## Menachot Daf 83a

###### Menachot 83a:1
[Menachot 83a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:1)

בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
this *halakha* **is explicitly written** of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22), and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:6).


###### Menachot 83a:2
[Menachot 83a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:2)

אִי זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מֵרִבּוּיָא דִּקְרָאֵי אָתֵי: ״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ כׇּל זָכָר (בַּכֹּהֲנִים) יֹאכַל אֹתוֹ״, לִימֵּד עַל זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִים אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** one suggests that the *halakha* must be derived with regard to **communal peace offerings,** i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on *Shavuot* together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this *halakha* **is derived from** the **amplification of the verse** stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: **“In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it”** (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a *baraita*: The verse **teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly** families.


###### Menachot 83a:3
[Menachot 83a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:3)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, אִיכָּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*. There is** one *tanna* **who cites it,** the *halakha* that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, **from here,** i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; **and there is** one *tanna* **who cites it from there,** i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.


###### Menachot 83a:4
[Menachot 83a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:4)

״חַטָּאת״ – מָה חַטָּאת מְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ, אַף כֹּל מְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִלּוּעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues expounding the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings.” **“Sin offering”** teaches: **Just as** with regard to **a sin offering,** whatever it touches **is sanctified through** the substance that becomes **absorbed, so too** for **all** offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch **is sanctified through** the **absorbed** portions.


###### Menachot 83a:5
[Menachot 83a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:5)

״אָשָׁם״ – מָה אָשָׁם אֵין שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא קָדוֹשׁ בּוֹ, אַף כֹּל אֵין שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא קָדוֹשׁ בּוֹ. קָסָבַר: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, וְדָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Guilt offering”** teaches: **Just as** with regard to **a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it,** because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, **so too** for **any** of the offerings mentioned in the verse, **a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred** if found **within it.** The Gemara notes: Evidently, this *tanna* **holds** that with regard to **offspring of sacrificial** animals, **they are sanctified** only **as they are** from the moment of their births, but not in utero. **And** he also holds that **one derives** the **possible from** the **impossible,** so that the *halakha* of a fetal sac and a placenta in the case of female animals may be derived from the *halakha* of a male animal.


###### Menachot 83a:6
[Menachot 83a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:6)

״מִלּוּאִים״ – מָה מִלּוּאִים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, אַף כׇּל מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Inauguration offering”** teaches: **Just as** with regard to the **inauguration offering,** the rams and the bread of which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, **their leftovers** were disposed of **by incineration,** as is stated: “And if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire” (Exodus 29:34), **and** there were **no living animals** counted **among their leftovers** disposed of **by incineration, so too** for **all** offerings mentioned, **their leftovers are** disposed of **by incineration, and there are no living animals** counted **among their leftovers** disposed of **by incineration.** Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.


###### Menachot 83a:7
[Menachot 83a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:7)

״שְׁלָמִים״ – מָה שְׁלָמִים מְפַגְּלִין וּמִתְפַּגְּלִין, אַף כֹּל מְפַגְּלִין וּמִתְפַּגְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Peace offering”** teaches: **Just as** with regard to the **peace offering,** its components may **render** components of the offering ***piggul* and** are **rendered *piggul*, so too** with regard to **all** offerings mentioned in this verse, their components **render** components of the offering ***piggul* and are rendered *piggul*.**


###### Menachot 83a:8
[Menachot 83a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:8)

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה כּוּ׳ מִנְחָה״ – מָה מִנְחָה מְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ, אַף כֹּל מְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was taught in a *baraita* in the name of Rabbi Akiva** that the verse states: **“This is the law** of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). From the term **“meal offering”** it is derived: **Just as** with regard to **a meal offering,** whatever it touches **is sanctified through** the substance that becomes **absorbed,** as it is stated: “Whatever shall touch them shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:11), **so too** for **all** offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch **is sanctified through** the **absorbed** portions.


###### Menachot 83a:9
[Menachot 83a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:9)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב בְּחַטָּאת, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב בְּמִנְחָה. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמִנְחָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּרַכִּיכָא בָּלְעָה, אֲבָל חַטָּאת אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטָּאת – מִשּׁוּם דְּבָשָׂר אַגַּב דְּשַׁמִּין (קָדִיר) [קָרִיר], אֲבָל מִנְחָה אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And it was necessary to write** the *halakha* of absorption **with regard to a sin offering, and it was necessary to write** the *halakha* of absorption **with regard to a meal offering. As, had the Merciful One written** this *halakha* only **with regard to a meal offering,** I would say **that since it is soft, it is absorbed** and therefore sanctifies what it touches; **but** with regard to the meat of **a sin offering, I would say** that it does **not** sanctify what it touches. **And had the Merciful One written** this *halakha* only **with regard to a sin offering,** I would say that it is **because, on account of its fattiness, the meat penetrates [*kadeir*]** into whatever it touches and sanctifies it; **but** with regard to **a meal offering, I would say** that it does **not** sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is **necessary** for the Torah to write both.


###### Menachot 83a:10
[Menachot 83a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:10)

״חַטָּאת״ – מָה חַטָּאת אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית, אַף כֹּל אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The cited *baraita* continues: **“Sin offering”** teaches: **Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred** animals, **and** it is sacrificed specifically **in the daytime, and** its service must be performed **with** the priest’s **right hand, so too all** offerings mentioned **are brought only from non-sacred** animals, **and** are sacrificed specifically **in the daytime, and** each one’s service must be performed **with** the priest’s **right hand.**


###### Menachot 83a:11
[Menachot 83a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:11)

וְחַטָּאת גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – ״לוֹ״ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **a sin offering itself, from where do we** derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? **Rav Ḥisda said:** It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states: “And Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his”** (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come **from his** cattle, **and not from** money with which the second **tithe** has been redeemed.


###### Menachot 83a:12
[Menachot 83a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:12)

בַּיּוֹם – מִ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ״ נָפְקָא! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the *halakha* of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed **in the daytime?** Isn’t this principle **derived from** the expression: **“On the day of His commanding”** (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the *baraita* **cited** the principle from the model of a sin offering **for no reason [*kedi*],** and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.


###### Menachot 83a:13
[Menachot 83a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:13)

בְּיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית – מִדְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶצְבַּע וּכְהֻנָּה – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא יָמִין! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why must the *baraita* teach that the *halakha* of the sin offering teaches that the rites of offerings must be performed **with** the priest’s **right hand?** Isn’t this **derived from** the statement **of Rabba bar bar Ḥana? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Reish Lakish says:** In **any place** in the Torah **that it is stated** that an action is performed with **a finger, or** that it is performed by **priesthood,** the *halakha* is that the rite is performed **only** with the **right** hand. This is derived from the Torah’s statement with regard to the leper: “And the priest shall dip his right finger” (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The *baraita* **cited** the principle from the model of a sin offering **for no reason,** since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement.


###### Menachot 83a:14
[Menachot 83a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:14)

״אָשָׁם״ – מָה אָשָׁם עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף כֹּל עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The cited *baraita* continues: **“Guilt offering”** teaches: **Just as** with regard to **a guilt offering, its bones** have no sanctity and **are permitted** for any use, **so too** with regard to **any** mentioned offering, **its bones are permitted.**


###### Menachot 83a:15
[Menachot 83a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/83a:15)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that the verse that states: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:2), indicates by juxtaposition that every obligatory offering, like the Paschal offering, may be brought only from non-sacred money. The Gemara therefore asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Akiva,** who derives this from the verse: “This is the law of…the sin offering,” **that** verse: **“And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering,”**