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 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?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Menachot 51
הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין.
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.
רָבָא אָמַר: ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה כְּלִי, וְאִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִיפְּסִילָא לַיהּ בְּלִינָה. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה כְּלִי.
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.
״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה.
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.
הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים ״שֶׁמֶן״ – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה ״שֶׁמֶן״, מָה לְהַלָּן לוֹג אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן לוֹג אֶחָד.
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין תבש״ט מתבש״ט: תָּדִיר, בָּאָה חוֹבָה, דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת, דּוֹחָה טוּמְאָה.
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].
וְאֵין דָּנִין תבש״ט מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ תבש״ט.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין יגי״ל מיגי״ל – יָחִיד, בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, יַיִן, לְבוֹנָה.
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].
וְאֵין דָּנִין יגי״ל, מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ יגי״ל.
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.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״ – הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין, מָה מִנְחַת תְּמִידִין שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף זוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: רִיבָּה כָּאן שֶׁמֶן, וְרִיבָּה בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁמֶן, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: רִיבָּה כָּאן שֶׁמֶן, וְרִיבָּה בְּמִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים שֶׁמֶן, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן?
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה: דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, וְאֵין דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים.
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.
הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה ״שֶׁמֶן״.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאן תְּנָא בַּשֶּׁמֶן לְהוֹסִיף? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קָאָמַר. וּבְדִינָא מַאן קָא מַהְדַּר? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
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.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא.
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.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ – לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לִקְבּוֹעַ שֶׁמֶן – לָא צְרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – כְּמִנְחַת מַחֲבַת דָּמְיָא.
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.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
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.
הֲדַר אָמַר: תִּיהְוֵי נָמֵי לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, תֵּיתֵי מִדִּינָא, וְדָן דִּינָא וְלָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאַצְרְכַהּ קְרָא ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״, כְּדִמְסַיֵּים רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִילְּתֵיהּ.
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.
רַבָּה אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קָאָמַר].
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.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן לָא צְרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ כְּמַחֲבַת דָּמְיָא, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָמֵר ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין.
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.
וְדָן דִּינָא, לָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאַצְרְכַהּ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״, הֲדַר אָמַר: תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים.
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.
הֲדַר אָמַר: דָּנִין
Rabbi Shimon then said: We should derive the halakha
מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן וְכוּ׳.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִשֶּׁל מִי הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ״.
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).
יָכוֹל יַקְרִיבֶנָּה חֲצָאִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתָהּ״ – כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא חֶצְיָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ – מִשֶּׁל עוֹלָם, ״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ בְּהַקְטָרָה.
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.
וְהַאי ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?
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?
הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ״, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַקְרִיבִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״, אַהֲרֹן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבָנָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. ״בָּנָיו״ – אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
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.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״ – הֲרֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״בָּנָיו״? אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
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.
אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו בָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״, מַאי ״מִבָּנָיו״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
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.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״אֹתָהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וְלֹא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן.
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.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִן ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ״? וָי״ו לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? חוּקָּה לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא.
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.
״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶלְיוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל) בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, וְתַחְתּוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט) בְּ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״.
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).
מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּלִיל״ ״כָּלִיל״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״כָּלִיל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כָּלִיל״,
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).
מָה כָּאן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, אַף לְהַלָּן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״. וּמָה לְהַלָּן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ, אַף כָּאן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ.
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.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?
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?
וְהָתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. גּוֹי שֶׁשָּׁלַח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, שָׁלַח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים – (קְרֵיבָה) [קְרֵיבִין] מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת, וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים – יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: (שְׁנֵי) [שְׁתֵּי] תַּקָּנוֹת הֲווֹ.
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.
דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִדְּצִיבּוּר, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מִידַּחְקָא לִישְׁכָּה – תַּקִּינוּ דְּלִגְבֵּי מִיּוֹרְשִׁים, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָשְׁעִי בַּהּ – אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
וְעַל פָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת הִיא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בַּהּ – ״הִיא״, בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין,
§ 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,
Follow
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.
A Daf Of Their Own – What is the Definition of Stoning?
01.26.2025 | כ״ו בטבת תשפ״ה
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me.
After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
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.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
Menachot 51
הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין.
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.
רָבָא אָמַר: ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה כְּלִי, וְאִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִיפְּסִילָא לַיהּ בְּלִינָה. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנָה כְּלִי.
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.
״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה.
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.
הֲרֵינִי דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים ״שֶׁמֶן״ – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה ״שֶׁמֶן״, מָה לְהַלָּן לוֹג אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן לוֹג אֶחָד.
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין תבש״ט מתבש״ט: תָּדִיר, בָּאָה חוֹבָה, דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת, דּוֹחָה טוּמְאָה.
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].
וְאֵין דָּנִין תבש״ט מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ תבש״ט.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין יגי״ל מיגי״ל – יָחִיד, בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, יַיִן, לְבוֹנָה.
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].
וְאֵין דָּנִין יגי״ל, מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ יגי״ל.
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.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״ – הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין, מָה מִנְחַת תְּמִידִין שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף זוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: רִיבָּה כָּאן שֶׁמֶן, וְרִיבָּה בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁמֶן, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: רִיבָּה כָּאן שֶׁמֶן, וְרִיבָּה בְּמִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים שֶׁמֶן, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן?
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה: דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, וְאֵין דָּנִין מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, מִמִּנְחָה הַבָּאָה שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים.
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.
הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׁמֶן״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה ״שֶׁמֶן״.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאן תְּנָא בַּשֶּׁמֶן לְהוֹסִיף? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קָאָמַר. וּבְדִינָא מַאן קָא מַהְדַּר? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
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.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא.
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.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ – לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לִקְבּוֹעַ שֶׁמֶן – לָא צְרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ – כְּמִנְחַת מַחֲבַת דָּמְיָא.
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.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
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.
הֲדַר אָמַר: תִּיהְוֵי נָמֵי לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, תֵּיתֵי מִדִּינָא, וְדָן דִּינָא וְלָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאַצְרְכַהּ קְרָא ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״, כְּדִמְסַיֵּים רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִילְּתֵיהּ.
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.
רַבָּה אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [וְאִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר קָאָמַר].
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.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ שֶׁמֶן לָא צְרִיךְ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״עַל מַחֲבַת״ כְּמַחֲבַת דָּמְיָא, וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָמֵר ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״ יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין.
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.
וְדָן דִּינָא, לָא אָתְיָא לֵיהּ, וְאַצְרְכַהּ ״בְּשֶׁמֶן״, הֲדַר אָמַר: תֶּיהְוֵי כְּמִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים.
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.
הֲדַר אָמַר: דָּנִין
Rabbi Shimon then said: We should derive the halakha
מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן וְכוּ׳.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִשֶּׁל מִי הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ״.
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).
יָכוֹל יַקְרִיבֶנָּה חֲצָאִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתָהּ״ – כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא חֶצְיָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ – מִשֶּׁל עוֹלָם, ״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ בְּהַקְטָרָה.
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.
וְהַאי ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?
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?
הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ״, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַקְרִיבִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״, אַהֲרֹן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבָנָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. ״בָּנָיו״ – אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
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.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״ – הֲרֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״בָּנָיו״? אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
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.
אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו בָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״, מַאי ״מִבָּנָיו״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
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.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״אֹתָהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וְלֹא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן.
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.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִן ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ״? וָי״ו לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? חוּקָּה לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא.
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.
״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶלְיוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל) בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, וְתַחְתּוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט) בְּ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״.
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).
מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּלִיל״ ״כָּלִיל״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״כָּלִיל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כָּלִיל״,
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).
מָה כָּאן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, אַף לְהַלָּן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״. וּמָה לְהַלָּן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ, אַף כָּאן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ.
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.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?
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?
וְהָתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. גּוֹי שֶׁשָּׁלַח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, שָׁלַח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים – (קְרֵיבָה) [קְרֵיבִין] מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת, וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים – יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: (שְׁנֵי) [שְׁתֵּי] תַּקָּנוֹת הֲווֹ.
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.
דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִדְּצִיבּוּר, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מִידַּחְקָא לִישְׁכָּה – תַּקִּינוּ דְּלִגְבֵּי מִיּוֹרְשִׁים, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָשְׁעִי בַּהּ – אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
וְעַל פָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת הִיא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בַּהּ – ״הִיא״, בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין,
§ 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,
Follow
