Salt and the Eternal Covenant on Every Offering

Limbs of a sin offering that became mixed with limbs of a burnt offering: Rabbi Eliezer says, let him place them upon the altar, and I regard the flesh of the sin offering above as though it were wood. The sages say, let their form deteriorate and let them go out to the place of burning. What is Rabbi Eliezer's reason? The verse said "and to the altar they shall not go up for a pleasing aroma" (Leviticus 2:12): for a pleasing aroma you may not offer them, but you may offer them for the sake of wood. And the sages: the Merciful One limited it with "them," it is "them" that you may not offer for a pleasing aroma but may offer for the sake of wood, but nothing else. And Rabbi Eliezer: "them" is what extends the ramp like the altar, but nothing else. And the sages: you learn two things from it. The teaching is not in accord with this Tanna; for it was taught, Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the sages did not differ regarding limbs of a sin offering mixed with limbs of a burnt offering, that they should be offered, nor regarding a beast that mounted or was mounted, that they should not be offered. About what did they differ? About limbs of an unblemished burnt offering mixed with limbs of a blemished burnt offering, where Rabbi Eliezer says, let him place them above, and I regard the blemished limbs as though they were wood; and the sages say, they shall not be offered. And Rabbi Eliezer: what is different about the mounting beast that it is unfit; the blemished one too is unfit. Rabbi Eliezer's reasoning is that the Merciful One limited with "a blemish in them" (Leviticus 22:25): it is "a blemish in them" that shall not be accepted, but by means of a mixture they shall be accepted. And the sages: "a blemish in them" is what shall not be accepted, but once their blemish has passed they shall be accepted. "The altar": I have only the altar; from where to include the ramp? Scripture teaches by saying "and to the altar they shall not go up." One might think whether for service or not for service; Scripture teaches "for a pleasing aroma": one who offers up for service is liable, not for service he is exempt. (Leviticus 2:13) Had it said "every offering with salt," I would understand even wood and blood, which are called offering; Scripture teaches "meal offering," just as a meal offering is distinctive in that other things come as an obligation for it, so all for which other things come as an obligation. If so, just as a meal offering is distinctive in that it renders permitted, so all that renders permitted, and I would bring blood, which renders permitted; Scripture teaches "upon your meal offering," and not upon your blood. One might think the whole meal offering requires salt; Scripture teaches "offering": the offering requires salt but not the whole meal offering requires salt. And I have only the handful; from where to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense, since it comes with it in a single vessel. From where to include frankincense that comes by itself, and frankincense that comes in the dishes, and the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering of drink offerings, the sacrificial portions of a sin offering, of a guilt offering, of the most holy offerings, of the lesser holy offerings, the limbs of a burnt offering, and the bird burnt offering? Scripture teaches by saying "upon every offering of yours you shall offer salt." Master said: I have only the handful; from where to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense since it comes with it in a single vessel; but did you not say, just as a meal offering is distinctive in that others come as an obligation for it? This is what it means: say "offering" is the general, "meal offering" the specific; in a general followed by a specific, the general includes only what is in the specific; meal offering yes, nothing else. Then it returned and said "upon every offering of yours," it generalized again; a general, a specific, and a general, you may infer only what is like the specific; just as the specific is something for which others come as an obligation, so all for which others come as an obligation, and what is that? Wood. Master said: "upon your meal offering" and not upon your blood; but say "upon your meal offering" and not upon your limbs? It is reasonable that the limbs should be included, for like it, others come as an obligation, like it they go to the fires, like it offered outside, like it as leftover, like it regarding impurity, like it regarding misappropriation. On the contrary, the blood should be included, for like it it renders permitted, like it disqualified at sunset. Those are more numerous. Master said: I would understand even wood and blood that are called offering; this accords with the Tanna, for it was taught, Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says, just as the specific is explicit, a thing that receives impurity and goes up to the fires and is on the outer altar, so all and so on; wood is excluded, which does not receive impurity; blood and wine are excluded, which do not go up to the fires; incense is excluded, which is not on the outer altar. Rather the reason is that the verse limited the blood, for otherwise I would have said blood requires salt, and once one salts it, it leaves the category of blood, as Ze'iri said in the name of Rabbi Chanina, blood that one has cooked, one does not transgress on its account; and Rav Yehuda himself said, limbs that one roasted and offered up have no quality of a pleasing aroma in them. You might think one casts a bit of salt upon it merely as a precept; it teaches us otherwise. And this is not in accord with Rabbi; for it was taught, "offering" teaches that one may donate wood, and how much, two logs; and so it says "and we cast lots for the wood offering" (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi says, wood is an offering and requires salt and requires bringing near. And Rava said, according to Rabbi, wood requires the taking of a handful. And Rav Papa said, according to Rabbi, wood requires wood. "A covenant of salt forever it is" (Leviticus 2:13): that the covenant spoken of should be with salt; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says, it says here "a covenant of salt," and it says there "a covenant of eternal priesthood"; just as offerings are impossible without priesthood, so offerings are impossible without salt. "With salt": one might think you should soak it; Scripture teaches "you shall salt." If "you shall salt," one might think with salt water; Scripture teaches "with salt." "You shall not let the salt cease" (Leviticus 2:13): bring salt that does not cease, and which is that? Sodomite salt. And from where that if one did not find Sodomite salt he brings rock salt? Scripture teaches "you shall offer": you shall offer any kind; you shall offer from any place; you shall offer even on the Sabbath; you shall offer even in impurity. What is "you shall season it"? Rabbah bar Ulla said: thus it means, one might think he shall mix it in like straw in clay; Abaye said to him, if so it should have said "he shall season it." Rather Abaye said, one might think he shall make it like a building; Rava said to him, if so it should have said "he shall build it." Rather Rava said, one might think "you shall season it," what is "you shall season it"? Rav Ashi said: one might think he shall give it the taste of discernment; Scripture teaches "you shall salt." How does one do it? He brings the limb and places salt upon it and turns it over and places salt upon it and offers it up. Abaye said: and so for a cooking pot. One might think that one who says "behold upon me a meal offering" should bring salt from his own house, just as he brings frankincense from his own house. And it is a logical inference: it says bring a meal offering, bring frankincense, and just as the frankincense is from his house, so the salt. Or go this way: it says bring a meal offering, bring wood; just as the wood is from the public, so the salt. Let us see which it resembles: we derive a thing that applies to all sacrifices from a thing that applies to all sacrifices, and let frankincense, which does not apply to all sacrifices, not prove otherwise. Or go this way: we derive a thing that comes with it in a single vessel from a thing that comes with it in a single vessel, and let wood, which does not come with it in a single vessel, not prove otherwise; Scripture teaches by saying "a covenant of salt forever," and it says there "from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8); just as there it is from the public, so here from the public.