Menachot 73

תלמוד לומר 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 יחלקו מנחות כנגד זבחים שלא קמו תחתיהן בדלות אבל יחלקו מנחות כנגד עופות שהרי קמו תחתיהן בדלות תלמוד לומר 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 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 לומר 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 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 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 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 מן האש כתב רחמנא קא משמע לן

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 ואכלו אתם אשר כפר בהם אמר רחמנא והאי להתיר קא אתיא ואידך נמי לברר קא אתיא קא משמע לן

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.

לכל חטאתם לרבות חטאת העוף סלקא דעתך אמינא נבילה היא קא משמע לן

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.

לכל אשמם לרבות אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע אשם מצורע בהדיא כתיב ביה 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 קא משמע לן

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.

אשר ישיבו זה גזל הגר 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 הגוים עולות איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא סברא גוי 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 אשר יקריבו לה׳ לעלה 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 גוי 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 גוים אמר רבי 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 איש מה תלמוד לומר איש איש לרבות את הגוים 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.

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 לומר 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 לומר עולה עולה פרט לנזירות דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אשר יקריבו לה׳ לעלה 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 דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם איש כי יפלא לנדר נדר נזיר להזיר בני ישראל נודרין ואין הגוים 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 קא משמע לן

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 רבי שמעון שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין וזה אחד מהן גוי 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 רבי 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 אזרח אזרח מביא נסכים ואין הגוי מביא נסכים יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים תלמוד לומר ככה מני לא רבי 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 רבי 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 רבי יוסי הגלילי ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא איבעית אימא רבי 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 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 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