What is the status of blood that was salted, blood that was coagulated? Is it allowed on the altar and therefore also forbidden if one eats it? How and where was the salting performed? A mishna in shekalim states that the rabbis allowed the kohanim to benefit from salt of the temple. Shmuel explains what was permitted but Shmuel’s statement is ambiguous and the gemara tries to understand his intention.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Menachot 21
אפיק עצים ועייל נסכים דתניא אבל היין והדם והעצים והקטרת אין טעונין מלח
The Gemara responds: Wood is removed from the baraita, and insert in its place wine libations, teaching that they do not require the addition of salt. As it is taught in a baraita: But the wine libations and the blood, and the wood and the incense, do not require salt.
מני אי רבי קשיא עצים אי רבנן קשיא קטרת
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the ruling of the baraita concerning wood is difficult, as the baraita rules that wood does not require salt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood does require salt. If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling of the baraita concerning incense is difficult, as they taught in the baraita on 20a that any item for which another item is necessary requires salt, and this includes the incense, which is burned with wood.
האי תנא הוא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר’ יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר שמקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון אף כל דבר המקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון
The Gemara suggests: The baraita is in accordance with this following tanna, who explains the verse that was interpreted in the baraita in a different manner. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: The verse states: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13). Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar, so too, any item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar requires salting.
יצאו עצים שאין מקבלין טומאה יצאו דם ויין שאין עולים לאשים יצאה קטרת שאינה על מזבח החיצון
Therefore, wood is excluded, as it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Wine and blood are excluded, as they are not brought on the fire of the altar but rather are sprinkled on the corner of the altar. The incense is excluded, as it is sacrificed not on the external altar but rather on the inner altar.
אלא טעמא דמעטיה קרא לדם הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא דם ליבעי מלח כיון דמלחיה נפיק ליה מתורת דם דאמר זעירי א”ר חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו ורב יהודה אמר זעירי דם שמלחו אינו עובר עליו
The Gemara asks: But how can it be that according to all opinions, the reason that blood does not require salting is that the verse excluded blood, indicating that if not for that, I would say that blood requires salt? Once one salts the blood, it exits the category of blood, as Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress the prohibition against consuming blood by drinking it, since it no longer has the status of blood that is fit to be presented on the altar. And Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: With regard to blood that one salted, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it, since salted blood has the status of cooked blood.
ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אברים שצלאן והעלן אין בהם משום לריח ניחוח
And similarly, Rav Yehuda himself says: With regard to the limbs of a burnt offering that one first roasted and afterward brought them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement of the verse that an offering be “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Exodus 29:25).
מהו דתימא מישדא בה משהו למצוה בעלמא קמ”ל:
The Gemara answers: It is still necessary to derive that blood does not require salt, lest you say that the priest should sprinkle any amount of salt, even a minute quantity, on the blood, merely for the fulfillment of the mitzva, as such an amount would not render the blood as cooked. To counter this, the verse teaches us that blood requires no application of salt.
גופא אמר זעירי א”ר חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו יתיב רבא וקא אמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה אביי הקפה את הדם ואכלו או שהמחה את החלב וגמעו חייב
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it. Rava was sitting and saying this halakha. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita (Tosefta, Karetot 2:19): If one curdled blood and consumed it, or in a case where one melted forbidden fat and swallowed it, even though he changed its form, he is liable. This demonstrates that even after its form is changed, the blood’s status remains unchanged.
לא קשיא כאן שהקפה באור כאן שהקפה בחמה באור לא הדר בחמה הדר
Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Ze’eiri’s statement relates to a case where he curdled the blood by means of the fire, whereas there, in the case of the baraita, he curdled the blood by means of the sun. Blood curdled by means of a fire cannot return to its former state, so one is not liable, whereas blood curdled by means of the sun can return to its former state, so one is liable.
בחמה נמי לימא הואיל ואידחי אידחי דהא בעא מיניה רבי מני מר’ יוחנן דם שקרש ואכלו מהו אמר ליה הואיל ונדחה ידחה אישתיק
Abaye objected: But even when blood is curdled by means of the sun, let us say that since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it was disqualified, i.e., excluded, from the prohibition against consuming blood; as Rabbi Mani inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan responded: He is not liable; since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it shall be disqualified from the prohibition against consuming blood. Rava was silent and had no answer.
אמר ליה דלמא ודאי כאן בחטאות החיצוניות (החיצונות) כאן בחטאות הפנימיות
Abaye said to him: Perhaps here the baraita is certainly referring to the blood of the external sin offerings, which is sprinkled on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, whereas there Ze’eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.
אמר אדכרתן מילתא דאמר רב חסדא דם שקרש בחטאות ואכלו חייב (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח ונתן אמר רחמנא [והאי] בר לקיחה ונתינה הוא בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו פטור וטבל והזה אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר טבילה והזאה הוא
Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rabbi Ḥisda says: With regard to blood that became congealed, if it is blood of the external sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:25), and congealed blood is suitable for taking and placing, as one can take the congealed blood and place it upon the altar. By contrast, if it is blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is exempt, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.
ורבא דידיה אמר אפילו בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות אמר רב פפא הלכך דם חמור שקרש ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות
And Rava himself says: Even if there was blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings. Rav Pappa says: Therefore, according to the same reasoning, in the case of the blood of a donkey that became congealed and one ate it, he is liable, despite the fact that a donkey’s blood is not fit to be brought as an offering, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings.
אמר רב גידל אמר זעירי דם בין לח בין יבש חוצץ מיתיבי הדם והדיו והדבש והחלב יבשין חוצצין לחין אינן חוצצין לא קשיא הא דסריך הא דלא סריך:
In the context of the halakhot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Ze’eiri says: Blood, whether moist or dry, interposes during ritual immersion. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 6:9): With regard to blood, ink, honey, or milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; but when they are moist, they do not interpose. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; this statement of Rav Giddel is referring to a case where the blood adheres to the skin, as it has begun to congeal and therefore interposes. That baraita is referring to a case where the blood did not adhere and therefore does not interpose.
תמלח למאי אתא לכדתניא במלח יכול תבונהו ת”ל תמלח אי תמלח יכול במי מלח ת”ל במלח
§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13), and asks: For what purpose does the expression “you shall season” come? The Gemara answers: It is written for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every meal offering of yours shall be with salt, one might have thought that the halakha is tevonehu, a term that will be explained in the Gemara. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall season.” Conversely, had the verse stated only: “You shall season,” one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states “with salt.”
(ויקרא ב, יג) ולא תשבית מלח הבא מלח שאינה שובתת ואיזו זו מלח סדומית ומנין שאם לא מצא מלח סדומית שמביא מלח איסתרוקנית ת”ל תקריב תקריב כל שהוא תקריב מכל מקום תקריב ואפילו בשבת תקריב ואפילו בטומאה
The continuation of the verse: “And you shall not omit [tashbit] salt from your meal offering,” teaches that one should bring salt that never rests [shovetet], i.e., it is found continuously. And what type of salt is this? This is referring to salt of Sodom. And from where is it derived that if one did not find salt of Sodom that he should bring salt of istrokanit, which is quarried from rock? The verse states immediately afterward: “With all your offerings you shall sacrifice salt” (Leviticus 2:13), in order to emphasize that you should sacrifice any type of salt; you should sacrifice salt from any place, even from a location outside of Eretz Yisrael; you should sacrifice salt even on Shabbat; and you should sacrifice salt even in a state of ritual impurity.
מאי תבונהו אמר רבה בר עולא הכי קאמר יכול יתבוננו כתבן בטיט אמר ליה אביי אי הכי יתבוננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר אביי יכול יעשנו כבנין אמר ליה רבא אי הכי יבננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבא יכול תבונהו
The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term tevonehu? Rabba bar Ulla said: This is what the baraita is saying: One might have thought that one should mix into it [yitabonenu] large quantities of salt, just as one mixes straw [teven] into clay. Abaye said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: Yitabonenu, and not tevonehu. Rather, Abaye said: The baraita is saying that one might have thought one should form the addition of salt just as one builds a building [binyan], by adding layer upon layer. Rava said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: He should build it [yivnenu] and not tevonehu. Rather, Rava said: The baraita states: One might have thought tevonehu.
מאי תבונהו אמר רב אשי יכול יתן בו טעם כבינה תלמוד לומר תמלח כיצד הוא עושה מביא האבר ונותן עליו מלח וחוזר והופכו ונותן עליו מלח ומעלהו
The Gemara asks: What is meant by tevonehu? Rav Ashi said: One might have thought that one should infuse the entire offering with the taste of salt, just as understanding [bina] infuses a person with wisdom. To counter this, the verse states: “You shall season.” How does he act? He brings the limb that is to be sacrificed on the altar and applies salt, and then turns it over and again applies salt, and brings it up to the altar.
אמר אביי וכן לקדירה
Abaye says: And one acts similarly before placing meat into a pot. If one wishes to cook meat and needs to salt it in order to extract its blood, it is sufficient to apply salt to both sides and let it sit until the blood drains. Then, after it is washed, the meat is ready to be cooked and eaten.
תנו רבנן מלח שעל גבי האבר מועלין בו שע”ג הכבש ושבראשו של מזבח אין מועלין בו ואמר רב מתנה מאי קראה (יחזקאל מג, כד) והקרבתם לפני ה’ והשליכו הכהנים עליהם מלח והעלו אותם עולה לה’:
The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:4): With regard to salt that is on the limb of an offering, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but in the case of salt that is on the ramp or that is on top of the altar, one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And Rav Mattana said: What is the verse from which it is derived that the salt found upon a sacrificial limb is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property? The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering to the Lord” (Ezekiel 43:24). In this verse, the limbs, together with the salt, are termed a burnt offering, and therefore the salt on the limb is also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.
תנן התם על המלח ועל העצים שיהו הכהנים נאותין בהן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא לקרבנם אבל לאכילה לא
With regard to the halakha that salt is not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 7:7): The court instituted an ordinance about the salt and about the wood in the Temple to the effect that the priests may derive benefit from them. Shmuel says: They taught only that the priests may derive benefit from the salt for use on their offerings, but not for eating it.
קא ס”ד מאי לקרבנם למלוח קרבנם לאכול אכילת קדשים השתא למלוח עורות קדשים יהבינן לאכילת קדשים לא יהבינן
The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say: What did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings. And when Shmuel states that for the purpose of eating it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt, he is referring to adding salt when eating the meat of sacrificial animals, e.g., the portions of the sin offering and guilt offering that are given to the priests. The Gemara challenges this explanation: Now, if we give the priests salt in order to salt the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to the priests to keep, so that they can process them, is it reasonable to rule that we do not give them salt in order to add it when they eat the meat of sacrificial animals?
דתניא נמצאת אתה אומר בשלשה מקומות המלח נתונה בלשכת המלח ועל גבי הכבש ובראשו של מזבח בלשכת המלח ששם מולחין עורות קדשים על גבי הכבש ששם מולחים את האברים בראשו של מזבח ששם מולחין הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים ועולת העוף
The Gemara explains its challenge: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:2): You are found to be saying that the salt is placed in three locations in the Temple: In the Chamber of the Salt, and on the ramp, and on top of the altar. It is placed in the Chamber of the Salt, since the priests salted there the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to them. It is placed on the ramp, since the priests salted there the sacrificial limbs. It is placed on top of the altar, since the priests salted there the handful of the meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering that accompanies the libations, and the bird burnt offering. Evidently, it was permitted for the priests to add salt to their portions of sacrificial meat.
אלא מאי לקרבנם לאכילת קרבנם ומאי לאכילה אכילה דחולין
The Gemara suggests a different explanation of Shmuel’s statement: Rather, what did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that it is permitted for the priests to add salt when they eat the meat of their offerings, e.g., the portions of the guilt offerings and sin offerings that are given to the priests, as well as when they eat the remainder of the meal offering. And what is meant when Shmuel states that for the purpose of eating it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt? He is referring to using the salt for the purpose of eating non-sacred food.
חולין פשיטא מאי בעו התם אע”ג דאמר מר יאכלו שיאכלו עמה חולין ותרומה כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע אפילו הכי מלח דקדשים לא יהבינן להו
The Gemara objects: Isn’t it obvious that the salt is not to be eaten with non-sacred food? What would non-sacred food be doing there in the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: Even though the Master says in the baraita that the verse stated with regard to the meal offering: “And that which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eat” (Leviticus 6:9), teaching that the priests shall eat non-sacred food and teruma along with the remainder of the meal offering so that the remainder of the meal offering will be eaten in a manner that the priest will be satiated when he finishes eating it, demonstrating that non-sacred food may be brought to the Temple courtyard, even so we do not give them consecrated salt.
אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ה”נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך מאי לקרבנם למלוח טעמא דאתני בית דין הא לא אתני בית דין לא השתא לישראל יהבינן לכהנים לא יהבינן
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable to explain that Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna in Shekalim is that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to eat the salt with sacrificial foods. As, if it enters your mind to say: What did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings; then one must extrapolate from the mishna that the reason this is permitted is that the court stipulated that it should be, but had the court not stipulated this, it would not be permitted. That cannot be, as now that we give salt to Israelites to salt their offerings, will we not give salt to priests for the same purpose?
דתניא יכול האומר הרי עלי מנחה יביא מלח מתוך ביתו כדרך שמביא לבונה מתוך ביתו ודין הוא נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא לבונה מה לבונה מתוך ביתו אף מלח מתוך ביתו
As it is taught in a baraita that we provide salt for the offerings of Israelites: One might have thought that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, must bring salt from his home, i.e., his own salt, to salt the handful that is burned on the altar, just as he brings frankincense from his home for his meal offering. And this would seem to be a logical inference: It is stated in the Torah that one shall bring a meal offering, and it is stated that one shall bring salt, as it is written: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13); and it is stated that one shall bring a meal offering, and it is stated that one shall bring frankincense. Therefore, just as one brings frankincense from his home, as it is written: “And put frankincense on it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2), so too, one must bring salt from his home.
או כלך לדרך זו נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא עצים מה עצים משל ציבור אף מלח משל ציבור
Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated in the Torah that one shall bring a meal offering and that one shall bring salt, and it is stated that one shall bring a meal offering and that one shall bring wood, as the meal offering cannot be burned on the altar without the wood. Therefore, just as the wood comes from communal supplies, so too, the salt shall come from communal supplies.
נראה למי דומה דנין דבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים ואל תוכיח לבונה שאינה נוהגת בכל הזבחים
The baraita continues: Let us see to which salt is more similar, i.e., which comparison seems more reasonable: We derive the halakha of salt, which is a matter that applies to all offerings, from the halakha of wood, which is also a matter that applies to all offerings. And do not let the halakha of frankincense prove otherwise, as it does not apply to all offerings, only to the meal offerings.
או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד מדבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד ואל יוכיחו עצים שאינן באין עמה בכלי אחד
Or perhaps, go this way: We derive the halakha of salt, which is a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel, from the halakha of frankincense, which is also a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel. And do not let the halakha of wood prove otherwise, as it does not accompany the meal offering in one vessel.
ת”ל (במדבר יח, יט) ברית מלח עולם הוא ולהלן הוא אומר (ויקרא כד, ח) מאת בני ישראל ברית עולם מה להלן משל ציבור אף כאן משל ציבור
The baraita continues: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), and there, with regard to the shewbread, it states: “It is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant” (Leviticus 24:8); Therefore, just as the phrase written there: “From the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant,” means that it is brought from communal supplies, as the shewbread is a communal offering, so too here, the verse that speaks of the everlasting covenant of salt means that the salt is brought from communal supplies. Evidently, salt is provided for offerings of Israelites, and should likewise be provided for the offerings of priests. Accordingly, there would have been no need for the court to permit the priests to salt their offerings, and it must be that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to use salt when eating sacrificial foods.
אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי קאמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לא נצרכא אלא לבן בוכרי
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The initial understanding of Shmuel’s interpretation of the mishna is correct, i.e., that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to salt their offerings; and the ruling of the mishna is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies.
דתנן אמר רבי יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן
As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.
(ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו היא היאך נאכלין
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
ולבן בוכרי כיון דלכתחילה לא מיחייב לאיתויי כי מייתי נמי חוטא הוא דקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמייתי ומסר להון לציבור
The Gemara clarifies: But according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? Since he is not obligated to bring it ab initio, when he brings the half-shekel he is also a sinner, since he is causing the bringing of a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard. He is not contributing the half-shekel as part of the communal offering, as he is exempt from this obligation. Therefore, his donation is the donation of an individual, and a communal offering cannot be brought on behalf of an individual. His donation should disqualify all offerings brought from the communal funds. The Gemara answers: The priest brings and transfers the half-shekel to the community, so it is considered part of the communal funds.
סלקא דעתך אמינא
The Gemara states the relevance of the opinion of ben Bukhri to the statement of Shmuel: According to the opinion of ben Bukhri it might enter your mind to say that
Follow 
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
Menachot 21
אפיק עצים ועייל נסכים דתניא אבל היין והדם והעצים והקטרת אין טעונין מלח
The Gemara responds: Wood is removed from the baraita, and insert in its place wine libations, teaching that they do not require the addition of salt. As it is taught in a baraita: But the wine libations and the blood, and the wood and the incense, do not require salt.
מני אי רבי קשיא עצים אי רבנן קשיא קטרת
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the ruling of the baraita concerning wood is difficult, as the baraita rules that wood does not require salt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood does require salt. If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling of the baraita concerning incense is difficult, as they taught in the baraita on 20a that any item for which another item is necessary requires salt, and this includes the incense, which is burned with wood.
האי תנא הוא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר’ יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר שמקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון אף כל דבר המקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון
The Gemara suggests: The baraita is in accordance with this following tanna, who explains the verse that was interpreted in the baraita in a different manner. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: The verse states: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13). Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar, so too, any item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar requires salting.
יצאו עצים שאין מקבלין טומאה יצאו דם ויין שאין עולים לאשים יצאה קטרת שאינה על מזבח החיצון
Therefore, wood is excluded, as it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Wine and blood are excluded, as they are not brought on the fire of the altar but rather are sprinkled on the corner of the altar. The incense is excluded, as it is sacrificed not on the external altar but rather on the inner altar.
אלא טעמא דמעטיה קרא לדם הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא דם ליבעי מלח כיון דמלחיה נפיק ליה מתורת דם דאמר זעירי א”ר חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו ורב יהודה אמר זעירי דם שמלחו אינו עובר עליו
The Gemara asks: But how can it be that according to all opinions, the reason that blood does not require salting is that the verse excluded blood, indicating that if not for that, I would say that blood requires salt? Once one salts the blood, it exits the category of blood, as Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress the prohibition against consuming blood by drinking it, since it no longer has the status of blood that is fit to be presented on the altar. And Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: With regard to blood that one salted, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it, since salted blood has the status of cooked blood.
ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אברים שצלאן והעלן אין בהם משום לריח ניחוח
And similarly, Rav Yehuda himself says: With regard to the limbs of a burnt offering that one first roasted and afterward brought them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement of the verse that an offering be “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Exodus 29:25).
מהו דתימא מישדא בה משהו למצוה בעלמא קמ”ל:
The Gemara answers: It is still necessary to derive that blood does not require salt, lest you say that the priest should sprinkle any amount of salt, even a minute quantity, on the blood, merely for the fulfillment of the mitzva, as such an amount would not render the blood as cooked. To counter this, the verse teaches us that blood requires no application of salt.
גופא אמר זעירי א”ר חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו יתיב רבא וקא אמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה אביי הקפה את הדם ואכלו או שהמחה את החלב וגמעו חייב
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it. Rava was sitting and saying this halakha. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita (Tosefta, Karetot 2:19): If one curdled blood and consumed it, or in a case where one melted forbidden fat and swallowed it, even though he changed its form, he is liable. This demonstrates that even after its form is changed, the blood’s status remains unchanged.
לא קשיא כאן שהקפה באור כאן שהקפה בחמה באור לא הדר בחמה הדר
Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Ze’eiri’s statement relates to a case where he curdled the blood by means of the fire, whereas there, in the case of the baraita, he curdled the blood by means of the sun. Blood curdled by means of a fire cannot return to its former state, so one is not liable, whereas blood curdled by means of the sun can return to its former state, so one is liable.
בחמה נמי לימא הואיל ואידחי אידחי דהא בעא מיניה רבי מני מר’ יוחנן דם שקרש ואכלו מהו אמר ליה הואיל ונדחה ידחה אישתיק
Abaye objected: But even when blood is curdled by means of the sun, let us say that since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it was disqualified, i.e., excluded, from the prohibition against consuming blood; as Rabbi Mani inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan responded: He is not liable; since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it shall be disqualified from the prohibition against consuming blood. Rava was silent and had no answer.
אמר ליה דלמא ודאי כאן בחטאות החיצוניות (החיצונות) כאן בחטאות הפנימיות
Abaye said to him: Perhaps here the baraita is certainly referring to the blood of the external sin offerings, which is sprinkled on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, whereas there Ze’eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.
אמר אדכרתן מילתא דאמר רב חסדא דם שקרש בחטאות ואכלו חייב (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח ונתן אמר רחמנא [והאי] בר לקיחה ונתינה הוא בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו פטור וטבל והזה אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר טבילה והזאה הוא
Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rabbi Ḥisda says: With regard to blood that became congealed, if it is blood of the external sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:25), and congealed blood is suitable for taking and placing, as one can take the congealed blood and place it upon the altar. By contrast, if it is blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is exempt, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.
ורבא דידיה אמר אפילו בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות אמר רב פפא הלכך דם חמור שקרש ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות
And Rava himself says: Even if there was blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings. Rav Pappa says: Therefore, according to the same reasoning, in the case of the blood of a donkey that became congealed and one ate it, he is liable, despite the fact that a donkey’s blood is not fit to be brought as an offering, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings.
אמר רב גידל אמר זעירי דם בין לח בין יבש חוצץ מיתיבי הדם והדיו והדבש והחלב יבשין חוצצין לחין אינן חוצצין לא קשיא הא דסריך הא דלא סריך:
In the context of the halakhot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Ze’eiri says: Blood, whether moist or dry, interposes during ritual immersion. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 6:9): With regard to blood, ink, honey, or milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; but when they are moist, they do not interpose. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; this statement of Rav Giddel is referring to a case where the blood adheres to the skin, as it has begun to congeal and therefore interposes. That baraita is referring to a case where the blood did not adhere and therefore does not interpose.
תמלח למאי אתא לכדתניא במלח יכול תבונהו ת”ל תמלח אי תמלח יכול במי מלח ת”ל במלח
§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13), and asks: For what purpose does the expression “you shall season” come? The Gemara answers: It is written for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every meal offering of yours shall be with salt, one might have thought that the halakha is tevonehu, a term that will be explained in the Gemara. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall season.” Conversely, had the verse stated only: “You shall season,” one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states “with salt.”
(ויקרא ב, יג) ולא תשבית מלח הבא מלח שאינה שובתת ואיזו זו מלח סדומית ומנין שאם לא מצא מלח סדומית שמביא מלח איסתרוקנית ת”ל תקריב תקריב כל שהוא תקריב מכל מקום תקריב ואפילו בשבת תקריב ואפילו בטומאה
The continuation of the verse: “And you shall not omit [tashbit] salt from your meal offering,” teaches that one should bring salt that never rests [shovetet], i.e., it is found continuously. And what type of salt is this? This is referring to salt of Sodom. And from where is it derived that if one did not find salt of Sodom that he should bring salt of istrokanit, which is quarried from rock? The verse states immediately afterward: “With all your offerings you shall sacrifice salt” (Leviticus 2:13), in order to emphasize that you should sacrifice any type of salt; you should sacrifice salt from any place, even from a location outside of Eretz Yisrael; you should sacrifice salt even on Shabbat; and you should sacrifice salt even in a state of ritual impurity.
מאי תבונהו אמר רבה בר עולא הכי קאמר יכול יתבוננו כתבן בטיט אמר ליה אביי אי הכי יתבוננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר אביי יכול יעשנו כבנין אמר ליה רבא אי הכי יבננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבא יכול תבונהו
The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term tevonehu? Rabba bar Ulla said: This is what the baraita is saying: One might have thought that one should mix into it [yitabonenu] large quantities of salt, just as one mixes straw [teven] into clay. Abaye said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: Yitabonenu, and not tevonehu. Rather, Abaye said: The baraita is saying that one might have thought one should form the addition of salt just as one builds a building [binyan], by adding layer upon layer. Rava said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: He should build it [yivnenu] and not tevonehu. Rather, Rava said: The baraita states: One might have thought tevonehu.
מאי תבונהו אמר רב אשי יכול יתן בו טעם כבינה תלמוד לומר תמלח כיצד הוא עושה מביא האבר ונותן עליו מלח וחוזר והופכו ונותן עליו מלח ומעלהו
The Gemara asks: What is meant by tevonehu? Rav Ashi said: One might have thought that one should infuse the entire offering with the taste of salt, just as understanding [bina] infuses a person with wisdom. To counter this, the verse states: “You shall season.” How does he act? He brings the limb that is to be sacrificed on the altar and applies salt, and then turns it over and again applies salt, and brings it up to the altar.
אמר אביי וכן לקדירה
Abaye says: And one acts similarly before placing meat into a pot. If one wishes to cook meat and needs to salt it in order to extract its blood, it is sufficient to apply salt to both sides and let it sit until the blood drains. Then, after it is washed, the meat is ready to be cooked and eaten.
תנו רבנן מלח שעל גבי האבר מועלין בו שע”ג הכבש ושבראשו של מזבח אין מועלין בו ואמר רב מתנה מאי קראה (יחזקאל מג, כד) והקרבתם לפני ה’ והשליכו הכהנים עליהם מלח והעלו אותם עולה לה’:
The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:4): With regard to salt that is on the limb of an offering, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but in the case of salt that is on the ramp or that is on top of the altar, one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And Rav Mattana said: What is the verse from which it is derived that the salt found upon a sacrificial limb is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property? The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering to the Lord” (Ezekiel 43:24). In this verse, the limbs, together with the salt, are termed a burnt offering, and therefore the salt on the limb is also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.
תנן התם על המלח ועל העצים שיהו הכהנים נאותין בהן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא לקרבנם אבל לאכילה לא
With regard to the halakha that salt is not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 7:7): The court instituted an ordinance about the salt and about the wood in the Temple to the effect that the priests may derive benefit from them. Shmuel says: They taught only that the priests may derive benefit from the salt for use on their offerings, but not for eating it.
קא ס”ד מאי לקרבנם למלוח קרבנם לאכול אכילת קדשים השתא למלוח עורות קדשים יהבינן לאכילת קדשים לא יהבינן
The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say: What did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings. And when Shmuel states that for the purpose of eating it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt, he is referring to adding salt when eating the meat of sacrificial animals, e.g., the portions of the sin offering and guilt offering that are given to the priests. The Gemara challenges this explanation: Now, if we give the priests salt in order to salt the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to the priests to keep, so that they can process them, is it reasonable to rule that we do not give them salt in order to add it when they eat the meat of sacrificial animals?
דתניא נמצאת אתה אומר בשלשה מקומות המלח נתונה בלשכת המלח ועל גבי הכבש ובראשו של מזבח בלשכת המלח ששם מולחין עורות קדשים על גבי הכבש ששם מולחים את האברים בראשו של מזבח ששם מולחין הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים ועולת העוף
The Gemara explains its challenge: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:2): You are found to be saying that the salt is placed in three locations in the Temple: In the Chamber of the Salt, and on the ramp, and on top of the altar. It is placed in the Chamber of the Salt, since the priests salted there the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to them. It is placed on the ramp, since the priests salted there the sacrificial limbs. It is placed on top of the altar, since the priests salted there the handful of the meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering that accompanies the libations, and the bird burnt offering. Evidently, it was permitted for the priests to add salt to their portions of sacrificial meat.
אלא מאי לקרבנם לאכילת קרבנם ומאי לאכילה אכילה דחולין
The Gemara suggests a different explanation of Shmuel’s statement: Rather, what did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that it is permitted for the priests to add salt when they eat the meat of their offerings, e.g., the portions of the guilt offerings and sin offerings that are given to the priests, as well as when they eat the remainder of the meal offering. And what is meant when Shmuel states that for the purpose of eating it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt? He is referring to using the salt for the purpose of eating non-sacred food.
חולין פשיטא מאי בעו התם אע”ג דאמר מר יאכלו שיאכלו עמה חולין ותרומה כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע אפילו הכי מלח דקדשים לא יהבינן להו
The Gemara objects: Isn’t it obvious that the salt is not to be eaten with non-sacred food? What would non-sacred food be doing there in the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: Even though the Master says in the baraita that the verse stated with regard to the meal offering: “And that which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eat” (Leviticus 6:9), teaching that the priests shall eat non-sacred food and teruma along with the remainder of the meal offering so that the remainder of the meal offering will be eaten in a manner that the priest will be satiated when he finishes eating it, demonstrating that non-sacred food may be brought to the Temple courtyard, even so we do not give them consecrated salt.
אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ה”נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך מאי לקרבנם למלוח טעמא דאתני בית דין הא לא אתני בית דין לא השתא לישראל יהבינן לכהנים לא יהבינן
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable to explain that Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna in Shekalim is that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to eat the salt with sacrificial foods. As, if it enters your mind to say: What did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings; then one must extrapolate from the mishna that the reason this is permitted is that the court stipulated that it should be, but had the court not stipulated this, it would not be permitted. That cannot be, as now that we give salt to Israelites to salt their offerings, will we not give salt to priests for the same purpose?
דתניא יכול האומר הרי עלי מנחה יביא מלח מתוך ביתו כדרך שמביא לבונה מתוך ביתו ודין הוא נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא לבונה מה לבונה מתוך ביתו אף מלח מתוך ביתו
As it is taught in a baraita that we provide salt for the offerings of Israelites: One might have thought that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, must bring salt from his home, i.e., his own salt, to salt the handful that is burned on the altar, just as he brings frankincense from his home for his meal offering. And this would seem to be a logical inference: It is stated in the Torah that one shall bring a meal offering, and it is stated that one shall bring salt, as it is written: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13); and it is stated that one shall bring a meal offering, and it is stated that one shall bring frankincense. Therefore, just as one brings frankincense from his home, as it is written: “And put frankincense on it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2), so too, one must bring salt from his home.
או כלך לדרך זו נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא עצים מה עצים משל ציבור אף מלח משל ציבור
Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated in the Torah that one shall bring a meal offering and that one shall bring salt, and it is stated that one shall bring a meal offering and that one shall bring wood, as the meal offering cannot be burned on the altar without the wood. Therefore, just as the wood comes from communal supplies, so too, the salt shall come from communal supplies.
נראה למי דומה דנין דבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים ואל תוכיח לבונה שאינה נוהגת בכל הזבחים
The baraita continues: Let us see to which salt is more similar, i.e., which comparison seems more reasonable: We derive the halakha of salt, which is a matter that applies to all offerings, from the halakha of wood, which is also a matter that applies to all offerings. And do not let the halakha of frankincense prove otherwise, as it does not apply to all offerings, only to the meal offerings.
או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד מדבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד ואל יוכיחו עצים שאינן באין עמה בכלי אחד
Or perhaps, go this way: We derive the halakha of salt, which is a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel, from the halakha of frankincense, which is also a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel. And do not let the halakha of wood prove otherwise, as it does not accompany the meal offering in one vessel.
ת”ל (במדבר יח, יט) ברית מלח עולם הוא ולהלן הוא אומר (ויקרא כד, ח) מאת בני ישראל ברית עולם מה להלן משל ציבור אף כאן משל ציבור
The baraita continues: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), and there, with regard to the shewbread, it states: “It is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant” (Leviticus 24:8); Therefore, just as the phrase written there: “From the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant,” means that it is brought from communal supplies, as the shewbread is a communal offering, so too here, the verse that speaks of the everlasting covenant of salt means that the salt is brought from communal supplies. Evidently, salt is provided for offerings of Israelites, and should likewise be provided for the offerings of priests. Accordingly, there would have been no need for the court to permit the priests to salt their offerings, and it must be that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to use salt when eating sacrificial foods.
אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי קאמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לא נצרכא אלא לבן בוכרי
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The initial understanding of Shmuel’s interpretation of the mishna is correct, i.e., that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to salt their offerings; and the ruling of the mishna is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies.
דתנן אמר רבי יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן
As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.
(ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו היא היאך נאכלין
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
ולבן בוכרי כיון דלכתחילה לא מיחייב לאיתויי כי מייתי נמי חוטא הוא דקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמייתי ומסר להון לציבור
The Gemara clarifies: But according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? Since he is not obligated to bring it ab initio, when he brings the half-shekel he is also a sinner, since he is causing the bringing of a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard. He is not contributing the half-shekel as part of the communal offering, as he is exempt from this obligation. Therefore, his donation is the donation of an individual, and a communal offering cannot be brought on behalf of an individual. His donation should disqualify all offerings brought from the communal funds. The Gemara answers: The priest brings and transfers the half-shekel to the community, so it is considered part of the communal funds.
סלקא דעתך אמינא
The Gemara states the relevance of the opinion of ben Bukhri to the statement of Shmuel: According to the opinion of ben Bukhri it might enter your mind to say that
Follow
