## Menachot Daf 50a

###### Menachot 50a:1
[Menachot 50a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:1)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם שִׁבְעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא, תַּנָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאֵי, וּמַאי כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת וּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה? סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In any case,** the question stands: Why does the mishna say six lambs when, in fact the number required **is seven?** The Gemara answers: **Rather, the *tanna* is** speaking **generally,** referring to how many inspected lambs are required throughout the year. **And what** did he mean by his statement: **Sufficient for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana?** It is **merely** intended as **a mnemonic,** to help one remember that there must be enough lambs for the daily offering of three days.


###### Menachot 50a:2
[Menachot 50a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:2)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״כְּדֵי לַשַּׁבָּת״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״לְשַׁבָּת וְלִשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to this the language of the mishna **is also precise, as** it **teaches: Sufficient for Shabbat** and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana, **and it does not teach** that there must be six lambs **for Shabbat and for the two festival days of Rosh HaShana,** which would have indicated that these lambs are meant to actually be sacrificed on those days. The Gemara concludes that in fact one can **learn from** the language of the mishna that this is the correct interpretation.


###### Menachot 50a:3
[Menachot 50a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:3)

לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבּוֹקֶר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים. חִינּוּךְ מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the priests **did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning** as the daily offering, nevertheless, they should sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering. If they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. **Rabbi Shimon said: And** in such a case, **the entire** measure **was sacrificed in the afternoon, as** the daily service on a new **golden altar is initiated only with** the burning of **the incense of the spices** in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: **Who mentioned anything about** the **initiation** of the Temple vessels, i.e., what is its relevance to the mishna?


###### Menachot 50a:4
[Menachot 50a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:4)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the mishna **is incomplete, and this is** what **it is teaching:** If **they did not sacrifice a lamb** for the daily offering **in the morning, they should not sacrifice** a lamb in **the afternoon. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** the service of a new **altar had not** yet **been initiated,** since it must first be initiated with the daily offering of the morning. **But** if the service of **the altar had** already **been initiated,** then **they should sacrifice** the lamb of the daily offering in **the afternoon** even though they did not sacrifice the lamb of the morning offering.


###### Menachot 50a:5
[Menachot 50a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: When** does this *halakha* apply? It applies **at a time when** the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because **they were** prevented from sacrificing it due to **circumstances beyond their control or** they failed to sacrifice it **unwittingly. But if** the priests acted **intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning** as the daily offering, **they should not sacrifice** a lamb **in the afternoon** as the daily offering. By contrast, if **they did not burn** the half-measure of **incense in the morning, they should burn** the half-measure **in the afternoon** regardless of the circumstances.


###### Menachot 50a:6
[Menachot 50a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:6)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – שֵׁנִי בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived, that if the lamb of the daily offering of the morning was not sacrificed and the service of a new altar had not yet been initiated, then the lamb of the afternoon is also not sacrificed? The Gemara explains that it is derived **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning; **and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon”** (Exodus 29:39). This verse teaches that **the second** lamb of the daily offering is sacrificed **in the afternoon, but** if it is **the first** one to be sacrificed, it may **not** be sacrificed **in the afternoon.**


###### Menachot 50a:7
[Menachot 50a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:7)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** the service of a new **altar had not** yet **been initiated,** since it must first be initiated with the offering of the morning. When the verse refers to the first or second offering, it means the first or second offering ever sacrificed on the altar. **But** if the service of **the altar had** already **been initiated,** then **even** if it is **the first** to be sacrificed that day, it should be sacrificed **in the afternoon.**


###### Menachot 50a:8
[Menachot 50a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין – לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבֹּקֶר, לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבּוֹקֶר – יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: When** does this *halakha* apply? It applies **at a time when** the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because **they were** prevented from sacrificing it due to **circumstances beyond their control or** they failed to sacrifice it **unwittingly. But if** the priests acted **intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning** as the daily offering, **they should not sacrifice** a lamb **in the afternoon** as the daily offering. By contrast, if **they did not burn** the half-measure of **incense in the morning, they should burn** the half-measure **in the afternoon** regardless of the circumstances.


###### Menachot 50a:9
[Menachot 50a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:9)

וְכִי כֹהֲנִים חָטְאוּ, מִזְבֵּחַ בָּטֵל?! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ הֵן, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים יַקְרִיבוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Does it make sense that **because the priests sinned** by intentionally failing to sacrifice the morning daily offering, **the altar** should be entirely **idle? Rava said** that **this** is what Rabbi Shimon **is saying: They,** the priests who deliberately failed to sacrifice the morning daily offering, **should not sacrifice** the afternoon daily offering; **but other** priests **should sacrifice** it.


###### Menachot 50a:10
[Menachot 50a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:10)

לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטֹרֶת בַּבֹּקֶר, יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא, וּמְעַתְּרָא, חֲבִיבָא לְהוּ וְלָא פָּשְׁעִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if the priests acted intentionally and **did not burn** the **incense in the morning,** even those same priests **may burn** it in the **afternoon.** The reason for this is **that since** burning the incense **is uncommon and causes** those who do so to become **wealthy,** it is **dear to the** priests, **and they will not be negligent** in the performance of this rite.


###### Menachot 50a:11
[Menachot 50a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם וְכוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon. **Rabbi Shimon said: And** in such a case, **the entire** measure **was sacrificed in the afternoon.** The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is **that** the daily service on a new **golden altar is initiated only with** the burning of **the incense of the spices of the afternoon,** at which time they would burn a full measure. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The service of a new golden altar is initiated **with** the burning of **the incense of the spices of the morning?** The Gemara answers: The question of whether the incense of the morning or the afternoon initiates the service of a new golden altar **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.**


###### Menachot 50a:12
[Menachot 50a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** It **stands to reason** that the *halakha* should be **in accordance with the one who says** that it was initiated **with the incense of the spices of the afternoon, as it is written** with regard to the golden altar: “And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; **every morning, when he dresses the lamps, he shall burn it.** And when Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:7–8).


###### Menachot 50a:13
[Menachot 50a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:13)

אִי לָאו דַּעֲבַד הַדְלָקָה מֵאוּרְתָּא, הֲטָבָה בְּצַפְרָא מֵהֵיכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The fact that ashes are removed from the lamps of the Candelabrum in the morning indicates that the lamps had been lit previously, since **if** the priest had **not performed the lighting** of the lamps the previous **evening, from where** would the ashes be **removed in the morning?** This proves that the Candelabrum must have been lit for the first time in the evening. Since the verse states: “When Aaron lights the lamps at dusk, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the Lord,” it must be that the incense was burned for the first time in the evening.


###### Menachot 50a:14
[Menachot 50a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:14)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר, גָּמַר מִמִּזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה: מָה לְהַלָּן בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר – אַף כָּאן בִּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים שֶׁל שַׁחַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that the service of a new golden altar is initiated **with** the burning of **the incense of the spices of the morning,** from where is this *halakha* derived? The Gemara answers: He **derives** it **from** the initiation of **the altar of the burnt offering. Just as there,** the service of a new altar of the burnt offering is initiated **by** means of the **daily offering of the morning** rather than the afternoon, **so too here,** the service of a new golden altar is initiated **by** means of the burning of **the incense of the spices of the morning.**


###### Menachot 50a:15
[Menachot 50a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:15)

וְלֹא אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶלָּא בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא בְּחוֹל – אִיחַנּוֹכֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִחַנַּךְ, הָא קַדּוֹשֵׁי מְיקַדֵּישׁ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** use of a new **Table** was initiated **only with** the arrangement of **the shewbread on Shabbat.** The Gemara asks: **But** does the mishna mean to indicate that if the shewbread was placed on the Table **on a weekday it is** merely that the use of a new Table **is not initiated, but** the shewbread **is sanctified?** The *halakha* is that the shewbread is sanctified only when it is placed on the Table on Shabbat.


###### Menachot 50a:16
[Menachot 50a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:16)

הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּחִינּוּךְ וְקִידּוּשׁ דְּשֻׁלְחָן בְּשַׁבָּת הוּא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְלֹא אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **teaches us this** *halakha* **itself, that the initiation** of the use of a new Table **and the sanctification of** the shewbread when it is placed on **the Table** occur only **on Shabbat.** This is **as** the mishna **teaches** in **the latter clause** with regard to the initiation of the use of a new Candelabrum: **And** use of a new **Candelabrum** was initiated **only with** the kindling **of its seven lamps in the afternoon.**


###### Menachot 50a:17
[Menachot 50a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: (זֶהוּ) [זוֹהִי] קְטֹרֶת שֶׁעָלְתָה לְיָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְהוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּנְּשִׂיאִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another *halakha* relating to the burning of incense. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **This is incense that was offered for an individual** rather than the community **on the external altar,** and not on the golden altar as usual; **and this was a provisional edict,** permitted temporarily for that time only. The Gemara clarifies: To **what** case is the *baraita* referring? **Rav Pappa said:** It is referring to the incense brought **by the** tribal **princes** at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7).


###### Menachot 50a:18
[Menachot 50a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:18)

אֶלָּא יָחִיד עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הוּא דְּלָא, הָא עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מַקְרֵיב? וְתוּ: עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן יָחִיד הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צִיבּוּר מַקְרְבִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to the incense of **an individual, is it** only **on the external altar that** it is **not** generally permitted to be burned, **but** an individual **may sacrifice** incense **on the inner altar,** as indicated by the *baraita*? **And furthermore, on the external altar, is it** only an **individual who may not** sacrifice incense, **but the community may sacrifice** incense on the external altar?


###### Menachot 50a:19
[Menachot 50a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:19)

וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יָחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ נְדָבָה, וְקוֹרֵא אֲנִי בָּהּ ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* contrary to those two inferences: One **might** have thought that **an individual may voluntarily donate and bring** incense **similar to** the incense brought by the tribal princes to the Temple as **a gift** offering, **and I** will **read with regard to** this incense, as in the case of other gift offerings: **“That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do”** (Deuteronomy 23:24). Therefore, **the verse states** concerning the inner altar: **“You shall bring no strange incense thereon”** (Exodus 30:9). This indicates that an individual may not sacrifice incense even on the inner altar.


###### Menachot 50a:20
[Menachot 50a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/50a:20)

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יָחִיד מֵבִיא, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that only **an individual may not bring** a gift of incense on the inner altar, **as** an individual **does not bring his obligatory** offering **similar to this** gift of incense, i.e., since an individual is never obligated to sacrifice incense, he may not voluntarily sacrifice incense either;