This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The braita initially listed two items offered on the altar that do not require salting: wood and blood. However, the Gemara notes a difficulty: this braita appears to follow the position of Rebbi, yet Rebbi himself maintains that blood does require salting. Consequently, the Gemara emends the text, removing “wood” and replacing it with libations (wine). To support this, a second braita is cited which lists wine, blood, wood, and incense as exempt from salting. Yet, this proof-text presents its own challenge, as it aligns neither with Rebbi (who requires salting for blood) nor with the Rabbis (who require it for incense). Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that this braita follows Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, who uses a different categorization based on the characteristics of a mincha (meal offering) to determine which items require salt.
A further challenge on the braita quoted in Menachot 20a is raised. The braita implies that blood is excluded from salting only because of a specific scriptural derivation (drasha). However, according to Zeiri, if blood is salted, it becomes disqualified for use on the altar regardless; if so, why is a drasha necessary to exclude it? To resolve this, the Gemara distinguishes between two levels of salting: a small amount of salt, which might not disqualify the blood but is still excluded by the verse, and a large amount, which renders the blood physically unfit for the altar. This leads to a discussion regarding the status of salted or coagulated blood: is it still considered “blood” enough to be valid for the altar, and conversely, does the prohibition against eating blood still apply to it?
A braita is then introduced expounding on the biblical verses regarding salting to derive various procedural laws. These include the type of salt required, the quantity used, and the specific method of application. Another braita clarifies the legal status of salt found in the sanctuary: if salt is found directly on a sacrificial limb, it is considered sanctified and subject to the laws of meila (misappropriation of sacred property). However, if the salt is found on the altar’s ramp or on the roof of the altar itself, it does not carry this sanctity.
A Mishna in Shekalim states that the rabbis allowed the kohanim to benefit from the salt of the Temple. Shmuel explains that this permission applies only to the kohanim’s offerings and not for eating. The Gemara analyzes whether Shmuel meant that salt is permitted only for the actual sacrifice on the altar but forbidden for the meat the kohanim eat, or if it is permitted for seasoning their sacrificial meat but forbidden for use with non-sacred food. The Gemara initially concludes that since the kohanim were even permitted to use Temple salt for tanning animal hides, they must certainly be allowed to use it to season the holy meat they consume. Under this view, Shmuel’s restriction only excludes using the salt for personal, non-sacred food. This is further supported by the logic that if even an Israelite’s sacrifice is salted with Temple salt, a kohen’s sacrifice surely would be as well, meaning the court’s special decree must have addressed something else. However, Rav Mordechai suggests an alternative reading that could reinstate the first possibility: that the court permitted salt only for the actual sacrifice on the altar but forbade it for the meat the kohanim eat. He explains that the Mishna’s decree was specifically necessary to account for the position of Ben Buchri, as will be explained further on.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Atara Blicker for a refuah shleima for Ozer Peretz Ben Chana.
Menachot 21
אַפֵּיק עֵצִים וְעַיֵּיל נְסָכִים, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲבָל הַיַּיִן וְהַדָּם וְהָעֵצִים וְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֵין טְעוּנִין מֶלַח.
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.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי – קַשְׁיָא עֵצִים, אִי רַבָּנַן – קַשְׁיָא קְטֹרֶת.
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.
הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, וְעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה וְעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים וְיֶשְׁנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
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.
יָצְאוּ עֵצִים – שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה, יָצְאוּ דָּם וָיַיִן – שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִים לָאִשִּׁים, יָצְאָה קְטֹרֶת – שֶׁאֵינָהּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
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.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא לְדָם, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דָּם לִיבְעֵי מֶלַח? כֵּיוָן דְּמַלְחֵיהּ נָפֵיק לֵיהּ מִתּוֹרַת דָּם, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּם שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר זְעֵירִי: דָּם שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
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.
וְרַב יְהוּדָה דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן, אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ״.
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).
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִישְׁדֵּא בַּהּ מַשֶּׁהוּ לְמִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּם שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָא אָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הִקְפָּה אֶת הַדָּם וַאֲכָלוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.
§ 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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁהִקְפָּה בָּאוּר, כָּאן שֶׁהִקְפָּה בַּחַמָּה. בְּאוּר – לָא הָדַר, בַּחַמָּה – הָדַר.
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.
בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי לֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִידְּחִי אִידְּחִי, דְּהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מָנִי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וַאֲכָלוֹ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה יִדָּחֶה. אִישְׁתִּיק.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא וַדַּאי, כָּאן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנִיּוֹת, כָּאן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת!
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.
אֲמַר, אַדְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ בְּחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, ״וְלָקַח וְנָתַן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, בַּר לְקִיחָה וּנְתִינָה הוּא. בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – פָּטוּר, ״וְטָבַל וְהִזָּה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר טְבִילָה וְהַזָּאָה הוּא.
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.
וְרָבָא דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ רָאוּי בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ דָּם חֲמוֹר שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ רָאוּי בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
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.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר זְעֵירִי: דָּם, בֵּין לַח בֵּין יָבֵשׁ, חוֹצֵץ. מֵיתִיבִי: הַדָּם וְהַדְּיוֹ וְהַדְּבַשׁ וְהֶחָלָב, יְבֵשִׁין – חוֹצְצִין, לַחִין – אֵינָן חוֹצְצִין. לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּסָרֵיךְ, הָא דְּלָא סָרֵיךְ.
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.
״תִּמְלָח״, לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״בַּמֶּלַח״ – יָכוֹל תְּבוֹנֵהוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְלָח״. אִי ״תִּמְלָח״ – יָכוֹל בְּמֵי מֶלַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּמֶּלַח״.
§ 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.”
״וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח״ – הָבֵא מֶלַח שֶׁאֵינָהּ שׁוֹבֶתֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית שֶׁמֵּבִיא מֶלַח אִיסְתְּרוֹקָנִית? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״ – ״תַּקְרִיב״ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, ״תַּקְרִיב״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״תַּקְרִיב״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תַּקְרִיב״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
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.
מַאי ״תְּבוֹנֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, יָכוֹל יִתְבּוֹנֶנּוּ כְּתֶבֶן בְּטִיט. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, ״יִתְבּוֹנֶנּוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יָכוֹל יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ כְּבִנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, ״יִבְנֶנּוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יָכוֹל תְּבוּנֵהוּ.
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.
מַאי ״תְּבוּנֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: יָכוֹל יִתֵּן בּוֹ טַעַם כְּבִינָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְלָח״. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מֵבִיא הָאֵבֶר וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח, וְחוֹזֵר וְהוֹפְכוֹ וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח, וּמַעֲלֵהוּ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכֵן לִקְדֵירָה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלַח שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵבֶר – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְשֶׁבְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. (ואמר) [אָמַר] רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״וְהִקְרַבְתָּם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִשְׁלִיכוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלַח וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתָם עֹלָה לַה׳״.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים, שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נְאוֹתִין בָּהֶן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְקׇרְבָּנָם, אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה – לָא.
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.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ קׇרְבָּנָם. לֶאֱכוֹל – אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים. הַשְׁתָּא לִמְלוֹחַ עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים יָהֲבִינַן, לַאֲכִילַת קֳדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?
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?
דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הַמֶּלַח נְתוּנָה: בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח, וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים, עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
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.
אֶלָּא מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לַאֲכִילַת קׇרְבָּנָם, וּמַאי לַאֲכִילָה – אֲכִילָה דְחוּלִּין.
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.
חוּלִּין, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר מָר ״יֹאכְלוּ״, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עִמָּהּ חוּלִּין וּתְרוּמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת עַל הַשּׂוֹבַע, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מֶלַח דְּקָדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ, טַעְמָא דְּאַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין, הָא לָא אַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין – לָא? הַשְׁתָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָהֲבִינַן, לְכֹהֲנִים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?
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?
דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא לְבוֹנָה, מָה לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – אַף מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא עֵצִים – מָה עֵצִים מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף מֶלַח מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר!
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה, דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין דָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, מִדָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ עֵצִים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד!
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.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם״, מָה לְהַלָּן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף כָּאן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי קָאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבֶן בּוּכְרִי.
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.
דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן:
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.
״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״, הוֹאִיל וְעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הִיא, הֵיאַךְ נֶאֱכָלִין?
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.
וּלְבֶן בּוּכְרִי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא מִיחַיַּיב לְאֵיתוֹיֵי, כִּי מַיְיתֵי נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא, דְּקָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, דְּמַיְיתֵי וּמָסַר לְהוֹן לְצִיבּוּר.
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.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:
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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Community: A Collection of Individuals or an Entity in its Own Right?
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.
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
Minnesota, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Menachot 21
אַפֵּיק עֵצִים וְעַיֵּיל נְסָכִים, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲבָל הַיַּיִן וְהַדָּם וְהָעֵצִים וְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֵין טְעוּנִין מֶלַח.
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.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי – קַשְׁיָא עֵצִים, אִי רַבָּנַן – קַשְׁיָא קְטֹרֶת.
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.
הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, וְעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה וְעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים וְיֶשְׁנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
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.
יָצְאוּ עֵצִים – שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה, יָצְאוּ דָּם וָיַיִן – שֶׁאֵין עוֹלִים לָאִשִּׁים, יָצְאָה קְטֹרֶת – שֶׁאֵינָהּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
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.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא לְדָם, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דָּם לִיבְעֵי מֶלַח? כֵּיוָן דְּמַלְחֵיהּ נָפֵיק לֵיהּ מִתּוֹרַת דָּם, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּם שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר זְעֵירִי: דָּם שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו.
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.
וְרַב יְהוּדָה דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן, אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ״.
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).
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִישְׁדֵּא בַּהּ מַשֶּׁהוּ לְמִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּם שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָא אָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הִקְפָּה אֶת הַדָּם וַאֲכָלוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.
§ 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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁהִקְפָּה בָּאוּר, כָּאן שֶׁהִקְפָּה בַּחַמָּה. בְּאוּר – לָא הָדַר, בַּחַמָּה – הָדַר.
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.
בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי לֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִידְּחִי אִידְּחִי, דְּהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מָנִי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וַאֲכָלוֹ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה יִדָּחֶה. אִישְׁתִּיק.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא וַדַּאי, כָּאן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנִיּוֹת, כָּאן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת!
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.
אֲמַר, אַדְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּם שֶׁקָּרַשׁ בְּחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, ״וְלָקַח וְנָתַן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, בַּר לְקִיחָה וּנְתִינָה הוּא. בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – פָּטוּר, ״וְטָבַל וְהִזָּה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר טְבִילָה וְהַזָּאָה הוּא.
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.
וְרָבָא דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ רָאוּי בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ דָּם חֲמוֹר שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ רָאוּי בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
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.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר זְעֵירִי: דָּם, בֵּין לַח בֵּין יָבֵשׁ, חוֹצֵץ. מֵיתִיבִי: הַדָּם וְהַדְּיוֹ וְהַדְּבַשׁ וְהֶחָלָב, יְבֵשִׁין – חוֹצְצִין, לַחִין – אֵינָן חוֹצְצִין. לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּסָרֵיךְ, הָא דְּלָא סָרֵיךְ.
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.
״תִּמְלָח״, לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״בַּמֶּלַח״ – יָכוֹל תְּבוֹנֵהוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְלָח״. אִי ״תִּמְלָח״ – יָכוֹל בְּמֵי מֶלַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּמֶּלַח״.
§ 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.”
״וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח״ – הָבֵא מֶלַח שֶׁאֵינָהּ שׁוֹבֶתֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית שֶׁמֵּבִיא מֶלַח אִיסְתְּרוֹקָנִית? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״ – ״תַּקְרִיב״ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, ״תַּקְרִיב״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״תַּקְרִיב״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תַּקְרִיב״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
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.
מַאי ״תְּבוֹנֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, יָכוֹל יִתְבּוֹנֶנּוּ כְּתֶבֶן בְּטִיט. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, ״יִתְבּוֹנֶנּוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יָכוֹל יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ כְּבִנְיָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, ״יִבְנֶנּוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: יָכוֹל תְּבוּנֵהוּ.
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.
מַאי ״תְּבוּנֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: יָכוֹל יִתֵּן בּוֹ טַעַם כְּבִינָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְלָח״. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מֵבִיא הָאֵבֶר וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח, וְחוֹזֵר וְהוֹפְכוֹ וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח, וּמַעֲלֵהוּ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכֵן לִקְדֵירָה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלַח שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵבֶר – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְשֶׁבְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. (ואמר) [אָמַר] רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״וְהִקְרַבְתָּם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִשְׁלִיכוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלַח וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתָם עֹלָה לַה׳״.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים, שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נְאוֹתִין בָּהֶן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְקׇרְבָּנָם, אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה – לָא.
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.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ קׇרְבָּנָם. לֶאֱכוֹל – אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים. הַשְׁתָּא לִמְלוֹחַ עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים יָהֲבִינַן, לַאֲכִילַת קֳדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?
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?
דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הַמֶּלַח נְתוּנָה: בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח, וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים, עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
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.
אֶלָּא מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לַאֲכִילַת קׇרְבָּנָם, וּמַאי לַאֲכִילָה – אֲכִילָה דְחוּלִּין.
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.
חוּלִּין, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר מָר ״יֹאכְלוּ״, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עִמָּהּ חוּלִּין וּתְרוּמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת עַל הַשּׂוֹבַע, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מֶלַח דְּקָדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ, טַעְמָא דְּאַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין, הָא לָא אַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין – לָא? הַשְׁתָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָהֲבִינַן, לְכֹהֲנִים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?
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?
דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא לְבוֹנָה, מָה לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – אַף מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא עֵצִים – מָה עֵצִים מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף מֶלַח מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר!
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה, דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין דָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, מִדָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ עֵצִים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד!
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.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם״, מָה לְהַלָּן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף כָּאן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי קָאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבֶן בּוּכְרִי.
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.
דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן:
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.
״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״, הוֹאִיל וְעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הִיא, הֵיאַךְ נֶאֱכָלִין?
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.
וּלְבֶן בּוּכְרִי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא מִיחַיַּיב לְאֵיתוֹיֵי, כִּי מַיְיתֵי נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא, דְּקָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, דְּמַיְיתֵי וּמָסַר לְהוֹן לְצִיבּוּר.
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.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:
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
