Menachot 100a (ק.) — the Talmud in English

And lest you say: Just as its mouth

of Gehenna

is narrow, so all of it is narrow—

The verse states [Isaiah 30:33]: “For it has been prepared from yesterday [Monday, the second day of Creation, which has a yesterday but no day before yesterday], the Tophet [Gehenna, for whoever is enticed by his inclination falls there]; it too has been prepared for the king,

deep, broad

[once Gehenna has been made deep, it becomes broad, for only its mouth is narrow], its pyre is fire and abundant wood; the breath of the Lord burns in it like a stream of sulfur.”

And lest you say: For the king—

a Torah scholar, who has separated himself from Torah—

it was not prepared

Gehenna—

The verse states

there, in Isaiah: “

It too”—

Gehenna—

has been prepared for the king.

And lest you say: It has no wood

in Gehenna—

The verse states

there, in Isaiah: “

Its pyre is fire and abundant wood.”

And lest you say: This is its reward

for Torah—that it saves one from Gehenna, as Elihu said to Job, but it has no other reward—

The verse states

at the end of Elihu’s words there: “

And your table shall be full of fatness,”

whatever is placed upon your table will be full of fat and richness [as in: “You anoint my head with oil”; the meaning is: You will also delight in spiritual pleasure in the World-to-Come; [Metzudot].

We learned in the Mishna:

If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat...

If it occurs on Friday, the goat of Yom Kippur is eaten that evening, and the Babylonians eat it raw, because their minds are broad [i.e., they are not repelled by it]:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

They are not Babylonians

those gluttons,

but Alexandrians

[from Alexandria in Egypt].

And because they hate

the Sages of Eretz Yisrael

the Babylonians, they call

them

those—

as well as all lightheaded people and those who act improperly—

after

the

Babylonians.

It was also taught likewise

in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement:

Rabbi Yosei says: They are not Babylonians, but Alexandrians; and because they hate the Babylonians, they call them by the name of Babylonians.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him—

whose family was from Babylonia—to Rabbi Yosei:

May your mind be at ease, for you have set at rest

my

mind!

The Mishna and the sugya before us are explained according to Rashi’s method, and in accordance with the version of the Shita Mekubetzet in his words.

Mishna:

If one arranged the bread

at its proper time

on Shabbat

and the bread was consecrated on the Table,

and

if

the bowls of frankincense

he arranged on the Table

after Shabbat

contrary to their prescribed procedure—

And he burned the bowls of frankincense on the following Shabbat

that is, although he burned the bowls of frankincense on the following Shabbat, like the other bowls that are burned on the second Shabbat:

The bread is

disqualified,

for the bowls were not on the Table from one Shabbat to the next, as required, and they are not fit to permit the bread to be eaten—

And included in this disqualification is that he cannot leave this bread until the following Shabbat, where it would remain until the Shabbat after that. Since the bread was arranged on the Table at its proper time, it was consecrated on the Table, and he may no longer keep it beyond the following Shabbat, for after that it becomes disqualified by linah when the night passes.

And one is not liable for it—

for this bread, whose bowls were arranged contrary to their prescribed procedure—

for:

a.

Piggul:

If he burned the bowls—which permit the bread to be eaten—with the intention of eating the bread after its proper time, it is not piggul, because anything whose permitting element was not offered according to its prescribed procedure is not subject to the prohibition of piggul.

b. Nor

notar:

If he ate the bread after the conclusion of the following Shabbat, he is not liable for it, because the prohibition of notar applies only to something that was fit to be eaten and remained uneaten, whereas this bread was never fit to be eaten, since the bowls did not permit it.

c.

And

not for

impurity:

If he ate the bread while his body was impure, he is not liable to karet, as one who eats other sacred offerings is, because one is liable for impurity only with regard to what is permitted to the pure; but this bread was not permitted even to those who were pure.

And if

he arranged the bread and the bowls on Shabbat

the first Shabbat, in accordance with their prescribed procedure,

but

nevertheless

he burned the bowls after Shabbat

the second Shabbat, contrary to their prescribed procedure—

The bread is

disqualified

from being eaten, since the permitting element was not offered according to its prescribed procedure; and it is disqualified from being left until the following Shabbat, since it was consecrated on the Table at its proper time and became disqualified by linah.

And one is not liable for it for piggul, notar, or impurity,

for the same reasons explained above, when the permitting element was offered contrary to its prescribed procedure because of a deficiency of time.

And if

he arranged the bread and the bowls after Shabbat

the first Shabbat, contrary to their prescribed procedure,

and he burned the bowls on Shabbat

the second Shabbat, the bread is disqualified from being eaten, since neither it nor its permitting elements were on the Table as prescribed; and one is likewise not liable for it for piggul, notar, or impurity. However, with regard to the bread’s disqualification for the following Shabbat, this case differs from the other cases;

and what shall he do?

He shall leave it until the following Shabbat,

for it will not become disqualified by linah, because

even if it is on the Table for many days

before Shabbat,

it makes no difference. That is, even if the bread was on the Table before Shabbat, for several days, this does not disqualify it by linah, since the Table consecrates bread only when it is arranged upon it at its proper time, on Shabbat; it then becomes disqualified by linah after the conclusion of the second Shabbat.

Gemara:

We learned there

in tractate Yoma, in the account of the deeds of the High Priest on the night of Yom Kippur and his service on Yom Kippur:

When the time came for the day to brighten and for the service to begin,

the appointed official

over the lotteries [through which they determined who would slaughter and who would sprinkle] said to them:

Go out and see

on the wall or roof

whether

the day has brightened and

the time for slaughtering

the daily offering has arrived! They went out and saw, and

if it had arrived

the time—that is, if the day had brightened—then

the one who saw it would say: “

The dawn has broken [a term referring to a window, as in: ‘His lightning illumined the world’; that is, the day has brightened!]”

Mattithiah ben Shmuel,

who himself was the appointed official over the lotteries, would say

thus

[asking] the one standing on the roof:

Has

the entire eastern horizon as far as Hebron brightened

the place where the Patriarchs are buried [and in order to recall their merit]?

And he,

the one who saw,

would say: Yes.

And why did they need this—

to send messengers to verify that the day had indeed brightened? Because

once the moonlight rose, and they mistook it,

thinking that they had confused moonlight with dawn—

for the east had brightened,

and

they slaughtered the daily offering,

relying on this—

and

when their error became known,

they took it

the daily offering

to the place of burning,

for it had become disqualified because it was slaughtered at night.

And when the east had brightened,

they brought the High Priest down

to the immersion chamber; this was the rule in the Temple:

Anyone who relieves himself

[i.e., has a bowel movement] is

required to immerse.

And anyone who urinates

between his legs is

required to perform the sanctification of his hands and feet.

It was taught

with regard to that Mishna in Yoma by

the father of Rabbi

Avin:

Not only

the daily offering slaughtered at night

alone

is taken to the place of burning,

but even:

A bird burnt offering that was pinched at night,

although its proper time is during the day—

And a meal offering whose handful was removed at night,

whose proper time is likewise during the day,

must be taken to the place of burning.

And we raise an objection to this:

Granted, with regard to a bird burnt offering

that was pinched at night, it is indeed understandable that it should be burned,

because it is impossible to return it

[there is no way to return it and pinch it again during the day].

But a meal offering

whose handful was removed at night—why should it be burned? After all:

It is possible to return the handful to its place and remove it during the day

[one can return the handful to its place and remove it again during the day]!?

The Gemara says concerning this objection:

He,

the father of Rabbi Avin,

taught it

this beraita,

and

he

also stated concerning it:

Temple vessels consecrate

even

when it is not their proper time, that is, he placed the handful in a vessel, as required after removing it, and the vessel consecrated the handful to be called a handful, even though the consecration by the vessel was not at its proper time. Once it had been consecrated as a handful, it could no longer be returned and removed a second time, since it became disqualified as meḥusar zeman, something offered before its proper time.

The challenge is raised

against the principle that Temple vessels consecrate before their proper time, from what was taught:

Anything whose offering is during the day,

meaning that it is prescribed to be offered during the day, is

consecrated

through a Temple vessel

during the day

alone.

Anything whose offering is at night: it is

consecrated both during the day and at night.

It is therefore proven from what we learned: “

Anything whose offering is during the day is consecrated during the day,”

that

during the day it is

indeed consecrated, but

at night it is not

consecrated. How, then, can you say that the handful—which is offered during the day—is consecrated by a Temple vessel even at night!?

And we answer: Indeed, it

is not consecrated—

when placed in a Temple vessel before its proper time—

for offering, but it is consecrated

even at night in order

to become disqualified

by linah or as something offered before its proper time, as in the case under discussion.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

from our Mishna:

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after

the

Shabbat and burned the bowls on Shabbat, what shall he do? He shall leave it until the following Shabbat,

for it did not become disqualified by linah,

because even if it is on the Table for many days

before Shabbat,

it makes no difference,

since it was not arranged at its proper time.

And if it could enter your mind that Temple vessels consecrate

even

before their proper time

so as to become disqualified, then

let it be consecrated

by virtue of its being on the Table even before its proper time,

and let it become disqualified

by linah!?

In other words, the reason that the bread does not become consecrated so as to be disqualified by linah while it is on the Table before Shabbat is that this is before its proper time; and our Mishna establishes that Temple vessels do not consecrate before their proper time even for the purpose of disqualification by linah!?

Rava said:

Indeed,

the one who raised the objection raised a proper objection [the one who raised the objection from our Mishna raised a proper objection], however, behold,

the one who objected from our Mishna—the foundational compilation of early rabbinic teachings—objected correctly]. However, behold,

the father of Rabbi Avin as well

did not say this on his own initiative, such that his words were rejected on the basis of our Mishna; rather,

he cites a beraita [he was reciting a beraita that stated his position]. If so, we must make an effort to reconcile the statement of the beraita so that it does not contradict our Mishna. And this is what we should say:

he was teaching a baraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, that stated his view]. If so, we must make an effort to reconcile the words of the baraita so that they do not contradict our Mishna. This is what we must say:

He holds—

the tanna of the beraita—

that night does not constitute a lack of the proper time, but days do constitute a lack of the proper time;

that is to say, indeed, the vessels of service sanctify only at their proper time. However, the beraita is dealing with a meal-offering whose kometz was taken at night, and whose time would arrive on the following day. The fact that its time had not yet arrived because it was night is not considered a lack of the proper time. This is unlike our Mishna, where days were still lacking before its proper time arrived; in that case it is not sanctified, even with regard to becoming invalid.