Menachot 52

Yesterday, we discussed the twice-daily griddle-cake offering of the high priest, and who covers the cost if he dies between the morning and afternoon offerings. Today, the rabbis are exploring a different question about this offering. The griddle cakes are brought with a measure of frankincense, but the Torah does not specify how much. Rabbi Yohanan reports that Abba Yosei ben Dostai and the rabbis have different opinions:

Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: The high priest separates two handfuls of frankincense for his griddle-cake offering each day; one handful for his morning offering and one handful for his afternoon offering.
 
And the rabbis say: The high priest separates one handful of frankincense each day for his griddle-cake offering. He divides it in half and brings half a handful for his morning offering and half a handful for his afternoon offering.

What is the basis for these two answers? The following explanation is brought by the Gemara:

Abba Yosei ben Dostai holds that one does not find a case where the Torah explicitly states that half a handful is sacrificed.
 
And the rabbis hold that one does not find a case where a tenth of an ephah requires two handfuls.

The difference of opinion, explains the Gemara, is about which precedent to use to derive an answer. Abba Yosei can find no example in the Torah when less than a handful of frankincense is used for an offering, so he concludes that each offering of griddle cakes should be accompanied by a full handful. The rabbis, on the other hand, can find no example of a time when a tenth of an ephah of flour is accompanied by more than a handful of frankincense. Since the two daily griddle-cake offerings use a total of a tenth of an ephah of flour, it makes sense to offer only a handful of frankincense — half in the morning and half in the afternoon.

Here’s how we’ve presented the conversation so far: Rabbi Yohanan teaches that there was disagreement between Abba Yosei and the rabbis. Then the Gemara asked a question about the underlying principles of the debate and supplied the reasoning that led each party to their respective conclusion.
 
But this is not the only way to read this discussion. Here is another: Abba Yosei is a fourth generation tanna, coming from the early rabbinic period. Rabbi Yohanan, who reports his debate with the rabbis, is a second generation amora, coming perhaps a hundred years after Abba Yosei and the debate he is reporting. Then, the anonymous Gemara (often referred to as the stamma d’gemara), presents its own idea of the principles that lie behind the positions of Abba Yosei and the rabbis.

The difference is subtle. The first reading assumes that the explanations brought by the Gemara report the rationale of Abba Yosei and the rabbis, as they understood it. The second suggests that while the debate dates to an earlier period, the explanations for each position came much later.

It’s easy, when studying Talmud, to read the text as presented, as if all of the parties were in the same room having a conversation. But the discussions are most often not contemporaneous. They occurred over centuries. The earliest of disputes entered the talmudic record tersely, preserving the positions taken by individual rabbis with little explanation.

Later voices, seeking to understand the legal principles behind the positions, developed explanations that created legal rationales that supported these positions. Recognizing that these are later developments deepens our understanding of both the talmudic process and how Jewish law developed over time.

Read all of Menachot 52 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on March 4, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.