Menachot

the 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 priest1 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.2 Accordingly the handful must be offered by itself and the remainder too must be offered by itself. But is the rule that the service thereof3 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?4 Because the text states, And come with all the desire of his soul... and shall minister! 5 — From this latter teaching I would have said that it6 applied only to such offerings as are not brought on account of sin, but not to such as are brought on account of sin.7 But is this8 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,9 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]. (And10 is there any instance of [an offering brought for a sin committed] wilfully? — Yes, for example, wilfully taking a false oath.)11 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,12 then his view is identical with his father's;13 and if that which is below,14 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 is15 that it shall go to waste? — R. Abin's father taught as follows:16 And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten:17 l have compared it18 [with the preceding High Priest's meal-offering] only in respect of eating19 but in no other respect.20 What can it mean?21 — Abaye said, It means this:22 ‘Every meal-offering of the priest...shall not be eaten’: that is his obligatory meal-offering;23 ‘shall be wholly burnt’: that is his freewill meal-offering.24 Thereupon Raba said to him, A sharp knife is dissecting the verse!25 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.26 Might I not say the reverse?27 — It is more reasonable to include his freewill meal-offering,28 since [like the High Priest's meal-offering] it is frequent,29 It is not brought on account of sin, and it has a sweet savour.30 On the contrary, it is more reasonable to include his obligatory meal-offering,31 since [like the High Priest's meal-offering] it consists of one tenth32 and is brought as an obligation! — Those33 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?34 They require it for the following teaching: I only know that the former35 must be wholly burnt, and the latter36 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-priests the remainder of a priest's obligatory meal-offering must be burnt. too. deletes it here. father R. Simeon. impliedly states that the remainder shall go to waste on the ash-heap. Some, however, regard this passage as a separate teaching and in no way connected with the preceding, so that the preceding discussion remains with the difficulty. the meal-offering of griddle-cakes) which was wholly burnt. the remainder of the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest is to be scattered on the ash-heap. scattered? redundancy, that it deals with two different kinds of priestly meal-offerings. unlike the High Priest's meal-offering, the handful must be taken therefrom and the remainder scattered on the ash-heap. with the first part of the verse. This is unnatural and arbitrary. to the correct interpretation of the opening phrase ‘And every meal-offering of the priest’. If this refers to his obligatory meal-offering then it is necessary to transpose the order in the verse, as Abaye does; if to his freewill meal-offering, then the verse is interpreted as it stands, as Raba does. V. Rashba. freewill meal-offering the handful shall be taken and the remainder scattered on the ash-heap. This objection is against both Abaye and Raba; v. prev. n. Cf. Tosaf. s.v. htn; also Rashba. meal-offering was brought only on the commission of certain sins. the obligatory meal-offering was dry, without oil and frankincense. Another interpretation: the expression ‘a sweet savour’ is written in connection with the former but not with the latter. restriction being that there shall not be more than sixty tenths in one vessel. the handful being taken therefrom, to them the expression ‘it shall not be eaten’ is redundant in this verse. using the expression khkf; on the other hand, no express prohibition is stated against eating it. the other hand, in this verse Scripture does not expressly say ‘It shall be wholly burnt’; it only states ‘It shall be whole’,khkf