Sotah 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

.

And he brings it up

and burns it in a service vessel:

And we raise an objection:

And

But is it possible that

“he burns it”

now

enters your mind

to say this!?

Is he now burning the handful? But first he must salt it, and only later in the beraita is the burning mentioned, as we learned: “He salts it and places it upon the fires

]? Rather, say: He brings it up

to the altar

in a service vessel—

in order

to burn it.

.

And he salts it and places it upon the fires:

As it is written:

“And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt.”

.

Once the handful has been offered

upon the altar—

its remainder

of the meal-offering

is eaten

by the priests:

And the Gemara explains:

From where do we know

that after the handful is offered, its remainder is eaten by the priests? Because

it is written:

“When a person offers a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be fine flour; he shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense upon it. He shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and he shall take from it his handful, from its fine flour and its oil, together with all its frankincense

and the priest shall burn its memorial portion [

the handful, on the altar, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord

]. And it is written [

there]:

“And what remains of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons.”

And the Gemara explains that what they said in the beraita,

“once the handful has been offered”—

meaning that after it is offered, the remainder is permitted to be eaten—is interpreted:

According to one master—

Rabbi Ḥanina—

in accordance with his view [

according to his method].

And according to the other master—

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

in accordance with his view.

For it was stated: The handful—

from when

it

permits

the

remainder to be eaten?

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Once [

in the handful]

the fire [

the altar fire has gained any degree of control over it].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Once the fire has ignited most of it

of the handful.

.

And the priests are permitted to place into it

the remainder

wine, oil, and honey:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

For

the verse states in the section of priestly gifts [Numbers 18]:

“All the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel I have given to you

for distinction,”

and this implies:

for distinction [

as Onkelos translated, “for greatness”; teaching that they are to eat them

in the manner in which kings

anointed with anointing oil

eat.

.

And the priests are prohibited

the priests

only from leavening

the remainder. And we explain the reason: because

it is written:

“And this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, before the altar. He shall lift from it, with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil, and all the frankincense that is upon the meal-offering; and the altar shall burn its memorial portion as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And what remains of it, Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten unleavened in a sacred place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it

“It shall not be baked leavened; it is their portion

I have given it from My fire-offerings; it is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering

.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Read in it, “It shall not be baked leavened—it is their portion,” teaching:

even their portion

of the priests

shall not be baked leavened.

We learned in the Mishna:

All meal-offerings

require oil and frankincense, whereas this one requires neither oil nor frankincense:

And we raise an objection:

And

Does

every

other

meal-offering require oil and frankincense!?

But there is

the meal-offering of a sinner [

a meal-offering brought on account of a sin],

as the Merciful One said:

“He shall not place oil upon it and shall not put frankincense upon it”!

Here is another meal-offering that likewise requires neither oil nor frankincense!? And we answer: The three distinctions taught in our Mishna do not each stand independently. Rather,

this is what it says:

All meal-offerings require oil and frankincense.

and

and even when they do not require oil and frankincense,

they come

at least

from wheat, and they come

also

as fine flour—

The meal-offering of a sinner, although it does not require oil and frankincense,

it nevertheless

comes from wheat and comes as fine flour—

and

the Omer meal-offering, although it comes from barley,

nevertheless

requires

it

oil and frankincense, and comes as groats [

similar to fine flour]—

whereas

whereas

this one [

the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery]

requires neither oil nor frankincense, comes from barley, and comes as ordinary flour.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said:

By law, the meal-offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense,

in order

that the sinner should not benefit,

by having his meal-offering made less costly than other meal-offerings, for which one incurs expenses to bring oil and frankincense with them!

And for what reason does it not require

oil and frankincense? In order

that the offering of the sinner

of the sinner

should not be enhanced.

And

And Rabbi Shimon further said:

By law, the sin-offering for an inadvertent transgression [

a sin-offering brought for an inadvertent sin]

should require libations,

in order

that the sinner should not benefit,

by having his offering made less costly than other offerings, for which one incurs expenses to bring libations with them.

And for what reason does it not require

the sin-offering for an inadvertent transgression to bring libations with it? — In order

that the offering of the sinner

of the sinner

should not be enhanced.

But the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper [

which likewise do not generally require libations]

do require libations, because they do not come for a sin!

And we challenge Rabbi Shimon’s statement that the leper’s sin-offering does not come for a sin:

Is that so!?

But Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

Afflictions come on account of seven things:

a. slander; b. bloodshed; c. a vain oath; d. forbidden sexual relations; e. arrogance; f. robbery; g. stinginess.

Thus, the leper is a sinner

! And we answer:

There,

with regard to the leper,

his affliction itself atones for him [

his sin has already been atoned for through the suffering and humiliation he undergoes, and he does not bring the offering to atone for his sin, since his sin has already been atoned for.

And

And when he brings an offering [

when he brings an offering, it is in order to become completely pure],

he brings it in order to become permitted to partake of sacred offerings [

he brings an offering in order to be permitted to partake of sacred offerings, for all those lacking atonement are prohibited from eating sacred offerings until they bring their atonement-offering, since their purification is completed only through bringing the offering].

And we challenge:

But if that is so,

since a sin-offering does not require libations because it comes for a sin, the following difficulty arises:

“The nazirite’s sin-offering”—

which he brings upon completing his period of naziriteship—

should require libations, since it does not come for a sin!?

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Shimon

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who said: A nazirite is also a sinner,

because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamliel says: Just as

her actions are those of an animal, so her offering is the food of an animal:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages:

Scholars! Leave me be, and I will expound it as a precious ornament: