Menachot 50aמנחות נ׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
50aנ׳ א

מ"מ שבעה הוו אלא תנא בעלמא קאי ומאי כדי לשבת וב' ימים טובים של ר"ה סימנא בעלמא

The Gemara asks: In any case, the question stands: Why does the mishna say six lambs when, in fact the number required is seven? The Gemara answers: Rather, the tanna is speaking generally, referring to how many inspected lambs are required throughout the year. And what did he mean by his statement: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana? It is merely intended as a mnemonic, to help one remember that there must be enough lambs for the daily offering of three days.

דיקא נמי דקתני כדי לשבת ולא קתני לשבת ולב' ימים טובים של ר"ה ש"מ:

According to this the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, and it does not teach that there must be six lambs for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, which would have indicated that these lambs are meant to actually be sacrificed on those days. The Gemara concludes that in fact one can learn from the language of the mishna that this is the correct interpretation.

לא הקריבו כבש בבוקר וכו' אמר ר"ש וכולה היתה קריבה בין הערבים שאין מחנכין את מזבח הזהב אלא בקטרת הסמים: חינוך מאן דכר שמיה

§ The mishna teaches: If the priests did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, nevertheless, they should sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. If they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon, as the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about the initiation of the Temple vessels, i.e., what is its relevance to the mishna?

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני לא הקריבו כבש בבקר לא יקריבו בין הערבים במה דברים אמורים שלא נתחנך המזבח אבל נתחנך המזבח יקריבו בין הערבים

The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If they did not sacrifice a lamb for the daily offering in the morning, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon. In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the daily offering of the morning. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then they should sacrifice the lamb of the daily offering in the afternoon even though they did not sacrifice the lamb of the morning offering.

אר"ש אימתי בזמן שהיו אנוסין או שוגגין אבל אם היו מזידין לא הקריבו כבש בבקר לא יקריבו בין הערבים לא הקטירו קטרת בבקר יקטירו בין הערבים

Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.

מנא הני מילי דת"ר (שמות כט, לט) ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערבים שני בין הערבים ולא ראשון בין הערבים

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that if the lamb of the daily offering of the morning was not sacrificed and the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, then the lamb of the afternoon is also not sacrificed? The Gemara explains that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning; and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Exodus 29:39). This verse teaches that the second lamb of the daily offering is sacrificed in the afternoon, but if it is the first one to be sacrificed, it may not be sacrificed in the afternoon.

במד"א שלא נתחנך המזבח אבל נתחנך המזבח אפילו ראשון בין הערבים

In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, since it must first be initiated with the offering of the morning. When the verse refers to the first or second offering, it means the first or second offering ever sacrificed on the altar. But if the service of the altar had already been initiated, then even if it is the first to be sacrificed that day, it should be sacrificed in the afternoon.

אמר ר"ש אימתי בזמן שהיו אנוסין או שוגגין אבל אם היו מזידין לא הקריבו כבש בבקר לא יקריבו בין הערבים לא הקטירו קטרת בבוקר יקטירו בין הערבים

Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. By contrast, if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon regardless of the circumstances.

וכי כהנים חטאו מזבח בטל אמר רבא ה"ק לא יקריבו הן אבל אחרים יקריבו

The Gemara asks: Does it make sense that because the priests sinned by intentionally failing to sacrifice the morning daily offering, the altar should be entirely idle? Rava said that this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: They, the priests who deliberately failed to sacrifice the morning daily offering, should not sacrifice the afternoon daily offering; but other priests should sacrifice it.

לא הקטירו קטרת בבקר יקטירו בין הערבים דכיון דלא שכיחא ומעתרא חביבא להו ולא פשעי:

By contrast, if the priests acted intentionally and did not burn the incense in the morning, even those same priests may burn it in the afternoon. The reason for this is that since burning the incense is uncommon and causes those who do so to become wealthy, it is dear to the priests, and they will not be negligent in the performance of this rite.

אמר ר"ש וכולה היתה קריבה בין הערבים שאין מחנכין את מזבח הזהב אלא בקטרת הסמים של בין הערבים וכו': והתניא בקטרת הסמים של שחר תנאי היא

§The mishna teaches that if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon. The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is that the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices of the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning? The Gemara answers: The question of whether the incense of the morning or the afternoon initiates the service of a new golden altar is a dispute between tanna’im.

אמר אביי מסתברא כמ"ד בקטרת הסמים של בין הערבים דכתיב (שמות ל, ז) בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות יקטירנה

Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha should be in accordance with the one who says that it was initiated with the incense of the spices of the afternoon, as it is written with regard to the golden altar: “And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresses the lamps, he shall burn it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:7–8).

אי לאו דעבד הדלקה מאורתא הטבה בצפרא מהיכא

The fact that ashes are removed from the lamps of the Candelabrum in the morning indicates that the lamps had been lit previously, since if the priest had not performed the lighting of the lamps the previous evening, from where would the ashes be removed in the morning? This proves that the Candelabrum must have been lit for the first time in the evening. Since the verse states: “When Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord,” it must be that the incense was burned for the first time in the evening.

ולמ"ד בקטרת הסמים של שחר גמר ממזבח העולה מה להלן בתמיד של שחר אף כאן בקטרת הסמים של שחר:

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the service of a new golden altar is initiated with the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning, from where is this halakha derived? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the initiation of the altar of the burnt offering. Just as there, the service of a new altar of the burnt offering is initiated by means of the daily offering of the morning rather than the afternoon, so too here, the service of a new golden altar is initiated by means of the burning of the incense of the spices of the morning.

ולא את השלחן אלא בלחם הפנים בשבת: אלא בחול איחנוכי הוא דלא מחנך הא קדושי מיקדיש

§The mishna teaches: And use of a new Table was initiated only with the arrangement of the shewbread on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But does the mishna mean to indicate that if the shewbread was placed on the Table on a weekday it is merely that the use of a new Table is not initiated, but the shewbread is sanctified? The halakha is that the shewbread is sanctified only when it is placed on the Table on Shabbat.

היא גופה קמ"ל דחינוך וקידוש דשלחן בשבת הוא כדקתני סיפא ולא את המנורה אלא בשבעה נרותיה בין הערבים:

The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches us this halakha itself, that the initiation of the use of a new Table and the sanctification of the shewbread when it is placed on the Table occur only on Shabbat. This is as the mishna teaches in the latter clause with regard to the initiation of the use of a new Candelabrum: And use of a new Candelabrum was initiated only with the kindling of its seven lamps in the afternoon.

ת"ר זהו קטרת שעלתה ליחיד על מזבח החיצון והוראת שעה היתה היכא אמר רב פפא בנשיאים

§The Gemara cites another halakha relating to the burning of incense. The Sages taught in a baraita: This is incense that was offered for an individual rather than the community on the external altar, and not on the golden altar as usual; and this was a provisional edict, permitted temporarily for that time only. The Gemara clarifies: To what case is the baraita referring? Rav Pappa said: It is referring to the incense brought by the tribal princes at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7).

אלא יחיד על מזבח החיצון הוא דלא הא על מזבח הפנימי מקריב ותו על מזבח החיצון יחיד הוא דלא הא ציבור מקרבו

The Gemara asks: But with regard to the incense of an individual, is it only on the external altar that it is not generally permitted to be burned, but an individual may sacrifice incense on the inner altar, as indicated by the baraita? And furthermore, on the external altar, is it only an individual who may not sacrifice incense, but the community may sacrifice incense on the external altar?

והתניא יכול יהא יחיד מתנדב ומביא כיוצא בה נדבה וקורא אני בה (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמר ועשית ת"ל (שמות ל, ט) לא תעלו עליו קטרת זרה

But isn’t it taught in a baraita contrary to those two inferences: One might have thought that an individual may voluntarily donate and bring incense similar to the incense brought by the tribal princes to the Temple as a gift offering, and I will read with regard to this incense, as in the case of other gift offerings: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Therefore, the verse states concerning the inner altar: “You shall bring no strange incense thereon” (Exodus 30:9). This indicates that an individual may not sacrifice incense even on the inner altar.

יכול לא יהא יחיד מביא שאין מביא חובתו כיוצא בה

One might have thought that only an individual may not bring a gift of incense on the inner altar, as an individual does not bring his obligatory offering similar to this gift of incense, i.e., since an individual is never obligated to sacrifice incense, he may not voluntarily sacrifice incense either;