot*), which are liquid vessels, if fine flour is placed in them, it becomes holy. This is derived from the verse describing the offerings of the tribal princes, where it mentions "one silver bowl, one silver sprinkling bowl, both of them full of fine flour." This implies that even if fine flour alone is placed in these liquid vessels, it becomes holy. This suggests that Shemuel holds that fine flour alone, in a vessel, can become holy.
The Gemara clarifies that the verse refers to fine flour mixed with oil, making it a "liquid" item, not dry. Therefore, it does not prove that dry flour alone is sanctified in a liquid vessel. Another answer is given: even when oil is added, it is impossible for every granule of flour to mix with the oil; there will always be some dry flour. The fact that the vessel sanctifies this dry part, even without direct contact with the oil, proves that the vessel sanctifies the dry part of the meal offering. The Gemara then argues that this comparison is valid: if a meal offering, even with oil, can be placed in a vessel designated for blood (which is a liquid), and be sanctified, then it is considered "dry" relative to blood. Therefore, if the verse allows placing it there, it implies that even dry flour alone would be sanctified because it is considered a "dry" item in relation to the vessel's primary purpose for blood.
Returning to the *kimitzah* being performed in the Sanctuary (*Hechal*): we found a case where the *kimitzah* was performed inside. This refers to the frankincense spoons (*bazikin*) taken from the Lechem Hapanim table. The table, with its bread and frankincense spoons, is considered like a meal offering. When the High Priest enters and removes these spoons, it is a form of *kimitzah*. The verse says to take the *kimitzah* "from there," implying a place where a non-priest (*zar*) can stand, which is the courtyard (*Azara*), specifically the eleven cubits on its eastern flank. The verse thus seems to exclude the Sanctuary. However, we learned in a later Mishnah that if one took the *kimitzah* with the left hand, one must put it back and redo it with the right hand, because "from there" means from the same place. This is a side point.
The Gemara returns to the initial interpretation of "from there." Some say that Rabbi Ramiya asked and answered this question. He explained that the verse "from there" does not come to exclude the Sanctuary. Rather, it comes to teach that when performing the *kimitzah* in the courtyard, it can be done anywhere in the courtyard. One might have thought, like a burnt offering (*Ola*), which is called a "slaughter of holy offerings" and must be done in the north, that a meal offering, also called a "slaughter of holy offerings," must also be done in the north. The verse comes to negate this, teaching that it can be done anywhere in the courtyard, but not to exclude the Sanctuary.
The Gemara challenges this: one cannot derive from a burnt offering (*Ola*) to a meal offering. A burnt offering has a stringency in that the entire offering is brought on the altar, necessitating its placement in the north. This stringency does not apply to a meal offering. Perhaps one should derive it from a sin offering (*Hatat*) or a guilt offering (*Asham*), both of which are holy and brought in the north. However, these also involve blood, which is the primary atonement (*ikar kapara*), and their blood is sprinkled. A meal offering does not involve blood in the same way. Therefore, the verse "from there" must indeed come to exclude the Sanctuary, implying that *kimitzah* cannot be done there.
The Gemara offers a final explanation: the verse "from there" is needed to teach that *kimitzah* can be done anywhere in the courtyard, not just in the southwestern corner where the bringing near (*hagashah*) of the meal offering occurs. One might have thought that just as the *hagashah* is in the southwestern corner, so too the *kimitzah* must be there. The verse "take a handful" comes to teach that no, it can be done anywhere in the courtyard, including places where a non-priest may stand. This verse does not come to exclude the Sanctuary; rather, it comes to exclude the southwestern corner as the *exclusive* place for *kimitzah* in the courtyard. Therefore, the Sanctuary is still permitted.