Study Guide Menachot 73. From where do we derive that remainder of the meal offerings of the Omer and the Sota go to the priest? When a non-Jew brings a sacrifice, can he bring any type or can he only bring a burnt offering?
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Menachot 73
תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, ט) וכל המנחה אשר תאפה בתנור לכל בני אהרן תהיה איש כאחיו
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.
יכול לא חלקו מנחות כנגד זבחים שלא קמו תחתיהן בדלות אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהרי קמו תחתיהן בדלות תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, ט) וכל נעשה במרחשת לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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.
יכול לא יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהללו מיני דמים והללו מיני קמחים יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים שהללו והללו מיני דמים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, ט) ועל מחבת לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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.
יכול לא יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים שהללו עשייתן ביד והללו עשייתן בכלי אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד מנחות שאלו ואלו עשייתן ביד תלמוד לאמר (ויקרא ז, י) וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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).
יכול לא יחלקו מחבת כנגד מרחשת ומרחשת כנגד מחבת שזו מעשיה קשין וזו מעשיה רכין אבל יחלקו מחבת כנגד מחבת ומרחשת כנגד מרחשת תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, י) וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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).
יכול לא יחלקו בקדשי קדשים אבל יחלקו בקדשים קלים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, י) איש כאחיו ואם על תודה כשם שאין חולקין בקדשי קדשים כך אין חולקים בקדשים קלים
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.
איש איש חולק ואפילו בעל מום ואין קטן חולק ואפילו תם
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?
ההוא מכל נפקא והא אפיקתיה לכדרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אלא ההוא מוכל
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.”
רבינא אמר אתיא מדתני לוי דתני לוי (במדבר יח, ט) לכל קרבנם ולכל מנחתם ולכל חטאתם ולכל אשמם
§ 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.
כל קרבנם לרבות לוג שמן של מצורע סלקא דעתך אמינא (במדבר יח, ט) מן האש כתב רחמנא קמ”ל
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.
לכל מנחתם לרבות מנחת העומר ומנחת קנאות סלקא דעתך אמינא (שמות כט, לג) ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם אמר רחמנא והאי להתיר קא אתיא ואידך נמי לברר קא אתיא קמ”ל
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.
(במדבר יח, ט) לכל חטאתם לרבות חטאת העוף סלקא דעתך אמינא נבילה היא קמ”ל
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.
(במדבר יח, ט) לכל אשמם לרבות אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע אשם מצורע בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא יד, יג) כי כחטאת האשם הוא לכהן
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.
אלא לרבות אשם נזיר כאשם מצורע סלקא דעתך אמינא להכשיר קא אתי קמ”ל
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.
(במדבר יח, ט) אשר ישיבו זה גזל הגר (במדבר יח, ט) לך היא ולבניך שלך היא ולבניך אפילו לקדש בו את האשה
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.
אמר רב הונא
§ Rav Huna said:
שלמי העובדי כוכבים עולות איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא סברא עובד כוכבים לבו לשמים
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.
ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריבו לה’ לעולה כל דמקרבי עולה ליהוי
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.
מתיב רב חמא בר גוריא עובד כוכבים שהתנדב להביא שלמים נתנן לישראל ישראל אוכלן נתנן לכהן הכהן אוכלן
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.
אמר רבא הכי קא אמר על מנת שיתכפר בהן ישראל ישראל אוכלן על מנת שיתכפר בהן כהן כהן אוכלן
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.
מתיב רב שיזבי אלו מנחות נקמצות ושיריהן לכהנים מנחת עובדי כוכבים א”ר יוחנן לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא
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.
דתניא (ויקרא כב, ג) איש מה תלמוד לאמר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שנודרין נדרים ונדבות כישראל
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.
(ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריבו לה’ לעולה אין לי אלא עולה שלמים מנין תלמוד לומר נדריהם תודה מנין תלמוד לומר נדבותם
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.”
מנין לרבות העופות והיין והלבונה והעצים תלמוד לאמר נדריהם לכל נדריהם נדבותם לכל נדבותם
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.”
אם כן מה תלמוד לאמר עולה עולה פרט לנזירות דברי ר’ יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אשר יקריבו לה’ לעולה אין לי אלא עולה בלבד
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.
והאי פרט לנזירות מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (במדבר ו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר נזיר להזיר בני ישראל נודרין ואין העובדי כוכבים נודרים
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.”
אי מהתם הוה אמינא קרבן הוא דלא לייתי אבל נזירות חלה עלייהו קמ”ל
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.
כמאן אזלא הא דתנן אמר ר”ש שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין וזה אחד מהן עובד כוכבים ששלח עולתו ממדינת הים ושילח עמה נסכיה קריבין משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור
§ 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.
לימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי ולא רבי עקיבא אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא עולה וכל חבירתה
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.
מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן (במדבר טו, יג) אזרח אזרח מביא נסכים ואין העובד כוכבים מביא נסכים יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים תלמוד לאמר ככה מני לא ר’ יוסי הגלילי ולא רבי עקיבא
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.
אי רבי יוסי הגלילי הא אמר אפילו יין נמי אי ר’ עקיבא הא אמר עולה אין מידי אחרינא לא
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?
איבעית אימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא איבעית אימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי סמי מההיא יין ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא עולה וכל חבירתה:
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.
רבי שמעון אומר מנחת חוטא של כהנים [וכו’]: מנא הני מילי
§ 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?
דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ה, יג) והיתה לכהן כמנחה שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו
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.
אתה אומר שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו או אינו אלא להתיר מנחת חוטא של כהנים ומה אני מקיים (ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל מנחת נדבתו אבל חובתו תהא נאכלת
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.
תלמוד לומר והיתה לכהן כמנחה מקיש חובתו לנדבתו מה נדבתו אינה נאכלת אף חובתו אינה נאכלת אמר רבי שמעון וכי נאמר והיתה לכהן כמנחתו והלא לא נאמר אלא כמנחה אלא להקיש
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
Follow 
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.
Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
11.25.2020 | ט׳ בכסלו תשפ״א
Avodah Zarah 36: “Bishul Akum” and Jews Separating from Non-Jews
07.25.2025 | כ״ט בתמוז תשפ״ה
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.
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
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!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
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!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
Menachot 73
תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, ט) וכל המנחה אשר תאפה בתנור לכל בני אהרן תהיה איש כאחיו
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.
יכול לא חלקו מנחות כנגד זבחים שלא קמו תחתיהן בדלות אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהרי קמו תחתיהן בדלות תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, ט) וכל נעשה במרחשת לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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.
יכול לא יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהללו מיני דמים והללו מיני קמחים יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים שהללו והללו מיני דמים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, ט) ועל מחבת לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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.
יכול לא יחלקו עופות כנגד זבחים שהללו עשייתן ביד והללו עשייתן בכלי אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד מנחות שאלו ואלו עשייתן ביד תלמוד לאמר (ויקרא ז, י) וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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).
יכול לא יחלקו מחבת כנגד מרחשת ומרחשת כנגד מחבת שזו מעשיה קשין וזו מעשיה רכין אבל יחלקו מחבת כנגד מחבת ומרחשת כנגד מרחשת תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, י) וחרבה לכל בני אהרן תהיה
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).
יכול לא יחלקו בקדשי קדשים אבל יחלקו בקדשים קלים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, י) איש כאחיו ואם על תודה כשם שאין חולקין בקדשי קדשים כך אין חולקים בקדשים קלים
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.
איש איש חולק ואפילו בעל מום ואין קטן חולק ואפילו תם
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?
ההוא מכל נפקא והא אפיקתיה לכדרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אלא ההוא מוכל
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.”
רבינא אמר אתיא מדתני לוי דתני לוי (במדבר יח, ט) לכל קרבנם ולכל מנחתם ולכל חטאתם ולכל אשמם
§ 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.
כל קרבנם לרבות לוג שמן של מצורע סלקא דעתך אמינא (במדבר יח, ט) מן האש כתב רחמנא קמ”ל
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.
לכל מנחתם לרבות מנחת העומר ומנחת קנאות סלקא דעתך אמינא (שמות כט, לג) ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם אמר רחמנא והאי להתיר קא אתיא ואידך נמי לברר קא אתיא קמ”ל
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.
(במדבר יח, ט) לכל חטאתם לרבות חטאת העוף סלקא דעתך אמינא נבילה היא קמ”ל
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.
(במדבר יח, ט) לכל אשמם לרבות אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע אשם מצורע בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא יד, יג) כי כחטאת האשם הוא לכהן
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.
אלא לרבות אשם נזיר כאשם מצורע סלקא דעתך אמינא להכשיר קא אתי קמ”ל
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.
(במדבר יח, ט) אשר ישיבו זה גזל הגר (במדבר יח, ט) לך היא ולבניך שלך היא ולבניך אפילו לקדש בו את האשה
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.
אמר רב הונא
§ Rav Huna said:
שלמי העובדי כוכבים עולות איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא סברא עובד כוכבים לבו לשמים
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.
ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריבו לה’ לעולה כל דמקרבי עולה ליהוי
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.
מתיב רב חמא בר גוריא עובד כוכבים שהתנדב להביא שלמים נתנן לישראל ישראל אוכלן נתנן לכהן הכהן אוכלן
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.
אמר רבא הכי קא אמר על מנת שיתכפר בהן ישראל ישראל אוכלן על מנת שיתכפר בהן כהן כהן אוכלן
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.
מתיב רב שיזבי אלו מנחות נקמצות ושיריהן לכהנים מנחת עובדי כוכבים א”ר יוחנן לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא
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.
דתניא (ויקרא כב, ג) איש מה תלמוד לאמר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שנודרין נדרים ונדבות כישראל
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.
(ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריבו לה’ לעולה אין לי אלא עולה שלמים מנין תלמוד לומר נדריהם תודה מנין תלמוד לומר נדבותם
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.”
מנין לרבות העופות והיין והלבונה והעצים תלמוד לאמר נדריהם לכל נדריהם נדבותם לכל נדבותם
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.”
אם כן מה תלמוד לאמר עולה עולה פרט לנזירות דברי ר’ יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אשר יקריבו לה’ לעולה אין לי אלא עולה בלבד
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.
והאי פרט לנזירות מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (במדבר ו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר נזיר להזיר בני ישראל נודרין ואין העובדי כוכבים נודרים
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.”
אי מהתם הוה אמינא קרבן הוא דלא לייתי אבל נזירות חלה עלייהו קמ”ל
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.
כמאן אזלא הא דתנן אמר ר”ש שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין וזה אחד מהן עובד כוכבים ששלח עולתו ממדינת הים ושילח עמה נסכיה קריבין משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור
§ 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.
לימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי ולא רבי עקיבא אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא עולה וכל חבירתה
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.
מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן (במדבר טו, יג) אזרח אזרח מביא נסכים ואין העובד כוכבים מביא נסכים יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים תלמוד לאמר ככה מני לא ר’ יוסי הגלילי ולא רבי עקיבא
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.
אי רבי יוסי הגלילי הא אמר אפילו יין נמי אי ר’ עקיבא הא אמר עולה אין מידי אחרינא לא
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?
איבעית אימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא איבעית אימא ר’ יוסי הגלילי סמי מההיא יין ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא עולה וכל חבירתה:
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.
רבי שמעון אומר מנחת חוטא של כהנים [וכו’]: מנא הני מילי
§ 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?
דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ה, יג) והיתה לכהן כמנחה שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו
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.
אתה אומר שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו או אינו אלא להתיר מנחת חוטא של כהנים ומה אני מקיים (ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל מנחת נדבתו אבל חובתו תהא נאכלת
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.
תלמוד לומר והיתה לכהן כמנחה מקיש חובתו לנדבתו מה נדבתו אינה נאכלת אף חובתו אינה נאכלת אמר רבי שמעון וכי נאמר והיתה לכהן כמנחתו והלא לא נאמר אלא כמנחה אלא להקיש
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
Follow
