Талмуд к Менахот 6:8

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself³²Prov. 16:4. Quoted Babli Šabbat116b.; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice³³Since for profane use the emptying of the intestines would be a Sabbath violation.. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside³⁴But for profane use it would be a Sabbath violation.. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast³⁵With Tosephta 4:10 one has to read: “One was skinning up to the breast (starting with the feet).”. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice³⁶Since it is obvious that one skins from the feet for sacrificial use, it is not necessary to push aside the Sabbath more than a minimum.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside³⁷In Mishnah Menaḥot 6:1, R. Ismael states that while on a Sabbath the ˋOmer(3/10 of a seah) of barley flour was sifted from three seah of grain while on weekdays it was from five. This implies that for the Temple service one uses choice material but only on weekdays it must be of the choicest kind if it is a matter of pushing aside Sabbath prohibitions., so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts³⁸If we interpret R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa in this way, then R. Ismael would be inconsistent by requiring total stripping of the Pesaḥ. Also R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa could obtain the desired result with much less Sabbath desecration. Therefore R. Joḥanan’s statement cannot be correct.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

We have stated there¹⁸²Mishnah Menaḥot 6:1. In that Mishnah, the anonymous rabbis hold that the entire offering is burned on the altar in one piece.: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering¹⁸³The flour offering of the very poor person who either refused to testify, was unmindful of his impurity in dealing with the Temple and its appurtenances, or had forgotten an oath he had imposed on himself, Lev.5:11–13. of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering¹⁸⁴Lev. 5:13. Since one speaks of a flour offering, it is diffult to understand why “it should be like a flour offering”..” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire¹⁸⁵Voluntary flour offerings are described in Lev. 2:1–11. It is stipulated in Lev. 6:16 that no part of a priest’s flour offering may be eaten. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5) disagrees with the Yerushalmi; it interprets Lev. 6:16 to deal mainly with the Cohen’s obligatory offerings and only in a derivative fashion with voluntary offerings.. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha¹⁸⁶The amount of flour required for the purification sacrifice, Lev. 5:11. An epha was 3 seah. of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten¹⁸⁷This shows that the offering of a Cohen cannot simply be compared to that of an Israel since the result would contradict biblical precepts.? The verse¹⁸⁸Lev. 6:16. says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders¹⁸⁹This question is about the opinion of R. Simeon. For the rabbis, the offering is brought to the altar in one piece and burned as a sacrifice. But for R. Simeon, since the fistful is brought to the altar as a sacrifice, it makes sense to inquire whether the rest is burned under the same rules or not. If the same rules were to apply, it is difficult to see why there should be two distinct offerings.? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them¹⁹⁰Sacrifices can be offered in the Temple only between the morning and evening daily sacrifices. Remainders of sacrifices for which blood and fat were offered during daytime can be brought to the altar during the night.
A sacrifice can be brought only during one’s lifetime.
In talmudic theory (Mishnah Zebaḥim 2:2), a sacrifice is either valid or invalid from the start. Therefore, the biblical prohibitions of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר (Lev. 19:5–7) are interpreted to mean that the sacrifice becomes permanently prohibited if any of the prescribed actions in the Temple were executed with the idea that the meat should be eaten out of its allotted time or place. This means that the Cohen, by thinking to eat from the rest of the offering the next day or outside the Temple courtyard while dealing with the fistful taken for the altar, will invalidate the offering. This danger is restricted to the fistful, whose correct treatment will permit the rest to be eaten by the Cohanim. What these think while eating the rest is irrelevant; the only actions which are invalidated by wrong thoughts are those on which something else depends, either that part of the sacrifice becomes permitted as food, or that people are purified or otherwise enabled by it.. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon¹⁹¹While both mss. read here “R. Simeon ben Eleazar”, the continuation of the paragraph shows that the author must be R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. The Babli, 23a/b, and the Tosephta, 2:6, read: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is dispersed. says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes¹⁹²The ashes on the top of the altar are hot and spreading the offering out means burning it on the altar. If that were the meaning, R. Eleazar’s position is that of his father and does not have to be mentioned., Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes¹⁹³The ashes removed from the altar to the floor of the courtyard (Lev.6:2).. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them¹⁹⁴Anything not destined for the altar cannot permit anything else. Therefore, any wrong intention the Cohen may have while depositing the rest on the ashes is irrelevant; he may think what he wishes. Similarly, since the burning of the fistful permits the consumption (or dispersion) of the remainder by the Cohanim, if the owner of the offering dies after the burning of the fistful it cannot have any influence on the status of the rest.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar¹⁹⁵The argument of the previous Note is valid only for the offering of an Israel, for whom the fistful really permits the remainder to the Cohanim. But for the offering of a Cohen, the offering of the fistful according to R. Eleazar ben R. Simon does not permit anything, not even to bring the rest onto the altar. Therefore, the sacrificing of the fistful cannot lift the rules of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר for the Cohen’s offering.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful¹⁹⁶They require that the entire offering be burned, cf. Note 182.? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.¹⁹⁷R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon accepts the comparison of the obligatory to the voluntary offering of a Cohen, called “binding (הֶקֵּשׁ) of one verse to the other”; it is only to modify the rule of Lev. 6:16, which deals with voluntary offerings, not that of Lev.6:15, which deals with an obligatory offering of another kind.”