Menachot 73a — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “

And every meal offering that is baked in the oven

and everything made in a pan and on a griddle shall belong to the koen who offers it; it shall belong to him. And every meal offering mixed with oil or dry,

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, each like his brother,”

and the meaning is: all of them shall eat from it, and they shall not divide menachot against sacrifices.

Could it be that they do not divide meal-offerings against sacrifices

[animals] slaughtered with a knife, because

they did not stand in their place in poverty

[a meal-offering does not stand in place of the sacrifice when the one bringing it is poor], for the poor person brings a bird-offering in place of the sacrifice, and in extreme poverty he brings a meal-offering in place of the bird sin-offering,

but they do divide

the priests

meal-offerings against birds, for they did stand in their place in

extreme

poverty?

Therefore

the verse says: “

And every [meal-offering] made in a pan...

shall be for all the sons of Aaron

each like his brother.” The Torah did not need to specify the meal-offering made in a pan; it would have sufficed for it to say, “And every meal-offering shall be for all the sons of Aaron, each like his brother.” Thus, it is a superfluous verse, to include that they do not divide meal-offerings against birds.

Could it be that they do not divide meal-offerings against birds,

even though they do stand in their place in extreme poverty, because

these are kinds of blood, and those are kinds of flour?

But

they do divide birds against sacrifices,

which stand in their place in poverty,

for these and those are kinds of blood—

Therefore

the verse says: “

And

on a pan...

shall be for all the sons of Aaron

each like his brother.” This too is a superfluous verse; and if it does not concern meal-offerings against sacrifices, because they are not of the same kind—for these are kinds of blood and those are kinds of flour—apply it to sacrifices and birds.

Could it be that they do not divide birds against sacrifices,

because

these—

the pinching of birds—

are performed by hand

[with the fingernail],

whereas these—

the slaughter of sacrifices—

are performed with an implement

[with a knife];

but they do divide meal-offerings against meal-offerings, for these and those are performed by hand

[the taking of the handfuls of the meal-offerings is performed with the fingers of the hand]—

Therefore

the verse says: “

And every meal-offering mixed with oil shall be for all the sons of Aaron

each like his brother.” The mention of “mixed with oil” is superfluous, to teach that they do not divide meal-offerings against meal-offerings.

Could it be that they do not divide

the

pan

meal-offering against

the

meal-offering of

the deep pan, and

the

deep-pan

meal-offering against

this—

the meal-offering made in a pan, which is broad—

its preparation is hard; and this—

the meal-offering of the deep pan—

its preparation is soft

[the meal-offering made in the deep pan, which is a deep vessel, is soft];

but they do divide

the

pan

meal-offering brought by Reuven

against

the

pan

meal-offering brought by Shimon,

and

the

deep-pan against

the

deep-pan

meal-offering, for this and that have hard preparation, or this and that have soft preparation—

Therefore

the verse says: “

And its dry part shall be for all the sons of Aaron

each like his brother.” “And its dry part” is a superfluous expression, to teach that they do not divide one meal-offering against another meal-offering, even when they are of the same kind. And the same law applies: the priests divide every sacrifice, but they do not divide one sacrifice against another, even if both this and that are sin-offerings or peace-offerings.

Could it be that they do not divide

one sacrifice against another

in most holy offerings,

like a meal-offering,

but they do divide

one sacrifice against another

in lesser holiness offerings?

He therefore explained that the essential teaching is that one person cannot compel his fellow to divide a minha against an animal offering. Without the verse, one might have thought that one person could compel his fellow to do so, under the principle of the law of Sodom, since no individual portion of the minha contains enough to eat. Similarly, in the case of partners, when an item is not large enough to be divided, one partner can compel the other under the law of “Take or I will take”—gud o agud. The verse teaches us that the law is that they must divide each minha separately. This is what Rashi wrote [see the commentary attributed to Rashi, s.v. “against animal offerings”]: “So that a kohen should not say to his fellow, ‘You take the animal offerings and I will take the menahot”—that is, when the other person objects. But if the entire priestly family agrees to divide a minha against another minha or against an animal offering, perhaps they are permitted to do so; this requires further examination for practical law. See also what his son-in-law noted there in a gloss. And Rashi in Kiddushin 53a explained the statement, “One might think that they may not divide among the most sacred offerings, but they may divide among offerings of lesser sanctity,” as follows: One might think that they may not divide one offering against another among the most sacred offerings, like a minha, but they may divide one offering against another among offerings of lesser sanctity, since they possess a share in them and can sell a portion of one offering in exchange for a portion of another; it is thus clear that the issue concerns agreement, and not coercion. In Hazon Ish [in Even HaEzer, section 148, in his novellae to Kiddushin there], he asked: It requires examination, for according to everyone there is a law of division with regard to offerings, in that each person acquires his portion for the mitzva of eating. If so, from where do we know that he cannot sell his portion? Perhaps the beraita means as follows: “One might think that they may not divide menahot against animal offerings”—that is, one person says, “Let us divide the minha separately and the animal offerings separately,” while the other says, “Let us divide the menahot against the animal offerings.” The law follows the one who says that each offering should be divided separately [that is: perhaps we should understand it as Sefat Emet did, that this is only a law that one cannot compel another]! He answered that it is obvious that giving one offering in exchange for another is not an equal division. Rather, it must necessarily be speaking of a division agreed to by everyone; nevertheless, this is not considered a division, and each person does not acquire his portion. The person who ate the minha may demand his portion of the animal offering, for he did not forfeit his share in the animal offering, since one cannot transfer his share to others. And if it were indeed possible to sell it for money, all the more so it would be possible to sell menahot in exchange for animal offerings. And he asked: If he possesses only the right of the mitzva, why is a verse needed to teach that they do not divide an animal offering against a minha? Since they cannot compel one another to divide an animal offering against a minha, even if they wish to do so it should not constitute a division, since he does not own it in a manner that would allow him to transfer it! And he answered: One might have thought that if they agree, this would constitute a fundamental division, and each person would acquire his portion for the mitzva of eating; see further in the lectures of Rabbi Shmuel on Kiddushin, where he cites the words of Tosafot of Rabbi Asher there and discusses the matter; see also Eilat HaShahar on Kiddushin there; and see further in Keren Ora on our passage; and see further in Hazon Ish, Bava Kamma, section 20, subsection 21.

Therefore

the verse says: “And every meal-offering mixed with oil and its dry part shall be for all the sons of Aaron

each

man

like his brother...

And if it is a thanksgiving-offering,”

which is a lesser holiness offering; and the juxtaposition comes to teach:

Just as they do not divide

one sacrifice against another

in

a meal-offering that is

most holy

offerings,

so they do not divide

one sacrifice against another

in

a thanksgiving-offering that is

lesser holiness offerings.

And therefore it says: “

each man

like his brother,” in order to teach:

A man,

a priest,

divides

in sacrifices,

even

a priest

with a blemish

who is not fit for the service—

But the minor,

who is not a man,

does not divide

in sacrifices,

even

if he is

unblemished.

Thus, every part of the verse is expounded for another matter. If so, from where do we know that the remnants of the omer meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy are eaten by the priests!?

And we answer:

That—

from which we derive in the beraita the law of division from this verse—

comes from the extra word

“

all,”

it emerges; for it could have said, “A meal-offering mixed with oil and its dry part.” Whereas Hezekiah derived from the essential wording of the verse that the remnants of the omer meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy are eaten by the priests.

And we challenge this:

But you have already used it—

“all” [for “all” is needed to teach

according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

above, 63b, that a baked-in-the-oven meal-offering consists either entirely of loaves or entirely of wafers]!?

Rather,

that—

which we derive in the beraita concerning division—

comes from “

and all” [from the extra vav], while “all” itself is for the teaching of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Ravina

disputed Hezekiah concerning the source of the law that the remnants of the omer meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy belong to the priests, and

said:

It is derived

that the remnants of these meal-offerings

from what Levi taught

[from a beraita that Levi taught];

for Levi taught:

for Levi taught:

It is written in the section of the priestly gifts [Numbers 18:9]: “This shall be yours from the most holy offerings, from the fire:

all their offerings for every meal-offering

and for every sin-offering

and for every guilt-offering

that they shall return to Me; it is most holy for you and for your sons.” And the beraita expounds: “

All

“All”

their offerings”—to include the log of oil of the leper

who became pure. From that log the priest pours into his palm, sprinkles before the Lord, and places upon the leper, while the remainder of the log is eaten by the priests—

And therefore the verse needed to include the log of oil of the leper, because

it might enter your mind to say:

its remnants should not be eaten by the priests, because

“

from the fire”

the Merciful One wrote, and it means what remains from the fire, whereas nothing of the log of oil of the leper remains from the fire, for none of it goes upon the fire; rather, some of it is placed upon the leper—

This teaches us: “all” includes the log of oil of the leper. “

For every”

meal-offering”—to include the omer meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy,

whose remnants are eaten by the priests—

And therefore the verse needed to include them, because

it might enter your mind to say: “

And they shall eat those things with which atonement

was made,”

the Merciful One said

[Exodus 29:33] concerning the eating of the priests; that is, the priests eat and the owners achieve atonement—

And

if

this—

the omer meal-offering—

comes to permit

the new produce for Israel,

and the other—

the meal-offering of jealousy—also

comes to clarify

the woman’s sin,

comes, I would have thought that their remnants would not be eaten by the priests, because I cannot apply to them “and they shall eat those things with which atonement was made.”

This teaches us. “

For every”

sin-offering”—to include the bird sin-offering,

which is eaten by the priests; and therefore the verse needed to include the bird sin-offering, because

it might enter your mind to say: the

bird sin-offering

is an unslaughtered carcass, for it was not slaughtered but pinched with the fingernail, and eating it should be prohibited to the priests—

since it was not slaughtered but rather its nape was pinched with a fingernail, and therefore its consumption should be forbidden to the kohanim—

This teaches us: “

for every”

guilt-offering”—to include the guilt-offering of a

contaminated Nazirite

and the guilt-offering of a leper

who became pure, which are eaten by the priests.

And we challenge: Was it necessary for the verse to include the guilt-offering of a leper, that it should belong to the priest? After all,

the guilt-offering of a leper is explicitly written in it

[Leviticus 14]: “And the priest shall take one lamb and offer it as a guilt-offering. And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he slaughters the sin-offering and the burnt-offering [on the northern side of the altar],

for like the sin-offering, the guilt-offering is for the priest;

it is most holy”—so it is “for the priest”!?

Rather,

say this:

to include the guilt-offering of a contaminated Nazirite

to be eaten by the priests

like the guilt-offering of a leper;

and the verse needed to include it, because:

It might enter your mind to say: the guilt-offering of a contaminated Nazirite

is

comes to qualify

the Nazirite

comes

[to qualify him so that pure Nazirite status can take effect upon him], and it does not come for atonement, so “and they shall eat those things with which atonement was made” does not apply to it—

This teaches us. “

Which they shall return”—

this is the robbery of a convert

who died and has no heirs [for a convert who converted is considered like a newborn], and when the robber returns the robbery to the priests, he gives it to them.

It is yours and for your sons",

to teach:

it is yours -

the robbery of the convert -

and for your sons

that they be like unconsecrated property in which there is no sanctity whatsoever, for monetarily it belongs to the owners, and

even to betroth a woman with it.