Menachot 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

But

there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to its ashes,

and it is difficult again: Why was a rabbinic ordinance necessary to establish that there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to its ashes?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances

concerning the ashes of the red heifer. Indeed, by

Torah law

only

with regard to it there is misuse of consecrated property,

but

with regard to its ashes there is no misuse of consecrated property. However, once they saw that

the Sages

saw that people were treating it contemptuously,

since there was no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to it,

and they were making from it

an ash that healed

their wounds, they decreed with regard to it

that the law of

misuse of consecrated property

should apply.

And afterward,

once they saw that people were refraining

from sprinklings performed due to uncertainty,

for example, when they had become impure through uncertainty as to whether they had contracted impurity from a corpse, and they did not perform the sprinkling because of the concern that there might be a prohibition of misuse of consecrated property—perhaps they had not become impure, in which case the one using the ashes would be guilty of misuse—therefore

they restored it to its status under Torah law,

that there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to it.

The Sages taught: The bull brought for an unwitting communal sin and the goats brought for idolatry

are initially collected for

the treasurers collected a special levy from each and every Jew for these offerings,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin is not purchased with funds from the Chamber’s contribution.

Rabbi Shimon says: They come from the Chamber’s contribution,

like all communal offerings.

And we challenge this:

But was it not taught in the opposite manner,

that Rabbi Yehuda holds that they come from the Chamber’s contribution, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that a special collection is made?!

And we are uncertain:

Which of them

among the two beraitot

is later

and therefore authoritative, since it may be said that they later retracted their initial opinions?

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

the beraita cited above first, according to which Rabbi Yehuda holds that a special collection is made and Rabbi Shimon holds that the funds come from the Chamber, is authoritative, because it is

the later one.

And the reason that we should decide in this manner is

that we have heard Rabbi Shimon express concern about negligence.

For we find that with regard to the chavittin offering, when the High Priest dies, he holds that it comes from the public funds and not from the heirs, because of concern that the heirs might be negligent. Likewise, it may be said that with regard to the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin he decreed that perhaps the money would not be collected, and therefore it comes from the Chamber.

And we reject this:

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

and it follows that Rabbi Shimon holds here that a special collection is made and the funds do not come from the Chamber, and that there is no concern about negligence, nevertheless this does not contradict Rabbi Shimon’s concern regarding the chavittin offering—

for Rabbi Shimon is concerned about negligence in a matter in which they have no atonement through it,

as in the chavittin offering of a deceased High Priest, which the heirs bring on his behalf and not on their own behalf, and therefore they might be negligent with regard to it. But

in a matter through which they have atonement,

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

Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about negligence,

and therefore one may rely on a collection from the public, and the funds are not taken from the Chamber.

And we inquire about it:

What was concluded

with regard to this uncertainty? Who holds that it comes from the Chamber’s contribution, a matter with a practical consequence for determining the halakha?

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

for it is written with regard to the daily offering: “

My offering, My food for My fire-offerings, My pleasing fragrance, you shall take care to offer to Me at its appointed time.”

And they expound the repetition of the terms “My offering,” “My food,” and “My fire-offerings,” all of which denote offerings:

to include the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin and the goats brought for idolatry, which come from the Chamber’s contribution,

like the daily offering,

the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

It is thus established that the first beraita was taught later and is authoritative, and that Rabbi Shimon holds in it that the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin comes from the Chamber’s contribution.

We learned in our Mishna:

And it was offered whole

when the High Priest died and no one was appointed in his place. Since, according to Rabbi Shimon, it came from the public funds, or according to Rabbi Yehuda, from the heirs, the law of “half of it” does not apply to it; rather, a complete tenth of an ephah was offered in the morning.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan raised a question:

with regard to this law, does it come

whole in the morning and whole in the evening,

two tenths each day,

or perhaps it comes whole in the morning

and no more, as there is no law requiring half of it in the morning and half in the evening, but nevertheless they were commanded only to offer one-tenth of an ephah each day,

and

the offering of the chavittin meal-offering

in the evening is canceled?

Rava said: Come and hear

from a Mishna in tractate Tamid, which enumerates the number of priests engaged in the service of the daily offerings, both in the morning and in the evening, and describes their order there: “

The eighth

the eighth priest, engages in

the chavittin.”

And if it is so that the evening offering is canceled

when the High Priest dies and no one is appointed in his place,

then there are times when one does not find an eighth priest engaged with the chavittin! What are the circumstances?

For example,

the High Priest died, and no one was appointed in his place!

It follows from the Mishna that there is always an eighth priest, and it is proven that the evening offering is not canceled even when the High Priest dies. 33

The Sages said before Rabbi Yirmeya

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

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

You foolish Babylonians! Because you sit in a dark place,

as Babylonia is a low-lying land,

you utter teachings that are darkened,

for when you do not know the reason for a matter, you invent a reason from your own hearts that is not valid. Certainly, there is an exception to the statement of the Mishna, and there is no proof here at all.

And we question Rava’s statement, according to which there are always eight priests:

Rather,

what is the meaning of the fact

that it teaches in

that Mishna that the

seventh

priest engages

with the fine flour

of the meal-offering accompanying the daily offering and offers them, and the

ninth, with the wine

for the libations of the daily offering?

Here too, should we say that they are never canceled

under any circumstances? Yet we learned: “

Their meal-offerings and their libations,”

and this is expounded to teach that libations may also be brought

at night,

and it is likewise expounded: “

Their meal-offerings and their libations”—

—

even on the following day.

It is possible to bring the offering today and its libations separately even ten days later. Consequently, in such a case there would be no seventh priest with the fine flour and no ninth priest with the wine.

Rather,

it must be that

“if” is not taught,

that the Mishna speaks only of the ordinary situation and not of situations in which the stated arrangement might not apply, such as when there were no libations.

Here too,

it may be said with regard to the chavittin that if the High Priest dies, the eighth priest in the evening is indeed canceled. However,

“if” is not taught,

and therefore there is no proof from the fact that the Mishna mentions “the eighth with the chavittin,” since the Mishna speaks of the ordinary situation, during the lifetime of the High Priest.

They repeated

Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement that he had called the Babylonians foolish

before Rava. He said: “They mention my disgrace,

only my unfavorable teachings,

before them,

before the inhabitants of the Land of Israel, whereas

my favorable teachings,

my good teachings,

they do not mention before them!”

Then Rava said: This too, which we stated,

that the evening offering is not canceled,

is a favorable teaching,

and is not an error. 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

with regard to the chavittin meal-offering: “

a meal-offering of fine flour, always,”

and we learn:

Behold, it is for you like the daily meal-offering:

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

And we conclude:

What was concluded?

Is the law as Rava said, that it is not canceled, or is it like Rabbi Yirmeya, who rejected his proof?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear

from this

as it was taught: It was offered whole

in the morning,

and whole in the evening,

and this proves Rava’s opinion, that it was offered even in the evening.

And now the Gemara discusses the measure of the frankincense that accompanies the entire chavittin meal-offering of a High Priest who has not died.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis disagree about it.

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

and brings them with the complete tenth of an ephah that he brings from his home, and offers

one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening,

as is explained below, since the phrase “half of it” was not stated with regard to the handful of frankincense.

And the Rabbis say: He separates one handful for it, half

a handful in the morning and half a handful in the evening.

And we inquire:

With regard to what do they disagree?

And we explain:

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

Since “half of it” was not stated with regard to the frankincense, a complete handful of frankincense is offered with each half of the tenth of an ephah. 34

And the Rabbis hold: We do not find a tenth of an ephah that requires two handfuls.

Therefore, the handful of frankincense is also divided: half in the morning and half in the evening.

Rabbi Yohanan raised a question: A High Priest who died and no one was appointed in his place,

as we learned above, that the measure of his meal-offering is a complete tenth of an ephah in the morning and a complete tenth of an ephah in the evening,