Study Menachot folio 12B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Or an olive-bulk, in the case of one’s intent with regard to the consumption of the remainder, because the remainder is already the size of an olive-bulk. Therefore, in the case of the removal of the handful as well, i.e., when he teaches: One who removes a handful to partake of its remainder, R'
Abaye said to Rava: No, one cannot prove from here that the Mishnah is discussing the case of a remainder that became lacking. The reason for this is: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah of R' Ḥiyya? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Elazar, as we learned in a Mishnah (Zevaḥim
Abaye concludes: Since with regard to the burning of the handful he could not teach: Or burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple, as according to R' Elazar one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful and therefore intent to burn only an olive-bulk does not render th
The Talmud asks: If the Mishnah of R' Ḥiyya is really in accordance with the opinion of R' Elazar, then this statement: To burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard, should have been phrased: To burn its handful and its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, as we learned in a Mishnah (Zeva
The Talmud responds: The Mishnah of R' Ḥiyya is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense. Since only the burning of the handful permits the remainder of the sinner’s meal offering for consumption, one’s intent to burn it the next day renders the off