## Menachot Daf 52a

###### Menachot 52a:1
[Menachot 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:1)

בְּאֶפְרָהּ אֵין מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
but if one derives benefit **from its ashes, one is not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property. It is clear from the *baraita* that by Torah law one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from the ashes of a red heifer.


###### Menachot 52a:2
[Menachot 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:2)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁתֵּי תַּקָּנוֹת הֲוַאי, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – בָּהּ מוֹעֲלִין, בְּאֶפְרָהּ אֵין מוֹעֲלִין. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מְזַלְזְלִי בַּהּ, וְקָא עָבְדִי מִינֵּיהּ לְמַכָּתָן – גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** in response: In fact, this *halakha* is by Torah law, but **there were two ordinances** that were enacted concerning this matter. **By Torah law,** if one derives benefit from **it,** the animal itself, he is liable for **misusing** consecrated property, but if he derives benefit **from its ashes** he is not liable for **misusing** consecrated property. **Once** the Sages **saw that** people **were treating** the ashes of the heifer **disrespectfully, and making** salves **for their wounds from it, they decreed** that it is subject to the *halakhot* of **misuse** of consecrated property and one may not derive benefit from it.


###### Menachot 52a:3
[Menachot 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:3)

כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָּרְשִׁי מִסְּפֵק הַזָּאוֹת, אוֹקְמוּהָ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Once they saw that** as a result of this decree people **were refraining from** sprinkling it in cases where there was **uncertainty** as to whether or not an individual was impure and required **sprinkling, they** revoked the decree and **established it in accordance with** the *halakha* as it is **by Torah law,** that one is not liable for misusing the ashes of a red heifer.


###### Menachot 52a:4
[Menachot 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – בַּתְּחִילָּה מַגְבִּין לָהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֵן בָּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda that is similar to the one cited earlier. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If there is a need to sacrifice the **bull for an unwitting communal sin,** brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling concerning a prohibition for which one is liable to receive *karet* and the majority of the community acts upon it, **or the goats** brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous ruling permitting **idol worship** and the majority of the community acts on it, **a new collection** of funds is organized **for them.** The funds are not taken from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, unlike other communal offerings. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:** The funds for these sacrifices **come from the collection of the chamber.**


###### Menachot 52a:5
[Menachot 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:5)

וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ אַחְרִיתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* **the opposite,** i.e., that the first opinion cited above is that of Rabbi Shimon and the second is that of Rabbi Yehuda? **Which of** the two *baraitot* is **the later** one and therefore the more accurate and authoritative version of their opinions?


###### Menachot 52a:6
[Menachot 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:6)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: לֵימָא קַמַּיְיתָא אַחְרִיתָא, דְּשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּחָיֵישׁ לִפְשִׁיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said** the following **before Rav Ashi: Let** us **say** that **the first** *baraita* cited above **is the later** one, **as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon is concerned about** the possibility of **negligence.** Just as Rabbi Shimon was concerned above that the heirs of the High Priest would not provide the funds for the griddle-cake offering, it is reasonable to assume that he would be concerned that people would not contribute to a new collection, and therefore the funds are taken from the collection of the chamber.


###### Menachot 52a:7
[Menachot 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:7)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בָּתְרָיְיתָא אַחְרִיתָא, כִּי קָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִפְשִׁיעָה – מִילְּתָא דְּלֵית בְּהוּ כַּפָּרָה בְּגַוַּוהּ, בְּמִילְּתָא דְּאִית לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה בְּגַוַּוהּ – לָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִפְשִׁיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to** the Sages: **You** may **even say** that **the latter** *baraita* cited above **is the later** and more authoritative one. **When Rabbi Shimon** expressed that he **is concerned about** the possibility of people acting with **negligence,** that was only with regard to **a matter that does not provide them with atonement,** e.g., the griddle-cake offering of the deceased High Priest. But **Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about** the possibility of **negligence with regard to a matter that does provide them with atonement,** e.g., these sin offerings.


###### Menachot 52a:8
[Menachot 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:8)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks, in light of the fact that the discussion above was inconclusive: **What** conclusion **was** reached **about it;** which *baraita* is later and more authoritative?


###### Menachot 52a:9
[Menachot 52a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה זוּטֵי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – לְרַבּוֹת פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** a resolution, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse concerning the daily sacrifice: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: **My food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Me, you shall observe to sacrifice to Me in its due season”** (Numbers 28:2), serves **to include** the **bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats of idol worship.** This teaches **that** the funds for these offerings **come from the collection of the chamber;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon.** This proves that it is Rabbi Shimon who holds that these sacrifices are brought from the collection of the chamber.


###### Menachot 52a:10
[Menachot 52a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:10)

וּשְׁלֵימָה הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, אוֹ דִילְמָא שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית וּבְטֵילָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** for the duration of the period until a new High Priest is appointed, the griddle-cake offering **was sacrificed** as **a complete** tenth of an ephah of fine flour. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma:** Does the mishna mean that **a complete** tenth of an ephah is offered in the **morning and** another **complete** tenth of an ephah is offered **in the afternoon,** because this offering is sacrificed twice a day and is not divided in half when it is not brought by the High Priest himself? **Or** does it **perhaps** mean that **a complete** tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the **morning and** the offering is **canceled in the afternoon?**


###### Menachot 52a:11
[Menachot 52a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:11)

אָמַר רָבָא תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמִינִי בַּחֲבִיתִּים, וְאִם אִיתָא דִּבְטֵילָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם – הָא זִמְנִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּח לֵיהּ שְׁמִינִי בַּחֲבִיתִּים! הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דְּמֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא מִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Come** and **hear** the resolution to this dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna (*Tamid* 31b) describing the order of the nine priests who brought the limbs of the daily offering up to the ramp of the altar, both in the morning and in the afternoon: The **eighth** priest carries **the griddle-cake** offering of the High Priest. **And if it were so that** the offering is **canceled in the afternoon,** then **sometimes** one would **not find the eighth** priest carrying **the griddle-cake** offering. **What are the circumstances** when there would be no eighth priest? In a case **where the High Priest died** after he brought his griddle-cake offering in the morning **and they did not** yet **appoint another** High Priest **in his stead.** Therefore, it must be that a complete tenth of an ephah was also brought for the afternoon offering.


###### Menachot 52a:12
[Menachot 52a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:12)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אֲמַר: בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי, מִשּׁוּם (דְּיָתְבוּ) [דְּיָתְבִי] בְּאַתְרָא דַּחֲשׁוֹכָא אָמְרִי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא דִּמְחַשְּׁכָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages stated** this proof **before Rabbi Yirmeya.** Rabbi Yirmeya rejected it and **said:** Those **foolish Babylonians, because they dwell in** a low-lying and therefore **dark land, they state *halakhot* that are dark,** i.e., erroneous.


###### Menachot 52a:13
[Menachot 52a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:13)

אֶלָּא, דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁבִיעִי בַּסֹּלֶת, תְּשִׁיעִי בַּיַּיִן, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא בָּטְלִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** with regard to **that** which the same mishna **teaches:** The **seventh** priest carries **the fine flour** for the meal offering component of the daily offering and **the ninth** priest carries **the wine** for the libations that accompany the daily offering, is it **also** the case **that they are never canceled?**


###### Menachot 52a:14
[Menachot 52a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:14)

״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ אֲפִילּוּ לְמָחָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That is not correct, as it is derived from the verse **“Their meal offering and their libations”** (Numbers 29:18) that these items may be sacrificed even **at night,** despite the fact that the daily offering they accompany must be sacrificed during the day. Similarly, the phrase **“their meal offering and their libations”** indicates that these items may be sacrificed even **the next day** (see 44b). Under those circumstances there would not have been fine flour and wine brought by the seventh and nine priests at the time of the daily offering.


###### Menachot 52a:15
[Menachot 52a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:15)

אֶלָּא, דְּאִי לָא קָתָנֵי; הָכִי נָמֵי, דְּאִי לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one must explain that the *tanna* **does not teach** cases of **what if,** and is speaking only about the typical case. **So too** with regard to Rava’s proof from the mishna, it is not compelling because the *tanna* **does not teach** cases of **what if** the High Priest dies and a successor has not yet been appointed.


###### Menachot 52a:16
[Menachot 52a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:16)

אַהְדְּרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר: מִבִּישׁוּתִין אָמְרִי קַמַּיְיהוּ, מִטֵּיבוּתִין לָא אָמְרִי קַמַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages then **brought** Rabbi Yirmeya’s analysis **before Rava.** Rava initially **said** to them: **You state our inferior** statements, which can be refuted, **before** the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, but **you do not state our superior** statements **before them?**


###### Menachot 52a:17
[Menachot 52a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:17)

והֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי נָמֵי טֵיבוּתִין הִיא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד״, הֲרֵי הִיא לְךָ כְּמִנְחַת תְּמִידִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava then said** to them: **This** statement, that the griddle-cake offering is sacrificed twice a day even if there is no High Priest, is **also** one of **our superior** statements, as **the verse states** concerning the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest: **“Fine flour for a meal offering perpetually [*tamid*],** half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening” (Leviticus 6:13). This teaches that the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest **is like the meal offering** component of the **daily offerings [*temidin*]** and must be sacrificed in the morning and the afternoon, even if the High Priest died and was not yet replaced.


###### Menachot 52a:18
[Menachot 52a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:18)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֵימָה שַׁחֲרִית, וּשְׁלֵימָה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about** this matter? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s dilemma, **as it is taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: If the High Priest died and was not yet replaced, **a complete** tenth of an ephah is sacrificed in the **morning and** another **complete** tenth of an ephah is sacrificed **in the afternoon.**


###### Menachot 52a:19
[Menachot 52a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the Rabbis disagree** as to the amount of frankincense brought with the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest.


###### Menachot 52a:20
[Menachot 52a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:20)

אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי אוֹמֵר: מַפְרִישׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים שֶׁל לְבוֹנָה, קוֹמֶץ שַׁחֲרִית וְקוֹמֶץ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: מַפְרִישׁ לָהּ קוֹמֶץ אֶחָד, חֲצִי קוֹמֶץ שַׁחֲרִית וַחֲצִי קוֹמֶץ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abba Yosei ben Dostai says:** The High Priest **separates two handfuls of frankincense for** his griddle-cake offering each day; one **handful** for his **morning** offering **and** one **handful** for his **afternoon** offering. **And the Rabbis say:** The High Priest **separates one handful** of frankincense each day **for** his griddle-cake offering. He divides it in half and brings **half a handful** for his **morning** offering **and half a handful** for his **afternoon** offering.


###### Menachot 52a:21
[Menachot 52a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:21)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי סָבַר: לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן חֲצִי קוֹמֶץ דְּקָרֵיב, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן עִשָּׂרוֹן דְּבָעֵי שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **With regard to what** principle **do** they **disagree? Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds** that since **one does not find** a case where the Torah explicitly states that **half a handful is sacrificed,** he brings a complete handful for each offering. **And the Rabbis hold that** since **one does not find** a case where **a tenth** of an ephah **requires two handfuls** of frankincense, he brings only one handful and divides it between the two offerings.


###### Menachot 52a:22
[Menachot 52a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/52a:22)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having discussed the quantity of frankincense that is generally brought with the griddle-cake offering, the Gemara now addresses a case where the High Priest died. **Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma:** In the case of **a High Priest who died and they did not** yet **appoint another in his stead,**