Menachot 72

סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to one issue, and disagrees with him with regard to one issue. In other words, Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has not yet reached one-third of its growth is not considered the start of the reaping of the entire crop, and he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has reached one-third of its growth is also not considered the start of the reaping process, as Rabbi Meir maintains that this is considered the start of the reaping process even when it is performed for animals, and therefore it does not divide the field with regard to pe’a.

קוצרין מפני הנטיעות ומפני בית האבל ומפני בית המדרש מאי טעמא קצירכם אמר רחמנא ולא קציר מצוה

§ The mishna teaches: And one may reap crops prior to the omer due to potential damage to saplings growing alongside the crops; and due to the place of mourning, to create room for those consoling the mourners, who would bless them upon their return from the cemetery; and due to the need to create room for students to study, as failure to do so would lead to dereliction of Torah study in the study hall. The Gemara asks: What is the reason one is permitted to reap prior to the omer offering in these instances? The Gemara answers that the Merciful One states: “You shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). The use of the term “your harvest” indicates that the omer offering’s reaping must precede any personal harvest, but it does not need to precede reaping for the purpose of a mitzva.

ולא יעשה כריכות אבל מניחן צבתים מאי טעמא דכמה דאפשר לא טרחינן

§ The mishna teaches: After reaping the crops for any of these reasons, one may not fashion them into sheaves, but he leaves them unbound. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Although reaping is technically permitted, one should limit his involvement with the new grain. Therefore, as much as possible to avoid exerting effort in involvement with the grain, we do not exert effort.

מצות העומר להביא מן הקמה תנו רבנן ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים מה תלמוד לומר לפי שמצות העומר להביא מן הקמה מנין שאם לא מצא מן הקמה יביא מן העומרין תלמוד לומר תקריב

§ The mishna teaches that the mitzva of the omer is to bring the barley from the standing grain. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14)? The baraita explains: Since the mitzva of the omer is to bring the barley from the standing grain, from where is it derived that if one does not find barley from the standing grain, he should bring it from the harvested and gathered sheaves? The verse states: “You shall bring,” to include this scenario.

דבר אחר תקריב לפי שמצוה להביא מן הלח ומנין שאם לא מצא מן הלח יביא מן היבש תלמוד לומר תקריב דבר אחר תקריב לפי שמצותו לקצור בלילה מנין שאם נקצר ביום כשר תלמוד לומר תקריב

Alternatively, the baraita suggests another reason why the verse states: “You shall bring.” Since it is a mitzva to bring the omer from the moist grain, one can ask: From where is it derived that if one does not find barley from the moist grain, he should bring it from the dry grain? The verse states: “You shall bring,” to include this case. Alternatively, the term “you shall bring” teaches the following: Since the mitzva of the omer is for it to be reaped at night, from where is it derived that if it was reaped during the daytime, it is fit? The verse states: “You shall bring.”

ודוחה את השבת תלמוד לומר תקריב תקריב כל שהוא תקריב מכל מקום תקריב ואפילו בשבת תקריב ואפילו בטומאה

The baraita adds more halakhot that are derived from this same verse. From where is it derived that the omer offering overrides Shabbat? The verse states: “You shall bring.” Also, this term: “You shall bring,” teaches that the omer is brought in any manner that it is found, even from gathered sheaves. Furthermore, the term “you shall bring,” teaches that the omer crop may be brought from anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, if none is found near Jerusalem. Additionally, “you shall bring” teaches that it may be brought even on Shabbat. Lastly, “you shall bring” teaches that it may be brought even in a state of ritual impurity.

נקצר ביום כשר והתנן כל הלילה כשר לקצירת העומר ולהקטיר חלבים ואברים זה הכלל דבר שמצותו כל היום כשר כל היום דבר שמצותו בלילה כשר כל הלילה

§ The mishna teaches: If it was reaped during the day, it is fit. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Megilla 20b): All mitzvot that must be performed at night may be performed anytime during that night. Therefore, the entire night is valid for reaping the omer on the night following the first day of Passover, for burning the fats of offerings that had been brought during the preceding day, and for burning the limbs of burnt offerings. This is the principle: A matter that it is a mitzva to perform during the entire day is valid if performed anytime during the entire day, and likewise a matter that it is a mitzva to perform at night is valid if performed anytime during the entire night.

קתני לילה דומיא דיום מה דיום בלילה לא אף דלילה ביום נמי לא

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The mishna teaches the principle of mitzvot performed at night as being similar to the principle of those performed during the day. From this one can infer that just as in the case of a mitzva whose prescribed time is by day, if it is performed at night it is not valid, so too with regard to a mitzva whose prescribed time is at night, if it is performed by day it is also not valid. If so, why does the mishna here teach that if the omer was reaped during the day it is fit?

אמר רבה לא קשיא הא רבי והא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דתניא היה עומד ומקריב מנחת העומר ונטמאת אם יש אחרת אומר לו הבא אחרת תחתיה ואם לאו אומר לו הוי פקח ושתוק דברי רבי

Rabba said: It is not difficult. This mishna, which teaches that the omer reaped during the day is valid, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that mishna in Megilla, which states that any nighttime mitzva performed during the day is not valid, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:9): In a case where a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal offering and it became ritually impure in his hand, if there is another measure of barley grain that is ready to be reaped, then one says to the priest: Reap the barley and bring another meal offering in its stead. And if there is no alternative meal offering available, one says to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; i.e., do not tell anyone that it is impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר בין כך ובין כך אומר לו הוי פקח ושתוק שכל העומר שנקצר שלא כמצותו פסול

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, one says to him: Be shrewd and keep silent, as any omer offering that is harvested not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva is unfit. Likewise, one may not reap the barley during the daytime, as its prescribed time is at night.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון בשיטת רבי עקיבא רבו של אביו אמרה דתנן כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לו לעשותה מערב שבת אינה דוחה את השבת

With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that barley for the omer offering that is reaped by day is unfit, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the teacher of his father. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 130a): Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve, i.e., before Shabbat begins, does not override Shabbat.

וסבר לה כרבי ישמעאל דאמר קצירת העומר מצוה דתנן רבי ישמעאל אומר מה חריש רשות אף קציר רשות יצא קציר העומר שהיא מצוה

And furthermore, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said that the reaping of barley for the omer offering is a mitzva. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 1:4) that Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse: “In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21), is not referring to the prohibition against farming the land during the Sabbatical Year, as one might have thought. Rather, it is referring to the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. And the reason that the verse mentions these two particular forms of labor is to teach that just as the plowing that is prohibited on Shabbat is an otherwise voluntary act, as plowing is never required by the Torah, so too, the harvesting that is prohibited on Shabbat is voluntary. Therefore, the harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition, as it is a mitzva. Consequently, the barley for the omer is harvested on the sixteenth of Nisan, even if it occurs on Shabbat.

ואי סלקא דעתך נקצר שלא כמצותו כשר אמאי דחי שבת נקצריה מערב שבת אלא מדדחי שבת שמע מינה נקצר שלא כמצותו פסול

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains why Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael: And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reached his opinion by the following reasoning: If it enters your mind to say that barley for the omer offering that is reaped not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva is nevertheless fit, why would it override Shabbat? Let one reap it on Shabbat eve. Rather, from the fact that the reaping overrides Shabbat, learn from here that if it was reaped not in accordance with its mitzva, it is unfit.

ורבי לאו תלמידיה דרבי שמעון הוא

The Gemara comments: Isn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also a student of Rabbi Shimon, who was a student of Rabbi Akiva? Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was a student of Rabbi Shimon, and by extension of Rabbi Akiva, he should accept Rabbi Akiva’s principle that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. If so, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that if the omer was not performed at night it should be done by day, why does its harvest override Shabbat? Let it be harvested on Shabbat eve.

והתניא אמר רבי כשהיינו למדין תורה אצל רבי שמעון בתקוע היינו מעלין לו שמן ואלונטית מחצר לגג ומגג לקרפיף ומקרפיף לקרפיף אחר עד שאנו מגיעין למעיין שאנו רוחצין בו

The Gemara cites a proof for its claim that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was a student of Rabbi Shimon. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we would study Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry to him oil and a towel [aluntit] from the courtyard to the roof and from the roof into an enclosure similar to a courtyard, and from one enclosure to another enclosure, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe, without passing through a public domain.

סבר לה כאידך דרבי שמעון דתניא אמר רבי שמעון בא וראה כמה חביבה מצוה בשעתה שהרי הקטר חלבים ואברים כשרים כל הלילה ולא היה ממתין להן עד שתחשך

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that reaping barley for the omer offering overrides Shabbat, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. But this is not because it is unfit if reaped at an improper time. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the other opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. As burning the fats and limbs is valid all night, and therefore it is possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nevertheless one would not wait with them until nightfall; rather, one burns them immediately, even on Shabbat. Likewise, when it comes to the reaping of the omer, although it is fit if reaped during the previous day, reaping at night still overrides Shabbat because a mitzva is dear when performed in its proper time.

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון לא שמיע ליה

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not know of this? He must have known of his father’s statement that a mitzva performed at its proper time overrides Shabbat. If so, his ruling that reaping at an improper time is unfit cannot be proven from the fact that reaping the omer overrides Shabbat, as claimed earlier.

אלא שאני התם שהרי דחתה שחיטה את השבת

Rather, it must be that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was aware of that principle, and nevertheless he maintains that the requirement to perform a mitzva at its optimal time does not apply to the case of the reaping of the omer. This is because there, in the case of the burning of the fats and limbs, it is different, as the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, it is dear to perform the burning of its fats and limbs at the proper time, even on Shabbat. One cannot apply this reasoning to the reaping of the omer, as there is no prior labor performed on Shabbat before the reaping. Consequently, the reason it may be performed on Shabbat must be that it would be unfit if reaped any other time.

ולרבי הכי נמי דחתה שחיטה את השבת אלא קסבר רבי קצירת העומר לא דחיא שבת

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he should agree that the case of the burning of the sacrifice’s fats and limbs is different from the omer, since also there, the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, the Gemara gives a new explanation: Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in fact the reaping of the omer crop does not override Shabbat, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. For this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that the omer is fit if reaped at an improper time does not conflict with the principle of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat.

ולא והתנן וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול משלש היה בא דלא כרבי

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (63b) in response to Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that when the sixteenth of Nisan occurred during the week, five se’a of barley were reaped, and when it occurred on Shabbat only three se’a were reaped: And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a? In any case, according to both opinions, the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: That mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול בשלשה בשלש קופות ובשלש מגלות דלא כרבי

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the latter clause of that mishna. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual, with one sickle and one basket into which the barley was placed, whereas during the week it was reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week it is reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. According to both opinions the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara again responds: That clause of the mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

ובשבת יאמר להם שבת זו דלא כרבי

The Gemara raises another difficulty from a mishna (65a) that describes the series of questions posed by the court emissary who reaps the grain to those assembled to witness the process: And if the sixteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, the court emissary says to those assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on this Shabbat? The assembly says in response: Yes. The Gemara answers: That clause of mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

נקצר ביום כשר ודוחה את השבת מאן שמעת ליה דאמר נקצר ביום כשר רבי וקתני ודוחה את השבת מאי לאו קצירה לא להקרבה

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the mishna (71a): If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit, and it overrides Shabbat. Now, whom did you hear who said: If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And yet it is taught in the mishna: And it overrides Shabbat. What, is it not referring to reaping? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the sacrifice of the omer offering.

אבל לקצירה לא והתניא רבי אומר וידבר משה את מעדי ה׳ מה תלמוד לומר לפי שלא למדנו אלא לתמיד ופסח שנאמר בהן במועדו במועדו ואפילו בשבת במועדו ואפילו בטומאה

The Gemara asks: But with regard to reaping, does it not override Shabbat, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the following halakha based upon the verse: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44): What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal offering override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated concerning them: “In its appointed time” (see Numbers 9:2, 28:2), from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat; in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.

שאר קרבנות הצבור מנין תלמוד לומר אלה תעשו לה׳ במועדיכם

The baraita continues: With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they likewise override Shabbat and ritual impurity? The verse states with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” (Numbers 29:39).

מנין לרבות עומר והקרב עמו שתי הלחם והקרב עמהן תלמוד לומר וידבר משה את מעדי ה׳ הכתוב קבע מועד לכולן

The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include in this halakha the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel,” after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.

למאי אילימא להקרבה שתי הלחם בני הקרבה נינהו

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what ritual does the baraita state that these offerings override Shabbat? If we say for actual sacrifice, this cannot be correct, as are the two loaves fit for sacrifice? The two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar at all. Rather, they are waved and later eaten by priests.

אלא פשיטא לטחינה והרקדה ודכותה גבי עומר לקצירה וקא דחי את השבת

The Gemara concludes its interpretation of the baraita, which leads to the question about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rather, it is obvious that the two loaves override Shabbat with regard to grinding and sifting. And if so, similarly, with regard to the omer offering, it overrides Shabbat with regard to the process of reaping the grains. And as the baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, evidently he maintains that the reaping of the omer overrides Sh abbat.

אלא עומר להקרבה ושתי הלחם לאפיה וקסבר רבי תנור מקדש אי אפי לה מאתמול איפסילה לה בלינה

The Gemara answers: Rather, one must say that the baraita is not referring to comparable cases. As far as the omer is concerned, it overrides Shabbat only with regard to its actual sacrifice, but when it comes to the two loaves, it overrides Shabbat with regard to its baking. And the reason why the two loaves must be baked on Shabbat is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it. Therefore, if one were to bake from the previous day, on the eve of Shavuot, he would effectively be disqualifying it from being brought on Shavuot day, as it would be disqualified by being left overnight.

וסבר רבי תנור מקדש והתניא כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קדש הלחם

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi really hold that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.

שחטן שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי

The baraita continues: But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אינו קדוש עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were properly performed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is the slaughter of the lambs that consecrates the loaves, not baking the loaves in the oven.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הוקבעו ולא הוקבעו קא אמר

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does hold that the oven consecrates the loaves. What the baraita is saying when it uses the categories of consecrated and not consecrated with regard to the slaughter of the lambs is that either the two loaves are fixed as Shavuot meal offerings and cannot be used for any other offering, or they are not fixed as Shavuot meal offerings. In other words, if the lambs were slaughtered and the blood sprinkled in the proper manner, one cannot change the designation of the loaves, whereas if they were not slaughtered and their blood was not sprinkled properly, one can change their designation. If the lambs were slaughtered properly but their blood was sprinkled improperly, the status of the loaves is subject to a dispute. This has nothing to do with when the loaves are consecrated.

הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל

מתני׳ ואלו מנחות נקמצות ושיריהן לכהנים מנחת הסלת והמחבת והמרחשת והחלות והרקיקין מנחת גוים ומנחת נשים ומנחת העומר ומנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות

MISHNA: And these are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and the remainder of the offering is eaten by the priests: The meal offering of fine flour; and the meal offering prepared in a pan; and the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of loaves; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of wafers; the meal offering of gentiles; and the meal offering of women; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the meal offering of a sinner; and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota.

רבי שמעון אומר מנחת חוטא של כהנים נקמצת וקומץ קרב לעצמו ושירים קריבים לעצמן

Rabbi Shimon says: Although its remainder is not eaten by priests, as meal offerings of priests are burned in their entirety, as it is written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), nevertheless, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed. And the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself.

גמ׳ אמר רב פפא כל היכא דתנן עשר תנן מאי קא משמע לן

GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us, as this is already stated by Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna (76a)?

לאפוקי מרבי שמעון דאמר מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין יביא קא משמע לן דלא

The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.

ושיריהן לכהנים מנלן דכתיבא כתיבא ודלא כתיבא כתיב בה וזאת תורת המנחה הקרב אותה בני אהרן וגו׳ והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן ובניו

§ The mishna teaches: And their remainder is eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara challenges the question: That which is written explicitly, is written. In the case of several meal offerings, including the gift meal offering brought by an individual, the Torah clearly states that the priests eat the remainder. And with regard to that which is not written explicitly, it is written of it: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord…And he shall take up from it his handful…and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar….And the remainder of it shall Aaron and his sons eat” (Leviticus 6:7–9). These verses establish the principle that the priests eat the remainders of meal offerings, even where the Torah does not state this explicitly. Therefore, it is unnecessary to ask for a source.

באה חיטין לא קמיבעיא לן כי קא מיבעיא לן באה שעורין באה שעורין נמי מדנקמצת שיריה לכהנים

The Gemara explains the original question: With regard to a meal offering that comes from wheat, we did not ask, as that is included in the cited verse. When we asked it was with regard to a meal offering that comes from barley, i.e., the omer meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota: From where is it derived that the remainders of those offerings are given to the priests? The Gemara responds: With regard to one that comes from barley also, since a handful of it is removed, as the Torah states with regard to all meal offerings (see Leviticus 6:8), clearly its remainder is given to the priests, as why else would a handful be removed and offered?

אליבא דרבנן לא קא מיבעיא לן כי קא מיבעיא לן אליבא דרבי שמעון דאמר איכא מנחה דמיקמצא ולא מיתאכלא

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the priests eat the remainder of all meal offerings from which a handful is removed, we did not ask about the source. When we asked it was according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: There is a type of meal offering of which a handful is removed but its remainder is not eaten.

דתנן רבי שמעון אומר מנחת חוטא של כהנים נקמצת הקומץ קרב בעצמו והשירים קריבין בעצמן מנלן

As we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: From the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest, a handful is removed. Subsequently, the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself. Therefore, the question is: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests do not always eat the remainder when a handful is removed, from where do we derive that the priests eat the remainder of barley-based meal offerings?

אמר חזקיה דאמר קרא וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה אם אינו ענין לבלולה של חיטין תנהו ענין לבלולה של שעורין ואם אינו ענין לחרבה של חיטין תנהו ענין לחרבה של שעורין

The Gemara answers. Ḥizkiyya said: The source is from a verse, as the verse states: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10). The verse is analyzed: If it is not necessary for the matter of a mixed meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a mixed meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of the omer. And if the verse is not necessary for the matter of a dry meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a dry meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of a sota.

והאי להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא מנין שאין חולקין מנחות כנגד זבחים

The Gemara asks: And this verse, does it come to teach this halakha? Isn’t the verse necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that priests may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for a share of animal offerings, i.e., one may not exchange his share of a meal offering for the equivalent value of meat from an animal offering of which he did not receive a share?