MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside²⁶Palestine outside of Jerusalem and its surroundings., limbs are carrion²⁷Since the butcher did not care to cut it into slices, one must assume that it was notkosher and thrown away for the dogs., cuts are permitted²⁸If there are no sources of non-kosher meat in the neighborhood.. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted²⁹Since for big family meals one may buy whole limbs and cut them after cooking..
Rebbi Simeon said, the Court⁶⁴The body empowered by the returnees from Babylonia to oversee the functioning of the Second Temple. stipulated seven things, and this⁶⁵The stipulation mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, that the libations for a stray animal used as sacrifice should be paid for by the half-sheqel tax. was one of them: If a Gentile⁶⁶Who may bring all kinds of voluntary offerings; only obligatory offerings are restricted to full members of the Jewish faith. 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 proselyte⁶⁷He failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family; therefore he has no heirs and his estate is ownerless. 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 Priest⁶⁸The 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. be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole⁶⁹The offering of the living High Priest is brought in two parts (Lev.6:13); the offering in the interim is brought whole according to everybody..
¹⁰¹Continuation of the Court stipulations from Mishnah 5. About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them¹⁰²The Cohanim who have to consume most holy sacrifices in the sacred compound may use salt and wood bought with sheqalim to cook the meat and bake maṣsot., and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes¹⁰³Even 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 money, the ashes are no sancta.. And about disqualified nests¹⁰⁴If 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 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.

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁶The present paragraph has a parallel in Qiddušin2:8 (Notes 202–210) of which, however, it is not a direct copy. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>`<sup>57</sup>Of the three readings given by the three parallel sources, the one ג is supported by the parallel in Qiddušin and making sense. In the translation, the texts in parentheses should be disregarded. this was taught for their monetary value<sup>58</sup>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, Qiddušin55a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices<sup>59</sup>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.? But they followed the majority of cases: If most<sup>60</sup>The animal itself should be used for what was its most probable dedication. 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 offerings<sup>61</sup>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, Qiddušin55b, 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 Ze`ira 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 offerings⁶²Therefore, 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.. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa⁶³Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa lived two generations before R. Yose, the reading of B, R. Assi (= Yasa) has to be accepted., is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.

⁷⁰Chapter 2, Notes 81–83. 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.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest⁷¹Lev. 6:12–16.. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,]⁷²Correct addition by the corrector. he splits it and then dedicates⁷³The requirement is a tenth of an ephah 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 Mishnah⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.⁷⁵If 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, but only the second half may be used.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea⁷⁶Since 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.. A Mishnah⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this⁷⁷Tosephta Menaḥot7:10.: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.⁷⁸This 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.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron⁷⁹Since 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. dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.⁸⁰Sifra Ṣaw Parashah3(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 day⁸¹A Cohen was appointed as High Priest on the day he first came to officiate in the Temple. Confirmed Babli Menaḥot78a. he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

תּוּפִינֵי⁸²Lev. 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 morning⁸⁸A Second Temple source.. But did we not state⁸⁸A Second Temple source., “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 cooked⁸⁵An attempt to explain the word תפיני as contraction of תאפה נא. The following two statements have to be explained in a similar way. Babli Menaḥot50b.. 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 them⁶⁸The 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.. He who says, they shall be baked softly is like him who says, he bakes them and after that fries them.

Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect⁸⁷Since Lev. 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 Delaia⁸⁸A Second Temple source.: Even if he became disabled by a defect. ⁸⁹Babli Menaḥot51b; 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 says⁹⁰Lev. 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.)⁹¹This text does not make any sense. It seems necessary to adopt the reading of Sifra, 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.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, the system of Rebbi Simeon seems inverted. There he says, from the heirs, but here he says, from the public⁹²In 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 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 it⁹²In 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 he deduces the rule from a biblical verse.; they instituted that it should come from what is taken from the lodge⁹³It seems that one should read with B: collect it from the heirs..

Rebbi Yose⁹⁴With B read: Yasa (Assi). 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]⁹⁵The High Priest has to bring a fIour offering mornings and evenings (Lev. 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 log⁹⁶The 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. 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 handful⁹⁷In the Babli, Menaḥot52a, 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 offering⁹⁸This reading is impossible since the sinner’s flour offering (Lev. 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 him⁹⁹Missing in B and M, probably correctly.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice⁹⁶The 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. 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.

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical¹⁰⁵Since the Cow is treated as a sanctum, 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 state¹⁰⁶Babli Menaḥot51b/52a.: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,]¹⁰⁷Corrector’s addition following B and M, correct but not absolutely necessary. with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant¹⁰⁸Reading as Arabic שקשק “to rinse”. and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it¹⁰⁹But biblically the ashes never could lead to larceny of sacra.. When they were fenced in¹¹⁰It was certain that no illegitimate use would be tolerated., they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

By what is that woman atoned for¹³Since 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? 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 ones¹⁴The 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..