Talmud - Yoma 47b יומא מ״ז ב׳

And in a case of a meal-offering prepared in a pan and with regard to a meal-offering prepared in a deep container, when the flour was fried before being scooped and was therefore hard, the priest smooths with his thumb any flour that was overflowing above his handful, and with his little finger he smooths the flour that was pushing out below. And this precise taking of a handful of a meal-offering is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple. The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest rite, and no other? But there is pinching, which is also considered extremely difficult, and there is taking the handful of incense, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of a meal-offering is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uza’a raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the flour that remains between the fingers of his handfuls? Is this flour considered to be part of his handful, or is it considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering? The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa said that with regard to the flour that is on the inside, toward the hand, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the handful. Likewise, with regard to the flour that is on the outside, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the remainder of the flour, like the rest of the meal-offering.

Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to the flour between the inside and the outside. What is the status of this flour? Rav Yoḥanan said: Yehoshua ben Uza’a then resolved his own dilemma: The flour that is between is doubtful, and should be treated as questionable in status.

The Gemara asks: How does one perform the Temple service in this doubtful case? Rabbi Ḥanina said: The priest first burns the handful by itself, and then he burns the flour that was between. For if you say that he should first burn the flour that was between, perhaps they are remainders, and they are therefore considered like remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and burning, as the priest has taken flour from the remainders of the meal-offering. And the Master said: With regard to remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and the burning, one may not burn the handful on their account.

The Gemara asks: If so, that there is uncertainty as to whether or not this flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, now too, if the priest burns the in-between flour after burning the handful, one should apply here the principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire of the altar is subject to the prohibition do not burn. This principle states that if part of an item is burned on the altar, one who burns any other part of it, which is not designated for burning, has violated a prohibition. In this case, if the in-between flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, the priest who burns it transgresses that prohibition.

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest does not burn the flour as part of the meal-offering but burns it for the purpose of wood. In other words, he does not burn the flour as part of an offering but merely as fuel for the altar, which is permitted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: “But they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar” (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a “sweet savor,” an offering. However, you may bring up leaven and honey and other materials for the purpose of wood.

The Gemara asks: It works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Eliezer’s halakha, what can be said? Rav Mari said: The solution is that fat priests take the handfuls of meal-offerings, as their fleshy fingers press against everything between them, and therefore no flour remains between the fingers. The Gemara states: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, it is appropriate that fat priests should take the handfuls ab initio, to avoid a situation of doubt.

§ Bein habeinayim, pashat, umaḥatz, ufizer, veḥishev, baḥafinat, ḥaveiro: This is a mnemonic for the ensuing questions of Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the in-between incense of his handfuls? The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? If he derives the verbal analogy between “full” and “full” from his handfuls there, the case of the meal-offering handful, this case is the same as that one, and therefore the incense between his fingers is invalid. If Rav Pappa does not accept this verbal analogy, what is the basis of his dilemma?

The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa raised the dilemma as follows: When the verse states: “And his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil” (Leviticus 16:12), does it mean that we merely require him to bring his handfuls, and that is fulfilled here, as in practice the High Priest brought full handfuls? Or perhaps we require that he must fulfill the following two commands in a similar manner: “And he shall take…and he shall bring” (Leviticus 16:12)? In other words, just as he must have the intention to take the incense, so too, he must intend to bring all of it. And that requirement is not fulfilled here, as he did not intend to bring the extra incense between his fingers. No answer was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the act of his handfuls of a meal-offering should be performed ab initio in the manner that people usually take a handful, with their fingertips pointed downward. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if he took a handful with his fingertips, i.e., if he first put his palm into the vessel and filled his palm with flour by extending his fingers and drawing them in? Does this invalidate the taking of the handful or not?

Furthermore, what is the halakha if he took the handful with the back of his hand placed downward in the vessel, and with his fingers collected the flour upward into his palm? Lastly, what is the halakha if he took the flour from the sides, by passing the back of his hand to and fro over the flour in the vessel with his fingers spread apart, so that the flour collects in his palm? As no answers were found for these dilemmas, the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

Likewise, Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: “His hands full” (Leviticus 16:12), it means in the manner that people usually fill their hands, by placing the backs of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a handful with his fingertips? Again, what is the halakha if he took a handful from downward to upward? What is the halakha if he took a handful from the side? And what is the halakha if he scooped a handful with this hand and with this hand and brought them together? These questions are not answered either, and the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

§ Another dilemma was raised by

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Yoma 47b examines the meticulous procedure for scooping a handful of meal-offering flour, then debates the uncertain status of flour trapped between the priest's fingers.