Menachot 50a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

In any event, there are seven,

for one is needed for the morning of the first day after Rosh HaShana?

And we answer:

Rather, the tanna

who said six

— is speaking in general.

And not of Shabbat and Rosh HaShana occurring consecutively. For indeed, in this situation six do not suffice.

And what is the meaning of “for Shabbat and the two festival days of Rosh HaShana”

that the tanna said?

It is merely a sign

for the measure of six lambs for three days, and not because specifically Rosh HaShana is needed.

This is also precise

that it is merely a sign,

for it teaches “for Shabbat,” and it does not teach “for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana”; infer from it

from the expression “for,” that it is a sign. That is, that this measure is fitting, and not that they are required for those days. And the reason the Sages established a fixed number for the matter is that, if it happens that they sacrifice and do not find lambs to replace the lambs taken today and likewise tomorrow, there should be suitable lambs available to them for three days, and in the meantime they will seek lambs.

We learned in our Mishna:

“If they did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning, they shall sacrifice it toward evening, etc. Rabbi Shimon said: And all of it was sacrificed toward evening, for they inaugurate the golden altar only with the incense of spices, and not the altar of the burnt offering except with the morning tamid, and not the table except with the lechem ha-panim, etc.” 10 .

And we inquire concerning it:

Inauguration—who mentioned it,

and why did he come to explain here how each of the vessels is inaugurated?

And we answer:

There is a deficiency in the text, and this is what it teaches: If they did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning, they shall not sacrifice

at all

toward evening,

even the second tamid.

In what case is this statement said—

where the altar was not inaugurated,

and this sacrifice is its inauguration; therefore, they shall not sacrifice first toward evening, since they must inaugurate it with the morning tamid.

But if the altar was inaugurated, they shall sacrifice

the second

toward evening,

even though they did not sacrifice the first in the morning.

Rabbi Shimon said: When

are they permitted to sacrifice the second toward evening?

When they were compelled or inadvertent

in that they did not sacrifice in the morning.

But if they were deliberate

in that they

did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning, they shall not sacrifice

the second

toward evening.

But if it happened that they

did not burn incense in the morning,

even deliberately—

they shall burn

the incense

toward evening,

as the reason for the distinction will be explained below: concerning incense, there is no concern that they will become accustomed to transgressing with regard to it.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these words

that if they did not sacrifice the morning offering, and the altar was still not inaugurated, they shall not sacrifice toward evening?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated in the section of Tetzaveh:

“And the second lamb you shall make toward evening,”

and we expound:

“Second

toward evening.”

That is, when the first has already been sacrificed in the morning, the second shall be sacrificed toward evening,

and not the first toward evening.

In what case is this statement said? Where the altar was not inaugurated.

For the verse in the section of Tetzaveh speaks of an altar being inaugurated now for the first time.

But

when it has already

the altar was inaugurated, even the first may be sacrificed toward evening.

For if they forgot and did not bring the daily offering in the morning on one day, this does not prevent the sacrifice of the daily offering toward evening. For in the verses of the section of Pinchas, the section of the daily offering was stated again, and it was repeated to teach us that if the altar had already been inaugurated, then they sacrifice the daily offering toward evening even when they did not sacrifice the morning daily offering.

Rabbi Shimon said: When

are they permitted to sacrifice toward evening even though they did not sacrifice in the morning?—

When they were compelled or inadvertent

in the morning.

But if they were deliberate

and transgressed by not sacrificing in the morning, we penalize them; therefore, if they

did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning—

they shall not sacrifice toward evening.

And they imposed a penalty only concerning the tamid, and not concerning incense, for with regard to it we do not fear that they will become accustomed to transgression. Therefore, even if they

did not burn incense in the morning,

even deliberately,

they shall burn it toward evening.

And we raise an objection:

And is it so

if

the priests sinned

and should be penalized, will

the altar thereby be idle,

and an obligatory offering will not be sacrificed!?

And we answer:

Rava said: This is what

Rabbi Shimon

is saying: They themselves shall not sacrifice,

those who were selected by the lottery, upon whom the morning sacrifice was incumbent, and who transgressed and did not sacrifice it,

but others,

the other members of the watch who did not sin,

shall sacrifice.

But if they

did not burn incense in the morning—

they shall burn it toward evening

even they themselves,

for since it is not common

to burn incense as it is to offer the tamid, which is a burnt offering and there are many burnt offerings.

And

also

it makes wealthy [מעשירה],

for the burning of incense makes its performers wealthy, and the priests who burn it are blessed through it; therefore

it is dear to them, and they will not transgress

with regard to it again.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Shimon said: And all of it was sacrificed toward evening” ,

“for they inaugurate the golden altar only with the incense of spices of the evening, etc.”

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught

in a beraita that the inauguration of the golden altar is

with the morning incense of spices?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim

who disagree concerning this.

Abaye said: It is reasonable according to the one who says

that the inauguration of the golden altar is

with the incense of spices of the

evening. For it is written

concerning the incense:

“Morning by morning, when he sets the lamps right, he shall burn it,”

and from here it follows that the inauguration of the menorah is in the evening, for

if he had not performed the lighting in the evening [בערב],

in the evening],

the preparation in the morning [בבוקר]

in the morning]

from where

for the preparation is the cleaning of the cups of the menorah from the ashes of the wicks that burned during the night, and necessarily he had already lit it the previous day.

And likewise it may be learned that the inauguration of the golden altar also is with the evening incense, for the lighting and the burning are connected to one another, as it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps toward evening, he shall burn it”; and therefore, together with that first lighting, which is in the evening, he also burns incense.

And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who says

that the golden altar is inaugurated

with the morning incense of spices,

what is the source that it is not inaugurated with that of toward evening?

And we explain:

He derives it from the altar of the burnt offering

concerning which we learned above that its inauguration is with the morning tamid [as it is written: “the second lamb toward evening,” and not the first toward evening], and from here also concerning the inauguration of the golden altar—

Just as there, with the morning tamid, so too here, with the morning incense of spices.

We learned in our Mishna:

And they do not

inaugurate

the table

except with the lechem ha-panim on Shabbat:

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

it follows from here that if they arrange the lechem ha-panim on the table

on a weekday—

it is only that it does not inaugurate

the table with that bread,

but sanctification—

it does sanctify

that bread. And it would be difficult, for the halakha is that only arranging the bread on the table on Shabbat sanctifies the bread, so that the disqualification of being taken outside and the like can take effect in it, but not on a weekday!?

And we answer:

That itself it teaches us,

that it is not sanctified by its arrangement on a weekday; and this is the reason that the table is not inaugurated with it, because

the inauguration and sanctification of the table—

are on Shabbat.

And the first clause is interpreted

as the latter clause teaches

concerning the menorah, which sanctifies nothing:

“And they do not

inaugurate

the menorah except with its seven lamps—

“toward evening.”

And likewise concerning the table: all the laws that apply through its arrangement [namely, sanctification and inauguration] apply only when it is arranged on Shabbat.

The Sages taught

concerning the incense of the princes:

“This is the incense that was offered by an individual,

unlike all incense, which belongs to the community, and it was offered

on the outer altar,

unlike all incense, which is offered on the inner incense altar.

And it was a temporary instruction

to burn it unlike the law of all incense, as will be explained below.

And we inquire concerning it:

Where

is this incense, to which the beraita refers, stated?

Rav Pappa said: It was among the princes,

who brought it at the time of the inauguration of the altar, as is stated in the section of Naso.

And we raise an objection to what is written in the beraita, “This is the incense that was offered by an individual on the outer altar, and it was a temporary instruction,” for it implies that because it was an individual’s incense and [was offered] on the outer altar, a temporary instruction was required; and it implies:

Rather, it is only an individual on the outer altar who may not

bring incense;

but on the inner altar he may offer it,

even an individual, yet this is not the law, as we shall bring below.

And furthermore,

it is difficult, for it implies that only because of the combination of an individual offering and the outer altar did we require a temporary instruction; and it follows that

on the outer altar it is only an individual who may not

burn incense,

but the community may offer it

even on the outer altar,

but was it not taught:

Perhaps an individual may donate incense

and bring something like it

like the incense of the princes, as

a donation, and I would apply to him, “You shall observe and perform what emerges from your lips”; the verse says

in the section of Tetzaveh:

“You shall not offer upon it strange incense,”

and this verse speaks of the inner altar, and we learn that even upon it an individual may not bring incense.

Perhaps an individual may not bring

incense as a donation under any circumstances, because

he does not bring his obligation in a similar manner,