Menachot 51

הרי היא כמנחת תמידין

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: “This is the burnt offering of every Shabbat, beside the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering thereof” (Numbers 28:10). Therefore, preparing the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest likewise overrides Shabbat.

רבא אמר על מחבת מלמד שטעונה כלי ואי אפי לה מאתמול איפסיל ליה בלינה תניא כוותיה דרבא על מחבת מלמד שטעונה כלי

Rava said that the basis for it overriding Shabbat is the fact that the verse states: “On a griddle” (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: “On a griddle” teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest requires a vessel.

בשמן להוסיף לה שמן ואיני יודע כמה

The baraita continues: The continuation of the verse states: “It shall be made with the oil.” The fact that the verse makes reference to “the oil” 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.

הריני דן נאמר כאן שמן ונאמר להלן במנחת נסכים שמן מה להלן שלשת לוגין לעשרון אף כאן שלשת לוגין לעשרון

Therefore I must deduce as follows: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Oil,” and it is stated there, with regard to the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings: “A tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil” (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.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן שמן ונאמר במנחת נדבה שמן מה להלן לוג אחד אף כאן לוג אחד

Or perhaps, go this way: It is stated here, concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: “Oil,” and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering: “And when anyone brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it” (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.

נראה למי דומה דנין תבשט מתבשט תדיר באה חובה דוחה שבת דוחה טומאה

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’ah] as an obligation; they override Shabbat; and they override impurity [tuma].

ואין דנין תבשט משאינו תבשט

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.

או כלך לדרך זו דנין יגיל מיגיל יחיד בגלל עצמה יין לבונה

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 [yaḥid]; 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].

ואין דנין יגיל משאינו יגיל

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.

רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר סלת מנחה תמיד הרי היא לך כמנחת תמידין מה מנחת תמידין שלשה לוגין לעשרון אף זו שלשה לוגין לעשרון

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 Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: “This is the offering of Aaron…the 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” (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.

רבי שמעון אומר ריבה כאן שמן וריבה במנחת כבשים שמן מה להלן שלשת לוגין לעשרון אף כאן שלשת לוגין לעשרון

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.

או כלך לדרך זו ריבה כאן שמן וריבה במנחת פרים ואילים שמן מה להלן שני לוגין לעשרון אף כאן שני לוגין לעשרון

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.

נראה למי דומה דנין מנחה הבאה עשרון ממנחה הבאה בעשרון ואין דנין מנחה הבאה עשרון ממנחה הבאה שנים ושלשה עשרונים

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.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת בשמן להוסיף לה שמן והדר תני נאמר כאן שמן ונאמר במנחת נדבה שמן

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 “with the oil” 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: “Oil,” and it is stated with regard to the voluntary meal offering that it must be brought with “oil.” 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.

אמר אביי מאן תנא בשמן להוסיף רבי שמעון היא ואילו לא נאמר קאמר ובדינא מאן קא מהדר רבי ישמעאל

In answer to this question, Abaye said: Who is the tanna who taught that the term “with the oil” 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 “with the oil” 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’s 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.

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר כולה רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא

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 Yoḥanan 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.

והכי קאמר בשמן להוסיף לה שמן דאי לקבוע שמן לא צריך כיון דכתיב בה על מחבת כמנחת מחבת דמיא

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 “with the oil” 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: “On a griddle [maḥavat]” (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [maḥavat] meal offering, which requires oil.

או אינו אלא לקבוע לה שמן דאי לא כתב רחמנא בשמן הוה אמינא תיהוי כמנחת חוטא

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: “With the oil,” I would say: Let it be like the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil.

הדר אמר תיהוי נמי לקבוע לה שמן תיתי מדינא ודן דינא ולא אתיא ליה ואצרכא קרא סלת מנחה תמיד כדמסיים רבי ישמעאל מילתיה

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan ben Beroka, needed to derive the halakha from the verse: “Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [tamid]” (Leviticus 6:13), as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, concluded his statement in the baraita.

רבה אמר כולה רבי שמעון [ואילו לא נאמר קאמר]

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.

והכי קאמר בשמן להוסיף לה שמן דאי לקבוע לה שמן לא צריך כיון דכתיב בה על מחבת כמחבת דמיא ועד שלא יאמר בשמן יש לי בדין

And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: The term “with the oil” 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: “On a griddle [maḥavat]” (Leviticus 6:14), it is comparable to a pan [maḥavat] meal offering, which requires oil. And even if the verse had not stated: “With the oil,” I have a manner of derivation for the fact that more than one log of oil is required, based upon a verbal analogy.

ודן דינא לא אתיא ליה ואצרכא בשמן הדר אמר תיהוי כמנחת פרים ואילים

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 “with the oil” 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.

הדר אמר דנין

Rabbi Shimon then said: We should derive the halakha

מנחה הבאה עשרון וכו׳

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.

מתני׳ לא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו משל מי היתה קריבה רבי שמעון אומר משל ציבור רבי יהודה אומר משל יורשין ושלימה היתה קריבה

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן כהן גדול שמת ולא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו מנין שתהא מנחתו קריבה משל יורשין תלמוד לומר והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אתה

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: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it” (Leviticus 6:15).

יכול יקריבנה חצאין תלמוד לומר אתה כולה ולא חציה דברי רבי יהודה

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

רבי שמעון אומר חק עולם משל עולם כליל תקטר שתהא כולה בהקטרה

Rabbi Shimon says: The continuation of the verse: “It is a statute forever [olam] to the Lord,” 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: “It shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord,” 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.

והאי הכהן המשיח להכי הוא דאתא

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

האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה׳ ביום המשח אתו יכול יהו אהרן ובניו מקריבין קרבן אחד תלמוד לומר אשר יקריבו לה׳ אהרן בפני עצמו ובניו בפני עצמן בניו אלו כהנים הדיוטות

That verse is needed for that which is taught in a baraita: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed” (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: “Which they shall offer to the Lord,” 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 “his sons,” these are the ordinary priests. Each priest must bring a griddle-cake offering as an offering of initiation when he begins his service.

אתה אומר כהנים הדיוטות או אינו אלא כהנים גדולים כשהוא אומר והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו הרי כהן גדול אמור הא מה אני מקיים בניו אלו כהנים הדיוטות

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: “And 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” (Leviticus 6:15), the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest is thereby mentioned. How do I realize the meaning of the term “his sons” 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.

אם כן לכתוב קרא הכהן המשיח תחתיו בניו יעשה מאי מבניו שמעת מינה תרתי

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: “From among his sons”? Learn from the fact that verse uses this term that two halakhot are derived from the verse.

ורבי שמעון האי אתה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכהן גדול שמת ומינו אחר תחתיו שלא יביא חצי עשרון מביתו ולא חצי עשרון של ראשון

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon, who derives the halakha that it should be entirely sacrificed from the phrase: “It shall be wholly made to smoke,” do with that word “it,” 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.

ותיפוק ליה מן ומחציתה ויו לא דריש

The Gemara asks: Let him derive this halakha from the expression: “And half of it” (Leviticus 6:13), as discussed on 50b; the word “and,” 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.

ורבי יהודה האי חק עולם מאי עביד ליה חוקה לעולם תהא

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’s heirs, do with that phrase: “It is a statute forever to the Lord,” 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.

כליל תקטר למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אין לי אלא עליונה מנחת כהן גדול בכליל תקטר ותחתונה מנחת כהן הדיוט בלא תאכל

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need the phrase: “It shall be wholly made to smoke”? 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: “It shall be wholly made to smoke” (Leviticus 6:15), and that the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest mentioned below is included in the prohibition: “It shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).

מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה תלמוד לומר כליל כליל לגזירה שוה נאמר כאן כליל ונאמר להלן כליל

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: “Wholly,” and the verse uses the word “wholly” 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: “Wholly” (Leviticus 6:15), and it is stated there, with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest: “Wholly” (Leviticus 6:16).

מה כאן בכליל תקטר אף להלן בכליל תקטר ומה להלן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו אף כאן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתה

Just as here, with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering, it is included in the mandate: “It shall be wholly made to smoke,” 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.

וסבר רבי שמעון משל ציבור דאורייתא

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?

והתנן אמר רבי שמעון שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין וזה אחד מהן גוי ששלח עולתו ממדינת הים שלח עמה נסכים קריבה משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור

But didn’t 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’s expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury.

וכן גר שמת והניח זבחים יש לו נסכים קריבין משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור

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.

ותנאי בית דין הוא כהן גדול שמת ולא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו שתהא מנחתו קריבה משל ציבור

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.

אמר רבי אבהו שני תקנות הוו

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.

דאורייתא מדציבור כיון דחזו דקא מידחקא לישכה תקינו דלגבי מיורשים כיון דחזו דקא פשעי בה אוקמוה אדאורייתא

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’s 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.

ועל פרה שלא יהא מועלין באפרה דאורייתא היא דתניא חטאת היא מלמד שמועלין בה היא בה מועלין

§ 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: “It is a sin offering” (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: “It is a sin offering” indicates that if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property,