מנחות 51 — Soncino English Talmud

¹they are thus like the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering. Raba said, The expression ‘on a griddle’ implies that they require the use of a vessel of ministry, and [that being so] if they were baked on the day before [the Sabbath] they would be invalid by being kept overnight. There has been taught a Baraitha which coincides with Raba's view. The expression ‘on a griddle’ implies that it requires the use of a vessel of ministry. ‘With oil’ signifies that it must have much oil; yet I know not how much, argue therefore as follows: here it is written oil, and there in connection with the meal-offering accompanying the lambs [of the Daily Offering] it is also written oil, as there it has three logs [of oil] to the tenth so here it must have three logs to the tenth. Or perhaps I should argue thus: here it is written oil and there in connection with the freewill meal-offering it is also written oil, as there it has only one log so here it should have only one log! Let us then see to which [of the two] is this case most similar. We may infer a meal-offering which is characterized by T.B.Sh.T. — it is offered daily, is an obligation, and overrides the Sabbath and uncleanness — from another meal- offering which is also characterized by T.B.Sh.T, but we may not infer a meal-offering which is T.B.Sh.T. from another which is not T.B.Sh.T. Or perhaps I should argue thus: we may infer a meal-offering which is characterized by Y.G.L. — it is an individual offering, brought on its own account, and requires frankincense — from another which is also characterized by Y.G.L., but we may not infer a meal-offering which is Y.G.L. from another which is not Y.G.L.! R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka [therefore] said, It is written, Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily; it is to be similar to the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering; as that meal-offering has three logs of oil to the tenth, this too must have three logs to the tenth. R. Simeon says, Here much oil is required and there also in connection with the meal-offering accompanying the lambs [of the Daily Offering] much oil is required; as there it has three logs to the tenth so here too it must have three logs to the tenth. Or perhaps I should argue thus: here much oil is required, and there also in connection with the meal-offering accompanying the offering of bullocks and rams much oil is required, as there it has two logs [of oil] to the tenth so here too it must have two logs to the tenth! Let us then see to which [of the two] is this case most similar. We may infer a meal-offering consisting of one tenth from another meal-offering also consisting of one tenth, but we may not infer a meal-offering consisting of one tenth from a meal-offering consisting of two or three tenths. Is not the above passage self-contradictory? It states at first, ‘"With oil" signifies that it must have much oil’, and then it states, ‘Here it is written, ‘"oil", and there in connection with the freewill meal-offering it is also written, "oil"’! — Abaye answered, The Tanna of the clause, ‘"With oil" signifies that it must have much oil’, is R. Simeon, whilst he that argues otherwise by inference [from the freewill meal-offering] is R. Ishmael. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, The whole [of the anonymous part of the Baraitha] is by R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, and he argues thus: ‘With oil’ signifies that it must have much oil, for to establish merely that it requires oil no verse would be necessary, since the expression ‘on a griddle’ indicates that it shall be like any meal-offering prepared on a griddle. But perhaps it is not so, but that [‘with oil’] signifies merely that it requires oil, for had not Holy Writ stated ‘with oil’ I might have said that it shall be like the sinner's meal-offering! And then he said, Be it even so, that it signifies merely that it requires oil, but surely it can be argued by an inference [that three logs are required]. He then argued by the inference but could not prove his case; whereupon he had to resort to the verse, ‘Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily’, as is expressly stated by R. Ishmael in his concluding remarks. Rabbah said, The whole [of the anonymous part of the Baraitha] is by R. Simeon and he argues thus: ‘With oil’ signifies that it must have much oil, for to establish merely that it requires oil no verse would be necessary since the expression ‘on a griddle’ indicates that it shall be like any meal-offering prepared on a griddle. But even without the expression ‘with oil’ I can arrive at the same conclusion by means of an inference. He thereupon argued by the inference but could not prove his case, so that he had to resort to the expression ‘with oil’. He then said, Let it be similar to the meal-offering accompanying the offering of bullocks or of rams; but he rebutted this by saying, We may infer^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:Which certainly overrides the Sabbath.
^ᵇnote:For whatsoever has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry becomes invalid if kept overnight.
^ᶜnote:Sc. the High Priest's meal-offering.
^ᵈnote:So MS.M. and Rashi; in cur. edd. ‘the drink-offering’, which was also part of the Daily Offering.
^ᵉnote:Ex. XXIX, 40. The quantity of oil prescribed is a ‘fourth part of a hin’, i.e., three logs.
^ᶠnote:Lev. II, 1. The quantity of oil is fixed at one log, v. infra 88a.
^ᵍnote:yac,. These are the initial letters of the features characterizing the High Priest's meal-offering, viz., ,-rhs, a regular daily offering’, c-vcuj vtc ‘is obligatory’, a-,ca and y-vtnuy ‘it overrides the Sabbath and the law of uncleanness’. The meal-offering accompanying the Daily Offering is also characterized in this manner; these features, however, are absent from the freewill meal-offering.
^ʰnote:kdh. So according to Sh. Mek.; cur. edd. khdh. The High Priest's meal-offering can be characterized by the following features: h-shjh ‘an individual offering’, d-vnmg kkd ‘brought on its own account’ i.e., not accompanying another offering, and k-vbuck ‘requires frankincense’. These features are present in the freewill meal-offering but are absent from the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering.
^ⁱnote:Lev. VI, 13.
^ʲnote:Cf. Num. XV, 4ff. The meal-offering which accompanied the offering of a ram consisted of two tenths of fine flour mingled with the third part of a hin (i.e., four logs) of oil, and that which accompanied the offering of a bullock of three tenths of flour mingled with half a hin (i.e., six logs) of oil.
^ᵏnote:The meal-offering which accompanied the Daily Offering consisted of one tenth of fine flour which is not the case with the bullocks and rams; v. prec. n.
^ˡnote:The purpose of the inference, namely to establish that not more than the normal quantity of oil (i.e., a log) is required, is contradicted by the verse which indicates the requirement of much oil, i.e., more than the usual quantity.
^ᵐnote:From here to the end of the passage until the next Mishnah the text is in a doubtful state and the MSS. vary considerably from the present text. V. Sh. Mek. where the text is extensively altered. The above translation is based entirely upon the text as in cur. edd. For the variants v. D.S. a.l.
^ⁿnote:Which had no oil at all; cf. Lev. V, 11.
^ᵒnote:From the meal-offering which accompanied the Daily Offering.
^ᵖnote:By reason of the counter argument, namely, let the inference be drawn from the freewill meal-offering.
^ᵠnote:I.e., granted that it must have more oil than the ordinary meal-offering, it might nevertheless be compared with the meal-offering which accompanied bullocks or rams where only two logs to the tenth are required.

²a meal-offering consisting of one tenth etc. MISHNAH. IF THEY DID NOT APPOINT ANOTHER PRIEST IN HIS STEAD, AT WHOSE EXPENSE WAS IT OFFERED? R. SIMEON SAYS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMUNITY; BUT R. JUDAH SAYS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HEIRS; MOREOVER A WHOLE [TENTH] WAS OFFERED. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, whence do we know that his meal-offering must be offered at the expense of his heirs? Because it is written, And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it. I might think that they offer it a half-[tenth] at a time, Scripture therefore stated ‘it’, implying the whole [tenth] but not half of it. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says, It is a statute for ever, this implies that it is offered at the expense of the community. It shall be wholly burnt, that is, the whole of it shall be burnt. Does then the verse, ‘And the anointed priest etc.’ serve the above purpose? Surely it is required for the teaching of the following Baraitha: It is written, This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed. Now I might think that Aaron and his sons shall together offer one offering, the text therefore states, ‘Which they shall offer unto the Lord’, Aaron shall offer his separately and his sons theirs separately. [The expression] ‘his sons’ refers to the ordinary priests. You say ‘the ordinary priests’: but perhaps it refers only to the High Priests? When it says, ‘And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons’, it has already spoken of the High Priest; how then must I interpret ‘his sons’? It must refer to the ordinary priests! — If so, the verse should read, ‘And [if] the anointed priest [died], his sons in his stead shall offer’; why does the verse read ‘from among his sons’? You may thus infer both teachings. For what purpose does R. Simeon utilize the expression ‘it’?-He requires it for the following teaching: If the High Priest died and they appointed another 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 was not this rule derived from the expression ‘And half thereof’? He bases no exposition upon the letter waw [‘and’]. And for what purpose does R. Judah utilize the expression a statute for ever’? — It means, a statute binding for all time. And what is the purpose of the expression, ‘It shall be wholly burnt’? — He requires it for the following which was taught: I only know that the former, namely the High Priest's meal-offering, must be wholly burnt, and that the latter, namely the ordinary priest's meal-offering, must not be eaten; but whence do I know that what is said of the former applies also to the latter and what is said of the latter applies also to the former? The text therefore stated ‘wholly’ in each case for the purposes of analogy; thus, it is written here ‘wholly’ and it is written there ‘wholly’, as the former must be wholly burnt so the latter must be wholly burnt, and as in the latter case there is a prohibition against eating it, so in the former case there is a prohibition against eating it. Is then R. Simeon of the opinion that by the law of the Torah it must be offered at the expense of the community? Surely we have learnt: The Beth din ordained seven things and this was one of them. [They also ordained that] if a gentile sent his burnt- offering from a land beyond the sea and also sent with it the drink-offerings, they [the drink-offerings] are to be offered of his own means; but if he did not [send the drink-offerings], they are to be offered at the expense of the community. Similarly, if a proselyte died and left animal-offerings, if he also left the drink-offerings, they are offered of his own means; but if he did not [send the drink-offerings], they are to be offered at the expense of the community. It was also a condition laid down by the Beth din that if the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, his meal-offering shall be offered at the expense of the community! — R. Abbahu explained, There were two ordinances. By the law of the Torah it should be offered at the expense of the community; but when they saw that the funds in the Chamber were being depleted they ordained that it should be a charge upon the heirs. When they saw, however, that [the heirs] were neglectful about it, they reverted to the law of the Torah. ‘And concerning the Red Cow [they ordained] that the law of sacrilege does not apply to its ashes’. Is not this the law of the Torah? For it was taught: It is a sin-offering: this teaches that it is subject to the law of sacrilege; and ‘it’ implies that only it [the cow] is subject to the law of sacrilege^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ʳnote:This daily meal-offering of the High Priest, during the interregnum.
^ˢnote:In the morning and also in the evening. This is the opinion of R. Simeon too, v. infra n. 7.
^ᵗnote:Lev VI, 15.
^ᵘnote:As their father the High Priest had done during his lifetime.
^ᵛnote:The Heb. okug ‘for ever’ is interpreted in the later Heb. sense of ‘world’, ‘people’, ‘the whole community’.
^ʷnote:None of it shall be left over to be eaten. Or better: a whole tenth shall be offered both morning and evening, thus agreeing with R. Judah's view in the Mishnah, v. supra n. 3.
^ˣnote:Lev. VI, 13.
^ʸnote:At their ordination.
^ᶻnote:The sons offer their meal-offering at their ordination only, this is known as lubhj ,jbn ‘the meal-offering of initiation’; whereas the High Priest must offer his daily, from the day that he is anointed and onwards.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., every priest at the commencement of his ministry must offer a meal-offering of initiation.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the descendants of Aaron, those anointed High Priest.
^ᵃᶜnote:That the verse in question (And the anointed priest etc.) only serves to teach that the heirs of the High Priest must continue at their expense their father's daily meal-offering until the appointment of a successor.
^ᵃᵈnote:The rule given in the prec. note and also the rule that ordinary priests at their ordination shall offer a meal-offering.
^ᵃᵉnote:After he had offered the half-tenth for the morning meal-offering.
^ᵃᶠnote:But must bring a whole tenth from his house; this being derived from the term ‘it’.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. supra p. 304, n. 2, where this rule is derived from the letter wow which stands at the head of the phrase crgc v,hmjnu.
^ᵃʰnote:Cf. Lev. VI, 15.
^ᵃⁱnote:Cf. ibid. 16. In this verse as also in the preceding verse the expression khkf ‘wholly’ is used.
^ᵃʲnote:Sc. the meal-offering of the High Priest.
^ᵃᵏnote:Shek. VII, 6.
^ᵃˡnote:The law stated in the earlier Mishnah Shek. VII, 5.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., the money for the drink-offerings.
^ᵃⁿnote:Since a proselyte has no heirs.
^ᵃᵒnote:Evidently it was only an ordinance of the Beth din and not the law of the Torah.
^ᵃᵖnote:The Beth din.
^ᵃᵠnote:By reason of the frequent changes in the office of the High Priest, v. Yoma 9a.
^ᵃʳnote:This too is one of the seven things ordained by the Beth din. Shek. VII, 7. For the law of sacrilege. i.e., the unintentional appropriation of the property of the Sanctuary, v. Lev. V, 15.
^ᵃˢnote:Num. XIX, 9.