מנחות 52 — Soncino English Talmud

¹but its ashes are not subject to the law of sacrilege! — Said R. Ashi: There were two ordinances. By the law of the Torah only it [the cow] is subject to the law of sacrilege but not its ashes; but when they saw that people treated [the ashes] lightly and applied them to wounds, they ordained they should be subject to the law of sacrilege. When they saw, however, that people in doubtful cases of uncleanness would avoid the sprinkling, they reverted to the law of the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: The [money for the] bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error or for the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry must be collected for the purpose. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says, It must be taken from the funds of the [Shekel] Chamber. But the reverse has been taught! Which of these was taught last? Now the scholars argued before R. Ashi: Surely the former version was taught last for we already know that R. Simeon is concerned about possible neglect. Whereupon R. Ashi said to them, You may even say that the latter version was taught last, because R. Simeon is concerned about possible neglect only in that case where they themselves receive no atonement by it, but where they themselves receive atonement thereby R. Simeon is not apprehensive about neglect. What is the decision? — Rabbah the Younger said to R. Ashi, Come and hear [the following teaching]: The verse, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season, includes the bullock offered when the whole community sinned in error and the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry, that these too are offered from the funds of the [Shekel] Chamber; so R. Simeon. MOREOVER A WHOLE [TENTH] WAS OFFERED. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan had raised the question: Does it mean a whole tenth in the morning and a whole tenth in the evening, or a whole tenth in the morning and in the evening it was dispensed with? — Come and hear, said Raba, for we have learnt: The eighth bore the [High Priest's] meal-offering. Now if it were so, that it was dispensed with in the evening, then it would sometimes happen that the eighth did not bear the [High Priest's] meal-offering, for example, at the time when the High Priest died and they did not appoint another in his stead. When the scholars repeated this in the presence of R. Jeremiah he exclaimed, These foolish Babylonians! because they dwell in a dark country they must say dark sayings! That Mishnah also states: The seventh bore the fine flour; the ninth bore the wine. Now were these never omitted? Surely it has been taught: Their meal-offering and their drink-offerings, even at night; their meal-offering and their drink-offerings, even on the following day. We must say that the Tanna of that Mishnah is not concerned with the exception, so here too he is not concerned with the exception. When this was reported back again to Raba he remarked, They always report to them any indiscreet saying of ours, our wise sayings they never report to them. Later Raba said, This too is one of our wise sayings, for the verse says, Of fine flour for a meal-offering daily, it is like the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering. What is the decision then? R. Nahman b. Isaac said, Come and hear; for it was taught: A whole tenth was offered in the morning and a whole tenth in the evening. R. Johanan said, There is a difference of opinion between Abba Jose b. Dosethai and the Rabbis. Abba Jose b. Dosethai says, He must set aside for [his meal-offering] two handfuls of frankincense, one handful to be offered in the morning and the other in the evening. But the Rabbis say, He must set aside for it one handful, half to be offered in the morning and the other half in the evening. On what principle do they differ? — Abba Jose b. Dosethai maintains that we know of no case when half a handful was offered; but the Rabbis maintain that we know of no case when a tenth required two handfuls. R. Johanan raised the following question: If the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:For fear that they might be making unnecessary use of the ashes and would be liable to bring a guilt-offering for their sacrilege.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘in the beginning they collect them’. I.e., when the occasion arises it must be collected from the members of the community.
^ᶜnote:I.e., from the funds of the community accumulated in the Temple treasury.
^ᵈnote:In Hor. 3b, where R. Simeon's opinion here is ascribed to R. Judah, and vice versa.
^ᵉnote:The later version of a statement is regarded as the more reliable since the author may have reconsidered and changed his view. Moreover it is necessary to arrive at the correct version in order to establish the halachah which would follow R. Judah's view.
^ᶠnote:V. Mishnah supra where R. Simeon maintains that the High Priest's meal-offering is offered out of the funds of the community and not left to be offered by the heirs at their expense for fear of neglect. Accordingly here the more reliable view of R. Simeon would be that these offerings are also taken out of the funds of the community, which view agrees with the former version.
^ᵍnote:The heirs of the High Priest in as much as they receive no atonement from the meal-offering might conceivably be neglectful about it, but there is no such fear of neglect by the members of the community where the offering is to effect atonement on their behalf.
^ʰnote:Num. XXVIII, 2.
^ⁱnote:This is derived from the use of the plural ‘for offerings’ which includes other offerings to be offered like the Daily Offering from the funds of the Temple Treasury.
^ʲnote:This view of R. Simeon, derived from the verse, is undoubtedly the correct one and, as it corresponds with the former version, that version must have been taught last.
^ᵏnote:Tamid 31b, where it is stated that thirteen priests were engaged in the sacrifice of the Daily Offering and all that accompanied it in the morning, and likewise in the evening.
^ˡnote:V. Pes., Sonc. ed., P 158, n. 1.
^ᵐnote:The fine flour for the meal-offering and the wine for the drink-offering which accompanied the Daily Offering.
^ⁿnote:Num. XXIX, 18.
^ᵒnote:V. supra 44b. It can thus happen that the meal-offering and the drink-offerings were, for some reason, not offered during the day, in which case the seventh and ninth priest would not be required. And yet these are included in the list.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘if’, i.e., with the exceptional case when part of the service was omitted. The Tanna merely states the number of priests engaged in the service and the function of each when in normal circumstances everything was in accordance with the manner prescribed.
^ᵠnote:Although in fact the High Priest's meal-offering might very well be dispensed with in the evening in the circumstances of our Mishnah.
^ʳnote:To the Palestinian Rabbis.
^ˢnote:Lev. VI, 13.
^ᵗnote:Which under no circumstances may be dispensed with; so it is, too, with the High Priest's meal-offering.
^ᵘnote:Whose opinion is to prevail? Raba's or R. Jeremiah's?
^ᵛnote:The High Priest in bringing daily for his meal-offering a tenth of fine flour which he divided and offered half in the morning and half in the evening.
^ʷnote:With the one meal-offering, notwithstanding the handfuls are offered one at a time.

²must the quantity of frankincense, according to the view of the Rabbis, be doubled or not? Should we say that since the quantity of flour has been doubled the quantity of frankincense must also be doubled, or perhaps this is so only where it has been expressly stated and not where it has not been expressly stated? And this question is also to be asked with regard to the quantity of oil, both according to the view of the Rabbis and of Abba Jose b. Dosethai. Come and hear: for we have learnt: The handful is specified in five cases. Now if that were so, there would sometimes be seven! — The Tanna is not concerned with the exception. R. Papa was sitting and reciting the above when R. Joseph b. Shemaiah said to him, ‘Is not the case of a man offering the handful outside the Sanctuary an exceptional case’, and yet he reckoned it? What is the decision then? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said, Come and hear: For it has been taught: If the High Priest died and they did not appoint another in his stead a whole tenth must be offered in the morning and a whole tenth in the evening. Two handfuls [of frankincense] must be set aside, one to be offered in the morning and one in the evening; and three logs of oil must be set aside, one log and a half to be offered in the morning and one log and a half in the evening. Now who is the author of this Baraitha? If you say it is the Rabbis, then it will be asked, Why is it that the quantity of frankincense is doubled and the quantity of oil is not? It must therefore be Abba Jose b. Dosethai who maintains that at all times the High Priest's meal-offering requires two handfuls of frankincense, so that neither the quantity of frankincense nor the quantity of oil has been doubled. And since according to Abba Jose b. Dosethai the quantity of oil is not doubled, likewise according to the Rabbis the quantities of frankincense and of oil are not doubled. R. Johanan said, The halachah follows Abba Jose b. Dosethai. But could R. Johanan have said so? Did not R. Johanan say that the halachah always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah, and we have learnt: ‘The handful is specified in five cases’? — Different Amoraim report R. Johanan's opinion differently. MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS MUST BE OFFERED UNLEAVENED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LEAVENED CAKES OF THE THANK-OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES [OF PENTECOST]. WHICH ARE OFFERED LEAVENED. R. MEIR SAYS, THE LEAVEN MUST BE TAKEN FROM [THE MEAL-OFFERINGS] THEMSELVES AND WITH THIS THEY ARE LEAVENED. R. JUDAH SAYS, THAT IS NOT THE BEST WAY, BUT [FIRST OF ALL] LEAVEN MUST BE BROUGHT AND PUT INTO THE MEASURING VESSEL AND THEN THE MEASURING VESSEL IS FILLED UP [WITH FLOUR]. BUT THEY SAID TO HIM, EVEN SO [IT IS NOT SATISFACTORY]; FOR IT WOULD BE SOMETIMES TOO LITTLE AND SOMETIMES TOO MUCH. GEMARA. R. Perida enquired of R. Ammi, Whence is it derived that all meal-offerings must be offered unleavened? — ‘Whence?’ you ask, [R. Ammi replied] but surely where this is expressly stated it is expressly stated, and where it is not expressly stated there is the general statement,^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ˣnote:According to Abba Jose there is no doubt at all, for one never offers two handfuls at one time with one meal-offering.
^ʸnote:For a whole tenth of fine flour must be brought both in the morning and in the evening. Likewise a whole handful of frankincense must be brought morning and evening.
^ᶻnote:In connection with the flour, v. supra 51b.
^ᵃᵃnote:The High Priest used to bring from his own house daily a tenth of fine flour and three logs of oil, which he divided and offered, half (i.e., a half-tenth of flour and one log and a half of oil) in the morning and half in the evening. During an interregnum, however, since the quantity of flour is doubled it might well be that the oil must also be doubled.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. infra 106b. The handful of frankincense which accompanied the High Priest's meal-offering is not included in that list since it was offered a half-handful at a time.
^ᵃᶜnote:That even the Rabbis hold that during an interregnum a whole handful was to be offered morning as well as evening.
^ᵃᵈnote:For although the two handfuls belong to the one offering, they should nevertheless be reckoned as two in the list; cf. the two handfuls of frankincense offered with the Shewbread which are reckoned as two in the list.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., with the case when the High Priest died. The Tanna merely listed five normal cases that happen daily or regularly.
^ᵃᶠnote:Likewise he should reckon the handful of frankincense offered morning and evening during an interregnum.
^ᵃᵍnote:The reason being no doubt that only that is doubled which is expressly so indicated in the Torah.
^ᵃʰnote:For the same reason as given by Abba Jose, v. prec. note; thus solving the problem raised by R. Johanan.
^ᵃⁱnote:That the High Priest must offer with his meal-offering one handful of frankincense in the morning and another in the evening.
^ᵃʲnote:V. p. 315, n. 6. But according to Abba Jose the number should be seven so as to include the two handfuls of the High Priest's meal-offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:Obviously R. Johanan could not have made both statements; some scholars report that he made only the former statement, namely, that the halachah follows Abba Jose, others that he made only the latter statement, that the halachah follows the anonymous Mishnah.
^ᵃˡnote:The thank-offering was accompanied by an offering of forty cakes, thirty being unleavened and ten leavened, cf. Lev. VII, 12,13.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. ibid. XXIII, 17.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e. a little flour is taken from the meal-offering, is mixed with water and is allowed to stand for some time until it becomes leavened, and this serves as yeast for leavening the rest of the meal-offering.
^ᵃᵒnote:For the yeast is too fresh and not sufficiently potent to leaven well the rest of the meal-offering.
^ᵃᵖnote:For if the yeast used was hard and compressed and of small bulk, there would be more than the usual quantity of flour in this meal-offering, and if, on the other hand, the yeast was of a thin consistency, taking up much space in the vessel, there would be less than the usual quantity of flour, and in either case the meal-offering would be invalid.
^ᵃᵠnote:That the meal-offering shall be unleavened.
^ᵃʳnote:Cf. ibid. II, 4 and 5.