Menachot 52a — the Talmud in English

But

there is no me'ila with its ashes,

and it is again difficult: what need is there for the enactment of the Sages that there is no me'ila with its ashes?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: There were two enactments

concerning the ashes of the cow. Indeed, by

Torah law

only

is there me'ila with it,

but

with its ashes there is no me'ila. However, since

the Sages

saw that people were treating it lightly,

since there was no prohibition of me'ila with it,

and they were making from it

ashes that heal

their wounds, they decreed concerning it

that the Sages decreed that the law of

me'ila should apply to it.

And afterward,

since they saw that people were refraining

people

from doubtful sprinklings,

for example, when they had become impure with the uncertainty of impurity from a dead person, and did not perform the sprinkling out of concern for a possible prohibition of me'ila, lest they had not become impure and it turn out that they had committed me'ila, therefore

they restored it to Torah law,

that there is no me'ila with it.

The Sages taught: The bull for the communal unwitting error and the goats for idolatry —

at first, they collect for them

the treasurers collected a special levy from each and every one of Israel for these sacrifices,

the words of Rabbi Judah [who holds that they do not purchase for the bull for the unwitting communal error from the contribution of the chamber].

[who holds that the bull for an unwitting communal transgression is not purchased from the chamber collection].

Rabbi Shimon says: They come from the contribution of the chamber,

like all communal sacrifices.

And we object:

but was it not taught oppositely,

that Rabbi Judah holds that they come from the contribution of the chamber, and Rabbi Shimon holds that they collect specially?!

And it is uncertain to us:

which of them

of the beraitot

is the later one [the last one was stated] and it is the more authoritative one, [for one may say that they retracted their first opinion]?

[and therefore the authoritative one? It is possible that they later retracted their initial opinions].

The Sages said it before Rav Ashi: Let us say that the first one,

the beraita brought above first, in which Rabbi Judah holds that they collect specially and Rabbi Shimon holds that they come from the chamber, is the authoritative one, since it is

the later one.

And the reason that we should decide this way is

that we have heard that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about negligence.

For we find that this is his opinion concerning the chavitin offering: when the high priest dies, it comes from the community and not from the heirs, because of concern for the heirs’ negligence; likewise, it may be said that concerning the bull for the communal unwitting error he decreed that perhaps they would not collect, and therefore they come from the chamber.

And we reject this:

Rav Ashi said to them: Even if you say that the latter one is the later one,

and it follows that here Rabbi Shimon holds that they collect specially and not from the chamber, and there is no concern about negligence, nevertheless there will be no difficulty from that which Rabbi Shimon fears concerning the chavitin offering —

for Rabbi Shimon is concerned about negligence in a matter in which there is no atonement in it,

as with the chavitin offering of a high priest who died, which the heirs bring on his behalf and not for themselves, and therefore they may be negligent concerning it. But

in a matter in which there is atonement in it,

such as the bull for the communal unwitting error and the goats for idolatry, which come for a sin,

Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about negligence,

and therefore it is possible to rely on a collection from the community, and they do not take from the chamber.

And we inquire concerning it:

what has become of it

regarding this uncertainty? Who is the one who holds that it comes from the chamber [and there is a practical difference in determining the halakha]?

Rabba the Younger said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear: for it was taught

that it is written concerning the daily offering: "

You shall observe to offer My offering, My food for My fires, My pleasing fragrance, to Me at its appointed time."

And they expound from the multiplicity of the expressions “My offering,” “My food,” and “My fires,” all of which are expressions of sacrifices:

to include the bull for the communal unwitting error and the goats for idolatry, which come from the contribution of the chamber,

like the daily offering,

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

And it is demonstrated that the first beraita is the one taught later, and it is authoritative, and in it Rabbi Shimon holds that the bull for the unwitting error comes from the contribution of the chamber.

We learned in our Mishna:

and it was offered whole

when the high priest died and they did not appoint another in his place, for since according to Rabbi Shimon it comes from the community, or according to Rabbi Judah from the heirs, the law of “half of it” does not apply to it; rather, a whole tenth-measure was offered in the morning.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan inquired

concerning this law: Does it come

whole in the morning and whole between the evenings,

two tenth-measures each day,

or perhaps it is whole in the morning

and no more, for there is no law of half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening, but nevertheless they were commanded only concerning one-tenth of an eifa each day,

and the offering

of the chavitin meal-offering of

between the evenings is annulled.

Rava said: Come and hear

from a Mishna in tractate Tamid, which counts the number of priests engaged in the service of the daily offerings, both in the morning and in the evening, and the order of their standing; and it is explained there: "

the eighth,

the eighth priest engages in

the chavitin."

And if it is so that “between the evenings” is annulled

when the high priest dies and they do not appoint another in his place,

then there are times when one does not find an eighth [priest] for the chavitin?! What are the circumstances?

For example,

that the high priest died and they did not appoint another in his place!

And it follows from the Mishna that there is always an eighth [priest], and it is demonstrated that it is not annulled between the evenings even when the high priest dies. 33 .

The Sages said it before Rabbi Yirmeya

who was in the Land of Israel, concerning this proof in the name of Rava, who was from Babylonia.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

You foolish Babylonians, because you sit in a dark place

for Babylonia is a deep land,

you state teachings that are dark,

for when they do not know the reason for a matter, they invent from their hearts a reason that is not so. Certainly there is an exception to the words of the Mishna, and there is no proof here at all.

And we question Rava’s words, for he holds that they are always eight:

rather, what

what

is taught in

that Mishna, that a priest

the seventh

engages

in the fine flour

of the meal-offering accompanying the daily offering and offers them. And a priest

the ninth, with the wine

for the libations of the daily offering.

here too, [do you say] that they are not annulled

under any circumstances? For we learned: "

their meal-offerings and their libations,"

and we expound from this that libations come also

at night,

and likewise we expound from this: "

“their meal-offerings and their libations” —

—

even on the following day.

And it is possible to bring the sacrifice today and its libations separately even after ten days. It follows that in such a case there would be no seventh priest with the fine flour and no ninth with the wine.

Rather,

perforce,

“if” is not taught,

for the Mishna speaks only of the ordinary case and not of cases of “if it happens that you find it,” such as a case in which there were no libations.

here too

it may be said concerning the chavitin that indeed, if the high priest dies, the eighth between the evenings is annulled. However,

“if” is not taught,

therefore there is no proof from what is written “the eighth with the chavitin” in the Mishna, since the Mishna speaks of the ordinary case, during the lifetime of the high priest.

They repeated

the words of Rabbi Yirmeya, who said, “You foolish Babylonians,”

before Rava. He said: “From the shameful things,”

only from my teachings that are not good,

they say them before

before the people of the Land of Israel, whereas

the good things,

my good teachings,

they do not say them before them!”

Then Rava said: This also, which we said,

that it is not annulled between the evenings,

is a good thing,

and it is not an error, for even if it cannot be learned from the Mishna in tractate Tamid, it can be learned from the verse concerning the daily offering, for

the verse says

concerning the chavitin meal-offering: "

“fine flour, a perpetual meal-offering,”

and we learn:

behold, it is for you like the perpetual meal-offering;

just as the perpetual offering is not annulled, neither in the morning nor in the evening, so this too is not annulled.

And we conclude:

what has become of it?

Is the law according to Rava, who said that it is not annulled, or according to Rabbi Yirmeya, who rejected his words?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Come and hear

from this

that was taught: whole

it was offered

in the morning, and whole between the evenings,

and it is demonstrated in accordance with Rava’s opinion that it was offered also between the evenings.

And now the Gemara discusses the measure of the frankincense that comes with the entire chavitin meal-offering of a high priest who has not died.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Sages disagree concerning it.

Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: He sets aside for it two handfuls of frankincense,

and he brings them with the whole tenth-measure that he brings from his home, and he offers

one handful in the morning and one handful between the evenings,

as he explains below, for concerning the handful of frankincense it was not stated, “half of it.”

And the Sages say: He sets aside for it one handful, half

a handful in the morning and half a handful between the evenings.

And we inquire concerning it:

In what do they disagree?

And we explain:

Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds: We do not find that half a handful is offered.

And since “half of it” was not stated concerning it, a whole handful of frankincense is offered with each half of the tenth-measure. 34 .

And the Sages hold: We do not find a tenth-measure that requires two handfuls.

And therefore the handful of frankincense too is divided: half of it in the morning and half of it between the evenings.

Rabbi Yohanan inquired: [Concerning] a high priest who died and they did not appoint another in his place,

for we learned above that the measure of his meal-offering is a whole tenth-measure in the morning and a whole tenth-measure between the evenings,