Menachot

Our Rabbis taught: The salt which is upon the sacrificial limb is subject to the law of sacrilege,1 but that which is upon the ascent or upon the head of the altar is not subject to the law of sacrilege.2 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.3 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.4 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,5 and ‘for eating’ meant the eating of consecrated meat.6 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;7 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!8 — Although the Master stated:9 ‘They shall eat10 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’,11 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 provide12 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,13 and it is also enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be frankincense; therefore just as the frankincense he must provide himself,14 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 store15 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,16 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 vessel17 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,18 and elsewhere [concerning the Shewbread] it says, It is on behalf of the children of Israel a covenant for ever;19 as the one20 was taken out of the supplies of the community, so the other21 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.22 For we have learnt:23 R. Judah said, Ben Bokri testified at Jabneh that a priest who paid the shekel24 has committed no sin.25 — Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said to him, Not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel has committed a sin.26 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;27 since the ‘Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?28 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. Now29 one might have thought that Sanctuary) v. Lev. V, 15, 16. receive as their portion from the sacrifices. Temple Court, and then enter the Temple Court where they would finish their meal to satisfaction with the remainder of the meal-offering. the sons of Aaron. 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. of Nisan by every Israelite towards the upkeep of the public offerings in the Temple. 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. 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. 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. supra p. 139, n. 7.