MISHNAH: Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts, if closer to sheqalim they have to be given to sheqalim, closer to voluntary gifts to voluntary gifts; in the middle they have to be given to voluntary gifts¹ are used for all needs of the Temple, voluntary gifts represent the more holy use.. Between wood and incense, if closer to wood they have to be given to wood, closer to incense to incense; in the middle they have to be given to incense². Between nests and young birds for elevation sacrifices, if closer to nests they have to be given to nests, closer to young birds for elevation sacrifices to young birds for elevation sacrifices; in the middle they have to be given to young birds for elevation sacrifices³. Between profane money and Second Tithe\4, if closer to profane money they have to be given to profane money, closer to Second Tithe to Second Tithe; in the middle they have to be given to Second Tithe. This is the principle: one follows proximity; in the middle one is stringent.

footnotes: ¹ As explained at the end of the Mishnah, in general coins found are assigned to the box closest to the place where the coins were found. Only if the coins are strictly in the middle between two boxes they are assigned to the more holy use. Since voluntary gifts are strictly for elevation offerings but sheqalim ² Incense is an offering in itself, whereas wood is only an auxiliary to offerings on the altar; incense is more holy. ³ According to the rabbis, nests contain one bird as purification offering and one as elevation offering, whereas young birds for elevation sacrifices are all elevation sacrifices; the latter are more holy.

HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests⁵, how can coins be found between sheqalim and gifts?! They were arranged like a snail⁶ is next to the last box for gifts. If they would be in a straight line then the box near to “nests” is that for “old sheqalim”, which are never used for sacrifices and therefore the coins found halfway should be given to “nests”.. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim⁷ public ones, the sanctity of sheqalim should be greater than that of “gifts”.? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge⁸. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. ⁹ Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.

footnotes: ⁵ Since Mishnah 6:7 states that the horn for nests is next to the two for sheqalim ⁶ Greek κοχλίας, “snail with a spiral shell”. If the horns are arranged almost in a circle, the box for new sheqalim ⁷ Since “gifts” provide private sacrifices but sheqalim ⁸ Which are not used for sacrifices. ⁹ This text to the end of the paragraph is from Halakhah 2:5, Notes 81–83. The origin of the text is there, since the last two sentences, about the High Priest’s flour offering, have no connection with the topic under discussion here.

And it is difficult. May purification offering be brought as elevation offering¹⁰? Rebbi Ḥizqiah (brother)¹¹ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is a stipulation of the Court that the excesses be brought as elevation sacrifices¹². By what is that woman atoned for¹³? The sentence and the next are reproduced at the end of the Chapter (7).? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified ones¹⁴. Would it not also be necessary between incense and wood, and frankincense, and gold for the cover¹⁵? As it is stated at the end, “one follows nearness; in the middle one is stringent.”

footnotes: ¹⁰ If coins lie in the middle between nests and young birds for elevation sacrifices, there is a 50% chance that the money was brought by a woman for her obligatory nests. How can one justify a rabbinical rule that assigns the money to elevation sacrifices against a possibly biblical injunction against doing this? ¹¹ The correct reading is preserved in B, א׳ (אָמַר) “said”. ¹² Everybody bringing a gift to the Temple knows that these will be evaluated by Temple rules and the donor accepts these rules by giving. Therefore the money never was absolutely dedicated for purification offerings. ¹³ Since the money may have been given by a woman needing purification, if it happens that her monies were used as elevation offering, how can she ever eat sancta ¹⁴ The provider has to provide a few extra birds which are treated as possible purification offerings (a situation impossible for four-legged animals) but are not eaten. ¹⁵ The Mishnah does not treat a number of other possible cases.

MISHNAH: Coins found near vendors of animals always are Tithe money¹⁶. On the Temple Mount, profane. In Jerusalem, during the remainder of the year they are profane, during the holidays everything is Second Tithe. Of meat found in the Temple courtyard, limbs are elevation sacrifices and cuts purification sacrifices¹⁹ 1:6,12) before being brought to the altar, but purification sacrifices have to be eaten by the Cohanim in the holy precinct and for this purpose have to be cut into portions.; in Jerusalem well-being sacrifices²⁰. In either case it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning²¹. If it was found in the countryside²⁶, limbs are carrion²⁷, cuts are permitted²⁸. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted²⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Most kosher animals sold in Jerusalem are sold to pilgrims who use their tithe money for their living expenses in Jerusalem. If not all this money is spent during their visit, the remaining coins used to be given to their hosts, to be used to buy food consumed in purity according to the rules of second Tithe. Therefore the presumption is that money in the hand of resident Jerusalemites found near venders of animals for slaughter is Second Tithe money. The finder will have to use the coins according to Tithe standards. ¹⁹ Elevation sacrifices have to be dissected into limbs (Lev. ²⁰ Since usually meat in Jerusalem is from a family sacrifice. ²¹ The meat can neither be eaten nor brought to the altar since it might be impure or otherwise disqualified; it cannot be disposed of immediately since it might be pure and qualified. One has to wait until the time allotted for each kind having passed and the meat automatically becoming disqualified; this is the remainder of the day for elevation sacrifices, the remainder of the day plus the following night for purification sacrifices, and the following day for well-being sacrifices. ²⁶ Palestine outside of Jerusalem and its surroundings. ²⁷ Since the butcher did not care to cut it into slices, one must assume that it was notkosher and thrown away for the dogs. ²⁸ If there are no sources of non-kosher meat in the neighborhood. ²⁹ Since for big family meals one may buy whole limbs and cut them after cooking.

HALAKHAH: Would it not be necessarily holy on the Temple Mount¹⁷9:8), how can there be a presumption that monies lost there are profane?? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is a presumption that no Cohen will remove money from the lodge unless it is redeemed by an animal¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Since it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount in private business (Mishnah Berakhot ¹⁸ The money legitimately in the hands of private persons on the Temple Mount is money received from the Temple for delivery of goods or services. While the origin of the money is from the Temple, it is legitimately profane in the hands of its owner.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape²²34a.. Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” ²³ Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. you may not burn it²⁴ for maybe its shape is not lost²⁵ Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.

footnotes: ²² Sacrificial meat which is left unattended even for a moment cannot be used any more; it has to be kept as is until the time of its sacrificial use has elapsed and then disposed of by burning outside the sacred domain. Babli Pesaḥim ²³ The rest of this Halakhah is missing in B. ²⁴ On the altar. ²⁵ Missing in the Leiden text, added from ג. Cf. Note 21.

³⁰ Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion31; and the Mishnah says so: “limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted.” Are cuts not really permitted? And similarly, one flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion.

footnotes: ³⁰ This Halakhah is missing in B.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If they were strung they are permitted³². ³³ Ten stores, nine sell carrion and one sells kosher slaughtered meat, if it was switched, he worries. For what is found, one follows the majority. Ten stores, nine sell kosher slaughtered meat and one sells carrion, if it was switched, he worries³⁴15a), “anything whose provenience is fromknown fixed sources is considered as 50–50”, and therefore one has to consider the switched package as coming from the store which sells carrion, whether this is one in ten or nine in ten.. For what is found, one follows the majority³⁵.

footnotes: ³² If all butcher shops in the neighborhood are kosher and all households eat kosher, nobody expends the work to string pieces (or sausages) together if they are not kosher and have to be fed to the dogs. ³³ This sentence is missing in ג and B but there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. ³⁴ In the language of the Babli (Ketubot ³⁵ If a package of meat is found and provenience and buyer are unknown.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare³⁶. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Mana. He saw an Aramean cutting from his horse and feeding his son. He said to him, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare³⁷. He answered him, so said the great Rebbi Yose³⁸: Only³⁹ if they saw him leaving a Jewish butcher shop⁴⁰.. A man in Sepphoris went and wanted to buy red meat from a butcher, but he did not give to him. He told a Roman, who brought him. He said to him, did I not buy against your will? He retorted, did I not give carrion to him⁴¹? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi who said, it is not believable to forbid the butcher shop of Sepphoris⁴².

footnotes: ³⁶ Greek πλατεῑα (sc. ‘οδός) “a wide (road)”. On a thoroughfare the traffic is not local; even if all local shops are kosher, the majority of travelers come from places which are not kosher, and meat found there automatically is forbidden. ³⁷ Meat at the disposal of a Gentile automatically is forbidden. ³⁸ R. Yose ben Ḥalafta, the Tanna. ³⁹ That meat in the possession of the Gentile possibly is kosher. ⁴⁰ Latin macellum ⁴¹ Disproving R. Yose’s statement. The butcher is happy to sell his non-kosher meatto a Gentile since it is worthless for his Jewish clientele. ⁴² He doubts the genuineness of the story. Since Rebbi Joḥanan lived a generation after Rebbi, his ruling has to be followed.

¹ 2:9, Notes 393-395. The Genizah text here follows the arrangement of Avodah zarah. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and dropped it off. He came back and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead.

footnotes: ¹ This paragraph, accepting the Babylonian opinion that “meat which was out of sight”, out of control for a moment, is prohibited, annulling the Mishnah here, appears in a different order of the cases in Avodah zarah

Ginai⁴³1:3 (Note 144), Babli Ḥulin 7a. Since both known authorities called R. Isaac ben Eleazar were Galilean, the river must be a Galilean brook. The statement made here is that even though wineskins may have been used for non-kosher wine, if they were swept away by a brook but then recovered, identification confirms not only ownership but also possibility of use for kosher wine. swept away wineskins. The case came before Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who said, may the vintners recognize their knots.

footnotes: ⁴³ A river not otherwise identified (also mentioned in Demay

A sausage was found in the meeting room of the town council. The case came before Rebbi Jeremiah who said, may the butchers recognize their handiwork⁴⁴.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Since the sausage was whole, the problem of meat out of sight does not arise if the maker recognizes it.

A roast kid goat was found in the main street of Gufta⁴⁵. They permitted it because of two things, as a find⁴⁶, and because of the majority of passers-by⁴⁷. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of a Gentile’s slaughter. It turned out⁴⁸ that it was from the House of Rebbi.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ The meaning of this word is not clear. It seems to denote the Jewish part of Sepphoris. ⁴⁶ Because it was found on a thoroughfare it is ownerless and the finder may take possession without trying to find the owner. ⁴⁷ Since the place was Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. ⁴⁸ Nevertheless, nobody tried to eat from the meat before its kosher state was ascertained and certified.

A wheel of cheese was found in the hostelry of Levi. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of Gentile’s cheese. It turned out that it was from Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, but do we not see that the rabbis publicize⁴⁹? He told him, if you had been there, you would not have taken it. Your father, Rebbi Jonah, did not say so, but he said, if only I would find it inside from the circular road⁵⁰ Chaptrer 8, Note 102; the access road to and from a town along a long-distance road. “Inside” is the major road in the town, where many people are passing by at all times.. Even so, he found and did not take⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ This refers to the monetary aspect, Note 46. Rabbis will advertise to find the prior owner even if the find was laying on a well-travelled road. ⁵⁰ Cf. Eruvin ⁵¹ In practice he did not follow his own permissive ruling which therefore cannot be practice.

MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside²⁶, limbs are carrion²⁷, cuts are permitted²⁸. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted²⁹. Rebbi Simeon said, the Court⁶⁴ stipulated seven things, and this⁶⁵ tax. was one of them: If a Gentile⁶⁶ sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte⁶⁷ died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest⁶⁸ be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole⁶⁹6:13); the offering in the interim is brought whole according to everybody.. ¹⁰¹ About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them¹⁰² to cook the meat and bake maṣsot., and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes¹⁰³ money, the ashes are no sancta.. And about disqualified nests¹⁰⁴ after sundown. Since her identity is unknown, she cannot be asked to pay a second time; therefore her nest has to be paid by the public. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the contract with the supplier of birds stipulates that the birds supplied must be qualified. Therefore disqualified birds have to be replaced by the supplier at no cost to the Temple. that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.

footnotes: ²⁶ Palestine outside of Jerusalem and its surroundings. ²⁷ Since the butcher did not care to cut it into slices, one must assume that it was notkosher and thrown away for the dogs. ²⁸ If there are no sources of non-kosher meat in the neighborhood. ²⁹ Since for big family meals one may buy whole limbs and cut them after cooking. ⁶⁴ The body empowered by the returnees from Babylonia to oversee the functioning of the Second Temple. ⁶⁵ The stipulation mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, that the libations for a stray animal used as sacrifice should be paid for by the half-sheqel ⁶⁶ Who may bring all kinds of voluntary offerings; only obligatory offerings are restricted to full members of the Jewish faith. ⁶⁷ He failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family; therefore he has no heirs and his estate is ownerless. ⁶⁸ The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public. ⁶⁹ The offering of the living High Priest is brought in two parts (Lev. ¹⁰¹ Continuation of the Court stipulations from Mishnah 5. ¹⁰² The Cohanim who have to consume most holy sacrifices in the sacred compound may use salt and wood bought with sheqalim ¹⁰³ Even though the ashes of the Red Cow are called חַטָּאת, this does not mean “purification sacrifice” but only “(means of) purification.” Even though the Cow was bought with sheqel ¹⁰⁴ If a woman put money for a “nest” in the corresponding box, and the birds given to the Cohen for the corresponding sum turned out to be disqualified, they must immediately be replaced since the woman trusts that she may eat sancta

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁶2:8 (Notes 202–210) of which, however, it is not a direct copy. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)to his son⁵⁷ and making sense. In the translation, the texts in parentheses should be disregarded. this was taught for their monetary value⁵⁸55a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices⁵⁹? But they followed the majority of cases: If most⁶⁰ are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings⁶¹55b, R. Joḥanan holds that the redemption of unblemished animals is never possible. He requires that the animal be put out to graze until it develops a blemish; then it can be redeemed and the proceeds used for another sacrifice. In any case, the answer is unsatisfactory. Since the Mishnah states that people were refraining from picking up stray animals because they did not want to pay for its flour offerings, they certainly do not want to take upon themselves the much greater expense of redemption.. Rebbi Zeira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings⁶². Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa⁶³, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ The present paragraph has a parallel in Qiddušin ⁵⁷ Of the three readings given by the three parallel sources, the one ג is supported by the parallel in Qiddušin ⁵⁸ It is impossible to say that a male animal which was found ownerless should be taken as elevation offering since it might have been dedicated as well-being offering. The animal should be redeemed and the redemption money used for an elevation offering. The same argument is given in the Babli, Qiddušin ⁵⁹ It is impossible to redeem an unblemished dedicated animal (Lev. 27:10.) Any redemption is both sinful and ineffective. R. Hoshiah’s rule seems to be impossible. ⁶⁰ The animal itself should be used for what was its most probable dedication. ⁶¹ One follows both R. Hoshaia and R. Joḥanan. The animal is first redeemed and then rededicated; this precludes the sin of freeing a dedicated animal and removes the prior specific dedication. In the Babli, Qiddušin ⁶² Therefore, it is part of every dedication of any male animal that, if not needed for its original purpose, it should be used as an elevation offering. It is also part of every dedication of any male animal that, if lost and then found by another person, it should become an elevation offering. ⁶³ Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa lived two generations before R. Yose, the reading of B, R. Assi (= Yasa) has to be accepted.

⁷⁰ Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Chapter 2, Notes 81–83.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest⁷¹ 6:12–16.. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,]⁷² he splits it and then dedicates⁷³ daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. Since the volume of the flour is prescribed, it must be measured. R. Joḥanan must hold that the measuring vessel is not a Temple vessel which automatically dedicates anything poured into it; otherwise there would be no possibility of dedicating the two parts separately.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah⁷⁴4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.⁷⁵, but only the second half may be used.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea⁷⁶. A Mishnah⁷⁴4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this⁷⁷7:10.: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.⁷⁸” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron⁷⁹ dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.⁸⁰3(3). He has to bring the tenth of an ephah once in his lifetime, when he officiates in the Temple the first time. Lev. 6:13.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day⁸¹78a. he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Lev. ⁷² Correct addition by the corrector. ⁷³ The requirement is a tenth of an ephah ⁷⁴ Mishnah Menaḥot ⁷⁵ If a High Priest died after he had brought his morning offering and another was appointed before the evening, the second part of the first’s offering cannot be used anymore, but has to be kept to the next day and then burned outside the sacred compound as disqualified sacrifice. The second one must bring a tenth of an ephah ⁷⁶ Since R. Joḥanan holds that even money set aside for the Tenth but not used has to be destroyed (Note 70), he will agree that the second half cannot be used even if not dedicated. ⁷⁴ Mishnah Menaḥot ⁷⁷ Tosephta Menaḥot ⁷⁸ This text is difficult for R. Joḥanan (reading of B) and R. Simeon ben Laqish. For R. Joḥanan, why should the flour become unusable if it was not yet dedicated? The answer is given in Note 76. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the entire flour is dedicated as sacrifice from the start; if it becomes disqualified in any way, it should be burned immediately and not need waiting for the next day. ⁷⁹ Since the dedication is automatic, not by his conscious act, it does not have the status of a directly dedicated animal and needs waiting for the next day. ⁸⁰ Sifra Ṣaw Parashah ⁸¹ A Cohen was appointed as High Priest on the day he first came to officiate in the Temple. Confirmed Babli Menaḥot

תּוּפִינֵי⁸² 6:14, a word of unknown etymology.. It has to be תּוּפִינֵי when it is brought, it does not have to be תּוּפִינֵי early in the morning⁸⁸. But did we not state⁸⁸, “they place those who bake the baked goods to make the baked goods”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, to make the hot water to soften them. תּוּפִינֵי, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he fries them and after that bakes them. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he bakes them and after that fries them. תּוּפִינֵי, they shall be baked cooked⁸⁵50b.. Rebbi said, they shall be baked softly; Rebbi Dosa said, they shall be baked beautifully. This disagreement is parallel to the other disagreement. He who says, they shall be baked beautifully, is like him who says, he fries them and after that bakes them⁶⁸. He who says, they shall be baked softly is like him who says, he bakes them and after that fries them.

footnotes: ⁸² Lev. ⁸⁸ A Second Temple source. ⁸⁸ A Second Temple source. ⁸⁵ An attempt to explain the word תפיני as contraction of תאפה נא. The following two statements have to be explained in a similar way. Babli Menaḥot ⁶⁸ The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public.

Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect⁸⁷ 6:13 reads: this is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they have to offer to the Eternal, the daily flour sacrifice should be offered by the High Priest himself. While the service can be delegated to a common priest, the High Priest must be able to do it himself. If somehow he is disabled, it is as if there were no High Priest.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia⁸⁸: Even if he became disabled by a defect. ⁸⁹51b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq5(3).“From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says⁹⁰ 6:15., from his sons he shall make. I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it, entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law, (to whom the creatures belong.)⁹¹, בְּרִית “covenant”, instead of “creatures”. Then, Ravad explains, the expression חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם is compared to the same expression used for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:9) where in v. 8 בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם is used. The translation then is: “who are in the covenant.” The Babli (loc. cit.) simply reads עוֹלָם as in rabbinic Hebrew “public”. Totally it shall be burned, all is for burning.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Since Lev. ⁸⁸ A Second Temple source. ⁸⁹ Babli Menaḥot ⁹⁰ Lev. ⁹¹ This text does not make any sense. It seems necessary to adopt the reading of Sifra

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, the system of Rebbi Simeon seems inverted. There he says, from the heirs, but here he says, from the public⁹² he deduces the rule from a biblical verse.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, is that not a pertinent question? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is a word from the Torah that it should be brought from the public. I could say, one should tax for it⁹² he deduces the rule from a biblical verse.; they instituted that it should come from what is taken from the lodge⁹³.

footnotes: ⁹² In the Mishnah he qualifies the rule that the daily flour offering in the absence of a High Priest is charged to the public as a Court stipulation, implying that by biblical law it should be charged to the High Priest’s heirs. In Sifra ⁹² In the Mishnah he qualifies the rule that the daily flour offering in the absence of a High Priest is charged to the public as a Court stipulation, implying that by biblical law it should be charged to the High Priest’s heirs. In Sifra ⁹³ It seems that one should read with B: collect it from the heirs.

Rebbi Yose⁹⁴ said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Entire in the morning and entire in the evening, or half in the morning and half in the evening, [or entire in the morning and nothing in the evening]⁹⁵ 6:13). If the High Priest is dead or disabled and according to the Mishnah his flour offering has to be brought entire, does that mean two offerings per day, or only one in the morning? It is clear that the sentence about bringing two halves has to be deleted and the corrector’s addition from B accepted.? Then it should be obvious to him, what about three log⁹⁶. 15:4) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice (Num. 28:5) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin, 3 log, of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot52b.? Three log in the morning and three log in the afternoon, or a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half in the afternoon? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, also the following was a problem for him: Two handful⁹⁷52a, R. Joḥanan reports that the Tenth of the High Priest also requires addition of a handful of incense like other flour offerings. He also reports that there is a dispute whether the living High Priest has to bring one handful, which is split into two, or two separate handfuls for morning and evening services. But since here the question is about the Tenth for the absent or incapacitated High Priest, one infers that the Yerushalmi holds that the living High Priest only brings one handful. in the morning and two handful in the evening or one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening? Rebbi Yose said, did they not the two handful infer from the sinner’s flour offering⁹⁸ 5:11) is brought without oil and incense. The commentators conjecture an emendation “from the shew bread” which is put onto the table in two rows, each one with a cup of incense.? Just as there two handful, also here two handful. Just as there it was problematic for him, so here it is problematic for him⁹⁹. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice⁹⁶. 15:4) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice (Num. 28:5) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin, 3 log, of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot52b.? Since there {are} three log, so also here three log. [Just as] there it was problematic for him, [so] here it is (obvious) [problematic] for him100.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ With B read: Yasa (Assi). ⁹⁵ The High Priest has to bring a fIour offering mornings and evenings (Lev. ⁹⁶ The text about the High Priest’s offering only mentions oil but does not specify its quantity. It is deduced either from the libations required in general for a sheep (Num ⁹⁷ In the Babli, Menaḥot ⁹⁸ This reading is impossible since the sinner’s flour offering (Lev. ⁹⁹ Missing in B and M, probably correctly. ⁹⁶ The text about the High Priest’s offering only mentions oil but does not specify its quantity. It is deduced either from the libations required in general for a sheep (Num

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical¹⁰⁵, it is clear that until its ashes are collected as required in Num. 19:9, any action not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in vv. 2–9 will invalidate the procedure and usufruct of correct procedure will be larceny of sacra. According to the general principle that once the required procedures are executed, there can be no longer larceny of sacra, the problem is to decide whether the correct preparation of the ashes is the final step in this regard, or the sprinkling on a person impure in the impurity of the dead, as described in the verses following. To say that it would be logical is tantamount to a statement that one could argue the second position but, since the answer is not clear from the biblical text, it is up to the Court overseeing the Temple to decide which opinion to follow. that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state¹⁰⁶51b/52a.: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,]¹⁰⁷ with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant¹⁰⁸ and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it¹⁰⁹.. When they were fenced in¹¹⁰, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Since the Cow is treated as a sanctum ¹⁰⁶ Babli Menaḥot ¹⁰⁷ Corrector’s addition following B and M, correct but not absolutely necessary. ¹⁰⁸ Reading as Arabic שקשק “to rinse”. ¹⁰⁹ But biblically the ashes never could lead to larceny of sacra ¹¹⁰ It was certain that no illegitimate use would be tolerated.

By what is that woman atoned for¹³? The sentence and the next are reproduced at the end of the Chapter (7).? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified and the lost ones¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹³ Since the money may have been given by a woman needing purification, if it happens that her monies were used as elevation offering, how can she ever eat sancta ¹⁴ The provider has to provide a few extra birds which are treated as possible purification offerings (a situation impossible for four-legged animals) but are not eaten.