Menachot

a meal-offering as an obligation and it also speaks of the offering of a meal-offering as of free will: just as the freewill meal-offering requires bringing near, so the obligatory meal-offering requires bringing near. And [if it be objected that] this1 is so of the freewill meal-offering since it requires both oil and frankincense,2 then the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress can prove [the contrary].3 And [if it be objected that] this is so of the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress since it requires waving, then the freewill meal-offering can prove [the contrary].4 The argument thus goes round. The distinguishing feature of this [meal-offering] is not that of the other [meal-offering], and the distinguishing feature of the other [meal-offering] is not that of this one.5 Their common features,6 however, are that they are alike with regard to the taking of the handful and also with regard to bringing near; I will then also include the sinner's meal-offering, that since it is like unto them with regard to the taking of the handful it shall be like unto them also with regard to the bringing near. But [it will be objected that] there is yet another common feature, namely that the same offering is valid for the rich as for the poor, whereas in the case of the sinner's meal-offering the same offering is not valid for the rich as for the poor.7 The text therefore [must] state ‘the meal-offering’. R. Simeon says, ‘And thou shalt bring’ — this includes the meal-offering of the ‘Omer, so that it too requires bringing near, as it is said, Ye shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest.8 ‘And he shall present it’ — this includes the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, so that it too requires bringing near, as it is said, And he shall present it unto the altar.9 But surely this could be derived by the following argument:10 if the sinner's meal-offering, which does not require waving, nevertheless requires bringing near, how much more does the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, which requires waving, require bringing near! But [if it be objected that] this11 is so of the sinner's meal-offering since it is offered from wheat,12 then the meal-offering of the ‘Omer can prove [the contrary].13 And [if it be objected that] this is so of the meal-offering of the ‘Omer since it requires both oil and frankincense, then the sinner's meal-offering can prove [the contrary]. The argument thus goes round. The distinguishing feature of this [meal-offering] is not that of the other, and the distinguishing feature of that [meal-offering] is not that of this one. Their common features,14 however, are that they are alike with regard to the taking of the handful and also with regard to bringing near; I will then also include the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, that since it is like unto them with regard to the taking of the handful it shall be like unto them also with regard to the bringing near. But [it will be objected that] there is yet another common feature, namely that coarse flour is not valid in either case,15 whereas in the case of the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress [only] coarse flour is valid. The text [must] therefore state, ‘And he shall present it’. R. Judah says, ‘And thou shalt bring’, includes the meal-offering of a suspected adulteress, so that it too requires bringing near, as it is said, And he shall bring her offering for her.16 For the meal-offering of the ‘Omer, however, no verse is necessary,17 since it can be inferred from the following argument: if the sinner's meal-offering, which does not require waving, requires bringing near, how much more does the meal-offering of the ‘Omer, which requires waving, require bringing near! But [if it be objected that] this is so of the sinner's meal-offering since it is offered of wheat, then the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress can prove [the contrary]. And [if it be objected that] that this is so of the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress since it is brought to discover guilt,18 then the sinner's meal-offering can prove [the contrary].19 The argument thus goes round. The distinguishing feature of this [meal-offering] is not that of the other, and the distinguishing feature of the other [meal-offering] is not that of this one. Their common features,20 however, are that they are alike with regard to the taking of the handful and also with regard to bringing near; I will then include the meal-offering of the ‘Omer, too, that since it is like unto them in respect of the taking of the handful it shall be like unto them in respect of bringing near. And what objection can you now raise against this? R. Simeon, however, objects to it on this ground: there is yet another common feature, namely that those may happen frequently.21 But R. Judah maintains that, on the contrary; this22 is more frequent, whereas the others may never happen at all. But perhaps the expression ‘And thou shalt bring’23 serves rather to intimate that an individual may of his free will bring a meal-offering other than those mentioned in the context!24 And this can even be supported by the following argument: the community brings a meal-offering of wheat25 as an obligation and it also brings a meal-offering of barley26 as an obligation, then likewise an individual, since he brings a meal-offering of wheat of his free will, may also bring a meal-offering of barley of his free will. The text therefore states these:23 only these that are mentioned in the context. But perhaps the expression ‘these’ serves only to signify that a person who says ‘I take upon myself to offer a meal-offering’ must bring the five kinds.27 The text therefore states ‘of these’, implying that if he so wishes he may bring one only, and if he so wishes he may bring the five kinds. R. Simeon says, The expression ‘the meal-offering’23 includes other meal-offerings,28 so that they too require bringing near. But I might say that it includes also the Two Loaves and the Shewbread, the text therefore states of these. And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread [rather than the reverse]?29 include other meal-offerings since part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar,’ but I exclude the Two Loaves and the Shewbread since no part thereof is put upon the fire of the altar. But the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings is put entirely upon the fire, is it not? Then I would say that it requires bringing near! The text therefore states, And he shall present it.30 But have you not employed this expression for another purpose?31 — [For that alone, Scripture could have stated] ‘And he shall present’, but it says, And he shall present it.32 And why do you prefer to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings [rather than the reverse]? that being so, it would also not require bringing near. sinner's meal-offering. meal-offering. the bringing near since this cause is not found with the freewill meal-offering. And, on the other hand, the need for oil and frankincense in the freewill meal-offering cannot be the cause entailing the bringing near since this cause is not found with the meal-offering of the suspected adulteress. means must bring a pair of doves, and a rich person a lamb, for a sin-offering. V. Lev. V, 6, 7, 11. becomes superfluous. meal-offering of a suspected adulteress. also be fine and not coarse. later for another purpose; v. infra. relation to sin. the same would be said of the meal-offering of the ‘Omer, namely, although it has no relation to any sin it requires bringing near. offered but once a year, on the sixteenth day of Nisan. mentioned in the context are of wheat. a pan, and that, baked in the oven which is of two kinds, of cakes and of wafers. additional words in the text, e.g., ‘the meal-offering of a gentile and the meal-offering of women’ are not found in the MSS., or in the parallel passage in the Sifra, and evidently were not in the text before Rashi. They are struck out by Sh. Mek.