Talmud for Menachot 8:5

הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן, אֵין לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ. הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי, שָׁוִין. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי וְהָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, שָׁוִין. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, שָׁוִין. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, אֵין לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ. אַף הַמְּנָחוֹת הָיוּ בַדִּין שֶׁיִּטָּעֲנוּ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זַךְ. מָה אִם הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ לַאֲכִילָה, טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זַךְ, הַמְּנָחוֹת, שֶׁהֵן לַאֲכִילָה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּטָּעֲנוּ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זַךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות כז), זָךְ כָּתִית לַמָּאוֹר, וְלֹא זַךְ כָּתִית לַמְּנָחוֹת:

The first of the first, there is none better than it. The second of the first and the first of the second are equal. The third of the first, the second of the second and the first oil of the third are equal. The third of the second and the second of the third are equal. The third of the third, there is none worse than it. It would have been logical that grain offerings should also require the purest olive oil: for if the <i>menorah</i>, whose [oil] is not for eating, requires pure olive oil, then should not grain offerings, whose oil is for eating, also require pure olive oil? But Scripture says, “Pure olive oil of beaten olives for lighting” (Exodus 27:20), and not pure olive oil of beaten olives for grain offerings.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

It⁸⁵The statement in Mishnah 4 about the leftover of produce, whose existence is denied by R. Aqiba and R. Ḥanina. is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce⁷⁴The gain made by the Temple in providing flour, oil, and wine, for private sacrifices. is the gain of the Temple⁸⁶The money made by the Temple in selling for a profit flour, oil, and wine, for flour offerings and libations.; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah⁸⁷As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow⁸⁸In order to avoid the sin of me`ilah, the suppliers of produce of all kinds to the Temple have to deliver slightly more than the measure which was contracted for, while the Temple will distribute this product for private libations and flour offerings at the exact measure. The small differences will add up to a considerable amount during a full year; this kind of gain is approved also by the opponents of R. Ismael.. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow⁸⁹He holds that the reason that the Temple always is the beneficiary of changes in the market place also is to serve as a precaution against me`ilah infractions; both kinds of additions have the same status.. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated⁸⁷As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels⁹⁰Since Mishnah 11 is unanimous opinion, the opponents of R. Ismael cannot deny that the Temple always makes money which has to be used for definite purposes.. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.⁹¹This was discussed earlier, Note 14.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated⁹²Mishnah Menaḥot7:4. This is not directly overflow but a third way in which the Temple accumulates a surplus. If a sacrifice was brought and the offerer bought the libations including the flour offering from the Temple, if then these flour offerings could not be used because the sacrifice was disqualified, the priests in charge may use the flour, etc., for the next sacrifice. In this case the Temple is paid twice for the same produce; Tosephta Menaḥot10:8 states that the money accumulated in this way is given to the gift account to buy elevation offerings for the idle altar., “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian¹³⁴Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?? A formulation which is an exaggeration¹³⁵Arabic فرط “excess, exaggeration”. The Mishnah is formulated to give leeway in the choice of materials.. There, we have stated¹³⁶Mishnah Menaḥot8:5, about the oil qualified for the lamp and the flour sacrifices in the Temple. Since the Mishnah is known, the corrector’s addition is not absolutely necessary.: “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written¹³⁷In Lev. 16:23 linen is mentioned only once, in contrast to 4 times in v. 4..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse