The Mishnah says that if the daily offering was not brought in the morning, it should nevertheless be brought in the afternoon. The Gemara explains that this applies when the offering was missed inadvertently or because the people responsible were prevented from bringing it. However, if they deliberately failed to bring it in the morning, they should not bring it in the afternoon.
The Mishnah then continues: if the incense was not brought in the morning, it should be brought in the afternoon. The Gemara understands that the entire measure of incense may be brought in the afternoon if it was not brought in the morning.
How is the golden altar inaugurated? It is inaugurated through the daily offering and through the incense. The afternoon incense is the first incense brought when the golden altar is inaugurated. The Gemara asks: Where did the Mishnah suddenly introduce the subject of inaugurating the altar?
The Gemara explains that the Mishnah is teaching several points. First, if the morning daily offering was not brought, the afternoon daily offering can still be brought when the omission was inadvertent. The morning offering is not absolutely indispensable in that case. If the omission was deliberate, however, the afternoon offering is not brought. We will have to understand why the altar should suffer because the priest acted deliberately.
The Mishnah then says that if the incense was not brought in the morning, it should be brought in the afternoon. Rabbi Shimon explains that when the golden altar is inaugurated, it must be inaugurated with the first incense offering brought on it, and that first offering is the afternoon incense.
The Gemara asks: From where did the Mishnah derive the discussion of the inauguration of the altar? It appears that something is missing from the Mishnah. The Mishnah should be read as follows: “If the morning offering was not brought, the afternoon offering should not be brought”—but that statement applies only when the altar had not yet been inaugurated. The first offering brought on a newly inaugurated altar cannot be the afternoon offering. Once the altar has already been inaugurated, however, the afternoon offering may be brought even if the morning offering was not brought.
This explains the difference between the two parts of the Mishnah. If the altar has not yet been inaugurated, one cannot begin with the afternoon daily offering. If it has already been inaugurated, then even if the morning offering was not brought, the afternoon offering may still be brought.
The Gemara continues with Rabbi Shimon’s qualification. The rule that an offering omitted in the morning may be brought in the afternoon applies when the people responsible were prevented or acted inadvertently. If they deliberately failed to bring the morning daily offering, then they do not bring it in the afternoon. By contrast, if the incense was not brought in the morning, it is brought in the afternoon even when the omission was deliberate.
Why is there a distinction? If the altar had already been inaugurated, we understand that the first incense brought on it was the afternoon incense, so there is no problem with bringing the afternoon incense even when the morning incense was omitted. But the Gemara points out that the subject of inauguration was already discussed in the first part of the Mishnah. When the Mishnah says that one may not bring the afternoon daily offering if the morning offering was not brought, it is referring to a situation in which the altar had not yet been inaugurated. The inauguration must begin with the morning offering.
When the Mishnah reaches the incense, however, the first incense offering used for the inauguration is the afternoon incense. Therefore, if the morning incense was not brought, the first incense offering may still be brought in the afternoon. The subject of the altar’s inauguration, introduced in the first part of the Mishnah, applies to the second part as well.
How do we know that the altar is inaugurated with the morning daily offering, and that if the morning offering was not brought the afternoon offering cannot serve as the first offering? A baraita states that the second offering is made in the afternoon, but the first offering is not made in the afternoon. This means that only the second daily offering may be brought in the afternoon; the first one cannot be brought then. If the first morning offering was not brought at all, it cannot be brought in the afternoon as the first offering.
The verse cited there is speaking about the daily offering. The question is: When do we say that only the second offering may be brought in the afternoon, but not the first? The answer is: when the inauguration of the altar has not yet taken place. Once the altar has been inaugurated, even the first offering may be brought in the afternoon.
Rashi explains that the second daily offering is brought in the afternoon. If the first offering was not brought, the first offering cannot be brought in the afternoon when the altar is still awaiting inauguration. But once the first offering has already been brought and the altar has been inaugurated, the first offering may be brought in the afternoon if necessary.
The context of the verse also supports this. The verse was written in connection with the inauguration of the altar. It teaches that the first burnt offering brought on the altar must be the morning offering. One does not begin the inauguration with the afternoon offering. After the altar has been inaugurated, however, the ordinary rules apply, and even the first daily offering may be brought in the afternoon if it was not brought in the morning.
Rashi then discusses another verse. The verse says that the second offering is brought in the afternoon, while the first is brought in the morning. One might have thought that four offerings had to be brought that day—two in the morning and two in the afternoon. The verse teaches that only two offerings are required that day.
The Gemara continues in Rabbi Shimon’s name. The distinction between an omission that was inadvertent or caused by circumstances and an omission that was deliberate applies specifically to the daily offering. If the priests deliberately failed to bring the morning daily offering, they do not bring the afternoon offering. If they deliberately failed to bring the morning incense, however, they still bring the incense in the afternoon.
The Gemara challenges this distinction. Perhaps even in the case of the daily offering, the rule is not that the altar is punished because of the priests’ deliberate failure. Rather, the particular group of priests who deliberately failed to bring the morning offering is penalized. The Temple service was divided among different groups of priests, including the watch and the paternal household. If that group deliberately failed to bring the morning offering, it does not bring the afternoon offering either. Another group of priests serves in the afternoon and brings the offering. Thus, the altar itself is not being punished; only the negligent priests are being penalized.
This answer raises a further question. If the priests deliberately failed to bring the morning incense, why are they permitted to bring the afternoon incense? The Gemara gives several explanations.
First, the daily offering is considered something that is frequently brought. Although the daily offering is brought only twice a day, other burnt offerings are brought every day as well. Since offerings of this type are common, the Sages enacted decrees concerning them, because people may come to treat them casually. If the morning daily offering was omitted deliberately, the afternoon offering is therefore not brought by that group.
The incense, by contrast, is not considered something that is frequently brought in the same sense. There is no voluntary incense offering; the incense is brought only twice each day. Therefore, the Sages did not enact the same decree concerning it.
Rashi gives another explanation for the expression “not frequently brought.” Even though the incense is brought twice a day, the same person would not ordinarily bring it both in the morning and in the afternoon. The priest who brought the morning incense would not bring the afternoon incense. Since the same person would not ordinarily perform both services, there was no concern that he would deliberately repeat the service. The Sages therefore did not need to enact a decree preventing him from bringing the afternoon incense.
There is also a special consideration with the incense: whoever brought the incense became wealthy. This is derived from the verse describing the incense and then saying that God would bless him. Since the incense was associated with wealth, the priest would not deliberately neglect it. A person would not deliberately fail to perform a service that could make him wealthy. The incense was therefore not considered something concerning which the priests would commonly act negligently, and the Sages did not enact a decree against bringing it in the afternoon.
Rabbi Shimon says that the afternoon incense is brought even when the altar has not yet been inaugurated, because the golden altar is inaugurated with the afternoon incense. The Gemara challenges this: Rabbi Shimon seems to say both that the altar is inaugurated with the morning incense and that it is inaugurated with the afternoon incense. Which is it?
The Gemara first brings a proof that the morning incense is the inaugurating offering. The Torah says that the incense is brought in the morning, when the lamps are attended to. The menorah burned through the night, and in the morning the priest entered to clean and prepare the lamps. The verse associates the incense with that morning service.
The Gemara argues that the morning lamp service presupposes that the menorah had already been lit the previous evening. We know that the lighting of the menorah and the offering of the incense go together. Therefore, if the menorah was first inaugurated in the evening, the first incense must also have been brought in the evening.
Rashi explains that when the verse speaks of attending to the lamps in the morning, the menorah must already have been inaugurated the previous evening. The incense and the menorah are linked. Since the first lighting of the menorah took place in the evening, the first incense offering must also have taken place in the evening.
The Gemara then brings another derivation from the outer altar, which is also called the altar of the burnt offering. Just as the morning daily offering inaugurates the outer altar, so the morning incense inaugurates the inner, golden altar. The verse says that the second daily offering is made in the afternoon, implying that the first offering is made in the morning. A comparison is made between the outer altar and the golden altar.
Alternatively, the Gemara derives the matter from the verse concerning the table and the showbread. How is the table inaugurated? It is inaugurated when the showbread is placed upon it on Shabbat. The first Shabbat on which the bread is placed on the table inaugurates the table.
The Gemara initially understands that the table’s inauguration takes place on Shabbat, while the bread itself may become sanctified during the week. The bread is not sanctified until it is placed on the table on Shabbat, but the inauguration of the table takes place on Shabbat.
Rashi rejects this understanding. If the bread was placed on the table during the week, it would nevertheless become sanctified only on Shabbat. The Gemara later discusses a case in which the bread left the Temple courtyard. Ordinarily, once an item is already sanctified, taking it outside would invalidate it. Since the showbread does not become sanctified until it is on the table on Shabbat, however, it is not invalidated by leaving the courtyard before that time.
Thus, the Gemara initially seems to distinguish between the inauguration of the table, which takes place on Shabbat, and the sanctification of the showbread, which could take place on another day. The Gemara ultimately rejects this distinction. Both the table’s inauguration and the sanctification of the showbread take place on Shabbat. The table becomes inaugurated because the bread becomes sanctified on that day; the two processes take place together.
The Mishnah then says that the menorah becomes inaugurated when Aaron lights its seven lamps for the first time. This teaches not only that the menorah itself becomes inaugurated at that moment, but also that the service associated with it takes place then. The inauguration and the service are linked.
Just as everything concerning the menorah takes place together, so everything concerning the table takes place together. The table is inaugurated when the showbread is placed upon it, and the showbread becomes sanctified at that same time. In the case of the menorah, the inauguration and the service take place together; in the case of the table, the inauguration and the sanctification take place together.
The Gemara then returns to the incense. The incense mentioned here refers to the inaugural incense brought by the princes during the twelve days of Nisan. Each prince brought an offering, and on one day the altar was inaugurated. This was an unusual situation: an individual brought incense, and he brought it on the outer altar. That was a special ruling made for that occasion.
The Gemara asks whether this was really the first time an individual brought incense on the outer altar. Perhaps an individual had previously brought incense on the inner altar. If one wants to be precise, the statement should be limited to the first time an individual brought incense on the outer altar.
The Gemara then asks whether the statement means that this was the first time an individual brought incense on the outer altar, even though the community might bring incense there. A baraita teaches that an individual may not make a voluntary offering of incense. The verse says that incense is not to be brought as a voluntary offering. One might explain that an individual may not bring it only because an individual never has an obligation to bring incense. Perhaps, however, the community could bring a voluntary offering of incense on the outer altar because the community does have an obligation to bring incense.
The Gemara rejects this possibility. The community also does not bring incense on the outer altar. The community brings incense only on the inner altar. The Torah speaks of the community bringing its incense, but that refers to the inner altar, not the outer altar.
Therefore, no source is needed to teach that the community does not bring incense on the outer altar; there is no precedent for such a practice. Nor is a source needed to teach that an individual does not bring incense on the inner altar; there is likewise no precedent for that. The novelty concerns only an individual bringing incense on the outer altar, because the princes did so during the inauguration. That was a special ruling for that particular occasion and does not establish a general practice.
The next Mishnah discusses the daily meal offering of the High Priest, called the baked High Priest’s meal offering. Every day, the High Priest brought a particular measure of flour. The Gemara explains that he divided it, bringing half in the morning and half in the afternoon. It was called the High Priest’s offering because it belonged specifically to the High Priest, and it was called the baked offering because it was prepared in a special pan.
The High Priest did not bring half an ephah from his house in the morning and then return home to bring the other half in the afternoon. Rather, he brought one complete measure and divided it. Half was offered in the morning and half in the afternoon.
If the High Priest died before the afternoon offering, the new High Priest could not simply bring half a measure from his own house. Nor could he use the remaining half of the first High Priest’s offering. Instead, he had to bring an entire measure and divide it. One half was offered in the afternoon, while the other half was burned.
As a result, two halves were offered and two halves were burned. The remaining half of the first High Priest’s offering was burned because it could no longer be used, and the second High Priest also had to bring a complete measure, even though only half of it was offered.
The Gemara discusses the expression “half of it.” If the verse had said only “the High Priest’s meal offering,” one might have thought that the proper measure was half an ephah, with half brought in the morning and half in the afternoon. The verse instead says “half of it in the morning and half of it in the afternoon,” teaching that the offering begins as a complete measure and is then divided.
How was it done? He brought a complete measure, divided it, and offered half in the morning and half in the afternoon. If the second half became impure or was lost, he could not simply replace it with another half-measure. Since the Torah requires “half of it,” he had to bring another complete measure and divide that as well.
Consequently, in such a case two halves were offered and two halves were not offered. The lost half did not go on the altar, the impure half did not go on the altar, and the extra half from the second complete measure was also burned rather than offered.
The Mishnah was taught before Rav Nachman. It states that these two unusable halves are taken out to the place of burning. They are not burned immediately. Rather, one waits until they become invalid through remaining overnight, after which they are burned the following morning.
Rav Nachman explained that the first half was initially fit to be offered. Although the High Priest died before the afternoon service, that half had originally been designated for the altar. Therefore, it must remain until it loses its sanctity through remaining overnight before it can be burned.
A question is raised concerning the second High Priest’s half. From the beginning, everyone knew that only one half of his complete measure would be offered and that the other half would be burned. Why, then, must one wait for it to become invalid through remaining overnight? It was never fit to be offered on the altar.
The Gemara answers that even a sacrifice that became invalid in a very serious way still requires this process of losing its form before it is burned. Even an offering that became disqualified as a pigul offering, which is a severe disqualification, must remain until it loses its original status. According to this view, the same applies to the half that was never intended for the altar.
Another explanation is that when the second High Priest brought the complete measure and divided it, both halves were initially part of an offering fit for the altar. Since the complete measure had the status of an offering, both halves received that status when it was divided. Therefore, both require the process of remaining overnight before they are burned.
The Gemara then discusses how this meal offering was prepared. Everyone agrees that it had to be both baked and fried. The dispute concerns the order. One view says that it was baked first and then fried. Another view says that it was fried first and then baked.
The verse concerning the High Priest’s meal offering uses the word that can mean “baked.” One interpretation understands it as teaching that it should be baked while it was still in a desirable state. If it were fried first, the oil would darken it, and the subsequent baking would not be considered baking it while it was still in its proper condition.
Rashi explains that if it is baked first, it is baked while it is still clean and presentable. If it is fried first, it becomes dark from the oil in the pan, and the later baking is performed on an already darkened item.
Another interpretation understands the verse as saying that it should be baked when it is not yet fully prepared. In that view, it is first fried, which partially cooks it, and it is then baked to complete the cooking. The word can therefore mean that it is baked when it is partially prepared but not yet fully prepared.
The Gemara presents this as a dispute among the Tannaim. One Tanna understands the verse as requiring frying first and baking afterward. Rabbi says that it requires baking first and frying afterward.
A further opinion understands the expression as referring to multiple stages of baking. According to this view, the offering is baked, then fried, and then baked again. The first baking begins the process, the frying partially cooks it, and the second baking completes it.
Rashi explains that this opinion reads the expression as requiring several bakings. It is baked first, fried, and then baked again. The intermediate frying is necessary because the offering must be partially cooked before the final baking.
There is another version of this discussion. It understands the expression as meaning “bake it when it is large.” The frying pan was broad, and frying caused the offering to spread and become large and flat. According to this version, it is first baked and then placed in the broad pan to be fried, so that it becomes large and thin.
In that interpretation, the relevant meaning is not that it must be baked before it becomes dark, but that it must be baked while it is still in its initial, soft state. The frying then causes it to become broad and flat. The baking is performed first, followed by the frying in the wide pan.
According to the different versions, the dispute concerns the meaning of the expression and the number of stages required. One view requires baking, frying, and baking again. Another requires only baking and frying, with the first baking making it soft and presentable and the frying making it broad. In either case, the question is how to understand the verse’s instruction regarding the baking and preparation of the High Priest’s meal offering.
That concludes the discussion.