מנחות 50 — Soncino English Talmud

¹At all events seven are necessary! — We must say that the Tanna [of that Mishnah] speaks in general, and the expression ‘sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year’ serves merely as a mnemonic. This can indeed be proved [from the wording]; for it reads, ‘Sufficient for a Sabbath’, and not ‘For the Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year’. This is conclusive. EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING . . . R. SIMEON SAID THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING, FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES. Who speaks of dedication here? — A clause has been omitted and it really should read as follows: EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING, they must not offer the lamb towards evening. This is the rule only if the altar had not been dedicated, but if the altar had once been dedicated, THEY MUST OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. R. SIMEON SAID, WHEN IS THIS? ONLY WHEN THEY HAD ACTED UNDER CONSTRAINT OR IN ERROR, BUT IF THEY ACTED DELIBERATELY AND DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING THEY MAY NOT OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. IF THEY DID NOT BURN THE INCENSE IN THE MORNING THEY BURN IT TOWARDS EVENING. Whence is this derived? From the following which our Rabbis taught: It is written, And the second lamb thou shalt offer towards evening: the second is to be offered towards evening but the first may not be offered towards evening. This is so only if the altar had not been dedicated, but if the altar had once been dedicated, even the first lamb may be offered towards evening. R. Simeon said, When is this? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they must not offer the lamb towards evening; if they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. [‘If they did not offer the lamb in the morning, they must not offer the lamb towards evening’]. Is the altar to be idle because the priests have been remiss? — Raba explained, It means, They must not offer it, but other priests should offer it. ‘If they did not burn the incense in the morning, they burn it towards evening’. For since it is not so frequent, and moreover it enriches, it is therefore most dear to them and they would not be remiss about it. R. SIMEON SAID, THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING, FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES OFFERED TOWARDS EVENING etc. But it has been taught: Only by the incense of spices offered in the morning! — Tannaim differ on this point. Abaye said, It is more logical to accept the view of him who says, ‘Only by the incense of spices offered towards evening’, for it is written, Every morning when he dresseth the lamps he shall burn it, and how can he dress [the lamps] in the morning If they were not kindled the previous evening? But he who says, ‘Only by the incense of spices offered in the morning’, infers it from the altar for burnt-offering: as that was dedicated by the morning Daily Offering so the golden altar was dedicated by the incense of spices offered in the morning. THE TABLE ONLY BY THE SHEWBREAD ON THE SABBATH. Does this mean to say that [the table] was not dedicated thereby, but that it nevertheless hallowed it? — It really teaches us that the dedication of the table and the hallowing [of the bread] was only on the Sabbath, as it reads in the last clause: AND THE CANDLESTICK ONLY BY [THE KINDLING OF] ITS SEVEN LAMPS TOWARDS EVENING. Our Rabbis taught: That was [the only case of] an offering of incense which was offered by an individual upon the outer altar, and it was a special ruling. To what [does it refer]? — R. Papa said, [To incense-offering] by the princes [of the tribes]. Does this mean then that an individual may not offer [incense] upon the outer altar but he may upon the inner altar? And furthermore, that an individual may not offer incense upon the outer altar but the community may? Behold it was taught: One might think that an individual may make a freewill-offering [of incense] in the same manner and offer it, for I would apply the verse, That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do, Holy Writ therefore says, Ye shall not offer strange incense thereon. One might further think that an individual may not offer it since he does not offer the like as an obligation,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:I.e., at all times of the year there must be six lambs in readiness, each inspected four days previously, so that whatever the circumstances there would always be sufficient lambs to last for three days. The expression used by the Tanna ‘sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year’ is merely a mnemonic suggesting the number six. To ensure that every day there would be at least six lambs inspected four days previously it was necessary at the dedication of the Temple, when sacrifices commenced, to have twelve lambs each inspected free from blemish four days previously. On the following day two lambs were taken from the twelve for the Daily Offering and two other lambs, inspected on this day, were added; and so regularly on subsequent days. After four days the lambs added on the first day belonged to the category of lambs inspected four days previously, and on the fifth day two more were added to this class and so on. So Rashi; but v. com. of R. Gershom and also Rashi's interpretation in ‘Ar. 13a and b.
^ᵇnote:The altar had only recently been erected and sacrifices had not yet been offered thereon.
^ᶜnote:Even though the morning offering had been omitted.
^ᵈnote:Ex. XXIX, 39.
^ᵉnote:V. Glosses of Bah, n. 1.
^ᶠnote:Sc. those priests who had been negligent and had omitted to offer the morning offering.
^ᵍnote:Incense was offered only twice daily whereas burnt-offerings were frequent all the day.
^ʰnote:Sc. the priest that offered the incense; v. Yoma 26a.
^ⁱnote:And therefore even though it did happen that the priest had omitted to offer the morning incense, he may nevertheless offer the incense in the evening.
^ʲnote:Ibid. XXX, 7.
^ᵏnote:Obviously then the candlestick was dedicated and inaugurated for use in the evening, and so it was too with the inauguration of the incense offering, for it is written (ibid. 8): And when Aaron lighteth the lamps towards evening he shall burn it.
^ˡnote:If the Shewbread was placed on the table on a weekday.
^ᵐnote:But this is not correct for we have learnt (infra 100a) that the placing of the Shewbread on the table on a weekday does in no wise hallow the bread.
^ⁿnote:And as the entire service of the Candlestick, i.e., the kindling of its lamps, was to be at its dedication in the evening, so the entire service in connection with the table, i.e., the hallowing of the bread, must be at its dedication on the Sabbath.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘a decision for the hour’.
^ᵖnote:Cf. Num. VII, 12ff.
^ᵠnote:As the princes of the tribes did at the dedication of the altar.
^ʳnote:Deut. XXIII, 24.
^ˢnote:Ex. XXX, 9.

²but the community may offer [incense as a freewill-offering] since it offers the like as an obligation, Holy Writ therefore says, Ye shall not offer. One might further think that [the community] may not offer it upon the inner altar but it may [offer it] upon the outer altar, Holy Writ therefore states, And the anointing oil and the incense of sweet spices for the holy place; according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do; thus there is only offered that which is stated in the context! — R. Papa said, It is a case of ‘it goes without saying’; thus, it goes without saying that a community may not offer [incense] upon the outer altar, for we find no such case; similarly that an individual may not offer [incense] upon the inner altar, for we find no such case. But even an individual may not offer [incense] upon the outer altar, although we find that this was the case with the princes, for that was a special ruling. MISHNAH. THE HIGH PRIEST'S GRIDDLE-CAKES MUST NOT BE BROUGHT IN [TWO SEPARATE] HALVES, BUT HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH AND THEN DIVIDE IT, OFFERING A HALF IN THE MORNING AND A HALF TOWARDS EVENING. IF THE [HIGH] PRIEST THAT OFFERED THE HALF IN THE MORNING DIED AND THEY APPOINTED ANOTHER PRIEST IN HIS STEAD, [THE SUCCESSOR] MAY NOT BRING A HALF-TENTH FROM HIS HOUSE, NEITHER [MAY HE USE] THE REMAINING HALF-TENTH OF THE FIRST [HIGH PRIEST], BUT HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH AND DIVIDE IT, OFFERING ONE HALF AND LEAVING THE OTHER HALF TO PERISH. THUS THE RESULT IS THAT TWO HALVES ARE OFFERED AND TWO HALVES ARE LEFT TO PERISH. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Had Scripture stated, ‘For a meal-offering a half’, I should then have thought that he must bring a half-tenth from his house in the morning and offer it and a half-tenth from his house in the evening and offer it; but Scripture states, Half of it in the morning, that is, he must offer a half of the whole [tenth]. Thus he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. Where the half that was to be offered towards evening became unclean or was lost, I might say that he should bring a half-tenth from his house and offer it, Scriptures therefore states, And half thereof in the evening, that is, he must offer a half of a whole [tenth]. Thus he must bring [another] whole tenth and divide it, offering one half and leaving the other half to perish; and so the result is that two halves are offered and two halves are left to perish. Where the High Priest that offered the half in the morning died and they appointed another High Priest in his place, I might say that he may bring a half-tenth from his house or that he may use the remaining half-tenth of the first [High Priest]. Scripture therefore states, ‘And half thereof in the evening’; he must offer a half of a whole [tenth]. Thus he must bring [another] whole tenth and divide it, offering one half and leaving the other half to perish; and so the result is that two halves are offered and two halves are left to perish. A Tanna recited before R. Nahman: As for the half left by the first [High Priest] and the half left by the second, their appearance must first be spoiled and they are then taken away to the place of burning. Whereupon R. Nahman said to him, I grant you that the first should be treated so, since it was once valid for offering; but as for the second, why must its appearance first be spoiled? From the very outset it was intended for destruction, was it not? He who told you this rule must be a Tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha who has said that even piggul must have its appearance spoiled [before it is destroyed]. R. Ashi said, This rule may be even in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, for each half was valid for offering inasmuch as at the time when it was divided either the one half or the other half could have been offered. It was stated: How did they prepare the High Priest's griddlecakes? — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, They were first to be baked [in an oven] and then fried; R. Assi said in the name of R. Hanina, They were first to be fried and then baked. R. Hiyya b. Abba said, My view is more probable, for ‘tufine’ signifies ‘to be baked whilst still attractive’. But R. Assi said, My view is more probable, for ‘tufine’ signifies ‘to be baked when already half-done’. Indeed Tannaim differ with regard to it, for it was taught: ‘Tufine’ signifies ‘to be baked whilst still attractive’. Rabbi says, It signifies ‘to be baked when already half-done’. R. Dosa says, It signifies ‘to be baked several times’. He accepts the interpretation ‘half-done’ as well as the interpretation ‘attractive’. We learnt elsewhere: The kneading, the shaping and the baking of the High Priest's griddle-cakes were performed within [the Temple Court], and they overrode the Sabbath. Whence is this derived? — R. Huna said, Since tufine signifies ‘to be baked whilst still attractive’, if they were baked on the day before [the Sabbath] they would lose their freshness. R. Joseph demurred, Surely they could be preserved in herbs! In the School of R. Ishmael it was taught: It shall be prepared, even on the Sabbath; ‘it shall be prepared’, even in uncleanness. Abaye said, The verse says, Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily,^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵗnote:Sc. the daily incense-offering on behalf of the community.
^ᵘnote:Ex. XXX, 9. The plural of the verb is used so as to refer to the whole community too.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. XXXI, II.
^ʷnote:I.e., the ih,hcj ,jbn or kusd ivf h,hcj, a meal-offering prepared on a griddle offered by the High Priest daily, consisting of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, half of which was offered in the morning and the other half in the evening. Cf. Lev. VI, 12ff.
^ˣnote:Lev. VI, 13. ‘Of it’ signifies that there is before us a whole tenth but that only a half of it is to be offered.
^ʸnote:Ibid. The inference is derived from the waw, ‘and’ at the beginning of this phrase, which is regarded as superfluous.
^ᶻnote:V. Glos. (s. v. b).
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., they should be kept overnight.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the half left over by the first High Priest.
^ᵃᶜnote:It therefore may not be burnt until it becomes invalid by being left overnight when ‘its appearance becomes spoiled’.
^ᵃᵈnote:It should accordingly be destroyed at once.
^ᵃᵉnote:Which is invalid by the law of the Torah. For piggul v. Glos.
^ᵃᶠnote:On a griddle after being smeared with oil.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. VI, 14. hbhp, is explained as a composite word.
^ᵃʰnote:vtb vbhpt, they must look fine at the time of baking, hence they must not be fried first for then they would be blackened somewhat by reason of the open griddle and the oil, and would not be so attractive.
^ᵃⁱnote:tb vbhpt,: they must be half-done, i.e., fried in a griddle, before being baked.
^ᵃʲnote:So in all MSS. and in the parallel passages and in R. Gershom; in cur. edd. ‘R. Jose’.
^ᵃᵏnote:vcr vbhpt,. They must be baked once before the frying so that they should look attractive (vtb) at the time of baking, and also after the frying so that they should be half-done ( tb ) at the second baking. Var. lec. vfr. V. Rashi for other interpretations.
^ᵃˡnote:Infra 96a.
^ᵃᵐnote:For the half-tenth measure, whereby the tenth of flour was divided, was anointed as a vessel of ministry, so that whatsoever was put into it was immediately hallowed and liable to be rendered invalid if taken out of the Temple Court.
^ᵃⁿnote:That the kneading etc. overrode the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵒnote:So as to retain their freshness.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. VI, 14.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid. 13.