Menachot 21

אפיק עצים ועייל נסכים דתניא אבל היין והדם והעצים והקטרת אין טעונין מלח

The Gemara responds: Wood is removed from the baraita, and insert in its place wine libations, teaching that they do not require the addition of salt. As it is taught in a baraita: But the wine libations and the blood, and the wood and the incense, do not require salt.

מני אי רבי קשיא עצים אי רבנן קשיא קטרת

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the ruling of the baraita concerning wood is difficult, as the baraita rules that wood does not require salt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that wood does require salt. If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling of the baraita concerning incense is difficult, as they taught in the baraita on 20a that any item for which another item is necessary requires salt, and this includes the incense, which is burned with wood.

האי תנא הוא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מה הפרט מפורש דבר שמקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון אף כל דבר המקבל טומאה ועולה לאשים וישנו על מזבח החיצון

The Gemara suggests: The baraita is in accordance with this following tanna, who explains the verse that was interpreted in the baraita in a different manner. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: The verse states: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13). Just as the specified detail, i.e., the meal offering, is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar, so too, any item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and is brought on the fire of the altar, and is sacrificed on the external altar requires salting.

יצאו עצים שאין מקבלין טומאה יצאו דם ויין שאין עולים לאשים יצאה קטרת שאינה על מזבח החיצון

Therefore, wood is excluded, as it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Wine and blood are excluded, as they are not brought on the fire of the altar but rather are sprinkled on the corner of the altar. The incense is excluded, as it is sacrificed not on the external altar but rather on the inner altar.

אלא טעמא דמעטיה קרא לדם הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא דם ליבעי מלח כיון דמלחיה נפיק ליה מתורת דם דאמר זעירי אמר רבי חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו ורב יהודה אמר זעירי דם שמלחו אינו עובר עליו

The Gemara asks: But how can it be that according to all opinions, the reason that blood does not require salting is that the verse excluded blood, indicating that if not for that, I would say that blood requires salt? Once one salts the blood, it exits the category of blood, as Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress the prohibition against consuming blood by drinking it, since it no longer has the status of blood that is fit to be presented on the altar. And Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says: With regard to blood that one salted, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it, since salted blood has the status of cooked blood.

ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אברים שצלאן והעלן אין בהם משום לריח ניחוח

And similarly, Rav Yehuda himself says: With regard to the limbs of a burnt offering that one first roasted and afterward brought them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement of the verse that an offering be “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Exodus 29:25).

מהו דתימא מישדא בה משהו למצוה בעלמא קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: It is still necessary to derive that blood does not require salt, lest you say that the priest should sprinkle any amount of salt, even a minute quantity, on the blood, merely for the fulfillment of the mitzva, as such an amount would not render the blood as cooked. To counter this, the verse teaches us that blood requires no application of salt.

גופא אמר זעירי אמר רבי חנינא דם שבישלו אינו עובר עליו יתיב רבא וקא אמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה אביי הקפה את הדם ואכלו או שהמחה את החלב וגמעו חייב

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to blood that one cooked, one does not transgress a prohibition by drinking it. Rava was sitting and saying this halakha. Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita (Tosefta, Karetot 2:19): If one curdled blood and consumed it, or in a case where one melted forbidden fat and swallowed it, even though he changed its form, he is liable. This demonstrates that even after its form is changed, the blood’s status remains unchanged.

לא קשיא כאן שהקפה באור כאן שהקפה בחמה באור לא הדר בחמה הדר

Rava responded: This is not difficult, as here, Ze’eiri’s statement relates to a case where he curdled the blood by means of the fire, whereas there, in the case of the baraita, he curdled the blood by means of the sun. Blood curdled by means of a fire cannot return to its former state, so one is not liable, whereas blood curdled by means of the sun can return to its former state, so one is liable.

בחמה נמי לימא הואיל ואידחי אידחי דהא בעא מיניה רבי מני מרבי יוחנן דם שקרש ואכלו מהו אמר ליה הואיל ונדחה ידחה אישתיק

Abaye objected: But even when blood is curdled by means of the sun, let us say that since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it was disqualified, i.e., excluded, from the prohibition against consuming blood; as Rabbi Mani inquired of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to blood that was congealed and one ate it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan responded: He is not liable; since it was disqualified from being presented on the altar, it shall be disqualified from the prohibition against consuming blood. Rava was silent and had no answer.

אמר ליה דלמא ודאי כאן בחטאות החיצוניות כאן בחטאות הפנימיות

Abaye said to him: Perhaps here the baraita is certainly referring to the blood of the external sin offerings, which is sprinkled on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, whereas there Ze’eiri is referring to the blood of the inner sin offerings, which is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary.

אמר אדכרתן מילתא דאמר רב חסדא דם שקרש בחטאות ואכלו חייב ולקח ונתן אמר רחמנא בר לקיחה ונתינה הוא בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו פטור וטבל והזה אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר טבילה והזאה הוא

Rava said to him: You have reminded me of a matter, as Rabbi Ḥisda says: With regard to blood that became congealed, if it is blood of the external sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:25), and congealed blood is suitable for taking and placing, as one can take the congealed blood and place it upon the altar. By contrast, if it is blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is exempt, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), and this congealed blood is not suitable for dipping and sprinkling.

ורבא דידיה אמר אפילו בחטאות הפנימיות ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות אמר רב פפא הלכך דם חמור שקרש ואכלו חייב הואיל וכנגדו ראוי בחטאות החיצונות

And Rava himself says: Even if there was blood of the inner sin offerings and one ate it, he is liable, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings. Rav Pappa says: Therefore, according to the same reasoning, in the case of the blood of a donkey that became congealed and one ate it, he is liable, despite the fact that a donkey’s blood is not fit to be brought as an offering, since blood corresponding to this blood is suitable to be placed on the altar in the case of the external sin offerings.

אמר רב גידל אמר זעירי דם בין לח בין יבש חוצץ מיתיבי הדם והדיו והדבש והחלב יבשין חוצצין לחין אינן חוצצין לא קשיא הא דסריך הא דלא סריך

In the context of the halakhot of blood, Rav Giddel says that Ze’eiri says: Blood, whether moist or dry, interposes during ritual immersion. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 6:9): With regard to blood, ink, honey, or milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; but when they are moist, they do not interpose. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; this statement of Rav Giddel is referring to a case where the blood adheres to the skin, as it has begun to congeal and therefore interposes. That baraita is referring to a case where the blood did not adhere and therefore does not interpose.

תמלח למאי אתא לכדתניא במלח יכול תבונהו תלמוד לומר תמלח אי תמלח יכול במי מלח תלמוד לומר במלח

§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13), and asks: For what purpose does the expression “you shall season” come? The Gemara answers: It is written for that which is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: And every meal offering of yours shall be with salt, one might have thought that the halakha is tevonehu, a term that will be explained in the Gemara. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall season.” Conversely, had the verse stated only: “You shall season,” one might have thought that this obligation can be fulfilled by means of adding salt water. Therefore, the verse states “with salt.”

ולא תשבית מלח הבא מלח שאינה שובתת ואיזו זו מלח סדומית ומנין שאם לא מצא מלח סדומית שמביא מלח איסתרוקנית תלמוד לומר תקריב תקריב כל שהוא תקריב מכל מקום תקריב ואפילו בשבת תקריב ואפילו בטומאה

The continuation of the verse: “And you shall not omit [tashbit] salt from your meal offering,” teaches that one should bring salt that never rests [shovetet], i.e., it is found continuously. And what type of salt is this? This is referring to salt of Sodom. And from where is it derived that if one did not find salt of Sodom that he should bring salt of istrokanit, which is quarried from rock? The verse states immediately afterward: “With all your offerings you shall sacrifice salt” (Leviticus 2:13), in order to emphasize that you should sacrifice any type of salt; you should sacrifice salt from any place, even from a location outside of Eretz Yisrael; you should sacrifice salt even on Shabbat; and you should sacrifice salt even in a state of ritual impurity.

מאי תבונהו אמר רבה בר עולא הכי קאמר יכול יתבוננו כתבן בטיט אמר ליה אביי אי הכי יתבוננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר אביי יכול יעשנו כבנין אמר ליה רבא אי הכי יבננו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבא יכול תבונהו

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term tevonehu? Rabba bar Ulla said: This is what the baraita is saying: One might have thought that one should mix into it [yitabonenu] large quantities of salt, just as one mixes straw [teven] into clay. Abaye said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: Yitabonenu, and not tevonehu. Rather, Abaye said: The baraita is saying that one might have thought one should form the addition of salt just as one builds a building [binyan], by adding layer upon layer. Rava said to him: If so, the baraita should have said: He should build it [yivnenu] and not tevonehu. Rather, Rava said: The baraita states: One might have thought tevonehu.

מאי תבונהו אמר רב אשי יכול יתן בו טעם כבינה תלמוד לומר תמלח כיצד הוא עושה מביא האבר ונותן עליו מלח וחוזר והופכו ונותן עליו מלח ומעלהו

The Gemara asks: What is meant by tevonehu? Rav Ashi said: One might have thought that one should infuse the entire offering with the taste of salt, just as understanding [bina] infuses a person with wisdom. To counter this, the verse states: “You shall season.” How does he act? He brings the limb that is to be sacrificed on the altar and applies salt, and then turns it over and again applies salt, and brings it up to the altar.

אמר אביי וכן לקדירה

Abaye says: And one acts similarly before placing meat into a pot. If one wishes to cook meat and needs to salt it in order to extract its blood, it is sufficient to apply salt to both sides and let it sit until the blood drains. Then, after it is washed, the meat is ready to be cooked and eaten.

תנו רבנן מלח שעל גבי האבר מועלין בו שעל גבי הכבש ושבראשו של מזבח אין מועלין בו ואמר רב מתנה מאי קראה והקרבתם לפני ה׳ והשליכו הכהנים עליהם מלח והעלו אותם עלה לה׳

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:4): With regard to salt that is on the limb of an offering, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but in the case of salt that is on the ramp or that is on top of the altar, one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And Rav Mattana said: What is the verse from which it is derived that the salt found upon a sacrificial limb is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property? The verse states: “And you shall sacrifice them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering to the Lord” (Ezekiel 43:24). In this verse, the limbs, together with the salt, are termed a burnt offering, and therefore the salt on the limb is also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.

תנן התם על המלח ועל העצים שיהו הכהנים נאותין בהן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא לקרבנם אבל לאכילה לא

With regard to the halakha that salt is not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 7:7): The court instituted an ordinance about the salt and about the wood in the Temple to the effect that the priests may derive benefit from them. Shmuel says: They taught only that the priests may derive benefit from the salt for use on their offerings, but not for eating it.

קא סלקא דעתין מאי לקרבנם למלוח קרבנם לאכול אכילת קדשים השתא למלוח עורות קדשים יהבינן לאכילת קדשים לא יהבינן

The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say: What did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings. And when Shmuel states that for the purpose of eating it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt, he is referring to adding salt when eating the meat of sacrificial animals, e.g., the portions of the sin offering and guilt offering that are given to the priests. The Gemara challenges this explanation: Now, if we give the priests salt in order to salt the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to the priests to keep, so that they can process them, is it reasonable to rule that we do not give them salt in order to add it when they eat the meat of sacrificial animals?

דתניא נמצאת אתה אומר בשלשה מקומות המלח נתונה בלשכת המלח ועל גבי הכבש ובראשו של מזבח בלשכת המלח ששם מולחין עורות קדשים על גבי הכבש ששם מולחים את האברים בראשו של מזבח ששם מולחין הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים ועולת העוף

The Gemara explains its challenge: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:2): You are found to be saying that the salt is placed in three locations in the Temple: In the Chamber of the Salt, and on the ramp, and on top of the altar. It is placed in the Chamber of the Salt, since the priests salted there the hides of sacrificial animals that are given to them. It is placed on the ramp, since the priests salted there the sacrificial limbs. It is placed on top of the altar, since the priests salted there the handful of the meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering that accompanies the libations, and the bird burnt offering. Evidently, it was permitted for the priests to add salt to their portions of sacrificial meat.

אלא מאי לקרבנם לאכילת קרבנם ומאי לאכילה אכילה דחולין

The Gemara suggests a different explanation of Shmuel’s statement: Rather, what did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that it is permitted for the priests to add salt when they eat the meat of their offerings, e.g., the portions of the guilt offerings and sin offerings that are given to the priests, as well as when they eat the remainder of the meal offering. And what is meant when Shmuel states that for the purpose of eating it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt? He is referring to using the salt for the purpose of eating non-sacred food.

חולין פשיטא מאי בעו התם אף על גב דאמר מר יאכלו שיאכלו עמה חולין ותרומה כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע אפילו הכי מלח דקדשים לא יהבינן להו

The Gemara objects: Isn’t it obvious that the salt is not to be eaten with non-sacred food? What would non-sacred food be doing there in the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: Even though the Master says in the baraita that the verse stated with regard to the meal offering: “And that which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eat” (Leviticus 6:9), teaching that the priests shall eat non-sacred food and teruma along with the remainder of the meal offering so that the remainder of the meal offering will be eaten in a manner that the priest will be satiated when he finishes eating it, demonstrating that non-sacred food may be brought to the Temple courtyard, even so we do not give them consecrated salt.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך מאי לקרבנם למלוח טעמא דאתני בית דין הא לא אתני בית דין לא השתא לישראל יהבינן לכהנים לא יהבינן

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable to explain that Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna in Shekalim is that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to eat the salt with sacrificial foods. As, if it enters your mind to say: What did Shmuel mean by the expression: For use on their offerings? He meant that the priests were permitted to salt their personal offerings; then one must extrapolate from the mishna that the reason this is permitted is that the court stipulated that it should be, but had the court not stipulated this, it would not be permitted. That cannot be, as now that we give salt to Israelites to salt their offerings, will we not give salt to priests for the same purpose?

דתניא יכול האומר הרי עלי מנחה יביא מלח מתוך ביתו כדרך שמביא לבונה מתוך ביתו ודין הוא נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא לבונה מה לבונה מתוך ביתו אף מלח מתוך ביתו

As it is taught in a baraita that we provide salt for the offerings of Israelites: One might have thought that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, must bring salt from his home, i.e., his own salt, to salt the handful that is burned on the altar, just as he brings frankincense from his home for his meal offering. And this would seem to be a logical inference: It is stated in the Torah that one shall bring a meal offering, and it is stated that one shall bring salt, as it is written: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13); and it is stated that one shall bring a meal offering, and it is stated that one shall bring frankincense. Therefore, just as one brings frankincense from his home, as it is written: “And put frankincense on it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2), so too, one must bring salt from his home.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא עצים מה עצים משל ציבור אף מלח משל ציבור

Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated in the Torah that one shall bring a meal offering and that one shall bring salt, and it is stated that one shall bring a meal offering and that one shall bring wood, as the meal offering cannot be burned on the altar without the wood. Therefore, just as the wood comes from communal supplies, so too, the salt shall come from communal supplies.

נראה למי דומה דנין דבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים ואל תוכיח לבונה שאינה נוהגת בכל הזבחים

The baraita continues: Let us see to which salt is more similar, i.e., which comparison seems more reasonable: We derive the halakha of salt, which is a matter that applies to all offerings, from the halakha of wood, which is also a matter that applies to all offerings. And do not let the halakha of frankincense prove otherwise, as it does not apply to all offerings, only to the meal offerings.

או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד מדבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד ואל יוכיחו עצים שאינן באין עמה בכלי אחד

Or perhaps, go this way: We derive the halakha of salt, which is a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel, from the halakha of frankincense, which is also a matter that accompanies the meal offering in one vessel. And do not let the halakha of wood prove otherwise, as it does not accompany the meal offering in one vessel.

תלמוד לומר ברית מלח עולם הוא ולהלן הוא אומר מאת בני ישראל ברית עולם מה להלן משל ציבור אף כאן משל ציבור

The baraita continues: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), and there, with regard to the shewbread, it states: “It is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant” (Leviticus 24:8); Therefore, just as the phrase written there: “From the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant,” means that it is brought from communal supplies, as the shewbread is a communal offering, so too here, the verse that speaks of the everlasting covenant of salt means that the salt is brought from communal supplies. Evidently, salt is provided for offerings of Israelites, and should likewise be provided for the offerings of priests. Accordingly, there would have been no need for the court to permit the priests to salt their offerings, and it must be that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to use salt when eating sacrificial foods.

אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי קאמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לא נצרכא אלא לבן בוכרי

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The initial understanding of Shmuel’s interpretation of the mishna is correct, i.e., that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to salt their offerings; and the ruling of the mishna is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies.

דתנן אמר רבי יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן

As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.

וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו היא היאך נאכלין

The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.

ולבן בוכרי כיון דלכתחילה לא מיחייב לאיתויי כי מייתי נמי חוטא הוא דקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמייתי ומסר להון לציבור

The Gemara clarifies: But according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? Since he is not obligated to bring it ab initio, when he brings the half-shekel he is also a sinner, since he is causing the bringing of a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard. He is not contributing the half-shekel as part of the communal offering, as he is exempt from this obligation. Therefore, his donation is the donation of an individual, and a communal offering cannot be brought on behalf of an individual. His donation should disqualify all offerings brought from the communal funds. The Gemara answers: The priest brings and transfers the half-shekel to the community, so it is considered part of the communal funds.

סלקא דעתך אמינא

The Gemara states the relevance of the opinion of ben Bukhri to the statement of Shmuel: According to the opinion of ben Bukhri it might enter your mind to say that