Rabbi Yohanan said that if the offering is slaughtered in the Sanctuary, it is certainly valid. We would not impose a stricter standard on the Sanctuary than on the courtyard. If it may be performed in the courtyard, it may certainly be performed inside, in the holier place. That was Rabbi Yohanan’s reasoning: we would not make the outer area stricter than the Sanctuary, nor the courtyard stricter than the Sanctuary.
Suppose, however, that gentiles are surrounding the courtyard, making it dangerous to enter. They cannot eat the offerings in the courtyard, because anyone who enters is exposed to arrows. How do we know that they may enter the Sanctuary and eat the offerings, or eat the remnants of the meal offering? Normally, the remnants are eaten in the courtyard. If it is dangerous to eat them there, how do we know that they may be eaten inside?
The verse says that it may be eaten in the Holy of Holies. Why is that verse necessary? Why not apply a simple logical argument? Just as Rabbi Yohanan said regarding service—that if an act may be performed in the courtyard, it may certainly be performed in the Sanctuary—why not say the same regarding eating? If it may be eaten in the courtyard, it should certainly be permissible to eat it in the Sanctuary.
The answer is that there is a difference between service and eating. Service, such as slaughtering an offering, is always more appropriate when it is performed closer to the Master. Therefore, regarding service, there is a basis for saying that if one may serve from a distance, one may certainly serve from a closer place. Eating, however, is the opposite. It is not respectful to eat in front of a person, and it is not respectful to eat in front of a king. Therefore, we cannot say that if one may eat inside, one may certainly eat outside, or that if one may eat outside, one may certainly eat inside. When it comes to eating, there is greater reason to say that the more distant place is preferable, because eating is a personal act.
That is why the verse is necessary. In a time of danger, when the gentiles are surrounding the courtyard and preventing access, they may enter and eat inside. Apart from a time of danger, however, we want them to eat outside. We do not apply the logic that if eating outside is permitted, eating inside should certainly be permitted as well. That logic applies to service, not to eating.
Now let us continue. What is the law if one mixed a meal offering outside the courtyard by combining it with the oil? Tosafot says that one does not actually have to mix it at all; one merely has to place the oil in it. The mixing itself is not indispensable. Therefore, it is better not to mix it at all than to mix it improperly. If one merely places the oil in it, there is no problem. But once one has performed the mixing, and performed it outside, the first view would say that it is invalid, while there is also a view that considers it acceptable.
The verse says that one pours the oil on it and then brings it. When do the priests become involved? What do we learn from this passage? The pouring of the oil and the pouring of the frankincense may even be performed by a non-priest. One might have thought that the priests become involved only from the taking of the handful onward. That is the novel point of the discussion: the priestly service begins with the taking of the handful, whereas the earlier acts may be performed outside by a non-priest.
One could say that the verse teaches only that priests are not required at that stage. It does not necessarily teach that the act may be performed outside. Perhaps the non-priest is placing the oil in a consecrated vessel. Once a consecrated vessel is involved, the act is a service and must be performed inside. That is the dispute.
The baraita is taught according to Rabbi Yohanan: the mixing is valid outside the courtyard, whereas mixing it outside is invalid according to the other view. This clearly follows Rabbi Yohanan’s position, that a non-priest may perform that act outside.
Another statement is taught regarding a meal offering whose contents diminished before the taking of the handful. Rabbi Yohanan said that one brings additional material, fills it, and continues with the process. Reish Lakish said no: once it has diminished, it is invalid. One may not fill it again, and the process is over.
Rabbi Yohanan said that one may bring additional material and fill it, because the taking of the handful is what consecrates the meal offering. Before the handful is taken, it is not yet fully considered a meal offering for this purpose. The verse speaks of taking a handful from the meal offering, and only after the taking of the handful does it have that status. Therefore, if it diminished beforehand, one may fill it again.
Reish Lakish maintains that the consecrated vessel consecrates it. Once it has been placed in the vessel, it is consecrated. If it then diminishes, it is already deficient, and it is too late to add to it.
A proof is brought from the measure of oil used for a person afflicted with tzaraat. Suppose that the measure of oil is missing slightly, but it has not yet been poured out. What was done with this oil? One priest would take the measure and pour it into the left hand of another priest. The second priest would dip his right finger into the oil in his left hand and sprinkle it. Here, too, before the oil was poured into the priest’s hand, it became deficient. What is the law? The ruling is that one fills it again. This demonstrates that the vessel does not necessarily consecrate it at that earlier stage; the later act is what consecrates it. That is a proof against Reish Lakish.
The question against Reish Lakish is as follows: what does it mean that the item has already diminished? We can say that the vessel consecrates it, but Reish Lakish says that the vessel does not consecrate it at that stage. Rather, the taking of the handful consecrates the meal offering. Therefore, this case presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish.
The next case concerns remnants that diminished after the handful had been taken but before it was placed on the altar. The handful was taken, and it was ready to be burned on the altar. Before that happened, the remnants in the vessel became deficient. What is the law?
Rabbi Yohanan said that one continues: one brings the handful and burns it, and the remnants are no longer eaten. Reish Lakish said that one may not bring the handful. Since the remnants became deficient, the handful may not be burned.
According to Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees that the handful may be brought. Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may bring the handful on the altar even when there is nothing left for it to permit. For example, even if the entire offering was lost, one may still bring the handful. He says the same regarding blood: even if the meat was lost, one sprinkles the blood. Therefore, in a case where remnants remain but have merely become deficient, everyone agrees that one continues.
The dispute is according to Rabbi Yehoshua. What does Rabbi Yehoshua maintain? Rabbi Yehoshua says that if nothing remains, one may not proceed. The question is how far his ruling extends. Perhaps he says this only when the entire offering is missing. If a small amount remains, even Rabbi Yehoshua would agree that one continues. Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua does not distinguish between the entire offering being missing and only a small amount being missing. Even when only a little remains, he would prohibit burning the handful. The dispute is how far Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling extends.
The baraita says that all offerings in the Torah are subject to the following rule: if the meat or the permitted portions became invalid, but an olive-sized portion of the meat or an olive-sized portion of the permitted portion remained, the blood is sprinkled, and the offering is valid. What do we see from here? This supports Rabbi Yohanan, and it is Rabbi Yehoshua who is speaking. Rabbi Yehoshua says that as long as an olive-sized portion remains, one proceeds. Therefore, even when only a small amount of the remnants remains, one continues and burns the handful. If the entire offering is gone, however, that is different.
Rava responds that a source can be brought in support of Reish Lakish. If an olive-sized portion of the meat and an olive-sized portion of the permitted portion remained, one does not sprinkle the blood. In the case of a burnt offering, however, even if only an olive-sized portion of the meat and an olive-sized portion of the permitted portion remained, one does sprinkle the blood. The reason is that everything in a burnt offering is significant, because everything goes onto the altar. Therefore, it retains its significance.
When it comes to a meal offering, even though the entire offering is placed on the altar, what case are we discussing? There is no sprinkling of blood with a meal offering. The baraita is referring to the meal offering that accompanies libations. There are two types of libations: the wine libation, and the meal offering that accompanies the offering. The teaching means that if there is no requisite offering whose blood can be sprinkled, neither are the libations brought on the altar.
One might have thought that just as the blood is not sprinkled, the accompanying libations are not brought either. The teaching tells us that this is not necessarily so. Since the meal offering comes together with the offering, one might have thought that even if the meat is missing, as long as the meal offering remains, it should be brought.
Returning to the dispute: the baraita clearly supports Rabbi Yohanan, who says that if a small amount of the remnants remains, one proceeds and burns the handful on the altar. What about Reish Lakish? Reish Lakish says that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, if the remnants are deficient, the handful may not be brought. The other view says that Rabbi Yehoshua prohibits bringing it only when nothing remains at all. When something remains, even if it is deficient, it may be brought. That is the dispute according to Rabbi Yehoshua. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there is no dispute; everyone agrees that it is brought.
Another baraita teaches that if the remnants became impure and were burned, or if the remnants became lost, the offering remains valid. If they remained in an amount of an olive, one sprinkles the blood. This again seems to support Rabbi Yohanan, because Rabbi Yehoshua is the one speaking, and he says that as long as an olive-sized portion remains, one proceeds.
The Gemara responds by bringing a teaching in support of Reish Lakish: if an olive-sized portion of the meat and an olive-sized portion of the permitted portion remained, the blood is not sprinkled. In the case of a burnt offering, however, the blood is sprinkled even in that circumstance. This is because every part of a burnt offering is significant.
With regard to a meal offering, the discussion concerns the meal offering accompanying libations. If there is no offering whose blood can be sprinkled, the libations are not brought onto the altar. One might have thought that, since the meal offering is still present, it should be brought even though the offering itself is missing. The teaching rejects that assumption.
Rabbi Yohanan’s view is that when the verse refers to the meal offering, it can mean the meal offering that existed at the time the handful was taken. As long as it was a complete meal offering at that time, even if it later became deficient, there is no problem bringing the handful. Reish Lakish interprets the verse differently and requires the remnants to remain intact at the later stage as well.
There is a special exposition regarding a meal offering that requires the entire meal offering to be intact when the handful is burned. Rabbi Yohanan also expounds the expression “from the meal offering” to mean the meal offering that existed earlier. In other words, as long as it was a meal offering at the time of the taking of the handful, the fact that it later became deficient does not prevent the handful from being burned.
The Gemara then asks whether a deficiency that occurred after the taking of the handful prevents the remnants from being eaten. One source says that the remnants are invalid, while another source says that they are deficient. Why are two baraitot necessary?
The answer is that they refer to two different stages. One teaches the law when the offering became deficient before the taking of the handful, and the other teaches the law when it became deficient after the taking of the handful but before the burning of the handful. At first, both seem to present difficulties for Rabbi Yohanan.
The first baraita, however, means that if it became deficient before the taking of the handful, it is invalid until one returns home and adds more. The second baraita means that after the taking of the handful, one may bring the handful, but the remnants may not be eaten. Thus, one may continue the altar service, but the remnants are invalid for eating.
How do we know that the remnants may not be eaten? The verse says, “And what remains.” It implies that one eats what remains of the meal offering, but not what remains after the offering has become deficient. Once the handful has been taken and the offering has become deficient, it is no longer the same complete meal offering, and the remnants may not be eaten.
There are two ways to understand Rabbi Yannai. According to one interpretation, he agrees with the first view but derives it from a different verse. The expression refers to the meal offering that existed at the time of the taking of the handful. Thus, if something is missing afterward, it may not be eaten.
Rashi offers another interpretation. Rabbi Yannai may actually be disagreeing and may hold that the remnants may be eaten. As long as the offering was complete at the time of the taking of the handful, it remains permitted even if it subsequently became deficient. Thus, there are two ways to understand Rabbi Yannai: he may be agreeing with the first view and merely deriving it from a different verse, or he may be arguing that the remnants remain permissible as long as the offering was complete when the handful was taken.
Let us review the conclusion. There are two baraitot concerning a deficient meal offering. One says that it is invalid, and the other also says that it is invalid. Why are two needed? One teaches the case in which it became deficient before the taking of the handful, and the other teaches the case in which it became deficient after the taking of the handful but before the handful was burned.
According to Rabbi Yohanan, in the first case, if it became deficient before the taking of the handful, one fills it again and continues. In the second case, after the taking of the handful, one may bring and burn the handful, but the remnants may not be eaten. One view says that they may not be eaten, while Rabbi Yannai may say that they may be eaten as long as the offering was complete at the time the handful was taken.
Now we come to the question of taking the handful with the left hand. The Mishnah teaches that if one took the handful with the left hand, it is invalid. How do we know this?
In the laws concerning the person afflicted with tzaraat, the verse explicitly says that the oil is placed in the priest’s left hand. The other priest dips his finger into the oil and applies it. What do we learn from the verse explicitly mentioning the left hand? We learn that when the Torah wants to specify the left hand, it says so. In other cases, when the Torah speaks of the hand without specifying, the reference is generally to the right hand.
The Gemara asks why we should derive the law from the case of the person afflicted with tzaraat. Perhaps the repeated mention of the left hand is needed only for that case itself. It may be teaching that the oil must specifically be placed in the left hand, but it cannot be used to establish a general rule for other services.
One verse says “left hand” twice. The first mention is needed for the case itself. The second might teach that, in that same service, the left hand is acceptable as well. Perhaps, however, it teaches that just as the left hand is used there, it may be used elsewhere too.
Another mention is therefore needed to prevent that inference. The verses concerning the person afflicted with tzaraat contain four references to the left hand, because the Torah presents the procedure for both a wealthy person and a poor person. The procedure appears once in the section concerning the wealthy person and again in the section concerning the poor person.
What do we do with all four references? The first is needed for the law itself. The second teaches an additional point within that procedure. The third prevents us from drawing the wrong inference from the second. The fourth is also used to establish the specific law within the passage. Since all four references are needed for the laws of the afflicted person, they cannot be used to establish a general rule that the left hand is valid for other services.
Therefore, the conclusion is that taking the handful with the left hand is invalid in other services. The explicit references to the left hand are confined to the procedure involving the person afflicted with tzaraat, and they do not establish that the left hand is valid elsewhere.