We had an important fundamental dispute in the first Mishnah of the chapter regarding the meal offering of a priest who had sinned. How is this offering brought? Rabbi Shimon says that a handful is taken. The handful is placed on the altar, and the remainder is also placed on the altar. In other words, everything goes on the altar: first the handful, and then the remainder of the meal offering.
According to the first tanna, however, the entire offering goes directly on the altar. The Mishnah lists the meal offerings from which a handful is taken and whose leftovers are given to the priests. It includes the meal offering of an Israelite who sinned: the handful goes on the altar, while the leftovers are eaten by the priests. But the meal offering of the anointed priest is not mentioned, because that offering is entirely burned on the altar. The first tanna is teaching that the meal offering of a priest who sinned is also burned entirely on the altar, without a separate taking of a handful.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees. He says that the handful is taken separately and placed on the altar, and afterward the remainder is placed on the altar separately. Today we will analyze Rabbi Shimon’s position, where it comes from, and its sources.
Rabbi Shimon says that regarding the meal offering of a priest who sinned, the handful and the remainder are each brought on the altar separately. The Gemara asks: What is the source for this? The Rabbis taught in a baraita that the Torah says, “And it shall be for the priest like his meal offering.” Let us look at the verses in context.
The passage in Vayikra discusses a poor person who cannot afford the usual animal offering. Instead, he brings a meal offering. If he cannot even afford the prescribed meal offering, he brings a still less expensive offering. The Torah emphasizes that no oil is placed on this meal offering and no frankincense is put on it, because it is a sin offering. It would not be appropriate to bring an elaborate offering for atonement in this case. The priest takes a handful and places it on the altar.
The Gemara analyzes the verse that says, “And it shall be for the priest like his meal offering.” The straightforward meaning is that the remainder is eaten by the priest, as is the remainder of an ordinary meal offering. This verse therefore appears to teach a novelty: if the priest himself is the sinner, he brings his own meal offering. He does not need another priest to bring the offering for his sin. Just as he brings his own voluntary meal offerings, so too he brings his own sin offering.
But perhaps the verse is not teaching that the priest brings his own offering. Perhaps it is teaching that the remainder of the meal offering of a priest who sinned is eaten, just like the remainder of an ordinary meal offering. Would the verse need to teach both points?
Regarding the meal offering of a priest, the Torah says, “Every meal offering of a priest shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.” This verse clearly teaches that a priest’s meal offering is entirely burned on the altar. One might have thought that this applies only to a voluntary meal offering. The sin offering, however, is a mandatory offering, and perhaps its remainder is eaten. The Torah therefore says, “It shall not be eaten,” teaching that the sin offering of a priest is also entirely burned.
Thus, we have established that the meal offering of a priest who sinned is not eaten by the priests. All of it is burned on the altar. We have not yet established precisely how it is placed on the altar, but we know that there is no remainder for the priests to eat.
Rabbi Shimon then applies a different comparison. He says that the meal offering of a priest who sinned is brought like the priest’s other meal offerings. The comparison is not absolute, however. The meal offering of an Israelite and the meal offering of a priest are being compared in one respect, but the priest’s meal offering differs from the Israelite’s meal offering in another respect.
The verse does not say only that the meal offering of a priest is entirely burned. It also says, “Every meal offering of a priest shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.” Rabbi Shimon understands the phrase “like his meal offering” as teaching that the meal offering of a priest who sinned is treated like the meal offering of an Israelite in the matter of taking a handful. Just as the meal offering of an Israelite has a handful taken from it, so too the meal offering of a priest who sinned has a handful taken from it. The difference is that, after the handful is taken, the remainder is also placed on the altar rather than eaten.
The manuscript commentary in this chapter preserves two versions of the explanation attributed to Rashi. The commentary printed at the top is not definitively attributed to Rashi, while the handwritten version at the bottom is considered the more authentic Rashi. According to that explanation, the phrase “like his meal offering” means that whatever is done with an ordinary meal offering is done with this meal offering as well, except for the aspect of eating it.
In an ordinary meal offering, the handful is placed on the altar and the remainder is eaten. Here, too, the service of taking the handful is performed. The handful is placed on the altar first, but the remainder is not eaten. Instead, Rabbi Shimon says that it is also placed on the altar.
The Gemara then asks what the first tanna learned from the verse, “And it shall be for the priest like his meal offering.” The first tanna already knows from another source that even though a priest is not part of the priestly division serving that week, he may bring his own meal offering whenever he wishes. He may come and perform the service himself. That source teaches that a priest may bring his own offering, but it does not necessarily teach that he may bring his own sin offering.
Therefore, the verse about the priest’s meal offering is needed to teach that a priest may bring his own sin offering as well. The verse teaches that the priest himself brings his meal offering of sin, but it does not teach the procedure for the handful and the remainder.
The Gemara brings another verse concerning an individual who sins inadvertently. He brings an offering for his sin, and the priest atones for him. The commentators explain that this passage is discussing the sin of idolatry. The verse says that the priest atones for the soul that sinned, and the wording teaches that the priest himself may have committed the sin. From here we know that a priest brings his own offering to atone for himself.
Why, then, is the verse about the priest’s meal offering needed? One might have thought that the priest brings his own offering only when he sinned inadvertently. The verse teaches that even when the priest sinned intentionally, he brings his own offering to obtain atonement.
When would a person who sinned intentionally bring an offering? The Gemara explains that one case is a false oath concerning testimony. If a person swears that he does not know testimony and it later becomes clear that he did know it, he brings an offering. This is an example of a case in which an intentional act can lead to the obligation to bring a meal offering. The novelty is that if the person is a priest, he brings his own offering.
We now have a dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon concerning the meal offering of a priest who sinned. Everyone agrees that the service of taking a handful is performed, and everyone agrees that the remainder is not eaten by the priests. The dispute concerns what happens to the handful. Rabbi Shimon says that the handful is placed on the altar first and the remainder is then placed on the altar separately. The first tanna says that the offering is burned entirely on the altar without the formal separation of a handful.
The Gemara brings a baraita in which Rabbi Shimon says that the meal offering of a priest who sinned has a handful taken from it, and that the handful and the remainder are each brought separately on the altar.
Rabbi Shimon’s son, Rabbi Elazar, says that the remainder is not placed on the altar. Instead, it is placed in a special place called the House of Ashes, where material designated for disposal is placed.
The Gemara asks which House of Ashes Rabbi Elazar means. There are two relevant places. One is on the altar itself, where there is a pile of ashes. The other is outside Jerusalem, where material removed from the altar is taken for disposal. If Rabbi Elazar means the House of Ashes on the altar, then he is simply repeating his father’s position that both the handful and the remainder are placed on the altar. If he means the House of Ashes outside Jerusalem, then why would the verse require the remainder to be burned there? It does not need to be burned on the altar at all; it can simply be taken out for disposal.
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar was not referring to a separate place outside Jerusalem. He meant that the remainder is placed on the ash pile connected with the altar. When this explanation was offered, it was ridiculed: is there any offering whose component is brought for disposal rather than being burned on the altar? Ordinarily, every component of an offering that is designated for the altar is accounted for. Why would part of this offering simply be disposed of?
To answer this, the Gemara turns to another verse. The verse states that every meal offering of a priest shall be entirely burned on the altar. This verse is discussing the meal offering brought by the High Priest every day, the meal offering of inauguration. The question is which other meal offerings are included in the comparison.
The phrase “entirely burned” is also used in connection with the daily meal offering of the High Priest. A comparison between the two phrases teaches that, just as the daily meal offering of the High Priest is entirely burned on the altar, so too certain other meal offerings are entirely burned on the altar. It also teaches that the prohibition against eating applies in both passages.
The Gemara asks how the comparison works. The verse is being divided into different elements. One part discusses every meal offering of a priest; another part says that it shall be entirely burned; and another part prohibits eating it. The derivation connects the appropriate parts of the verse while distinguishing between the different kinds of meal offerings.
The voluntary meal offering is similar to the daily meal offering of the High Priest in several respects. It is brought frequently: the daily offering is brought every day, and a voluntary meal offering may also be brought every day. Neither is brought for a sin. In addition, both are accompanied by oil and frankincense and therefore have a pleasant fragrance. Because of these similarities, the voluntary offering is comparable to the daily meal offering in the matter of being entirely burned.
The question is which obligatory meal offerings are included in the same rule. The verse clearly says regarding the daily meal offering of the High Priest that it is entirely burned. Which other meal offerings are comparable to it in this respect? The answer is that the voluntary offering is similar to it, while the meal offering brought for a sin is not similar in every respect.
The Gemara then establishes that the meal offering of a priest who sinned is placed in the House of Ashes for disposal. This is the position of Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon. The first tanna, however, maintains that it is like every other meal offering of a priest: it is entirely burned on the altar. There is no separate handful and no remainder that is sent for disposal.
Why does the first tanna require the verse that prohibits eating the offering? He does not need it merely to say that the offering is not eaten, because he already knows that the offering is entirely burned. Nor does he need it to distinguish between the voluntary offering and the sin offering, because his position is that both are treated alike in this respect.
The Gemara answers that the verse is needed for a different teaching. There are two passages, one earlier and one later. The earlier passage concerns the daily meal offering of the High Priest, and the later passage concerns the meal offering of a priest who sinned. The earlier passage says that the offering is entirely burned on the altar. The later passage says that it may not be eaten. The Torah uses the same expression in both passages so that the laws of one can be applied to the other.
From the phrase “entirely burned,” we learn that just as the daily meal offering of the High Priest is entirely burned on the altar, so too the other meal offerings under discussion are entirely burned on the altar. From the prohibition against eating, we learn the corresponding prohibition in the other passage. The repeated expression creates the comparison between the two sections.
This derivation therefore supports the first tanna: all of the offering goes on the altar, and there is no handful taken separately. The derivation also teaches the relationship between the daily meal offering of the High Priest and the other priestly meal offerings.
We now have three positions. The first tanna says that the entire meal offering of a priest who sinned goes on the altar without a separate taking of a handful. Rabbi Shimon says that a handful is taken and placed on the altar, and that the remainder is then placed on the altar separately. Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon, says that the handful goes on the altar, while the remainder is placed in the House of Ashes for disposal. Each position is derived from verses.
The Gemara then raises an interesting question. The verses prohibit eating the portions of a meal offering that are designated for the altar. Does the same prohibition apply to the portions of an animal offering that are designated for the altar, known as the sacrificial portions? If a priest ate those portions, would he also violate the prohibition against eating what is designated for the altar?
Perhaps the prohibition applies only to meal offerings, because that is the context in which the verse was written. Or perhaps the principle applies more broadly to any portion designated for the altar, including the sacrificial portions of an animal offering.
The Gemara suggests that the verse concerning a non-priest may provide the answer. The verse says that a stranger may not eat from the sacred offerings. The wording may be understood as referring to the sacrificial portions. However, the Gemara notes that one cannot impose lashes solely on the basis of logical reasoning. A prohibition that carries lashes requires an explicit verse and an appropriate warning. The question therefore remains whether the verse concerning the meal offerings can be extended to the sacrificial portions of animal offerings.
We now move to the next Mishnah. In general, a meal offering is divided: a handful is placed on the altar, and the remainder is eaten by the priests. There are, however, meal offerings that are entirely placed on the altar. These include the meal offering of a priest, which includes the meal offering of a priest who sinned; the meal offering of the High Priest; meal offerings that accompany animal offerings; and voluntary meal offerings that are entirely burned according to the relevant rule. In these cases, the priests receive nothing from the offering, while the altar receives everything.
The Mishnah then states that in one respect the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests. There is also an opposite case, involving the two loaves brought on Shavuot. In that case, the priests receive the loaves while the altar receives nothing. There, the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar.
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah needs to state that, in these cases, the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests. Perhaps the Mishnah is excluding a burnt offering. In a burnt offering, the priests do not eat any of the meat. The hide is given to the priests, but the flesh is entirely burned on the altar. The answer is that a burnt offering is not a complete example of the Mishnah’s principle, because the hide goes to the priests and some of the parts are taken to the House of Ashes. The altar therefore does not receive every part of the offering.
The Gemara considers whether a bird offering might be the example. But that also is not exact, because the innards and feathers are taken to the House of Ashes. The entire bird does not go on the altar.
What about wine? When wine is poured as a libation, it does not remain on the altar. It is poured into the channels beside the altar, which carry it beneath the altar. Since it does not actually go on the altar itself, it is not included in the Mishnah’s statement that the altar receives everything.
The Gemara explains that the Mishnah is discussing meal offerings, where the altar receives the entire offering. It then asks what the Mishnah means by saying that in these cases the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests.
This statement excludes the position of Shmuel, who says that a person may donate wine without bringing an accompanying animal offering and that the wine is poured onto the fire of the altar. According to Shmuel, donated wine is treated as something that goes entirely to the altar. The Mishnah, however, says that in the cases it lists, the power of the altar is greater than the power of the priests. This appears to exclude wine, because wine is poured into the channels and not directly onto the altar.
The Gemara also discusses oil. Shmuel says that if a person donates oil by itself, a handful is taken from it and placed on the altar, while the remainder is eaten by the priests. In that respect, the Mishnah supports Shmuel: it lists cases in which the altar receives everything and thereby indicates that oil is an exception, because only the handful goes on the altar.
Thus, the statement in the Mishnah has two implications. With regard to wine, it appears to contradict Shmuel, because Shmuel says that donated wine is poured onto the altar. With regard to oil, it supports Shmuel, because Shmuel says that only the handful of donated oil goes on the altar and the remainder is eaten by the priests.
The Gemara brings Shmuel’s teaching about oil: a person who donates oil brings a handful of it, and the remainder is treated as ordinary food for the priests. The Mishnah can serve as a source for this teaching because it says that, in the cases it lists, the altar has greater power than the priests. This implies that there are other cases, such as donated oil, in which the altar does not receive the entire offering.
The Mishnah also lists items in which the priests have greater power than the altar. These include the two loaves and the showbread. The blood of offerings goes on the altar, but these loaves are given to the priests. The log of oil brought by a person with the skin disease also belongs partly to the priests. It cannot be an example of something given entirely to the priests, however, because some of the oil must be sprinkled in the Temple, and only the remainder is given to the priest.
The Gemara now asks about the last part of the Mishnah. What does it mean that the power of the priests is greater than the power of the altar? It refers to a case in which the two loaves are brought separately, without the accompanying offering. The two loaves ordinarily come together with the offering brought on Shavuot. If they are brought separately, one might think that they must be burned, because they cannot be eaten in their normal context.
The Mishnah teaches that even when the two loaves are brought separately, they are eaten by the priests. This is contrary to another position that says that when they are brought separately, they are burned. The Mishnah follows the view that, regardless of how the loaves are brought, they remain food for the priests.
The overall structure is therefore clear. Some offerings are entirely for the altar, such as the priestly meal offerings and the daily meal offering of the High Priest. Some offerings are divided between the altar and the priests, such as an ordinary meal offering. In other cases, the priests receive the essential item and the altar receives nothing, as with the two loaves. The Mishnah presents these distinctions to show that the relative strength of the altar and the priests changes from one offering to another.