1the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest with the sinner's meal-offering brought by an Israelite; thus as from the latter the handful is taken so from the former the handful must be taken. But you might [also say], Just as the handful is taken from the sinner's meal-offering brought by an Israelite the remainder may be eaten, so when the handful is taken from the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest the remainder may be eaten; the text therefore states, ‘The priest's as the meal-offering’, that is to say, as regards what concerns the priest it is like the [sinner's] meal-offering [brought by an Israelite], but as regards what concerns the altar-fire it is not like that meal-offering. Accordingly the handful must be offered by itself and the remainder too must be offered by itself. But is the rule that the service thereof may be performed by [the priest] himself derived from this teaching? Surely it is derived from the following teaching: Whence can we learn that a priest is entitled to come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and on any occasion he desires? Because the text states, And come with all the desire of his soul... and shall minister! — From this latter teaching I would have said that it applied only to such offerings as are not brought on account of sin, but not to such as are brought on account of sin. But is this derived from here? Surely we know it from the following: The verse, And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that erreth, when he sinneth through error, teaches us that the priest can make atonement for himself by his own service! — From this latter teaching I would have said that it applied only to such [offerings as are brought for a sin committed] in error, but not to such [as are brought for a sin committed] wilfully; we are therefore taught [that it applies to the latter too]. (And is there any instance of [an offering brought for a sin committed] wilfully? — Yes, for example, wilfully taking a false oath.) Another [Baraitha] taught: R. Simeon says, From the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest the handful is taken, and the handful is offered by itself and so also the remainder is offered by itself. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says, The handful is offered by itself and the remainder is scattered over the ash-heap. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan pondered over this: Which ash-heap is meant? If that which is on top, then his view is identical with his father's; and if that which is below, then [it will be asked], Is there anything that is ever offered below?-Perhaps, said R. Abba, [it is different when it is intended] to go to waste. They — thereupon laughed at him, saying, Is there anything whose rite is that it shall go to waste? — R. Abin's father taught as follows: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten: l have compared it [with the preceding High Priest's meal-offering] only in respect of eating but in no other respect. What can it mean? — Abaye said, It means this: ‘Every meal-offering of the priest...shall not be eaten’: that is his obligatory meal-offering; ‘shall be wholly burnt’: that is his freewill meal-offering. Thereupon Raba said to him, A sharp knife is dissecting the verse! Rather, said Raba, it means, ‘Every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt’: that is his freewill meal-offering; ‘it shall not be eaten’: that is his obligatory meal-offering. Might I not say the reverse? — It is more reasonable to include his freewill meal-offering, since [like the High Priest's meal-offering] it is frequent, It is not brought on account of sin, and it has a sweet savour. On the contrary, it is more reasonable to include his obligatory meal-offering, since [like the High Priest's meal-offering] it consists of one tenth and is brought as an obligation! — Those are more In number. To what purpose do the Rabbis apply the verse And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten? They require it for the following teaching: I only know that the former must be wholly burnt, and the latter shall not be eaten, whence do I know to apply what is stated of the one to the other and vice versa? The text therefore stated the word ‘kalil’ in each case for the purposes of analogy. It says in the former passage ‘kalil’ and in the latter also ‘kalil’, as in the former it means wholly burnt, so In the latter it means wholly burnt. And as in the latter passage the eating thereof is expressly forbidden by a prohibition, so in the former the eating is forbidden by a prohibition. Rabina raised this question, What is the law if a priest ate of the sacrificial portions of an offering? As regards the prohibition concerning non-priestsᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲ
2I have no doubt at all; I ask the question only as regards the precept ‘It shall be wholly burnt’. How is it then? — Said R. Aaron to Rabina, Come and hear: For it was taught: R. Eliezer says, The precept ‘It shall be wholly burnt’, wherever it applies, imports also a prohibition against eating. MISHNAH. THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE PRIESTS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST, AND THE MEAL-OFFERING THAT IS OFFERED WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ARE [WHOLLY] FOR THE ALTAR AND THE PRIESTS HAVE NO SHARE IN THEM; WITH THESE THE ALTAR IS MORE PRIVILEGED THAN THE PRIESTS. THE TWO LOAVES AND THE SHEWBREAD ARE EATEN BY THE PRIESTS AND THE ALTAR HAS NO SHARE IN THEM; WITH THESE THE PRIESTS ARE MORE PRIVILEGED THAN THE ALTAR. GEMARA. Are there no other cases? But what about the burnt-offering? — There is the hide thereof which belongs to the priests. And what about the burnt-offering of a bird?-There are the crop and the feathers thereof. And what about the drink-offerings? — They flow down into the pits. What then does WITH THESE’ [signify]? [It is] to exclude Samuel's ruling. For Samuel stated: If a man makes a freewill-offering of wine, he must bring it and it is poured on the altar fire; [our Mishnah] therefore teaches us that it is poured into the pits. [Our Mishnah], however, supports [the other ruling of] Samuel, for Samuel stated, If a man makes a freewill-offering of oil, the handful must be taken from it [and burnt upon the altar], and the remainder is eaten by the priests. THE TWO LOAVES AND THE SHEWBREAD. Are there no other cases? But what about the sin-offering of a bird?-There is the blood thereof [which was sprinkled upon the side of the altar]. And what about the log of oil of the leper?-There are the sprinklings. What does ‘WITH THESE’ [signify]? [It is] to exclude the view of him who says that the Two Loaves, if brought alone, must be burnt; our [Mishnah] therefore teaches us that with these the priests are always privileged. MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS THAT ARE PREPARED IN A VESSEL REQUIRE THREE APPLICATIONS OF OIL BEFORE THEY ARE MADE READY, VIZ., POURING, MINGLING AND PUTTING IN. THE [BAKED] CAKES WERE MINGLED [WITH OIL]. SO RABBI. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE FINE FLOUR [WAS MINGLED WITH OIL]. THE CAKES REQUIRED MINGLING AND THE WAFERS ANOINTING. HOW WERE THEY ANOINTED? IN THE FORM OF CHI. AND THE RESIDUE OF THE OIL WAS CONSUMED BY THE PRIESTS. GEMARA. What does it exclude? — Said R. Papa, It excludes the meal-offering baked [in the oven]. Our Rabbis taught: And if thy offering be a meal-offering prepared in the pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil: this signifies that it requires the putting in of oil in the vessel [at the outset]. [The expressions] ‘thy offering’ [used here and] ‘thy offering’ [used there] establish an analogy:ᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲ