The olive oil for the Menorah must be “pure” (Sh’mos 27:20), i.e. the first drops that come out of the olives (see Rambam, Hilchos Isuray Mizbayach 7:8-9). What about the rest of the oil that can be squeezed out of the olives? It can be used for the “m’nachos,” the meal-offerings brought in the Temple (M’nachos 86b). The Talmud (ibid) explains why oil that is not “extra virgin” can be used for meal-offerings: “the Torah protects the money of [the Nation of] Israel.” Since it would be that much more expensive if the Torah insisted on using only the highest quality oil, it did not make such a requirement.

[Even though only “pure” oil can be used for the Menorah, Rashi explains that the amount of oil needed for the Menorah (3.5 log per day) was not that much compared with the amount of oil needed for meal-offerings (4-6 log per meal-offering, with meal-offerings being brought with all offerings, as well as some brought as stand-alone offerings). Apparently, it is only above a certain threshold that the Torah feels the need to “protect” our money, although one of the sources for this concept, an afflicted house (see Rashi on Vayikra 14:36) seems to extend the concept specifically to small amounts of money as well. It is possible to differentiate between requiring an outlay of money, such as the oil needed for the Menorah, and a loss of money, such as losing pottery vessels one already owns, with the Torah “protecting” us from even small losses, but only “sparing” us from spending a large amount unnecessarily.]

The concept that “the Torah protects the money of Israel” is applied throughout the Talmud, but so is another concept: “there is no poverty in a place of wealth.” This is used to explain why there was no need to cook a small amount of dye to be used for replacement pieces of the Mishkan (Shabbos 102b); since they made more than what was initially needed (as doing otherwise would have indicated having limited resources), there was plenty left for future needs. It is also used to explain why, according to some, Temple property (or monies) could not be used for investment purposes (K’subos 106b), even if all of the profits went to the Temple treasury, as using private property to make money indicates having a need for money. (The dissenting opinion may understand the issue to be acting like a pauper, rather than having to act as if money wasn’t an issue; only something that is “extra,” i.e. not needed, can be invested. The fact that the Temple had more than it needed, which could then be used as a business investment, would therefore not contradict the concept that “there is no poverty in a place of wealth.) Priestly garments that became soiled cannot be washed with detergent (etc.) to clean them (Z’vachim 88b); they must be replaced, as nobility buys new clothes rather than washing old ones. Since “there is no poverty in a place of wealth,” a gold vessel was used to make slaughtering the daily offerings easier (Tamid 29a), and a gold or silver table would have been used to prepare the “Lechem HaPanim” (“show bread”) rather than a marble one if metal wouldn’t have caused the bread to spoil (Tamid 31b). Yet, this concept is ignored regarding the oil used for meal-offerings, relying instead on the concept that “the Torah protects the money of Israel” to allow second-tier olive oil to be used rather than insisting on only “pure“ oil.

How these competing concepts can be reconciled is discussed at length by T’shuva Mei’ahavah (#4; he quotes his rebbe, the Noda B’Yehudah, in #5, which is also quoted in the Kuntros Acharon of the second volume of the latter’s responsas, #7). This question is posed specifically regarding the oil for the meal-offerings in M’rafsin Igray, where several answers are suggested. The first answer suggested there is that the concept of “there is no poverty in a place of wealth” only applies when the difference between the more expensive item and the less expensive one is readily apparent. Since a layman cannot tell the difference between a jar of “pure” oil and one that has other oil in it, it doesn’t apply here. (I’m not so sure that a layman can’t tell the difference between “pure” oil and other kinds of olive oil.) The second answer suggested is that the concept of “there is no poverty in a place of wealth” only applies if the higher quality item makes a difference; there is no added benefit to making meal-offerings with “pure” olive oil. (Don’t share this with anyone who spends more to buy “extra virgin olive oil” for their cooking.) The third answer given is the one suggested by the Noda B’Yehudah: meal-offerings are often brought by individuals, and the concept of “there is no poverty in a place of wealth” only applies to the Temple (and its public offerings); it was never meant to apply to individuals who would now have to spend more in order to bring an offering. Even though there are “public” meal-offerings too, the qualifications for all meal-offerings are the same, so even those not brought by individuals do not need “pure” olive oil. I would add that some meal-offerings were brought (and designed to be brought) specifically by those who are extremely poor (see Rashi on Vayikra 2:1); how could the Torah require the poorest of people to buy the most expensive type of oil?

When examining the other cases of “the Torah protecting the money of Israel,” additional issues arise. For example, the Talmud (Yuma 44b) says that except for Yom Kippur, the shovel used to remove ashes from the incense altar was made of silver rather than gold because “the Torah protects the money of Israel.” Similarly, the mouth of the shofar used on fast days was plated with silver rather than gold, for the same reason. It would therefore seem that requiring the less-expensive silver rather than the more-expensive gold is also a function of “the Torah protecting the money of Israel.” However, when discussing why the box used for the “goat lottery” on Yom Kippur was purposely not consecrated, the Talmud (Yuma 39a) says that had it belonged to the Temple (been made holy) it would have had to be made from either gold or silver, because “there is no poverty in a place of wealth.” How could the Talmud say that making the box out of silver rather than wood satisfies this need if it could have been made out of the more-expensive gold instead? Noda B’Yehudah therefore says that using silver instead of gold does not qualify as “poverty,” and either would fulfill the need for having “no poverty in a place of wealth.” Therefore, because “the Torah protects the money of Israel,” silver is used rather than gold when both are valid options. Applying this to the “lottery box,” although to satisfy the issue of “poverty” it could have been made out of either gold or silver, because “the Torah protects the money of Israel,” it would have been made out of silver (if it had been made holy).

It can be suggested that the difference between high-quality “non-pure” olive oil and “pure” olive oil is comparable to the difference between silver and gold; both are “fancy” enough for its use to not be considered a state of “poverty.” The Torah therefore only required the less-expensive “non-poverty” item in order to “protect the money of Israel.”

[As far as why only “pure” olive oil could be used for the Menorah, several possibilities could be suggested. First of all, it likely makes a noticeable difference in the quality of the flame. Secondly, the Menorah was called  “the pure Menorah” (Sh’mos 31:8, Sh’mos 39:37 and Vayikra 24:4), and needed to be made of “pure gold” (see Sh’mos 25:31; even the lips of its cups had to be “pure gold” despite the fire constantly blackening it, see M’nachos 88b). It is therefore consistent that its oil had to be “pure” as well. Additionally, as previously mentioned, Rashi differentiates between “protecting” a relatively small amount of money and protecting a larger amount (see also M’nachos 76b regarding using less expensive wheat for the “Lechem HaPanim” because it was made every week and Noda B’Yehudah’s explanation as to why it’s not considered a state of “poverty”); since the amount of oil used in the Menorah was relatively small, there was no need to “protect” its value. However, there is a dispute regarding how they figured how much oil was needed for each night (M’nachos 89a), whether it was by putting in a little bit of oil at first and gradually adding more until they got it right so as not to unnecessarily waste any oil (because “the Torah protects the money of Israel”), or by filling it up to the top and gradually decreasing how much oil was put in until they got it right (because “there is no poverty in a place of wealth”). Aside from figuring out what this dispute is based on (it could depend on whether they used oil that was already consecrated so had to avoid “poverty,” or was not yet holy so only considered the potential loss, see Noda B’Yehudah), we see that the concept of our money being “protected” applies even to the small amount of oil that was spared by starting with less-full cups. It is possible that the standard of how much of a loss must occure in order to be to be “protected” is higher if the “unnecessary” funds are used during the actual Temple service; testing to see how much oil was needed could not have been done while fulfilling the mitzvah, or they wouldn’t have risked putting too little oil in.]

There is another possibility to explain why the concept of “protecting the money of Israel” takes precedence over not acting like paupers when it comes to the type of oil that can be used for meal-offerings. There is a difference between spending more and getting a better quality product (even if that “better quality” is not absolutely necessary) and spending more than necessary and creating waste in the process. A silver or gold “lottery box” may cost more than a wooden one, but the money isn’t being “wasted,” as we would now have a nicer box. However, if only “pure” olive oil could be used for meal-offerings, what would be done withy the rest of the oil? Could we insist that olives not be consecrated, only the first drops of oil after they come out, thereby allowing the rest of the oil to be used for mundane purposes? Would those who owned olive groves donate as much (or as often) to the Temple if they could only donate the first drops of oil (and had to produce the oil themselves)? How confident could the Temple custodians be that the donated oil retained its status of ritual purity? It makes much more sense to allow for the olives themselves to be donated, but this creates the need to get the most out of each olive without most of it going to waste. Therefore, even though we would normally take the concept of “there is no poverty in a place of wealth” into account, in order to prevent most of the olive oil literally going down the drain, the concept of “protecting the money of Israel” takes precedence.

This can be applied to the Priestly Garments as well. Not being able to wear Priestly Garments if they needed to be washed means they could never be used again. However, rather then just destroying them after they could no longer be worn, the material was shredded and used as wicks for the Menorah. But how could we “recycle” material for Temple use if “there is no poverty in a place of wealth”? If this concept is suspended when it causes materials to be wasted, we can understand how Priestly Garments no longer fit to be worn could be torn into pieces and used as wicks, as well as why oil that was not “pure” is suitable for meal-offerings.