Menachot

but 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,1 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.2 So R. Judah. R. Simeon says, It must be taken from the funds3 of the [Shekel] Chamber. But the reverse has been taught!4 Which of these was taught last?5 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.6 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.7 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,8 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;9 so R. Simeon.10 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.11 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!12 That Mishnah also states: The seventh bore the fine flour;13 the ninth bore the wine.12 Now were these never omitted? Surely it has been taught: Their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,14 even at night; their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,14 even on the following day.15 We must say that the Tanna of that Mishnah is not concerned with the exception,16 so here too he is not concerned with the exception.17 When this was reported back again to Raba he remarked, They always report to them18 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,19 it is like the meal-offering which accompanies the Daily Offering.20 What is the decision then?21 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, He22 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.23 R. Johanan raised the following question: If the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, sacrilege. community. 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. 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. 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. Offering from the funds of the Temple Treasury. former version, that version must have been taught last. accompanied it in the morning, and likewise in the evening. during the day, in which case the seventh and ninth priest would not be required. And yet these are included in the list. priests engaged in the service and the function of each when in normal circumstances everything was in accordance with the manner prescribed. circumstances of our Mishnah. morning and half in the evening.