## Menachot Daf 51b

###### Menachot 51b:1
[Menachot 51b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:1)

מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
with regard to the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, which is **a meal offering that comes** in the amount of **a tenth** of an ephah of flour, from the meal offering that accompanies the sacrifice of sheep, which is also a meal offering that comes in the amount of a tenth of an ephah of flour, and not from a meal offering that is brought in the amount of two or three tenths of an ephah of flour.


###### Menachot 51b:2
[Menachot 51b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** לֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִשֶּׁל מִי הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **they did not appoint another** High **Priest in his stead, from whose** property **was** the griddle-cake offering brought and **sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon says:** It is brought and sacrificed **from** the property **of the community. Rabbi Yehuda says:** It is brought and sacrificed **from** the property **of the heirs** of the High Priest. **And** for the duration of the period until a new High Priest was appointed, the griddle-cake offering **was sacrificed** as **a complete** tenth of an ephah of fine flour.


###### Menachot 51b:3
[Menachot 51b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where the **High Priest died and they did not appoint another** High **Priest in his stead, from where** is it derived **that his** griddle-cake **meal offering should be sacrificed from** the property **of the heirs** of the High Priest? **The verse states** in reference to the griddle-cake offering: **“And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it”** (Leviticus 6:15).


###### Menachot 51b:4
[Menachot 51b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:4)

יָכוֹל יַקְרִיבֶנָּה חֲצָאִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתָהּ״ – כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא חֶצְיָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that the heirs should **sacrifice it in halves** as the High Priest does. Therefore **the verse states “it,”** teaching that they should sacrifice **all of** the tenth of an ephah **and not half of it;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Menachot 51b:5
[Menachot 51b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ – מִשֶּׁל עוֹלָם, ״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ בְּהַקְטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** The continuation of the verse: **“It is a statute forever [*olam*]** to the Lord,” teaches that in this case of a High Priest who has died and has not yet been replaced, the offering is brought **from** the property **of the world [*olam*],** i.e., the community. The end of the verse: **“It shall be wholly made to smoke** to the Lord,” teaches **that** although it is brought by the community and not by a priest, **the entire** tenth of an ephah **should be sacrificed** and not eaten.


###### Menachot 51b:6
[Menachot 51b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:6)

וְהַאי ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did that** verse: **“And the anointed priest** that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it,” **come to** teach **this** *halakha* that Rabbi Yehuda derived from it?


###### Menachot 51b:7
[Menachot 51b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:7)

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ״, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַקְרִיבִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״, אַהֲרֹן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבָנָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. ״בָּנָיו״ – אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That** verse **is needed for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **“This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed”** (Leviticus 6:13). One **might** have thought that since the verse speaks of the offering in the singular, it means that **Aaron and his sons should sacrifice one offering.** Therefore **the verse states: “Which they shall offer to the Lord,”** in plural, teaching that **Aaron** sacrifices an offering **by himself** as the High Priest, **and his sons** sacrifice offerings **by themselves** as ordinary priests. When the verse refers to **“his sons,” these are the ordinary priests.** Each priest must bring a griddle-cake offering as an offering of initiation when he begins his service.


###### Menachot 51b:8
[Menachot 51b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:8)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״ – הֲרֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״בָּנָיו״? אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Do you say** that this is referring to the offering of initiation of **ordinary priests, or is it** referring **only** to the griddle-cake offering of the **High Priests? When** the verse **states** in the continuation of that passage: **“And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons** shall offer it; it is a statute forever to the Lord; it shall be wholly made to smoke to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:15), the griddle-cake offering of the **High Priest is thereby mentioned. How do I realize** the meaning of the term **“his sons”** in Leviticus 6:13? **These are the ordinary priests,** and the verse is referring to their offering of initiation. Consequently, verse 15 is referring to the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering, rather than referring to a case of a High Priest who died.


###### Menachot 51b:9
[Menachot 51b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:9)

אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו בָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״, מַאי ״מִבָּנָיו״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The verse teaches both the basic obligation of the High Priest to bring the griddle-cake offering daily and the fact that when he dies his heirs must bring the offering until a new High Priest is appointed. **If** it were **so** that the verse is teaching only that the heirs of a High Priest who died must bring the griddle-cake offering until a new High Priest is appointed, **let the verse** merely **write: The anointed priest that shall be in his stead, his sons shall offer. What** is the need to say: **“From among** his sons”? **Learn from** the fact that verse uses this term that **two** *halakhot* are derived from the verse.


###### Menachot 51b:10
[Menachot 51b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:10)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״אֹתָהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן מִבֵּיתוֹ וְלֹא חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what does Rabbi Shimon,** who derives the *halakha* that it should be entirely sacrificed from the phrase: “It shall be wholly made to smoke,” **do** with **that** word **“it,”** from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **He requires** it **to** teach that in the case of **a High Priest who died** after bringing the first half of his griddle-cake offering, **and** then **they appointed another** High Priest **in his stead,** the replacement High Priest **should neither bring half of a tenth** of an ephah of flour **from his house nor** sacrifice the remaining **half of the tenth of an ephah of the first** High Priest, i.e., his predecessor.


###### Menachot 51b:11
[Menachot 51b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:11)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִן ״וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ״? וָי״ו לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let him derive** this *halakha* **from** the expression: **“And half of it”** (Leviticus 6:13), as discussed on 50b; the word “and,” which is added by the letter *vav* at the beginning of the word, is expounded to mean that the replacement High Priest must bring a complete tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The Gemara answers: He did not derive the *halakha* from there because **he does not expound** the extra letter ***vav*** in that word, as he holds that its addition is not significant.


###### Menachot 51b:12
[Menachot 51b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:12)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״חׇק עוֹלָם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? חוּקָּה לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what does Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that if the High Priest dies and a new one has not yet been appointed the griddle-cake offering is brought by the previous High Priest’s heirs, **do** with **that** phrase: **“It is a statute forever** to the Lord,” from which Rabbi Shimon derives that it is brought from communal resources? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the **statute** requiring the High Priest to sacrifice the griddle-cake offering **is to** apply **forever.**


###### Menachot 51b:13
[Menachot 51b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:13)

״כָּלִיל תׇּקְטָר״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶלְיוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל) בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, וְתַחְתּוֹנָה (מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט) בְּ״לֹא תֵאָכֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yehuda, **why do I** need the phrase: **“It shall be wholly made to smoke”?** The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **I have** derived **only** that the griddle-cake **meal offering of the High Priest** mentioned **above is** included **in** the mandate: **“It shall be wholly made to smoke”** (Leviticus 6:15), **and** that the voluntary **meal offering** of the **ordinary priest** mentioned **below is** included **in** the prohibition: **“It shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 6:16).


###### Menachot 51b:14
[Menachot 51b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:14)

מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּלִיל״ ״כָּלִיל״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״כָּלִיל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כָּלִיל״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** is it derived that one is mandated **to apply what is said about that** verse **to this** one, **and** what is said **about this** verse **to that** one? **The verse states** with regard to the griddle-cake offering: **“Wholly,”** and the verse uses the word **“wholly”** with regard to the voluntary meal offering of a priest, in order **to** teach **a verbal analogy: It is stated here,** with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest: **“Wholly”** (Leviticus 6:15), **and it is stated there,** with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest: **“Wholly”** (Leviticus 6:16).


###### Menachot 51b:15
[Menachot 51b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:15)

מָה כָּאן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״, אַף לְהַלָּן בְּ״כָלִיל תׇּקְטָר״. וּמָה לְהַלָּן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ, אַף כָּאן לִיתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as here,** with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering, it is included **in** the mandate: **“It shall be wholly made to smoke,” so too there,** the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest is included **in** the mandate: **It shall be wholly made to smoke. And just as there,** with regard to the voluntary meal offering of the ordinary priest, the verse comes **to place a prohibition on its consumption, so too here,** with regard to the griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, the verse comes **to place a prohibition on its consumption.**


###### Menachot 51b:16
[Menachot 51b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:16)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Shimon hold** that in a case where the High Priest died and a new one has not been appointed, the requirement that the griddle offering be brought **from** the property **of the community is by Torah law,** as indicated by the fact that he derives this *halakha* from a verse?


###### Menachot 51b:17
[Menachot 51b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:17)

וְהָתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. גּוֹי שֶׁשָּׁלַח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, שָׁלַח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים – (קְרֵיבָה) [קְרֵיבִין] מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 7:6) that **Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances** with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations; **and this** ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, **is one of them.** These are the other ordinances: In the case of **a gentile who sent his burnt offering from a country overseas,** and **he sent with it** money for the purchase of the **libations** that must accompany it, the libations **are sacrificed at his** expense. **And if** the gentile did **not** cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are **sacrificed at the public’s** expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury.


###### Menachot 51b:18
[Menachot 51b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:18)

וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת, וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים – יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly,** in the case of **a convert who died** without heirs **and left** animals that he had designated as **offerings, if he has the libations,** i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations **are sacrificed from his** estate. **And if** he did **not** do so, the libations **are sacrificed from public** funds.


###### Menachot 51b:19
[Menachot 51b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:19)

וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** another ordinance: **It is a stipulation of the court** with regard to **a High Priest who died, and they did not** yet **appoint another** High **Priest in his stead, that his** griddle-cake **meal offering** would be **sacrificed from public** funds. Rabbi Shimon then enumerates three additional ordinances. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that Rabbi Shimon holds that this *halakha* concerning the offering of a High Priest who died is a rabbinic ordinance, rather than Torah law.


###### Menachot 51b:20
[Menachot 51b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: (שְׁנֵי) [שְׁתֵּי] תַּקָּנוֹת הֲווֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said** in response: In fact, Rabbi Shimon holds that this *halakha* is by Torah law. But in fact, there **were two ordinances** that were enacted concerning this matter.


###### Menachot 51b:21
[Menachot 51b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:21)

דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִדְּצִיבּוּר, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מִידַּחְקָא לִישְׁכָּה – תַּקִּינוּ דְּלִגְבֵּי מִיּוֹרְשִׁים, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָשְׁעִי בַּהּ – אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Initially, they acted in accordance with that which is prescribed **by Torah law,** and if a High Priest died and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his stead, his griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed **from public** funds. **Once they saw that the** funds in the **chamber** of the Temple treasury were being **depleted,** the Sages **instituted** an ordinance **that** the payment for the offering **should be collected from the** previous High Priest’s **heirs. Once they saw that** the heirs **were negligent in** the matter and did not bring the offering, **they** revoked the previous ordinance and **established it in accordance with** the *halakha* as it is **by Torah law,** that it is brought from public funds.


###### Menachot 51b:22
[Menachot 51b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/51b:22)

וְעַל פָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת הִיא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בַּהּ – ״הִיא״, בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites the continuation of the mishna in *Shekalim* (7:7): **And** the court enacted an ordinance **with regard to the** red **heifer that one is not** liable to bring an offering **for misusing** consecrated property if he derives benefit **from its ashes.** The Gemara asks: Why does the *baraita* state that this is an ordinance of the court, when in fact **it is by Torah law? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to a red heifer: **“It is a sin offering”** (Numbers 19:9), which **teaches** that a red heifer is treated like a sin offering in that **one** is liable for **misusing it.** The fact that it states: **“It** is a sin offering” indicates that if one derives benefit from **it,** the animal itself, he is liable for **misusing** consecrated property,