מנחות דף נב

באפרה אין מועלין.

but if one derives benefit from its ashes, one is not liable for misusing consecrated property. It is clear from the baraita that by Torah law one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from the ashes of a red heifer.

אמר רב אשי: שתי תקנות הואי, דאורייתא – בה מועלין, באפרה אין מועלין. כיון דחזו דקא מזלזלי בה, וקא עבדי מיניה למכתן – גזרו ביה מעילה.

Rav Ashi said in response: In fact, this halakha is by Torah law, but there were two ordinances that were enacted concerning this matter. By Torah law, if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property, but if he derives benefit from its ashes he is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Once the Sages saw that people were treating the ashes of the heifer disrespectfully, and making salves for their wounds from it, they decreed that it is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property and one may not derive benefit from it.

כיון דחזו דקא פרשי מספק הזאות, אוקמוה אדאורייתא.

Once they saw that as a result of this decree people were refraining from sprinkling it in cases where there was uncertainty as to whether or not an individual was impure and required sprinkling, they revoked the decree and established it in accordance with the halakha as it is by Torah law, that one is not liable for misusing the ashes of a red heifer.

תנו רבנן: פר העלם דבר של ציבור ושעירי עבודה זרה – בתחילה מגבין להן, דברי רבי יהודה. רבי שמעון אומר: מתרומת הלשכה הן באין.

§ The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda that is similar to the one cited earlier. The Sages taught in a baraita: If there is a need to sacrifice the bull for an unwitting communal sin, brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling concerning a prohibition for which one is liable to receive karet and the majority of the community acts upon it, or the goats brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous ruling permitting idol worship and the majority of the community acts on it, a new collection of funds is organized for them. The funds are not taken from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, unlike other communal offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The funds for these sacrifices come from the collection of the chamber.

והתניא איפכא, הי מינייהו אחריתא?

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita the opposite, i.e., that the first opinion cited above is that of Rabbi Shimon and the second is that of Rabbi Yehuda? Which of the two baraitot is the later one and therefore the more accurate and authoritative version of their opinions?

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב אשי: לימא קמייתא אחריתא, דשמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דחייש לפשיעה.

The Sages said the following before Rav Ashi: Let us say that the first baraita cited above is the later one, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about the possibility of negligence. Just as Rabbi Shimon was concerned above that the heirs of the High Priest would not provide the funds for the griddle-cake offering, it is reasonable to assume that he would be concerned that people would not contribute to a new collection, and therefore the funds are taken from the collection of the chamber.

אמר להו רב אשי: אפילו תימא בתרייתא אחריתא, כי קא חייש רבי שמעון לפשיעה – מילתא דלית בהו כפרה בגווה, במילתא דאית להו כפרה בגווה – לא

Rav Ashi said to the Sages: You may even say that the latter baraita cited above is the later and more authoritative one. When Rabbi Shimon expressed that he is concerned about the possibility of people acting with negligence, that was only with regard to a matter that does not provide them with atonement, e.g., the griddle-cake offering of the deceased High Priest. But Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about the possibility of negligence with regard to a matter that does provide them with atonement, e.g., these sin offerings.

חייש רבי שמעון לפשיעה.

מאי הוי עלה?

The Gemara asks, in light of the fact that the discussion above was inconclusive: What conclusion was reached about it; which baraita is later and more authoritative?

אמר ליה רבה זוטי לרב אשי: תא שמע, דתניא: ״את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחחי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו״ – לרבות פר העלם

Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the daily sacrifice: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Me, you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2), serves to include the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats of idol worship. This teaches that the funds for these offerings come from the collection of the chamber; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. This proves that it is Rabbi Shimon who holds that these sacrifices are brought from the collection of the chamber.

דבר של ציבור ושעירי עבודה זרה שבאין מתרומת הלשכה, דברי רבי שמעון.

ושלימה היתה קריבה וכו׳. אמר רבי חייא בר אבא: בעי רבי יוחנן – שלימה שחרית ושלימה בין הערבים, או דילמא שלימה שחרית ובטילה בין הערבים?

§ The mishna teaches: And for the duration of the period until a new High Priest is appointed, the griddle-cake offering was sacrificed as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: Does the mishna mean that a complete tenth of an ephah is offered in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is offered in the afternoon, because this offering is sacrificed twice a day and is not divided in half when it is not brought by the High Priest himself? Or does it perhaps mean that a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and the offering is canceled in the afternoon?

אמר רבא תא שמע: שמיני בחביתים, ואם איתא דבטילה בין הערבים – הא זמנין דלא משכח ליה שמיני בחביתים! היכי דמי? דמת כהן גדול ולא מינו אחר תחתיו.

Rava said: Come and hear the resolution to this dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna (Tamid 31b) describing the order of the nine priests who brought the limbs of the daily offering up to the ramp of the altar, both in the morning and in the afternoon: The eighth priest carries the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. And if it were so that the offering is canceled in the afternoon, then sometimes one would not find the eighth priest carrying the griddle-cake offering. What are the circumstances when there would be no eighth priest? In a case where the High Priest died after he brought his griddle-cake offering in the morning and they did not yet appoint another High Priest in his stead. Therefore, it must be that a complete tenth of an ephah was also brought for the afternoon offering.

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרבי ירמיה, אמר: בבלאי טפשאי, משום (דיתבו) [דיתבי] באתרא דחשוכא אמרי שמעתתא דמחשכן.

The Sages stated this proof before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya rejected it and said: Those foolish Babylonians, because they dwell in a low-lying and therefore dark land, they state halakhot that are dark, i.e., erroneous.

אלא, דקתני: שביעי בסלת, תשיעי ביין, הכי נמי דלא בטלי?

Rather, with regard to that which the same mishna teaches: The seventh priest carries the fine flour for the meal offering component of the daily offering and the ninth priest carries the wine for the libations that accompany the daily offering, is it also the case that they are never canceled?

״מנחתם ונסכיהם״ בלילה, ״מנחתם ונסכיהם״ אפילו למחר.

That is not correct, as it is derived from the verse “Their meal offering and their libations” (Numbers 29:18) that these items may be sacrificed even at night, despite the fact that the daily offering they accompany must be sacrificed during the day. Similarly, the phrase “their meal offering and their libations” indicates that these items may be sacrificed even the next day (see 44b). Under those circumstances there would not have been fine flour and wine brought by the seventh and nine priests at the time of the daily offering.

אלא, דאי לא קתני; הכי נמי, דאי לא קתני.

Rather, one must explain that the tanna does not teach cases of what if, and is speaking only about the typical case. So too with regard to Rava’s proof from the mishna, it is not compelling because the tanna does not teach cases of what if the High Priest dies and a successor has not yet been appointed.

אהדרוה קמיה דרבא, אמר: מבישותין אמרי קמייהו, מטיבותין לא אמרי קמייהו.

The Sages then brought Rabbi Yirmeya’s analysis before Rava. Rava initially said to them: You state our inferior statements, which can be refuted, before the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, but you do not state our superior statements before them?

והדר אמר רבא: הני נמי טיבותין היא, אמר קרא: ״סלת מנחה תמיד״, הרי היא לך כמנחת תמידין.

And Rava then said to them: This statement, that the griddle-cake offering is sacrificed twice a day even if there is no High Priest, is also one of our superior statements, as the verse states concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid], half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is like the meal offering component of the daily offerings [temidin] and must be sacrificed in the morning and the afternoon, even if the High Priest died and was not yet replaced.

מאי הוי עלה? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: תא שמע, דתניא: שלימה שחרית, ושלימה בין הערבים.

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s dilemma, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: If the High Priest died and was not yet replaced, a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the afternoon.

אמר רבי יוחנן: פליגי בה אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי ורבנן.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis disagree as to the amount of frankincense brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest.

אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי אומר: מפריש לה שני קמצים של לבונה, קומץ שחרית וקומץ בין הערבים. ורבנן אמרי: מפריש לה קומץ אחד,

Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: The High Priest separates two handfuls of frankincense for his griddle-cake offering each day; one handful for his morning offering and one handful for his afternoon offering. And the Rabbis say: The High Priest separates one handful of frankincense each day for his griddle-cake offering. He divides it in half and brings half a handful for his morning offering and half a handful for his afternoon offering.

חצי קומץ שחרית וחצי קומץ בין הערבים.

במאי קמיפלגי? אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי סבר: לא אשכחן חצי קומץ דקריב, ורבנן סברי: לא אשכחן עשרון דבעי שני קמצים.

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that since one does not find a case where the Torah explicitly states that half a handful is sacrificed, he brings a complete handful for each offering. And the Rabbis hold that since one does not find a case where a tenth of an ephah requires two handfuls of frankincense, he brings only one handful and divides it between the two offerings.

בעי רבי יוחנן: כהן גדול שמת ולא מינו אחר תחתיו,

Having discussed the quantity of frankincense that is generally brought with the griddle-cake offering, the Gemara now addresses a case where the High Priest died. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of a High Priest who died and they did not yet appoint another in his stead,

לרבנן הוכפלה לבונתו, או לא? מי אמרינן: מתוך שהוכפלה סלתו הוכפלה לבונתו, או דילמא מאי דגלי גלי, מאי דלא גלי לא גלי.

according to the Rabbis, who hold that generally one handful of frankincense is divided between the morning and afternoon offerings, is the amount of frankincense doubled or not? Do we say that since in this case its fine flour is doubled, as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour is sacrificed in both the morning and evening, its frankincense is also doubled? Or perhaps that which the verse reveals, i.e., that a complete tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the morning and afternoon, it reveals, and that which it does not reveal, it does not reveal; and therefore, since the verse does not indicate that the amount of frankincense is doubled, only one handful is brought.

ושמן, בין לאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי ובין לרבנן – מהו?

And furthermore, what is the halakha concerning the oil of the griddle-cake offering in a case where the High Priest died and was not yet replaced, both according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai and according to the Rabbis? Is the required amount three log, as it is when the High Priest brings the griddle-cake offering, or is the amount of oil doubled just as the amount of fine flour is doubled?

אמר רבא תא שמע: חמשה קמצין הן, ואם איתא, זימנין דמשכחת לה שבעה.

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma concerning the quantity of frankincense that is brought in this case, based upon a mishna (106b): There are five halakhot pertaining to a handful. The halakha of the frankincense sacrificed with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is not included in this number, because only half a handful of frankincense is sacrificed at one time. And if it is so that when there is no High Priest a complete handful is brought in the morning and in the afternoon, then sometimes you find that there are seven halakhot pertaining to a handful.

דאי לא קתני, יתיב רב פפא וקאמר לה להא שמעתא. אמר ליה רב יוסף בר שמעיה לרב פפא: והא מעלה קומץ בחוץ, דאי הוה, וקתני.

The Gemara rejects this proof: The tanna does not teach cases of what if the High Priest died, and is speaking only about a typical case. The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and teaching this halakha. Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa: But the mishna does list the case of one who intentionally offers up the handful from a meal offering outside the Temple courtyard, who is liable to receive karet. This is not a standard case but rather a case of what if, and nevertheless it is taught in the mishna. Accordingly, Rava’s proof is valid.

מאי הוי עלה? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: תא שמע, דתניא: כהן גדול שמת ולא מינו אחר תחתיו – שלימה שחרית, ושלימה בין הערבים,

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a High Priest who died and they did not yet appoint another in his stead, a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour is brought for the griddle-cake offering in the morning and another complete tenth of an ephah is brought in the afternoon. And one separates two handfuls of frankincense for it, and sacrifices one handful with the morning offering and one handful with the afternoon offering. And one separates three log of oil for it, and brings a log and a half with the morning offering and a log and a half with the afternoon offering.

ומפריש לה שני קמצין – קומץ שחרית וקומץ בין הערבים, ומפריש לה שלשת לוגין – לוג ומחצה שחרית, לוג ומחצה בין הערבים.

מני? אילימא רבנן – מאי שנא לבונתה דהוכפלה, ומאי שנא שמנה דלא הוכפלה?

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what is different about its frankincense such that it is doubled in the case where the High Priest died, and what is different about its oil such that it is not doubled?

אלא, אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי היא, דאמר: חביתי כהן גדול בעלמא שני קמצין בעיא, ולבונה לא הוכפלה, ושמן לא הוכפל.

Rather, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Dostai, who said: The griddle-cake offering of the High Priest generally requires two handfuls. And therefore when the baraita requires two handfuls of frankincense in the case where the High Priest died and another has not yet been appointed, the frankincense is not being doubled and the oil is also not doubled. Therefore, three log of oil are required, as usual.

ומדשמן לאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי לא הוכפלה לבונתה ושמנה, לרבנן נמי לא הוכפלו.

And from the fact that according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai the requisite oil is not doubled, one can conclude that also according to the Rabbis its frankincense and its oil are not doubled.

אמר רבי יוחנן: הלכה כאבא יוסי בן דוסתאי. ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי? והא אמר רבי יוחנן: הלכה כסתם משנה, ותנן: חמשה קמצין הן.

This discussion in the Gemara began with Rabbi Yoḥanan presenting the dispute between Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis, and it concludes with his ruling concerning their dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Yosei ben Dostai. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, and we learned in the unattributed mishna cited earlier: There are only five halakhot pertaining to a handful. Since the mishna does not list the fact that a handful of frankincense is offered twice daily with the griddle-cake offering, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan accept that opinion?

אמוראי נינהו, ואליבא דרבי יוחנן.

The Gemara answers: They are different amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. One said that Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in accordance with Abba Yosei ben Dostai, and one said that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

הדרן עלך התכלת.

מתני׳ כל המנחות באות מצה, חוץ מחמץ שבתודה ושתי הלחם שהן באות חמץ.

MISHNA: All the meal offerings come to be offered as matza, with care taken to prevent leavening, except for ten loaves of leavened bread among the forty loaves that accompany the thanks offering, and the meal offering of the two loaves that are brought on the festival of Shavuot, as they come to be offered as leavened bread.

רבי מאיר אומר: השאור בודה להן מתוכן, ומחמצן.

The Sages disagree as to the manner in which those meal offerings are leavened. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to the leaven added to the dough to facilitate leavening, one separates [bodeh] part of the flour for the meal offerings from within the flour of the meal offerings themselves, causes it to become leaven, and leavens the meal offerings with it.

רבי יהודה אומר: אף היא אינה מן המובחר, אלא מביא את השאור ונותנו לתוך המדה, וממלא את המדה. אמרו לו: אף היא היתה חסרה או יתרה.

Rabbi Yehuda says: That is also not the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva, as aged leaven is a more effective leavening agent. Rather, one brings the leaven from another, aged, dough and places it into the measuring vessel, and then he adds flour until he fills the measuring vessel, to ensure the appropriate measure of a tenth of an ephah of flour. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: That too is inappropriate, as in that manner the meal offering will either be lacking the requisite measure or be greater than the required measure, as the Gemara will explain.

גמ׳ בעא מיניה רבי פרידא מרבי אמי: מנין לכל המנחות שהן באות מצה? מנלן? דכתיב בה – כתיב בה, דלא כתיב בה – כתיב בה

GEMARA: Rabbi Perida raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: From where is it derived with regard to all the meal offerings that they come to be offered as matza? Rabbi Ami was puzzled by this question, and replied: What do you mean when you say: From where do we derive this? Concerning every meal offering with regard to which it is written explicitly in the Torah that it comes as matza, it is written with regard to it, and therefore the dilemma does not arise. And concerning any meal offering where it is not written explicitly with regard to it that it must be matza, nevertheless it is written with regard to it: