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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 29, 2018 | 讻壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

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

Menachot 51

The special meal offering brought by the high priest is discussed in detail. It is clear from the Torah how much flour was used but it is not clear how much oil. A braita聽discusses various possibilities. If the high priest dies and there is no replacement right away, where is the money taken from to bring the offering – the heirs or the community funds?


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

讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪谞讞转 转诪讬讚讬谉

this teaches that the halakha of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is like that of the meal offering that is a component of the daily offerings. The daily offerings override Shabbat, as the verse says: 鈥淭his is the burnt offering of every Shabbat, beside the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering thereof鈥 (Numbers 28:10). Therefore, preparing the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest likewise overrides Shabbat.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注诇 诪讞讘转 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 讜讗讬 讗驻讬 诇讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 注诇 诪讞讘转 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬

Rava said that the basis for it overriding Shabbat is the fact that the verse states: 鈥淥n a griddle鈥 (Leviticus 6:14), which teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel. Therefore, if he had baked it the previous day rather than on Shabbat, it would be disqualified by being left overnight, since the loaves had already been consecrated in a service vessel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: 鈥淥n a griddle鈥 teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel.

讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛

The baraita continues: The continuation of the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be made with the oil.鈥 The fact that the verse makes reference to 鈥渢he oil鈥 rather than just oil indicates that one is supposed to add extra oil to it, but I do not know how much oil to add.

讛专讬谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

Therefore I must deduce as follows: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥il,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings: 鈥淎 tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil鈥 (Exodus 29:40). Just as there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations, the amount of oil required is three log per tenth of an ephah of flour; so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, one brings three log of oil per tenth of an ephah of flour.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讜讙 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讜讙 讗讞讚

Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥il,鈥 and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering: 鈥淎nd when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it鈥 (Leviticus 2:1). Just as there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering, one brings one log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour (see 88a); so too here, one brings one log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 转讘砖讟 诪转讘砖讟 转讚讬专 讘讗讛 讞讜讘讛 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讟讜诪讗讛

The baraita analyzes these two possibilities: Let us see to which case it is more similar, i.e., which is a better comparison to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Perhaps we should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet, from the halakha with regard to a meal offering brought with libations, which also has the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet. These characteristics are that they are frequent [tadir], as these offerings are sacrificed twice daily; they are brought [ba鈥檃h] as an obligation; they override Shabbat; and they override impurity [tuma].

讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 转讘砖讟 诪砖讗讬谞讜 转讘砖讟

And we should not derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet, from the voluntary meal offering, which does not have the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讬讙讬诇 诪讬讙讬诇 讬讞讬讚 讘讙诇诇 注爪诪讛 讬讬谉 诇讘讜谞讛

Or perhaps, go this way: We should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, from the voluntary meal offering, which also has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, which stand for the following halakhot: Each of these offerings may be brought by an individual [ya岣d]; each is brought for [biglal] its own sake, rather than accompanying another offering; they are not accompanied by wine [yayin] for a libation; and they require frankincense [levona].

讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬讙讬诇 诪砖讗讬谞讜 讬讙讬诇

And we should not derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, from the halakha with regard to the meal offering brought with libations, which does not have the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed. Consequently, the comparisons in both directions are equally compelling.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 住诇转 诪谞讞讛 转诪讬讚 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讱 讻诪谞讞转 转诪讬讚讬谉 诪讛 诪谞讞转 转诪讬讚讬谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讝讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

The baraita continues its determination of how much oil is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: 鈥淭his is the offering of Aaron鈥he tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid], half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening鈥 (Leviticus 6:13). The fact that the verse makes reference to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest as tamid teaches that it is in the same category as the meal offering component of the daily offerings [temidin]. Just as the meal offering component of the daily offerings requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too this griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讬讘讛 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜专讬讘讛 讘诪谞讞转 讻讘砖讬诐 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

Rabbi Shimon says: The verse adds to the amount of oil that is required here, with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, and it similarly adds to the amount of oil that is required there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep. Just as there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, three log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, three log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 专讬讘讛 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜专讬讘讛 讘诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

Or perhaps, go this way: The verse adds to the amount of oil that is required here, and it similarly adds to the amount of oil that is required in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams. Just as there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams, two log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, two log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注砖专讜谉 诪诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注砖专讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注砖专讜谉 诪诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 注砖专讜谞讬诐

With regard to these two possibilities, let us see to which case it is more similar, i.e., which is a better comparison to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Perhaps we should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour. And we should not derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour from the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour, such as the meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of bulls and rams.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 砖诪谉

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the beginning of the baraita: This baraita itself is difficult, as it contains an internal contradiction. First you said that the expression 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 stated in the verse concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest serves to add extra oil, which indicates that more than the basic amount of one log of oil is required. And then it teaches: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥il,鈥 and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering that it must be brought with 鈥渙il.鈥 The baraita suggests that just as one log of oil is brought with the voluntary meal offering, so too one log is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽讗诪专 讜讘讚讬谞讗 诪讗谉 拽讗 诪讛讚专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

In answer to this question, Abaye said: Who is the tanna who taught that the term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest serves to add extra oil? It is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that three log of oil are required, as derived from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep. And Rabbi Shimon is speaking utilizing the style of: If it were not stated. If the verse had not indicated by the term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 that extra oil is required, it would have been possible to derive from the voluntary meal offering that only one log is required. And who is the tanna who responds to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 derivation and suggests that in fact the amount of oil can be derived from the case of the voluntary meal offering? It is Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that the baraita should be understood differently: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who derives that three log of oil are required in the griddle-cake offering based upon the amount required in the meal offering component of the daily offerings.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讚讗讬 诇拽讘讜注 砖诪谉 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 注诇 诪讞讘转 讻诪谞讞转 诪讞讘转 讚诪讬讗

And with regard to the possibility of deriving that only one log is required, as in the voluntary meal offering, this is what he is saying: The term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 stated with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest comes to add more oil to it than the single log required for the voluntary meal offering. As, if the purpose of that term were merely to establish the basic fact that the offering must include oil, a verse is not needed to teach that. Since it is written with respect to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥n a griddle [ma岣vat]鈥 (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [ma岣vat] meal offering, which requires oil.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 砖诪谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖诪谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬讛讜讬 讻诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

Or perhaps the purpose of the verse is to establish only that the offering must include oil, and it is necessary to teach that because if the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淲ith the oil,鈥 I would say: Let it be like the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil.

讛讚专 讗诪专 转讬讛讜讬 谞诪讬 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 砖诪谉 转讬转讬 诪讚讬谞讗 讜讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讗爪专讻讗 拽专讗 住诇转 诪谞讞讛 转诪讬讚 讻讚诪住讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讬诇转讬讛

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, then said: Let it even be that the purpose of the verse is to establish only that it requires oil, and even so one can arrive at the conclusion that three log are required due to the derivation based upon the verbal analogy from the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. But although Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, attempts to employ this derivation he is unsuccessful, as there is a counter-indication from another verbal analogy to the voluntary meal offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, needed to derive the halakha from the verse: 鈥淔ine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid]鈥 (Leviticus 6:13), as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, concluded his statement in the baraita.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 [讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽讗诪专]

Rabba said that the baraita should be understood differently: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Shimon is speaking utilizing the style of: If it were not stated.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讚讗讬 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 砖诪谉 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 注诇 诪讞讘转 讻诪讞讘转 讚诪讬讗 讜注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉

And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: The term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 serves to add extra oil to it. As, if the purpose of that term were merely to establish that the offering must include oil, a verse is not needed to teach that. Since it is written with respect to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥n a griddle [ma岣vat]鈥 (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [ma岣vat] meal offering, which requires oil. And even if the verse had not stated: 鈥淲ith the oil,鈥 I have a manner of derivation for the fact that more than one log of oil is required, based upon a verbal analogy.

讜讚谉 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讗爪专讻讗 讘砖诪谉 讛讚专 讗诪专 转讬讛讜讬 讻诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐

But although Rabbi Shimon attempts to employ this derivation he is unsuccessful, as there is a counter-indication from another verbal analogy, and therefore the term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 is needed to teach that more than one log of oil is required. Nevertheless, this teaches only that more oil than usual is required, but the specific amount still must be clarified. Rabbi Shimon then said: Let the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest be like the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams, which require two log of oil per ephah of flour.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讚谞讬谉

Rabbi Shimon then said: We should derive the halakha

诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注砖专讜谉 讜讻讜壮

with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, and not from a meal offering that is brought in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 诪砖诇 诪讬 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜砖诇讬诪讛 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛

MISHNA: If they did not appoint another High Priest in his stead, from whose property was the griddle-cake offering brought and sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the community. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the High Priest. And for the duration of the period until a new High Priest was appointed, the griddle-cake offering was sacrificed as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转讜 拽专讬讘讛 诪砖诇 讬讜专砖讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讬注砖讛 讗转讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the High Priest died and they did not appoint another High Priest in his stead, from where is it derived that his griddle-cake meal offering should be sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the High Priest? The verse states in reference to the griddle-cake offering: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it鈥 (Leviticus 6:15).

讬讻讜诇 讬拽专讬讘谞讛 讞爪讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

One might have thought that the heirs should sacrifice it in halves as the High Priest does. Therefore the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 teaching that they should sacrifice all of the tenth of an ephah and not half of it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞拽 注讜诇诐 诪砖诇 注讜诇诐 讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 砖转讛讗 讻讜诇讛 讘讛拽讟专讛

Rabbi Shimon says: The continuation of the verse: 鈥淚t is a statute forever [olam] to the Lord,鈥 teaches that in this case of a High Priest who has died and has not yet been replaced, the offering is brought from the property of the world [olam], i.e., the community. The end of the verse: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord,鈥 teaches that although it is brought by the community and not by a priest, the entire tenth of an ephah should be sacrificed and not eaten.

讜讛讗讬 讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And did that verse: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it,鈥 come to teach this halakha that Rabbi Yehuda derived from it?

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 拽专讘谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 讘讬讜诐 讛诪砖讞 讗转讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 讗讛专谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬讜 讗诇讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

That verse is needed for that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭his is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed鈥 (Leviticus 6:13). One might have thought that since the verse speaks of the offering in the singular, it means that Aaron and his sons should sacrifice one offering. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淲hich they shall offer to the Lord,鈥 in plural, teaching that Aaron sacrifices an offering by himself as the High Priest, and his sons sacrifice offerings by themselves as ordinary priests. When the verse refers to 鈥渉is sons,鈥 these are the ordinary priests. Each priest must bring a griddle-cake offering as an offering of initiation when he begins his service.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讛专讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讘谞讬讜 讗诇讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

Do you say that this is referring to the offering of initiation of ordinary priests, or is it referring only to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priests? When the verse states in the continuation of that passage: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it; it is a statute forever to the Lord; it shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 6:15), the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is thereby mentioned. How do I realize the meaning of the term 鈥渉is sons鈥 in Leviticus 6:13? These are the ordinary priests, and the verse is referring to their offering of initiation. Consequently, verse 15 is referring to the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering, rather than referring to a case of a High Priest who died.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬讜 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 诪讘谞讬讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: The verse teaches both the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering daily and the fact that when he dies his heirs must bring the offering until a new High Priest is appointed. If it were so that the verse is teaching only that the heirs of a High Priest who died must bring the griddle-cake offering until a new High Priest is appointed, let the verse merely write: The anointed priest that shall be in his stead, his sons shall offer. What is the need to say: 鈥淔rom among his sons鈥? Learn from the fact that verse uses this term that two halakhot are derived from the verse.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 讗转讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讜诪讬谞讜 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 诪讘讬转讜 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon, who derives the halakha that it should be entirely sacrificed from the phrase: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke,鈥 do with that word 鈥渋t,鈥 from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that in the case of a High Priest who died after bringing the first half of his griddle-cake offering, and then 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 the first High Priest, i.e., his predecessor.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪谉 讜诪讞爪讬转讛 讜讬讜 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: Let him derive this halakha from the expression: 鈥淎nd half of it鈥 (Leviticus 6:13), as discussed on 50b; the word 鈥渁nd,鈥 which is added by the letter vav at the beginning of the word, is expounded to mean that the replacement High Priest must bring a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The Gemara answers: He did not derive the halakha from there because he does not expound the extra letter vav in that word, as he holds that its addition is not significant.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讞拽 注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讞讜拽讛 诇注讜诇诐 转讛讗

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that if the High Priest dies and a new one has not yet been appointed the griddle-cake offering is brought by the previous High Priest鈥檚 heirs, do with that phrase: 鈥淚t is a statute forever to the Lord,鈥 from which Rabbi Shimon derives that it is brought from communal resources? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the statute requiring the High Priest to sacrifice the griddle-cake offering is to apply forever.

讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 讜转讞转讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need the phrase: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: I have derived only that the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest mentioned above is included in the mandate: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke鈥 (Leviticus 6:15), and that the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest mentioned below is included in the prohibition: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇讬诇 讻诇讬诇 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻诇讬诇 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讻诇讬诇

From where is it derived that one is mandated to apply what is said about that verse to this one, and what is said about this verse to that one? The verse states with regard to the griddle-cake offering: 鈥淲holly,鈥 and the verse uses the word 鈥渨holly鈥 with regard to the voluntary meal offering of a priest, in order to teach a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest: 鈥淲holly鈥 (Leviticus 6:15), and it is stated there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest: 鈥淲holly鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

诪讛 讻讗谉 讘讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讘讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讛

Just as here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering, it is included in the mandate: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke,鈥 so too there, the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest is included in the mandate: It shall be wholly made to smoke. And just as there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest, the verse comes to place a prohibition on its consumption, so too here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, the verse comes to place a prohibition on its consumption.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that in a case where the High Priest died and a new one has not been appointed, the requirement that the griddle offering be brought from the property of the community is by Torah law, as indicated by the fact that he derives this halakha from a verse?

讜讛转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讙讜讬 砖砖诇讞 注讜诇转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 砖诇讞 注诪讛 谞住讻讬诐 拽专讬讘讛 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations; and this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: In the case of a gentile who sent his burnt offering from a country overseas, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are sacrificed at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public鈥檚 expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury.

讜讻谉 讙专 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讝讘讞讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 谞住讻讬诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

And similarly, in the case of a convert who died without heirs and left animals that he had designated as offerings, if he has the libations, i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations are sacrificed from his estate. And if he did not do so, the libations are sacrificed from public funds.

讜转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转讜 拽专讬讘讛 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

And another ordinance: It is a stipulation of the court with regard to a High Priest who died, and they did not yet appoint another High Priest in his stead, that his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Rabbi Shimon then enumerates three additional ordinances. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that Rabbi Shimon holds that this halakha concerning the offering of a High Priest who died is a rabbinic ordinance, rather than Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖谞讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜

Rabbi Abbahu said in response: In fact, Rabbi Shimon holds that this halakha is by Torah law. But in fact, there were two ordinances that were enacted concerning this matter.

讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚爪讬讘讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 诪讬讚讞拽讗 诇讬砖讻讛 转拽讬谞讜 讚诇讙讘讬 诪讬讜专砖讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 驻砖注讬 讘讛 讗讜拽诪讜讛 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Initially, they acted in accordance with that which is prescribed by Torah law, and if a High Priest died and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his stead, his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Once they saw that the funds in the chamber of the Temple treasury were being depleted, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the payment for the offering should be collected from the previous High Priest鈥檚 heirs. Once they saw that the heirs were negligent in the matter and did not bring the offering, they revoked the previous ordinance and established it in accordance with the halakha as it is by Torah law, that it is brought from public funds.

讜注诇 驻专讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讗驻专讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讛讬讗 讘讛 诪讜注诇讬谉

搂 The Gemara cites the continuation of the mishna in Shekalim (7:7): And the court enacted an ordinance with regard to the red heifer that one is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from its ashes. The Gemara asks: Why does the baraita state that this is an ordinance of the court, when in fact it is by Torah law? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a red heifer: 鈥淚t is a sin offering鈥 (Numbers 19:9), which teaches that a red heifer is treated like a sin offering in that one is liable for misusing it. The fact that it states: 鈥淚t is a sin offering鈥 indicates that if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Menachot 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 51

讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪谞讞转 转诪讬讚讬谉

this teaches that the halakha of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is like that of the meal offering that is a component of the daily offerings. The daily offerings override Shabbat, as the verse says: 鈥淭his is the burnt offering of every Shabbat, beside the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering thereof鈥 (Numbers 28:10). Therefore, preparing the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest likewise overrides Shabbat.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注诇 诪讞讘转 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 讜讗讬 讗驻讬 诇讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘诇讬谞讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 注诇 诪讞讘转 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬

Rava said that the basis for it overriding Shabbat is the fact that the verse states: 鈥淥n a griddle鈥 (Leviticus 6:14), which teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel. Therefore, if he had baked it the previous day rather than on Shabbat, it would be disqualified by being left overnight, since the loaves had already been consecrated in a service vessel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: 鈥淥n a griddle鈥 teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel.

讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛

The baraita continues: The continuation of the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be made with the oil.鈥 The fact that the verse makes reference to 鈥渢he oil鈥 rather than just oil indicates that one is supposed to add extra oil to it, but I do not know how much oil to add.

讛专讬谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

Therefore I must deduce as follows: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥il,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings: 鈥淎 tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil鈥 (Exodus 29:40). Just as there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations, the amount of oil required is three log per tenth of an ephah of flour; so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, one brings three log of oil per tenth of an ephah of flour.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讜讙 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讜讙 讗讞讚

Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥il,鈥 and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering: 鈥淎nd when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it鈥 (Leviticus 2:1). Just as there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering, one brings one log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour (see 88a); so too here, one brings one log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 转讘砖讟 诪转讘砖讟 转讚讬专 讘讗讛 讞讜讘讛 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讟讜诪讗讛

The baraita analyzes these two possibilities: Let us see to which case it is more similar, i.e., which is a better comparison to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Perhaps we should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet, from the halakha with regard to a meal offering brought with libations, which also has the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet. These characteristics are that they are frequent [tadir], as these offerings are sacrificed twice daily; they are brought [ba鈥檃h] as an obligation; they override Shabbat; and they override impurity [tuma].

讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 转讘砖讟 诪砖讗讬谞讜 转讘砖讟

And we should not derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet, from the voluntary meal offering, which does not have the characteristics represented by the letters tav, beit, shin, tet.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讬讙讬诇 诪讬讙讬诇 讬讞讬讚 讘讙诇诇 注爪诪讛 讬讬谉 诇讘讜谞讛

Or perhaps, go this way: We should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, from the voluntary meal offering, which also has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, which stand for the following halakhot: Each of these offerings may be brought by an individual [ya岣d]; each is brought for [biglal] its own sake, rather than accompanying another offering; they are not accompanied by wine [yayin] for a libation; and they require frankincense [levona].

讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬讙讬诇 诪砖讗讬谞讜 讬讙讬诇

And we should not derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which has the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed, from the halakha with regard to the meal offering brought with libations, which does not have the characteristics represented by the letters yod, gimmel, yod, lamed. Consequently, the comparisons in both directions are equally compelling.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 住诇转 诪谞讞讛 转诪讬讚 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讱 讻诪谞讞转 转诪讬讚讬谉 诪讛 诪谞讞转 转诪讬讚讬谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讝讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

The baraita continues its determination of how much oil is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: 鈥淭his is the offering of Aaron鈥he tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid], half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening鈥 (Leviticus 6:13). The fact that the verse makes reference to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest as tamid teaches that it is in the same category as the meal offering component of the daily offerings [temidin]. Just as the meal offering component of the daily offerings requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too this griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讬讘讛 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜专讬讘讛 讘诪谞讞转 讻讘砖讬诐 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

Rabbi Shimon says: The verse adds to the amount of oil that is required here, with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, and it similarly adds to the amount of oil that is required there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep. Just as there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, three log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, three log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 专讬讘讛 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜专讬讘讛 讘诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 砖诪谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 诇注砖专讜谉

Or perhaps, go this way: The verse adds to the amount of oil that is required here, and it similarly adds to the amount of oil that is required in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams. Just as there, in the case of the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams, two log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour, so too here, in the case of the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, two log of oil are required for each tenth of an ephah of flour.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注砖专讜谉 诪诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注砖专讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注砖专讜谉 诪诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 注砖专讜谞讬诐

With regard to these two possibilities, let us see to which case it is more similar, i.e., which is a better comparison to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest. Perhaps we should derive the halakha with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour. And we should not derive the halakha with regard to a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour from the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour, such as the meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of bulls and rams.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 砖诪谉 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 砖诪谉

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the beginning of the baraita: This baraita itself is difficult, as it contains an internal contradiction. First you said that the expression 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 stated in the verse concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest serves to add extra oil, which indicates that more than the basic amount of one log of oil is required. And then it teaches: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥il,鈥 and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering that it must be brought with 鈥渙il.鈥 The baraita suggests that just as one log of oil is brought with the voluntary meal offering, so too one log is brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽讗诪专 讜讘讚讬谞讗 诪讗谉 拽讗 诪讛讚专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

In answer to this question, Abaye said: Who is the tanna who taught that the term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest serves to add extra oil? It is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that three log of oil are required, as derived from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep. And Rabbi Shimon is speaking utilizing the style of: If it were not stated. If the verse had not indicated by the term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 that extra oil is required, it would have been possible to derive from the voluntary meal offering that only one log is required. And who is the tanna who responds to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 derivation and suggests that in fact the amount of oil can be derived from the case of the voluntary meal offering? It is Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that the baraita should be understood differently: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who derives that three log of oil are required in the griddle-cake offering based upon the amount required in the meal offering component of the daily offerings.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讚讗讬 诇拽讘讜注 砖诪谉 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 注诇 诪讞讘转 讻诪谞讞转 诪讞讘转 讚诪讬讗

And with regard to the possibility of deriving that only one log is required, as in the voluntary meal offering, this is what he is saying: The term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 stated with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest comes to add more oil to it than the single log required for the voluntary meal offering. As, if the purpose of that term were merely to establish the basic fact that the offering must include oil, a verse is not needed to teach that. Since it is written with respect to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥n a griddle [ma岣vat]鈥 (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [ma岣vat] meal offering, which requires oil.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 砖诪谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖诪谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬讛讜讬 讻诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

Or perhaps the purpose of the verse is to establish only that the offering must include oil, and it is necessary to teach that because if the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淲ith the oil,鈥 I would say: Let it be like the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil.

讛讚专 讗诪专 转讬讛讜讬 谞诪讬 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 砖诪谉 转讬转讬 诪讚讬谞讗 讜讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讗爪专讻讗 拽专讗 住诇转 诪谞讞讛 转诪讬讚 讻讚诪住讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讬诇转讬讛

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, then said: Let it even be that the purpose of the verse is to establish only that it requires oil, and even so one can arrive at the conclusion that three log are required due to the derivation based upon the verbal analogy from the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. But although Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, attempts to employ this derivation he is unsuccessful, as there is a counter-indication from another verbal analogy to the voluntary meal offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, needed to derive the halakha from the verse: 鈥淔ine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid]鈥 (Leviticus 6:13), as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, concluded his statement in the baraita.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 [讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 拽讗诪专]

Rabba said that the baraita should be understood differently: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Shimon is speaking utilizing the style of: If it were not stated.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讛 砖诪谉 讚讗讬 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 砖诪谉 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 注诇 诪讞讘转 讻诪讞讘转 讚诪讬讗 讜注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讘砖诪谉 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉

And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: The term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 serves to add extra oil to it. As, if the purpose of that term were merely to establish that the offering must include oil, a verse is not needed to teach that. Since it is written with respect to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: 鈥淥n a griddle [ma岣vat]鈥 (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [ma岣vat] meal offering, which requires oil. And even if the verse had not stated: 鈥淲ith the oil,鈥 I have a manner of derivation for the fact that more than one log of oil is required, based upon a verbal analogy.

讜讚谉 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讗爪专讻讗 讘砖诪谉 讛讚专 讗诪专 转讬讛讜讬 讻诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐

But although Rabbi Shimon attempts to employ this derivation he is unsuccessful, as there is a counter-indication from another verbal analogy, and therefore the term 鈥渨ith the oil鈥 is needed to teach that more than one log of oil is required. Nevertheless, this teaches only that more oil than usual is required, but the specific amount still must be clarified. Rabbi Shimon then said: Let the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest be like the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of bulls and rams, which require two log of oil per ephah of flour.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讚谞讬谉

Rabbi Shimon then said: We should derive the halakha

诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注砖专讜谉 讜讻讜壮

with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, and not from a meal offering that is brought in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 诪砖诇 诪讬 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜砖诇讬诪讛 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛

MISHNA: If they did not appoint another High Priest in his stead, from whose property was the griddle-cake offering brought and sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the community. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the High Priest. And for the duration of the period until a new High Priest was appointed, the griddle-cake offering was sacrificed as a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转讜 拽专讬讘讛 诪砖诇 讬讜专砖讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讬注砖讛 讗转讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the High Priest died and they did not appoint another High Priest in his stead, from where is it derived that his griddle-cake meal offering should be sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the High Priest? The verse states in reference to the griddle-cake offering: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it鈥 (Leviticus 6:15).

讬讻讜诇 讬拽专讬讘谞讛 讞爪讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

One might have thought that the heirs should sacrifice it in halves as the High Priest does. Therefore the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 teaching that they should sacrifice all of the tenth of an ephah and not half of it; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞拽 注讜诇诐 诪砖诇 注讜诇诐 讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 砖转讛讗 讻讜诇讛 讘讛拽讟专讛

Rabbi Shimon says: The continuation of the verse: 鈥淚t is a statute forever [olam] to the Lord,鈥 teaches that in this case of a High Priest who has died and has not yet been replaced, the offering is brought from the property of the world [olam], i.e., the community. The end of the verse: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord,鈥 teaches that although it is brought by the community and not by a priest, the entire tenth of an ephah should be sacrificed and not eaten.

讜讛讗讬 讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And did that verse: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it,鈥 come to teach this halakha that Rabbi Yehuda derived from it?

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 拽专讘谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 讘讬讜诐 讛诪砖讞 讗转讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 讗讛专谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬讜 讗诇讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

That verse is needed for that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭his is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed鈥 (Leviticus 6:13). One might have thought that since the verse speaks of the offering in the singular, it means that Aaron and his sons should sacrifice one offering. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淲hich they shall offer to the Lord,鈥 in plural, teaching that Aaron sacrifices an offering by himself as the High Priest, and his sons sacrifice offerings by themselves as ordinary priests. When the verse refers to 鈥渉is sons,鈥 these are the ordinary priests. Each priest must bring a griddle-cake offering as an offering of initiation when he begins his service.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讛专讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讘谞讬讜 讗诇讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

Do you say that this is referring to the offering of initiation of ordinary priests, or is it referring only to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priests? When the verse states in the continuation of that passage: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it; it is a statute forever to the Lord; it shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 6:15), the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is thereby mentioned. How do I realize the meaning of the term 鈥渉is sons鈥 in Leviticus 6:13? These are the ordinary priests, and the verse is referring to their offering of initiation. Consequently, verse 15 is referring to the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering, rather than referring to a case of a High Priest who died.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬讜 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 诪讘谞讬讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: The verse teaches both the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering daily and the fact that when he dies his heirs must bring the offering until a new High Priest is appointed. If it were so that the verse is teaching only that the heirs of a High Priest who died must bring the griddle-cake offering until a new High Priest is appointed, let the verse merely write: The anointed priest that shall be in his stead, his sons shall offer. What is the need to say: 鈥淔rom among his sons鈥? Learn from the fact that verse uses this term that two halakhot are derived from the verse.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 讗转讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讜诪讬谞讜 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 诪讘讬转讜 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon, who derives the halakha that it should be entirely sacrificed from the phrase: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke,鈥 do with that word 鈥渋t,鈥 from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that in the case of a High Priest who died after bringing the first half of his griddle-cake offering, and then 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 the first High Priest, i.e., his predecessor.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪谉 讜诪讞爪讬转讛 讜讬讜 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: Let him derive this halakha from the expression: 鈥淎nd half of it鈥 (Leviticus 6:13), as discussed on 50b; the word 鈥渁nd,鈥 which is added by the letter vav at the beginning of the word, is expounded to mean that the replacement High Priest must bring a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The Gemara answers: He did not derive the halakha from there because he does not expound the extra letter vav in that word, as he holds that its addition is not significant.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讞拽 注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讞讜拽讛 诇注讜诇诐 转讛讗

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that if the High Priest dies and a new one has not yet been appointed the griddle-cake offering is brought by the previous High Priest鈥檚 heirs, do with that phrase: 鈥淚t is a statute forever to the Lord,鈥 from which Rabbi Shimon derives that it is brought from communal resources? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the statute requiring the High Priest to sacrifice the griddle-cake offering is to apply forever.

讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 讜转讞转讜谞讛 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讘诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need the phrase: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: I have derived only that the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest mentioned above is included in the mandate: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke鈥 (Leviticus 6:15), and that the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest mentioned below is included in the prohibition: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇讬诇 讻诇讬诇 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻诇讬诇 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讻诇讬诇

From where is it derived that one is mandated to apply what is said about that verse to this one, and what is said about this verse to that one? The verse states with regard to the griddle-cake offering: 鈥淲holly,鈥 and the verse uses the word 鈥渨holly鈥 with regard to the voluntary meal offering of a priest, in order to teach a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest: 鈥淲holly鈥 (Leviticus 6:15), and it is stated there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest: 鈥淲holly鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

诪讛 讻讗谉 讘讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讘讻诇讬诇 转拽讟专 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讛

Just as here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering, it is included in the mandate: 鈥淚t shall be wholly made to smoke,鈥 so too there, the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest is included in the mandate: It shall be wholly made to smoke. And just as there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest, the verse comes to place a prohibition on its consumption, so too here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, the verse comes to place a prohibition on its consumption.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that in a case where the High Priest died and a new one has not been appointed, the requirement that the griddle offering be brought from the property of the community is by Torah law, as indicated by the fact that he derives this halakha from a verse?

讜讛转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讙讜讬 砖砖诇讞 注讜诇转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 砖诇讞 注诪讛 谞住讻讬诐 拽专讬讘讛 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations; and this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: In the case of a gentile who sent his burnt offering from a country overseas, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are sacrificed at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public鈥檚 expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury.

讜讻谉 讙专 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讝讘讞讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 谞住讻讬诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

And similarly, in the case of a convert who died without heirs and left animals that he had designated as offerings, if he has the libations, i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations are sacrificed from his estate. And if he did not do so, the libations are sacrificed from public funds.

讜转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诪转 讜诇讗 诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转讜 拽专讬讘讛 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

And another ordinance: It is a stipulation of the court with regard to a High Priest who died, and they did not yet appoint another High Priest in his stead, that his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Rabbi Shimon then enumerates three additional ordinances. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that Rabbi Shimon holds that this halakha concerning the offering of a High Priest who died is a rabbinic ordinance, rather than Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖谞讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜

Rabbi Abbahu said in response: In fact, Rabbi Shimon holds that this halakha is by Torah law. But in fact, there were two ordinances that were enacted concerning this matter.

讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚爪讬讘讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 诪讬讚讞拽讗 诇讬砖讻讛 转拽讬谞讜 讚诇讙讘讬 诪讬讜专砖讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 驻砖注讬 讘讛 讗讜拽诪讜讛 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Initially, they acted in accordance with that which is prescribed by Torah law, and if a High Priest died and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his stead, his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Once they saw that the funds in the chamber of the Temple treasury were being depleted, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the payment for the offering should be collected from the previous High Priest鈥檚 heirs. Once they saw that the heirs were negligent in the matter and did not bring the offering, they revoked the previous ordinance and established it in accordance with the halakha as it is by Torah law, that it is brought from public funds.

讜注诇 驻专讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讗驻专讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讛讬讗 讘讛 诪讜注诇讬谉

搂 The Gemara cites the continuation of the mishna in Shekalim (7:7): And the court enacted an ordinance with regard to the red heifer that one is not liable to bring an offering for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from its ashes. The Gemara asks: Why does the baraita state that this is an ordinance of the court, when in fact it is by Torah law? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a red heifer: 鈥淚t is a sin offering鈥 (Numbers 19:9), which teaches that a red heifer is treated like a sin offering in that one is liable for misusing it. The fact that it states: 鈥淚t is a sin offering鈥 indicates that if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property,

Scroll To Top