the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests as equivalent to the status of a meal offering of a sinner brought by an Israelite. Just as with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by an Israelite, a handful is removed, so too, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed.

The baraita challenges this: If so, then say as follows: Just as with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by an Israelite, a handful is removed and its remainder is eaten, so too, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful should be removed and its remainder eaten.

Therefore, the verse states: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering,” which is interpreted to mean that with regard to the rite performed by the priest, his meal offering is like the meal offering of the Israelite, but it is not like the meal offering of the Israelite with regard to consumption by the fires of the altar. How is this possible? In what ways does the meal offering of a priest resemble that of an Israelite in some respects and not in others? The priest’s handful is sacrificed by itself, like that of the Israelite, and the remainder is sacrificed by itself, unlike those of the Israelite, which are eaten.

§ According to the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita cited earlier, a priest may perform the rites of a meal offering of a sinner that he brings for himself based on the verse “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering.” The Gemara now asks: With regard to this halakha that its rite is valid when performed by him, is it derived from here?

It is derived from there, another verse cited in a baraita, which states: From where is it derived with regard to a priest that he may come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and at any hour that he desires, even when it is not during the period of his priestly watch? The verse states: “And if a Levite comes from any of your gates from all of Israel, where he lives, and comes with all the desire of his soul to the place which the Lord shall choose, then he shall serve in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brothers the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:6–7).

The Gemara answers: If the halakha were derived from there, the verse in Deuteronomy, I would say: This statement, that a priest may perform his rites whenever he chooses, applies only to a matter that does not come to atone for a sin, as the verse is referring to an offering that he desires to bring. But with regard to a matter that comes to atone for a sin, I would say that he may not perform the rite himself. Therefore, the halakha of the meal offering of a sinner must be derived from the verse in Leviticus: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering.”

The Gemara asks: And is this halakha that a priest may perform the rite of his own sin offering also derived from here, i.e., the verse: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering”? It is derived from there: “And the priest shall effect atonement for the soul that sins unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly” (Numbers 15:28). The term “for the soul that sins unwittingly” teaches that the priest may effect atonement even through himself, when he performs the rite.

The Gemara answers: If the halakha were derived from that latter verse, I would say: This statement, permitting him to effect his own atonement, applies when the offering is brought for a sin committed unwittingly. But with regard to an offering brought for a sin committed intentionally, the priest may not effect his own atonement. Therefore, the verse that states: “And the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering,” teaches us that the priest may perform the rite even for an offering that he brings for an intentional sin.

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to an offering brought for a sin committed intentionally, how can you find these circumstances? The Gemara answers: You can find them in the instance of a meal offering brought as atonement for intentionally taking a false oath of testimony that he was not aware of a certain incident involving another individual. The priest may perform the rites for a meal offering that he brings to atone for such a sin.

§ With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a handful of the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest is separated and offered upon the altar, it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed; and the handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed by itself. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The handful is sacrificed by itself, and the remainder is scattered upon the place of the ashes.

With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan discusses it and asks: To which place of the ashes in the Temple is he referring? If he is referring to the one that is above, upon the altar, his opinion is identical to that of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated that the remainder is offered and burned upon the altar, after which the ashes are swept onto the ash heap upon the altar. If so, according to both opinions, the remainder is taken to the same place. And if Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is referring to the ash heap that is below the altar, that is difficult: Do you have any item that is sacrificed below the altar?

Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, means that the remainder is scattered there to be wasted. When the Sages heard this, they laughed at him, saying: But do you have any item that is sacrificed as part of the Temple service in order to be wasted?

The Gemara answers that there are consecrated items that are intentionally wasted. With regard to such items, the father of Rabbi Avin teaches: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Why must this verse, which follows those discussing the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, state that it shall not be eaten, after it already states that it is entirely offered? The verse teaches: I have likened the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest to the daily griddle-cake offering brought by the High Priest with regard to eating, insofar as it is not eaten, but I have not likened it with regard to another matter, i.e., that the meal offering of a sinner is not burned in the manner of the griddle-cake offering.

The Gemara asks: What is he saying, as the verse states explicitly that it must be entirely offered? Abaye said that this is what he is saying: This is how the verse is to be read: “Every meal offering of the priest…shall not be eaten,” when the offering is sacrificed to fulfill his obligation, such as the meal offering of a sinner. It is neither eaten nor completely burned, but rather placed on the ash heap. When the verse states: “Shall be offered in its entirety,” this is referring to his gift offering, which is completely burned in the manner of a griddle-cake offering. Rava said to him: This reading is like a sharp knife cutting the verses to pieces, as it interprets the beginning and end of the verse together, ignoring the middle.

Rather, Rava says: When the verse states: “Every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety,” this is referring to his gift offering, which is entirely offered. When the verse states that it “shall not be eaten,” this is referring to his obligatory meal offering, which is neither eaten nor entirely offered.

The Gemara asks: But why should the verse be read that way? I can reverse the interpretation and say that the priest’s obligatory meal offering is entirely offered, and his gift offering shall be neither eaten nor entirely offered. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that his gift offering should be included in the phrase “shall be offered in its entirety,” as it resembles the griddle-cake offering and differs from the meal offering of a sinner in several respects, namely, that it is frequent, that the priest bringing it did not sin, and that its scent is fragrant, as it is mixed with oil, and frankincense is added to it.

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, the verse should be interpreted to include his obligatory meal offering, as the obligatory meal offering is similar to the griddle-cake offering in that, unlike the gift offering, it comprises a tenth of an ephah and bringing it is an obligation. The Gemara responds: Because these similarities between the gift offering and the griddle-cake offering are more numerous than those between the obligatory offering and the griddle-cake offering, it is logical that the verse is comparing the gift offering to the griddle-cake offering.

§ After discussing the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of the Rabbis that no handful is removed from any of the meal offerings of the priests, with regard to this verse: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten,” what do they do with it? How do they interpret the superfluous phrase: “It shall not be eaten”?

The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: Concerning the griddle-cake offering, the verse states: “It shall be entirely smoked for the Lord” (Leviticus 6:15). From this verse and the verse that follows it, which states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten,” I have derived only that the griddle-cake offering mentioned above, in the first verse, is subject to: “It shall be entirely smoked,” and that other meal offerings of priests mentioned below, in the second verse, are subject to: “It shall not be eaten.”

From where is it derived to apply the prohibition that was said about this case to that case, and the prohibition that was said about that case to this case, to teach that the priests’ meal offerings shall be entirely smoked and the griddle-cake offering shall not be eaten? The verse states: “Entirely,” in the first verse, and: “Entirely,” in the second, to be utilized as a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to the priests’ meal offerings: “Entirely,” and it is stated there, with regard to the griddle-cake offering: “Entirely.”

Just as there, the offering is subject to the prohibition of: “It shall be entirely smoked,” so too here, the offerings are subject to the prohibition of: “It shall be entirely smoked.” And just as here, with regard to the meal offering of the priest, the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon eating it, so too there, with regard to the griddle-cake offering, the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon eating it.

§ With regard to the prohibition against eating from certain offerings derived from the verse that states: “Shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten,” Ravina asks: In the case of a priest who ate from the sacrificial portions, what is the halakha? As to whether this priest violates the prohibition of a non-priest eating certain types of sacrificial meat, expressed in the verse: “No non-priest shall eat of the sacrificial meat” (Leviticus 22:10),