Menachot 83a — the Talmud in English

It is explicitly written concerning them

in the Torah that they are eaten only by the male members of the priesthood.

If

the verse came to teach concerning

the communal peace-offerings

[the peace-offerings of Shavuot, which belong to the community,] that they are eaten only by the male members of the priesthood, unlike other peace-offerings, which are eaten by their owners, even so, apparently, it is impossible to say this, for:

It comes from the redundancies of the verses

[it is learned from the redundancy of the verses], as it is stated [Numbers 18:8]: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: This shall be yours, the sacred things of the most holy, 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 return to Me, a most holy thing; it is yours and your sons’

. In the sacred place of the most holy 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 that a male priest eats it, for this is already explained in their respective passages; rather, the redundant wording of the verse came and

taught concerning the communal peace-offerings —

which are called “sacred things,” for it is stated concerning them [Leviticus 23:20]: “They shall be sacred to the Lord, for the priest

”. -

That

they too

are eaten only by the male members of the priesthood -

And if so, what is to be learned from “meal-offering,” that it is eaten only by the male members of the priesthood

!?

And we answer: The “meal-offering” indeed came to teach concerning the communal peace-offerings, that they are eaten only by the male members of the priesthood. And as for what is difficult for you: Behold, it is learned from “In the sacred place of the most holy you shall eat it; every male shall eat it ” - It is a dispute among the tannaim

who disagreed concerning from where it is learned:

There is

a tanna

who derives it from here

from “In the sacred place of the most holy

”. And there is

a tanna, namely Rabbi Eliezer,

who derives it from here,

from “meal-offering.”

Samuel adds, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, to explain the verse: “

Sin-offering”

came to teach:

Just as a sin-offering sanctifies through what is absorbed,

for example, if one swallowed the flesh of a peace-offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, from the flesh of a sin-offering, which is eaten for only one day and one night, the flesh of the peace-offering has the status of a sin-offering, to be eaten for only one day and one night -

So too all

the offerings

sanctify through what is absorbed. “

Guilt-offering”

came to teach:

Just as with a guilt-offering, neither the embryo nor the afterbirth

that are found within it

become sanctified through it,

for a guilt-offering is only a male -

So too all

the offerings

do not have the embryo or the afterbirth sanctified through them -

For

he holds

Rabbi Eliezer:

the offspring of sacred animals are sanctified at their coming into being

[at their birth]

they are sanctified,

and not in their mothers’ wombs.

And

Rabbi Eliezer held further:

We derive

the other offerings, in which

it is possible

for there to be an embryo and an afterbirth,

from

a guilt-offering,

in which it is impossible

for there to be an embryo and an afterbirth, for it comes only from a male. “

Ordination-offerings”

came to teach:

Just as the leftovers of the ordination-offerings

[what remained of the flesh]

are burned,

as the verse says [Exodus 29:34]: “And if any of the flesh of the ordination-offerings remains, you shall burn the remainder in fire

”;

and their leftovers that are living creatures —

are burned,

such as when one set aside two offerings for liability, and one remained, or the offspring of offerings, for we have found in the ordination-offerings only the remaining flesh, which is burned.

So too all

the offerings

have their leftovers burned,

but living creatures that are their leftovers are not burned.

Rabbi Eliezer adds and explains the verse: The word

Rabbi Eliezer adds and explains the verse: “

Peace-offerings”

came to teach:

Just as peace-offerings render the accompanying libations piggul

that come with them — if he conceived a thought of piggul concerning the offering, its libations became piggul —

and become piggul

the peace-offerings themselves -

So too all

the offerings

render [others] 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 offerings that may come only from non-sacred property:

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 it is redundant in order to teach: “

Meal-offering”

came to teach:

Just as a meal-offering sanctifies through what is absorbed,

for concerning it too it is stated [Leviticus 6:11]: “Whatever touches them shall become holy

” -

so too all the offerings

sanctify through what is absorbed.

And it was necessary to write

the sanctification through what is absorbed

in the sin-offering,

concerning which it is stated: “Whatever touches its flesh shall become holy

”;

and it was also necessary to write

in the meal-offering:

For had the Merciful One written

the sanctification through what is absorbed only

in the meal-offering,

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

since it is soft, it absorbs

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

But concerning a sin-offering, I might say: No,

therefore sanctification through what is absorbed was also stated concerning a sin-offering.

And had the Merciful One written

the sanctification through what is absorbed only

in the sin-offering,

I would say that this law applies only to a sin-offering because

the flesh, since it is fatty, is thick

[since the flesh is thick, the fat enters deeply within it] -

but concerning a meal-offering, I might say: No -

Therefore

it is necessary

for the Torah to write it concerning both.

Rabbi Akiva adds and explains the verse: “

Sin-offering”

came to teach:

Just as a sin-offering comes only from non-sacred property

[as he explains and proceeds],

and

it is offered only

during the day,

and

one performs its service

with his right hand.

So too every

offering

comes only from non-sacred property, and

is offered only

during the day and with his right hand.

The Gemara explains:

And the sin-offering itself -

which comes only from non-sacred property -

from where do we know it?

He said

Rabbi

Hisda

because

the verse says

[Leviticus 16:6]: “And Aaron shall bring forward

the sin-offering bull that is his”;

and we learned: “

That is his”

in order to teach:

From his own

he shall bring the sin-offering

and not from the community’s, and not from second-tithe property

.

The Gemara returns to raise an objection concerning what we learned further from sin-offering: “Just as a sin-offering is offered

during the day”:

Why do we need to learn for all offerings from a sin-offering? After all, all offerings that are offered only during the day are derived

from “

on the day that He commanded

the Children of Israel to bring their offerings” [Leviticus 7:38]

it is derived,

for this verse refers to all the offerings!?

And we answer: Indeed,

it was stated incidentally

[the beraita stated this without need].

We further raise an objection concerning what is explained in the beraita: “Just as a sin-offering... and

with his right hand”:

But surely

it is derived from Rabbah bar bar Hannah, for Rabbah bar bar Hannah said in the name of Reish Lakish:

Every place where it is stated

the expression

“finger”

and “priesthood”

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

it refers only to the right hand,

and priesthood is mentioned in all the offerings; why, then, do I need to learn them from a sin-offering!? And we answer: Indeed,

it was stated incidentally.

Rabbi Akiva adds and explains the verse: “

Guilt-offering”

came to teach:

From the guilt-offering -

which is eaten -

its bones,

which are not fit for eating,

are permitted

to make utensils from them;

so too every

[offering], namely a burnt-offering, which is wholly burned,

its bones

also

are permitted.

The Gemara asks:

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Akiva -

who learns concerning all the offerings that they come only from non-sacred property, from “sin-offering” - if so, this

“and this” “

and you shall slaughter the Passover-offering

for the Lord your God, sheep and cattle,” concerning which it was not necessary to teach that the offerings may come only from non-sacred property,