Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 22, 2018 | 讬状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 73

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讗砖专 转讗驻讛 讘转谞讜专 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛 讗讬砖 讻讗讞讬讜

The verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering that is baked in the oven鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have, each man like the other鈥 (Leviticus 7:9鈥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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇讗 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讚诇讜转 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛专讬 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讚诇讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 谞注砖讛 讘诪专讞砖转 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd all that is prepared in the deep pan鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have,鈥 again emphasizing that all must have an equal share in that meal offering.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 拽诪讞讬诐 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注诇 诪讞讘转 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd on a pan鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have,鈥 a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 注砖讬讬转谉 讘讬讚 讜讛诇诇讜 注砖讬讬转谉 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讞讜转 砖讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注砖讬讬转谉 讘讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讘诇讜诇讛 讘砖诪谉 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering mixed with oil鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 砖讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 拽砖讬谉 讜讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 专讻讬谉 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞专讘讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淥r dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讗讞讬讜 讜讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

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: 鈥淪hall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: 鈥淚f he offers it for a thanks offering鈥 (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.

讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讞讜诇拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗讬谉 拽讟谉 讞讜诇拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转诐

The baraita further expounds this verse: It states: 鈥淥ne as well as another [ish ke鈥檃岣v],鈥 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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10), as referring to the prohibition against priests exchanging shares of offerings. If so, how does 岣zkiyya state that this verse is referring to the priests鈥 eating of the remainder of the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota?

讛讛讜讗 诪讻诇 谞驻拽讗 讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讻诇

The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against exchanging priestly shares, that is derived from the term: 鈥淓very meal offering.鈥 By contrast, 岣zkiyya derives his principle with regard to these two meal offerings from the rest of the verse. The Gemara asks: But haven鈥檛 you already derived from the word 鈥渆very鈥 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 鈥渁nd,鈥 in the term: 鈥淎nd every [vekhol] meal offering.鈥

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 诪讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 诇讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 讜诇讻诇 诪谞讞转诐 讜诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讻诇 讗砖诪诐

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: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (Numbers 18:9). The word 鈥渆very鈥 in each clause includes a number of additional offerings that are eaten by the priests.

讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 诇专讘讜转 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪谉 讛讗砖 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Torah states: 鈥淓very offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淔rom the fire,鈥 this would exclude this oil, which is not brought onto the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us: 鈥淓very offering,鈥 to include the leper鈥檚 oil.

诇讻诇 诪谞讞转诐 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讛转讬专 拽讗 讗转讬讗 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诇讘专专 拽讗 讗转讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The baraita continues expounding the verse: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made鈥 (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鈥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: 鈥淓very meal offering,鈥 to teach that these two meal offerings are included.

诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The baraita continues to expound the verse. The verse states: 鈥淎nd every sin offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淓very sin offering,鈥 teaching that bird sin offerings are included.

诇讻诇 讗砖诪诐 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讬 讻讞讟讗转 讛讗砖诐 讛讜讗 诇讻讛谉

The baraita continues to expound the verse. The Torah states: 鈥淎nd every guilt offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淔or as the sin offering is the priest鈥檚, so is the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:13), which already teaches that it is eaten by the priests.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讻讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 拽讗 讗转讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淓very guilt offering,鈥 teaching that the guilt offering of the nazirite is included.

讗砖专 讬砖讬讘讜 讝讛 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诇讱 讛讬讗 讜诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讱 讛讬讗 讜诇讘谞讬讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛

The baraita concludes: 鈥淭his shall be yours of the most sacred items鈥which they may restore鈥; 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 鈥渇or you and for your sons鈥 means that it is yours and your sons鈥 personal property, and it may be used even to betroth a woman with it, and it does not belong to the Temple treasury.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Huna said:

砖诇诪讬 讛讙讜讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讙讜讬 诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇注诇讛 讻诇 讚诪拽专讘讬 注讜诇讛 诇讬讛讜讬

And if you wish, cite a verse: 鈥淎ny 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鈥 (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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讙讜讬 砖讛转谞讚讘 诇讛讘讬讗 砖诇诪讬诐 谞转谞谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇谉 谞转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇谉

Rav 岣ma 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鈥檚 peace offering is eaten, like the peace offering of a Jew.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬转讻驻专 讘讛谉 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇谉 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬转讻驻专 讘讛谉 讻讛谉 讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇谉

To answer the challenge to Rav Huna鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement teaches that when a gentile volunteers his own peace offering, it is treated as a burnt offering.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诇讜 诪谞讞讜转 谞拽诪爪讜转 讜砖讬专讬讛谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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鈥he 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖谞讜讚专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse cited previously states: 鈥淎ny 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.鈥 The verse is now analyzed: The verse could have stated: A man [ish]. Why does the verse state the double expression ish ish鈥? This serves to include the gentiles, demonstrating that they can vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew can.

讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚专讬讛诐 转讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚讘讜转诐

When the verse states: 鈥淲hich they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,鈥 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: 鈥淭heir vows.鈥 From where is it derived that he can bring a thanks offering? The verse states the seemingly superfluous clause: 鈥淭heir gift offerings.鈥

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛讬讬谉 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛注爪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚专讬讛诐 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚讘讜转诐 诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐

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: 鈥淭heir vows,鈥 but also the more comprehensive term: 鈥淎ny of their vows鈥; and the verse states not only: 鈥淭heir gift offerings,鈥 but also the more comprehensive term: 鈥淎ny of their gift offerings.鈥

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇谞讝讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 讘诇讘讚

The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hey will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering鈥? 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: 鈥淲hich they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,鈥 it indicates that nothing other than a burnt offering alone may be brought by a gentile.

讜讛讗讬 驻专讟 诇谞讝讬专讜转 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讛诐 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 谞讜讚专讬诐

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: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man鈥hall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite鈥 (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 鈥渁 burnt offering.鈥

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讬转讬 讗讘诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讙讜讬 砖砖诇讞 注讜诇转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖讬诇讞 注诪讛 谞住讻讬讛 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

搂 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鈥檚 expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. Evidently, a gentile can offer libations as well as burnt offerings.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜诇讛 讜讻诇 讞讘讬专转讛

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讝专讞 讗讝专讞 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 注讜诇转讜 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讻讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to libations: 鈥淎ll who are home born shall do these things after this manner鈥 (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鈥檚 burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o it shall be done for one bull鈥 (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.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains the question: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住诪讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讬讬谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜诇讛 讜讻诇 讞讘讬专转讛

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 [讜讻讜壮] 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 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?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻讛谉 讻诪谞讞讛 砖转讛讗 注讘讜讚转讛 讻砖专讛 讘讜

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥t 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鈥檚, as the meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:12鈥13). Since the phrase 鈥淎nd the remainder shall be the priest鈥檚, as the meal offering鈥 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.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖转讛讗 注讘讜讚转讛 讻砖专讛 讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘转讜 讗讘诇 讞讜讘转讜 转讛讗 谞讗讻诇转

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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16)? Perhaps that is referring to his voluntary meal offering, but his obligatory meal offering may be eaten.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻讛谉 讻诪谞讞讛 诪拽讬砖 讞讜讘转讜 诇谞讚讘转讜 诪讛 谞讚讘转讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗祝 讞讜讘转讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻讛谉 讻诪谞讞转讜 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻诪谞讞讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽讬砖

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be the priest鈥檚 as the meal offering.鈥 In this way, the verse compares the priest鈥檚 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鈥檚, as his meal offering? But it states only: 鈥淎s the meal offering,鈥 referring to the meal offering of a non-priest. Rather, this verse serves to compare and render the halakha of

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 73

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讗砖专 转讗驻讛 讘转谞讜专 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛 讗讬砖 讻讗讞讬讜

The verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering that is baked in the oven鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have, each man like the other鈥 (Leviticus 7:9鈥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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇讗 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讚诇讜转 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛专讬 拽诪讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讚诇讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 谞注砖讛 讘诪专讞砖转 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd all that is prepared in the deep pan鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have,鈥 again emphasizing that all must have an equal share in that meal offering.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 注讜驻讜转 砖讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 拽诪讞讬诐 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 讜讛诇诇讜 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注诇 诪讞讘转 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd on a pan鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have,鈥 a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 注讜驻讜转 讻谞讙讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛诇诇讜 注砖讬讬转谉 讘讬讚 讜讛诇诇讜 注砖讬讬转谉 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪谞讞讜转 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讞讜转 砖讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注砖讬讬转谉 讘讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讘诇讜诇讛 讘砖诪谉 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering mixed with oil鈥hall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 砖讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 拽砖讬谉 讜讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 专讻讬谉 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 诪讞讘转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞讘转 讜诪专讞砖转 讻谞讙讚 诪专讞砖转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞专讘讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 转讛讬讛

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: 鈥淥r dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have鈥 (Leviticus 7:10).

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞诇拽讜 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讻讗讞讬讜 讜讗诐 注诇 转讜讚讛 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

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: 鈥淪hall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: 鈥淚f he offers it for a thanks offering鈥 (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.

讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讞讜诇拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗讬谉 拽讟谉 讞讜诇拽 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转诐

The baraita further expounds this verse: It states: 鈥淥ne as well as another [ish ke鈥檃岣v],鈥 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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10), as referring to the prohibition against priests exchanging shares of offerings. If so, how does 岣zkiyya state that this verse is referring to the priests鈥 eating of the remainder of the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota?

讛讛讜讗 诪讻诇 谞驻拽讗 讜讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讻诇

The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against exchanging priestly shares, that is derived from the term: 鈥淓very meal offering.鈥 By contrast, 岣zkiyya derives his principle with regard to these two meal offerings from the rest of the verse. The Gemara asks: But haven鈥檛 you already derived from the word 鈥渆very鈥 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 鈥渁nd,鈥 in the term: 鈥淎nd every [vekhol] meal offering.鈥

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 诪讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 诇讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 讜诇讻诇 诪谞讞转诐 讜诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讻诇 讗砖诪诐

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: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (Numbers 18:9). The word 鈥渆very鈥 in each clause includes a number of additional offerings that are eaten by the priests.

讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 诇专讘讜转 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪谉 讛讗砖 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Torah states: 鈥淓very offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淔rom the fire,鈥 this would exclude this oil, which is not brought onto the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us: 鈥淓very offering,鈥 to include the leper鈥檚 oil.

诇讻诇 诪谞讞转诐 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讛转讬专 拽讗 讗转讬讗 讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诇讘专专 拽讗 讗转讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The baraita continues expounding the verse: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made鈥 (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鈥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: 鈥淓very meal offering,鈥 to teach that these two meal offerings are included.

诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The baraita continues to expound the verse. The verse states: 鈥淎nd every sin offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淓very sin offering,鈥 teaching that bird sin offerings are included.

诇讻诇 讗砖诪诐 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讬 讻讞讟讗转 讛讗砖诐 讛讜讗 诇讻讛谉

The baraita continues to expound the verse. The Torah states: 鈥淎nd every guilt offering of theirs,鈥 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: 鈥淔or as the sin offering is the priest鈥檚, so is the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:13), which already teaches that it is eaten by the priests.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讻讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 拽讗 讗转讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淓very guilt offering,鈥 teaching that the guilt offering of the nazirite is included.

讗砖专 讬砖讬讘讜 讝讛 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诇讱 讛讬讗 讜诇讘谞讬讱 砖诇讱 讛讬讗 讜诇讘谞讬讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛

The baraita concludes: 鈥淭his shall be yours of the most sacred items鈥which they may restore鈥; 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 鈥渇or you and for your sons鈥 means that it is yours and your sons鈥 personal property, and it may be used even to betroth a woman with it, and it does not belong to the Temple treasury.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Huna said:

砖诇诪讬 讛讙讜讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讙讜讬 诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇注诇讛 讻诇 讚诪拽专讘讬 注讜诇讛 诇讬讛讜讬

And if you wish, cite a verse: 鈥淎ny 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鈥 (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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讙讜讬 砖讛转谞讚讘 诇讛讘讬讗 砖诇诪讬诐 谞转谞谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇谉 谞转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇谉

Rav 岣ma 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鈥檚 peace offering is eaten, like the peace offering of a Jew.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬转讻驻专 讘讛谉 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇谉 注诇 诪谞转 砖讬转讻驻专 讘讛谉 讻讛谉 讻讛谉 讗讜讻诇谉

To answer the challenge to Rav Huna鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement teaches that when a gentile volunteers his own peace offering, it is treated as a burnt offering.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诇讜 诪谞讞讜转 谞拽诪爪讜转 讜砖讬专讬讛谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讞转 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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鈥he 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖谞讜讚专讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse cited previously states: 鈥淎ny 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.鈥 The verse is now analyzed: The verse could have stated: A man [ish]. Why does the verse state the double expression ish ish鈥? This serves to include the gentiles, demonstrating that they can vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew can.

讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚专讬讛诐 转讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚讘讜转诐

When the verse states: 鈥淲hich they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,鈥 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: 鈥淭heir vows.鈥 From where is it derived that he can bring a thanks offering? The verse states the seemingly superfluous clause: 鈥淭heir gift offerings.鈥

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛讬讬谉 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛注爪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚专讬讛诐 诇讻诇 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚讘讜转诐 诇讻诇 谞讚讘讜转诐

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: 鈥淭heir vows,鈥 but also the more comprehensive term: 鈥淎ny of their vows鈥; and the verse states not only: 鈥淭heir gift offerings,鈥 but also the more comprehensive term: 鈥淎ny of their gift offerings.鈥

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 驻专讟 诇谞讝讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 讘诇讘讚

The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hey will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering鈥? 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: 鈥淲hich they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,鈥 it indicates that nothing other than a burnt offering alone may be brought by a gentile.

讜讛讗讬 驻专讟 诇谞讝讬专讜转 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪专转 讗诇讛诐 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 谞讜讚专讬诐

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: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man鈥hall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite鈥 (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 鈥渁 burnt offering.鈥

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讬转讬 讗讘诇 谞讝讬专讜转 讞诇讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讙讜讬 砖砖诇讞 注讜诇转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖讬诇讞 注诪讛 谞住讻讬讛 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽专讬讘讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专

搂 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鈥檚 expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. Evidently, a gentile can offer libations as well as burnt offerings.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜诇讛 讜讻诇 讞讘讬专转讛

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讝专讞 讗讝专讞 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 注讜诇转讜 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讻讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to libations: 鈥淎ll who are home born shall do these things after this manner鈥 (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鈥檚 burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o it shall be done for one bull鈥 (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.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains the question: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住诪讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讬讬谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜诇讛 讜讻诇 讞讘讬专转讛

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 [讜讻讜壮] 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 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?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻讛谉 讻诪谞讞讛 砖转讛讗 注讘讜讚转讛 讻砖专讛 讘讜

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥t 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鈥檚, as the meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:12鈥13). Since the phrase 鈥淎nd the remainder shall be the priest鈥檚, as the meal offering鈥 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.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖转讛讗 注讘讜讚转讛 讻砖专讛 讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘转讜 讗讘诇 讞讜讘转讜 转讛讗 谞讗讻诇转

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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16)? Perhaps that is referring to his voluntary meal offering, but his obligatory meal offering may be eaten.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻讛谉 讻诪谞讞讛 诪拽讬砖 讞讜讘转讜 诇谞讚讘转讜 诪讛 谞讚讘转讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗祝 讞讜讘转讜 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讻讛谉 讻诪谞讞转讜 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻诪谞讞讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽讬砖

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be the priest鈥檚 as the meal offering.鈥 In this way, the verse compares the priest鈥檚 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鈥檚, as his meal offering? But it states only: 鈥淎s the meal offering,鈥 referring to the meal offering of a non-priest. Rather, this verse serves to compare and render the halakha of

Scroll To Top