Study Menachot folio 52A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
but if one derives benefit from its ashes, one is not liable for misusing consecrated property. It is clear from the baraita that by Torah law one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from the ashes of a red heifer.
Rav Ashi said in response: In fact, this halakha is by Torah law, but there were two ordinances that were enacted concerning this matter. By Torah law, if one derives benefit from it, the animal itself, he is liable for misusing consecrated property, but if he derives benefit from its ashes he is
Once they saw that as a result of this decree people were refraining from sprinkling it in cases where there was uncertainty as to whether or not an individual was impure and required sprinkling, they revoked the decree and established it in accordance with the halakha as it is by Torah law, that o
§ The Talmud cites a dispute between R' Shimon and R' Yehuda that is similar to the one cited earlier. A baraita states: If there is a need to sacrifice the bull for an unwitting communal sin, brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling concerning a prohibition for which one is lia
The Talmud challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita the opposite, i.e., that the first opinion cited above is that of R' Shimon and the second is that of R' Yehuda? Which of the two baraitot is the later one and therefore the more accurate and authoritative version of their opinions?