מנחות 21 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Leave out ‘the wood’ and insert ‘the drink-offerings’ in its place. For it was taught: But the wine, the blood, the wood and the incense do not require salting. Who is the author of this Baraitha? If Rabbi, then the [inclusion of the] wood is a difficulty; and if the Rabbis, then the [inclusion of the] incense is a difficulty. — It is the following Tanna, for it was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka says, Just as the particular item specified is clearly something which can contract uncleanness,is consumed by fire and is offered upon the outer altar, so everything which can contract uncleanness, is consumed by fire and is offered upon the outer altar [requires salting]. Hence the wood is excluded since it cannot contract uncleanness, the blood and the wine are excluded since they are not consumed by fire, and the incense is excluded since it is not offered upon the outer altar. Now this is so clearly because the verse excluded the blood, but otherwise I should have said that the blood must be salted. Surely by salting it it loses the character of blood! For Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina, If blood was cooked [and then one ate of it], one does not thereby commit a transgression. And Rab Judah said in the name of Ze'iri, If blood was salted [and one ate of it], one does not thereby commit a transgression. Moreover Rab Judah on his own authority said, If the sacrificial limbs were roasted and then brought up [on the altar], they are no longer under the denomination of ‘a sweet savour’! — One might have thought that in compliance with the precept a little [salt] should be sprinkled therein, we are therefore taught [that it is excluded from this law]. The text [above stated]: ‘Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina, If blood was cooked [and then one ate of it], one does not thereby commit a transgression’. Raba was sitting reciting this statement, when Abaye raised against him the following objection: If a man coagulated blood and ate it, or if he dissolved forbidden fat and gulped it down, he is culpable! — This is no difficulty, in the one case he coagulated it by the fire, in the other he coagulated it in the sun; if by the fire it will not resolve into its former state, if in the sun it will do so. But even though [it was coagulated] in the sun should we not say that once it has been set aside it must remain so? For did not R. Mani enquire of R. Johanan, ‘What is the law if one ate congealed blood?’ and he replied, ‘Once it has been set aside it must remain so’? — He remained silent. Then said [Abaye] to him, perhaps the one case deals with [the blood of] external sin-offerings, and the other with [the blood of] internal sin-offerings. You have now, he exclaimed, reminded me of the law. For Rabbah said in the name of R. Hisda, If one ate the congealed blood of an external sin-offering, one is culpable, for the Divine Law says, And he shall take . . . and put it, and such is fit for taking and putting [upon the horn of the altar]. If one ate [the congealed blood] of an internal sin-offering, one is not culpable, for the Divine Law says, And he shall dip . . . and sprinkle, and such is not fit for dipping and sprinkling. And Rabbah on his own authority said, Even if one ate [the congealed blood] of an internal sin-offering one is culpable, since with external sin-offerings [blood] in such a condition is fit for the ritual purpose. (Therefore, said R. Papa, If one ate the congealed blood of an ass one is culpable, since with external sin-offerings [blood] in such a condition is fit for the ritual purpose). R. Giddal said in the name of Ze'iri, Blood is regarded as an interposition, whether it be moist or dry. An objection was raised: Blood, ink, honey and milk, if dry constitute an interposition; if moist, they do not constitute an interposition. — This is no difficulty, in one case [the blood] was viscid, in the other it was not. For what purpose does Scripture state, Thou shalt salt? — For the following which was taught: [If the verse had only stated] ‘with salt’, I might have thought that it meant tebonehu, the verse therefore stated, Thou shalt salt. [And if the verse had only stated,] Thou shalt salt, I might have thought that it meant even with salt water, the verse therefore stated, ‘With salt’. Neither shalt thou suffer the salt to be lacking, that is, bring that salt which has no Sabbath, and that is the salt of Sodom. And whence do we know that if one cannot obtain the salt of Sodom one may bring salt of Istria? Because the verse states, ‘Thou shalt offer’: ‘Thou shalt offer’, whatever [salt] it is; ‘thou shalt offer’, from whatever place it comes; ‘thou shalt offer’, even on the Sabbath; ‘thou shalt offer’, even in conditions of uncleanness. What is the meaning of tebonehu? — Rabbah b. ‘Ulla said, This is what was meant: I might have thought that one should heap the salt upon it as straw in clay. If so, said to him Abaye, it should have said yetabnenu! Rather said Abaye: I might have thought that one should pile up the salt like a building. If so, said Raba to him, it should have said yibnenu! Rather said Raba: I might have thought that it meant tebonehu. And what does tebonehu mean? R. Ashi explained: I might have thought that one should apply to it [salt] only to give it a taste, just as the understanding, the verse therefore stated, Thou shalt season. How should one do it? One takes the limb, spreads salt over it, turns it over and again spreads salt over it, and then offers it. Abaye said, And so, too, it should be done for [cooking meat in] the pot.36^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ

^ᵃnote:Since according to Rabbi the wood like the meal-offering requires salting.
^ᵇnote:For the principle enunciated by the Rabbis, namely that every offering for which other things (sc. wood) are requisite must be seasoned with salt, assuredly applies to the incense. V. supra p. 129.
^ᶜnote:Sc. the meal-offering, expressly mentioned in Lev. II, 13.
^ᵈnote:That the blood does not require salting.
^ᵉnote:And is certainly not fit for sprinkling. ‘
^ᶠnote:For once it has been cooked it has lost the character of blood.
^ᵍnote:According to the principle that whatsoever is salted is counted as hot i.e., as roasted or cooked. V. Hul. 97b.
^ʰnote:And are not acceptable. Similarly cooked blood would not be acceptable.
^ⁱnote:He rendered it into a solid mass by much cooking.
^ʲnote:So that it has lost entirely its character as blood, and therefore Ze'iri maintains that no transgression is committed when one eats thereof.
^ᵏnote:I.e., once it has lost the character of blood during coagulation, it cannot again assume that character when melted down, on the principle that once a thing has been rejected it can no more be fit again.
^ˡnote:And whosoever eats thereof — it being assumed that the congealed blood was not of a consecrated animal-does not commit a transgression.
^ᵐnote:Raba.
^ⁿnote:I.e., sin-offerings whose blood must be applied to the horns of the altar which stood in the Temple Court.
^ᵒnote:The blood of these sin-offerings, even though hardened in the sun, is still fit for its ritual purpose, and it still retains its character as blood. Likewise the blood of non-consecrated animals when hardened by the sun is also counted as blood, and therefore whosoever eats thereof commits a transgression.
^ᵖnote:Ze'iri's case.
^ᵠnote:I.e., sin-offerings whose blood must be sprinkled upon the veil and upon the golden altar, e.g., the bullocks and the he-goats which were to be wholly burnt, v. Lev. IV, ff.
^ʳnote:In this case the coagulated blood is absolutely unfit for its purpose. as is soon to be explained.
^ˢnote:Lev. IV, 30.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. 6.
^ᵘnote:It is therefore regarded as blood.
^ᵛnote:This passage is omitted in all MSS.
^ʷnote:Blood adhering to the body interposes between the body and the water so that the immersion is not valid. For immersion to be valid no part of the body may be untouched by the water.
^ˣnote:And almost dry; it therefore interposes.
^ʸnote:Ibid. II, 13.
^ᶻnote:Lev. II, 13.
^ᵃᵃnote:uvbuc,. This word is explained in the text presently.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. Heb. ,hca, tk, the verb being interpreted as of the same root as ,ca,
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., is generated at all times and is cast up by the sea, both in winter and summer. This is identified with salt of Sodom, which is a fine sea salt.
^ᵃᵈnote:A town in Pontus where there were salt mines. This name is applied to all coarse rock salt.
^ᵃᵉnote:The offerings of the congregation may be brought on the Sabbath and in certain circumstances even in conditions of uncleanness. The salting of the offering is evidently a vital service and overrides the rules of Sabbath and of uncleanness.
^ᵃᶠnote:ubbc,h (or ubbc,h), denom. of ic, ‘straw’, meaning ‘to mix with straw’, ‘to put in much straw’, and then to apply a large quantity (of any substance)’.
^ᵃᵍnote:ubbch, implying building up row upon row.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., only a small quantity of salt, just a sprinkling in order to give it a taste.
^ᵃⁱnote:Just as the understanding gives ‘taste’ and distinction to man (Rashi). Or, that one might ‘understand’ that salt has been sprinkled on it (Aruch).
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the meat must be salted on both sides.

²Our Rabbis taught: The salt which is upon the sacrificial limb is subject to the law of sacrilege, but that which is upon the ascent or upon the head of the altar is not subject to the law of sacrilege. R. Mattenah said, There is Scriptural authority for this, for it is written, And thou shalt present them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt-offering unto the Lord. We have learnt elsewhere: [The Beth din ordained] concerning the salt and the wood [of the Temple stores] that the priests may use them freely. Samuel said, They allowed this [use of salt] only for their offerings but not for eating. Now it was thought that ‘for their offerings’ meant for salting their [own] offerings, and ‘for eating’ meant the eating of consecrated meat. But surely if we provide them [with salt from the Temple stores] in order to salt the hides of the animal-offerings, shall we not provide them with salt to eat the consecrated meat? For it was taught: And so you find that salt was used in three places: in the salt chamber, on the ascent, and at the head of the altar. In the salt chamber where they used to salt the hides of animal-offerings; on the ascent where they used to salt the sacrificial limbs; at the head of the altar where they used to salt the handful, the frankincense, the incense-offering, the meal-offering of the priests, the anointed [High] Priest's meal-offering, the meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings, and the burnt-offering of a bird! — We must therefore say that ‘for their offerings’ means for the eating of consecrated meat, and ‘for eating’ means the eating of unconsecrated food. Unconsecrated food! [you say], surely this is obvious, for how does it come to be there! — Although the Master stated: ‘They shall eat signifies that [if the remainder of the meal-offering is insufficient] they should eat with it unconsecrated food and terumah, so that it should be eaten after the appetite is satisfied’, nevertheless we do not provide them with salt from the Temple. Rabina said to R. Ashi, This indeed is most logical; for should you say that ‘for their offerings’ meant for salting their [own] offerings, so that [they are entitled to this] only because the Beth din granted them this concession, but had not the Beth din granted them this concession they would not be entitled to it, but surely if we provide the Israelites [with salt for their offerings], shall we not provide the priests too? For it was taught: I might have thought that if a man said, ‘I take upon myself to offer a meal-offering’, he must provide the salt himself just as he must provide the frankincense himself. And the following argument [supports the contention]: It is enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be salt, and it is also enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be frankincense; therefore just as the frankincense he must provide himself, so the salt too he must provide himself. Or perhaps argue this way: It is enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be salt, and it is also enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be wood; therefore just as the wood is taken from the communal store so the salt too is taken from the communal store. Let us then see to which it is most similar. We derive the law concerning a matter that is essential to all offerings from another matter which is essential to all offerings, and let not the frankincense prove against this, since it is not a matter which is essential to all offerings. Or perhaps argue this way: we derive the law concerning a matter which is offered with the meal-offering in one vessel from another matter which is also offered with the meal-offering in one vessel and let not the wood prove against this, since it is not a matter which is offered with the meal-offering in one vessel. Scripture therefore states [concerning the salt], it is a covenant of salt for ever, and elsewhere [concerning the Shewbread] it says, It is on behalf of the children of Israel a covenant for ever; as the one was taken out of the supplies of the community, so the other was also taken out of the supplies of the community! — Thereupon R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi, Thus said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi, It was necessary to be stated only according to Ben Bokri's view. For we have learnt: R. Judah said, Ben Bokri testified at Jabneh that a priest who paid the shekel has committed no sin. — Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said to him, Not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel has committed a sin. The priests, however, used to expound the following verse to their advantage, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten; since the ‘Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten? But according to Ben Bokri, since they are not in the first instance liable to pay the shekel, when they do pay it they have surely committed a sin, for they have brought unconsecrated matter into the Temple! — They bring it and deliver it [whole-heartedly] to the public funds. Now one might have thought that^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ

^ᵃᵏnote:And no profane use may be made of this salt. For the law of sacrilege (i.e., the misappropriation of property of the Sanctuary) v. Lev. V, 15, 16.
^ᵃˡnote:And it may be used for ordinary purposes since it is no longer fit for any sacred purpose.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ezek. XLIII, 24. The salt which is upon the limb is, in this verse, stated to be part of the burnt-offering.
^ᵃⁿnote:Shek. VII, 7.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., the offerings which the priests offer on their own behalf may be salted with salt from the Temple stores.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., the priests may not use this salt at table when eating consecrated meat (e.g., the breast and the thigh) which they receive as their portion from the sacrifices.
^ᵃᵠnote:Which belonged to the priests.
^ᵃʳnote:For it is forbidden to bring unconsecrated food into the Temple precincts (Rashi).
^ᵃˢnote:Tem. 23a.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lev. VI, 9.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., in order to appease their hunger they should first eat some unconsecrated food or terumah (v. Glos.) outside the Temple Court, and then enter the Temple Court where they would finish their meal to satisfaction with the remainder of the meal-offering.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘bring from his home’.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘bring a meal-offering and bring salt’.
^ᵃˣnote:For it is written, ibid. II, 1: And put frankincense thereon, and then it says in the next verse, And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron.
^ᵃʸnote:V. infra.
^ᵃᶻnote:Salt and wood are essential to all offerings.
^ᵇᵃnote:The salt and the frankincense were placed together with the handful of the meal-offering in one vessel.
^ᵇᵇnote:Num. XVIII, 19.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lev. XXIV, 8.
^ᵇᵈnote:Sc. the Shewbread, which was in the nature of an offering on behalf of the community of Israel.
^ᵇᵉnote:Sc. the salt for the offerings.
^ᵇᶠnote:According to Ben Bokri's view the priests did not contribute the shekel to the Temple funds and therefore were not entitled to any of the Temple's supplies; hence it was necessary for the Beth din to grant them a concession that they may use the Temple's supplies of wood and salt for their own offerings.
^ᵇᵍnote:Shek. I, 4.
^ᵇʰnote:The annual contribution, corresponding to the half shekel ordained in the Torah (Ex. XXX, 13), paid before the first of Nisan by every Israelite towards the upkeep of the public offerings in the Temple.
^ᵇⁱnote:According to law a priest is not liable to pay the shekel, for the expression ‘every one that passeth among them that are numbered’ (Ex. ibid.) does not apply to the priests (or the Levites), since these were not numbered together with the rest of the tribes of Israel, but separately.
^ᵇʲnote:The expression in the verse (v. prec. n.) is accordingly interpreted thus: Every one that passeth, that is, every one that passed through the Red Sea; among them that are numbered, that is, however they were numbered, whether separately or with the other tribes of Israel. Hence the priests are Biblically liable to pay the shekel.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lev. VI, 16.
^ᵇˡnote:If the priests were liable to contribute the shekel to the Temple funds, out of which the three named public meal-offerings were provided, it would follow that these meal-offerings should be wholly burnt and not eaten by the priests; and this would be contrary to Scripture. Hence, the priests argued, they were not to pay the shekel.
^ᵇᵐnote:This continues the argument as given above ‘It was necessary to be stated only according to Ben Bokri's view’. V. supra p. 139, n. 7.