There is an obligation for the Kohen Gadol to offer, from his own funds, a chavitin offering—a flour-based flat cake—twice daily.
The Talmud discusses a scenario where the Kohen Gadol dies and a replacement has yet to be appointed. “From whose funds is the sacrifice to be drawn?” Rabbi Shimon says, from the communal coffers; Rabbi Yehuda says, from the Kohen Gadol’s inheritor’s.
Each draws support from the same verse: “And the kohen who is anointed instead of him from among his sons, shall prepare it; [this is] an eternal statute; it shall be completely burnt to G-d. (Vayikra 6:15)”
Rabbi Yehuda reads this as follows: “And when the kohen who is anointed dies, his sons shall prepare it instead of him.” Rabbi Shimon understands the next phrase, “this is an eternal statute (lit. a statute for the world)” as meaning, this is a statute that is financed by the world, i.e. the community. (Menachos 51b)
Reasons and Definitions
This argument is not just about the status of the chavitin offering after the Kohen Gadol’s passing; it is a fundamental argument about the nature of the chavitin offering itself. The post-mortem dispute simply follows from their divergent views of the definition of the chavitin offering.
Different reasons are offered for this offering: the Chinuch says that the Kohen Gadol represents the Jewish people before G-d, and therefore it is appropriate for him to have a daily offering, like a communal sacrifice, to augment his, and the community’s, merits.
Abarbanel offers other rationales, for example, the Kohen Gadol offers this simple meal offering to inculcate a sense of humility and poverty in himself.
Thus, the chavitin offering can be seen as a communal sacrifice, as the Chinuch implies, the only difference being that this communal sacrifice is designated to be offered by a specific person, the Kohen Gadol. Or, this offering can be seen as the Kohen Gadol’s personal offering, as implied by the Abarbanel.
This is the subject of the Talmudic dispute: Rabbi Shimon maintains that the chavitin is a communal offering. Therefore, when there is no Kohen Gadol, the community sponsors it. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the chavitin is the Kohen Gadol’s personal sacrifice. Therefore, when he passes away, his heirs must still finance it, fulfilling their father’s obligation, until a new Kohen is appointed.
Rashi’s Position
Rashi’s comments on the biblical source of this law align him with Rabbi Shimon’s position. The verse states that the kohen Gadol’s chavitin offering must be “completely burnt.” Rashi comments: “There is no הָיצִמְק procedure to enable any remainder to be eaten; but, it is burnt in its entirety. Similarly, any voluntary meal-offering brought by a kohen, must be completely burned.”
In general, flour offerings feature a kemitzah procedure where a portion of the offering is scooped out by the kohen and burned on the altar, while the remainder is eaten by the kohanim. When a private kohen offers a meal offering, there is no removal procedure, the entire offering is burnt. In the Kohen Gadol’s offering, Rashi clarifies, a portion is removed, but both the portion and the remainder were burned on the altar.
Kemitzah is a feature of communal sacrifice. Thus the fact that this was performed with the Kohen Gadol’s chavitin means that it is a communal sacrifice. Despite this, both portions were burnt because it was, in the end, offered by a specific kohen, and thus mirrored the private kohen’s meal offering in this respect.
Everlasting or Forever Renewed
In the Talmud’s continued discussion, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon deal with eternal nature of this obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says that without scriptural support, we would assume that the Kohen Gadol only offers the chavitin on the day he is inaugurated, but not from then on. The verse’s saying “this is an eternal statute” negates this and clarifies that it is a daily offering. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the daily obligation is logical, no scriptural evidence for this is needed.
This can be understood in the light of the above discussion: A community is a constant, everlasting entity. “The community never dies.” Therefore, when the community is commanded to bring a sacrifice, we can assume that it is a constant obligation. Thus, Rabbi Shimon does not need scriptural intervention to make this a daily obligation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, however, because this is an individual sacrifice, the verse needs to explicitly command that this is a daily obligation. It follows that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, there is a new obligation every day for the Kohen Gadol to offer the inauguration chavitin. Because it is essentially a private sacrifice, which does not have a constant obligation, therefore for the private obligation to be eternal, it must be renewed daily.
The Deeper Dimension
This aligns with the Alter Rebbe’s chassidic reading of this sacrifice. The verse introduces the chavitin as follows: “This is the offering of Aharon and his sons, which they shall offer to G-d on the day when [one of them] is anointed.” (Vayikra 6:13) The Alter Rebbe notes that the prefix of the word “on the day” should have been “from the day,” since the obligation begins on that day and never ceases, as we have seen. The prefix “on the day” of the inauguration alludes to the ideal that on every day when the chavitin is offered, the illumination associated with the day of the inauguration should be felt. Thus, because the obligation is renewed every day, it always feels like it is the first day of inauguration.
