Menachot

within it.1 And lest you say that as its mouth is narrow so the whole [of Gehenna] is narrow, the text therefore states, Deep and large.2 And lest you say that it is not made ready for a king,3 the text therefore states, Yea, for the king it is prepared.2 And lest you say that there is no wood in it, the text therefore states, The pile thereof is fire and much wood.2 And lest you say that this4 is the sole reward [of the Torah], the text therefore states, And that which is set on thy table is full of fatness. 5 IF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT FELL ON A SABBATH etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, They were not Babylonians but Alexandrians, but because [the Palestinians] hated the Babylonians they called [the Alexandrians] by the name of Babylonians.6 It was likewise taught: R. Jose says, They were not Babylonians but Alexandrians, but because [the Palestinians] hated the Babylonians they called [the Alexandrians] by the name of Babylonians. Said to him R. Judah, May your mind be at ease for you have set mine at ease.7 MISHNAH. IF [THE PRIEST] SET THE SHEWBREAD ON THE SABBATH AND THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH, AND BURNT THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE [NEXT] SABBATH, IT IS NOT VALID,8 AND ONE IS NOT LIABLE THEREBY FOR PIGGUL,9 NOTHAR,10 OR UNCLEANNESS.10 IF HE SET THE BREAD AND THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE SABBATH AND BURNT THE DISHES OF FRANKINCENSE ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH, IT IS NOT VALID, AND ONE IS NOT LIABLE THEREBY FOR PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. IF HE SET THE BREAD AND THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH AND BURNT THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE [NEXT] SABBATH, IT IS NOT VALID.11 WHAT SHOULD HE DO? HE SHOULD LEAVE IT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING SABBATH,12 FOR EVEN IF IT REMAINS MANY DAYS ON THE TABLE THERE IS NO HARM. GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere:13 The officer said to them, ‘Go forth and see if the time for slaughtering14 has arrived’ — If it had arrived he15 that saw it called out, ‘It is daylight’,16 Mattithiah b. Samuel17 said, [He that saw it called out,] ‘The whole east is alight’. ‘As far as Hebron?’18 and he answered, ‘Yes’. And why was all this19 necessary? Because once when the light of the moon arose they thought that the east was already alight and slaughtered the daily offering, and they had to take it away to the place of burning. They20 led the High Priest down to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: whosoever covered his feet21 required an immersion, and whosoever made water required sanctification of hands and feet.22 The father of R. Abin learnt:23 Not only this24 but also the burnt-offering of a bird whose head was nipped off at night and the meal-offering from which the handful was taken at night must be taken away to the place of burning. This is quite right with regard to the burnt-offering of a bird since [what is done] cannot be undone, but with regard to the meal-offering surely he can put back the handful in its place and take it again when it is day! — He learnt it and he himself also gave the reason for it, namely, that vessels of ministry hallow [what is put in them] even outside the proper time.25 An objection was raised: Whatsoever is offered up by day26 is hallowed by day, and whatsoever is offered up by night27 is hallowed both by day and by night.28 ‘Whatsoever is offered up by day is hallowed by day’, that is to say, by day only and not by night!29 — It does not become hallowed [by night] so as to be permitted to be offered up, but it does become hallowed so that it can now become invalid.30 R. Zera raised an objection: IF HE SET THE BREAD AND THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH AND BURNT THE DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] ON THE [NEXT] SABBATH, IT IS NOT VALID. WHAT SHOULD HE DO? HE SHOULD LEAVE IT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING SABBATH, FOR EVEN IF IT REMAINS MANY DAYS ON THE TABLE THERE IS NO HARM. Now if you accept the view that vessels of ministry can hallow even outside the proper time, then it should become hallowed and also invalidated!31 — Rabbah said, He who raised the objection, raised a valid one, but the father of R. Abin was quoting a Baraitha;32 and we must say therefore that [the Tanna of that Baraitha] is of the opinion that the night is not considered ‘out of time’,33 whereas the day is considered ‘out of time’.34 But after all fellow-countrymen were cleared from the charge of gluttony. left until the next Sabbath (i.e., for thirteen days), for the bread would become invalid after the first Sabbath, since it had been set on the table at the proper time. become piggul (‘that which is refused or rejected’), and whosoever eats of it does not incur the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.), for the burning of the frankincense (i.e., the mattir, v. Glos.) was not in order. prescribed for its eating has elapsed, or uncleanness, i.e., for eating the bread whilst in a state of uncleanness, for the bread was at no time rendered permitted to be eaten. Sabbath, it may be left until the second Sabbath. remainder of the meal-offering. during the night is hallowed by night, and whatsoever is offered up both by day and by night is hallowed both by day and by night’. taken out of the Temple precincts, or it was kept overnight. Accordingly it cannot be put back with the remainder of the meal-offering. a full week, i.e., after midnight of the next Sunday, they should become invalid. How then can it be suggested that it be left for thirteen days? of ministry can hallow by night as well as by day, save that the offering up may not be performed by night. our Mishnah, therefore, where the bread and frankincense are set on the table six days too soon, they certainly cannot be hallowed then by the table. Only when the Sabbath arrives do they become hallowed and so may be kept for a full week thereafter.