כי זכי להו רחמנא לישראל דאית להו לשכה לכהנים דלית להו לשכה לא זכי להו רחמנא קמ"ל when the Merciful One granted the Jewish people the right to use the salt when eating their offerings, he granted this to Israelites, who have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, as this fund supplies the salt that is applied to the offerings. With regard to the priests, who do not have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, the Merciful One did not grant them the right to make use of the salt. To counter this, the mishna in tractate Shekalim teaches us that the court granted to the priests the right to use the salt when eating their offerings.
ועצים דפשיטא ליה לתנא דמשל ציבור מנלן דתניא יכול האומר הרי עלי עולה יביא עצים מתוך ביתו כדרך שמביא נסכים מתוך ביתו ת"ל (ויקרא א, ח) על העצים אשר על האש אשר על המזבח מה מזבח משל ציבור אף עצים ואש משל ציבור דברי רבי אלעזר בר ר"ש The Gemara asks: And with regard to the wood, concerning which it is obvious to the tanna of the baraita that it is brought from communal supplies, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must bring wood from his home on which the burnt offering will be sacrificed, just as he brings libations from his home along with a burnt offering (see Numbers, chapter 15). Therefore, the verse states with regard to the burnt offering: “On the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:12); the Torah juxtaposes the wood to the altar, teaching that just as the altar was built from communal funds, so too, the wood and fire are brought from communal supplies. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.
רבי אלעזר בן שמוע אומר מה מזבח שלא נשתמש בו הדיוט אף עצים ואש שלא נשתמש בהן הדיוט מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו חדתי The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar was not used by an ordinary person, as it was built for the purpose of serving as an altar for God, so too, the wood and fire should not have been used previously by an ordinary person, so one does not bring the wood from his home. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between the two is whether there is a requirement that the wood be new, i.e., that it had never been used. According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, the wood is fit provided that it comes from communal supplies, even if it is not new wood, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua it must be new wood.
ועתיקי לא והכתיב (שמואל ב כד, כב) ויאמר ארונה אל דוד יקח ויעל אדוני המלך הטוב בעיניו ראה הבקר לעולה והמוריגים וכלי הבקר לעצים הכא נמי בחדתי The Gemara asks: And is it in fact the halakha that old, i.e., previously used, wood is not fit to be burned on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him; behold the oxen for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the equipment of the oxen for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22)? Despite the fact that the threshing instruments and equipment of the oxen have been used previously, apparently they are fit to be used when offering a burnt offering. The Gemara answers: Here too, the verse is speaking of new instruments and equipment that had not been previously used.
מאי מוריגים אמר עולא מטה של טרבל מאי מטה של טרבל אמר רב יהודה עיזא דקורקסא דדשו בה דשתאי אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה (ישעיהו מא, טו) הנה שמתיך למורג חרוץ חדש בעל פיפיות תדוש הרים: Tangentially, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term morigim mentioned in this verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. This was not a known expression in Babylonia, so the Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Rav Yehuda said: It is referring to a serrated [dekurkesa] board that the threshers use for threshing, which is dragged over the grain by an animal in order to separate the kernels from the stalks. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? It is the verse that states: “Behold, I have made you a new threshing sledge [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains” (Isaiah 41:15).
מתני׳ נתערב קומצה בקומץ חבירתה במנחת כהנים במנחת כהן משיח במנחת נסכים כשרה MISHNA: If a handful of one meal offering, which is to be burned on the altar, was intermingled with a handful of another meal offering, or with the meal offering of priests, or with the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, or with the meal offering of libations accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings, all of which are burned in their entirety on the altar, it is fit for sacrifice, and the mixture is burned on the altar.
רבי יהודה אומר במנחת כהן משיח במנחת נסכים פסולה שזו בלילתה עבה וזו בלילתה רכה והן בולעות זו מזו: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, one log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose, three log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.
גמ׳ תנן התם דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם כשר נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם בהמה או בדם חיה רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים רבי יהודה אומר אין דם מבטל דם GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zevaḥim 77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it is fit for presenting on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it were water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood, it is fit for presentation. Likewise, if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the blood as though it were water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar regardless of the ratio of sacred to non-sacred blood.
א"ר יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא טז, יח) ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר הדבר ידוע שדמו של פר מרובה מדמו של שעיר רבנן סברי Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both the the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda derived their opinions from one verse. With regard to the sacrificial rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, the Torah teaches that after sprinkling of the blood of the bull and of the goat separately between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain, the blood of the two animals is mixed together and presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The verse states: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 16:18). It is a known matter that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of a goat. Why then is the blood of the goat not nullified? Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The Rabbis, i.e, the first tanna, hold: