Menachot 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: With regard to salt that is upon the limb

of the offering,

one is liable for misuse of consecrated property,

as, if one derives benefit from it, he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property. But with regard to salt

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

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

one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property,

as this salt, having already been used for salting, is no longer fit for salting offerings 64 .

Rav Mattana said:

From where is it derived that with regard to salt that is upon the limb one is liable for misuse of consecrated property?

The verse says: “

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

This indicates that the limb together with the salt are both called an “elevation-offering,” and there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to them. The Hazon Ish explained that the misuse is based on the sanctity of an offering, and not on the sanctity of property designated for Temple maintenance: Even if the salt fell, one is obligated to burn it, and we do not say that there is no misuse because its mitzva has been performed].

We learned there:

The court established conditions

with regard to the salt and the wood

of consecrated property,

that the priests would be permitted to derive benefit

benefit

from them!

Shmuel said: They taught

that the priests are permitted to derive benefit from the salt

only for their offerings, but not for eating.

It might enter your mind to say: What is the meaning of “for their offerings”—

to salt their offerings,

as the priests are permitted to salt the elevation-offerings and meal-offerings that they bring. And what is the meaning of

“for eating”—

for eating consecrated offerings,

as they are prohibited from salting with consecrated salt the meat of offerings given to the priests to eat, such as the breast and thigh portions that come to them.

And we raised a difficulty:

Now, if for salting the hides of consecrated offerings

that the priests acquire,

we give

them consecrated salt,

will we not give it to them for eating consecrated offerings?

As it was taught in a beraita: You find that you can say: In three places

in the Temple

the salt was placed—

in the

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

In the salt chamber, where the hides of consecrated offerings were salted,

which were 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 the priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, the libations, and the bird elevation-offering are salted.

All these are dry substances, and in order that they should not become soiled by the blood of the limbs, they were salted in a special place rather than in the place where the limbs were salted.

We find, then, that consecrated salt is given to the priests for salting their hides; all the more so, it should be given to them for eating consecrated offerings?

And we answer:

Rather, what is the meaning of “for their offerings”—

for eating their offerings,

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

And what is the meaning of “for eating”—

eating

non-sacred food,

for the purpose of eating non-sacred food they are prohibited from taking consecrated salt.

And we question this:

Non-sacred food? That is obvious,

as they cannot salt it with consecrated salt, for

what would it be doing there

in the Temple courtyard? After all, it is prohibited to bring non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard.

And we answer: The discussion is of non-sacred food that comes for the purpose of eating consecrated offerings. The novelty with regard to this non-sacred food is that

although the master said:

It is written concerning the meal-offering, “And that which remains of it

they shall eat,”

Aaron and his sons. Since 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 will be

the meal-offering

eaten when satiated,

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

even so—

we do not give them consecrated salt

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

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

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This too is reasonable,

that “for their offerings,” as Shmuel said, means for eating their offerings.

For if it enters your mind that what is the meaning of “for their offerings”—to salt

their elevation-offerings and meal-offerings that are offered upon the altar, it is difficult:

The reason is that the court established a condition

that the priests are permitted to take consecrated salt,

but if the court did not establish a condition, they would not be permitted?

And how could one say this:

Now, we give Israelites

consecrated salt for their offerings,

shall we not give it to priests?!

As it was taught in a beraita: One might say that when one says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering,” he should bring salt

in order to salt the handful

from his own home, as he brings frankincense from his own home. And this follows logically:

He should bring salt from his home, since

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

is brought

from his own home, so too salt

should be brought

from his own home?

Or take this approach: 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 supplied by the community, so too the salt is supplied by the community?

Let us see to whom

it

is similar. We derive

salt, which is

a matter applicable to all offerings, from

wood, which is also

a matter applicable to all offerings. But do not refute this comparison with frankincense, which is not applicable to all offerings

but only to meal-offerings.

Or take this approach: We derive

salt, which is

a matter that comes with it [

with the meal-offering]

in one vessel,

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

from

frankincense, which is also

a matter that comes with it

with the handful

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

The verse states: “It is an eternal covenant of salt,” and concerning the shewbread

it

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

and we learn by means of a gzera shava:

Just as there

concerning the shewbread it comes

from the community,

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

so too here

with regard to salt, it comes

from the community!

And we reject this:

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, is saying:

Actually, what is the meaning of “for their offerings”? It means to salt their offerings. And one should not ask why the court needed to establish a condition permitting the priests to salt their offerings with salt supplied by the community, since salt supplied by the community is also given to Israelites. Rather,

it was necessary

for the condition of the court

only because of Ben Bukri,

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

As we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Bukri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes

the half-shekel, even though the priests are not obligated to give as all Israelites are,

does not sin! [

That is, he does not sin by bringing his shekel because of the prohibition against bringing 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,

but rather,

the priests are obligated to contribute 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 interpret this verse for themselves

for their own benefit, and this is how they interpret 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 burned; it shall not be eaten.”

And if so,

since

the meal-offering of the

Omer, the two loaves, and the shewbread

are purchased with the funds from the half-shekels, had we contributed the half-shekel,

it would be ours,

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

how

would they be

eaten?

Rather, clearly the priests do not contribute, and therefore the meal-offerings of the community do not belong to the priests and may consequently be eaten. [Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai holds that a “priest’s meal-offering” refers only to a meal-offering brought by priests individually].

And we raise a difficulty:

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

the priest

to bring

the half-shekel,

when he brings it as well—

is he also a sinner, because he is bringing

a non-sacred

shekel into the Temple courtyard?

And we answer:

He brings it and transfers it to the community!

Thus, when his half-shekel enters the Temple courtyard, it has already become sacred, like all communal funds.

And now we return to explaining what we said: “The condition of the court was necessary only because of Ben Bukri”: