Menachot

a meal-offering consisting of one tenth etc. MISHNAH. IF THEY DID NOT APPOINT ANOTHER PRIEST IN HIS STEAD, AT WHOSE EXPENSE WAS IT1 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.2 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.3 I might think that they offer it a half-[tenth] at a time,4 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,3 this implies that it is offered at the expense of the community.5 It shall be wholly burnt,3 that is, the whole of it shall be burnt.6 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.7 Now I might think that Aaron and his sons shall together offer one offering,8 the text therefore states, ‘Which they shall offer unto the Lord’, Aaron shall offer his separately and his sons theirs separately.9 [The expression] ‘his sons’ refers to the ordinary priests.10 You say ‘the ordinary priests’: but perhaps it refers only to the High Priests?11 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,12 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.13 For what purpose does R. Simeon utilize the expression ‘it’?-He requires it for the following teaching: If the High Priest died14 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].15 But was not this rule derived from the expression ‘And half thereof’?16 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,17 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’,18 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 it19 must be offered at the expense of the community? Surely we have learnt:20 The Beth din ordained seven things and this was one of them.21 [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,22 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,22 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.23 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!24 — 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 they25 saw that the funds in the Chamber were being depleted26 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’.27 Is not this the law of the Torah? For it was taught: It is a sin-offering:28 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 agreeing with R. Judah's view in the Mishnah, v. supra n. 3. initiation’; whereas the High Priest must offer his daily, from the day that he is anointed and onwards. continue at their expense their father's daily meal-offering until the appointment of a successor. crgc v,hmjnu. unintentional appropriation of the property of the Sanctuary, v. Lev. V, 15.