OPINION: The Mishnah (49a) discusses the law in a case in which the Tamid Shel Shachar was not brought in the morning. It similarly discusses the law in a case in which the Ketores of the morning was not brought in the morning. The Mishnah records a dispute about whether the Tamid Shel Shachar may be brought in the afternoon; according to one opinion, the Kohanim should be penalized for their laziness. There is no such dispute with regard to the Ketores. The Gemara here explains that this is because the Ketores is beloved to the Kohanim since it is uncommon and since the Kohen who offers it will become wealthy, and thus it would never be neglected out of laziness.

TOSFOS (DH d'Lo) makes an interesting remark. He says that the Gemara's primary reason for why the Kohanim would never neglect the Ketores out of laziness is that it is uncommon, in contrast to Korbenos Olah that are brought frequently. Tosfos says that the fact that the Ketores makes the Kohen wealthy is not an advantage of the Ketores over Korbenos Olah, since offering the Olah also makes the Kohen wealthy.

What is the source that offering the Korban Olah makes a person wealthy?

(a) Tosfos cites the Gemara in Yoma (26a) that derives from the verse, "They shall place incense before You and Olah sacrifices upon Your altar. May Hash-m bless his possessions and favor the work of his hands" (Devarim 33:10-11), that one who offers an Olah is blessed by Hash-m with wealth.

(b) The TOSFOS YOM TOV points out that this does not seem to be the conclusion of the Gemara in Yoma. The Gemara there quotes the first half of the verse, "Yasimu Ketores b'Apecha" -- "they shall place incense before You" -- to prove that the blessing of wealth comes from offering the Ketores. The Gemara asks that offering an Olah also should make one wealthy, because the verse continues, "v'Chalil Al Mizbechecha" -- "and Olah sacrifices upon Your altar"! The Gemara answers, "This is uncommon." RASHI in Yoma (DH Ha) explains that the verse is referring to something uncommon, because otherwise everyone would be wealthy. Accordingly, the Gemara's conclusion there is that offering an Olah does not make one wealthy.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (on the Mishnah here) defends the position of Tosfos. He explains that Tosfos understands the Gemara in Yoma in an entirely different way. He understands it in the same way as the TOSFOS YESHANIM in Yoma explains it. The Tosfos Yeshanim explains that when the Gemara in Yoma asks that an Olah should also be included, it means to ask why the Kohanim do not perform a lottery to determine who will offer Olos, as they indeed do to determine who will offer the Ketores. Just as the reason why a lottery is performed for offering the Ketores presumably is because the Ketores makes the Kohen wealthy, a lottery also should be performed for offering Olos! The Gemara answers that it is common to bring Olos, and thus everyone is able to bring an Olah. Moreover, if a Kohen wants to offer an Olah, he simply can sanctity an animal as an Olah and offer it! In contrast, one cannot donate an offering of Ketores; the only Ketores that may be offered is that of the public. According to this understanding of the Gemara, Ketores indeed is more uncommon than an Olah, but both make a Kohen wealthy. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that if the Kohen Gadol dies after he brings the first half of the Chavitin (the special Minchah offered by the Kohen Gadol, half in the morning and half at night), the new Kohen Gadol does not bring the second, unused half of the flour that was set aside by the first Kohen Gadol. Rather, he brings a new Chavitin offering and uses only half of it for the afternoon Chavitin. The half not used by the first Kohen, as well as the half not used by the second Kohen, remain unused. (The Tosefta (7:5) states that the flour is left out overnight and then burned in the Beis ha'Sereifah.)

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which derives this Halachah from a verse. The verse states, "u'Machatzisah ba'Erev" - "and half of it [is offered] at night" (Vayikra 6:13). This teaches that afternoon Chavitin offered by the new Kohen Gadol must be half of a whole amount designated by this Kohen Gadol.

Why is a verse necessary to teach that the second Kohen Gadol cannot use the first Kohen Gadol's Korban? A person may never use someone else's Korban! An ordinary Korban is transferable only to the owner's heir (and even then only under certain circumstances). Why is a verse required to teach that the new Kohen Gadol may not use the former Kohen Gadol's flour for the afternoon Chavitin offering? (MIKDASH DAVID 30:2)

(a) The CHAZON YECHEZKEL (Tosefta Menachos 7:5) explains that a verse is necessary because of the obligation of the first Kohen. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 3:22) rules that if a second Kohen Gadol is not appointed on the same day, the Kohen Gadol's sons bring the Chavitin. This shows that the Kohen Gadol's obligation is fixed because he brought the Chavitin in the morning. One might have thought that the second Kohen Gadol should fulfill the rest of the obligation of the first Kohen Gadol, just as the Kohen Gadol's sons indeed bring the rest of the Chavitin if no other Kohen Gadol is appointed. This is why the verse must teach us that although the rest of the Chavitin must be offered, an entirely new Isaron must be used. (The Rambam rules that when no new Kohen Gadol is appointed, the heirs must bring a new Isaron, divide it, and use half for the second Chavitin of the day, just as a second Kohen Gadol would have done.)

(b) The MIKDASH DAVID answers that change of ownership is not the reason why one person generally cannot use the Korban of another person. Rather, it is because one person's obligation is not the same as another person's obligation. However, the obligation to bring Chavitin is not a personal obligation, but it is an ongoing obligation (similar to the Korban Tamid); the Torah requires that Chavitin be brought everyday by the Kohen Gadol who is serving at that time.

Since the second Kohen Gadol is merely stepping into the obligation of the first Kohen Gadol, one might have thought that he may bring the rest of the Chavitin of the first Kohen Gadol. Therefore, the verse teaches that this is not the case.

(The Mikdash David (30:2) understands that if the first Kohen only sanctified the Chavitin but did not have a chance to offer even the first half, the second Kohen may use that Chavitin for himself.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)