מנחות 83 — parallel

83:1

for this is expressly stated of them. Neither can it be the peace-offerings of the congregation, for this is already deduced from the amplification of the following verse: In a most holy place shalt thou eat thereof; every male may eat thereof: this teaches us that the peace-offerings of the congregation may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood! — Tannaim [hold different views] about it; some derive it from this [passage] and some from that.) ‘Sin-offering’: as the sin-offering renders holy [like itself] whatever has absorbed from it, so all the other offerings render holy [like themselves] whatever has absorbed from them. ‘Guilt-offering’: as with the guilt-offering neither the foetus-sac nor the afterbirth is holy. so with all other offerings neither the foetus-sac nor the afterbirth is holy. (He is of the opinion that the young of consecrated animals are themselves holy only when they come into being; and also that it is quite proper to infer the possible from the impossible.) ‘Consecration-offering’: as in the case of the consecration-offering the remainder was burnt but the living animal that was left over was not burnt, so in the case of all other offerings the remainder is to be burnt but the living animal that might be left over is not to be burnt. ‘Peace-offerings’: as peace-offerings can make others piggul and can also become piggul themselves, so all the other offerings can make others piggul and can also become piggul themselves. In a Baraitha it was taught in the name of R. Akiba as follows: This is the law etc. ‘Meal-offering’: as the meal-offering renders holy [like itself] whatever has absorbed from it, so all the other offerings render holy [like themselves] whatever has absorbed from them. (And this was necessary to be stated of the sin-offering as well as of the meal-offering. For had the Divine Law stated it only of the meal-offering [I would have said that this was so only of the meal-offering], because on account of its softness it could be absorbed, but I would not have said so of the sin-offering. And had the Divine Law only stated it of the sin-offering [I would have said that this was so only of the sin-offering], because on account of its fatness it could easily penetrate into the other matter, but I would not have said so of the meal-offering. Therefore both were necessary to be stated.) ‘Sin-offering’: as the sin-offering must be brought only from what is unconsecrated, and [must be sacrificed] by day, and [all the services in connection therewith must be performed] with the [priest's] right hand, so all the other offerings must be brought only from what is unconsecrated, and [must be sacrificed] by day, and [all the services in connection therewith must be performed] with the [priest's] right hand. (And whence do we know this of the sin-offering itself? — R. Hisda answered, Because it is written, And Aaron shall offer the bullock of the sin-offering which is his; that is to say, it must come from his own means and not from the means of the community nor from the Second Tithe. Is not [the rule that offerings must be sacrificed] by day derived from [the verse], In the day that he commanded? — It was indeed stated [above] to no purpose. Is not [the rule that all the services in connection therewith shall be performed with] the right hand derived from the following dictum of Rabbah b. Bar Hannah? For Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of Resh Lakish, Wherever the word ‘finger’ or ‘priest’ is used it signifies that the right hand only [shall be used]! — This too was stated [above] to no purpose.) ‘Guilt-offering’: as the bones of the guilt-offering are permitted for use, so the bones of all other offerings are permitted for use. For what purpose does R. Akiba use the verse, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering? 24

—

83:2

— He requires it for the following teaching of R. Nahman. For R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, Whence do we know that the surplus of the Passover-offering is brought as a peace-offering? Because it is said, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God of the flock and the herd. But is not the Passover-offering brought only from the lambs and the goats? It means that the surplus of the Passover-offering is to be [utilized] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd. But is it derived from this verse? Surely it is derived from the following teaching of Samuel's father: It is written, And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings [unto the Lord] be of the flock: and Samuel's father said, This teaches that what comes [only] from the flock shall be offered as peace-offerings! And again,is it derived from this [latter] verse? Surely it is derived from the following: It was taught: Lamb; this includes the fat tail of the Passover-offering. When it says, If [he bring] a lamb, it is to include the Passover-offering that has passed the age of one year and the peace-offerings which are brought by virtue of the Passover-offering for all the regulations of peace-offerings, viz., that they require the laying on of hands, the drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the thigh. Again, when it says, And if [his offering be] a goat. this interrupts the subject [and thereby] teaches that in the case of a goat [the burning of] the fat tail [upon the altar] is not required! — There are three Scriptural texts; one is required for [the Passover-offering] which has passed the age of one year and whose time [for offering] has also passed, another for that which has not passed the age of one year but whose time [for offering] has passed. and a third for that which has not passed the age of one year and whose time [for offering] has not passed. And all [three texts] are necessary; for had [Scripture] taught us it only of that [Passover-offering] which had passed the age of one year and whose time [for offering] had also passed, I would have said that it was so only in that case seeing that it was absolutely rejected [from being offered as a Passover-offering], but I would not have said so of that [Passover-offering] whose time [for offering] had passed but which had not passed the age of one year, since it is fit for the Second Passover. And had [Scripture] taught us it only of that [Passover-offering] whose time [for offering] had passed but which had not passed the age of one year, I would have said that it was so only in that case seeing that it was rejected [from being offered] for the first Passover, but I would not have said so of that [Passover-offering] whose time [for offering] had not passed and which had not passed the age of one year, since it is even fit for the first Passover. Hence [all texts] are necessary. CHAPTER IX MISHNAH. ALL THE OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION OR OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE OFFERED FROM [PRODUCE GROWN] IN THE LAND [OF ISRAEL] OR OUTSIDE THE LAND, FROM THE NEW [PRODUCE] OR FROM THE OLD, EXCEPTING THE ‘OMER-OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES, WHICH MUST BE OFFERED ONLY FROM THE NEW PRODUCE AND FROM [PRODUCE GROWN] IN THE LAND. ALL [OFFERINGS] MUST BE OFFERED FROM THE CHOICEST PRODUCE. AND WHICH IS THE CHOICEST? MICHMAS AND ZANOHA RANK FIRST FOR THE QUALITY OF THEIR FINE FLOUR; SECOND TO THEM IS HAFARAIM IN THE VALLEY. THE [PRODUCE OF THE] WHOLE LAND WAS VALID, BUT THEY USED TO BRING IT FROM THESE PLACES. GEMARA. Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna. For it was taught: If the ‘Omer-offering was offered from the old produce it is valid, and so, too, if the Two Loaves were offered from the old produce they are valid, save that the precept has not been duly performed; the ‘Omer-offering-for it is written, Thou shalt bring for the meal-offering of thy first-fruits. that is, even from the store-room; and the Two Loaves-for it is written, Out of your dwellings, but not from [the produce grown] outside the Land; ‘Out of your dwellings’, even from the store-room. But has not a deduction already been drawn [from that expression]? The verse reads, Ye shall bring. even from the store-room. But is not this [latter expression] required to teach that every other offering that you make of a similar kind shall be like this! — If for this only the verse should have read, ‘Thou shalt bring’; why does it say, Ye shall bring? You can therefore draw two deductions therefrom. But is it not written, The first? — That is only a recommendation. But does it not say. New? — That is required for [the following Baraitha] which was taught: R. Nathan and R. Akiba said, If the Two Loaves were brought from the old produce they are none the less valid. How then am I to interpret the expression ‘new’? To signify that they shall be the first of all meal offerings. Now they differ only concerning the new produce.36

—