Menachot 51b — the Talmud in English

They derive ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the following meal-offering, a tenth of an ephah, etc.

And from here he decided to learn from the meal-offering of the libations of lambs, whose measure is three log.

Mishna:

Our Mishna deals with the laws of the chavitin meal-offering when the High Priest dies, which is offered even in his absence [as the Gemara will derive below], and it discusses from whose property it is offered.

They did not appoint another priest in his place

of the deceased High Priest—

from whose property was it offered

the chavitin meal-offering?

Rabbi Shimon says: From the property of the community,

it comes from the funds of the Chamber, in the absence of the High Priest.

Rabbi Yehuda says: From the property of the heirs

of the High Priest it is offered until another is appointed. 26 .

And it was offered whole

and not in halves. For one should not say that the law of half applies except in the offering of the High Priest. And this law applies both according to Rabbi Shimon and according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A High Priest who died, and they did not appoint another priest in his place—from where do we know that his meal-offering should be offered from the property of the heirs?

The verse states: “And the anointed priest in his place from among his sons shall perform it,”

and we derive: Whoever among his sons is fit to be in his place, he shall perform it.

One might think that he should offer it

the chavitin meal-offering after the death of the High Priest

in halves,

like the meal-offering of a priest, which comes during his lifetime?

The verse states:

“and the anointed priest in his place from among his sons shall perform it,” and we derive:

“it” -

all of it and not half of it; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It does not come from the property of the heirs, but from the property of the community, as it is stated concerning it:

“an eternal statute,”

and we derive that it comes

from the property of the Eternal.

And they further derive from what is written:

“It shall be completely burned”—

that it shall be entirely for burning.

For it is not eaten even when it comes from the property of the community, and it is not the meal-offering of a priest; it is nevertheless like every meal-offering of a priest, which is burned entirely, even though it is not the meal-offering of a priest.

And we raise an objection:

And this “the anointed priest”—is that what it comes for,

to derive that it comes from his sons after his death?

But it is needed for that which was taught: “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord on the day that He anoints him,”

for every priest, even an ordinary priest, brings this meal-offering on the day of his initiation.

One might think that Aaron and his sons offer one offering

on the day of their anointing [as “this is the offering” of Aaron and his sons appears in the singular]

the verse states: “which they shall offer to the Lord”

in the plural, that is,

Aaron separately and his sons separately,

for initiation; and from that day onward they do not bring one, but a High Priest brings one every day. “

His sons”—these are ordinary priests

who bring it on the day of their initiation.

Do you say ordinary priests, or is it rather High Priests

who inherit their father’s position, and it is to teach that not only Aaron brings this meal-offering, but every High Priest who will stand from among them throughout the generations?

When it says: “And the anointed priest in his place from among his sons,” it is

every

High Priest

who is in Aaron’s place

stated. What, then, do I establish

“This is the offering of Aaron

and his sons”?

You are forced to say that what it repeated and said, “his sons”—

these are ordinary priests

who are being initiated. This is the wording of the beraita.

And now we raise the objection: How did we learn earlier from this verse, “the anointed priest in his place from among his sons,” that after his death, before another was appointed, it comes from the property of the heirs, when this must be learned to teach that another from among Aaron’s sons who will become High Priest brings the chavitin meal-offering every day throughout the generations, like Aaron?!

And we answer:

If so,

if it comes only to teach that the heirs offer the chavitin as long as another has not been appointed in his place,

let the verse write: “the anointed priest in his place, his sons, shall perform it.” What is

the meaning of what the verse said

“from among his sons,”

with the addition of the letter mem?

Learn from it two things.

First, that the heirs of the High Priest bring the chavitin meal-offering; and also, that one of his sons who will stand in his place as High Priest shall bring it. And from this we learn concerning “Aaron and his sons” that his ordinary sons offer a meal-offering of initiation at the time of their initiation into the service.

And we raise another objection:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that it comes from the property of the community,

what does he do with this “it”

which we derived earlier, “all of it and not half of it,”

according to him? For according to his words, we have already learned that it is whole from “It shall be completely burned.”

And we answer:

And we answer:

He needs it for a High Priest who died and they appointed another priest in his place

on that same day,

that he should not bring half a tenth from his own house, nor half a tenth of the first one,

and we learn this from “it”—all of it and not half of it.

And we raise the objection:

But let him derive it from “and from its half”

“in the evening,” as we derived earlier [folio 50b] this law from the extra vav.

And we answer:

The

vav of “and from its half”

he does not expound,

and the word “its half” is needed for the essential law that he brings a complete measure and divides it in the priest himself.

And we raise the objection:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that it comes from the property of the heirs after death, and does not expound “an eternal statute” as “from the property of the Eternal,”

what does he do with this “an eternal statute”?

And we answer:

A statute—

it shall always be.

For it is a mitzva throughout the generations, and not only for Aaron and his sons who are written in the verse.

And we further raise an objection to Rabbi Yehuda:

“It shall be completely burned”—why do I need it?

For according to his words, it is the meal-offering of priests, since his heirs bring it, and it is obvious that it is entirely burned.

And we answer:

He needs it for that which was taught: I have only the upper one

which is stated above in the passage, namely,

the meal-offering of the High Priest,

which is

“It shall be completely burned,”

as an affirmative mitzva of complete burning is stated concerning it,

and the lower one

in the voluntary meal-offering, which is

the meal-offering of an ordinary priest, without

“it shall be eaten,”

to prohibit by a negative commandment the eating of its remnants.

From where is it derived that what is stated concerning this one is applied to that one, and what is stated concerning that one is applied to this one,

so that there is also a negative commandment in the meal-offering of the High Priest, and an affirmative commandment of entirely burning even in that of an ordinary priest?

The verse states “completely burned, completely burned” for a gezerah shavah,

and therefore the verse here needed “It shall be completely burned,” and from here we learned an affirmative mitzva for every place.

It is stated here “completely burned,” and it is stated there “completely burned.” Just as here

in the meal-offering of the High Priest

“It shall be completely burned”

is an affirmative commandment,

so there

in the meal-offering of an ordinary person

“It shall be completely burned.” And just as there

in that of an ordinary person it is stated, “it shall not be eaten,”

to impose a negative commandment concerning its eating, so here, to impose a negative commandment concerning its eating.

And we return to clarify the essential law of Rabbi Shimon, that the chavitin meal-offering of a High Priest who died comes from the property of the community.

And we inquire about it:

And does Rabbi Shimon hold that it comes from the property of the community

by law of

the Torah? But did we not learn

in tractate Shekalim:

Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven matters

to be taken from the funds of the Chamber, although it is not the essential law,

and this is one of them: A gentile who sent his burnt-offering from overseas

for the descendants of Noah send voluntary offerings to the Temple—if he

sent with it

the money for

libations

[for if he sent actual libations, they would become impure in his hands],

it is offered from his own funds; and if not, they are offered from the property of the community

for a voluntary burnt-offering is obligated in libations.

And likewise, a convert who died and left offerings

which he had set aside during his lifetime, whose law is that they are to be offered after his death, and he has no heirs who will bring the libations—then, if

he has libations

which he set aside during his lifetime [for after death everything is ownerless],

they are offered from his own funds. And if not, they are offered from the property of the community. And it is a stipulation of the court

to take from the funds of the Chamber for these matters.

And likewise,

a High Priest who died and they did not appoint another priest in his place,

they instituted

that his meal-offering should be offered from the property of the community.

If so, how can it be said that Rabbi Shimon holds that by Torah law it comes from the property of the community, and derives this from a verse? For in the Mishna in Shekalim Rabbi Shimon said that it is a rabbinic enactment!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said: There were two enactments

concerning the offering of a High Priest who died. Its essential law is

by Torah law

that it should come

from the community,

as we learn from “an eternal statute.” However,

once they saw

during the Second Temple period that there were more than three hundred High Priests, none of whom completed his year [and they delayed appointing another], and they saw

that the Chamber was being pressed

by this expense every year for an extended period,

they instituted that it should be taken from the heirs,

and they would hand it over to the community.

Once they saw that they were negligent with it

the heirs, and did not bring it, they again

placed it upon the Torah law,

that it should come from the Chamber. And now it is found to be offered from the community by virtue of a stipulation of the court, just as the essential law is from the Torah. 31 .

And incidentally, we explain through our passage the continuation of the Mishna in Shekalim, concerning the matters that come from the funds of the Chamber by rabbinic enactment. For we learned there, concerning the sixth enactment:

And for the red heifer—

so that one who misuses its ashes shall not be liable.

For one who derives benefit from its ashes does not become liable for an offering of misuse.

And we raise the objection:

It is by Torah law

that there is no misuse with the ashes of the red heifer,

for it was taught:

It is written in the passage of the red heifer:

“It is a sin-offering”—this teaches that there is misuse with it

with the heifer itself , and we derive:

“It”—there is misuse with it

like other sin-offerings.