Menachot 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

It is stated explicitly concerning them

in the Torah that they may be eaten only by male kohanim.

If

the verse came to teach about

the communal peace-offerings

[the peace-offerings of Shavuot, which are communal offerings], that they may be eaten only by male kohanim, unlike other peace-offerings, which are eaten by their owners, this too seemingly cannot be said, for:

It is derived from the multiplicity of the verses

[it is learned from the superfluity of the verses], as it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: This shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire; all their offerings, for all their meal-offerings, and for all their sin-offerings, and for all their guilt-offerings that they shall restore to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons

; in the most holy place you shall eat it; every male shall eat it

; it shall be holy for you.” The verse did not need to teach concerning all these offerings that a male kohen eats them, since this is already explicit in their respective passages. Rather, the extra wording of the verse came and

taught about the communal peace-offerings

—which are called “holy things,” as it is stated concerning them: “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the kohen.” \-

”. -

That

even they

may be eaten only by male kohanim—

If so, what is to be learned from “meal-offering,” that it may be eaten only by male kohanim!?

And we answer: In fact, “meal-offering” came to teach about the communal peace-offerings, that they may be eaten only by male kohanim. And as for your difficulty: It is already derived from “in the most holy place you shall eat it; every male shall eat it”—

It is a dispute between tannaim

who disagreed about from where it is derived:

There is

a tanna

who derives it from here

from “in the most holy place.”

And there is

a tanna—namely, Rabbi Eliezer—who

derives it from here,

from “meal-offering.”

Shmuel adds, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, an explanation of the verse:

“Sin-offering”

comes to teach:

Just as a sin-offering sanctifies through absorption,

for example, if the meat of a peace-offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, absorbed meat of a sin-offering, which is eaten for only one day and one night, the peace-offering meat assumes the status of sin-offering meat and may be eaten for only one day and one night—

So too, all

sacrifices

sanctify through absorption. “

Guilt-offering”

comes to teach:

Just as, in the case of a guilt-offering, neither a fetus nor a placenta

that is found inside it

is sanctified with it,

since a guilt-offering is always male—

So too, in all

sacrifices,

a fetus and a placenta are not sanctified with it—

For

Rabbi Eliezer holds

that

the offspring of sacrificial animals are sanctified at their emergence

[at their birth]

and are sanctified then,

but not while they are in their mother’s womb.

And

Rabbi Eliezer held further:

The other sacrifices, in which

it is

possible

for a fetus and placenta to be present, are inferred

from

a guilt-offering, in which

it is impossible

for a fetus and placenta to be present, since it comes only from a male. “

Inauguration-offerings”

comes to teach:

Just as the leftovers of the inauguration-offerings

[what remained of the meat] were

burned, as the verse states: “If any of the meat of the inauguration-offerings remains, you shall burn the remainder in fire

”;

and their living surpluses

—for example, one who set aside two sacrifices for possible liability, and one remained, or the offspring of sacrifices—are not

burned,

since we find in the inauguration-offerings only that the remaining meat was burned.

So too, all

sacrifices:

their surpluses are burned,

but their living surpluses are not burned.

Rabbi Eliezer adds and explains the verse: The word

Rabbi Eliezer further explains the verse: “

Peace-offerings”

comes to teach:

Just as peace-offerings render the libations piggul

that accompany them—if one entertained a piggul intention with regard to the sacrifice, its libations likewise become piggul—

and become piggul

the peace-offerings themselves—

So too, all

sacrifices

render other things piggul and become piggul.

The Gemara brings a beraita in which Rabbi Akiva expounds the verse differently; and from his words a source is found for obligatory sacrifices, which may come only from unconsecrated funds:

In a beraita, it was taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva

[In a beraita we learned in the name of Rabbi Akiva]:

It is written,

“This is the law,”

and this is superfluous, in order to teach: “

Meal-offering”

comes to teach:

Just as a meal-offering sanctifies through absorption,

for concerning it too it is stated: “Whatever touches them shall be consecrated”

—so too, all

sacrifices

sanctify through absorption.

And it was necessary to write

the law of sanctification through absorption

with regard to a sin-offering,

concerning which it is stated: “Whatever touches its flesh shall be consecrated

”; and it was necessary to write

also

with regard to a meal-offering:

For had the Merciful One written

the law of sanctification through absorption only

with regard to a meal-offering,

I would have said that this law applies specifically to a meal-offering, because

it is soft and absorbs

[since it is fine flour and is soft, it absorbs]—

But with regard to a sin-offering, I might say that it does not;

therefore the law of sanctification through absorption was also stated with regard to a sin-offering.

And had the Merciful One written

the law of sanctification through absorption only

with regard to a sin-offering,

I would have said that this law applies only to a sin-offering, because

since the meat is thick, the fat penetrates it

[because the meat is thick, the fat enters deeply into it]—

but with regard to a meal-offering, I might say that it does not—

Therefore

it is necessary

for the Torah to write it with regard to both.

Rabbi Akiva further explains the verse: “

Sin-offering”

comes to teach:

Just as a sin-offering may come only from unconsecrated funds

[as the Gemara explains below],

and

it may be offered only

during the day,

and

the one performing its service does so

with his right hand.

So too, every

sacrifice

may come only from unconsecrated funds, and

may be offered only

during the day and with the right hand.

The Gemara explains:

And as for the sin-offering itself—

which may come only from unconsecrated funds—

from where do we know this?

Rav Chisda

explained:

Rav Chisda said:

Because

the verse states

: “And Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin-offering that is his

.” And we learn: “

and we learned: “

That is his”

comes to teach:

From his own funds

he must bring the sin-offering,

and not from communal funds, nor from second-tithe funds

.

The Gemara returns to challenge another teaching derived from the sin-offering: “Just as a sin-offering is offered

during the day”:

Why do we need to learn this for all sacrifices from the sin-offering? After all, the fact that all sacrifices may be offered only during the day is derived

from “

On the day that He commanded

the children of Israel to offer their sacrifices”

;

this verse refers to all sacrifices!?

And we answer: Indeed,

it was stated incidentally

[the beraita included it without need].

We further challenge what is stated in the beraita: “Just as a sin-offering …

and with his right hand”:

But this is derived

from the statement of Rabbah bar bar Chana, for Rabbah bar bar Chana said in the name of Reish Lakish:

Wherever

the expression

“finger”

and “priesthood”

[or where it is mentioned that the kohen performs the service] appears,

it refers only to the right hand. Since priesthood is mentioned with regard to all sacrifices, why do we need to learn this from the sin-offering!? And we answer: Indeed,

it was stated

incidentally.

Rabbi Akiva further explains the verse: “

Guilt-offering”

comes to teach:

From the guilt-offering—

which is eaten—

its bones,

which are unfit for eating,

are permitted

to be used to make utensils.

So too, all

sacrifices—that is, the burnt-offering, which is entirely burned—

their bones

also

are permitted.

The Gemara asks:

The Gemara asks:

And as for Rabbi Akiva—

who derives for all sacrifices that they may come only from unconsecrated funds, from “sin-offering”—if so, what is the purpose of

this

“And you shall sacrifice the Passover-offering

to the Lord your God, from the flock and from the herd,” which was not needed to teach that sacrifices may come only from unconsecrated funds,