Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 31, 2018 | ื›ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 21

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.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืืคื™ืง ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขื™ื™ืœ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ืขืฆื™ื ื•ื”ืงื˜ืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžืœื—

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.

ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืขืฆื™ื ืื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืฉื™ื ืงื˜ืจืช

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.

ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืœืืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื ื• ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืœืืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื ื• ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ

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 Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka, says: The verse states: โ€œAnd every meal offering of yours you shall season with saltโ€ (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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืขืฆื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื™ืฆืื• ื“ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืœื™ื ืœืืฉื™ื ื™ืฆืื” ืงื˜ืจืช ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžืขื˜ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื“ื ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ื ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ืžืœื— ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืœื—ื™ื” ื ืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืชื•ืจืช ื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ื ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืœื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ื“ื ืฉืžืœื—ื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื•

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 Zeโ€™eiri says that Rabbi แธคanina 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 Zeโ€™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.

ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืฆืœืืŸ ื•ื”ืขืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื—

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 โ€œan aroma pleasing to the Lordโ€ (Exodus 29:25).

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ืฉื“ื ื‘ื” ืžืฉื”ื• ืœืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ื ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืœื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ื•ืงื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืงืคื” ืืช ื”ื“ื ื•ืื›ืœื• ืื• ืฉื”ืžื—ื” ืืช ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื’ืžืขื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Zeโ€™eiri says that Rabbi แธคanina 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 bloodโ€™s status remains unchanged.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืงืคื” ื‘ืื•ืจ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืงืคื” ื‘ื—ืžื” ื‘ืื•ืจ ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื—ืžื” ื”ื“ืจ

Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Zeโ€™eiriโ€™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.

ื‘ื—ืžื” ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ื“ื”ื ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื™ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื ืฉืงืจืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื• ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ื“ื—ื” ื™ื“ื—ื” ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง

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 Yoแธฅanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืœืžื ื•ื“ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื™ื•ืช ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช

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 Zeโ€™eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.

ืืžืจ ืื“ื›ืจืชืŸ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื“ื ืฉืงืจืฉ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืœืงื— ื•ื ืชืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืจ ืœืงื™ื—ื” ื•ื ืชื™ื ื” ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื” ื•ื”ื–ืื” ื”ื•ื

Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rabbi แธคisda 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: โ€œAnd 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 offeringโ€ (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: โ€œAnd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the bloodโ€ (Leviticus 4:6), and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.

ื•ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืจืื•ื™ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืœื›ืš ื“ื ื—ืžื•ืจ ืฉืงืจืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืจืื•ื™ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช

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 donkeyโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ื“ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ืฉ ื—ื•ืฆืฅ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื“ื™ื• ื•ื”ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื™ื‘ืฉื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฆืฆื™ืŸ ืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืฆืฆื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืกืจื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืœื ืกืจื™ืš

In the context of the halakhot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Zeโ€™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 personโ€™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.

ืชืžืœื— ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืžืœื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืžืœื— ืื™ ืชืžืœื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืžื™ ืžืœื— ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžืœื—

ยง The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: โ€œAnd every meal offering of yours you shall season with saltโ€ (Leviticus 2:13), and asks: For what purpose does the expression โ€œyou shall seasonโ€ 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: โ€œYou shall season.โ€ Conversely, had the verse stated only: โ€œYou shall season,โ€ one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states โ€œwith salt.โ€

ื•ืœื ืชืฉื‘ื™ืช ืžืœื— ื”ื‘ื ืžืœื— ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฉื•ื‘ืชืช ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื–ื• ืžืœื— ืกื“ื•ืžื™ืช ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืœื ืžืฆื ืžืœื— ืกื“ื•ืžื™ืช ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ืื™ืกืชืจื•ืงื ื™ืช ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The continuation of the verse: โ€œAnd you shall not omit [tashbit] salt from your meal offering,โ€ 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: โ€œWith all your offerings you shall sacrifice saltโ€ (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.

ืžืื™ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืชื‘ื•ื ื ื• ื›ืชื‘ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื™ื˜ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ืชื‘ื•ื ื ื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืขืฉื ื• ื›ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ื‘ื ื ื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื•

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.

ืžืื™ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืชืŸ ื‘ื• ื˜ืขื ื›ื‘ื™ื ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืžืœื— ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืžื‘ื™ื ื”ืื‘ืจ ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืœื— ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ื”ื•ืคื›ื• ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืœื— ื•ืžืขืœื”ื•

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: โ€œYou shall season.โ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืœืงื“ื™ืจื”

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืœื— ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืื‘ืจ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืฉื‘ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื” ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื•ื”ืงืจื‘ืชื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืœื— ื•ื”ืขืœื• ืื•ืชื ืขืœื” ืœื”ืณ

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: โ€œAnd 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 Lordโ€ (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.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืขืœ ื”ืžืœื— ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขืฆื™ื ืฉื™ื”ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ืื•ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื

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.

ืงื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืžืœื•ื— ืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืฉืชื ืœืžืœื•ื— ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ

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?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืžืฆืืช ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืžืœื— ื ืชื•ื ื” ื‘ืœืฉื›ืช ื”ืžืœื— ื•ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ื‘ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืœืฉื›ืช ื”ืžืœื— ืฉืฉื ืžื•ืœื—ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ืฉืฉื ืžื•ืœื—ื™ื ืืช ื”ืื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉืฉื ืžื•ืœื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืงื˜ื•ืจืช ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ื— ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

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.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงืจื‘ื ื ื•ืžืื™ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests a different explanation of Shmuelโ€™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.

ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื• ื”ืชื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ืื›ืœื• ืฉื™ืื›ืœื• ืขืžื” ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืชื”ื ื ืื›ืœืช ืขืœ ื”ืฉื•ื‘ืข ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืžืœื— ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara objects: Isnโ€™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: โ€œAnd that which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eatโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืื™ ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืžืœื•ื— ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื ืœื ืืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ืฉืชื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable to explain that Shmuelโ€™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?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื—ื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืืฃ ืžืœื— ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื•

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: โ€œAnd every meal offering of yours you shall season with saltโ€ (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: โ€œAnd put frankincense on it. And he shall bring it to Aaronโ€™s sons the priestsโ€ (Leviticus 2:1โ€“2), so too, one must bring salt from his home.

ืื• ื›ืœืš ืœื“ืจืš ื–ื• ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืขืฆื™ื ืžื” ืขืฆื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ืžืœื— ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

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.

ื ืจืื” ืœืžื™ ื“ื•ืžื” ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ืืœ ืชื•ื›ื™ื— ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื ื•ื”ื’ืช ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

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.

ืื• ื›ืœืš ืœื“ืจืš ื–ื• ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืขืžื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืขืžื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืขืฆื™ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“

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.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื— ืขื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื”ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืจื™ืช ืขื•ืœื ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

The baraita continues: The verse states: โ€œIt is an everlasting covenant of saltโ€ (Numbers 18:19), and there, with regard to the shewbread, it states: โ€œIt is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenantโ€ (Leviticus 24:8); Therefore, just as the phrase written there: โ€œFrom the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant,โ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื“ื›ื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ื‘ื•ื›ืจื™

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The initial understanding of Shmuelโ€™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.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืขื™ื“ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื•ื›ืจื™ ื‘ื™ื‘ื ื” ื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉืฉื•ืงืœ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ื˜ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื–ื›ืื™ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉื•ืงืœ ื—ื•ื˜ื ืืœื ืฉื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืงืจื ื–ื” ืœืขืฆืžืŸ

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื•ื›ืœ ืžื ื—ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ืœื™ืœ ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื ืชืื›ืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื•ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ืฉืœื ื• ื”ื™ื ื”ื™ืืš ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ

The verse states: โ€œAnd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eatenโ€ (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 priestsโ€™ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.

ื•ืœื‘ืŸ ื‘ื•ื›ืจื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ื›ื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื•ื˜ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžืขื™ื™ืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืขื–ืจื” ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ืžืกืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืœืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

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.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 21

ืืคื™ืง ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืขื™ื™ืœ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ืขืฆื™ื ื•ื”ืงื˜ืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžืœื—

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.

ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืขืฆื™ื ืื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืฉื™ื ืงื˜ืจืช

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.

ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืœืืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื ื• ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืœื” ืœืืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื ื• ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ

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 Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka, says: The verse states: โ€œAnd every meal offering of yours you shall season with saltโ€ (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.

ื™ืฆืื• ืขืฆื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื™ืฆืื• ื“ื ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืœื™ื ืœืืฉื™ื ื™ืฆืื” ืงื˜ืจืช ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžืขื˜ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื“ื ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ื ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ืžืœื— ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืœื—ื™ื” ื ืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืžืชื•ืจืช ื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ื ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืœื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ื“ื ืฉืžืœื—ื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื•

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 Zeโ€™eiri says that Rabbi แธคanina 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 Zeโ€™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.

ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืฆืœืืŸ ื•ื”ืขืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ืœืจื™ื— ื ื™ื—ื•ื—

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 โ€œan aroma pleasing to the Lordโ€ (Exodus 29:25).

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ืฉื“ื ื‘ื” ืžืฉื”ื• ืœืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ื ืฉื‘ื™ืฉืœื• ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ื•ืงื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืงืคื” ืืช ื”ื“ื ื•ืื›ืœื• ืื• ืฉื”ืžื—ื” ืืช ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื’ืžืขื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Zeโ€™eiri says that Rabbi แธคanina 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 bloodโ€™s status remains unchanged.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืงืคื” ื‘ืื•ืจ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืงืคื” ื‘ื—ืžื” ื‘ืื•ืจ ืœื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื—ืžื” ื”ื“ืจ

Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Zeโ€™eiriโ€™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.

ื‘ื—ืžื” ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ื“ื”ื ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื™ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื ืฉืงืจืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื• ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ื“ื—ื” ื™ื“ื—ื” ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง

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 Yoแธฅanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืœืžื ื•ื“ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื™ื•ืช ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช

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 Zeโ€™eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.

ืืžืจ ืื“ื›ืจืชืŸ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื“ื ืฉืงืจืฉ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืœืงื— ื•ื ืชืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืจ ืœืงื™ื—ื” ื•ื ืชื™ื ื” ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื˜ื‘ืœ ื•ื”ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื” ื•ื”ื–ืื” ื”ื•ื

Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rabbi แธคisda 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: โ€œAnd 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 offeringโ€ (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: โ€œAnd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the bloodโ€ (Leviticus 4:6), and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.

ื•ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืจืื•ื™ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืœื›ืš ื“ื ื—ืžื•ืจ ืฉืงืจืฉ ื•ืื›ืœื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืจืื•ื™ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช

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 donkeyโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ื“ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ืฉ ื—ื•ืฆืฅ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื“ื™ื• ื•ื”ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื™ื‘ืฉื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฆืฆื™ืŸ ืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืฆืฆื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืกืจื™ืš ื”ื ื“ืœื ืกืจื™ืš

In the context of the halakhot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Zeโ€™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 personโ€™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.

ืชืžืœื— ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืžืœื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืžืœื— ืื™ ืชืžืœื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืžื™ ืžืœื— ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžืœื—

ยง The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: โ€œAnd every meal offering of yours you shall season with saltโ€ (Leviticus 2:13), and asks: For what purpose does the expression โ€œyou shall seasonโ€ 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: โ€œYou shall season.โ€ Conversely, had the verse stated only: โ€œYou shall season,โ€ one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states โ€œwith salt.โ€

ื•ืœื ืชืฉื‘ื™ืช ืžืœื— ื”ื‘ื ืžืœื— ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฉื•ื‘ืชืช ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื–ื• ืžืœื— ืกื“ื•ืžื™ืช ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืœื ืžืฆื ืžืœื— ืกื“ื•ืžื™ืช ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ืื™ืกืชืจื•ืงื ื™ืช ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The continuation of the verse: โ€œAnd you shall not omit [tashbit] salt from your meal offering,โ€ 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: โ€œWith all your offerings you shall sacrifice saltโ€ (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.

ืžืื™ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืชื‘ื•ื ื ื• ื›ืชื‘ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื™ื˜ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ืชื‘ื•ื ื ื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืขืฉื ื• ื›ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ื‘ื ื ื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื•

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.

ืžืื™ ืชื‘ื•ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืชืŸ ื‘ื• ื˜ืขื ื›ื‘ื™ื ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชืžืœื— ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืžื‘ื™ื ื”ืื‘ืจ ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืœื— ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ื”ื•ืคื›ื• ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืœื— ื•ืžืขืœื”ื•

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: โ€œYou shall season.โ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืœืงื“ื™ืจื”

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืœื— ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืื‘ืจ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืฉื‘ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื” ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื•ื”ืงืจื‘ืชื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืขืœื™ื”ื ืžืœื— ื•ื”ืขืœื• ืื•ืชื ืขืœื” ืœื”ืณ

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: โ€œAnd 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 Lordโ€ (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.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืขืœ ื”ืžืœื— ื•ืขืœ ื”ืขืฆื™ื ืฉื™ื”ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ืื•ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื

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.

ืงื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืžืœื•ื— ืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืฉืชื ืœืžืœื•ื— ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ

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?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืžืฆืืช ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืžืœื— ื ืชื•ื ื” ื‘ืœืฉื›ืช ื”ืžืœื— ื•ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ื‘ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืœืฉื›ืช ื”ืžืœื— ืฉืฉื ืžื•ืœื—ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ืฉืฉื ืžื•ืœื—ื™ื ืืช ื”ืื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉืฉื ืžื•ืœื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืงื˜ื•ืจืช ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ื— ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ

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.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงืจื‘ื ื ื•ืžืื™ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests a different explanation of Shmuelโ€™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.

ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื• ื”ืชื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ืื›ืœื• ืฉื™ืื›ืœื• ืขืžื” ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจื•ืžื” ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืชื”ื ื ืื›ืœืช ืขืœ ื”ืฉื•ื‘ืข ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืžืœื— ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara objects: Isnโ€™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: โ€œAnd that which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eatโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืื™ ืœืงืจื‘ื ื ืœืžืœื•ื— ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื ืœื ืืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ืฉืชื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable to explain that Shmuelโ€™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?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื—ื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืืฃ ืžืœื— ืžืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื•

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: โ€œAnd every meal offering of yours you shall season with saltโ€ (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: โ€œAnd put frankincense on it. And he shall bring it to Aaronโ€™s sons the priestsโ€ (Leviticus 2:1โ€“2), so too, one must bring salt from his home.

ืื• ื›ืœืš ืœื“ืจืš ื–ื• ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืœื— ื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื™ื ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืขืฆื™ื ืžื” ืขืฆื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ืžืœื— ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

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.

ื ืจืื” ืœืžื™ ื“ื•ืžื” ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ืืœ ืชื•ื›ื™ื— ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื ื•ื”ื’ืช ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

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.

ืื• ื›ืœืš ืœื“ืจืš ื–ื• ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืขืžื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืขืžื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืขืฆื™ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืขืžื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“

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.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื— ืขื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื”ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืจื™ืช ืขื•ืœื ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

The baraita continues: The verse states: โ€œIt is an everlasting covenant of saltโ€ (Numbers 18:19), and there, with regard to the shewbread, it states: โ€œIt is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenantโ€ (Leviticus 24:8); Therefore, just as the phrase written there: โ€œFrom the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant,โ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื“ื›ื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ื‘ื•ื›ืจื™

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The initial understanding of Shmuelโ€™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.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ืขื™ื“ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื•ื›ืจื™ ื‘ื™ื‘ื ื” ื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉืฉื•ืงืœ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ื˜ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื–ื›ืื™ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืฉื•ืงืœ ื—ื•ื˜ื ืืœื ืฉื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืงืจื ื–ื” ืœืขืฆืžืŸ

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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื•ื›ืœ ืžื ื—ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ืœื™ืœ ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื ืชืื›ืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื•ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ืฉืœื ื• ื”ื™ื ื”ื™ืืš ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ

The verse states: โ€œAnd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eatenโ€ (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 priestsโ€™ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.

ื•ืœื‘ืŸ ื‘ื•ื›ืจื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื›ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ื›ื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื•ื˜ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžืขื™ื™ืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืขื–ืจื” ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ืžืกืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืœืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ

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.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื

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

Scroll To Top