Parallel
מנחות 73
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Because the text states, And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven...shall all the sons of Aaron have. I might think that meal-offerings may not be set off against animal-offerings seeing that in a case of poverty they do not replace them, but meal-offerings [I would say] may be set off against bird-offerings since in a case of poverty they do replace them; therefore the text states, And all that is prepared in the pan — shall all the sons of Aaron have. I might think that meal-offerings may not be set off against bird-offerings seeing that the latter are of the class of blood-offerings and the former of the class of cereal-offerings, but bird-offerings [I would say] may be set off against animal-offerings since both are of the class of blood-offerings; therefore the text states, And on the griddle...shall all the sons of Aaron have. I might think that bird-offerings may not be set off against animal-offerings seeing that the preparation of the former is by hand whereas that of the latter is with a utensil, but one kind of meal-offering [I would say] may be set off against another kind of meal-offering since the preparation of both is by hand; therefore the text states, And every meal-offering mingled with oil... shall all the sons of Aaron have. I might think that the meal-offering prepared on a griddle may not be set off against that prepared in a pan nor that prepared in a pan against that prepared on a griddle, for what is cooked in the one is soft and what is cooked in the other is hard, but one that is prepared on a griddle [I would say] may be set off against another that is also prepared on a griddle, and so, too, one that is prepared in a pan may be set off against another that is also prepared in a pan; therefore the text states, Or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have. I might think that sacrifices which are most holy may not be set off against each other, but those which are less holy may; therefore the text states, [Shall all the sons of Aaron have,] a man as well as his brother, and [in proximity thereto], If he offers it for a thanksgiving: just as most holy sacrifices may not be set off against each other, so also less holy sacrifices may not be set off against each other. ‘A man’ [signifies that] a man takes a share even though he has a physical blemish, but not a minor even though he is without blemish! -This teaching is derived from, the expression ‘every’. But has not this expression been used for the teaching of R. Jose son of R. Judah? -That [teaching of R. Jose son of R. Judah] is derived from the expression, ‘and every’. Rabina said, It can be inferred from Levi's teaching, for Levi taught: [It is written,] Every offering of theirs, even every meal-offering of theirs, and every sin-offering of theirs, and every guilt-offering of theirs. ‘Every offering of theirs’ includes the log of oil of the leper. For I might have thought that [it shall not be the priest's since] the Divine Law expressly stated, reserved from the fire; hence we are informed [that it is not so]. ‘Every meal-offering of theirs’ includes the meal-offering of the ‘Omer and the meal-offering of jealousy. For I might have thought that [these shall not be the priest's since] the Divine Law expressly stated, And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made, whereas the one serves to render permitted and the other to ascertain [the truth]; hence we are informed [that it is not so]. ‘Every sin-offering of theirs’ includes the sin-offering of a bird. For I might have thought that [it shall not be the priest's since] it is nebelah; hence we are informed [that it is not so]. ‘Every guilt-offering of theirs’ includes the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. But with regard to the guilt-offering of the leper, is it not expressly stated, For as the sin-offering is the priest's so is the guilt-offering? — Rather it includes the guilt-offering of the Nazirite, that it be like the guilt-offering of the leper. For I might have thought that [it shall not be the priest's since] it but serves to render permitted; hence we are informed [that it is not so]. ‘which they may render unto Me’, this is the [restitution for the] robbery committed on a proselyte. [‘Shall be most holy] for thee and for thy sons’, this teaches that it is thine own and thy son's own, even to betroth a woman therewith. R. Huna said,
—
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
—