Menachot 147

מנחת חוטא של כהנים כמנחת חוטא של ישראל מה מנחת חוטא של ישראל נקמצת אף מנחת חוטא של כהנים נקמצת

the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest with the sinner's meal-offering brought by an Israelite; thus as from the latter the handful is taken so from the former the handful must be taken. But you might [also say], Just as the handful is taken from the sinner's meal-offering brought by an Israelite the remainder may be eaten, so when the handful is taken from the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest the remainder may be eaten; the text therefore states, 'The priest's as the meal-offering', that is to say, as regards what concerns priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the taking out of the handful.');">¹</span>

אי מה מנחת חוטא של ישראל נקמצת ושיריה נאכלין אף מנחת חוטא של כהנים נקמצת ושיריה נאכלין

it is like the [sinner's] meal-offering [brought by an Israelite], but as regards what concerns the altar-fire it is not like that meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there is this distinction between them, the remainder of an Israelite's obligatory meal-offering is eaten, whereas the remainder of a priest's obligatory meal-offering must be burnt.');">²</span> Accordingly the handful must be offered by itself and the remainder too must be offered by itself.

תלמוד לאמר (ויקרא ה, יג) לכהן כמנחה לכהן כמנחה ולא לאשים כמנחה הא כיצד קומץ קרב בעצמו ושירים קריבין בעצמן

But is the rule that the service thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of the priest's meal-offering.');">³</span> may be performed by [the priest] himself derived from this teaching?

הא שתהא עבודתה כשרה בו מהכא נפקא

Surely it is derived from the following teaching: Whence can we learn that a priest is entitled to come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and on any occasion he desires?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he does not belong to that division of priests on duty at the time in the Temple.');">⁴</span> Because the text states, And come with all the desire of his soul.

מהתם נפקא מנין לכהן שבא ומקריב קרבנותיו בכל עת ובכל שעה שירצה תלמוד לאמר (דברים יח, ו) ובא בכל אות נפשו ושרת

and shall minister!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 6, 7.');">⁵</span> - From this latter teaching I would have said that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule that the priest may sacrifice his own offerings.');">⁶</span>

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי דבר שאין בא על חטא אבל דבר שבא על חטא אימא לא

applied only to such offerings as are not brought on account of sin, but not to such as are brought on account of sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former teaching, based on Lev. V, 13, is therefore necessary to state this rule even with regard to sin-offerings too.');">⁷</span> But is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule that the priest may offer his own sin-offerings.');">⁸</span>

והא נמי מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (במדבר טו, כח) וכפר הכהן על הנפש השוגגת בחטאה בשגגה מלמד שהכהן מתכפר על ידי עצמו

derived from here? Surely we know it from the following: The verse, And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that erreth, when he sinneth through error,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 28.');">⁹</span>

אי מההוא הוה אמינא הני מילי בשוגג אבל במזיד לא קמ"ל

teaches us that the priest can make atonement for himself by his own service! - From this latter teaching I would have said that it applied only to such [offerings as are brought for a sin committed] in error, but not to such [as are brought for a sin committed] wilfully; we are therefore taught [that it applies to the latter too]. ¹⁰ is there any instance of [an offering brought for a sin committed] wilfully? - Yes, for example, wilfully taking a false oath"&gt;.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denying the knowledge of any testimony; v. Lev. V. 1.');">¹¹</span>

במזיד היכי משכחת לה בזדון שבועה

Another [Baraitha] taught: R'Simeon says, From the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest the handful is taken, and the handful is offered by itself and so also the remainder is offered by itself. R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon says, The handful is offered by itself and the remainder is scattered over the ash-heap.

תניא אידך רבי שמעון אומר מנחת חוטא של כהנים נקמצת והקומץ קרב בפני עצמו והשירים קריבין בפני עצמן ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר הקומץ קרב בעצמו והשירים מתפזרין על בית הדשן

R'Hiyya B'Abba said that R'Johanan pondered over this: Which ash-heap is meant? If that which is on top,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ash-heap which was in the middle of the altar.');">¹²</span>

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא הוי בה רבי יוחנן בית הדשן דהיכא אי דלמעלה היינו אבוה אי דלמטה יש לך דבר שקרב למטה

then his view is identical with his father's;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by scattering it on the ash-heap it is equivalent to burning it on the altar, which is the view expressed by his father R. Simeon.');">¹³</span> and if that which is below,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ash-heap on the ground by the side of the altar near the ascent.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר ליה רבי אבא דלמא לאיבוד אחיכו עליה וכי יש לך דבר שקרב לאיבוד

then [it will be asked], Is there anything th is ever offered below? -Perhaps, said R'Abba, [it is different when it is intended] to go to waste. They - thereupon laughed at him, saying, Is there anything whose rite is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that is offered'.');">¹⁵</span>

תני אבוה דרבי אבין (ויקרא ו, טז) כל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל לאכילה הקשתיה ולא לדבר אחר

that it shall go to waste? - R'Abin's father taught as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This teaching supplies the answer to the question raised, for according to the following exposition Scripture impliedly states that the remainder shall go to waste on the ash-heap. Some, however, regard this passage as a separate teaching and in no way connected with the preceding, so that the preceding discussion remains with the difficulty. ih,hcj ,jbn');">¹⁶</span> And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16. This verse follows upon the law concerning the High Priest's daily meal-offering ( , the meal-offering of griddle-cakes) which was wholly burnt.');">¹⁷</span>

מאי קא אמר אמר אביי הכי קא אמר כל מנחת כהן לא תאכל חובתו כליל תהיה נדבתו א"ל רבא סכינא חריפא מפסקא קראי

l have compared it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sinner's meal-offering brought by the priest.');">¹⁸</span> [with the preceding High Priest's meal-offering] only in respect of eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That neither may be eaten.');">¹⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבא כל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה נדבתו לא תאכל חובתו

but in no other respect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as regards the offering there is a distinction: the High Priest's meal-offering must be burnt on the altar whereas the remainder of the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest is to be scattered on the ash-heap.');">²⁰</span> What can it mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This verse expressly says that it shall be wholly burnt, how then can it be suggested that the remainder shall be scattered?');">²¹</span>

ואיפוך אנא מסתברא נדבתו הוה ליה לרבויי שכן תדירה לא חטי בסים ריחיה

- Abaye said, It means this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that the verse states 'shall be wholly burnt' and also 'shall not be eaten' suggests, in order to avoid the redundancy, that it deals with two different kinds of priestly meal-offerings.');">²²</span> 'Every meal-offering of the priest.

אדרבה חובתו הוה ליה לרבויי שכן עשרון חובה הנך נפישן

shall not be eaten': that is his obligatory meal-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the sinner's meal-offering brought by a priest shall, like the High Priest's meal-offering, not be eaten; but, unlike the High Priest's meal-offering, the handful must be taken therefrom and the remainder scattered on the ash-heap.');">²³</span> 'shall be wholly burnt': that is his freewil meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which, as from the High Priest's meal-offering, the handful is not taken out.');">²⁴</span>

ורבנן האי כל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל מאי עבדי ליה

Thereupon Raba said to him, A sharp knife is dissecting the verse!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Abaye's interpretation the verse is broken up and the words are transposed, connecting the last words with the first part of the verse. This is unnatural and arbitrary.');">²⁵</span> Rather, said Raba, it means, 'Every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt': that is his freewill meal-offering; 'it shall be eaten': that is his obligatory meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be observed that in essence Abaye and Raba both say the same thing; the only difference between them is as to the correct interpretation of the opening phrase 'And every meal-offering of the priest'. If this refers to his obligatory meal-offering then it is necessary to transpose the order in the verse, as Abaye does; if to his freewill meal-offering, then the verse is interpreted as it stands, as Raba does. V. Rashba.');">²⁶</span>

מיבעי להו לכדתניא אין לי אלא עליונה בכליל תקטר ותחתונה בלא תאכל

Might I not say the reverse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the obligatory meal-offering shall be wholly burnt without taking the handful therefrom, and that from the freewill meal-offering the handful shall be taken and the remainder scattered on the ash-heap. This objection is against both Abaye and Raba; v. prev. n. Cf. Tosaf. s.v. htn ; also Rashba.');">²⁷</span> - It is more reasonable to include his freewill meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it be like the High Priest's meal-offering in that the handful shall not be taken therefrom.');">²⁸</span>

מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה תלמוד לאמר כליל כליל לגזירה שוה נאמר כאן כליל ונאמר להלן כליל

since [like the High Priest's meal-offering] it is frequent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It can be brought at any time at will, and the High Priest's meal-offering was offered daily, whereas the obligatory meal-offering was brought only on the commission of certain sins.');">²⁹</span> It is not brought on account of sin, and it has a sweet savour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For like the High Priest's meal-offering it was offered mingled with oil, and frankincense was also added, whereas the obligatory meal-offering was dry, without oil and frankincense. Another interpretation: the expression 'a sweet savour' is written in connection with the former but not with the latter.');">³⁰</span>

מה להלן בכליל תקטר אף כאן בכליל תקטר ומה כאן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו אף להלן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו

On the contrary, it is more reasonable to include his obligatory meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 441, n. 12.');">³¹</span> since [like the High Priest's meal-offering] it consists of one tenth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the freewill meal-offering may consist of any number of tenths of an ephah of fine flour, the only restriction being that there shall not be more than sixty tenths in one vessel.');">³²</span>

בעי רבינא כהן שאכל מן האימורין מה הוא לאו דזרות

and is brought as an obligation! - Those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The points of resemblance between the freewill meal-offering and the High Priest's meal-offering.');">³³</span> are more In number. To what purpose do the Rabbis apply the verse And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Rabbis differ from R. Simeon and say that every meal-offering of a priest is to be wholly burnt without the handful being taken therefrom, to them the expression 'it shall not be eaten' is redundant in this verse.');">³⁴</span> They require it for the following teaching: I only know that the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the passage dealing with the High Priest's meal-offering where it stated (Lev. VI, 15) 'It shall be wholly burnt', using the expression khkf ; on the other hand, no express prohibition is stated against eating it.');">³⁵</span> must be wholly burnt, and the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., the verse dealing with the priest's meal-offering (ibid. 16) , where it is expressly stated 'It shall not be eaten'; on the other hand, in this khkf verse Scripture does not expressly say 'It shall be wholly burnt'; it only states 'It shall be whole',');">³⁶</span> shall not be eaten, whence do I know to apply what is stated of the one to the other and vice versa? The text therefore stated the word 'kalil' in each case for the purposes of analogy. I says in the former passage 'kalil' and in the latter also 'kalil', as in the former it means wholly burnt, so In the latter it means wholly burnt. And as in the latter passage the eating thereof is expressly forbidden by a prohibition, so in the former the eating is forbidden by a prohibition. Rabina raised this question, What is the law if a priest ate of the sacrificial portions of an offering? As regards the prohibition concerning non-priests