Menachot 146

שלמי העובדי כוכבים עולות איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא סברא עובד כוכבים לבו לשמים

The peace-offerings of gentiles are to be treated as burnt-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No part thereof shall be eaten, but they must be wholly burnt. Likewise their meal-offerings must be wholly burnt.');">¹</span> This I can prove either by simple reasoning or by a verse from Scripture.

ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריבו לה' לעולה כל דמקרבי עולה ליהוי

Either by simple reasoning: because a gentile in his heart [devotes the offering entirely] to Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A gentile ignorant of the distinction between the various types of sacrifices, has but one intention in his mind, namely of offering it entirely to the Lord.');">²</span> Or by a verse from Scripture: Which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18.');">³</span>

מתיב רב חמא בר גוריא עובד כוכבים שהתנדב להביא שלמים נתנן לישראל ישראל אוכלן נתנן לכהן הכהן אוכלן

whatever they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. gentiles. This verse expressly includes the offerings of gentiles, v. infra.');">⁴</span> offer shall be a burnt-offering.

אמר רבא הכי קא אמר על מנת שיתכפר בהן ישראל ישראל אוכלן על מנת שיתכפר בהן כהן כהן אוכלן

R'Hama B'Guria raised an objection: If a gentile made a freewill-offering of peace-offerings and he gave them to an Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably to offer them on his (the gentile's) behalf.');">⁵</span> the Israelite may eat them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are treated as peace-offerings whose flesh is consumed by the owner-in this case the Israelite or priest but not the gentile, for a gentile may not eat consecrated meat-and not as burnt-offerings, contra R. Huna.');">⁶</span>

מתיב רב שיזבי אלו מנחות נקמצות ושיריהן לכהנים מנחת עובדי כוכבים א"ר יוחנן לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא

if he gave them to a priest, the priest may eat them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are treated as peace-offerings whose flesh is consumed by the owner-in this case the Israelite or priest but not the gentile, for a gentile may not eat consecrated meat-and not as burnt-offerings, contra R. Huna.');">⁶</span> - Raba answered, It means this: if [he gave them to an Israelite] that the Israelite shall receive atonement thereby,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the Israelite had undertaken to offer peace-offerings he discharges his obligation with the peace-offerings given him by the gentile; accordingly he may eat the flesh thereof.');">⁷</span>

דתניא (ויקרא כב, ג) איש מה תלמוד לאמר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שנודרין נדרים ונדבות כישראל

the Israelite may eat them; if [he gave them to a priest] that the priest shall receive atonement thereby, the priest may eat them. R'Shisbi raised an objection: FROM THE FOLLOWING MEAL-OFFERINGS THE HANDFUL MUST BE TAKEN, AND THE REMAINDER IS FOR THE PRIESTS.

(ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריבו לה' לעולה אין לי אלא עולה שלמים מנין תלמוד לומר נדריהם תודה מנין תלמוד לומר נדבותם

THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is not wholly burnt; and so it is evidently with his peace-offerings.');">⁸</span> -R'Johanan answered, This is no difficulty; for one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah which allows a gentile to bring meal-offerings and also other offerings.');">⁹</span>

מנין לרבות העופות והיין והלבונה והעצים תלמוד לאמר נדריהם לכל נדריהם נדבותם לכל נדבותם

represents the view of R'Jose the Galilean, the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna who regards all the offerings of gentiles as burnt-offerings.');">¹⁰</span> R'Akiba's view.

אם כן מה תלמוד לאמר עולה עולה פרט לנזירות דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אשר יקריבו לה' לעולה אין לי אלא עולה בלבד

For it was taught: [It would have sufficed had Scripture stated] a man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. The word 'man' is repeated in the verse. The E.VV. render: Whosoever he be.');">¹¹</span> why does it state 'a man, a man'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. The word 'man' is repeated in the verse. The E.VV. render: Whosoever he be.');">¹¹</span>

והאי פרט לנזירות מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (במדבר ו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר נזיר להזיר בני ישראל נודרין ואין העובדי כוכבים נודרים

To include gentiles, that they may bring either votive or freewill-offerings like an Israelite. Which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. The word 'man' is repeated in the verse. The E.VV. render: Whosoever he be.');">¹¹</span>

אי מהתם הוה אמינא קרבן הוא דלא לייתי אבל נזירות חלה עלייהו קמ"ל

I only know [that they may offer] burnt-offerings, but whence [that they may offer] peace-offerings? The text states, Their vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. The word 'man' is repeated in the verse. The E.VV. render: Whosoever he be.');">¹¹</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דתנן אמר ר"ש שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין וזה אחד מהן עובד כוכבים ששלח עולתו ממדינת הים ושילח עמה נסכיה קריבין משלו ואם לאו קריבין משל ציבור

And whence thank-offerings? The text states, Their free will-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. ht');">¹²</span>

לימא ר' יוסי הגלילי ולא רבי עקיבא אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא עולה וכל חבירתה

And whence bird-offerings and meal-offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in all MSS. and also in Tos. s.v. Cur. edd. omit 'meal-offerings'.');">¹³</span> and offerings of wine and frankincense and wood?

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן (במדבר טו, יג) אזרח אזרח מביא נסכים ואין העובד כוכבים מביא נסכים יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים תלמוד לאמר ככה מני לא ר' יוסי הגלילי ולא רבי עקיבא

The text states, Any of their vows,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. ht');">¹²</span> and not merely 'their vows'; so too, Any of their freewill-offerings, and not merely 'their freewill-offerings'.

אי רבי יוסי הגלילי הא אמר אפילו יין נמי אי ר' עקיבא הא אמר עולה אין מידי אחרינא לא

Why then does this text expressly state 'a burnt-offering'? To exclude the Nazirite-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law of the Nazirite does not apply to a gentile (v. infra) he cannot offer the offerings prescribed for the Nazirite.');">¹⁴</span>

איבעית אימא ר' יוסי הגלילי ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא איבעית אימא ר' יוסי הגלילי סמי מההיא יין ואיבעית אימא רבי עקיבא עולה וכל חבירתה:

This is the opinion of R'Jose the Galilean. R'Akiba says, Which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering: thus [they may offer] only burnt-offerings.

רבי שמעון אומר מנחת חוטא של כהנים [וכו']: מנא הני מילי

But is the law that a gentile is excluded from offering a Nazirite-offering derived from this teaching? Surely it is derived from the following teaching:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 61a.');">¹⁵</span>

דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ה, יג) והיתה לכהן כמנחה שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו

Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mum. VI, 2.');">¹⁶</span> hence only the children of Israel can vow the vow of a Nazirite, but gentiles cannot vow the vow of a Nazirite!-From the former teaching I should only have said that they may not offer the Nazirite-offerings, but that the Nazirite vow does apply to them; [the latter passage] therefore teaches us [that it is not so].

אתה אומר שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו או אינו אלא להתיר מנחת חוטא של כהנים ומה אני מקיים (ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל מנחת נדבתו אבל חובתו תהא נאכלת

In accordance with whose view is the following teaching which we have learnt: R'Simeon said, The Beth din ordained seven things and this was one of them: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from a land beyond the sea and he also sent with it the drink-offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money for the drink-offerings.');">¹⁷</span> for it, those [drink-offerings] of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money for the drink-offerings.');">¹⁷</span>

תלמוד לומר והיתה לכהן כמנחה מקיש חובתו לנדבתו מה נדבתו אינה נאכלת אף חובתו אינה נאכלת אמר רבי שמעון וכי נאמר והיתה לכהן כמנחתו והלא לא נאמר אלא כמנחה אלא להקיש

are to be offered; but if he did not, they are to be offered at the expense of the community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. VII, 6. V. supra 51b.');">¹⁸</span> Shall we say that this teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which permits the offering of drink-offerings by a gentile.');">¹⁹</span> agrees with R'Jose the Galilean and not with R'Akiba? -You may even say that it agrees with R'Akiba, for [he meant to say, They may offer] burnt-offerings and everything appertaining thereto.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the drink-offerings which accompany the burnt-offering. In most MSS., in the Aruch, Rashi MS., and Yalkut there is here used a rare trzhct tvrzhct v,rhcj word , (var.) 'appertunances'. Cur. edd. read: .');">²⁰</span> Who is the Tanna of the following Baraitha which the Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 45a; Tem. 3a.');">²¹</span> Home-born:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 13. This verse refers to the drink-offerings that must accompany the sacrifices.');">²²</span> the home-born brings drink-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 45a; Tem. 3a.');">²¹</span> but a gentile may not bring drink-offerings. I might then think that his burnt-offering does not require drink-offerings [to be offered with it]; the text therefore states, After this manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 13. This verse refers to the drink-offerings that must accompany the sacrifices.');">²²</span> Now who is [the Tanna of this Baraitha]? It is neither R'Jose the Galilean nor R'Akiba! It is not Jose the Galilean for he says [that the gentile may offer] even wine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a separate freewill-offering.');">²³</span> [for a drink-offering]; neither is it R Akiba for he says [that he may offer] only a burnt-offering but nothing else! - If you wish,I can say it is R'Jose the Galilean; and if you wish, I can say it is R'Akiba. If you wish, I can say it is R'Jose the Galilean' you must strike out the word 'wine' from that teaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the gentile may bring every offering except the drink-offering of wine.');">²⁴</span> 'And if you 'wish, I can say it is R'Akiba', for [h may offer] burnt-offerings and everything appertaining thereto. R'SIMEON SAYS, FROM THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING BROUGHT BY PRIESTS etc. Whence is it derived? - Our Rabbis taught: And it shall be the priest's as the meal-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 13. The verse refers to the sinner's meal-offering, i.e., the obligatory meal-offering; and the conclusion of the verse, that quoted in the text, according to Rabbinic interpretation, implies that the priest's obligatory meal-offering shall be like 'the meal-offering'. The arguments which follow serve to elucidate the point of the comparison with 'the meal-offering'.');">²⁵</span> that is to say, the service thereof may be performed by [the priest] himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest sinned and is obliged to offer a meal-offering, he may perform the service of his own meal-offering. The verse accordingly means: the priest's obligatory meal-offering shall be as the meal-offering of an Israelite; just as the priest performs the service for the latter so he may perform the service for his own meal-offering.');">²⁶</span> You say it signifies that the service thereof may be performed by [the priest] himself, but perhaps it is not so, but rather it signifies that the [remainder of the] sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest is permitted [to be eaten];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus this verse informs us that the priest's obligatory meal-offering is like the meal-offering of an Israelite which is eaten by the priests after the handful has been taken out.');">²⁷</span> and as for the verse, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16.');">²⁸</span> that refers to his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the priest's.');">²⁹</span> freewill meal-offering, but his obligatory meal-offering may indeed be eaten! The text therefore states, 'And it shall be the priest's as the meal-offering', thereby comparing his obligatory meal-offering with his freewill meal-offering; thus as his freewill meal-offering may not be eaten, so his obligatory meal-offering may not be eaten. But R'Simeon said, Is it written, 'And it shall be the priest's as his meal-offering'? It says, As th meal-offering; thereby comparing