Menachot 74a — the Talmud in English

to juxtapose ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the sin-offering meal-offering of priests with the sin-offering meal-offering of Israelites,

and to tell you:

Just as the sin-offering meal-offering of Israelites is taken by the handful, so too the sin-offering meal-offering of priests is taken by the handful.

Perhaps [

lest you say],

just as the sin-offering meal-offering of Israelites is taken by the handful, and

also

its remainder is eaten, so too the sin-offering meal-offering of priests is taken by the handful, and

also

its remainder is eaten—

the verse states: “

To the priest, like the meal-offering,”

to teach: specifically

to the priest, like the meal-offering.

For with regard to the priest’s actions with the meal-offering, the Torah indeed equated them, to say that it is taken by the handful by him,

but not to the fire-pieces, like the meal-offering;

for it did not equate them with regard to what goes up upon the fire-pieces. And although in the sin-offering meal-offering of Israelites only the handful goes up, in the sin-offering meal-offering of priests everything goes up upon the fire-pieces.

How is this so?

The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed by itself.

And here the Gemara returns to the words of the first tanna, who learned from here that the priest sacrifices it himself, and objects:

Is

indeed this law—that the priest sacrifices his meal-offering if he wishes—

derived from here,

[from this verse]

? It emerges

but

it emerges from there

[it is learned from another source]!? For it was taught:

From where is it derived that a priest who comes and sacrifices

the

sacrifices

of himself

at any time and at any hour that he wishes, even during a watch that is not his, and he need not give it to the members of the watch?

The verse states [Deuteronomy 18:6]: “And when the Levite

comes from one of your gates, from any place,”

and he comes with all the desire of his soul

to the place that the Lord will choose.

And he shall serve

in the name of the Lord his God, like all his fellow Levites who stand there before the Lord”!?

And we answer:

If [it were learned] from there,

if [it were learned] from “and he comes with all the desire of his soul,”

I would have said

that

this applies only to a matter

[a sacrifice]

that does not come for a sin,

which only its owner, the priest, sacrifices,

but regarding a matter that comes for a sin, I would say not,

that the sinner himself should sacrifice it.

And we object:

But

that a sinful priest sacrifices his sacrifice

also,

and is it

derived from here?

But

it is derived from there;

for it was taught: It is written [Numbers 15:27]: “And if one person should sin unintentionally, and he shall bring” ...

“and the priest shall make atonement for the soul that errs in its sin unintentionally

before the Lord, to make atonement for him.”

It would have been sufficient to say, “and the priest shall make atonement for the soul that errs,” and nevertheless the verse added and said, “in its sin unintentionally,”

teaching

through this

that the priest achieves atonement through himself,

so that even if the soul of the priest sinned, he himself makes atonement for his soul.

Thus we have learned that even sacrifices that come for a sin are sacrificed by the sinner; and why do I need “and it shall be for the priest like the meal-offering”!?

And we answer:

If [it were learned] from that verse,

from “and the priest shall make atonement,”

I would have said

that

this applies only

to a sin that the priest committed

unintentionally,

the priest achieves atonement through himself, because the verse “and the priest shall make atonement” deals with this.

But concerning intentional sin,

of the priest, we still

have not

heard that he achieves atonement through himself—

it teaches us “and it shall be for the priest like the meal-offering,” stated with regard to the sin-offering meal-offering that also comes for an oath concerning testimony, where a witness swore falsely and intentionally that he did not know testimony for his fellow: even if the priest acted intentionally, he achieves atonement through himself.

even if the priest acted intentionally, he obtains atonement through himself.

Another beraita teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: The sinner's offering of the priests—

Another [teaching]: Rabbi Shimon says: The sin-offering meal-offering of priests— is taken by the handful, and the handful is sacrificed separately, and the remainder is sacrificed separately.

Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered upon the ash heap,

and he proceeds to explain it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan examined

[wondered about]

the words of Rabbi Eleazar

:

Which ash heap

[upon which ash heap are they scattered]?

If it is the upper one,

that is, upon the ash accumulated on the altar from the ashes of the sacrifices—meaning that they are burned upon the altar—this cannot be said, because if so

that is

the statement

of his father

[Rabbi Eleazar’s words turn out to be the words of Rabbi Shimon his father], for according to Rabbi Shimon as well they are burned there; and in what does he disagree with him!?

If it is the lower one,

lest you say: They are scattered upon the ash-pile slope outside the three camps; this too cannot be said, for it would be difficult: Is there, indeed,

anything that is sacrificed below!?

Rabbi Abba said to him: Perhaps,

perhaps indeed the remainders are not sacrificed, but they go

to waste

upon the ash-pile slope!?

The members of the academy laughed

at

it

of Rabbi Abba:

Do you indeed have anything that

they would designate initially to be

sacrificed to waste!?

The father of Rabbi Avin taught,

that is, in truth they go to waste, and it is a scriptural decree, as it was taught: It is written [Leviticus 6]: “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons... upon a pan in oil shall it be made. And the anointed priest who succeeds him from among his sons shall make it [this is the griddle meal-offering that the High Priest sacrifices every day]. It shall be entirely burned. And

every meal-offering of a priest shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

And therefore the verse added and said “it shall not be eaten” after it had already said “it shall be entirely burned,” in order to teach:

For eating it was juxtaposed

the sin-offering meal-offering of a priest to the griddle meal-offering, so that it should not be eaten like it,

but not for another matter

to have everything burned.

And we wonder:

What is he saying,

how can you say that it was juxtaposed only for eating, when it is written concerning the priest’s meal-offering itself, “it shall be entirely burned”!?

He said,

explained

Abaye: This is what the verse says

the verse:

Every meal-offering of a priest

its law is divided: “

It shall not be eaten”

the

obligation

meal-offering of a priest, but it shall not be entirely burned like the griddle meal-offering. “

It shall be entirely burned”

the

voluntary

meal-offering of a priest, like the griddle meal-offering. And therefore Abaye began by explaining the end of the verse, since the verse says “and every meal-offering of a priest,” implying that there is no distinction among his meal-offerings; for this Abaye explained that “and every meal-offering of a priest” applies to the end of the verse, and that with regard to eating even his obligation meal-offering is not eaten.

Said

Rava

to him

to Abaye, objecting: Does

a sharp knife cut the verses apart,

do you have a knife in your hand with which to interrupt the verses and explain that what the verse said, “and every meal-offering of a priest,” which implies all the meal-offerings, applies to the end of the verse and not to its middle!?

Rather, Rava said,

there is no concern with what the verse said, “and every meal-offering of a priest,” and the verse is divided according to its plain meaning:

Every meal-offering of a priest: “

It shall be entirely burned”

his voluntary offering; “

it shall not be eaten”

his obligation offering.

And we object both according to Abaye and according to Rava:

But let me reverse it,

lest we reverse it and say: “It shall be entirely burned” refers to his obligation offering; “it shall not be eaten” refers to his voluntary offering!?

And we answer:

It is more reasonable that his voluntary offering should have been included

[to include it] so that it too should be entirely burned like the griddle meal-offering,

since

it resembles it in three respects:

1.

It is regular:

the voluntary meal-offering is as regular as the griddle meal-offering, for the griddle meal-offering comes every day, and his voluntary meal-offering too comes every day if he wishes.

2.

They do not come for sin:

neither of them comes for a sin.

3.

Its fragrance is strong

[its fragrance spreads]: both are mixed with oil and have frankincense upon them. Can you say this of the sin-offering meal-offering, which is dry and without frankincense?

And we object:

On the contrary, his obligation offering should have been included

to be like the griddle meal-offering,

since

it resembles it in two respects:

1. Both of them come only as

one tenth, whereas you can say concerning a voluntary meal-offering that he may bring up to sixty tenths in one vessel, according to his heart’s generosity.

2. Both are sacrifices of

obligation.

And we answer:

These—

the comparisons between the voluntary meal-offering and the griddle meal-offering—

are more numerous,

they are more numerous than the comparisons of the sin-offering meal-offering to the griddle meal-offering.

And

we object to

the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon,

This phrase—“

and do not distinguish between a sin-offering meal-offering and a voluntary meal-offering:

This “ Every meal-offering of a priest shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten,”

what do they do with it,

that is, why did it need to say “it shall not be eaten” after it had already said “it shall be entirely burned”!?

And we answer:

They need it

for the repetition of “it shall not be eaten”

for that which was taught:

It is written concerning the griddle meal-offering, “it shall be entirely burned,” and it is written concerning the priest’s meal-offering, “it shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

I have only

the upper one

with “

it shall be entirely burned,”

meaning that it is entirely burned,

and the lower one

the priest’s meal-offering

with the prohibition of

“

it shall not be eaten.” —

From where is it derived that what is stated concerning this is applied to that,

that the priest’s meal-offering too is entirely burned, and we do not say that only the handful is burned while the remainders are burned outside—

and

from where is it derived to apply

what is stated concerning this to that,

and that one who eats the griddle meal-offering also transgresses a prohibition—

The verse states: “

Entirely burned,” “

entirely burned,”

for a gzera shava: it is stated here,

concerning the priest’s meal-offering,

“entirely burned,”

and it is stated there,

concerning the griddle meal-offering,

“entirely burned”:

Just as there,

the griddle meal-offering,

with “

it shall be entirely burned,”

so too here,

the priest’s meal-offering,

with “

it shall be entirely burned.”

And just as here,

concerning the priest’s meal-offering, the verse came

to impose a prohibition,

“you shall not do,” for its eating, so too there,

concerning the griddle meal-offering,

to impose a prohibition, “you shall not do,” for its eating.

Ravina raised a question: a koen

who ate from the sacrificial portions

whose law is that they are to be burned upon the altar

what is the law

that he transgresses concerning them the prohibition of “You shall not eat,” as he explains and proceeds?