Menachot

for this1 is expressly stated of them.2 Neither can it be the peace-offerings of the congregation,3 for this1 is already deduced from the amplification of the following verse: In a most holy place shalt thou eat thereof; every male may eat thereof:4 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 it5 from this [passage] and some from that.)6 ‘Sin-offering’: as the sin-offering renders holy [like itself] whatever has absorbed from it,7 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.8 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;9 and also that it is quite proper to infer the possible from the impossible.)10 ‘Consecration-offering’: as in the case of the consecration-offering the remainder was burnt11 but the living animal that was left over was not burnt,12 so in the case of all other offerings the remainder is to be burnt but the living animal that might be left over13 is not to be burnt. ‘Peace-offerings’: as peace-offerings can make others14 piggul and can also become piggul themselves,15 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,16 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.17 (And whence do we know this18 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;19 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?20 — 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]!21 — This too was stated [above] to no purpose.) ‘Guilt-offering’: as the bones of the guilt-offering are permitted for use,22 so the bones of all other offerings are permitted for use.23 For what purpose does R. Akiba use the verse, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering? 24 which are also described by the expression ‘holy’. cf. Lev. XXIII, 20. peace-offering absorbed aught of the sin-offering, the former must be treated in the same sanctity as the sin-offering; if the sin-offering was invalid the flesh of the peace-offering becomes invalid too; and if the sin-offering was fit the other is to be eaten under the same stringency as the sin-offering, i.e., within a holy place and during one day. was not burnt but was to be treated as the surplus of the offering; and so too with the young of an animal which had been consecrated pregnant. and b. extended to apply to all offerings. holy. brought except from what is unconsecrated. what is unconsecrated; according to R. Akiba, however, this exposition is unnecessary, since he derives from the sin-offering the general rule that all obligatory offerings must be brought only from what is unconsecrated.