משנה בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר וּכְמִידָּתָהּ לְכָל־רוּחַ זְכָרִים עוֹלוֹת. נְקֵבוֹת זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָרָאוּי לִפְסָחִים לִפְסָחִים קוֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם׃ Halakha 3 · MISHNA If an animal that is fit for the altar was found straying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males are brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal that is fit for the Paschal offering, i.e., a one-year-old male lamb or kid, is presumed to be a Paschal offering, provided that it was found within thirty days before the Festival of Passover.
בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת מוֹצְאֶיהָ עַד שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא נְסָכֶיהָ. חָֽזְרוּ לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ וּבוֹרְחִין. הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ נְסָכֶיהָ בָּאִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר׃ Originally, the court would seize collateral from one who found such an animal, as security until he would bring with it the libations associated with this offering, as if the found animal were his own and he had committed himself to bring the libations. This brought about a situation in which those who found the animals began leaving them where they found them, and absconding, so as not to become liable for the libations. The court therefore instituted that the libations accompanying these offerings would come from public funds, that is, from the Temple treasury.
אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. גּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁילַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁילַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכֶיהָ קְרֵיבִין מִשֶׁלּוֹ וְאִם לָאו קְרֵיבִין משֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. 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: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad, outside Eretz Yisrael, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are offered 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 אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלוֹ וְאִם לָאו קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. And likewise, 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.
תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה׃ And another ordinance: It is a condition of the court with regard to a High Priest who died, and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, that his meal-offering, i.e., the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest would bring each day from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, would be sacrificed from public funds. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was brought from the property of the High Priest’s heirs, i.e., his estate, and not from public funds. In any event, the offering was not brought as it would have been brought by the High Priest himself were he still alive, half in the morning and half in the evening, but rather it was sacrificed all at once, from a whole one-tenth of an ephah.
עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נֵיאוֹתִין בָּהֶן The fourth ordinance was about the salt in the Temple that was designated for salting the offerings, and the fifth was about the wood that was used for the burning of the offerings. These ordinances decreed that the priests may use them also to prepare the meat of the offerings that they eat.
וְעַל הַפָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ. And the sixth ordinance concerned the red heifer: that deriving benefit from its ashes is not considered misusing consecrated property.
עַל הַקִּינִּין הַפְּסוּלוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ בָאוֹת מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר הַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּינִּין הוא מְסַפֵּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת׃ And the seventh ordinance was about disqualified pairs of bird-offerings: It ruled that their replacements should come from public funds. Rabbi Yosei disagreed and says: The expense does not fall upon the public, but rather upon whoever supplies all the pairs of bird-offerings to the Temple; he must also supply, at no additional charge, the replacements for the disqualified birds.
הלכה רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּא אָמַר. רבא בִּדְמֵיהֶן שָׁנוּ. GEMARA: The mishna taught that if a male animal was found near Jerusalem, it is presumed to have been consecrated as a burnt-offering. Given that a male animal could just as easily be a peace-offering, and as such, most of its meat is meant to be eaten and it is prohibited to burn it on the altar, how can the found animal be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? In answer to this question, Rabbi Hoshaya Rabba said: They taught the halakha that it is presumed to be a burnt-offering only with regard to one who comes with its money, i.e., the money with which the animal was redeemed. One who finds such an animal near Jerusalem may not bring it as a burnt-offering, as it might be a peace-offering. He must redeem the animal for its monetary value, and in addition he must consecrate the same sum again, from his own money. He then stipulates the following: If the animal is a burnt-offering, let it be redeemed on the first sum, and let the second sum be used for a free-will peace-offering. If this animal is a peace-offering, let it be redeemed on the second sum, and let the first sum be used for a free-will burnt-offering. He then purchases a burnt-offering with the first sum and a peace-offering with the second sum.
אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְאָדָם. צֵא וּמְעוֹל בַקֳּדָשִׁים. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Does one say to a person that he should go out and misuse consecrated animals? If one redeems a consecrated animal that is still fit for the altar, the redemption is valid; the animal is no longer consecrated and the money is now sacred in its place and must be used to buy other offerings. This redemption, however, is valid only after the fact; it is considered misuse to redeem an unblemished animal and prohibited to do so ab initio.
אֶלָּא הִילְּכוּ בָהֶן אַחַר הָרוֹב. אִם רוֹב זְכָרִים. עוֹלוֹת. אִם רוֹב נְקֵיבוֹת. זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. Rather, the mishna must be understood differently. In their regard, follow the majority. If the majority of the animals found are males, they are determined to be burnt-offerings, for most male animals brought as offerings are burnt-offerings. And if the majority of the animals found are females, they are determined to be peace-offerings, for most female animals brought as offerings are peace-offerings.
וְאֵין הַשְּׁלָמִים בָּאִין מִן הַזְּכָרִים וּמִן הַנְּקֵיבוֹת. The Gemara asks: But are peace-offerings not brought both from males and from females? Therefore, it is possible that the male animals that were found are not burnt-offerings, but rather peace-offerings.
כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. מוֹצִיאָן לַחוּלִין וְחוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתַן [דף כ:] עוֹלוֹת. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words must be understood as follows: If one finds animals near Jerusalem, even though they are presumed to be offerings, he cannot sacrifice the animals themselves on the altar. What then does he do? He must wait until the animals develop blemishes and only then redeem them, and thereby remove their consecrated status and restore them to their non-sacred state. He then goes back and ensures that he makes them [20b] burnt-offerings. He does this by taking two unblemished animals and stipulating as follows: If the animal that was found was a burnt-offering, let the first animal be a burnt-offering in its place, and let the second be a peace-offering. And if the animal that was found was a peace-offering, let the second animal be peace-offering, and let the first be a free-will burnt-offering.
אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא עַל הַמּוֹתָרוֹת שֶׁיִּקָּֽרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. כֵּן אַתְּ אָמַר אוֹף הָכָא. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא עַל הָאוֹבְדוֹת שֶׁיִּקָּֽרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. Rabbi Zeira offers a different explanation of the halakha in the mishna: Male animals found near Jerusalem are sacrificed as burnt-offerings, even though they may have been designated as peace-offerings. He says: Just as you say there (19a) in the name of Reish Lakish that it is a condition of the court that stipulates with regard to funds left over from what had originally been consecrated for sin-offerings that they are brought as burnt-offerings; so too, you say here that it is a condition of the court with regard to animals that were lost and later found, that even though they may be peace-offerings, they are brought as burnt-offerings.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. אֵין זֶה מֵזִיד. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa: Is this not a case of intentional change of an offering’s purpose? A condition of the court can allocate leftover money that had originally been consecrated for sin-offerings to the purchase of a burnt-offering, but that does not mean that one can intentionally change the sanctity of the animal itself from that of a peace-offering to that of a burnt-offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין אֵין זֶה מֵזִיד. Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa said to Rabbi Yosei: Since it is a condition of the court, it is not considered a case of intentional change of an animal’s purpose. Even if the animal had initially been consecrated as a peace-offering, that consecration is regarded as conditional in accordance with the court’s stipulation. Consequently, the animal can now be sacrificed as a burnt-offering ab initio.
אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן שְׁמָעִית קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ [וָמֵת]. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. § Since the mishna mentioned the griddle-cake offering of a High Priest who had died, the Gemara records what Rabbi Yesa said about similar matters: While I was there in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rav Yehuda asking Shmuel: If one set aside his shekel and then died before handing it over to the treasurer, what is to be done with the shekel? Shmuel said to him: It is allocated to free-will offerings and is used for the purchase of free-will burnt-offerings.
מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה It was further asked: What is to be done with leftover money that a High Priest set aside for the purchase of his griddle-cake offering made from one-tenth of an ephah of flour? If a High Priest designated money for the purchase of flour for his meal-offering and it turns out that he set aside too much money, what is to be done with the extra money? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The money goes to the Dead Sea, meaning, it is destroyed. Rabbi Elazar disagreed and said: The money is allocated to free-will offerings.
עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. [רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר.] חוֹצֶה אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַרְכָּךְ מְקַדְּשָׁהּ. רִבִּי שִֽׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מְקַדְּשָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹצֶה אוֹתָהּ. The Gemara continues its discussion of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. The mishna in Menaḥot 4:5 teaches that it was divided in two; half of it was sacrificed in the morning and half in the evening. The Gemara records a dispute among the amora’im: With regard to the High Priest’s one-tenth of an ephah, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He divides it into two equal portions in two non-sacred vessels, and afterward he consecrates each half by itself before it is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He must first consecrate the entire one-tenth of an ephah, and only afterward does he divide it into two equal portions.
מַתְנִיתא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַקְרִיב מֶחֱצָה וּמֶחֱצָה אָבֵד. The Gemara comments: A mishna seems to disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as the mishna (Menaḥot 4:5) teaches that if the High Priest sacrificed half of his griddle-cake offering in the morning and then died, and another High Priest was appointed in his place, the successor does not bring the second half that evening. Instead he consecrates a whole one-tenth of an ephah and divides it into two equal portions. He then sacrifices one half, and the second half is destroyed. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the High Priest consecrates each half by itself, why must the second half be destroyed? It had never been consecrated for the altar, and so it can still be redeemed.
פָּתַר לָהּ. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ מָעוֹת יֵלְכוּ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. Rabbi Yoḥanan solves it, i.e., resolves the difficulty: The mishna maintains that even though the second half is consecrated only for its value and not for the altar, it still must be destroyed. As even what is left over from the money that a High Priest set aside for the purchase of his griddle-cake offering goes to the Dead Sea, although it had never been consecrated for the altar.
מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִֽׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָיִין קְרֵיבִין וּשְׁנֵי חֲצָיִין אֲבֵידִין. The Gemara notes that the same mishna also seems to disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The mishna teaches that in the aforementioned case where the High Priest dies before sacrificing the second half of his griddle-cake offering and is succeeded on the same day, it turns out that two halves of the griddle-cake offering are sacrificed, i.e., the first half from the deceased High Priest and the first half from his successor, and two halves are destroyed, i.e., the second half of each offering.
וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ. מֶחֱצָה זֶה רִאשׁוֹן מֶחֱצָה שֵׁינִי תוּעֲבַר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפַה. And it was taught about this mishna in a baraita: The half of the first High Priest and the half of the second High Priest that are destroyed, i.e., that which is left over once each of them has sacrificed half of one-tenth of an ephah, their form must first be allowed to decay, i.e., they must be left overnight until they are disqualified, and only then are they taken out to the place of burning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that the High Priest consecrates for the altar the entire one-tenth of an ephah before dividing it, there is no reason to wait for the form to decay. The principle is that if anything becomes intrinsically disqualified such that it cannot be sacrificed, it is burned immediately (Pesaḥim 34b). Therefore, it should be possible to immediately burn each disqualified, leftover half from each High Priest, and not wait for their forms to decay.
פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. עִשָּׁרוֹן מְקַדֵּשׁ. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish solves this difficulty by arguing that the mishna, and his own opinion, which is an interpretation of the mishna, does not accord with the baraita but rather with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael (Menaḥot 90a), who says that the one-tenth of an ephah measure is regarded as a sacred service vessel that consecrates its contents. The flour is therefore consecrated for the altar at the original measuring of the one-tenth of the ephah. Accordingly, the remaining half of each one-tenth of an ephah is destroyed immediately without decay of form. The baraita, on the other hand, does not consider the one-tenth of an ephah measure to be a sacred service vessel, and therefore the measure does not consecrate the flour. As long as the remaining halves have not been consecrated for the altar, they are consecrated only for their value and require decay of form before they are burned.
כְּשֶׁהַכֹּהֵן מִתְקָּרֵב תְּחִילָּה לָעֲבוֹדָה מֵבִיא עֲשִׁירִית שֶׁלּוֹ וְעוֹבְדָהּ בְיָדוֹ. אֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְאָחָד כֹּהֵן הֵדְיוֹט שֶׁעָֽבְדוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶם עֲבוֹדָתָם כְּשֵׁירָה. § As the topic of the griddle-cake offering brought each day by the High Priest has been raised, the Gemara elaborates on it and on the inaugural meal-offering brought by each and every priest the first time that he serves in the Temple. It was taught in a baraita: When a priest approaches the altar for the first time to perform the service, he brings his meal-offering from one-tenth of an ephah of flour and he performs the service himself, and in this way he inaugurates himself for service. Nevertheless, for both a High Priest and an ordinary priest who performed the sacrificial service before bringing their meal-offerings from one-tenth of an ephah of flour as their inaugural meal-offerings, their service is valid, as the absence of a priest’s inaugural meal-offerings does not invalidate his service.
רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי מֵימַר. בּוֹ בַיּוֹם נִתְקָרֵב כַּתְּחִילָּה לָעֲבוֹדָה. בּוֹ בַיּוֹם נִתְמַנֶּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. מֵבִיא שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת לְחִינּוּכוֹ וְאָחַת לְחוֹבַת הַיּוֹם. Rabbi Mana wanted to say the following halakha: If on the same day that a priest approached the altar to perform the service for the first time, on that same day he was also appointed to be the High Priest, he must bring two meal-offerings, each one-tenth of an ephah of flour; one for his inaugural meal-offering and one for the obligation of the day, i.e., for the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest must bring every day.
תּוּפִינֵי. בִּשְׁעַת הֲבָאָה תוּפִינֵי וְאֵין בַּשַּׁחֲרִית תּוּפִינֵי. The Gemara records another halakha with regard to the daily griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest. Concerning this offering, the verse states: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, you shall bring it in; and baked pieces of the meal-offering shall you offer for a sweet savor unto the Lord” (Leviticus 6:14). The juxtaposition of the words “you shall bring it in” to the words “and baked pieces” teaches that at the time that the meal-offering is brought, it is made into baked pieces, i.e., during that same day, and not before daybreak is it made into baked pieces.
וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הֶעֱמִידוּ עוֹשֵׂי חֲבִיתִּין לַעֲשׂוֹת חֲבִיתִּן׃ אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא. לַעֲשׂוֹת חַמִּין לְרַכְּכָם. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Tamid 1:3) that every day before the removal of the ashes from the altar, which was before daybreak, they assigned whoever made the griddle-cake offerings to make, i.e., bake, griddle-cakes? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Aḥa said: All that they assigned him to do was to heat water for the boiling of the dough as part of the preparation of the griddle-cakes for the day.
תּוּפִינֵי. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מְטַגְּנָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְטַגְּנָהּ. Having mentioned the baking of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, the Gemara addresses the various stages in the preparation of the offering. The verse implies that the offering must be fried, as it says: “On a griddle it shall be made with oil”; it also indicates that it must be scalded in water, as it says: “When it is soaked”; and it further teaches that it must be baked, as it says: “And baked pieces of the meal-offering shall you offer for a sweet savor unto the Lord.” As for the order of these procedures, Rabbi Yesa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: He first fries it, and afterward he bakes it. Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: He first bakes it, and only afterward does he fry it.
תּוּפִינֵי. תּוּאֲפִינָה נָא. רִבִּי אָמַר. תּוֹפְנָהּ רַכָּה. רִבִּי דוֹסָא אָמַר. תּוֹפְנָהּ נוֹיי. The Gemara notes that this dispute depends on another tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita that says with regard to the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering: “And baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal-offering” (Leviticus 6:14). This word is interpreted as it shall be baked when it is already half done [te’afena na], meaning that it is fried before it is baked. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning it must be baked when still beautiful [te’afena na’a], i.e., before it is fried. Rabbi Dosa says: It shall be baked in an amplified manner, i.e., more than once.
אַתְייָן אֵילֵּין פְּלֻגְווָתָה כְּהִינֵּין פְּלֻגְווָתָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. תּוֹפְנָהּ נוֹי. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מְטַגְּנָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפֶה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. תּוֹפְנָהּ רַכָּה. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְטַגְּנָהּ. The Gemara explains: These disputes follow, i.e., match, those disputes mentioned earlier. The one who says, i.e., understands tufinei to mean that it must be baked when still beautiful [te’afena na’a] is like the one who says that he first bakes it, and afterwards fries it. And the one who says tufinei should be interpreted as baked when half done [te’afena na] is like the one who says that he first fries it, and only afterward does he bake it.
לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁמֵּת אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ נִיטְמָא. The Gemara above cited the mishna in tractate Menaḥot that teaches that in the event of the death of the High Priest after having brought his morning griddle-cake offering, if another High Priest is appointed that same day, the successor brings one-tenth of an ephah of his own, divides it into two, and offers one half for the evening griddle-cake offering. The Gemara clarifies this matter: Is this not the end of it, that is to say, is the halakha not restricted to the case where the High Priest died? Rather, even if he became ritually impure after having brought the morning griddle-cake offering, another High Priest must bring a whole one-tenth of an ephah, divide it into two equal portions, and then sacrifice one half as the evening griddle-cake offering. And all the more so is this true, in accordance with this ruling, if the first High Priest was permanently disqualified because he became disfigured by a blemish.
וַאֲפִילוּ נִדְחֶה מִמּוּם. The Gemara suggests an alternative: The mishna’s ruling extends even to cases where the first High Priest is found unfit because of a permanent blemish. This scenario would require his successor to bring a new one-tenth of an ephah. However, in accordance with this ruling, temporary disqualification due to ritual impurity would not require the temporary High Priest to bring a separate meal-offering.
תַּנָּה רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי דְּבַר דָּלָיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ נִדְחֶה מִמּוּם. Rabbi Yehuda bar Pazzi of Bar Delaya taught: Even the first High Priest being found unfit because of a permanent blemish would require his successor to bring a new one-tenth of an ephah. However, if the first High Priest became ritually impure and only temporarily suspended from his position, the second High Priest may use the first High Priest’s leftover half-tenth of an ephah for the evening griddle-cake offering.
מְנַיִין לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינוּ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו תְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁלְיוֹרְשִׁין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִבָּנָ֖יו יַֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה. יָכוֹל יְבִיאֶנָּהּ לַחַצָּײִם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֹתָ֑הּ. כּוּלָּהּ אָמַרְתִּי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. The mishna records a dispute among tanna’im with regard to the case of a High Priest who died. The first opinion is that until a new High Priest has been appointed, the griddle-cake offering is brought from public funds. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, and argues that it should come from the property of the High Priest’s heirs. The Gemara recounts a baraita about this issue: From where is it derived that if the High Priest died and another High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, that his meal-offering should be brought from the property of the High Priest’s heirs? The verse states with regard to this offering: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall bring it” (Leviticus 6:15). That is to say, he sacrifices it from the property of the sons of the High Priest. I might have thought that the heirs should bring this meal-offering in halves, half in the morning and half in the evening, as it is ordinarily brought by the High Priest. Therefore, the verse states: “Shall bring it” (Leviticus 6:15); I said that he should bring all of it as a single offering, and not in halves. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ בָאָה אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁלְצִיבּוּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם. מִמִּי שֶׁהַבִּרְיוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. Rabbi Shimon says: It comes only from public funds collected in the Temple treasury, as it is stated: “It is a statute forever to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:15), to be brought from those with whom a covenant was made, i.e., from the community with whom God entered into a covenant.
כָּלִ֥יל תָּקְטָֽר. כָּלִיל לְהַקְטָרָה. The verse continues: “It shall be wholly burnt,” from which it may be derived that the griddle-cake offering is to be burnt in its entirety. In contrast to most meal-offerings, a handful of flour is not separated to be burned on the altar and no part of it is eaten by the priests, but rather the entire offering is burned on the altar.
רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. מִשֶּׁלְיוֹרְשִׁין. וְהָכָא הוּא אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁלְצִיבּוּר. Returning to the dispute with regard to a High Priest who died, etc., whether the griddle-cake offering is brought from the his estate or comes from public funds, Rabbi Ba bar Memel, in the context of a parallel discussion (Menaḥot 51b), raised a difficulty: It would seem that the attribution of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is reversed. There, that is, according to the mishna in Shekalim, he says that the original, Torah law was that the griddle-cake offering should be brought from the property of the late High Priest’s heirs. This is indicated by the fact that according to Rabbi Shimon, the griddle-cake offering is brought from public funds only by rabbinic ordinance as a condition of the court, implying that prior to the institution of the ordinance, the halakha was that it be brought from the late High Priest’s estate. Whereas here, that is, in the baraita above and in tractate Menaḥot, Rabbi Shimon says that by Torah law it comes from public funds, as according to his opinion it is derived from the wording of the Torah: “It is a statute forever.”
אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה [דף כא.] בַּר בָּא. וְלֹא יְאוּת הוּא מַקְשֵׁי. Rabbi Ḥiyya [21a] bar Ba said: Isn’t the difficulty raised by Rabbi Ba bar Memel legitimate?
אֲתַא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּבַר תוֹרָה הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא בָאָה מִן הַצִּיבּוּר. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. יִגְבּוּ לָהּ. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא בָאָה מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. The Gemara answers that when Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa came, he said that Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case where the High Priest has died and not yet been replaced, by Torah law, the griddle-cake offering comes from public funds, as is derived from the words: “It is a statute forever.” Rabbi Shimon did not mean to imply otherwise. As it is not a public offering but the High Priest’s personal one, I might have said that it should be collected from the heirs’ property. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the Torah law, the Sages instituted that it should come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. מָה. שְׁלֵימָה בְשַׁחֲרִית וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם. אוֹ מֶחֱצָה בְשַׁחֲרִית וּמֶחֱצָה בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם. [אוֹ שְׁלֵימָה בְשַׁחֲרִית וּבְטֵילָה בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם.] § The mishna taught that a griddle-cake offering that was brought in the interim between the tenures of two High Priests was not brought in halves, morning and evening. Instead, a whole one-tenth of an ephah was sacrificed. Rabbi Yosei said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma: What does this mean? Is a whole one-tenth of an ephah brought in the morning, and then a whole one-tenth of an ephah again in the evening? Or was a whole one-tenth of an ephah brought in the morning, and since they already brought one-tenth of an ephah that day, it was canceled in the evening?
כַּד תְּהֵא פְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. When that question was resolved for him, it gave rise to other questions. The original question was resolved by reference to the verse, as it is written: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). The word “perpetually” indicates that the griddle-cake offering is always brought both in the morning and in the evening.
שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִין מָה הֵן. שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִין בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּשְׁלשֶׁת לוּגִין בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. אוֹ לוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בְשַׁחֲרִית וְלוֹג וּמֶחֱצָה בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם. A further question: What is the halakha with regard to the three log of oil that the High Priest would bring every day together with his griddle-cake offering, half in the morning and half in the evening? Is the halakha with regard to the oil the same, i.e., that three log of oil were brought in the morning and three log of oil were brought again in the evening? Or was only a log and a half brought in the morning and another log and a half brought in the evening?
אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. אוֹף הָדָא צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין מָה הֵן. שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּשְׁנֵי קְמָצִין בֵּין הָעַרְבָיִם. אוֹ קוֹמֶץ אֶחָד בְּשַׁחֲרִית וְקוֹמֶץ אֶחָד בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan also wonders about this: What is the halakha with regard to the two handfuls of frankincense that were ordinarily brought every day together with the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, one with the morning offering and the other together with the evening offering? Is the halakha with regard to the frankincense the same as that of the griddle-cake offering, i.e., that two handfuls of frankincense were brought in the morning and two handfuls of frankincense were brought again in the evening? Or was only one handful brought in the morning and one handful brought in the evening?
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ לַקוֹמֶץ לֹא מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא. מַה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין. Rabbi Yosei said: Didn’t they learn (18b) that the amount of frankincense brought along with a meal-offering must be a handful by way of analogy to the handful of flour that must be taken from a sinner’s meal-offering? This being the case, the halakha in the issue under discussion should also be learned from the halakha governing meal-offerings in general. Just as there, when the quantity of flour is doubled two handfuls of frankincense are required, here too, since two-tenths of an ephah are brought, the measure of the frankincense must also be doubled, that is to say, two handfuls are required.
מַה תַמָּן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. אַף הָכָא צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. The Gemara rejects this proof: Whether the measure of frankincense is doubled when a meal-offering is doubled is not completely clear: Just as there, with regard to meal-offerings in general, he requires a resolution, i.e., he does not know the answer as to whether a double measure of frankincense is required when the quantity of flour is doubled, so too here, with regard to the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, he requires a resolution as to whether a double measure is required.
אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִין לֹא מִתָּמִיד שֶׁלְבֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. מַה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִין. אַף כָּאן שְׁלשֶׁת לוּגִין. Rabbi Ḥizkiya addresses the previous question about the three log of oil brought as part of the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering. He said: Didn’t they learn that three log of oil must be brought along with the griddle-cake offering from the daily evening offering, as this is the measure of oil that must be brought as part of this offering? Accordingly, just as there, in the case of the daily evening offering the measure of oil is three log per one-tenth of an ephah of flour, so too in the case where the griddle-cake offering is brought from a whole one-tenth of an ephah, it is accompanied by three log of oil both in the morning and in the evening.
[וּמַה] תַמָּן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. (וְהָכָא פְשִׁיטָא) [אַף כָּאן צְרִיכָה] לֵיהּ. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: And just as there, when the daily meal offering is doubled he requires a resolution with regard to the measure of oil, here too with regard to the High Priest’s griddle-cake offering, he requires a resolution as to whether only the original three log are brought, or whether three log are brought for each measure of one-tenth of an ephah of flour.
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. וְהֵן גָּֽזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. § The mishna taught that one who derives benefit from the ashes of a red heifer is not liable for misusing property consecrated to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: By Torah law one should be liable for misusing it, i.e., the ashes of a red heifer, as it is consecrated to the Temple, but the Sages decreed that one is not liable.
וְהָא תַנֵּי חַטָּאת. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. [בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין] וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּאֲפָרָהּ. This, however, is difficult, as it was taught otherwise in the following baraita: With regard to a red heifer, the verse states: “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 consecrated property with it, i.e., the animal itself. Only with it, the animal itself, is one liable for misusing consecrated property, but he is not liable for misusing consecrated property with its ashes. Therefore, it is clear from the baraita that by Torah law one is not liable for misusing the ashes of a red heifer.
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבָּהוּ. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּקְשְׁקִין בָּהּ וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ גַּבֵּי מַכּוֹתֵיהֶן וְגָֽזְרוּ שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְדְּרוּ גָּֽזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִמְעֲלוּ בָהּ. Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, there is no liability by Torah law for misusing the ashes of a red heifer. At first, however, the priests would treat the sanctity of the ashes lightly and would clean themselves [mishtakshekin] with them and even apply them to their wounds as medicine. And the Sages therefore decreed that one becomes liable for misusing consecrated property with them, the ashes. But when they saw that the priests restrained themselves and no longer used the ashes for anything except purification water, the Sages reverted to the Torah law and decreed that one does not become liable for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from a red heifer’s ashes.
הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת בַּמֶּה הִיא מִתְכַּפֶּרֶת. § The mishna taught, with regard to the replacements for disqualified pairs of bird-offerings, that they should come from public funds. Rabbi Yosei disagreed and said that whoever supplies all the pairs of bird-offerings to the Temple must also supply, at no extra charge, the replacements for the disqualified birds. Having mentioned the pairs of bird-offerings, the Gemara repeats the discussion from earlier in the chapter. The mishna there (19a) taught that if money was found between the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings and the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings, and is used exclusively for that purpose. The Gemara asks: If so, how does this woman, who had placed the money for her offering in the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, achieve atonement? A woman who gave birth or is a zava must bring a pair of bird-offerings, one as a burnt-offering and the other as a sin-offering, as part of her purification process. If that money has now been allocated to doves for burnt-offerings, she has not completed the process.
אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא הַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּינִּים מְסַפֵּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת וְאֵת הָאוֹבְדוֹת׃ Rabbi Yitzḥak said: It is a condition of the court that whoever supplies the Temple with the pairs of birds, he also supplies extra birds to replace those birds that are disqualified or lost. Therefore, in any event the woman will have brought both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering.
הדרן עלך פרק מעות שנמצאו