burnt-offerings. He does this by taking two unblemished animals and stipulating as follows: If the animal that was found was a burnt-offering, let the first animal be a burnt-offering in its place, and let the second be a peace-offering. And if the animal that was found was a peace-offering, let the second animal be peace-offering, and let the first be a free-will burnt-offering. Rabbi Zeira offers a different explanation of the halakha in the mishna: Male animals found near Jerusalem are sacrificed as burnt-offerings, even though they may have been designated as peace-offerings. He says: Just as you say there (19a) in the name of Reish Lakish that it is a condition of the court that stipulates with regard to funds left over from what had originally been consecrated for sin-offerings that they are brought as burnt-offerings; so too, you say here that it is a condition of the court with regard to animals that were lost and later found, that even though they may be peace-offerings, they are brought as burnt-offerings. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa: Is this not a case of intentional change of an offering's purpose? A condition of the court can allocate leftover money that had originally been consecrated for sin-offerings to the purchase of a burnt-offering, but that does not mean that one can intentionally change the sanctity of the animal itself from that of a peace-offering to that of a burnt-offering. Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa said to Rabbi Yosei: Since it is a condition of the court, it is not considered a case of intentional change of an animal's purpose. Even if the animal had initially been consecrated as a peace-offering, that consecration is regarded as conditional in accordance with the court's stipulation. Consequently, the animal can now be sacrificed as a burnt-offering ab initio.

§ Since the mishna mentioned the griddle-cake offering of a High Priest who had died, the Gemara records what Rabbi Yesa said about similar matters: While I was there in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rav Yehuda asking Shmuel: If one set aside his shekel and then died before handing it over to the treasurer, what is to be done with the shekel? Shmuel said to him: It is allocated to free-will offerings and is used for the purchase of free-will burnt-offerings. It was further asked: What is to be done with leftover money that a High Priest set aside for the purchase of his griddle-cake offering made from one-tenth of an ephah of flour? If a High Priest designated money for the purchase of flour for his meal-offering and it turns out that he set aside too much money, what is to be done with the extra money? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The money goes to the Dead Sea, meaning, it is destroyed. Rabbi Elazar disagreed and said: The money is allocated to free-will offerings.

The Gemara continues its discussion of the High Priest's griddle-cake offering. The mishna in Menaḥot 4:5 teaches that it was divided in two; half of it was sacrificed in the morning and half in the evening. The Gemara records a dispute among the amora'im: With regard to the High Priest's one-tenth of an ephah, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He divides it into two equal portions in two non-sacred vessels, and afterward he consecrates each half by itself before it is sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He must first consecrate the entire one-tenth of an ephah, and only afterward does he divide it into two equal portions. The Gemara comments: A mishna seems to disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as the mishna (Menaḥot 4:5) teaches that if the High Priest sacrificed half of his griddle-cake offering in the morning and then died, and another High Priest was appointed in his place, the successor does not bring the second half that evening. Instead he consecrates a whole one-tenth of an ephah and divides it into two equal portions. He then sacrifices one half, and the second half is destroyed. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the High Priest consecrates each half by itself, why must the second half be destroyed? It had never been consecrated for the altar, and so it can still be redeemed. Rabbi Yoḥanan solves it, i.e., resolves the difficulty: The mishna maintains that even though the second half is consecrated only for its value and not for the altar, it still must be destroyed. As even what is left over from the money that a High Priest set aside for the purchase of his griddle-cake offering goes to the Dead Sea, although it had never been consecrated for the altar. The Gemara notes that the same mishna also seems to disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The mishna teaches that in the aforementioned case where the High Priest dies before sacrificing the second half of his griddle-cake offering and is succeeded on the same day, it turns out that two halves of the griddle-cake offering are sacrificed, i.e., the first half from the deceased High Priest and the first half from his successor, and two halves are destroyed, i.e., the second half of each offering. And it was taught about this mishna in a baraita: The half of the first High Priest and the half of the second High Priest that are destroyed, i.e., that which is left over once each of them has sacrificed half of one-tenth of an ephah, their form must first be allowed to decay, i.e., they must be left overnight until they are disqualified, and only then are they taken out to the place of burning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that the High Priest consecrates for the altar the entire one-tenth of an ephah before dividing it, there is no reason to wait for the form to decay. The principle is that if anything becomes intrinsically disqualified such that it cannot be sacrificed, it is burned immediately (Pesaḥim 34b). Therefore, it should be possible to immediately burn each disqualified, leftover half from each High Priest, and not wait for their forms to decay. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish solves this difficulty by arguing that the mishna, and his own opinion, which is an interpretation of the mishna, does not accord with the baraita but rather with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael (Menaḥot 90a), who says that the one-tenth of an ephah measure is regarded as a sacred service vessel that consecrates its contents. The flour is therefore consecrated for the altar at the original measuring of the one-tenth of the ephah. Accordingly, the remaining half of each one-tenth of an ephah is destroyed immediately without decay of form. The baraita, on the other hand, does not consider the one-tenth of an ephah measure to be a sacred service vessel, and therefore the measure does not consecrate the flour. As long as the remaining halves have not been consecrated for the altar, they are consecrated only for their value and require decay of form before they are burned. § As the topic of the griddle-cake offering brought each day by the High Priest has been raised, the Gemara elaborates on it and on the inaugural meal-offering brought by each and every priest the first time that he serves in the Temple. It was taught in a baraita: When a priest approaches the altar for the first time to perform the service, he brings his meal-offering from one-tenth of an ephah of flour and he performs the service himself, and in this way he inaugurates himself for service. Nevertheless, for both a High Priest and an ordinary priest who performed the sacrificial service before bringing their meal-offerings from one-tenth of an ephah of flour as their inaugural meal-offerings, their service is valid, as the absence of a priest's inaugural meal-offerings does not invalidate his service. Rabbi Mana wanted to say the following halakha: If on the same day that a priest approached the altar to perform the service for the first time, on that same day he was also appointed to be the High Priest, he must bring two meal-offerings, each one-tenth of an ephah of flour; one for his inaugural meal-offering and one for the obligation of the day, i.e., for the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest must bring every day.

The Gemara records another halakha with regard to the daily griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest. Concerning this offering, the verse states: "On a griddle it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, you shall bring it in; and baked pieces of the meal-offering shall you offer for a sweet savor unto the Lord" (Leviticus 6:14). The juxtaposition of the words "you shall bring it in" to the words "and baked pieces" teaches that at the time that the meal-offering is brought, it is made into baked pieces, i.e., during that same day, and not before daybreak is it made into baked pieces. The Gemara asks: But didn't we learn in a mishna (Tamid 1:3) that every day before the removal of the ashes from the altar, which was before daybreak, they assigned whoever made the griddle-cake offerings to make, i.e., bake, griddle-cakes? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Aḥa said: All that they assigned him to do was to heat water for the boiling of the dough as part of the preparation of the griddle-cakes for the day. Having mentioned the baking of the High Priest's griddle-cake offering, the Gemara addresses the various stages in the preparation of the offering. The verse implies that the offering must be fried, as it says: "On a griddle it shall be made with oil"; it also indicates that it must be scalded in water, as it says: "When it is soaked"; and it further teaches that it must be baked, as it says: "And baked pieces of the meal-offering shall you offer for a sweet savor unto the Lord." As for the order of these procedures, Rabbi Yesa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: He first fries it, and afterward he bakes it. Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: He first bakes it, and only afterward does he fry it. The Gemara notes that this dispute depends on another tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita that says with regard to the High Priest's griddle-cake offering: "And baked pieces [tufinei] of the meal-offering" (Leviticus 6:14). This word is interpreted as it shall be baked when it is already half done [te'afena na], meaning that it is fried before it is baked. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word for baked pieces [tufinei] should be understood as meaning it must be baked when still beautiful [te'afena na'a], i.e., before it is fried. Rabbi Dosa says: It shall be baked in an amplified manner, i.e., more than once. The Gemara explains: These disputes follow, i.e., match, those disputes mentioned earlier. The one who says, i.e., understands tufinei to mean that it must be baked when still beautiful [te'afena na'a] is like the one who says that he first bakes it, and afterwards fries it. And the one who says tufinei should be interpreted as baked when half done [te'afena na] is like the one who says that he first fries it, and only afterward does he bake it.

The Gemara above cited the mishna in tractate Menaḥot that teaches that in the event of the death of the High Priest after having brought his morning griddle-cake offering, if another High Priest is appointed that same day, the successor brings one-tenth of an ephah of his own, divides it into two, and offers one half for the evening griddle-cake offering. The Gemara clarifies this matter: Is this not the end of it, that is to say, is the halakha not restricted to the case where the High Priest died? Rather, even if he became ritually impure after having brought the morning griddle-cake offering, another High Priest must bring a whole one-tenth of an ephah, divide it into two equal portions, and then sacrifice one half as the evening griddle-cake offering. And all the more so is this true, in accordance with this ruling, if the first High Priest was permanently disqualified because he became disfigured by a blemish. The Gemara suggests an alternative: The mishna's ruling extends even to cases where the first High Priest is found unfit because of a permanent blemish. This scenario would require his successor to bring a new one-tenth of an ephah. However, in accordance with this ruling, temporary disqualification due to ritual impurity would not require the temporary High Priest to bring a separate meal-offering. Rabbi Yehuda bar Pazzi of Bar Delaya taught: Even the first High Priest being found unfit because of a permanent blemish would require his successor to bring a new one-tenth of an ephah. However, if the first High Priest became ritually impure and only temporarily suspended from his position, the second High Priest may use the first High Priest's leftover half-tenth of an ephah for the evening griddle-cake offering. The mishna records a dispute among tanna'im with regard to the case of a High Priest who died. The first opinion is that until a new High Priest has been appointed, the griddle-cake offering is brought from public funds. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, and argues that it should come from the property of the High Priest's heirs. The Gemara recounts a baraita about this issue: From where is it derived that if the High Priest died and another High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, that his meal-offering should be brought from the property of the High Priest's heirs? The verse states with regard to this offering: "And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall bring it" (Leviticus 6:15). That is to say, he sacrifices it from the property of the sons of the High Priest. I might have thought that the heirs should bring this meal-offering in halves, half in the morning and half in the evening, as it is ordinarily brought by the High Priest. Therefore, the verse states: "Shall bring it" (Leviticus 6:15); I said that he should bring all of it as a single offering, and not in halves. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: It comes only from public funds collected in the Temple treasury, as it is stated: "It is a statute forever to the Lord" (Leviticus 6:15), to be brought from those with whom a covenant was made, i.e., from the community with whom God entered into a covenant. The verse continues: "It shall be wholly burnt," from which it may be derived that the griddle-cake offering is to be burnt in its entirety. In contrast to most meal-offerings, a handful of flour is not separated to be burned on the altar and no part of it is eaten by the priests, but rather the entire offering is burned on the altar.

Returning to the dispute with regard to a High Priest who died, etc., whether the griddle-cake offering is brought from the his estate or comes from public funds, Rabbi Ba bar Memel, in the context of a parallel discussion (Menaḥot 51b), raised a difficulty: It would seem that the attribution of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is reversed. There, that is, according to the mishna in Shekalim, he says that the original, Torah law was that the griddle-cake offering should be brought from the property of the late High Priest's heirs. This is indicated by the fact that according to Rabbi Shimon, the griddle-cake offering is brought from public funds only by rabbinic ordinance as a condition of the court, implying that prior to the institution of the ordinance, the halakha was that it be brought from the late High Priest's estate. Whereas here, that is, in the baraita above and in tractate Menaḥot, Rabbi Shimon says that by Torah law it comes from public funds, as according to his opinion it is derived from the wording of the Torah: "It is a statute forever." Rabbi Ḥiyya