Menachot 102

מנחה הבאה עשרון וכו':

a meal-offering consisting of one tenth etc.<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big> IF THEY DID NOT APPOINT ANOTHER PRIEST IN HIS STEAD, AT WHOSE EXPENSE WAS IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This daily meal-offering of the High Priest, during the interregnum.');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו משל מי היתה קריבה ר"ש אומר משל ציבור ר' יהודה אומר משל יורשין ושלימה היתה קריבה:

OFFERED? R'SIMEON SAYS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMUNITY; BUT R'JUDAH SAYS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HEIRS; MOREOVER A WHOLE [TENTH] WAS OFFERED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the morning and also in the evening. This is the opinion of R. Simeon too, v. infra n. 7.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר כ"ג שמת ולא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו מנין שתהא מנחתו קריבה משל יורשין ת"ל (ויקרא ו, טו) והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אותה

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: If the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, whence do we know that his meal-offering must be offered at the expense of his heirs? Because it is written, And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev VI, 15.');">³</span>

יכול יקריבנה חצאין ת"ל אותה כולה ולא חציה דברי רבי יהודה

I might think that they offer it a half-[tenth] at a time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As their father the High Priest had done during his lifetime. okug');">⁴</span> Scripture therefore stated 'it', implying the whole [tenth] but not half of it.

ר"ש אומר (ויקרא ו, יא) חק עולם משל עולם (ויקרא ו, טו) כליל תקטר שתהא כולה בהקטרה

R'Judah. R'Simeon says, It is a statute for ever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev VI, 15.');">³</span>

והאי הכהן המשיח להכי הוא דאתא

this implies that it is offered at the expense of the community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. 'for ever' is interpreted in the later Heb. sense of 'world', 'people', 'the whole community'.');">⁵</span> It shall be wholly burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev VI, 15.');">³</span>

האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא ו, יג) זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה' ביום המשח אותו יכול יהו אהרן ובניו מקריבין קרבן אחד ת"ל אשר יקריבו לה' אהרן בפני עצמו ובניו בפני עצמן בניו אלו כהנים הדיוטות

that is, the whole of it shall be burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None of it shall be left over to be eaten. Or better: a whole tenth shall be offered both morning and evening, thus agreeing with R. Judah's view in the Mishnah, v. supra n. 3.');">⁶</span> Does then the verse, 'And the anointed priest etc.'

אתה אומר כהנים הדיוטות או אינו אלא כהנים גדולים כשהוא אומר והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו הרי כ"ג אמור הא מה אני מקיים בניו אלו כהנים הדיוטות

serve the above purpose? Surely it is required for the teaching of the following Baraitha: It is written, This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they sha offer unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 13.');">⁷</span>

א"כ לכתוב קרא הכהן המשיח תחתיו בניו יעשה מאי מבניו שמעת מינה תרתי

Now I might think that Aaron and his sons shall together offer one offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At their ordination. lubhj ,jbn');">⁸</span> the text therefore states, 'Which they shall offer unto the Lord', Aaron shall off his separately and his sons theirs separately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sons offer their meal-offering at their ordination only, this is known as 'the meal-offering of initiation'; whereas the High Priest must offer his daily, from the day that he is anointed and onwards.');">⁹</span>

ור"ש האי אותה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכ"ג שמת ומינו אחר תחתיו שלא יביא חצי עשרון מביתו ולא חצי עשרון של ראשון

[The expression] 'his sons' refers to the ordinary priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., every priest at the commencement of his ministry must offer a meal-offering of initiation.');">¹⁰</span> You say 'the ordinary priests': but perhaps it refers only to the High Priests?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the descendants of Aaron, those anointed High Priest.');">¹¹</span>

ותיפוק ליה מן ומחציתה וי"ו לא דריש

When it says, 'And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons', it has already spoken of the High Priest; how then must I interpret 'his sons'? It must refer to the ordinary priests! - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the verse in question (And the anointed priest etc.) only serves to teach that the heirs of the High Priest must continue at their expense their father's daily meal-offering until the appointment of a successor.');">¹²</span>

ורבי יהודה האי חק עולם מאי עביד ליה חוקה לעולם תהא

the verse should read, 'And [if] the anointed priest [died], his sons in his stead shall offer'; why does the verse read 'from among his sons'? You may thus infer both teachings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule given in the prec. note and also the rule that ordinary priests at their ordination shall offer a meal-offering.');">¹³</span>

כליל תקטר למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אין לי אלא עליונה מנחת כ"ג בכליל תקטר ותחתונה מנחת כהן הדיוט בלא תאכל

For what purpose does R'Simeon utilize the expression 'it'? -He requires it for the following teaching: If the High Priest died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After he had offered the half-tenth for the morning meal-offering.');">¹⁴</span> and they appointed another in his stead, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [High Priest].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But must bring a whole tenth from his house; this being derived from the term 'it'. crgc v,hmjnu');">¹⁵</span>

מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה ת"ל כליל כליל לגזירה שוה נאמר כאן כליל ונאמר להלן כליל

But was not this rule derived from the expression 'And half thereof'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 304, n. 2, where this rule is derived from the letter wow which stands at the head of the phrase .');">¹⁶</span> He bases no exposition upon the letter waw ['and'].

מה כאן בכליל תקטר אף להלן בכליל תקטר ומה להלן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו אף כאן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתה

And for what purpose does R'Judah utilize the expression a statute for ever'? - It means, a statute binding for all time. And what is the purpose of the expression, 'It shall be wholly burnt'? - He requires it for the following which was taught: I only know that the former,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VI, 15. khkf');">¹⁷</span>

וסבר ר"ש משל ציבור דאורייתא

namely the High Priest's meal-offering, must be wholly burnt, and that the latter, namely the ordinary priest's meal-offering, must not be eaten; but whence do I know that what is said of the former applies also to the latter and what is said of the latter applies also to the former? The text therefore stated 'wholly' in each case for the purposes of analogy; thus, i is written here 'wholly' and it is written there 'wholly',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 16. In this verse as also in the preceding verse the expression 'wholly' is used.');">¹⁸</span>

והתנן אר"ש שבעה דברים התקינו ב"ד וזה אחד מהן עובד כוכבים ששלח עולתו ממדינת הים שלח עמה נסכים קריבה משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור

as the former must be wholly burnt so the latter must be wholly burnt, and as in the latter case there is a prohibition against eating it, so in the former case there is a prohibition against eating it. Is then R'Simeon of the opinion that by the law of the Torah it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the meal-offering of the High Priest.');">¹⁹</span>

וכן גר שמת והניח זבחים יש לו נסכים קריבין משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור

must be offered at the expense of the community? Surely we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. VII, 6.');">²⁰</span>

ותנאי ב"ד הוא כ"ג שמת ולא מינו כהן אחר תחתיו שתהא מנחתו קריבה משל ציבור

The Beth din ordained seven things and this was one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law stated in the earlier Mishnah Shek. VII, 5.');">²¹</span> [They also ordained that] if a gentile sent his burnt- offering from a land beyond the sea and also sent with it the drink-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money for the drink-offerings.');">²²</span>

א"ר אבהו שני תקנות הוו

they [the drink-offerings] are to be offered of his own means; but if he did not [send the drink-offerings], they are to be offered at the expense of the community. Similarly, if a proselyte died and left animal-offerings, if he also left the drink-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money for the drink-offerings.');">²²</span>

דאורייתא מדציבור כיון דחזו דקא מידחקא לישכה תקינו דלגבי מיורשים כיון דחזו דקא פשעי בה אוקמוה אדאורייתא

they are offered of his own means; but if he did not [send the drink-offerings], they are to be offered at the expense of the community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a proselyte has no heirs.');">²³</span> It was also a condition laid down by the Beth din that if the High Priest died and they had not appointed another in his stead, his meal-offering shall be offered at the expense of the community!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Evidently it was only an ordinance of the Beth din and not the law of the Torah.');">²⁴</span>

ועל פרה שלא יהא מועלין באפרה דאורייתא היא דתניא (במדבר יט, ט) חטא' היא מלמ' שמועלין בה היא בה מועלין

- R'Abbahu explained, There were two ordinances. By the law of the Torah it should be offered at the expense of the community; but when they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Beth din.');">²⁵</span> saw that the funds in the Chamber were being depleted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the frequent changes in the office of the High Priest, v. Yoma 9a.');">²⁶</span> they ordained that it should be a charge upon the heirs. When they saw, however, that [the heirs] were neglectful about it, they reverted to the law of the Torah.' And concerning the Red Cow [they ordained] that the law of sacrilege does not apply to its ashes'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too is one of the seven things ordained by the Beth din. Shek. VII, 7. For the law of sacrilege. i.e., the unintentional appropriation of the property of the Sanctuary, v. Lev. V, 15.');">²⁷</span> Is not this the law of the Torah? For it was taught: It is a sin-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 9.');">²⁸</span> this teaches that it is subject to the la of sacrilege; and 'it' implies that only it [the cow] is subject to the law of sacrilege