## Menachot Daf 21b

###### Menachot 21b:1
[Menachot 21b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:1)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלַח שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵבֶר – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְשֶׁבְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. (ואמר) [אָמַר] רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״וְהִקְרַבְתָּם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִשְׁלִיכוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלַח וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתָם עֹלָה לַה׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:4): With regard to **salt that is on the limb** of an offering, one who derives benefit **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, but in the case of salt **that is on the ramp or that is on top of the altar,** one who derives benefit **from it** is **not** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. **And Rav Mattana said: What is the verse** from which it is derived that the salt found upon a sacrificial limb is subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property? The verse states: **“And you shall sacrifice them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering to the Lord”** (Ezekiel 43:24). In this verse, the limbs, together with the salt, are termed a burnt offering, and therefore the salt on the limb is also subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property.


###### Menachot 21b:2
[Menachot 21b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:2)

תְּנַן הָתָם: עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים, שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נְאוֹתִין בָּהֶן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְקׇרְבָּנָם, אֲבָל לַאֲכִילָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakha* that salt is not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property, **we learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Shekalim* 7:7): The court instituted an ordinance **about the salt and about the wood** in the Temple to the effect **that the priests may derive benefit from them. Shmuel says: They taught only** that the priests may derive benefit from the salt **for** use on **their offerings, but not for eating** it.


###### Menachot 21b:3
[Menachot 21b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:3)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ קׇרְבָּנָם. לֶאֱכוֹל – אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים. הַשְׁתָּא לִמְלוֹחַ עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים יָהֲבִינַן, לַאֲכִילַת קֳדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It enters our mind** to say: **What** did Shmuel mean by the expression: **For** use on **their offerings?** He meant that the priests were permitted **to salt their** personal **offerings.** And when Shmuel states that **for** the purpose of **eating** it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt, he is referring to adding salt when **eating** the meat **of sacrificial** animals, e.g., the portions of the sin offering and guilt offering that are given to the priests. The Gemara challenges this explanation: **Now,** if **we give** the priests salt in order **to salt the hides of sacrificial** animals that are given to the priests to keep, so that they can process them, is it reasonable to rule that **we do not give them** salt in order **to** add it when they **eat** the meat of **sacrificial** animals?


###### Menachot 21b:4
[Menachot 21b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:4)

דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הַמֶּלַח נְתוּנָה: בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח, וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ, וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים, עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁשָּׁם מוֹלְחִין הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its challenge: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:2): **You are found** to be **saying** that **the salt is placed in three locations** in the Temple: **In the Chamber of the Salt, and on the ramp, and on top of** the **altar.** It is placed **in the Chamber of the Salt, since** the priests **salted there the hides of sacrificial** animals that are given to them. It is placed **on the ramp, since** the priests **salted there the** sacrificial **limbs.** It is placed **on top of** the **altar, since** the priests **salted there the handful** of the meal offering, **the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of** the **anointed priest, the meal offering** that accompanies the **libations, and the bird burnt offering.** Evidently, it was permitted for the priests to add salt to their portions of sacrificial meat.


###### Menachot 21b:5
[Menachot 21b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:5)

אֶלָּא מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לַאֲכִילַת קׇרְבָּנָם, וּמַאי לַאֲכִילָה – אֲכִילָה דְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a different explanation of Shmuel’s statement: **Rather, what** did Shmuel mean by the expression: **For** use on **their offerings?** He meant that it is permitted for the priests **to** add salt when they **eat** the meat of **their offerings,** e.g., the portions of the guilt offerings and sin offerings that are given to the priests, as well as when they eat the remainder of the meal offering. **And what** is meant when Shmuel states that **for** the purpose of **eating** it is not permitted for the priests to derive benefit from the salt? He is referring to using the salt for the purpose of **eating non-sacred** food.


###### Menachot 21b:6
[Menachot 21b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:6)

חוּלִּין, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר מָר ״יֹאכְלוּ״, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ עִמָּהּ חוּלִּין וּתְרוּמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת עַל הַשּׂוֹבַע, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מֶלַח דְּקָדָשִׁים לָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: Isn’t it **obvious** that the salt is not to be eaten with **non-sacred** food? **What** would non-sacred food be **doing there** in the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: **Even though the Master says** in the *baraita* that the verse stated with regard to the meal offering: “And that which is left of it Aaron and his sons **shall eat”** (Leviticus 6:9), teaching **that** the priests **shall eat non-sacred** food **and *teruma* along with** the remainder of the meal offering **so that** the remainder of the meal offering **will be eaten in** a manner that the priest will be **satiated** when he finishes eating it, demonstrating that non-sacred food may be brought to the Temple courtyard, **even so we do not give them consecrated salt.**


###### Menachot 21b:7
[Menachot 21b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מַאי לְקׇרְבָּנָם – לִמְלוֹחַ, טַעְמָא דְּאַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין, הָא לָא אַתְנִי בֵּית דִּין – לָא? הַשְׁתָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָהֲבִינַן, לְכֹהֲנִים לָא יָהֲבִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: So too, it is reasonable** to explain that Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna in *Shekalim* is that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to eat the salt with sacrificial foods. **As, if it enters your mind** to say: **What** did Shmuel mean by the expression: **For** use on **their offerings?** He meant that the priests were permitted **to salt** their personal offerings; then one must extrapolate from the mishna that **the reason** this is permitted is **that the court stipulated** that it should be, **but had the court not stipulated** this, it would **not** be permitted. That cannot be, as **now** that **we give** salt **to Israelites** to salt their offerings, will **we not give** salt **to priests** for the same purpose?


###### Menachot 21b:8
[Menachot 21b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:8)

דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? וְדִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא לְבוֹנָה, מָה לְבוֹנָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – אַף מֶלַח מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that we provide salt for the offerings of Israelites: One **might** have thought that **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a meal offering, must bring salt from his home,** i.e., his own salt, to salt the handful that is burned on the altar, **just as he brings frankincense from his home** for his meal offering. **And** this would seem to be **a logical inference:** It **is stated** in the Torah that one shall **bring a meal offering, and** it is stated that one shall **bring salt,** as it is written: “And every meal offering of yours you shall season with salt” (Leviticus 2:13); **and** it **is stated** that one shall **bring a meal offering, and** it is stated that one shall **bring frankincense.** Therefore, **just as** one brings **frankincense from his home,** as it is written: “And put frankincense on it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2), **so too,** one must bring **salt from his home.**


###### Menachot 21b:9
[Menachot 21b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:9)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא מֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵיא מִנְחָה וְהָבֵיא עֵצִים – מָה עֵצִים מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף מֶלַח מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps, **go this way:** It **is stated** in the Torah that one shall **bring a meal offering and** that one shall **bring salt, and** it **is stated** that one shall **bring a meal offering and** that one shall **bring wood,** as the meal offering cannot be burned on the altar without the wood. Therefore, **just as** the **wood** comes **from communal** supplies, **so too,** the **salt** shall come **from communal** supplies.


###### Menachot 21b:10
[Menachot 21b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:10)

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה, דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Let us see to which** salt **is** more **similar,** i.e., which comparison seems more reasonable: **We derive** the *halakha* of salt, which is **a matter that applies to all offerings, from** the *halakha* of wood, which is also **a matter that applies to all offerings. And** do **not** let the *halakha* of **frankincense prove** otherwise, **as it does not apply to all offerings,** only to the meal offerings.


###### Menachot 21b:11
[Menachot 21b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:11)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין דָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, מִדָּבָר הַבָּא עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאַל יוֹכִיחוּ עֵצִים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין עִמָּהּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps, **go this way: We derive** the *halakha* of salt, which is **a matter that accompanies** the meal offering **in one vessel, from** the *halakha* of frankincense, which is also **a matter that accompanies** the meal offering **in one vessel. And** do **not** let the *halakha* of **wood prove** otherwise, **as it does not accompany** the meal offering **in one vessel.**


###### Menachot 21b:12
[Menachot 21b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:12)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם״, מָה לְהַלָּן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף כָּאן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt”** (Numbers 18:19), **and there,** with regard to the shewbread, **it states: “It is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant”** (Leviticus 24:8); Therefore, **just as** the phrase written **there:** “From the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant,” means that it is brought **from communal** supplies, as the shewbread is a communal offering, **so too here,** the verse that speaks of the everlasting covenant of salt means that the salt is brought **from communal** supplies. Evidently, salt is provided for offerings of Israelites, and should likewise be provided for the offerings of priests. Accordingly, there would have been no need for the court to permit the priests to salt their offerings, and it must be that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to use salt when eating sacrificial foods.


###### Menachot 21b:13
[Menachot 21b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי קָאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבֶן בּוּכְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This** is what **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says:** The initial understanding of Shmuel’s interpretation of the mishna is correct, i.e., that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to salt their offerings; and the ruling of the mishna **is necessary only according to** the opinion of **ben Bukhri,** who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies.


###### Menachot 21b:14
[Menachot 21b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:14)

דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 1:4): **Rabbi Yehuda said** that **ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his shekel is not** considered **a sinner,** despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that **Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to** ben Bukhri: **That is not** the case; **rather, any priest who does not contribute his shekel** is considered **a sinner,** as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. **But the priests** who do not contribute the shekel **interpret this** following **verse to their own** advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.


###### Menachot 21b:15
[Menachot 21b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:15)

״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״, הוֹאִיל וְעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הִיא, הֵיאַךְ נֶאֱכָלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse states: **“And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: **Since** the ***omer*** offering **and the two loaves,** i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of *Shavuot*, **and the shewbread** placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are **ours,** then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. **How,** then, **can they be eaten?** They would then be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.


###### Menachot 21b:16
[Menachot 21b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:16)

וּלְבֶן בּוּכְרִי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא מִיחַיַּיב לְאֵיתוֹיֵי, כִּי מַיְיתֵי נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא, דְּקָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, דְּמַיְיתֵי וּמָסַר לְהוֹן לְצִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **But according to** the opinion of **ben Bukhri,** why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? **Since he is not obligated to bring** it ***ab initio*, when he brings** the half-shekel **he is also a sinner, since he is** causing the **bringing** of **a non-sacred** item **into the** Temple **courtyard.** He is not contributing the half-shekel as part of the communal offering, as he is exempt from this obligation. Therefore, his donation is the donation of an individual, and a communal offering cannot be brought on behalf of an individual. His donation should disqualify all offerings brought from the communal funds. The Gemara answers: The priest **brings and transfers** the half-shekel **to the community,** so it is considered part of the communal funds.


###### Menachot 21b:17
[Menachot 21b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/21b:17)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states the relevance of the opinion of ben Bukhri to the statement of Shmuel: According to the opinion of ben Bukhri it might **enter your mind to say** that