Leviticus 6:13–15 describes a special offering made by the high priest:
This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to God on the occasion of his anointment: a tenth of an ephah of choice flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening, shall be prepared with oil on a griddle. You shall bring it well soaked, and offer it as a grain offering of baked slices, of pleasing odor to God. And so shall the priest, anointed from among his sons to succeed him, prepare it; it is God’s — a law for all time — to be turned entirely into smoke.
This griddle-cake offering, half burned up in the morning and half in the afternoon, became a daily ritual for the high priest. On yesterday’s daf, the Gemara began exploring the question of what happens if the high priest dies between offering the morning and afternoon griddle cakes. The consensus was that even if the high priest was not immediately replaced, the offering still had to be completed. However, in the absence of a high priest for the afternoon, it is not clear who bears the cost:
If they did not appoint another high priest in his stead, from whose property was the griddle-cake offering brought and sacrificed?
Rabbi Shimon says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the community.
Rabbi Yehuda says: It is brought and sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the high priest.
If the high priest dies midday, the second half of the griddle-cake offering — which was his personal property — immediately passes to his heirs. But should they now have to foot the bill for turning it to smoke on the altar? It’s not cheap: We know that the finest flour and fragrant frankincense are two of the ingredients. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it’s the responsibility of the high priest’s heirs to cover the cost of completing the sacrifice. But Rabbi Shimon says this cost is covered by public funds.
The sages bring a beraita that supports the position of Rabbi Yehuda:
The sages taught: If the high priest died and they did not appoint another high priest in his stead, from where is it derived that his griddle-cake meal offering should be sacrificed from the property of the heirs of the high priest? The verse states: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it.” (Leviticus 6:15)
This is obviously not what the verse literally means in context. The Torah is establishing the high priest’s griddle-cake offering as a permanent ritual, not just for Aaron but for all high priests that follow him. But Rabbi Yehuda reads it midrashically to mean that the high priest’s heirs are immediately responsible for the cost of the sacrifice should the high priest die midday.
Where, then, does Rabbi Shimon find support for funds coming from public coffers? From the end of that same verse!
Rabbi Shimon says: The continuation of the verse “… it is a statute forever (olam) to the Lord,” teaches that the offering is brought from the property of the world (olam).
If we read this verse literally, olam means forever and the overall meaning is that the griddle-cake offering is established for all generations. However, Rabbi Shimon’s argument hinges on importing a different meaning of olam: world. This, in turn, can mean the community. In Rabbi Shimon’s hands, the Hebrew phrase morphs from “a statute for all time” to “a statute for the community.” In other words, the community bears the cost.
So who wins this debate? The discussion concludes not with the best interpretive answer, but with an historical explanation for the final decision:
Initially, they acted in accordance with the ruling by Torah law, that the griddle-cake meal offering would be sacrificed from public funds. Once they saw that the funds in the chamber of the Temple treasury were being depleted, the sages instituted an ordinance that the payment for the offering should be collected from the previous high priest’s heirs. Once they saw that the heirs were negligent in the matter and did not bring the offering, they revoked the previous ordinance and established it in accordance with the halakhah as it is by Torah law, that it is brought from public funds.
Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda are both vindicated — both of their rulings have, at various times, been considered law. However, Rabbi Shimon wins the day. Not because his interpretation is better. Not even because he’s somehow more “right.” But because his solution is the one that works.
Read all of Menachot 51 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on March 3rd, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
