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:
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.”
Menachot 50
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם שִׁבְעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא, תַּנָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאֵי, וּמַאי כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת וּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה? סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara asks: In any case, the question stands: Why does the mishna say six lambs when, in fact the number required is seven? The Gemara answers: Rather, the tanna is speaking generally, referring to how many inspected lambs are required throughout the year. And what did he mean by his statement: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana? It is merely intended as a mnemonic, to help one remember that there must be enough lambs for the daily offering of three days.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״לְשַׁבָּת וְלִשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
According to this the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, and it does not teach that there must be six lambs for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, which would have indicated that these lambs are meant to actually be sacrificed on those days. The Gemara concludes that in fact one can learn from the language of the mishna that this is the correct interpretation.
לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבּוֹקֶר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים. חִינּוּךְ מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?!
§ The mishna teaches: If the priests did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, nevertheless, they should sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. If they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon, as the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about the initiation of the Temple vessels, i.e., what is its relevance to the mishna?
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If they did not sacrifice a lamb for the daily offering in the morning, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the daily offering of the morning. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then they should sacrifice the lamb of the daily offering in the afternoon even though they did not sacrifice the lamb of the morning offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – שֵׁנִי בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that if the lamb of the daily offering of the morning was not sacrificed and the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, then the lamb of the afternoon is also not sacrificed? The Gemara explains that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning; and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Exodus 29:39). This verse teaches that the second lamb of the daily offering is sacrificed in the afternoon, but if it is the first one to be sacrificed, it may not be sacrificed in the afternoon.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the offering of the morning. When the verse refers to the first or second offering, it means the first or second offering ever sacrificed on the altar. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then even if it is the first to be sacrificed that day, it should be sacrificed in the afternoon.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבּוֹקֶר – יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.
וְכִי כֹהֲנִים חָטְאוּ, מִזְבֵּחַ בָּטֵל?! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ הֵן, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים יַקְרִיבוּ.
The Gemara asks: Does it make sense that because the priests sinned by intentionally failing to sacrifice the morning daily offering, the altar should be entirely idle? Rava said that this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: They, the priests who deliberately failed to sacrifice the morning daily offering, should not sacrifice the afternoon daily offering; but other priests should sacrifice it.
לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּמְעַתְּרָא, חֲבִיבָא לְהוּ וְלָא פָּשְׁעִי.
By contrast, if the priests acted intentionally and did not burn the incense in the morning, even those same priests may burn it in the afternoon. The reason for this is that since burning the incense is uncommon and causes those who do so to become wealthy, it is dear to the priests, and they will not be negligent in the performance of this rite.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם וְכוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.
§ The mishna teaches that if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon. The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is that the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices of the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning? The Gemara answers: The question of whether the incense of the morning or the afternoon initiates the service of a new golden altar is a dispute between tanna’im.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.
Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha should be in accordance with the one who says that it was initiated with the incense of the spices of the afternoon, as it is written with regard to the golden altar: “And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresses the lamps, he shall burn it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:7–8).
אִי לָאו דַּעֲבַד הַדְלָקָה מֵאוּרְתָּא, הֲטָבָה בְּצַפְרָא מֵהֵיכָא?
The fact that ashes are removed from the lamps of the Candelabrum in the morning indicates that the lamps had been lit previously, since if the priest had not performed the lighting of the lamps the previous evening, from where would the ashes be removed in the morning? This proves that the Candelabrum must have been lit for the first time in the evening. Since the verse states: “When Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord,” it must be that the incense was burned for the first time in the evening.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר, גָּמַר מִמִּזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר – אַף כָּאן בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning, from where is this halakha derived? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the initiation of the altar of the burnt offering. Just as there, the service of a new altar of the burnt offering is initiated by means of the daily offering of the morning rather than the afternoon, so too here, the service of a new golden altar is initiated by means of the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning.
וְלֹא אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶלָּא בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא בְּחוֹל – אִיחַנּוֹכֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִחַנַּךְ, הָא קַדּוֹשֵׁי מְיקַדֵּישׁ?!
§ The mishna teaches: And use of a new Table was initiated only with the arrangement of the shewbread on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But does the mishna mean to indicate that if the shewbread was placed on the Table on a weekday it is merely that the use of a new Table is not initiated, but the shewbread is sanctified? The halakha is that the shewbread is sanctified only when it is placed on the Table on Shabbat.
הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּחִינּוּךְ וְקִידּוּשׁ דְּשֻׁלְחָן בְּשַׁבָּת הוּא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְלֹא אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches us this halakha itself, that the initiation of the use of a new Table and the sanctification of the shewbread when it is placed on the Table occur only on Shabbat. This is as the mishna teaches in the latter clause with regard to the initiation of the use of a new Candelabrum: And use of a new Candelabrum was initiated only with the kindling of its seven lamps in the afternoon.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: (זֶהוּ) [זוֹהִי] קְטֹרֶת שֶׁעָלְתָה לְיָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְהוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּנְּשִׂיאִים.
§ The Gemara cites another halakha relating to the burning of incense. The Sages taught in a baraita: This is incense that was offered for an individual rather than the community on the external altar, and not on the golden altar as usual; and this was a provisional edict, permitted temporarily for that time only. The Gemara clarifies: To what case is the baraita referring? Rav Pappa said: It is referring to the incense brought by the tribal princes at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7).
אֶלָּא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הוּא דְּלָא, הָא עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מַקְרֵיב? וְתוּ: עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן יָחִיד הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צִיבּוּר מַקְרְבִי?
The Gemara asks: But with regard to the incense of an individual, is it only on the external altar that it is not generally permitted to be burned, but an individual may sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as indicated by the baraita? And furthermore, on the external altar, is it only an individual who may not sacrifice incense, but the community may sacrifice incense on the external altar?
וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ נְדָבָה, וְקוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָּהּ ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה״.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita contrary to those two inferences: One might have thought that an individual may voluntarily donate and bring incense similar to the incense brought by the tribal princes to the Temple as a gift offering, and I will read with regard to this incense, as in the case of other gift offerings: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Therefore, the verse states concerning the inner altar: “You shall bring no strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). This indicates that an individual may not sacrifice incense even on the inner altar.
יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יָחִיד מֵבִיא, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ,
One might have thought that only an individual may not bring a gift of incense on the inner altar, as an individual does not bring his obligatory offering similar to this gift of incense, i.e., since an individual is never obligated to sacrifice incense, he may not voluntarily sacrifice incense either;
אֲבָל צִבּוּר יְהֵא מֵבִיא, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חוֹבָה כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ״.
but a community may bring incense as a gift offering, as the community does bring its obligatory offering similar to this, i.e., since the community is obligated to sacrifice incense it can also voluntarily sacrifice incense. Therefore, the verse states: You shall not bring [lo ta’alu] strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). The fact that the verse formulates the prohibition with the plural word ta’alu indicates that even the community may not sacrifice incense as a voluntary gift offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַעֲלוּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, אֲבָל יַעֲלוּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים לַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ יַעֲשׂוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the community may not bring a gift offering of incense on the inner altar, but it may bring incense on the external altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the anointing oil, and the incense of sweet spices for the sacred place; according to all that I have commanded you shall they do” (Exodus 31:11). This teaches that one has the right to do only that which is stated with regard to the matter, without deviation. Consequently, incense may be sacrificed only by the community, only when there is an obligation to sacrifice it, and it must be burned only on the inner altar. This contradicts the implication of the previously cited baraita that it is permitted to burn the incense of an individual on the golden altar or the incense of a community on the outer altar.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא צִיבּוּר עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן בִּנְשִׂיאִים – הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.
Rav Pappa said: This is not problematic. The baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows. It is not necessary to state that the community may not sacrifice incense on the external altar, as we have not found a precedent for it. And similarly, it is not necessary to state that an individual may not sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as we have not found a precedent for it. But it is necessary to state that it is even prohibited for an individual to sacrifice incense on the external altar, despite the fact that we have ostensibly found a precedent for it in the case of the tribal princes; as that was a provisional edict and therefore cannot serve as a precedent.
מַתְנִי׳ חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִין חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ, מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
MISHNA: The twelve loaves of matza prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come from the house of the High Priest in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of flour (see Leviticus 6:13) and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
כֹּהֵן שֶׁמֵּבִיא מֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית, וָמֵת, וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – לֹא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וַחֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם (מֶחֱצָה) וְחוֹצֵהוּ, מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין.
In the case of a High Priest who brings and sacrifices half in the morning and dies, and they appointed another High Priest in his stead, the replacement High Priest should neither bring half of a tenth of an ephah of flour from his house nor sacrifice the remaining half of the tenth of an ephah of his predecessor. Rather, he brings from his house an entire tenth of an ephah and divides it in half, sacrifices half, and the other half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are sacrificed, one-half of what was brought by each priest, and the other two halves are lost.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִית״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מֵבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וּמַקְרִיב, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וּמַקְרִיב.
GEMARA: The Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita, commenting on the verse: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). If the verse had stated: A meal offering perpetually, half in the morning and half in the evening; I would have said that the High Priest brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the morning and sacrifices it, and then he brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the afternoon and sacrifices it.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מַקְרִיב, הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
Since the verse states: “Half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13), it teaches that he sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah. How so? The High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and divides it in half, and sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
נִטְמָא מֶחֱצָה שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, יָכוֹל יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וְיַקְרִיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא.
In a case where the half of a tenth of an ephah that was supposed to be offered in the afternoon became impure or was lost after the High Priest sacrificed the first half in the morning, one might have thought that he should bring half of a tenth of an ephah from his house and sacrifice it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening,” which teaches that he brings half of a complete tenth of an ephah.
הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם [מִבֵּיתוֹ], וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה, וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין.
How so? The High Priest brings a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half, and the other half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are sacrificed, the half that was sacrificed in the morning from the original tenth of an ephah, and half of the replacement tenth of an ephah, and the other two halves are lost.
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית וָמֵת, וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, יָכוֹל יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ, אוֹ חֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא וּמַקְרִיב.
In the case of a High Priest who sacrificed half in the morning and died, and they appointed another High Priest in his stead, one might have thought that the second High Priest should bring half of a tenth of an ephah from his house and sacrifice it, or that he should sacrifice the remaining half of a tenth of an ephah of the first High Priest. Therefore, the verse states: “And half of it in the evening,” which teaches that he brings and sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah.
הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב, וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין.
How so? The replacement High Priest brings a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half, and half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are lost, half of the tenth of an ephah brought by each priest, and the other two halves are sacrificed.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מֶחֱצָה רִאשׁוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה שֵׁנִי – תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן, וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
§ With regard to the two halves of a tenth of an ephah that are lost, a tanna, i.e., a Sage who recited baraitot, taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: With regard to the half that was not sacrificed by the first High Priest, who died, and the half brought but not sacrificed by the second High Priest who replaced him, their form should decay, i.e., they should be left overnight so they become disqualified, and then they should be brought out to the place designated for burning.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: בִּשְׁלָמָא רִאשׁוֹן אִיחֲזִי לְהַקְרָבָה, אֶלָּא שֵׁנִי לְמָה לֵיהּ עִיבּוּר צוּרָה? מֵעִיקָּרָא לְאִיבּוּד קָא אָתֵי.
Rav Naḥman said to the tanna: Granted, the half that was not sacrificed by the first High Priest should be left overnight before it is burned, because it was initially fit for sacrifice before the first High Priest died. But with regard to the half that was not sacrificed by the second High Priest, why must it be left overnight so that its form decays? It was brought to be lost from the outset, i.e., when the full tenth of an ephah was brought it was known that only half would be sacrificed and half would be lost. Consequently, it is unnecessary to leave it overnight before burning it.
דַּאֲמַר לָךְ, מַנִּי? תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ הוּא, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיגּוּל טָעוּן עִיבּוּר צוּרָה.
Rav Naḥman continued: Who is the one who said this baraita to you? It was the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who says: All disqualified offerings, even piggul, which is disqualified by Torah law, require decay of form before they are burned.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא (דְּפָלְגִי בְּהוּ) [דְּפַלְגִינְהוּ], אִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְרֵיב, וְאִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְרֵיב – מִיחְזָא חֲזוּ.
Rav Ashi said: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabba bar Avuh and hold that piggul does not require decay of form. Nevertheless, since at the time when the second High Priest divides the two halves, if he wants he can sacrifice this half, and if he wants he can sacrifice that other half, both halves are considered fit to be sacrificed and may not be burned until they are left overnight.
אִיתְּמַר: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹפָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְטַגְּנָהּ. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מְטַגְּנָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפָהּ.
§ The Gemara cites that which was stated further about the griddle-cake offering: How are the griddle-cake offerings of the High Priest prepared? The verse seems to prescribe a variety of methods of preparation: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, you shall bring it in; and baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal offering shall you sacrifice for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:14). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is prepared in the following manner: The individual preparing it bakes it in an oven and afterward he fries it in a pan. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Ḥanina says that it is prepared in the following manner: The individual preparing it fries it in a pan and afterward he bakes it in an oven.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָא.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion because the verse states: “And baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal offering.” The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are still beautiful [te’afena na’a], i.e., before being fried. Rabbi Asi said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion because the word tufinei should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are already partially cooked [te’afena na], i.e., after being fried.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תֹּאפֶינָּה רַבָּה. אִית לֵיהּ נָא, וְאִית לֵיהּ נָאָה.
This dispute between the amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im in a baraita: The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are already partially cooked [te’afena na]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are still beautiful [te’afena na’a]. Rabbi Yosei says: The word tufinei is plural, indicating that the pieces should be baked extensively, i.e., more than once. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion that the pieces should be baked when they are already partially cooked, and he also accepts the opinion that they should be baked when they are beautiful. Therefore the offering should first be baked, then fried, then baked again.
תְּנַן הָתָם: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, וְדוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (96a): Concerning the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, of which six are sacrificed in the morning and six in the evening, their kneading, and forming of their loaves, and their baking are performed inside the Temple courtyard, and all labors involved in those actions override Shabbat.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה, וְאִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִינַּשְׁפָה לַהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵימָא דְּכָבֵישׁ לֵיהּ בְּיַרְקָא!
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that these actions override Shabbat, derived? Rav Huna said: The verse says tufinei, meaning that when it is already baked it must still be beautiful [te’afena na’a]. And if one would bake it yesterday, on the eve of Shabbat, it would become swollen [inshefa] and no longer beautiful. Rav Yosef objects to this: If the purpose of baking them on Shabbat is to ensure they remain fresh, say that the loaves should be baked before Shabbat and covered with greens to preserve them.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״תֵּעָשֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תֵּעָשֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara cites another explanation of why the preparation of these loaves overrides Shabbat. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil” (Leviticus 6:14), which teaches that it shall be made under all circumstances, even on Shabbat. Similarly, this phrase “shall be made” teaches that it should be made even in a state of ritual impurity.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״,
Abaye said that there is a different explanation: The verse states: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually” (Leviticus 6:13);
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.
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.
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
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
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Bronx, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Menachot 50
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם שִׁבְעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא, תַּנָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאֵי, וּמַאי כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת וּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה? סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara asks: In any case, the question stands: Why does the mishna say six lambs when, in fact the number required is seven? The Gemara answers: Rather, the tanna is speaking generally, referring to how many inspected lambs are required throughout the year. And what did he mean by his statement: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana? It is merely intended as a mnemonic, to help one remember that there must be enough lambs for the daily offering of three days.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״לְשַׁבָּת וְלִשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
According to this the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, and it does not teach that there must be six lambs for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, which would have indicated that these lambs are meant to actually be sacrificed on those days. The Gemara concludes that in fact one can learn from the language of the mishna that this is the correct interpretation.
לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבּוֹקֶר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים. חִינּוּךְ מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?!
§ The mishna teaches: If the priests did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, nevertheless, they should sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. If they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon, as the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about the initiation of the Temple vessels, i.e., what is its relevance to the mishna?
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If they did not sacrifice a lamb for the daily offering in the morning, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the daily offering of the morning. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then they should sacrifice the lamb of the daily offering in the afternoon even though they did not sacrifice the lamb of the morning offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – שֵׁנִי בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that if the lamb of the daily offering of the morning was not sacrificed and the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, then the lamb of the afternoon is also not sacrificed? The Gemara explains that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning; and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Exodus 29:39). This verse teaches that the second lamb of the daily offering is sacrificed in the afternoon, but if it is the first one to be sacrificed, it may not be sacrificed in the afternoon.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the offering of the morning. When the verse refers to the first or second offering, it means the first or second offering ever sacrificed on the altar. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then even if it is the first to be sacrificed that day, it should be sacrificed in the afternoon.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבּוֹקֶר – יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.
וְכִי כֹהֲנִים חָטְאוּ, מִזְבֵּחַ בָּטֵל?! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ הֵן, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים יַקְרִיבוּ.
The Gemara asks: Does it make sense that because the priests sinned by intentionally failing to sacrifice the morning daily offering, the altar should be entirely idle? Rava said that this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: They, the priests who deliberately failed to sacrifice the morning daily offering, should not sacrifice the afternoon daily offering; but other priests should sacrifice it.
לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּמְעַתְּרָא, חֲבִיבָא לְהוּ וְלָא פָּשְׁעִי.
By contrast, if the priests acted intentionally and did not burn the incense in the morning, even those same priests may burn it in the afternoon. The reason for this is that since burning the incense is uncommon and causes those who do so to become wealthy, it is dear to the priests, and they will not be negligent in the performance of this rite.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם וְכוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.
§ The mishna teaches that if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon. The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is that the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices of the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning? The Gemara answers: The question of whether the incense of the morning or the afternoon initiates the service of a new golden altar is a dispute between tanna’im.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.
Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha should be in accordance with the one who says that it was initiated with the incense of the spices of the afternoon, as it is written with regard to the golden altar: “And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresses the lamps, he shall burn it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:7–8).
אִי לָאו דַּעֲבַד הַדְלָקָה מֵאוּרְתָּא, הֲטָבָה בְּצַפְרָא מֵהֵיכָא?
The fact that ashes are removed from the lamps of the Candelabrum in the morning indicates that the lamps had been lit previously, since if the priest had not performed the lighting of the lamps the previous evening, from where would the ashes be removed in the morning? This proves that the Candelabrum must have been lit for the first time in the evening. Since the verse states: “When Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord,” it must be that the incense was burned for the first time in the evening.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר, גָּמַר מִמִּזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר – אַף כָּאן בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning, from where is this halakha derived? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the initiation of the altar of the burnt offering. Just as there, the service of a new altar of the burnt offering is initiated by means of the daily offering of the morning rather than the afternoon, so too here, the service of a new golden altar is initiated by means of the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning.
וְלֹא אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶלָּא בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא בְּחוֹל – אִיחַנּוֹכֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִחַנַּךְ, הָא קַדּוֹשֵׁי מְיקַדֵּישׁ?!
§ The mishna teaches: And use of a new Table was initiated only with the arrangement of the shewbread on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But does the mishna mean to indicate that if the shewbread was placed on the Table on a weekday it is merely that the use of a new Table is not initiated, but the shewbread is sanctified? The halakha is that the shewbread is sanctified only when it is placed on the Table on Shabbat.
הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּחִינּוּךְ וְקִידּוּשׁ דְּשֻׁלְחָן בְּשַׁבָּת הוּא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְלֹא אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches us this halakha itself, that the initiation of the use of a new Table and the sanctification of the shewbread when it is placed on the Table occur only on Shabbat. This is as the mishna teaches in the latter clause with regard to the initiation of the use of a new Candelabrum: And use of a new Candelabrum was initiated only with the kindling of its seven lamps in the afternoon.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: (זֶהוּ) [זוֹהִי] קְטֹרֶת שֶׁעָלְתָה לְיָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְהוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּנְּשִׂיאִים.
§ The Gemara cites another halakha relating to the burning of incense. The Sages taught in a baraita: This is incense that was offered for an individual rather than the community on the external altar, and not on the golden altar as usual; and this was a provisional edict, permitted temporarily for that time only. The Gemara clarifies: To what case is the baraita referring? Rav Pappa said: It is referring to the incense brought by the tribal princes at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7).
אֶלָּא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הוּא דְּלָא, הָא עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מַקְרֵיב? וְתוּ: עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן יָחִיד הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צִיבּוּר מַקְרְבִי?
The Gemara asks: But with regard to the incense of an individual, is it only on the external altar that it is not generally permitted to be burned, but an individual may sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as indicated by the baraita? And furthermore, on the external altar, is it only an individual who may not sacrifice incense, but the community may sacrifice incense on the external altar?
וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ נְדָבָה, וְקוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָּהּ ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה״.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita contrary to those two inferences: One might have thought that an individual may voluntarily donate and bring incense similar to the incense brought by the tribal princes to the Temple as a gift offering, and I will read with regard to this incense, as in the case of other gift offerings: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Therefore, the verse states concerning the inner altar: “You shall bring no strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). This indicates that an individual may not sacrifice incense even on the inner altar.
יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יָחִיד מֵבִיא, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ,
One might have thought that only an individual may not bring a gift of incense on the inner altar, as an individual does not bring his obligatory offering similar to this gift of incense, i.e., since an individual is never obligated to sacrifice incense, he may not voluntarily sacrifice incense either;
אֲבָל צִבּוּר יְהֵא מֵבִיא, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חוֹבָה כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ״.
but a community may bring incense as a gift offering, as the community does bring its obligatory offering similar to this, i.e., since the community is obligated to sacrifice incense it can also voluntarily sacrifice incense. Therefore, the verse states: You shall not bring [lo ta’alu] strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). The fact that the verse formulates the prohibition with the plural word ta’alu indicates that even the community may not sacrifice incense as a voluntary gift offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַעֲלוּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, אֲבָל יַעֲלוּ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים לַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ יַעֲשׂוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the community may not bring a gift offering of incense on the inner altar, but it may bring incense on the external altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the anointing oil, and the incense of sweet spices for the sacred place; according to all that I have commanded you shall they do” (Exodus 31:11). This teaches that one has the right to do only that which is stated with regard to the matter, without deviation. Consequently, incense may be sacrificed only by the community, only when there is an obligation to sacrifice it, and it must be burned only on the inner altar. This contradicts the implication of the previously cited baraita that it is permitted to burn the incense of an individual on the golden altar or the incense of a community on the outer altar.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא צִיבּוּר עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, דְּלָא אַשְׁכְּחַן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן בִּנְשִׂיאִים – הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.
Rav Pappa said: This is not problematic. The baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows. It is not necessary to state that the community may not sacrifice incense on the external altar, as we have not found a precedent for it. And similarly, it is not necessary to state that an individual may not sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as we have not found a precedent for it. But it is necessary to state that it is even prohibited for an individual to sacrifice incense on the external altar, despite the fact that we have ostensibly found a precedent for it in the case of the tribal princes; as that was a provisional edict and therefore cannot serve as a precedent.
מַתְנִי׳ חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא הָיוּ בָּאִין חֲצָאִין, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ, מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
MISHNA: The twelve loaves of matza prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest did not come from the house of the High Priest in halves. Rather, the High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of flour (see Leviticus 6:13) and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
כֹּהֵן שֶׁמֵּבִיא מֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית, וָמֵת, וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – לֹא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וַחֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם (מֶחֱצָה) וְחוֹצֵהוּ, מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין.
In the case of a High Priest who brings and sacrifices half in the morning and dies, and they appointed another High Priest in his stead, the replacement High Priest should neither bring half of a tenth of an ephah of flour from his house nor sacrifice the remaining half of the tenth of an ephah of his predecessor. Rather, he brings from his house an entire tenth of an ephah and divides it in half, sacrifices half, and the other half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are sacrificed, one-half of what was brought by each priest, and the other two halves are lost.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״מִנְחָה מַחֲצִית״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מֵבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וּמַקְרִיב, חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וּמַקְרִיב.
GEMARA: The Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita, commenting on the verse: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). If the verse had stated: A meal offering perpetually, half in the morning and half in the evening; I would have said that the High Priest brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the morning and sacrifices it, and then he brings half of a tenth of an ephah in the afternoon and sacrifices it.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מַקְרִיב, הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה בַּבֹּקֶר וּמֶחֱצָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.
Since the verse states: “Half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13), it teaches that he sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah. How so? The High Priest brings from his house a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and divides it in half, and sacrifices half in the morning and half in the afternoon.
נִטְמָא מֶחֱצָה שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, יָכוֹל יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ עַרְבִית וְיַקְרִיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא.
In a case where the half of a tenth of an ephah that was supposed to be offered in the afternoon became impure or was lost after the High Priest sacrificed the first half in the morning, one might have thought that he should bring half of a tenth of an ephah from his house and sacrifice it. Therefore, the verse states: “Half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening,” which teaches that he brings half of a complete tenth of an ephah.
הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם [מִבֵּיתוֹ], וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה, וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין.
How so? The High Priest brings a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half, and the other half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are sacrificed, the half that was sacrificed in the morning from the original tenth of an ephah, and half of the replacement tenth of an ephah, and the other two halves are lost.
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה שַׁחֲרִית וָמֵת, וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, יָכוֹל יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ, אוֹ חֲצִי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב״ – מֶחֱצָה מִשָּׁלֵם הוּא מֵבִיא וּמַקְרִיב.
In the case of a High Priest who sacrificed half in the morning and died, and they appointed another High Priest in his stead, one might have thought that the second High Priest should bring half of a tenth of an ephah from his house and sacrifice it, or that he should sacrifice the remaining half of a tenth of an ephah of the first High Priest. Therefore, the verse states: “And half of it in the evening,” which teaches that he brings and sacrifices half of a complete tenth of an ephah.
הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, וְחוֹצֵהוּ, וּמַקְרִיב, וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין אוֹבְדִין, וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאִין קְרֵיבִין.
How so? The replacement High Priest brings a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house and divides it in half, and he sacrifices half, and half is not sacrificed and is lost. Consequently, two halves of a tenth of an ephah are lost, half of the tenth of an ephah brought by each priest, and the other two halves are sacrificed.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מֶחֱצָה רִאשׁוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה שֵׁנִי – תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן, וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
§ With regard to the two halves of a tenth of an ephah that are lost, a tanna, i.e., a Sage who recited baraitot, taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: With regard to the half that was not sacrificed by the first High Priest, who died, and the half brought but not sacrificed by the second High Priest who replaced him, their form should decay, i.e., they should be left overnight so they become disqualified, and then they should be brought out to the place designated for burning.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: בִּשְׁלָמָא רִאשׁוֹן אִיחֲזִי לְהַקְרָבָה, אֶלָּא שֵׁנִי לְמָה לֵיהּ עִיבּוּר צוּרָה? מֵעִיקָּרָא לְאִיבּוּד קָא אָתֵי.
Rav Naḥman said to the tanna: Granted, the half that was not sacrificed by the first High Priest should be left overnight before it is burned, because it was initially fit for sacrifice before the first High Priest died. But with regard to the half that was not sacrificed by the second High Priest, why must it be left overnight so that its form decays? It was brought to be lost from the outset, i.e., when the full tenth of an ephah was brought it was known that only half would be sacrificed and half would be lost. Consequently, it is unnecessary to leave it overnight before burning it.
דַּאֲמַר לָךְ, מַנִּי? תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ הוּא, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיגּוּל טָעוּן עִיבּוּר צוּרָה.
Rav Naḥman continued: Who is the one who said this baraita to you? It was the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who says: All disqualified offerings, even piggul, which is disqualified by Torah law, require decay of form before they are burned.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא (דְּפָלְגִי בְּהוּ) [דְּפַלְגִינְהוּ], אִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְרֵיב, וְאִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְרֵיב – מִיחְזָא חֲזוּ.
Rav Ashi said: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabba bar Avuh and hold that piggul does not require decay of form. Nevertheless, since at the time when the second High Priest divides the two halves, if he wants he can sacrifice this half, and if he wants he can sacrifice that other half, both halves are considered fit to be sacrificed and may not be burned until they are left overnight.
אִיתְּמַר: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹפָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְטַגְּנָהּ. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מְטַגְּנָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפָהּ.
§ The Gemara cites that which was stated further about the griddle-cake offering: How are the griddle-cake offerings of the High Priest prepared? The verse seems to prescribe a variety of methods of preparation: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, you shall bring it in; and baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal offering shall you sacrifice for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:14). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is prepared in the following manner: The individual preparing it bakes it in an oven and afterward he fries it in a pan. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Ḥanina says that it is prepared in the following manner: The individual preparing it fries it in a pan and afterward he bakes it in an oven.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָא.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion because the verse states: “And baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal offering.” The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are still beautiful [te’afena na’a], i.e., before being fried. Rabbi Asi said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion because the word tufinei should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are already partially cooked [te’afena na], i.e., after being fried.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תֹּאפֶינָּה רַבָּה. אִית לֵיהּ נָא, וְאִית לֵיהּ נָאָה.
This dispute between the amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im in a baraita: The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are already partially cooked [te’afena na]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It should be understood as meaning that they shall be baked when they are still beautiful [te’afena na’a]. Rabbi Yosei says: The word tufinei is plural, indicating that the pieces should be baked extensively, i.e., more than once. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei accepts the opinion that the pieces should be baked when they are already partially cooked, and he also accepts the opinion that they should be baked when they are beautiful. Therefore the offering should first be baked, then fried, then baked again.
תְּנַן הָתָם: חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – לִישָׁתָן וַעֲרִיכָתָן וַאֲפִיָּיתָן בִּפְנִים, וְדוֹחוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (96a): Concerning the twelve loaves of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, of which six are sacrificed in the morning and six in the evening, their kneading, and forming of their loaves, and their baking are performed inside the Temple courtyard, and all labors involved in those actions override Shabbat.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״תֻּפִינֵי״ – תֹּאפֶינָּה נָאָה, וְאִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִינַּשְׁפָה לַהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵימָא דְּכָבֵישׁ לֵיהּ בְּיַרְקָא!
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that these actions override Shabbat, derived? Rav Huna said: The verse says tufinei, meaning that when it is already baked it must still be beautiful [te’afena na’a]. And if one would bake it yesterday, on the eve of Shabbat, it would become swollen [inshefa] and no longer beautiful. Rav Yosef objects to this: If the purpose of baking them on Shabbat is to ensure they remain fresh, say that the loaves should be baked before Shabbat and covered with greens to preserve them.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״תֵּעָשֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תֵּעָשֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara cites another explanation of why the preparation of these loaves overrides Shabbat. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil” (Leviticus 6:14), which teaches that it shall be made under all circumstances, even on Shabbat. Similarly, this phrase “shall be made” teaches that it should be made even in a state of ritual impurity.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״,
Abaye said that there is a different explanation: The verse states: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually” (Leviticus 6:13);
