Parallel
מנחות 73:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The peace-offerings of gentiles are to be treated as burnt-offerings. This I can prove either by simple reasoning or by a verse from Scripture. Either by simple reasoning: because a gentile in his heart [devotes the offering entirely] to Heaven. Or by a verse from Scripture: Which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering: whatever they offer shall be a burnt-offering. R. Hama b. Guria raised an objection: If a gentile made a freewill-offering of peace-offerings and he gave them to an Israelite, the Israelite may eat them; if he gave them to a priest, the priest may eat them. — Raba answered, It means this: if [he gave them to an Israelite] that the Israelite shall receive atonement thereby, the Israelite may eat them; if [he gave them to a priest] that the priest shall receive atonement thereby, the priest may eat them. R. Shisbi raised an objection: FROM THE FOLLOWING MEAL-OFFERINGS THE HANDFUL MUST BE TAKEN, AND THE REMAINDER IS FOR THE PRIESTS...THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE! -R. Johanan answered, This is no difficulty; for one represents the view of R. Jose the Galilean, the other R. Akiba's view. For it was taught: [It would have sufficed had Scripture stated] a man, why does it state ‘a man, a man’? To include gentiles, that they may bring either votive or freewill-offerings like an Israelite. Which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering: I only know [that they may offer] burnt-offerings, but whence [that they may offer] peace-offerings? The text states, Their vows. And whence thank-offerings? The text states, Their free will-offerings. And whence bird-offerings and meal-offerings and offerings of wine and frankincense and wood? The text states, Any of their vows, and not merely ‘their vows’; so too, Any of their freewill-offerings, and not merely ‘their freewill-offerings’. Why then does this text expressly state ‘a burnt-offering’? To exclude the Nazirite-offering. This is the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says, Which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering: thus [they may offer] only burnt-offerings. But is the law that a gentile is excluded from offering a Nazirite-offering derived from this teaching? Surely it is derived from the following teaching: Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the Lord: hence only the children of Israel can vow the vow of a Nazirite, but gentiles cannot vow the vow of a Nazirite!-From the former teaching I should only have said that they may not offer the Nazirite-offerings, but that the Nazirite vow does apply to them; [the latter passage] therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. In accordance with whose view is the following teaching which we have learnt: R. Simeon said, The Beth din ordained seven things and this was one of them: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from a land beyond the sea and he also sent with it the drink-offerings for it, those [drink-offerings] of his are to be offered; but if he did not, they are to be offered at the expense of the community. Shall we say that this teaching agrees with R. Jose the Galilean and not with R. Akiba?-You may even say that it agrees with R. Akiba, for [he meant to say, They may offer] burnt-offerings and everything appertaining thereto. Who is the Tanna of the following Baraitha which the Rabbis taught: Home-born: the home-born brings drink-offerings, but a gentile may not bring drink-offerings.I might then think that his burnt-offering does not require drink-offerings [to be offered with it]; the text therefore states, After this manner. Now who is [the Tanna of this Baraitha]? It is neither R. Jose the Galilean nor R. Akiba! It is not R. Jose the Galilean for he says [that the gentile may offer] even wine [for a drink-offering]; neither is it R. Akiba for he says [that he may offer] only a burnt-offering but nothing else! — If you wish,I can say it is R. Jose the Galilean; and if you wish, I can say it is R. Akiba. If you wish, I can say it is R. Jose the Galilean’, but you must strike out the word ‘wine’ from that teaching. ‘And if you ‘wish, I can say it is R. Akiba’, for [he may offer] burnt-offerings and everything appertaining thereto. R. SIMEON SAYS, FROM THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING BROUGHT BY PRIESTS etc. Whence is it derived? — Our Rabbis taught: And it shall be the priest's as the meal-offering: that is to say, the service thereof may be performed by [the priest] himself. You say it signifies that the service thereof may be performed by [the priest] himself, but perhaps it is not so, but rather it signifies that the [remainder of the] sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest is permitted [to be eaten]; and as for the verse, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten, that refers to his freewill meal-offering, but his obligatory meal-offering may indeed be eaten! The text therefore states, ‘And it shall be the priest's as the meal-offering’, thereby comparing his obligatory meal-offering with his freewill meal-offering; thus as his freewill meal-offering may not be eaten, so his obligatory meal-offering may not be eaten. But R. Simeon said, Is it written, ‘And it shall be the priest's as his meal-offering’? It says, As the meal-offering; thereby comparing
—