Menachot 50b — the Talmud in English

that we have not found incense as an obligation for an individual,

but perhaps the community should bring

also as a freewill offering, since

it brings

incense

as an obligation of the same kind

twice every day?

The verse says, “You shall not bring up” in the plural, teaching that even the community should not bring a freewill offering.

во множественном числе, чтобы научить: даже община не должна приносить добровольное приношение.

One might have thought that they should not bring up

the community’s incense

upon the inner altar, but they may bring it up upon the outer altar? The verse says, “The anointing oil and the incense of spices for the Sanctuary, according to all that I have commanded you, they shall do”—

you have

in the matter of the incense

only what is stated in the matter. Namely, only upon the inner altar

—that is, only upon the inner altar.

And if so, it will be difficult concerning what is implied in the beraita above, that an individual burns a freewill offering upon the inner altar, and likewise concerning what is implied, that the community burns a freewill offering upon the outer altar, whereas here it is explained that an individual does not burn even upon the inner altar and the community does not burn upon the outer altar!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: What is written in the beraita—that it was a temporary ruling, what they brought, “the incense of an individual on the outer altar”—do not learn from this that an individual offers a freewill offering upon the inner altar, and do not learn from this that the community is permitted to burn upon the outer altar. Rather,

то, что написано в барайте, — это особое временное постановление: из того, что они принесли «благовония отдельного человека на внешнем жертвеннике», нельзя заключать, что отдельный человек может добровольно приносить на внутреннем жертвеннике, и нельзя заключать, что общине разрешено воскурять на внешнем жертвеннике. Напротив,

it states, “It is not necessary”; it is not necessary

that

the community

burns

upon the outer altar, for we have not found

incense of the community upon the outer altar,

and it is not necessary to state that an individual

does not burn

upon the inner altar, for we have not found

the burning of incense by an individual upon the inner altar,

but even an individual upon the outer altar

does not burn, despite

the fact that we find among the princes that they too were individuals, who burned upon the outer altar. We should not learn from this, because

которые также были отдельными людьми и воскуряли на внешнем жертвеннике. Из этого нельзя делать вывод, поскольку

it was a temporary ruling.

Mishna:

In the portion of Tzav [chapter 6, verse 13 and onward] it is stated: “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord on the day that He anoints him: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. On a griddle, with oil, it shall be made; scalded, you shall bring it; baked as a grain offering of pieces, you shall offer it as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And the anointed priest in his place from among his sons shall make it; an eternal statute for the Lord, it shall be completely burned.”

From this portion, which is explained in the discussion below, two obligations concerning two different grain offerings are learned.

A. The “grain offering of the High Priest,” which the High Priest brings, containing a tenth of an ephah of flour, and which he brings every day from his home. Half of it is offered in the morning and half in the evening, and it is called the “grain offering of the High Priest,” since it is written concerning it: “On a griddle, with oil, it shall be made.”

B. The “initiation grain offering,” which every priest brings on the day of his initiation, or which a priest appointed High Priest brings before he begins the service; it is a tenth of an ephah, and it comes whole, and the priest himself offers it.

These grain offerings are burned completely, according to the law of a priest’s grain offering.

The High Priest’s grain offering

made of twelve loaves, and offered every day, half in the morning and half in the evening,

did not come as halves; rather, he brought a whole tenth-measure

from his home

and divided it, and offered half in the morning and half between the evenings 20 .

A priest who brings half in the morning and dies, and they appoint a priest

High

priest in his place

on that same day, before the offering of the regular offering between the evenings,

should not bring half a tenth-measure from his home

to join its half

and he should not

offer

the half of the first one’s tenth-measure

that remained from the morning,

rather, he brings a whole tenth-measure

from his home, and they consecrate all of it in a service vessel,

and divide it,

in order to fulfill the law of “half of it,” that the half should be from a whole,

and he offers half

between the evenings,

and the half

remaining from the bringing of the new High Priest

— is lost.

It follows

from now

that two “halves” are offered,

for the first offered half from a whole in the morning, and likewise the second in the evening,

and two other halves

remaining, from the first and from the second

— are lost.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Had it been stated,

a tenth of an ephah of fine flour

as a grain offering

regularly,

half

in the morning and half between the evenings,” and not “half of it,”

I would say that he brings half a tenth-measure from his home in the morning and offers it,

and then again brings

half a tenth-measure from his home in the evening and offers it,

and it would not be necessary that the bringing in the morning be a whole tenth-measure.

The verse says, “Half of it in the morning,”

and from here we learn that each time

— he brings a half from a whole.

How so?

He brings a whole tenth-measure, divides it, and offers half in the morning and half between the evenings.

If the half for between the evenings became impure or was lost,

and he must bring another for the offering between the evenings,

one might have thought that he brings half a tenth-measure from his home in the evening and offers it; the verse says, “And half of it in the evening”—he brings a half from a whole.

How so?

He brings a whole tenth-measure and divides it, offers half, and the half is lost.

It follows that two “halves” are offered,

for from each tenth-measure that was brought, half was offered,

and two halves are lost.

The half that became impure from the first tenth-measure, and the half remaining from the second. And the tanna comes to teach us “not only this, but even that”: not only should he not bring halves at the outset, but even if he brought a whole one and it was lost, he should not bring another half, but rather a whole one and divide it.

A High Priest who offered half in the morning and died, and they appointed

a High

priest in his place

on that same day,

one might have thought that he brings half a tenth-measure from his home

for the offering of the High Priest’s grain offering between the evenings

or

offers

the half of the first one’s tenth-measure

that remained,

the verse says, “And half of it in the evening.”

And we learn from the additional letter “vav” that although the half-tenth-measure of the first one exists, it is not valid; rather,

he brings and offers a half from a whole 21 .

How so? He brings a whole tenth-measure, divides it, offers half, and the half is lost. It follows that two halves are offered and two halves are lost 22 .

A tanna taught before Rav Naḥman

concerning the law of those halves remaining from the first priest in the morning and the second priest in the evening:

the first half and the second half shall undergo a change of form

through remaining overnight,

and they shall go out to the place of burning.

Rav Naḥman said to him: Granted,

the half of

the first was fit for offering

when the High Priest was alive and set aside this half for the offering between the evenings; and since it was rejected, it should not be burned without a disqualification in its body, according to the law of consecrated things, for because of disgrace they are not burned until their form has undergone change, and therefore a change of form is required.

But

the half

second

that remained from what the High Priest who was appointed now brought

why does it require a change of form?

For

from the outset it comes to be lost.

For it is rejected from the outset, since it is not destined to be offered; why should it not be burned immediately, without a change of form?

And he answers:

He can say to you—the one who requires a change of form in both of them—

that a change of form is required in both:

whose opinion is it? It is the tanna of the school of Rabbah bar Avuha, who said: even pigul

which already has a disqualification in its body

requires a change of form [who learned by a gzera shava, “iniquity, iniquity,” from notar, and notar becomes disqualified through remaining overnight], and all the more so this, which was only rejected and has no disqualification in its body.

поскольку это выведено посредством гзера шава «вина — вина» из оставшегося приношения, а оставшееся приношение становится непригодным из-за ночёвки]; тем более это относится к данной половине, которая лишь отвергнута и не имеет телесного изъяна.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say it is the Sages

who hold that pigul does not require a change of form, but is burned immediately, here a change of form is required, for it is not considered rejected from the outset,

since at the time that he divided them

that tenth of an ephah, there was no particular half clarified as the one that would be offered and not the other half; rather,

if he wishes, he offers this one, and if he wishes, he offers that one,

and it follows that every half

was visibly fit

for offering, except that only afterward one half was rejected; therefore it should not be burned without becoming disqualified through a change of form.

It was stated: The High Priest’s grain offering—

how are they made?

Since making on a griddle is stated concerning them, and baking in an oven is also stated concerning them, as it says, “Scalded, you shall bring it; baked as a grain offering of pieces.” And now the Gemara discusses whether baking comes first or frying.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: He bakes it, and afterward fries it,

as the reason is explained below.

Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: He fries it, and afterward bakes it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: My opinion is more reasonable,

that he bakes it and afterward fries it, as it says

“baked,”

and we expound this as an expression formed from initial letters, like

“they shall be baked beautifully,”

that it should be beautiful at the time of its baking; and if he fries it first, it becomes dark from the oil and from the griddle and is not beautiful.

Rabbi Asi said: My opinion is more reasonable,

that he fries it and afterward bakes it, as it says

“baked,”

and we expound it as

“they shall be baked partially,”

that it should be slightly cooked at the time of its baking [“partially cooked” is an expression of slight cooking, as is stated concerning the Paschal offering, “You shall not eat from it partially cooked”]; through the frying it first becomes “partially cooked,” and afterward he bakes it.

As the tannaim [disagree],

who disagree in this dispute: “

“Baked”—

“they shall be baked partially” [this is the opinion of the first tanna]. And it follows that he holds: he fries it and afterward bakes it.

таково мнение первого танная]. Следовательно, он считает, что сначала жарят, а затем пекут.

Rabbi says: “They shall be baked beautifully.”

That he bakes before the frying.

Rabbi Dosa says: “They shall be baked extensively,”

many bakings [and this is a third opinion, which was not mentioned among the opinions of the amoraim above].

And we explain: Rabbi Dosa

holds both “partially cooked” and “beautiful.”

Therefore he bakes it first without oil, and not completely, before the frying, in order to fulfill “they shall be baked beautifully”; he fries it, and afterward completes its baking fully, in order to fulfill “they shall be baked partially.”

And the Gemara brings another exposition: “baked” implies that it should be beautiful.

We learned there: The High Priest’s grain offering—

its kneading, its arranging, and its baking—

inside

the courtyard, for once the fine flour has been consecrated in the vessel of a half-tenth-measure, which is an anointed service vessel, they do not take it out [unlike other grain offerings, which may be made outside, since their measuring is performed in a tenth-measure vessel, and the tenth-measure is not consecrated]

and they override Shabbat,

like every offering whose time is fixed.

And we inquire about it:

from where are these matters

that their baking overrides Shabbat, and why should he not bake them on the previous day?

Rav Huna said:

because it is written

“baked,”

and we expound:

“They shall be baked beautifully!”

That it should be beautiful even after baking, at the time of offering,

and if he baked it on the previous day, it would become inflated [it expands in the wind]

and its form would change, and it would not be beautiful.

Rav Yosef raised an objection against this:

But because of this must it be baked on Shabbat? Let him bake it on the eve of Shabbat, and so that it should not become inflated

let him say that he presses it in vegetables,

let him bury it in vegetables, so that the wind should not affect it!?

And the Gemara brings another source for its baking on Shabbat:

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

We learn this from what is written, “On a griddle, with oil, it shall be made.” And we expound:

“It shall be made”—even on Shabbat; “it shall be made”—even in impurity!

Abaye said:

The fact that it is baked on Shabbat is because

the verse says, “Fine flour, a regular grain offering