bar Ba said: Isn't the difficulty raised by Rabbi Ba bar Memel legitimate? The Gemara answers that when Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa came, he said that Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case where the High Priest has died and not yet been replaced, by Torah law, the griddle-cake offering comes from public funds, as is derived from the words: "It is a statute forever." Rabbi Shimon did not mean to imply otherwise. As it is not a public offering but the High Priest's personal one, I might have said that it should be collected from the heirs' property. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the Torah law, the Sages instituted that it should come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.

§ The mishna taught that a griddle-cake offering that was brought in the interim between the tenures of two High Priests was not brought in halves, morning and evening. Instead, a whole one-tenth of an ephah was sacrificed. Rabbi Yosei said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma: What does this mean? Is a whole one-tenth of an ephah brought in the morning, and then a whole one-tenth of an ephah again in the evening? Or was a whole one-tenth of an ephah brought in the morning, and since they already brought one-tenth of an ephah that day, it was canceled in the evening? When that question was resolved for him, it gave rise to other questions. The original question was resolved by reference to the verse, as it is written: "This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening" (Leviticus 6:13). The word "perpetually" indicates that the griddle-cake offering is always brought both in the morning and in the evening. A further question: What is the halakha with regard to the three log of oil that the High Priest would bring every day together with his griddle-cake offering, half in the morning and half in the evening? Is the halakha with regard to the oil the same, i.e., that three log of oil were brought in the morning and three log of oil were brought again in the evening? Or was only a log and a half brought in the morning and another log and a half brought in the evening? Rabbi Ḥizkiya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan also wonders about this: What is the halakha with regard to the two handfuls of frankincense that were ordinarily brought every day together with the High Priest's griddle-cake offering, one with the morning offering and the other together with the evening offering? Is the halakha with regard to the frankincense the same as that of the griddle-cake offering, i.e., that two handfuls of frankincense were brought in the morning and two handfuls of frankincense were brought again in the evening? Or was only one handful brought in the morning and one handful brought in the evening? Rabbi Yosei said: Didn't they learn (18b) that the amount of frankincense brought along with a meal-offering must be a handful by way of analogy to the handful of flour that must be taken from a sinner's meal-offering? This being the case, the halakha in the issue under discussion should also be learned from the halakha governing meal-offerings in general. Just as there, when the quantity of flour is doubled two handfuls of frankincense are required, here too, since two-tenths of an ephah are brought, the measure of the frankincense must also be doubled, that is to say, two handfuls are required. The Gemara rejects this proof: Whether the measure of frankincense is doubled when a meal-offering is doubled is not completely clear: Just as there, with regard to meal-offerings in general, he requires a resolution, i.e., he does not know the answer as to whether a double measure of frankincense is required when the quantity of flour is doubled, so too here, with regard to the High Priest's griddle-cake offering, he requires a resolution as to whether a double measure is required. Rabbi Ḥizkiya addresses the previous question about the three log of oil brought as part of the High Priest's griddle-cake offering. He said: Didn't they learn that three log of oil must be brought along with the griddle-cake offering from the daily evening offering, as this is the measure of oil that must be brought as part of this offering? Accordingly, just as there, in the case of the daily evening offering the measure of oil is three log per one-tenth of an ephah of flour, so too in the case where the griddle-cake offering is brought from a whole one-tenth of an ephah, it is accompanied by three log of oil both in the morning and in the evening. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: And just as there, when the daily meal offering is doubled he requires a resolution with regard to the measure of oil, here too with regard to the High Priest's griddle-cake offering, he requires a resolution as to whether only the original three log are brought, or whether three log are brought for each measure of one-tenth of an ephah of flour.

§ The mishna taught that one who derives benefit from the ashes of a red heifer is not liable for misusing property consecrated to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: By Torah law one should be liable for misusing it, i.e., the ashes of a red heifer, as it is consecrated to the Temple, but the Sages decreed that one is not liable. This, however, is difficult, as it was taught otherwise in the following baraita: With regard to a red heifer, the verse states: "It is a sin-offering" (Numbers 19:9), which teaches that a red heifer is treated like a sin-offering in that one is liable for misusing consecrated property with it, i.e., the animal itself. Only with it, the animal itself, is one liable for misusing consecrated property, but he is not liable for misusing consecrated property with its ashes. Therefore, it is clear from the baraita that by Torah law one is not liable for misusing the ashes of a red heifer. Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, there is no liability by Torah law for misusing the ashes of a red heifer. At first, however, the priests would treat the sanctity of the ashes lightly and would clean themselves [mishtakshekin] with them and even apply them to their wounds as medicine. And the Sages therefore decreed that one becomes liable for misusing consecrated property with them, the ashes. But when they saw that the priests restrained themselves and no longer used the ashes for anything except purification water, the Sages reverted to the Torah law and decreed that one does not become liable for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from a red heifer's ashes.

§ The mishna taught, with regard to the replacements for disqualified pairs of bird-offerings, that they should come from public funds. Rabbi Yosei disagreed and said that whoever supplies all the pairs of bird-offerings to the Temple must also supply, at no extra charge, the replacements for the disqualified birds. Having mentioned the pairs of bird-offerings, the Gemara repeats the discussion from earlier in the chapter. The mishna there (19a) taught that if money was found between the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings and the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings, and is used exclusively for that purpose. The Gemara asks: If so, how does this woman, who had placed the money for her offering in the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, achieve atonement? A woman who gave birth or is a zava must bring a pair of bird-offerings, one as a burnt-offering and the other as a sin-offering, as part of her purification process. If that money has now been allocated to doves for burnt-offerings, she has not completed the process. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: It is a condition of the court that whoever supplies the Temple with the pairs of birds, he also supplies extra birds to replace those birds that are disqualified or lost. Therefore, in any event the woman will have brought both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering.

Halakha 1 · MISHNA The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter's discussion of found money, animals, or meat. All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure. Since neither ritually impure people nor gentiles were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups. This is the case except for spittle found in the upper marketplace, where gentiles and ritually impure Jews were likely to be present. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: On all the other days of the year, i.e., any day that is not on one of the three pilgrim Festivals, Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, spittle that is found in the middle of the street is ritually impure, and spittle that is found on the sides of the street is ritually pure. According to Rabbi Yosei, it was common for people who were ritually impure to be present in the streets of Jerusalem. They would be careful to walk in the middle of the street, while the ritually pure who wished to remain so would walk on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that spittle found in the middle of the street is from one who is impure, while spittle found on the side of the street is from one who is pure. But during the time of the Festival, when most of the people in Jerusalem were there for the Festival and were ritually pure, the spittle found in the middle of the street was ritually pure, and that found on the sides of the street was ritually impure. The difference is due to the fact that at the time of the Festival, the ritually impure minority moves to the sides of the streets. The mishna continues: All the vessels that are found in Jerusalem on the way down into the bathhouse, wherein one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, are ritually impure, and those that are found on the way up are ritually pure. The mishna explains: Their descent into the bathhouse is not by the same route as their ascent out of it, and it can be assumed that those found on the way down have not yet been immersed, while those found on the way up have been. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yosei says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves, to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure. The mishna continues with another ruling about ritual purity: One may slaughter immediately with a knife that was found on the fourteenth of Nisan, i.e., the day the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, and need not be concerned that it is ritually impure. Presumably it was immersed the day before so that it could be used to slaughter the Paschal offering. If he found it on the thirteenth of Nisan, he immerses it again. Perhaps its owners had not yet immersed it, since they still had time to do so before the evening. If one finds a cleaver [kofitz], which is used to slaughter an animal and break its bones, whether it was on this day, i.e., the fourteenth, or on that day, i.e., the thirteenth, he immerses it again out of doubt. Since breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb is prohibited, its owners would have no need for it on the fourteenth, and it cannot be presumed that it has already been immersed to make it ritually pure. However, if the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat, he may slaughter with the cleaver immediately. Since immersing a vessel is prohibited on Shabbat, and presumably the owner of the cleaver wants it to be ritually pure on the fifteenth, one can assume that he immersed it already on Friday, the thirteenth of Nisan. It is therefore ritually pure.