Menachot 42

תנו רבנן מלח שעל גבי האבר מועלין בו שע"ג הכבש ושבראשו של מזבח אין מועלין בו ואמר רב מתנה מאי קראה (יחזקאל מג, כד) והקרבתם לפני ה' והשליכו הכהנים עליהם מלח והעלו אותם עולה לה':

Our Rabbis taught: The salt which is upon the sacrificial limb is subject to the law of sacrilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no profane use may be made of this salt. For the law of sacrilege (i.e., the misappropriation of property of the Sanctuary) v. Lev. V, 15, 16.');">¹</span> but that which is upon the ascent or upon the head of the altar is not subject to the law of sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it may be used for ordinary purposes since it is no longer fit for any sacred purpose.');">²</span>

תנן התם על המלח ועל העצים שיהו הכהנים נאותין בהן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא לקרבנם אבל לאכילה לא

R'Mattenah said, There is Scriptural authority for this, for it is written, And thou shalt present them before the Lord, an the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt-offering unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIII, 24. The salt which is upon the limb is, in this verse, stated to be part of the burnt-offering.');">³</span> We have learnt elsewhere: [The Beth din ordained] concerning the salt and the wood [of the Temple stores] that the priests may use them freely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. VII, 7.');">⁴</span>

קא ס"ד מאי לקרבנם למלוח קרבנם לאכול אכילת קדשים השתא למלוח עורות קדשים יהבינן לאכילת קדשים לא יהבינן

Samuel said, They allowed this [use of salt] only for their offerings but not for eating. Now it was thought that 'for their offerings' meant for salting their [own] offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the offerings which the priests offer on their own behalf may be salted with salt from the Temple stores.');">⁵</span>

דתניא נמצאת אתה אומר בשלשה מקומות המלח נתונה בלשכת המלח ועל גבי הכבש ובראשו של מזבח בלשכת המלח ששם מולחין עורות קדשים על גבי הכבש ששם מולחים את האברים בראשו של מזבח ששם מולחין הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים ועולת העוף

and 'for eating' meant the eating of consecrated meat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the priests may not use this salt at table when eating consecrated meat (e.g., the breast and the thigh) which they receive as their portion from the sacrifices.');">⁶</span> But surely if we provide them [with salt from the Temple stores] in order to salt the hides of the animal-offerings, shall we not provide them with salt to eat the consecrated meat?

אלא מאי לקרבנם לאכילת קרבנם ומאי לאכילה אכילה דחולין

For it was taught: And so you find that salt was used in three places: in the salt chamber, on the ascent, and at the head of the altar. In the salt chamber where they used to salt the hides of animal-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which belonged to the priests.');">⁷</span>

חולין פשיטא מאי בעו התם אע"ג דאמר מר יאכלו שיאכלו עמה חולין ותרומה כדי שתהא נאכלת על השובע אפילו הכי מלח דקדשים לא יהבינן להו

on the ascent where they used to salt the sacrificial limbs; at the head of the altar where they used to salt the handful, the frankincense, the incense-offering, the meal-offering of the priests, the anointed [High] Priest's meal-offering, the meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings, and the burnt-offering of a bird! - We must therefore say that 'for their offerings' means for the eating of consecrated meat, and 'for eating' means the eating of unconsecrated food. Unconsecrated food! [you say], surely this is obvious, for how does it come to be there!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is forbidden to bring unconsecrated food into the Temple precincts (Rashi) .');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ה"נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך מאי לקרבנם למלוח טעמא דאתני בית דין הא לא אתני בית דין לא השתא לישראל יהבינן לכהנים לא יהבינן

- Although the Master stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 23a.');">⁹</span> 'They shall eat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 9.');">¹⁰</span>

דתניא יכול האומר הרי עלי מנחה יביא מלח מתוך ביתו כדרך שמביא לבונה מתוך ביתו ודין הוא נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא לבונה מה לבונה מתוך ביתו אף מלח מתוך ביתו

signifies that [if the remainder of the meal-offering is insufficient] they should eat with it unconsecrated foo and terumah, so that it should be eaten after the appetite is satisfied',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in order to appease their hunger they should first eat some unconsecrated food or terumah (v. Glos.) outside the Temple Court, and then enter the Temple Court where they would finish their meal to satisfaction with the remainder of the meal-offering.');">¹¹</span> nevertheless we do not provide them with salt from the Temple.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמר הביא מנחה והביא מלח ונאמר הביא מנחה והביא עצים מה עצים משל ציבור אף מלח משל ציבור

Rabina said to R'Ashi, This indeed is most logical; for should you say that 'for their offerings' meant for salting their [own] offerings, so that [they are entitled to this] only because the Beth din granted them this concession, but had not the Beth din granted them this concession they would not be entitled to it, but surely if we provide the Israelites [with salt for their offerings], shall we not provide the priests too? For i was taught: I might have thought that if a man said, 'I take upon myself to offer a meal-offering', he must provide<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bring from his home'.');">¹²</span>

נראה למי דומה דנין דבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים מדבר הנוהג בכל הזבחים ואל תוכיח לבונה שאינה נוהגת בכל הזבחים

the salt himself just as he must provide the frankincense himself. And the following argument [supports the contention]: It is enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be salt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bring a meal-offering and bring salt'.');">¹³</span>

או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד מדבר הבא עמה בכלי אחד ואל יוכיחו עצים שאינן באין עמה בכלי אחד

and it is also enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be frankincense; therefore just as the frankincense he must provide himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is written, ibid. II, 1: And put frankincense thereon, and then it says in the next verse, And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron.');">¹⁴</span> so the salt too he must provide himself.

ת"ל (במדבר יח, יט) ברית מלח עולם הוא ולהלן הוא אומר (ויקרא כד, ח) מאת בני ישראל ברית עולם מה להלן משל ציבור אף כאן משל ציבור

Or perhaps argue this way: It is enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be salt, and it is also enjoined that with a meal-offering there must be wood; therefore just as the wood is taken from the communal store<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">¹⁵</span> so the salt too is taken from the communal store.

אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי קאמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לא נצרכא אלא לבן בוכרי

Let us then see to which it is most similar. We derive the law concerning a matter that is essential to a offerings from another matter which is essential to all offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Salt and wood are essential to all offerings.');">¹⁶</span>

דתנן אמר רבי יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן

and let not the frankincense prove against this, since it is not a matter which is essential to all offerings. Or perhaps argue this way: we derive the law concerning a matter which is offered with the meal-offering in one vessel from another matter which is also offered with the meal-offering in one vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The salt and the frankincense were placed together with the handful of the meal-offering in one vessel.');">¹⁷</span>

(ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו היא היאך נאכלין

and let not the wood prove against this, since it is not a matte which is offered with the meal-offering in one vessel. Scripture therefore states [concerning the salt], it is a covenant of salt for ever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 19.');">¹⁸</span>

ולבן בוכרי כיון דלכתחילה לא מיחייב לאיתויי כי מייתי נמי חוטא הוא דקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמייתי ומסר להון לציבור

and elsewhere [concerning the Shewbread] it says, It is on behalf of the children of Israel a covenant for ever;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 8.');">¹⁹</span> as the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Shewbread, which was in the nature of an offering on behalf of the community of Israel.');">²⁰</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא

was taken out of the supplies of the community, so the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the salt for the offerings.');">²¹</span> was also taken out of the supplies of the community! - Thereupon R'Mordecai said to R'Ashi, Thus said R'Shisha the son of R'Idi, It was necessary to be stated only according to Ben Bokri's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Ben Bokri's view the priests did not contribute the shekel to the Temple funds and therefore were not entitled to any of the Temple's supplies; hence it was necessary for the Beth din to grant them a concession that they may use the Temple's supplies of wood and salt for their own offerings.');">²²</span> For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. I, 4.');">²³</span> R'Judah said, Ben Bokri testified at Jabneh that a priest who paid the shekel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The annual contribution, corresponding to the half shekel ordained in the Torah (Ex. XXX, 13) , paid before the first of Nisan by every Israelite towards the upkeep of the public offerings in the Temple.');">²⁴</span> has committed no sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to law a priest is not liable to pay the shekel, for the expression 'every one that passeth among them that are numbered' (Ex. ibid.) does not apply to the priests (or the Levites) , since these were not numbered together with the rest of the tribes of Israel, but separately.');">²⁵</span> - Rabban Johanan B'Zakkai said to him, Not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel has committed a sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression in the verse (v. prec. n.) is accordingly interpreted thus: Every one that passeth, that is, every one that passed through the Red Sea; among them that are numbered, that is, however they were numbered, whether separately or with the other tribes of Israel. Hence the priests are Biblically liable to pay the shekel.');">²⁶</span> The priests, however, used to expound the following verse to their advantage, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16.');">²⁷</span> since the 'Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priests were liable to contribute the shekel to the Temple funds, out of which the three named public meal-offerings were provided, it would follow that these meal-offerings should be wholly burnt and not eaten by the priests; and this would be contrary to Scripture. Hence, the priests argued, they were not to pay the shekel.');">²⁸</span> But according to Ben Bokri, since they are not in the first instance liable to pay the shekel, when they do pay it they have surely committed a sin, for they have brought unconsecrated matter into the Temple! - They bring it and deliver it [whole-heartedly] to the public funds. Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This continues the argument as given above 'It was necessary to be stated only according to Ben Bokri's view'. V. supra p. 139, n. 7.');">²⁹</span> one might have thought that