Menachot Daf 73 (מנחות דף ע״ג)
Daf: 73 | Amudim: 73a – 73b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (73a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Verse mandating equal priestly shares of meal offerings — no exchanging for other offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל הַמִּנְחָה אֲשֶׁר תֵּאָפֶה בַּתַּנּוּר לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו״.
English Translation:
The verse states: “And every meal offering that is baked in the oven…shall all the sons of Aaron have, each man like the other” (Leviticus 7:9–10). This verse emphasizes that the sons of Aaron must divide the meal offering equally among themselves, without exchanging it for a portion of any other offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita opens a systematic exposition of Leviticus 7:9-10, which contains multiple seemingly repetitive clauses about priestly shares in meal offerings. The Gemara will show that each clause addresses a different logical step in the prohibition against exchanging shares. The underlying principle is that a priest who receives a portion of one offering type cannot trade it for a portion of a different offering type — each must be distributed equally within its own category. This sets up a carefully structured kal va-chomer argument that narrows the prohibition step by step.
Key Terms:
- אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו = “Each man like the other” — the verse’s mandate for equal distribution of priestly shares
- חוֹלְקִין = Exchanging shares — the prohibited practice of trading one type of offering portion for another
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Cannot exchange meal offering shares for animal offerings — nor even for bird offerings despite poverty substitution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁלֹּא קָמוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בְּדַלּוּת, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי קָמוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בְּדַלּוּת – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל נַעֲשָׂה בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings since they do not substitute for them in the case of poverty. One who is too poor to afford to bring an animal offering, e.g., in the case of a sin offering determined on a sliding scale, does not bring a meal offering in its stead. Since meal offerings are not brought in place of animal offerings, there is clearly no connection between them. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of bird offerings, since they do substitute for them in the case of poverty. If one is so destitute that he cannot afford to bring a bird offering he brings a meal offering. Therefore, the same verse states: “And all that is prepared in the deep pan…shall all the sons of Aaron have,” again emphasizing that all must have an equal share in that meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now advances the argument one step. Having established that meal offerings cannot be exchanged for animal offerings, the Gemara considers whether exchanging for bird offerings might be permitted since there is a halakhic link between them — a destitute person substitutes a meal offering for a bird offering on the sliding-scale sin offering. The verse’s additional clause about the deep pan offering closes this loophole. Each phrase in the verse is being assigned to a successively narrower category of exchange, demonstrating the thoroughness of the prohibition.
Key Terms:
- דַּלּוּת = Poverty — the legal basis for substituting a cheaper offering type on the sliding scale
- עוֹפוֹת = Bird offerings — the intermediate category between animal offerings and meal offerings
- זְבָחִים = Animal offerings — the most expensive category of offerings
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Cannot exchange bird offerings for animal offerings — despite both involving blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי דָמִים וְהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי קְמָחִים, יַחְלְקוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ וְהַלָּלוּ מִינֵי דָמִים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעַל מַחֲבַת לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of bird offerings since these, i.e., bird offerings, are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar, and those, i.e., meal offerings, are types of offerings made of flour. But perhaps they may receive a share of portions of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings, since both categories are types of offerings that involve blood sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the same verse states: “And on a pan…shall all the sons of Aaron have,” a seemingly superfluous phrase, which teaches that one may not receive a share even of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now shifts the analysis from meal offerings to bird offerings, asking whether birds and animals — both involving blood — can be exchanged. The reasoning is that since birds and animals share the common feature of blood application (unlike meal offerings which involve flour), one might assume they are interchangeable. The verse’s clause about the pan offering blocks this as well. The systematic progression reveals the Gemara’s method: each potential basis for allowing exchange — poverty substitution, shared substance type — is considered and rejected.
Key Terms:
- מִינֵי דָמִים = Types involving blood — offerings that include blood sprinkling as a core rite (birds and animals)
- מִינֵי קְמָחִים = Types involving flour — offerings whose core substance is flour rather than blood (meal offerings)
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Cannot exchange different meal offerings for each other — despite both being hand-processed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים, שֶׁהַלָּלוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד, וְהַלָּלוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בִּכְלִי, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן … לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of bird offerings in exchange for portions of animal offerings because with regard to these, i.e., the birds, their processing, i.e., killing, is executed by hand, by pinching the nape of the neck, and with regard to those, i.e., the animals, their processing, i.e., killing, is executed with a utensil, by slaughtering with a knife. But perhaps they may receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for portions of other meal offerings, since the processing of both these and those are carried out by hand. Therefore, the next verse states: “And every meal offering mixed with oil…shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10).
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita circles back to meal offerings, now asking whether two different types of meal offerings can be exchanged for each other. The argument is that since all meal offerings are processed by hand (unlike animal offerings which require a utensil for slaughter), they share enough similarity to be interchangeable. The verse’s phrase about meal offerings mixed with oil refutes this. The distinction between hand-processing and utensil-processing adds another axis of comparison to the Gemara’s analysis of what might unite different offering categories.
Key Terms:
- עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בַּיָּד = Processed by hand — birds are killed by melikah (hand pinching) and meal offerings are handled manually
- עֲשִׂיָּיתָן בִּכְלִי = Processed with a utensil — animal offerings require slaughter with a knife
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Cannot exchange even same-type meal offerings — pan for pan or deep pan for deep pan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ מַחֲבַת כְּנֶגֶד מַרְחֶשֶׁת, וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲבַת, שֶׁזּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ קָשִׁין וְזוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ רַכִּין, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ מַחֲבַת כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲבַת וּמַרְחֶשֶׁת כְּנֶגֶד מַרְחֶשֶׁת – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַחֲרֵבָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of a meal offering prepared on a pan in exchange for portions of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, or portions of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a meal offering prepared on a pan, since the actions with this pan result in a hard product, and the actions with that deep pan result in a soft product. But perhaps they may receive a share of a meal offering prepared on a pan in exchange for the portions of a different meal offering prepared on a pan, or a share of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan in exchange for portions of a different meal offering prepared in a deep pan. Therefore, the same verse states: “Or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10).
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita reaches its narrowest case: even identical types of meal offerings cannot be exchanged. One might think that if a pan offering produces a hard product and a deep-pan offering a soft product, at least two offerings of the same type could be swapped. The phrase “or dry” closes even this possibility. The progression from broad to narrow — animals vs. meal offerings, down to pan vs. pan — demonstrates the absolute nature of the prohibition. Each priest must eat from the specific offering assigned to him, with no trading whatsoever.
Key Terms:
- מַחֲבַת = Pan offering — produces a hard, crispy product
- מַרְחֶשֶׁת = Deep-pan offering — produces a soft product
- קָשִׁין = Hard — the texture of the pan meal offering
- רַכִּין = Soft — the texture of the deep-pan meal offering
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Exchange prohibition extends from kodshei kodashim to kodashim kalim via juxtaposition with thanks offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל לֹא יַחְלְקוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל יַחְלְקוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו״, ״וְאִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ – כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, כָּךְ אֵין חוֹלְקִים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that they may not receive a share of offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., meal offerings, in exchange for a portion of another similar offering, but they may receive a share of offerings of lesser sanctity in exchange for a portion of another similar offering. Therefore, the same verse states with regard to meal offerings: “Shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10), and near it appears the verse: “If he offers it for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12), from which is derived: Just as one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, so too, one may not receive a share of one offering in exchange for a portion of another similar offering in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., a thanks offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the scope of the exchange prohibition by extending it from kodshei kodashim (most sacred offerings like meal offerings and sin offerings) to kodashim kalim (lesser sanctity offerings like the thanks offering and peace offering). The derivation uses the textual proximity of “each like the other” to the passage about the thanks offering in Leviticus 7:12. This juxtaposition (semikhat parashiyot) teaches that the same equal-distribution rule applies across all sanctity levels. The baraita has now exhausted every possible category — the exchange prohibition is universal.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים = Most sacred offerings — offerings eaten only by male priests within the Temple courtyard
- קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = Lesser sanctity offerings — offerings eaten by a wider group, anywhere in Jerusalem
- תּוֹדָה = Thanks offering — a type of peace offering (kodashim kalim) brought in gratitude
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
“Ish” — adult priest shares even if blemished; minor excluded even if unblemished — challenges Hizkiyya
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אִישׁ״ – אִישׁ חוֹלֵק, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם, וְאֵין קָטָן חוֹלֵק, וַאֲפִילּוּ תָּם.
English Translation:
The baraita further expounds this verse: It states: “One as well as another [ish ke’aḥiv],” which teaches that with regard to priests, a man [ish] who is an adult receives a share even if he is blemished, but a priest who is a minor may not receive a share even if he is unblemished. This baraita evidently interprets the verse: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10), as referring to the prohibition against priests exchanging shares of offerings. If so, how does Ḥizkiyya state that this verse is referring to the priests’ eating of the remainder of the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota?
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment raises a critical challenge to Hizkiyya’s earlier derivation. The baraita interprets “ish” (man) in Leviticus 7:10 as teaching about who qualifies to receive priestly shares — adults yes (even blemished), minors no (even unblemished). Since the baraita uses this entire verse for the exchange prohibition, there seems to be no room for Hizkiyya’s use of the same verse to teach that the omer and sotah meal offerings are eaten by priests. The Gemara must now find separate sources for each derivation.
Key Terms:
- בַּעַל מוּם = Blemished priest — a priest with a physical defect who cannot perform Temple service but still receives offering shares
- קָטָן = Minor — a young priest who has not yet reached adulthood and therefore does not share in offerings
- תָּם = Unblemished — physically whole, without a disqualifying defect
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: exchange prohibition from “vekhol” (extra vav); Hizkiyya from the rest of the verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא מִ״כׇּל״ נָפְקָא, וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אֶלָּא, הָהוּא מִ״וְכׇל״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against exchanging priestly shares, that is derived from the term: “Every meal offering.” By contrast, Ḥizkiyya derives his principle with regard to these two meal offerings from the rest of the verse. The Gemara asks: But haven’t you already derived from the word “every” that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, states, that when one vows to offer a meal offering baked in an oven, all the baked items must be of a uniform type, either loaves or wafers (see 63b)? The Gemara answers: Rather, that halakha concerning the exchange of shares of offerings is derived from the addition of the word “and,” in the term: “And every [vekhol] meal offering.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge to Hizkiyya through careful textual parsing. Initially it suggests that “kol” (every) teaches the exchange prohibition while the rest of the verse supports Hizkiyya. But “kol” was already assigned to R. Yosei b. R. Yehuda’s derivation about uniform oven offerings (from 63b). The final resolution relies on the extra vav (conjunction “and”) in “vekhol” — this additional letter provides one more derivation. This is a classic example of how the Gemara maximizes every textual element, even a single conjunctive letter, to support independent halakhic principles.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל = “Every” — the word already used for R. Yosei b. R. Yehuda’s derivation about uniform oven offerings
- וְכׇל = “And every” — the extra vav provides a separate basis for deriving the exchange prohibition
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Ravina: R. Shimon’s source for omer/sotah eating is Levi’s baraita on Numbers 18:9
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: אָתְיָא מִדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: ״לְכׇל קׇרְבָּנָם וּלְכׇל מִנְחָתָם וּלְכׇל חַטָּאתָם וּלְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״.
English Translation:
§ Ravina said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the source for the halakha that the omer offering and the meal offering of a sota are eaten comes from the baraita that Levi teaches, as Levi teaches: The verse states with regard to the priestly gifts: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, reserved from the fire: Every offering of theirs, and every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they may restore to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9). The word “every” in each clause includes a number of additional offerings that are eaten by the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina introduces an entirely new section — a detailed baraita taught by Levi that systematically derives which additional offerings priests may eat from Numbers 18:9. This verse, addressed to Aaron, enumerates priestly gifts using “every” (kol) before each offering category. Levi’s baraita will show that each “every” includes an offering one might have otherwise excluded from priestly consumption. This approach provides an alternative source for the omer and sotah meal offerings being eaten, independent of the Leviticus 7:10 verse debated above.
Key Terms:
- תָנֵי לֵוִי = Taught by Levi — a Tanna known for his independent baraitot
- קׇרְבָּנָם = Their offering — the general term in Numbers 18:9 encompassing all priestly gifts
- מִנְחָתָם = Their meal offering — the specific clause that will include omer and sotah offerings
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
“Every offering” includes the leper’s log of oil — despite not being burned on the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כׇּל קׇרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״מִן הָאֵשׁ״ כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Torah states: “Every offering of theirs,” to include the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, teaching that it is also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes in this verse: “From the fire,” this would exclude this oil, which is not brought onto the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every offering,” to include the leper’s oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first “every” in Levi’s baraita — “every offering of theirs” — includes the log of oil brought by a recovered leper (metzora) as part of his purification process. The potential exclusion comes from the phrase “from the fire” in the same verse, which might suggest only offerings that pass through the altar fire are priestly gifts. Since the leper’s oil is sprinkled and applied but not burned on the altar, it could have been excluded. The word “every” overrides this limitation, teaching that the oil is indeed a priestly gift.
Key Terms:
- לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע = Log of oil of the leper — a specific measure of oil used in the leper’s purification ritual (Leviticus 14)
- מִן הָאֵשׁ = “From the fire” — a phrase in Numbers 18:9 that could limit priestly gifts to offerings burned on the altar
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
“Every meal offering” includes omer and sotah — despite not serving an atonement function
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לְכׇל מִנְחָתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לְהַתִּיר קָא אָתְיָא, וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי לְבָרֵר קָא אָתְיָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The baraita continues expounding the verse: “And every meal offering of theirs,” serving to include the omer meal offering, and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, teaching that they are also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One states: “And they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made” (Exodus 29:33), the verse thereby indicates that the priests may eat only those offerings that help the owner achieve atonement. And this omer comes to permit eating from the new grain (see Leviticus 23:9–14), not to achieve atonement; and concerning the other offering, i.e., the meal offering of a sota, as well, it comes to clarify whether or not the accused woman is guilty of adultery, but not to achieve atonement. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every meal offering,” to teach that these two meal offerings are included.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the key inclusion for the broader sugya. The omer and sotah meal offerings are unusual because they do not serve an atonement function. The omer permits consumption of new grain, and the sotah offering clarifies the woman’s guilt or innocence. Since Exodus 29:33 states that priests eat offerings “through which atonement was made,” one might exclude these non-atonement offerings from priestly consumption. The word “every” in “every meal offering” overrides this reasoning, establishing that the scope of priestly eating extends beyond atonement-based offerings.
Key Terms:
- לְהַתִּיר = To permit — the omer’s function is to permit consumption of the new grain harvest
- לְבָרֵר = To clarify — the sotah offering’s function is to determine the woman’s guilt or innocence
- כֻּפַּר = Atoned — the usual prerequisite for priestly consumption of offering remainders
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
“Every sin offering” includes bird sin offering — despite being killed by melikah (like a neveilah)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נְבֵילָה הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The baraita continues to expound the verse. The verse states: “And every sin offering of theirs,” to include a bird sin offering, teaching that it is also eaten by the priests. As, it might enter your mind to say: The priests may not eat it because it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, as it is killed by pinching the nape of the neck (see Leviticus 5:8), not by conventional slaughter. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every sin offering,” teaching that bird sin offerings are included.
קלאוד על הדף:
The bird sin offering presents a unique halakhic problem: it is killed by melikah (neck-pinching by the priest’s thumbnail) rather than by shechitah (ritual slaughter with a knife). Ordinarily, an animal not killed by proper shechitah has the status of a neveilah (unslaughtered carcass) and is forbidden for consumption. One might therefore think that the bird sin offering, despite being a valid sacrifice, cannot be eaten by priests. The word “every” in “every sin offering” teaches that the Torah’s special dispensation for bird offerings overrides the general neveilah prohibition.
Key Terms:
- חַטַּאת הָעוֹף = Bird sin offering — a sin offering brought by the poor, killed by melikah rather than slaughter
- נְבֵילָה = Unslaughtered carcass — an animal not killed by proper shechitah, normally forbidden for consumption
- מְלִיקָה = Neck-pinching — the method of killing bird offerings, performed by the priest with his thumbnail
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
“Every guilt offering” includes nazirite’s and leper’s guilt offerings — but leper’s is already explicit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא לַכֹּהֵן״!
English Translation:
The baraita continues to expound the verse. The Torah states: “And every guilt offering of theirs,” to include the guilt offering of the nazirite who has become ritually impure (see Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of the leper, teaching that they are also eaten by the priests. The Gemara objects: With regard to the guilt offering of the leper, it is explicitly written with regard to it: “For as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13), which already teaches that it is eaten by the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita initially states that “every guilt offering” includes both the nazirite’s guilt offering and the leper’s guilt offering. The Gemara immediately challenges this: the leper’s guilt offering is already explicitly stated to be a priestly gift in Leviticus 14:13. If the verse already covers the leper’s guilt offering, why would “every” be needed for it? This challenge sets up a refinement in the next segment — the real purpose of “every guilt offering” is to include only the nazirite’s guilt offering, by comparing it to the leper’s offering which is already known.
Key Terms:
- אֲשַׁם נָזִיר = Nazirite’s guilt offering — brought by a nazirite who became impure, enabling him to restart his naziriteship
- אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע = Leper’s guilt offering — part of the leper’s purification process, explicitly assigned to the priest
- לְהַכְשִׁיר = To prepare/qualify — the nazirite’s guilt offering enables restarting the naziriteship period
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Correction: “every guilt offering” really includes only the nazirite’s — since it comes to qualify, not to atone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר כַּאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לְהַכְשִׁיר קָא אָתֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rather, the verse serves to include the guilt offering of the nazirite, stating that its status is like the guilt offering of the leper. As, it might enter your mind to say: The guilt offering of the nazirite is not sacrificed for atonement, but rather it comes to prepare the nazirite to begin his period of naziriteship anew, and therefore its meat would not be eaten by the priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “Every guilt offering,” teaching that the guilt offering of the nazirite is included.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara corrects: “every guilt offering” is truly needed only for the nazirite’s guilt offering. Like the omer and sotah meal offerings discussed earlier, the nazirite’s guilt offering does not serve a standard atonement function. Rather, it comes “lehakhshir” — to qualify the nazirite to restart his period of abstinence after contamination. Since Exodus 29:33 links priestly eating to atonement, the nazirite’s guilt offering might have been excluded. This parallel structure — non-atonement offerings needing special inclusion — unifies the entire baraita of Levi.
Key Terms:
- לְהַכְשִׁיר = To qualify/enable — the nazirite’s guilt offering enables him to restart his naziriteship, not to achieve atonement
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
“Which they restore” = robbery from a convert; “for you and your sons” = personal property, even for betrothal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ״ – זֶה גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר, ״לְךָ הִיא וּלְבָנֶיךָ״ – שֶׁלְּךָ הִיא וּלְבָנֶיךָ, אֲפִילּוּ לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.
English Translation:
The baraita concludes: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items…which they may restore”; this is referring to an item stolen from a convert who has no heirs and subsequently dies. In this case, the stolen item is given to the priests together with an additional one-fifth of its worth. The phrase “for you and for your sons” means that it is yours and your sons’ personal property, and it may be used even to betroth a woman with it, and it does not belong to the Temple treasury.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita of Levi concludes with a final derivation from Numbers 18:9, identifying “which they restore” as referring to gezel hager — property stolen from a convert who subsequently dies without heirs (see Numbers 5:8). When the thief cannot find the victim’s heirs, the stolen property goes to the priestly watch. The key chiddush is that this property becomes the priest’s personal property, not Temple property. The proof is that it can even be used for kiddushin (betrothal), which requires the man’s own property — demonstrating complete personal ownership.
Key Terms:
- גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר = Robbery from a convert — property stolen from a convert who died without heirs; it goes to the priests
- לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה = To betroth a woman with it — proof of personal ownership, since betrothal requires one’s own property
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא
Transitional introduction to Rav Huna’s statement about gentile peace offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא:
English Translation:
§ Rav Huna said:
קלאוד על הדף:
This fragment introduces Rav Huna’s statement, which continues on amud bet. The section marker (siman) indicates a new topic: the status of gentile offerings. This transitions the discussion from the detailed analysis of priestly shares and exchange prohibitions to a broader question about what types of offerings gentiles can bring and how they are treated. Rav Huna’s ruling will prove to be a major focal point for the remainder of the daf.
Key Terms:
- רַב הוּנָא = Rav Huna — a prominent first-generation Babylonian Amora, student of Rav
Amud Bet (73b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Huna: gentile peace offerings become burnt offerings — his heart is directed to Heaven
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שַׁלְמֵי הַגּוֹי – עוֹלוֹת, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא – גּוֹי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.
English Translation:
Peace offerings volunteered by gentiles are sacrificed as burnt offerings, which are burned completely upon the altar. With regard to the source for this halakha, if you wish, cite a verse; and if you wish, propose a logical argument. If you wish, propose a logical argument: Concerning a gentile who volunteers an offering, the intent of his heart is that the offering should be entirely sacred to Heaven, and he does not intend for any of it to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna’s statement opens a significant new discussion: when a gentile designates an offering as a peace offering (shelamim), it is nevertheless treated as a burnt offering (olah) and entirely consumed on the altar. The logical basis is an assumption about gentile psychology — a gentile’s “heart is directed to Heaven,” meaning he intends the entire offering for God, not for human consumption. This reflects the idea that gentiles, lacking the Torah’s detailed system of shared offerings, naturally gravitate toward total dedication. The Gemara will now provide both this logical argument and a Scriptural source.
Key Terms:
- שַׁלְמֵי הַגּוֹי = Gentile’s peace offerings — designated as shelamim but treated differently than a Jew’s
- עוֹלוֹת = Burnt offerings — entirely consumed on the altar with no portion for human consumption
- לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם = His heart is to Heaven — the assumed intent of a gentile dedicating an offering entirely to God
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural source: Leviticus 22:18 — “ish ish” includes gentiles; “as a burnt offering” defines the treatment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – כֹּל דִּמְקָרְבִי עוֹלָה לֶיהֱוֵי.
English Translation:
And if you wish, cite a verse: “Any man [ish ish] who is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering” (Leviticus 22:18). The doubled term ish ish teaches that the offerings of a gentile are accepted, and the verse thereby teaches that any offering that gentiles volunteer to be sacrificed should be a burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now provides the Scriptural basis for Rav Huna’s ruling. Leviticus 22:18 uses the doubled expression “ish ish” (any man), which the Gemara reads as including non-Israelites — specifically gentiles (and the “strangers in Israel” confirms this). The verse concludes with “which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” which the Gemara reads prescriptively: whatever gentiles bring must be treated as a burnt offering. This verse will become the central text for the dispute between R. Yosei HaGelili and R. Akiva about the scope of gentile offerings.
Key Terms:
- אִישׁ אִישׁ = Doubled expression “any man” — the repetition serves to include gentiles alongside Israelites
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Chama bar Gurya objects: baraita says gentile’s peace offering is eaten — contradicting Rav Huna!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדֵּב לְהָבִיא שְׁלָמִים, נְתָנָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלָן, נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן – הַכֹּהֵן אוֹכְלָן.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥama bar Gurya raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who volunteered to bring a peace offering, if he gave it to an Israelite, the Israelite eats it; if he gave it to a priest, the priest eats it. Evidently, the gentile’s peace offering is eaten, like the peace offering of a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the first challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling. Rav Chama bar Gurya cites a baraita that seems to directly contradict Rav Huna: when a gentile volunteers a peace offering, the baraita says it can be eaten — either by an Israelite or a priest to whom the gentile gave it. If Rav Huna is correct that all gentile peace offerings become burnt offerings (entirely consumed on the altar), how can this baraita permit eating them? The challenge forces the Gemara to reconcile two apparently contradictory sources.
Key Terms:
- הִתְנַדֵּב = Volunteered — indicating a voluntary gift offering
- שְׁלָמִים = Peace offerings — offerings whose meat is shared between the altar, the priests, and the owner
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava resolves: baraita = when gentile designates offering for an Israelite’s or priest’s atonement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָא אָמַר, עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל – יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלָן, עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶן כֹּהֵן – כֹּהֵן אוֹכְלָן.
English Translation:
To answer the challenge to Rav Huna’s statement, Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: If a gentile volunteered a peace offering in order to achieve atonement on behalf of an Israelite who is already obligated to bring a peace offering, then the Israelite eats of the offering. If the gentile volunteered it in order to achieve atonement on behalf of a priest who is already obligated to bring a peace offering, then the priest eats of the offering. By contrast, Rav Huna’s statement teaches that when a gentile volunteers his own peace offering, it is treated as a burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava resolves the contradiction by reinterpreting the baraita. When it says a gentile’s peace offering can be eaten, it refers to a specific case: the gentile designated the offering on behalf of an Israelite or priest who already owed a peace offering. In that case, the offering retains its peace offering status because it fulfills the Israelite’s obligation, and the normal rules of eating apply. Rav Huna’s rule that gentile peace offerings become burnt offerings applies only when the gentile brings it for himself, since his personal intent is entirely directed heavenward.
Key Terms:
- עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר = On condition that atonement be achieved — the gentile designates the offering for a specific Jew’s obligation
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Sheizevi objects from our mishna (gentile meal offerings eaten); R. Yochanan: mishna = R. Yosei HaGelili, Rav Huna = R. Akiva
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים – מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
English Translation:
Rav Sheizevi raises an objection from the mishna: These are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and their remainder is eaten by the priests…the meal offering of gentiles. If the priests may eat the remainder of the meal offerings of gentiles, it is logical that the peace offerings of gentiles should also be given to the priests to eat, as the right of the priests to eat from meal offerings and peace offerings is identical. To resolve this objection, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. This statement in the mishna that the priests eat the meal offerings of gentiles is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and that ruling of Rav Huna that the peace offerings of gentiles are not eaten is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheizevi raises a stronger challenge from the mishna itself. If gentile meal offerings get kemitza with the remainder eaten by priests, surely gentile peace offerings should also be edible — the priestly eating rights are parallel. R. Yochanan resolves this by attributing the sources to different Tannaim: the mishna (which allows priestly eating of gentile offerings) follows R. Yosei HaGelili, while Rav Huna (who converts all gentile offerings to burnt offerings) follows R. Akiva. This sets up the pivotal tannaitic dispute that dominates the rest of the sugya.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם = Gentile meal offerings — listed in the mishna as undergoing kemitza with remainder to priests
- רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי = R. Yosei HaGelili — holds gentiles can bring multiple offering types, not only burnt offerings
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Source: “ish ish” (doubled expression) includes gentiles who vow offerings like Jews
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: The verse cited previously states: “Any man [ish ish] who is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering.” The verse is now analyzed: The verse could have stated: A man [ish]. Why does the verse state the double expression “ish ish”? This serves to include the gentiles, demonstrating that they can vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew can.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now presents the baraita that both R. Yosei HaGelili and R. Akiva interpret, but in different ways. The opening point is agreed upon: the doubled “ish ish” in Leviticus 22:18 teaches that gentiles can bring offerings to the Temple, a principle derived from the redundancy of the expression. The verse’s continuation — “which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering” — is where the dispute begins. Both Tannaim accept that gentiles can bring offerings; they disagree about whether the verse limits gentile offerings to burnt offerings or encompasses a broader range.
Key Terms:
- נּוֹדְרִין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת = Vow offerings and gift offerings — the two categories of voluntary offerings, now extended to gentiles
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Yosei HaGelili’s reading: “burnt offering” + “vows” = peace offerings + “gift offerings” = thanks offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה, שְׁלָמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְרֵיהֶם״. תּוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְבוֹתָם״.
English Translation:
When the verse states: “Which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” I have derived only that a gentile can vow to bring a burnt offering. From where is it derived that a gentile can vow to bring a peace offering? The verse states: “Their vows.” From where is it derived that he can bring a thanks offering? The verse states the seemingly superfluous clause: “Their gift offerings.”
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the expansive reading of R. Yosei HaGelili, who treats the verse’s multiple clauses as progressively broadening the types of offerings gentiles may bring. “Burnt offering” establishes the basic case; “their vows” adds peace offerings (a common subject of vows); “their gift offerings” adds thanks offerings (a type of gift offering). R. Yosei HaGelili reads each phrase in the verse as contributing a new offering category, maximizing the scope of gentile participation in the Temple service.
Key Terms:
- נִדְרֵיהֶם = Their vows — R. Yosei HaGelili derives peace offerings from this word
- נִדְבוֹתָם = Their gift offerings — R. Yosei HaGelili derives thanks offerings from this word
- תּוֹדָה = Thanks offering — a type of peace offering brought in gratitude, accompanied by loaves
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Including birds, wine, frankincense, and wood from the comprehensive “any of their vows/gift offerings”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הָעוֹפוֹת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהָעֵצִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״נִדְרֵיהֶם״, ״לְכׇל נִדְרֵיהֶם״, ״נִדְבוֹתָם״, ״לְכׇל נִדְבוֹתָם״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the verse means to include that a gentile can bring birds as burnt offerings, and wine libations, and the frankincense, and the wood for the arrangement upon the altar? The verse states not only: “Their vows,” but also the more comprehensive term: “Any of their vows”; and the verse states not only: “Their gift offerings,” but also the more comprehensive term: “Any of their gift offerings.”
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yosei HaGelili continues to expand the scope of gentile offerings. The verse uses not just “their vows” but the more inclusive “any of their vows,” and similarly “any of their gift offerings.” These expanded formulations include even non-standard Temple items: bird offerings, wine (brought independently as a libation), frankincense, and wood for the altar arrangement. According to R. Yosei HaGelili, gentiles have nearly full access to the Temple’s voluntary offering system — an extremely broad reading of the verse.
Key Terms:
- עוֹפוֹת = Birds — bird offerings that gentiles can bring as burnt offerings
- יַיִן = Wine — brought as an independent libation offering
- לְבוֹנָה = Frankincense — brought as an independent offering on the altar
- עֵצִים = Wood — donated for the altar’s fire arrangement
Segment 9
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Yosei HaGelili: “burnt offering” excludes only nazirite offerings; R. Akiva: ONLY burnt offerings for gentiles
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עוֹלָה״, ״עוֹלָה״ – פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳ לְעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה בִּלְבָד.
English Translation:
The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “They will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering”? The baraita answers: This teaches that a gentile can bring a standard burnt offering, to the exclusion of a burnt offering of naziriteship. Since a gentile is unable to assume the status of a nazirite, he is also unable to bring the offerings of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: When the verse states: “Which they will offer to the Lord as a burnt offering,” it indicates that nothing other than a burnt offering alone may be brought by a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here the core dispute crystallizes. R. Yosei HaGelili, having derived a wide range of gentile offerings from the verse’s various clauses, assigns only a minor exclusionary role to “burnt offering” — it excludes nazirite offerings, since gentiles cannot become nazirites. R. Akiva reads the verse in the opposite direction: “burnt offering” is the operative limit, meaning gentiles can bring only burnt offerings and nothing else. This is a fundamental disagreement about whether the verse is expansive (R. Yosei HaGelili) or restrictive (R. Akiva), with major practical consequences for Temple practice.
Key Terms:
- נְזִירוּת = Naziriteship — a vow of abstinence from wine, haircuts, and corpse impurity; inapplicable to gentiles
- עוֹלָה בִּלְבָד = Burnt offering alone — R. Akiva’s restrictive reading: gentiles may bring only this type
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Isn’t nazirite exclusion already from Numbers 6:2 (“children of Israel…nazirite”)? Why need this verse?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַאי פְּרָט לִנְזִירוּת, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא, ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹדְרִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹדְרִים.
English Translation:
With regard to the analysis of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: And this exclusion of a burnt offering of naziriteship, is it derived from here, in the verse cited? Is it not derived from there: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man…shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite” (Numbers 6:2); this is interpreted to mean that the children of Israel can vow to become nazirites, but the gentiles cannot vow to become nazirites? Therefore, the exclusion of gentiles from bringing the burnt offering of a nazirite is not learned from the term “a burnt offering.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges R. Yosei HaGelili’s assignment of “burnt offering” to exclude nazirite offerings. Numbers 6:2 already explicitly limits naziriteship to “the children of Israel,” automatically excluding gentiles from nazirite vows and their accompanying offerings. If the exclusion is already known from Numbers, why does R. Yosei HaGelili need Leviticus 22:18 for the same point? This leaves “burnt offering” without a purpose in R. Yosei HaGelili’s reading, potentially undermining his expansive interpretation of the verse.
Key Terms:
- נֶדֶר נָזִיר = Nazirite vow — the vow of abstinence described in Numbers 6
- בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = Children of Israel — the verse’s limitation that excludes gentiles from naziriteship
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Without this verse, naziriteship might take effect on gentiles even if they cannot bring the offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מֵהָתָם – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קׇרְבָּן הוּא דְּלָא לַיְיתֵי, אֲבָל נְזִירוּת חָלָה עֲלַיְיהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If the exclusion was derived from there, i.e., the verse in Leviticus, which is referring to offerings, I would say: It is the offering of nazirites that the gentiles cannot bring, but naziriteship takes effect upon them if they vow to become a nazirite. Therefore, the exclusion of naziriteship by the verse in Numbers teaches us that a gentile cannot become a nazirite at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers with a subtle distinction between the status of naziriteship and the ability to bring nazirite offerings. If we only had the Leviticus verse (about offerings), we would know gentiles cannot bring nazirite offerings but might still conclude that naziriteship as a personal status takes effect on them — they just cannot fulfill it with offerings. The Numbers verse (“children of Israel”) teaches the more fundamental point: naziriteship does not take effect on gentiles at all. Both verses are therefore necessary, each teaching a different dimension of the exclusion.
Key Terms:
- נְזִירוּת חָלָה עֲלַיְיהוּ = Naziriteship takes effect upon them — the hypothetical status that would apply without the Numbers verse
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Whose opinion is the mishna in Shekalim about gentile libations from overseas? Even R. Akiva allows burnt offering accessories
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: גּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁילַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכֶיהָ – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – קְרֵיבִין מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses a related matter. In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 7:6): Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. And this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found sacrificial animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: If a gentile sent his burnt offering from a country overseas, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are offered at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public’s expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. Evidently, a gentile can offer libations as well as burnt offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now tests the tannaitic dispute against a known mishna in Shekalim. That mishna records seven court ordinances, one of which deals with a gentile who sends a burnt offering from overseas. If the gentile includes money for libations, they are offered at his expense; if not, the public covers the cost. This mishna clearly assumes that a gentile’s burnt offering requires libations — raising the question of whether this fits only R. Yosei HaGelili (who allows gentiles a broad range of offerings) or also R. Akiva (who restricts them to burnt offerings alone).
Key Terms:
- שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים = Seven ordinances — court-enacted financial procedures for Temple administration
- נְסָכִים = Libations — wine and flour offerings that accompany animal sacrifices
- מְדִינַת הַיָּם = Overseas — literally “the country of the sea,” referring to distant lands
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Even R. Akiva allows burnt offering with all its accessories (libations)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא! אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עוֹלָה וְכׇל (חַבְירָתַהּ) [אַבְזָרַהָא].
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara rejects this assumption: You may even say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and he holds that a gentile can bring a burnt offering and all its accessories, including the libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a key distinction within R. Akiva’s position. Even though R. Akiva says gentiles may bring “only burnt offerings,” this does not exclude libations. Libations are not independent offerings in this context but rather necessary accessories (abzaraha) of the burnt offering itself. Just as one cannot bring a burnt offering without its required components, R. Akiva agrees that the accompanying libations are included in the burnt offering. This nuance reconciles R. Akiva with the Shekalim mishna.
Key Terms:
- אַבְזָרַהָא = Accessories/appurtenances — items that accompany an offering as integral components, not as separate offerings
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Who authored the baraita about “ezrach” (home born) and gentile libations? Neither Tanna fits!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ – אֶזְרָח מֵבִיא נְסָכִים, וְאֵין הַגּוֹי מֵבִיא נְסָכִים. יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא עוֹלָתוֹ טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְלָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to libations: “All who are home born shall do these things after this manner” (Numbers 15:13), which teaches that those who are home born, i.e., Jews, can bring libations as a separate offering, but a gentile cannot bring such libations. One might have thought that a gentile’s burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: “So it shall be done for one bull” (Numbers 15:11), which indicates that every offering requires libations. Whose opinion is this? It is not that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and not that of Rabbi Akiva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now introduces a more difficult problem. A baraita distinguishes between a Jew (“home born” / ezrach) who can bring libations independently and a gentile who cannot bring separate libations — yet the gentile’s burnt offering still requires libations (“so it shall be done”). This baraita occupies a middle ground: gentiles cannot bring libations independently but their offerings need libations as accompaniments. The Gemara argues this fits neither R. Yosei HaGelili (who allows independent wine offerings) nor R. Akiva (who restricts gentiles to burnt offerings alone, seemingly excluding even accompaniments).
Key Terms:
- אֶזְרָח = Home born / native — a term for a Jew, used in Numbers 15:13 to distinguish from gentiles regarding libations
- כָּכָה = “So it shall be done” — Numbers 15:11, teaching that every offering (including a gentile’s) requires standard libations
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Problem: R. Yosei says gentile can bring wine separately; R. Akiva says only burnt offering, nothing else
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן נָמֵי! אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָא אָמַר: עוֹלָה – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the question: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, doesn’t he say that a gentile may even bring wine by itself, and not only as a libation? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn’t he say that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, a gentile may bring it, but with regard to something else other than the offering itself, no, a gentile may not bring it?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spells out why neither Tanna can easily author the baraita. R. Yosei HaGelili allows gentiles to bring wine independently (from “any of their vows”), so why would “ezrach” exclude gentile wine? The baraita’s exclusion of independent gentile libations contradicts him. R. Akiva, on the other hand, limits gentiles to burnt offerings only, which would seem to exclude even accompanying libations — yet the baraita says the burnt offering requires them. The tension between the two positions and the baraita creates a genuine difficulty that the Gemara must resolve.
Key Terms:
- יַיִן = Wine — according to R. Yosei HaGelili, gentiles can bring wine independently; the baraita disagrees
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: either R. Yosei (remove “wine” from his list) or R. Akiva (burnt offering + all accessories)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – סְמִי מֵהַהִיא ״יַיִן״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – עוֹלָה וְכׇל (חַבְירָתַהּ) [אַבְזָרַהָא].
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; and if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. If you wish, say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and omit from that baraita that the tanna allows gentiles to bring wine, as he holds that gentiles cannot bring wine by itself. And if you wish, say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and interpret his opinion to be that a gentile may bring a burnt offering and all its accessories.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers two resolutions, each requiring a minor adjustment. For R. Yosei HaGelili: remove “wine” from his list of items gentiles can bring independently (a textual emendation, “semi”), so he agrees that gentiles cannot bring separate libations. For R. Akiva: his principle of “burnt offering only” includes all necessary accessories (abzaraha), so libations that accompany the burnt offering are permitted even under his restrictive view. Both approaches maintain each Tanna’s core position while accommodating the baraita. The concept of abzaraha — accessories as integral to the offering — proves to be the key mediating principle.
Key Terms:
- סְמִי = Omit — a textual emendation removing “wine” from R. Yosei HaGelili’s list
- אַבְזָרַהָא = Accessories — offering accompaniments (libations, meal offerings) considered part of the offering itself
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Back to the mishna: R. Shimon says priest’s sinner meal offering gets kemitza — from where?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים [וְכוּ׳]. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed, and the entire offering is sacrificed upon the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now returns to R. Shimon’s unique position from the mishna. While the standard rule is that a priest’s meal offering is entirely burned (kalil) without kemitza, R. Shimon distinguishes between voluntary and obligatory priest meal offerings. When a priest brings a sinner’s meal offering (an obligation, not a voluntary offering), kemitza is performed — but then both the handful and the remainder are burned, since neither portion may be eaten by the priest-owner. The Gemara asks for the Scriptural source of this distinctive ruling.
Key Terms:
- מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = From where is this derived? — the standard Talmudic formula requesting a Scriptural source
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
“And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” — the priestly rite is valid when performed by the offering priest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita. The verse states with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: “And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial of it, and burn it on the altar…it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin that he has sinned in any of these matters, and he shall be forgiven; and the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” (Leviticus 5:12–13). Since the phrase “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering” is seemingly unnecessary, as these verses are discussing a meal offering, it therefore teaches that its sacrificial rite would be valid even when performed by a priest who has brought the offering for his own sin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents the initial interpretation of the seemingly superfluous phrase “as the meal offering” in Leviticus 5:13. Since the passage is already discussing a meal offering, why add “as the meal offering”? The first reading suggests it teaches procedural validity: a priest who brings this offering for his own sin may still perform the kemitza and other rites himself, despite being personally invested in the outcome. The phrase legitimizes his service on his own offering, which might otherwise be questioned due to his personal interest.
Key Terms:
- כַּמִּנְחָה = “As the meal offering” — the seemingly superfluous phrase that serves as the source for R. Shimon’s derivation
- עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ = Its rite is valid when performed by him — the priest who brought the sin offering may perform the service
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
Alternative reading: maybe “as the meal offering” permits eating priest’s obligatory meal offering? Rejected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲבוֹדָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה בּוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״? מִנְחַת נִדְבָתוֹ, אֲבָל חוֹבָתוֹ תְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת.
English Translation:
The baraita discusses the matter: Do you say that this verse teaches that the rite of the meal offering of a sinner would be valid when performed by him? Or is it only necessary to permit the eating of the remainder of the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse that states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16)? Perhaps that is referring to his voluntary meal offering, but his obligatory meal offering may be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents an alternative reading of “as the meal offering.” Perhaps it teaches that a priest’s obligatory meal offering (like the sinner’s) may be eaten, unlike his voluntary offering. This would reinterpret “every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly burned” (Leviticus 6:16) as applying only to voluntary priest meal offerings, while the obligatory one would be eaten like any non-priest’s meal offering. However, the baraita will reject this interpretation. The verse “as the meal offering” compares the obligatory to the voluntary, teaching that both are not eaten — maintaining the kalil rule for all priestly meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבָתוֹ = His obligatory offering — the priest’s meal offering brought as a sin requirement
- נִדְבָתוֹ = His voluntary offering — the priest’s freely donated meal offering
- כָּלִיל = Wholly burned — the rule that all priestly meal offerings are entirely consumed on the altar
Segment 20
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Shimon disagrees: “as THE meal offering” (not “as HIS”) compares to a non-priest’s offering, requiring kemitza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה״, מַקִּישׁ חוֹבָתוֹ לְנִדְבָתוֹ: מָה נִדְבָתוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת – אַף חוֹבָתוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כְּמִנְחָתוֹ״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״כַּמִּנְחָה״! אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “And it shall be the priest’s as the meal offering.” In this way, the verse compares the priest’s obligatory offering to his voluntary offering: Just as his voluntary offering is not eaten, so too, his obligatory offering is not eaten. In disagreeing with the previous interpretation, Rabbi Shimon said: Is it stated: And it shall be the priest’s, as his meal offering? But it states only: “As the meal offering,” referring to the meal offering of a non-priest. Rather, this verse serves to compare and render the halakha of
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon’s reading hinges on a precise textual distinction: the verse says “as the meal offering” (kammincha — generic, with the definite article) not “as his meal offering” (keminchatav — possessive). If it said “his,” it would compare the priest’s obligatory offering to his own voluntary offering, proving both are not eaten. But since it says “the meal offering” generically, R. Shimon reads it as comparing the priest’s sinner offering to a non-priest’s meal offering. Just as a non-priest’s meal offering undergoes kemitza with the remainder eaten, so too the priest’s obligatory meal offering undergoes kemitza — but in this case both the handful and the remainder are burned since a priest’s offering cannot be eaten.
Key Terms:
- כַּמִּנְחָה = “As the meal offering” — generic, comparing to a non-priest’s meal offering (R. Shimon’s reading)
- כְּמִנְחָתוֹ = “As his meal offering” — hypothetical possessive form that would compare to the priest’s own voluntary offering