Menachot 52b — the Talmud in English

Is

for the Rabbis, was its frankincense doubled, or not?

And the root of the doubt is:

do we say: since its fine flour was doubled, its frankincense was doubled,

and there is no longer here the reason of “we have not found an issaron that requires two kometz measures,” for there are two issaron measures, and there is a kometz for each issaron,

or perhaps, that which was revealed

regarding the fine flour—that it was doubled when the High Priest died and one brought an issaron in the morning and an issaron in the evening—

was revealed; that which was not revealed

namely, regarding the frankincense,

was not revealed,

and we do not say that it should be doubled upon the death of the High Priest. Therefore, he brings half a kometz in the morning and half of it between the evenings, as with every havitin meal-offering. But according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai, the Gemara has no doubt, for he holds that he always brings two kometz measures—one in the morning and one in the evening 35 .

However, regarding the oil, the Gemara has a doubt even according to Abba Yosei:

And oil

which, before he died, he would give three log every day—one and a half log for half an issaron in the morning and one and a half log between the evenings—what is the law with regard to this meal-offering, which has a whole issaron in the morning and an issaron between the evenings? Shall we say that it should be doubled, and he gives three log each time, or that he gives one and a half log each time, since it was not revealed that it should be doubled?

And the doubt is

both according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai and according to the Rabbis—

what

is the law of the oil? For we find that three log is a complete measure for an issaron during his lifetime; and is it likewise the case that he brings a measure of three log for a whole issaron between the evenings after his death? For such a measure of mixing applies even according to Abba Yosei, since it was not doubled beyond a complete measure of oil for one issaron.

Rava said

to resolve the doubt regarding the frankincense according to the Rabbis:

Come and hear

from what is explained in the Mishna below, in chapter Thirteen:

There are five kometz measures

[in five matters the measure of a kometz is established], and there the Mishna lists several forms of a frankincense kometz, [but a frankincense kometz of the havitin is not listed, since it is offered in halves, whereas the Mishna is speaking of a complete one].

And if it is so

that there is also a meal-offering in which there are two complete frankincense kometz measures, then

at times one finds

also

seven

kometz measures, for with the havitin, when the High Priest dies, there is a measure of two kometz measures for one offering.

And we reject this: “

For if,”

which is a special case in which the High Priest died and another was not appointed,

it is not taught,

but only the ordinary measures are taught. Therefore, one cannot bring proof from the absence of these kometz measures from the Mishna that its frankincense was not doubled according to the Rabbis; it is possible that the law is that he brings a frankincense kometz for each issaron.

Rav Pappa sat and stated this teaching,

having brought this proof and its rejection.

Rav Yosef bar Shemaya said to Rav Pappa: But

in the Mishna there, in the enumeration of the kometz measures, in which the measure of a kometz with regard to liability is explained,

one who raises a kometz

of a meal-offering

outside

the Temple courtyard—which is not among the ordinary measures of the offerings, but

“for if” it were,

for it is not something done regularly with regard to liability for raising it outside, but only if he transgressed and offered it—

and it teaches

it, and we see that “for if” is also written there!?

What was concluded

about these doubts?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Come and hear

from this

as it was taught:

He brings a

complete

issaron of fine flour

in the morning, and a complete one between the evenings, and he sets aside two kometz measures for it

of frankincense—

a kometz in the morning and a kometz between the evenings, and he sets aside three log for it

of oil—

one and a half log in the morning, one and a half log between the evenings.

And it was not explained according to whose view the baraita is speaking, and whether it is speaking of the havitin of the High Priest during his lifetime or after his death.

And we inquire concerning it:

Who is it? If you say, the Rabbis,

and when the High Priest dies and another is not appointed in his place,

what is different about its frankincense, that it was doubled,

for when he did not die, he offers half the kometz each time, whereas here it was doubled because he offers a complete issaron in the morning and in the evening; if so, the same law should apply to the oil,

and what is different about its oil, that it was not doubled?

Rather,

it is necessarily

Abba Yosei ben Dostai, who says that the High Priest’s havitin in general

even during his lifetime

requires two kometz measures

of frankincense

—

and if so, this baraita is not speaking of doubling because the issaron was doubled; rather, this is its law always.

And its frankincense was not doubled, and its oil was not doubled.

And although regarding the oil there was room to say that in this case it should be doubled because of the doubling of the fine flour, it is demonstrated from the baraita that we do not double it.

And since the oil according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai was not doubled,

because he holds that whatever was not revealed was not revealed,

its frankincense and its oil according to the Rabbis likewise were not doubled.

And if so, it is demonstrated that there is no doubling, for they differed only regarding the frankincense during his lifetime. But after his death there is no distinction between the views, since whatever was not revealed was not revealed. [And only the fine flour was doubled, since the verse revealed it] 36 .

Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is according to Abba Yosei ben Dostai,

who said that he offers two kometz measures in the morning and in the evening during the lifetime of the priest. And we object:

Did Rabbi Yohanan indeed say this?

But Rabbi Yohanan said

a principle: that in every place

the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna, and we learned

in the unattributed Mishna of chapter Thirteen, which was cited above,

there are five kometz measures,

and it is demonstrated that there are not two kometz measures in the havitin meal-offering, from the fact that seven kometz measures are not stated. If so, according to the principle that the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna, should Rabbi Yohanan not rule according to the Rabbis, since the unattributed Mishna accords with them? And we answer:

They are amoraim, and according to Rabbi Yohanan,

and that amora who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that the halakha is according to Abba Yosei does not hold that Rabbi Yohanan stated the principle that the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna.

We have completed chapter The Tekhelet.

Mishna:

All the meal-offerings come

when they are baked

unleavened, except for the loaves of

the loaves of

leavened bread that

are in the offering of

thanksgiving ,

and the two loaves,

which are the “new meal-offering,” brought on the festival of Weeks —

which come leavened.

These two meal-offerings are not sacrificed upon the altar, for it is stated: “Any leaven and any honey you shall not burn from it as a fire-offering to the Lord”; nevertheless, they are called “meal-offering” because of the particular procedures of a meal-offering that are performed with them, as explained above, on page 46b. How did he leaven the two loaves and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering?

Rabbi Meir says: Leaven

he makes

[creates]

for them from within them.

He would take a little flour from the tenth-measure of flour [which is the measure for each loaf of the thanksgiving-offering and of the two loaves], after all the flour had already been measured in the measure of a tenth, knead this small amount of flour with water, and then return and bury the small kneaded dough within the semolina; it would become leaven, and with this leaven they would leaven all the dough afterward.

Rabbi Judah says: It too —

is not of the best,

for this leaven does not become properly leavened, and it cannot properly leaven the dough.

Rather,

he

brings the leaven

that has become properly leavened from his house, together with the semolina,

and places it

as leaven

into the measure

in which they measure the tenth-measure of semolina, and adds

and fills the measure

with semolina.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Judah: If he brings the leaven from his house and places it together with the flour into the measure of a tenth-measure,

it too,

the meal-offering,

would be deficient

from a tenth-measure of flour, which is the measure of the meal-offering,

or excessive

over a tenth-measure of flour.

Because the volume of the leaven is not equal to the volume of the semolina; rather, sometimes the volume of the leaven is greater than the volume of the semolina, and sometimes it is smaller than it. For the leaven is produced by mixing flour with water. Therefore, if he put much water into the mixture, the volume of the leaven is greater than the volume of the flour, and if he put little water, the volume of the leaven is smaller than the volume of the flour. It follows that if he brings the leaven from his house and does not produce it from the flour that was measured in the measure of a tenth-measure, then when he fills the tenth-measure with the leaven brought from his house and with semolina, the filling of the tenth-measure will not contain an exact tenth-measure of semolina. For if that leaven had been semolina and not leaven, it would have contained either more or less semolina than it now does. Thus, he either increased beyond a tenth-measure of semolina or diminished from it, whereas the Torah said to bring a measured tenth-measure of semolina. Therefore, the only method is to produce the leaven from the semolina after it has been measured within the tenth-measure.

Gemara:

Rabbi Perida asked Rabbi Ami: From where do we know that all

the meal-offerings come unleavened?

Rabbi Ami was astonished: What was difficult for you,

“From where do we know?”

For every meal-offering

with regard to which it is written

explicitly that it is unleavened, it is obvious that it comes unleavened, since

it is written with regard to it

explicitly. But regarding a meal-offering

with regard to which it is not written

explicitly that it comes unleavened,

it is written with regard to it

[that is, it is included in the verse]: “This is the law of the meal-offering” —

“Bring it, the sons of Aaron, before the Lord, to the front of the altar, and they shall eat what remains of it, Aaron and his sons; it shall be eaten unleavened”

— and all the meal-offerings are included in the commandment, “it shall be eaten unleavened,” since at the beginning of the verse it says, “This is the law of the meal-offering,” teaching that this is a law applying to every meal-offering.

All the meal-offerings are included in the command, “It shall be eaten as unleavened bread,” since at the beginning of the verse it says, “This is the law of the meal-offering,” teaching that this law applies to every meal-offering.