This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Menachot 73
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל הַמִּנְחָה אֲשֶׁר תֵּאָפֶה בַּתַּנּוּר לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו״.
The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven…shall all the sons of Aaron have, each man like the other” (Leviticus 7:9–10). This verse emphasizes that the sons of Aaron must divide the meal offering equally among themselves, without exchanging it for a portion of any other offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁלֹּא קָמוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בְּדַלּוּת, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי קָמוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בְּדַלּוּת – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל נַעֲשָׂה בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings since they do not substitute for them in the case of poverty. One who is too poor to afford to bring an animal offering, e.g., in the case of a sin offering determined on a sliding scale, does not bring a meal offering in its stead. Since meal offerings are not brought in place of animal offerings, there is clearly no connection between them. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of bird offerings, since they do substitute for them in the case of poverty. If one is so destitute that he cannot afford to bring a bird offering he brings a meal offering. Therefore, the same verse states: “And all that is prepared in the deep pan…shall all the sons of Aaron have,” again emphasizing that all must have an equal share in that meal offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי דָמִים וְהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי קְמָחִים, יַחְלְקוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ וְהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי דָמִים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעַל מַחֲבַת לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of bird offerings since these, i.e., bird offerings, are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar, and those, i.e., meal offerings, are types of offerings made of flour. But perhaps they may receive a share of portions of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, since both categories are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the same verse states: “And on a pan…shall all the sons of Aaron have,” a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד, וְהַלָּלוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בִּכְלִי, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן … לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings because with regard to these, i.e., the birds, their processing, i.e., killing, is executed by hand, by pinching the nape of the neck, and with regard to those, i.e., the animals, their processing, i.e., killing, is executed with a utensil, by slaughtering with a knife. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of other meal offerings, since the processing of both these and those are carried out by hand. Therefore, the next verse states: “And every meal offering mixed with oil…shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10).
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מַחֲבַת כְּנֶגֶד מַרְחֶשֶׁת, וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲבַת, שֶׁזּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ קָשִׁין וְזוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ רַכִּין, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מַחֲבַת כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲבַת וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת כְּנֶגֶד מַרְחֶשֶׁת – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַחֲרֵבָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of a meal offering prepared on a pan in exchange for portions of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, or portions of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a meal offering prepared on a pan, since the actions with this pan result in a hard product, and the actions with that deep pan result in a soft product. But perhaps they may receive a share of a meal offering prepared on a pan in exchange for the portions of a different meal offering prepared on a pan, or a share of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a different meal offering prepared in a deep pan. Therefore, the same verse states: “Or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10).
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו״, ״וְאִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ – כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, כָּךְ אֵין חוֹלְקִים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., meal offerings, in exchange for a portion of another similar offering, but they may receive a share of offerings of lesser sanctity in exchange for a portion of another similar offering. Therefore, the same verse states with regard to meal offerings: “Shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: “If he offers it for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12), from which is derived: Just as one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, so too, one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a thanks offering.
״אִישׁ״ – אִישׁ חוֹלֵק, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם, וְאֵין קָטָן חוֹלֵק, וַאֲפִילּוּ תָּם.
The baraita further expounds this verse: It states: “One as well as another [ish ke’aḥiv],” which teaches that with regard to priests, a man [ish] who is an adult receives a share even if he is blemished, but a priest who is a minor may not receive a share even if he is unblemished. This baraita evidently interprets the verse: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10), as referring to the prohibition against priests exchanging shares of offerings. If so, how does Ḥizkiyya state that this verse is referring to the priests’ eating of the remainder of the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota?
הָהוּא מִ״כׇּל״ נָפְקָא, וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אֶלָּא, הָהוּא מִ״וְכׇל״.
The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against exchanging priestly shares, that is derived from the term: “Every meal offering.” By contrast, Ḥizkiyya derives his principle with regard to these two meal offerings from the rest of the verse. The Gemara asks: But haven’t you already derived from the word “every” that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, states, that when one vows to offer a meal offering baked in an oven, all the baked items must be of a uniform type, either loaves or wafers (see 63b)? The Gemara answers: Rather, that halakha concerning the exchange of shares of offerings is derived from the addition of the word “and,” in the term: “And every [vekhol] meal offering.”
רָבִינָא אָמַר: אָתְיָא מִדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: ״לְכׇל קׇרְבָּנָם וּלְכׇל מִנְחָתָם וּלְכׇל חַטָּאתָם וּלְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״.
§ Ravina said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the source for the halakha that the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota are eaten comes from the baraita that Levi teaches, as Levi teaches: The verse states with regard to the priestly gifts: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, reserved from the fire: Every offering of theirs, and every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they may restore to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9). The word “every” in each clause includes a number of additional offerings that are eaten by the priests.
״כׇּל קׇרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״מִן הָאֵשׁ״ כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Torah states: “Every offering of theirs,” to include the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, teaching that it is also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes in this verse: “From the fire,” this would exclude this oil, which is not brought onto the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every offering,” to include the leper’s oil.
״לְכׇל מִנְחָתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לְהַתִּיר קָא אָתְיָא, וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי לְבָרֵר קָא אָתְיָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita continues expounding the verse: “And every meal offering of theirs,” serving to include the omer meal offering, and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, teaching that they are also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One states: “And they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made” (Exodus 29:33), the verse thereby indicates that the priests may eat only those offerings that help the owner achieve atonement. And this omer comes to permit eating from the new grain (see Leviticus 23:9–14), not to achieve atonement; and concerning the other offering, i.e., the meal offering of a sota, as well, it comes to clarify whether or not the accused woman is guilty of adultery, but not to achieve atonement. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every meal offering,” to teach that these two meal offerings are included.
״לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נְבֵילָה הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita continues to expound the verse. The verse states: “And every sin offering of theirs,” to include a bird sin offering, teaching that it is also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say: The priests may not eat it because it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, as it is killed by pinching the nape of the neck (see Leviticus 5:8), not by conventional slaughter. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every sin offering,” teaching that bird sin offerings are included.
״לְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא לַכֹּהֵן״!
The baraita continues to expound the verse. The Torah states: “And every guilt offering of theirs,” to include the guilt offering of the nazirite who has become ritually impure (see Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of the leper, teaching that they are also eaten by the priests. The Gemara objects: With regard to the guilt offering of the leper, it is explicitly written with regard to it: “For as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13), which already teaches that it is eaten by the priests.
אֶלָּא, לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר כַּאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לְהַכְשִׁיר קָא אָתֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Rather, the verse serves to include the guilt offering of the nazirite, stating that its status is like the guilt offering of the leper. As, it might enter your mind to say: The guilt offering of the nazirite is not sacrificed for atonement, but rather it comes to prepare the nazirite to begin his period of naziriteship anew, and therefore its meat would not be eaten by the priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every guilt offering,” teaching that the guilt offering of the nazirite is included.
״אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ״ – זֶה גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר, ״לְךָ הִיא וּלְבָנֶיךָ״ – שֶׁלְּךָ הִיא וּלְבָנֶיךָ, אֲפִילּוּ לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.
The baraita concludes: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items…which they may restore”; this is referring to an item stolen from a convert who has no heirs and subsequently dies. In this case, the stolen item is given to the priests together with an additional one-fifth of its worth. The phrase “for you and for your sons” means that it is yours and your sons’ personal property, and it may be used even to betroth a woman with it, and it does not belong to the Temple treasury.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא:
§ Rav Huna said:
שַׁלְמֵי הַגּוֹי – עוֹלוֹת, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא – גּוֹי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.
Peace offerings volunteered by gentiles are sacrificed as burnt offerings, which are burned completely upon the altar. With regard to the source for this halakha, if you wish, cite a verse; and if you wish, propose a logical argument. If you wish, propose a logical argument: Concerning a gentile who volunteers an offering, the intent of his heart is that the offering should be entirely sacred to Heaven, and he does not intend for any of it to be eaten.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – כֹּל דִּמְקָרְבִי עוֹלָה לֶיהֱוֵי.
And if you wish, cite a verse: “Any man [ish ish] who is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering” (Leviticus 22:18). The doubled term ish ish teaches that the offerings of a gentile are accepted, and the verse thereby teaches that any offering that gentiles volunteer to be sacrificed should be a burnt offering.
מֵתִיב רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב לְהָבִיא שְׁלָמִים, נְתָנָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלָן, נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן – הַכֹּהֵן אוֹכְלָן.
Rav Ḥama bar Gurya raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who volunteered to bring a peace offering, if he gave it to an Israelite, the Israelite eats it; if he gave it to a priest, the priest eats it. Evidently, the gentile’s peace offering is eaten, like the peace offering of a Jew.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָא אָמַר, עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל – יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלָן, עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶן כֹּהֵן – כֹּהֵן אוֹכְלָן.
To answer the challenge to Rav Huna’s statement, Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: If a gentile volunteered a peace offering in order to achieve atonement on behalf of an Israelite who is already obligated to bring a peace offering, then the Israelite eats of the offering. If the gentile volunteered it in order to achieve atonement on behalf of a priest who is already obligated to bring a peace offering, then the priest eats of the offering. By contrast, Rav Huna’s statement teaches that when a gentile volunteers his own peace offering, it is treated as a burnt offering.
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים – מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Sheizevi raises an objection from the mishna: These are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and their remainder is eaten by the priests…the meal offering of gentiles. If the priests may eat the remainder of the meal offerings of gentiles, it is logical that the peace offerings of gentiles should also be given to the priests to eat, as the right of the priests to eat from meal offerings and peace offerings is identical. To resolve this objection, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. This statement in the mishna that the priests eat the meal offerings of gentiles is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and that ruling of Rav Huna that the peace offerings of gentiles are not eaten is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
As it is taught in a baraita: The verse cited previously states: “Any man [ish ish] who is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering.” The verse is now analyzed: The verse could have stated: A man [ish]. Why does the verse state the double expression “ish ish”? This serves to include the gentiles, demonstrating that they can vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew can.
״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעוֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה, שְׁלָמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְרֵיהֶם״. תּוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְבוֹתָם״.
When the verse states: “Which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” I have derived only that a gentile can vow to bring a burnt offering. From where is it derived that a gentile can vow to bring a peace offering? The verse states: “Their vows.” From where is it derived that he can bring a thanks offering? The verse states the seemingly superfluous clause: “Their gift offerings.”
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הָעוֹפוֹת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהָעֵצִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְרֵיהֶם״, ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם״, ״נִדְבוֹתָם״, ״לְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״.
The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the verse means to include that a gentile can bring birds as burnt offerings, and wine libations, and the frankincense, and the wood for the arrangement upon the altar? The verse states not only: “Their vows,” but also the more comprehensive term: “Any of their vows”; and the verse states not only: “Their gift offerings,” but also the more comprehensive term: “Any of their gift offerings.”
אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עוֹלָה״, ״עוֹלָה״ – פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה בִּלְבָד.
The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “They will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering”? The baraita answers: This teaches that a gentile can bring a standard burnt offering, to the exclusion of a burnt offering of naziriteship. Since a gentile is unable to assume the status of a nazirite, he is also unable to bring the offerings of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: When the verse states: “Which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” it indicates that nothing other than a burnt offering alone may be brought by a gentile.
וְהַאי פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא, ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹדְרִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹדְרִים.
With regard to the analysis of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: And this exclusion of a burnt offering of naziriteship, is it derived from here, in the verse cited? Is it not derived from there: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man…shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite” (Numbers 6:2); this is interpreted to mean that the children of Israel can vow to become nazirites, but the gentiles cannot vow to become nazirites? Therefore, the exclusion of gentiles from bringing the burnt offering of a nazirite is not learned from the term “a burnt offering.”
אִי מֵהָתָם – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קׇרְבָּן הוּא דְּלָא לַיְיתֵי, אֲבָל נְזִירוּת חָלָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: If the exclusion was derived from there, i.e., the verse in Leviticus, which is referring to offerings, I would say: It is the offering of nazirites that the gentiles cannot bring, but naziriteship takes effect upon them if they vow to become a nazirite. Therefore, the exclusion of naziriteship by the verse in Numbers teaches us that a gentile cannot become a nazirite at all.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: גּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁילַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכֶיהָ – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
§ The Gemara discusses a related matter. In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 7:6): Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. And this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found sacrificial animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: If a gentile sent his burnt offering from a country overseas, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are offered at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public’s expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. Evidently, a gentile can offer libations as well as burnt offerings.
לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא! אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עוֹלָה וְכׇל (חַבְירָתַהּ) [אַבְזָרַהָא].
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara rejects this assumption: You may even say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and he holds that a gentile can bring a burnt offering and all its accessories, including the libations.
מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ – אֶזְרָח מֵבִיא נְסָכִים, וְאֵין הַגּוֹי מֵבִיא נְסָכִים. יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא עוֹלָתוֹ טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to libations: “All who are home born shall do these things after this manner” (Numbers 15:13), which teaches that those who are home born, i.e., Jews, can bring libations as a separate offering, but a gentile cannot bring such libations. One might have thought that a gentile’s burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: “So it shall be done for one bull” (Numbers 15:11), which indicates that every offering requires libations. Whose opinion is this? It is not that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and not that of Rabbi Akiva.
אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן נָמֵי! אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָא אָמַר: עוֹלָה – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
The Gemara explains the question: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn’t he say that a gentile may even bring wine by itself, and not only as a libation? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn’t he say that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, a gentile may bring it, but with regard to something else other than the offering itself, no, a gentile may not bring it?
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – סְמִי מֵהַהִיא ״יַיִן״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – עוֹלָה וְכׇל (חַבְירָתַהּ) [אַבְזָרַהָא].
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; and if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. If you wish, say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and omit from that baraita that the tanna allows gentiles to bring wine, as he holds that gentiles cannot bring wine by itself. And if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and interpret his opinion to be that a gentile may bring a burnt offering and all its accessories.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים [וְכוּ׳]. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed, and the entire offering is sacrificed upon the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?
דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ.
The Gemara answers: It is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita. The verse states with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: “And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial of it, and burn it on the altar…it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin that he has sinned in any of these matters, and he shall be forgiven; and the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” (Leviticus 5:12–13). Since the phrase “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” is seemingly unnecessary, as these verses are discussing a meal offering, it therefore teaches that its sacrificial rite would be valid even when performed by a priest who has brought the offering for his own sin.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״? מִנְחַת נִדְבָתוֹ, אֲבָל חוֹבָתוֹ תְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת.
The baraita discusses the matter: Do you say that this verse teaches that the rite of the meal offering of a sinner would be valid when performed by him? Or is it only necessary to permit the eating of the remainder of the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse that states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16)? Perhaps that is referring to his voluntary meal offering, but his obligatory meal offering may be eaten.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, מַקִּישׁ חוֹבָתוֹ לְנִדְבָתוֹ: מָה נִדְבָתוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת – אַף חוֹבָתוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כְּמִנְחָתוֹ״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״כַּמִּנְחָה״! אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ
Therefore, the verse states: “And it shall be the priest’s as the meal offering.” In this way, the verse compares the priest’s obligatory offering to his voluntary offering: Just as his voluntary offering is not eaten, so too, his obligatory offering is not eaten. In disagreeing with the previous interpretation, Rabbi Shimon said: Is it stated: And it shall be the priest’s, as his meal offering? But it states only: “As the meal offering,” referring to the meal offering of a non-priest. Rather, this verse serves to compare and render the halakha of
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: Non-Jews and the Beit Mikdash- The Case of Korbanot
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Ontario, Canada
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
Menachot 73
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל הַמִּנְחָה אֲשֶׁר תֵּאָפֶה בַּתַּנּוּר לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו״.
The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven…shall all the sons of Aaron have, each man like the other” (Leviticus 7:9–10). This verse emphasizes that the sons of Aaron must divide the meal offering equally among themselves, without exchanging it for a portion of any other offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁלֹּא קָמוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בְּדַלּוּת, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי קָמוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בְּדַלּוּת – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל נַעֲשָׂה בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings since they do not substitute for them in the case of poverty. One who is too poor to afford to bring an animal offering, e.g., in the case of a sin offering determined on a sliding scale, does not bring a meal offering in its stead. Since meal offerings are not brought in place of animal offerings, there is clearly no connection between them. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of bird offerings, since they do substitute for them in the case of poverty. If one is so destitute that he cannot afford to bring a bird offering he brings a meal offering. Therefore, the same verse states: “And all that is prepared in the deep pan…shall all the sons of Aaron have,” again emphasizing that all must have an equal share in that meal offering.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי דָמִים וְהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי קְמָחִים, יַחְלְקוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ וְהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי דָמִים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעַל מַחֲבַת לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of bird offerings since these, i.e., bird offerings, are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar, and those, i.e., meal offerings, are types of offerings made of flour. But perhaps they may receive a share of portions of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, since both categories are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the same verse states: “And on a pan…shall all the sons of Aaron have,” a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד, וְהַלָּלוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בִּכְלִי, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן … לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings because with regard to these, i.e., the birds, their processing, i.e., killing, is executed by hand, by pinching the nape of the neck, and with regard to those, i.e., the animals, their processing, i.e., killing, is executed with a utensil, by slaughtering with a knife. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of other meal offerings, since the processing of both these and those are carried out by hand. Therefore, the next verse states: “And every meal offering mixed with oil…shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10).
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מַחֲבַת כְּנֶגֶד מַרְחֶשֶׁת, וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲבַת, שֶׁזּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ קָשִׁין וְזוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ רַכִּין, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מַחֲבַת כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲבַת וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת כְּנֶגֶד מַרְחֶשֶׁת – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַחֲרֵבָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of a meal offering prepared on a pan in exchange for portions of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, or portions of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a meal offering prepared on a pan, since the actions with this pan result in a hard product, and the actions with that deep pan result in a soft product. But perhaps they may receive a share of a meal offering prepared on a pan in exchange for the portions of a different meal offering prepared on a pan, or a share of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a different meal offering prepared in a deep pan. Therefore, the same verse states: “Or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10).
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו״, ״וְאִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ – כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, כָּךְ אֵין חוֹלְקִים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., meal offerings, in exchange for a portion of another similar offering, but they may receive a share of offerings of lesser sanctity in exchange for a portion of another similar offering. Therefore, the same verse states with regard to meal offerings: “Shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: “If he offers it for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12), from which is derived: Just as one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, so too, one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a thanks offering.
״אִישׁ״ – אִישׁ חוֹלֵק, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם, וְאֵין קָטָן חוֹלֵק, וַאֲפִילּוּ תָּם.
The baraita further expounds this verse: It states: “One as well as another [ish ke’aḥiv],” which teaches that with regard to priests, a man [ish] who is an adult receives a share even if he is blemished, but a priest who is a minor may not receive a share even if he is unblemished. This baraita evidently interprets the verse: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10), as referring to the prohibition against priests exchanging shares of offerings. If so, how does Ḥizkiyya state that this verse is referring to the priests’ eating of the remainder of the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota?
הָהוּא מִ״כׇּל״ נָפְקָא, וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אֶלָּא, הָהוּא מִ״וְכׇל״.
The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against exchanging priestly shares, that is derived from the term: “Every meal offering.” By contrast, Ḥizkiyya derives his principle with regard to these two meal offerings from the rest of the verse. The Gemara asks: But haven’t you already derived from the word “every” that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, states, that when one vows to offer a meal offering baked in an oven, all the baked items must be of a uniform type, either loaves or wafers (see 63b)? The Gemara answers: Rather, that halakha concerning the exchange of shares of offerings is derived from the addition of the word “and,” in the term: “And every [vekhol] meal offering.”
רָבִינָא אָמַר: אָתְיָא מִדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: ״לְכׇל קׇרְבָּנָם וּלְכׇל מִנְחָתָם וּלְכׇל חַטָּאתָם וּלְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״.
§ Ravina said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the source for the halakha that the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota are eaten comes from the baraita that Levi teaches, as Levi teaches: The verse states with regard to the priestly gifts: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, reserved from the fire: Every offering of theirs, and every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they may restore to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9). The word “every” in each clause includes a number of additional offerings that are eaten by the priests.
״כׇּל קׇרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״מִן הָאֵשׁ״ כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Torah states: “Every offering of theirs,” to include the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, teaching that it is also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes in this verse: “From the fire,” this would exclude this oil, which is not brought onto the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every offering,” to include the leper’s oil.
״לְכׇל מִנְחָתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לְהַתִּיר קָא אָתְיָא, וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי לְבָרֵר קָא אָתְיָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita continues expounding the verse: “And every meal offering of theirs,” serving to include the omer meal offering, and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, teaching that they are also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One states: “And they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made” (Exodus 29:33), the verse thereby indicates that the priests may eat only those offerings that help the owner achieve atonement. And this omer comes to permit eating from the new grain (see Leviticus 23:9–14), not to achieve atonement; and concerning the other offering, i.e., the meal offering of a sota, as well, it comes to clarify whether or not the accused woman is guilty of adultery, but not to achieve atonement. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every meal offering,” to teach that these two meal offerings are included.
״לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נְבֵילָה הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita continues to expound the verse. The verse states: “And every sin offering of theirs,” to include a bird sin offering, teaching that it is also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say: The priests may not eat it because it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, as it is killed by pinching the nape of the neck (see Leviticus 5:8), not by conventional slaughter. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every sin offering,” teaching that bird sin offerings are included.
״לְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא לַכֹּהֵן״!
The baraita continues to expound the verse. The Torah states: “And every guilt offering of theirs,” to include the guilt offering of the nazirite who has become ritually impure (see Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of the leper, teaching that they are also eaten by the priests. The Gemara objects: With regard to the guilt offering of the leper, it is explicitly written with regard to it: “For as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13), which already teaches that it is eaten by the priests.
אֶלָּא, לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר כַּאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לְהַכְשִׁיר קָא אָתֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Rather, the verse serves to include the guilt offering of the nazirite, stating that its status is like the guilt offering of the leper. As, it might enter your mind to say: The guilt offering of the nazirite is not sacrificed for atonement, but rather it comes to prepare the nazirite to begin his period of naziriteship anew, and therefore its meat would not be eaten by the priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every guilt offering,” teaching that the guilt offering of the nazirite is included.
״אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ״ – זֶה גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר, ״לְךָ הִיא וּלְבָנֶיךָ״ – שֶׁלְּךָ הִיא וּלְבָנֶיךָ, אֲפִילּוּ לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.
The baraita concludes: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items…which they may restore”; this is referring to an item stolen from a convert who has no heirs and subsequently dies. In this case, the stolen item is given to the priests together with an additional one-fifth of its worth. The phrase “for you and for your sons” means that it is yours and your sons’ personal property, and it may be used even to betroth a woman with it, and it does not belong to the Temple treasury.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא:
§ Rav Huna said:
שַׁלְמֵי הַגּוֹי – עוֹלוֹת, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא – גּוֹי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.
Peace offerings volunteered by gentiles are sacrificed as burnt offerings, which are burned completely upon the altar. With regard to the source for this halakha, if you wish, cite a verse; and if you wish, propose a logical argument. If you wish, propose a logical argument: Concerning a gentile who volunteers an offering, the intent of his heart is that the offering should be entirely sacred to Heaven, and he does not intend for any of it to be eaten.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – כֹּל דִּמְקָרְבִי עוֹלָה לֶיהֱוֵי.
And if you wish, cite a verse: “Any man [ish ish] who is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering” (Leviticus 22:18). The doubled term ish ish teaches that the offerings of a gentile are accepted, and the verse thereby teaches that any offering that gentiles volunteer to be sacrificed should be a burnt offering.
מֵתִיב רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב לְהָבִיא שְׁלָמִים, נְתָנָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלָן, נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן – הַכֹּהֵן אוֹכְלָן.
Rav Ḥama bar Gurya raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who volunteered to bring a peace offering, if he gave it to an Israelite, the Israelite eats it; if he gave it to a priest, the priest eats it. Evidently, the gentile’s peace offering is eaten, like the peace offering of a Jew.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָא אָמַר, עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל – יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלָן, עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶן כֹּהֵן – כֹּהֵן אוֹכְלָן.
To answer the challenge to Rav Huna’s statement, Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: If a gentile volunteered a peace offering in order to achieve atonement on behalf of an Israelite who is already obligated to bring a peace offering, then the Israelite eats of the offering. If the gentile volunteered it in order to achieve atonement on behalf of a priest who is already obligated to bring a peace offering, then the priest eats of the offering. By contrast, Rav Huna’s statement teaches that when a gentile volunteers his own peace offering, it is treated as a burnt offering.
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים – מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Sheizevi raises an objection from the mishna: These are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and their remainder is eaten by the priests…the meal offering of gentiles. If the priests may eat the remainder of the meal offerings of gentiles, it is logical that the peace offerings of gentiles should also be given to the priests to eat, as the right of the priests to eat from meal offerings and peace offerings is identical. To resolve this objection, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. This statement in the mishna that the priests eat the meal offerings of gentiles is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and that ruling of Rav Huna that the peace offerings of gentiles are not eaten is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
As it is taught in a baraita: The verse cited previously states: “Any man [ish ish] who is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering.” The verse is now analyzed: The verse could have stated: A man [ish]. Why does the verse state the double expression “ish ish”? This serves to include the gentiles, demonstrating that they can vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew can.
״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעוֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה, שְׁלָמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְרֵיהֶם״. תּוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְבוֹתָם״.
When the verse states: “Which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” I have derived only that a gentile can vow to bring a burnt offering. From where is it derived that a gentile can vow to bring a peace offering? The verse states: “Their vows.” From where is it derived that he can bring a thanks offering? The verse states the seemingly superfluous clause: “Their gift offerings.”
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הָעוֹפוֹת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהָעֵצִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְרֵיהֶם״, ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם״, ״נִדְבוֹתָם״, ״לְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״.
The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the verse means to include that a gentile can bring birds as burnt offerings, and wine libations, and the frankincense, and the wood for the arrangement upon the altar? The verse states not only: “Their vows,” but also the more comprehensive term: “Any of their vows”; and the verse states not only: “Their gift offerings,” but also the more comprehensive term: “Any of their gift offerings.”
אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עוֹלָה״, ״עוֹלָה״ – פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה בִּלְבָד.
The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “They will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering”? The baraita answers: This teaches that a gentile can bring a standard burnt offering, to the exclusion of a burnt offering of naziriteship. Since a gentile is unable to assume the status of a nazirite, he is also unable to bring the offerings of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: When the verse states: “Which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” it indicates that nothing other than a burnt offering alone may be brought by a gentile.
וְהַאי פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא, ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹדְרִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹדְרִים.
With regard to the analysis of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: And this exclusion of a burnt offering of naziriteship, is it derived from here, in the verse cited? Is it not derived from there: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man…shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite” (Numbers 6:2); this is interpreted to mean that the children of Israel can vow to become nazirites, but the gentiles cannot vow to become nazirites? Therefore, the exclusion of gentiles from bringing the burnt offering of a nazirite is not learned from the term “a burnt offering.”
אִי מֵהָתָם – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קׇרְבָּן הוּא דְּלָא לַיְיתֵי, אֲבָל נְזִירוּת חָלָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: If the exclusion was derived from there, i.e., the verse in Leviticus, which is referring to offerings, I would say: It is the offering of nazirites that the gentiles cannot bring, but naziriteship takes effect upon them if they vow to become a nazirite. Therefore, the exclusion of naziriteship by the verse in Numbers teaches us that a gentile cannot become a nazirite at all.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: גּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁילַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכֶיהָ – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
§ The Gemara discusses a related matter. In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 7:6): Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. And this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found sacrificial animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: If a gentile sent his burnt offering from a country overseas, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are offered at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public’s expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. Evidently, a gentile can offer libations as well as burnt offerings.
לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא! אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עוֹלָה וְכׇל (חַבְירָתַהּ) [אַבְזָרַהָא].
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara rejects this assumption: You may even say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and he holds that a gentile can bring a burnt offering and all its accessories, including the libations.
מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ – אֶזְרָח מֵבִיא נְסָכִים, וְאֵין הַגּוֹי מֵבִיא נְסָכִים. יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא עוֹלָתוֹ טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to libations: “All who are home born shall do these things after this manner” (Numbers 15:13), which teaches that those who are home born, i.e., Jews, can bring libations as a separate offering, but a gentile cannot bring such libations. One might have thought that a gentile’s burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: “So it shall be done for one bull” (Numbers 15:11), which indicates that every offering requires libations. Whose opinion is this? It is not that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and not that of Rabbi Akiva.
אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן נָמֵי! אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָא אָמַר: עוֹלָה – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
The Gemara explains the question: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn’t he say that a gentile may even bring wine by itself, and not only as a libation? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn’t he say that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, a gentile may bring it, but with regard to something else other than the offering itself, no, a gentile may not bring it?
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – סְמִי מֵהַהִיא ״יַיִן״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – עוֹלָה וְכׇל (חַבְירָתַהּ) [אַבְזָרַהָא].
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; and if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. If you wish, say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and omit from that baraita that the tanna allows gentiles to bring wine, as he holds that gentiles cannot bring wine by itself. And if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and interpret his opinion to be that a gentile may bring a burnt offering and all its accessories.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים [וְכוּ׳]. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed, and the entire offering is sacrificed upon the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?
דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ.
The Gemara answers: It is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita. The verse states with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: “And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial of it, and burn it on the altar…it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin that he has sinned in any of these matters, and he shall be forgiven; and the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” (Leviticus 5:12–13). Since the phrase “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” is seemingly unnecessary, as these verses are discussing a meal offering, it therefore teaches that its sacrificial rite would be valid even when performed by a priest who has brought the offering for his own sin.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״? מִנְחַת נִדְבָתוֹ, אֲבָל חוֹבָתוֹ תְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת.
The baraita discusses the matter: Do you say that this verse teaches that the rite of the meal offering of a sinner would be valid when performed by him? Or is it only necessary to permit the eating of the remainder of the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse that states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16)? Perhaps that is referring to his voluntary meal offering, but his obligatory meal offering may be eaten.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, מַקִּישׁ חוֹבָתוֹ לְנִדְבָתוֹ: מָה נִדְבָתוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת – אַף חוֹבָתוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כְּמִנְחָתוֹ״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״כַּמִּנְחָה״! אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ
Therefore, the verse states: “And it shall be the priest’s as the meal offering.” In this way, the verse compares the priest’s obligatory offering to his voluntary offering: Just as his voluntary offering is not eaten, so too, his obligatory offering is not eaten. In disagreeing with the previous interpretation, Rabbi Shimon said: Is it stated: And it shall be the priest’s, as his meal offering? But it states only: “As the meal offering,” referring to the meal offering of a non-priest. Rather, this verse serves to compare and render the halakha of
