Menachot 21b — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: Salt that is upon the limb

of the sacrifice

is subject to misuse,

for if one benefited from it, he is liable for a sacrifice for misuse. But salt

that is upon the ramp, and at the top of the altar, [

in these two places the sacrifices are salted, and salt falls from them], if salt fell there from upon the limb being salted,

it is not subject to misuse,

for this salt, which has already been used for salting, is no longer fit for salting sacrifices. 64 .

Rav Mattana said:

From where is it established that salt upon the limb is subject to misuse?

The verse says: “And you shall bring them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall bring them up as an offering to the Lord.”

“And you shall bring them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall bring them up as an offering to the Lord.”

It follows that the limb together with the salt are both called an “offering,” and there is misuse with them [and the Chazon Ish explained that there is misuse with it by virtue of its being a sacrifice, and not by virtue of its being property consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple; for even if they fell, one is liable to burn them, and we do not say that there is no misuse because their mitzva has been performed].

We learned there:

The court made stipulations

concerning the salt and the wood

of consecrated property

that the priests should benefit

from them

!

Samuel said: They taught

that the priests benefit from the salt

only for their sacrifice, but not for eating.

It might have entered our minds: What is “for their sacrifice”? —

To salt their sacrifice,

for the priests are permitted to salt the burnt offerings and meal offerings that they bring. And what is

“for eating” —

for eating consecrated food,

for they are forbidden to salt with consecrated salt the flesh of the sacrifices given to the priests to eat, such as the breast and the thigh that come to them.

And we raised a difficulty:

Now, to salt the hides of consecrated animals

that the priests acquire

we give

them salt of consecrated property;

for eating consecrated food, shall we not give it to them?

As it was taught: You therefore find that there are three places

in the Temple

where the salt is placed —

in the chamber

of salt, upon the ramp, and at the top of the altar.

In the chamber of salt, where the hides of consecrated animals are salted

that are given to the priests. 66 .

Upon the ramp, where the limbs are salted

that ascend to the altar.

At the top of the altar, where the handful, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the libations offering, and the bird burnt offering are salted.

For all these things are dry, and so that they should not become soiled by the blood of the limbs, they were salted in a special place and not in the place where the limbs are salted.

We have thus found that they give the priests salt of consecrated property for salting their hides; and all the more so, they should give it to them for eating consecrated food?

And we answer:

Rather, what is “for their sacrifice”? —

For eating their sacrifice,

that is, for eating their portion given to them to eat from the sacrifices, they are permitted to take salt of consecrated property. 67 .

And what is “for eating”? —

Eating

of non-sacred food,

for the purpose of eating non-sacred food they are forbidden to take salt of consecrated property.

And we raise a difficulty:

Non-sacred food—this is obvious,

for they cannot salt with consecrated salt, since

what would they be doing there,

in the Temple courtyard? For it is forbidden to bring non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard.

And we answer: It is speaking of non-sacred food that comes for the purpose of eating consecrated food, and the novelty concerning this non-sacred food is that

even though the Master said:

It is written concerning the meal offering, “And what remains of it

they shall eat,”

Aaron and his sons; and from the fact that it says “they shall eat” and not “they shall eat it,” as it says at the end of the verse, we derive:

They shall eat with it [

with the meal offering]

non-sacred food and teruma, so that it should be

the meal offering

eaten when satiated,

in accordance with the law of eating consecrated food, that it must be eaten when satiated and not out of hunger, as it is written, “for distinction,” that is, for greatness, in the manner in which kings eat;

even so —

we do not give them salt of consecrated food

for salting the non-sacred food and the teruma eaten with it, despite the fact that their eating is for the purpose of eating the meal offering when satiated. [

The early authorities disagreed whether it is permitted to bring non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard for the purpose of eating it with consecrated food.]

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: It is also reasonable

that “for their sacrifice,” which Samuel said, means for eating their sacrifice.

For if it enters your mind that what is “for their sacrifice” means to salt

their burnt offerings and meal offerings that are brought upon the altar, there is a difficulty:

The reason is the stipulation of the court

that the priests are permitted to take from the salt of consecrated property;

but if the court had not stipulated, they would not be?

And how is it possible to say this:

Now, to Israelites we give

salt of consecrated property for their sacrifices;

to priests, shall we not give it?!

As it was taught: One might have said that one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering,” should bring salt

in order to salt the handful

from his home, just as he brings frankincense from his home. And it is logical

that he should bring salt from his home, for

it is stated —

he brought a meal offering and brought salt

with it

! And it is stated —

he brought a meal offering and brought frankincense

with it

! Just as frankincense

he brings

from his home, so too salt

he should bring

from his home?!

Or go in this direction: It is stated, “he brought a meal offering and brought salt,” and it is stated, “he brought a meal offering and brought

with it

wood

for burning it

—just as the wood is from the community, so too the salt is from the community?!

Let us see to whom

it

is comparable. We derive

salt, which is

a thing applicable to all the sacrifices, from

wood, which is also

a thing applicable to all the sacrifices. And do not refute it with frankincense, for it is not applicable to all the sacrifices,

but only to meal offerings.

Or go in this direction: We derive

salt, which is

a thing that comes with it [

with the meal offering]

in one vessel,

for the salt is placed upon the handful while it is still in the vessel,

from

frankincense, which is also

a thing that comes with it

with the handful

in one vessel; and do not refute it with wood, which does not come with it in one vessel!

The verse states: “It is an eternal covenant of salt,” and there

in the showbread

it says: “From the children of Israel, an eternal covenant,”

and we learn by gzera shava:

Just as there

in the showbread it comes

from the community,

as it is written, “from the children of Israel,”

so too here

with the salt it comes

from the community!

And we reject this:

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi meant:

Actually, what is “for their sacrifice”? — To salt their sacrifice. And one should not raise the difficulty: Why did the court need to stipulate that the priests would be permitted to salt their sacrifice from the property of the community, when they also give from the property of the community to Israelites? For

it was necessary

for the stipulation of the court

only on account of Ben Bukri,

who held that the priests are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel. Therefore I might have thought that they are inferior to Israelites, because they have no share in the salt.

As we learned: Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified in Yavneh: Any priest who contributes

who gives a half-shekel, even though the priests are not obligated to give like all Israelites,

does not sin! [

That is, he does not sin by bringing his shekel on account of the bringing of non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard, as will be explained below.]

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him

to Ben Bukri:

Not so,

not as you said,

rather,

the priests are obligated in the half-shekel, and

any priest who does not contribute

is

a sinner! Rather, the priests

mistakenly say that they are not obligated, because

they expound this verse for themselves

for their own benefit, and this is how they expound it: It is stated in the Torah that a priest’s meal offering is not eaten, as it is written,

“And every meal offering of a priest shall be entirely offered; it shall not be eaten.”

And if so,

since

the meal offerings of the

omer, the two loaves, and the showbread

are purchased from the shekels, if we were to contribute,

it would be ours;

we would have a share in the meal offerings of the community, and they would be like a priest’s meal offering; and if so,

how

would they be

eaten?

Rather, certainly the priests do not contribute, and therefore the meal offerings of the community do not belong to the priests, and consequently they are eaten. [And Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai holds that a priest’s meal offering is called only that meal offering which priests bring alone.]

And we raised a difficulty:

And according to Ben Bukri, since initially the priest is not obligated

the priest

to bring

a half-shekel,

when he nevertheless brings it —

is he a sinner, for he is bringing

a shekel

of non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard?

And we answer:

He brings it, and hands it over to the community!

It follows that at the time his half-shekel enters the Temple courtyard, it has already been consecrated like all the property of the community.

And now we return to explain what we said: “The stipulation of the court was necessary only on account of Ben Bukri”: