Menachot 73b — the Talmud in English

Rav Huna said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

The peace-offerings of gentiles are burnt-offerings,

that is, when a gentile vowed an animal as a peace-offering or a meal-offering, what he brought does not have the law of a peace-offering, which is eaten by the priests; rather, they are burnt-offerings and are not eaten by the priests. And likewise, his meal-offering is entirely burnt, and its remainder is not eaten by the priests; and the reason for this is:

Alternatively, say: a verse [the matter may be learned from the verse],

and

alternatively, say

from

reasoning

it may be learned, as he proceeds to explain.

Alternatively, say: reasoning:

because

the gentile’s heart is toward Heaven,

his intention is that his offerings be entirely for Heaven, and not that they be eaten.

Alternatively, say: a verse:

because it is stated: “Any man”—[“man” is repeated in order to include gentiles, who vow vows and voluntary offerings like Israelites]—“who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their voluntary offerings

which they shall bring to the Lord'

as a burnt-offering”,

the verse teaches:

everything that they bring

the gentiles

shall be a burnt-offering [everything that the gentiles bring shall be a burnt-offering].

everything that gentiles offer shall be a burnt-offering].

Rav Hama bar Gurya raised an objection

to Rav Huna’s words from what was taught in a beraita:

A gentile who voluntarily undertook to bring a peace-offering:

If

he gave them to an Israelite

for him to eat them, then

the Israelite eats them,

and if

he gave them to a priest

for him to eat them, then

the priest eats them.

We have thus learned that a gentile voluntarily brings peace-offerings and they are eaten, contrary to Rav Huna’s words

!? He said

he answered,

Rava: this is what the beraita says:

the beraita says: If the gentile voluntarily brought the peace-offering

with the intention that an Israelite achieve atonement through it,

for the gentile said, “This is a peace-offering,” in order to offer it in the name of a certain Israelite who vowed to bring a peace-offering, then the

Israelite eats them,

for they came for the Israelite, and the gentile gave them to him as a gift; and if he voluntarily brought them

with the intention that a priest achieve atonement through them,

then the

priest eats them.

But if he voluntarily brought them with the intention that he himself achieve atonement through them, then the offering is entirely burnt.

Rav Shizbi raised an objection

to Rav Huna from our Mishna:

These are the meal-offerings from which the handful is removed, and their remainder is for the priests.

The meal-offering of gentiles.

It follows that his meal-offering is like the other voluntary meal-offering, which is eaten by the priests and is not entirely burnt

!? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult:

!?

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not difficult: For

this

our Mishna

is Rabbi Yosei the Galilean’s

it is, for he holds: A gentile brings peace-offerings and they are eaten, and likewise his meal-offering is eaten.

That

Rav Huna’s words are according to

Rabbi Akiva,

who holds: A gentile does not voluntarily bring a peace-offering.

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Leviticus 22:18]: “Any man who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their voluntary offerings, which they shall bring to the Lord as a burnt-offering”; and the beraita explains:

It would have sufficed for Scripture to write

“man,”

and

what does

“any man”

teach? To include gentiles who vow vows

and voluntary offerings like Israelites.

The beraita further explains: It is stated

The beraita further explains: It is stated

“which they shall bring to the Lord'

as a burnt-offering,”

I have only

that gentiles vow

a burnt-offering,

but

from where

do we know that they vow peace-offerings?

The verse says

“their vows,”

which is superfluous in order to teach this.

From where

do we know that they vow a thanksgiving-offering?

The verse says

“their voluntary offerings,”

which is superfluous in order to teach this.

From where is it derived to include

also

birds [a bird burnt-offering]

wine [wine libations]

and

frankincense and wood:

The verse says

“their vows,”

“for all their vows,”

“their voluntary offerings,”

“for all their voluntary offerings,”

that is, it would have sufficed for Scripture to say only “their vows” and “their voluntary offerings”; therefore Scripture added “all,” in order to include these as well.

If so, what does

“a burnt-offering”

teach?

“A burnt-offering”—to exclude naziriteship,

that is, the offering of a nazirite; since naziriteship does not take effect upon him, as explained below, he consequently does not bring a nazirite offering.

These are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says:

Since Scripture said

“which they shall bring to the Lord'

as a burnt-offering,”

I have only a burnt-offering

that a gentile vows or brings voluntarily.

And if so, our Mishna, in which we taught that a handful is removed from the meal-offering of gentiles and its remainder is eaten, follows Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who includes peace-offerings; and the same applies to meal-offerings, which are eaten. Whereas Rav Huna, who said, “The peace-offerings of gentiles are burnt-offerings,” follows Rabbi Akiva, who holds: Gentiles offer only burnt-offerings. And we raise an objection to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

And this

“to exclude naziriteship”

from here—

from the verse “as a burnt-offering”

is derived?

Is the source of the law that a gentile does not vow naziriteship learned from here!? Surely

it is derived from there:

as it is stated in the section of the nazirite [Numbers 6:2]:

“Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man or a woman who shall distinctly vow a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself,”

and we learn:

The children of Israel vow naziriteship, but gentiles do not vow naziriteship!?

And we answer:

If [we derived it] from there,

if from what is stated “a burnt-offering

I would have said: the offering

of naziriteship

is what he may not bring, but naziriteship takes effect upon them [the offerings that a nazirite brings, a gentile who became a nazirite indeed would not bring, but naziriteship itself would take effect upon him]—therefore

the offerings brought by a nazirite would indeed not be brought by a gentile who became a nazirite, but naziriteship itself would take effect upon him]—therefore

the verse teaches us

the verse in the section of naziriteship that even naziriteship itself does not take effect upon him.

The Gemara asks:

According to whose view does this that we learned

[whose view is this Mishna, which we learned in tractate Shekalim 7:6]:

Rabbi Shimon said: “The court instituted seven matters, and this is one of them:

A gentile who sent his burnt-offering from overseas, and sent with it

the money for

its libations,

the libations

are offered from his [money]

from the money that he sent,

but if not,

if he did not send its libations with it, then the libations

are offered from the community’s [funds]—

Let us say:

shall we say that this Mishna

is [according to] Rabbi Yose the Galilean

is,

and not [according to] Rabbi Akiva,

for Rabbi Akiva said that a gentile offers only a burnt-offering, and included in this is that he does not offer libations?

The Gemara answers:

You may even say [that it is] Rabbi Akiva

it is; and although a gentile offers only a burnt-offering, nevertheless

the burnt-offering and all its appurtenances

[all the appurtenances of the burnt-offering, namely its libations, are included in what the Torah said—that a gentile offers a burnt-offering].

The Gemara asks:

Who is the tanna of this that the Sages taught—

who is the tanna who taught the baraita:

It is stated at the end of the passage of libations [Numbers 15:13]: “Every citizen shall do thus for these, to offer a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord,” and therefore the verse said

“citizen”,

in order to teach:

A citizen

brings libations

whether together with an offering that he vowed or libations by themselves,

but a gentile does not bring libations

without an offering—

One might [have thought]

even

his burnt-offering shall not require libations,

lest you say: even if he vowed an offering, libations do not come with the offering, for the Torah excluded a gentile by [saying] “citizen”—

The verse says

“thus”,

and everywhere that “thus” is stated, it indicates indispensability, to teach that there is no offering without libations; and the verse excluded a gentile only from volunteering libations by themselves—

According to whom

is this baraita, for according to its plain meaning

it is not [according to] Rabbi Yose the Galilean

it is

and it is not [according to] Rabbi Akiva

it is, for:

If [it is according to] Rabbi Yose the Galilean

it is,

he said: even wine

by itself

also

a gentile brings, as we learned in the baraita above: “From where [do we derive] to include birds, wine, frankincense, and wood?” Thus, according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, a gentile volunteers wine libations, whereas in this baraita it is stated that he does not volunteer any libations by themselves—!?

And

if [it is according to] Rabbi Akiva

this baraita is,

he said

Rabbi Akiva

“a burnt-offering, yes; anything else, no”,

a gentile indeed brings a burnt-offering, but he does not bring anything else, even libations with the burnt-offering; whereas in this baraita it is stated that a gentile brings its libations with the burnt-offering, and was excluded only from volunteering libations by themselves—!?

And we answer in two ways: 1.

If you wish, say: [it is according to] Rabbi Yose the Galilean

it is; 2.

and if you wish, say: [it is according to] Rabbi Akiva

it is, as he explains below.

If you wish, say: [it is according to] Rabbi Yose the Galilean

it is, and

remove from that

[remove and delete from the baraita of Rabbi Yose the Galilean]

“wine”,

and teach only: “From where [do we derive] to include birds, frankincense, and wood,” because a gentile does not bring libations by themselves.

And if you wish, say: [it is according to] Rabbi Akiva

it is; and although the verse said “for a burnt-offering,” implying a burnt-offering alone, this is not so, and included in this is

the burnt-offering and all its appurtenances

its appurtenances, including its libations.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The sin-offering meal-offering of kohanim

is subject to taking of the handful, and the handful is offered by itself, and the remainder is offered by itself:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words—

from where did Rabbi Shimon learn to distinguish between the sin-offering meal-offering of kohanim and their voluntary meal-offering, concerning which the Torah said: “And every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten”?

And we explain:

For the Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 5] concerning the sin-offering meal-offering: “And he shall bring it to the kohen, and the kohen shall take from it his full handful, its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar. And the kohen shall atone for him.”

“And it shall belong to the kohen as a meal-offering.”

And what does this teach?—

That its service shall be valid when performed by him,

for if he sinned and became liable to bring a meal-offering, he may offer it himself; and so the verse said: “And it shall belong to the kohen”—his own sin-offering meal-offering—“as a meal-offering,” like his voluntary meal-offering, which he may offer himself.

And the baraita adds:

You say

that the verse came to say

that its service shall be valid when performed by him, or perhaps it is only to permit

the remainder to kohanim in

the sin-offering meal-offering of kohanim

—perhaps the verse came to say that the remainder of the sin-offering meal-offering of kohanim is eaten by kohanim; and so the verse said: “And it shall belong to the kohen”—if the sin-offering meal-offering belongs to a kohen, it shall be “as a meal-offering,” like the other sin-offering meal-offerings, which are eaten—

and how do I understand

“And every meal-offering of a kohen shall be entirely burned

it shall not be eaten”

only in

his voluntary meal-offering, but

the meal-offering of

his obligation

of a kohen

shall be eaten

by kohanim?

The verse says

“And it shall belong to the kohen

and the sin-offering meal-offering of the kohen shall be

“as a meal-offering”

the verse compares

the verse compares the meal-offering of

his obligation

of a kohen

to

the meal-offering of

his voluntary offering: just as his voluntary offering is not eaten, so too his obligation is not eaten.

Rabbi Shimon said: Was it stated

“And it shall belong to the kohen as his meal-offering”,

which would imply as his meal-offering—!?

But did the verse not say

the verse

only

“as a meal-offering”,

which implies that we come to learn from the meal-offering of an Israelite.

Rather,

for this the verse came: “And it shall belong to the kohen as a meal-offering,”