Menachot 50a (נ.) — 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

was speaking in general.

He was not referring to a situation in which Shabbat and Rosh HaShana occur consecutively. Indeed, in such a case six would not suffice.

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

that the tanna said?

It is merely a sign

for the measure of six sheep for three days, and not because they specifically require them for Rosh HaShana.

This is also precise

that this is merely a sign,

as it teaches “sufficient for Shabbat,” and it does not teach “sufficient for Shabbat and the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana”; conclude from this

from the wording “sufficient” that it is a sign. That is, this quantity is suitable for that measure, but the sheep are not needed specifically for those days. And the reason the Sages established a fixed number for this matter is that, if they come to offer the sacrifices and do not find lambs to replace those taken today and likewise tomorrow, kosher lambs for three days will already be available to them, and in the meantime they can search for additional lambs.

We learned in our Mishna:

“If they did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning, they shall sacrifice one toward evening, etc. Rabbi Shimon said: The entire amount was sacrificed toward evening, as the golden altar is inaugurated only with the incense, the altar of burnt offerings only with the morning daily offering, and the Table only with the showbread, etc.” 10.

We inquire about this:

Who mentioned inauguration,

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

And we answer:

The Mishna is lacking a clause, and this is what it teaches: If they did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning, they shall not sacrifice one

at all

toward evening,

not even the second daily offering.

When is this statement said?

When the altar has not been inaugurated,

and this offering constitutes its inauguration. Therefore, they may not offer first toward evening, since it must be inaugurated with the morning daily offering.

But if the altar has been inaugurated, they shall sacrifice

the second offering

toward evening,

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

Rabbi Shimon said: When

are they permitted to sacrifice the second offering toward evening?

When they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control or were unwitting

in failing to sacrifice it 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 offering

toward evening.

However, if it happened that they

did not burn the incense in the morning,

even deliberately,

they shall burn

the incense

toward evening,

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

We inquire about this:

From where are these matters derived,

that if they did not offer the morning offering, and the altar has not yet been inaugurated, they may not offer toward evening?

As the Sages taught

in a beraita: It is stated in the passage concerning the inauguration of the priests:

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

and we expound:

“Second”

“toward evening.”

That is, once the first has already been offered in the morning, the second shall be offered toward evening,

but not the first toward evening.

When is this statement said? When the altar has not been inaugurated.

For the verse in the passage concerning the inauguration of the priests speaks of an altar being inaugurated at that time for the first time.

But

once it has already

been inaugurated, even the first may be offered toward evening.

For if they forgot and did not bring the daily offering in the morning on one day, this does not prevent the offering of the daily offering toward evening. Indeed, in the verses in the passage concerning the offerings of the festivals, the passage of the daily offering is stated again, and it was repeated to teach us that once the altar has already been inaugurated, they offer the daily offering toward evening even when they did not offer the morning daily offering.

Rabbi Shimon said: When

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

When they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control or were unwitting

in the morning.

But if they were deliberate

and were negligent in failing to offer in the morning, we penalize them. Therefore, if they

did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning—

they shall not sacrifice one toward evening.

They imposed the penalty only with regard to the daily offering, and not with regard to the incense, since we do not fear that neglect of the incense will become habitual. Therefore, even if they

did not burn the incense in the morning,

even deliberately,

they shall burn it toward evening.

And we raise an objection:

But

if

the priests sinned

and it is necessary to penalize them, should

the altar be idle

for that reason, so that an obligatory offering may 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 and upon whom the morning offering was incumbent, but who were negligent and did not offer it;

but others,

the other members of the priestly watch who did not sin,

shall sacrifice.

But if they

did not burn the incense in the morning,

they shall burn it toward evening,

even they themselves,

because it is not common

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

And

also,

it makes one wealthy [

wealthy], for the incense enriches those who perform it, and the priests who burn it are blessed through it; therefore,

it is dear to them, and they will not be negligent

with regard to it a second time.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Shimon said: The entire amount was sacrificed toward evening,”

“as the golden altar is inaugurated only with the incense of the evening, etc.”

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita that the golden altar is inaugurated

with the incense of the morning?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaitic authorities

who disagree on this matter.

Abaye said: It is reasonable that the view is that

the golden altar is inaugurated

with the incense of the

evening. As it is written

concerning the incense:

“In the morning, in the morning, when he sets up the lamps, he shall burn it,”

and from this it follows that the inauguration of the Menora is in the evening, for

if he had not performed the lighting in the evening [

in the evening],

the preparation in the morning [

in the morning]

from where

would it come? The preparation consists of cleaning the bowls of the Menora of the ashes of the wicks that burned during the night, and it necessarily follows that he had already lit it the previous day.

Likewise, one can derive that the golden altar too is inaugurated with the evening incense, since the lighting and the burning of the incense are linked to one another, as it is written: “And when Aaron raises the lamps toward evening, he shall burn it.” Thus, with that first lighting, which is in the evening, he also burns the incense.

And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who says

that the golden altar is inaugurated

with the incense of the morning,

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

And we explain:

He derives it from the altar of burnt offerings,

for we learned above that it is inaugurated with the morning daily offering [as it is written: “the second lamb toward evening,” but not the first toward evening], and from there we derive the same with regard to the golden altar:

Just as there, with the morning daily offering, so too here, with the morning incense.

We learned in our Mishna:

And not

do they inaugurate

the Table

except with the showbread on Shabbat:

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

it follows from here that if they arrange the showbread on the Table

on a weekday,

it is only that it does not inaugurate

the Table;

but as for its sanctification,

it is sanctified

by that bread. This is difficult, since the law is that only arranging the bread on the Table on Shabbat sanctifies it, so that disqualifications such as leaving its designated area can take effect, but not when it is arranged on a weekday!?

And we answer:

The Mishna itself teaches us

that it is not sanctified by being arranged on a weekday. This is why the Table is not inaugurated through it,

because the inauguration and sanctification of the Table

take place on Shabbat.

And the first clause

is to be understood in accordance with the final clause,

with regard to the Menora, which sanctifies nothing:

“And not

do they inaugurate

the Menora except with its seven lamps

toward evening.”

Likewise, with regard to the Table, all the laws that take effect through arranging the bread upon it [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 other incense, which belongs to the community, and it was offered

on the outer altar,

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

And it was a temporary dispensation

to burn it contrary to the law governing all incense, as will be explained below.”

We inquire about this:

Where

does this incense, to which the beraita refers, appear?

Rav Pappa said: It refers to the princes,

who brought it at the time of the inauguration of the altar, as stated in the passage concerning the offerings of the princes.

And we raise an objection concerning 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 dispensation.” This implies that because it was an individual’s incense and was offered on the outer altar, a temporary dispensation was necessary. It would therefore seem:

Rather, it is only an individual who may not

bring incense on the outer altar;

but on the inner altar he may offer it,

even an individual. But this is not the law, as we shall state below.

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty: It appears that only because the offering was that of an individual and was made on the outer altar was a temporary dispensation necessary. 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 it was taught:

One might have thought that an individual may voluntarily offer incense

and bring something like it,

like the incense of the princes, as

a voluntary offering, and I would apply to it the verse, “You shall observe and perform what issues from your lips”; the verse therefore states

in the passage concerning the inauguration of the priests:

“You shall not offer strange incense upon it.”

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

One might have thought that an individual may not bring

voluntary incense under any circumstances, because

he may not bring his obligatory offering in a form like it,